Where's the pride?

Well now I am really confused. In my last post I noted that Cal-Berkeley's Feb 16th game against Arizona was also a GLBT Pride Day event. Women's Hoops Blog did note the event though I suspect someone tipped them off to it because it was posted a little late (Sunday) and didn't say anything new such as how the event actually went off.

I went to the Cal Bears website looking for a mention of it and found only, in a pre-game press release, an announcement that Saturday's game was a Kids' Day event where children get in for a reduced admission price and can participate in pre-game activities. Not that they shouldn't or couldn't have a Kids' Day and Pride Day run concurrently but I would think there would be some objection to it that Cal may just not want to deal with.

No word of the event in Cal's own post-game coverage (they won 66-45 by the way).

And I found nothing in any of the game recaps including the article in The Daily Californian.

One could argue that recaps and game coverage are focused on the game: leading scores, rebounders, come-from-behind wins, etc. But when a team does a Think Pink event, there is frequently mention of of it before and after the game.

Comments

anonymous said…
I can't say I'm surprised, ken. Ancillary to this: In athletic department sport communication offices, it is still not an accepted practice to mention a same-sex partner in a media-guide biography of a coach. If it is a woman-man union, that always gets a mention but not same sex. Of course, a lesbian or gay coach may not want it mentioned but I'd love to see it. It's a double-edged sword of course. Either way, athletic departments continue to be stuck in the mud of the dark ages.
February 19, 2008 6:13 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The trans athlete ban: Part 3a: NCAA hypocrisy

 [this is cross-posted with Title IX Blog where I will also post something about the announcement that NIL is not subject to Title IX] The NCAA's new policy banning transwomen from competing in women's sports arrived (seemingly) minutes after the administration issued its executive order banning transwomen and girls from participating in school-sponsored sports teams.  The NCAA did include verbiage though which is worth looking at.  This is the synopsis at the top of the press release:  Men's category open to all eligible student-athletes, women's category restricted to student-athletes assigned female at birth, schools directed to foster welcoming environments on all campuses. But it is not accurate.  The women's category--for competition purposes--is open to people students assigned female at birth who are not taking testosterone. What we see here is a different standard. Testosterone levels matter only for some people. Taking it knocks you out of the women's...
Read more

The trans athlete ban, Part II: Capitulation

 The same day as the president signed the executive order banning transwomen in school-sponsored sports (which WILL have more widespread effects--i.e., recreational sports for youth and adults), the NCAA issued its own change on transwomen in collegiate sports which, for the purpose of "consistency" will also prohibit transwomen from competing in women's NCAA sports.  [I wrote about the effects the EO will have on Title IX compliance which is something that NCAA purports to care about, at Title IX Blog .] I would have been surprised (in a good way), if they had not. They give in to outside pressure regularly (with positive and negatives effects). But this policy is another example of their failure to protect athletes. [Lack of penalties for schools that shield predatory coaches and doctors as well as athletes who commit sexual assault; their exploitation of Black men who help them make their billions every March; their laughable adherence to an ahistorical definition of ...
Read more

No NIL for you!

  This much belated post about the administration's reversal of Biden (out-the-door) era g uidance on distribution of NIL  monies is cross-posted at the T itle IX Blo g.  I feel a lot of anger...I feel, and not just anger because of a [military] ban, I feel anger and disappointment at large, just you know trans and non binary people have become public enemy one; and once you start taking away the rights of trans and non binary people, the rest of the chips begin to fall.               Sam Rodriguez, Petty Officer US Navy ( Today, Explained ; Vox Podcasts) This has clearly come to bear already and I would hope most of us are not surprised. Appalled, yes. Surprised, no. The Kennedy Cente r canceling the Gay Men's Chorus  performance is just one example of how public acceptance for violence against trans people. Denying women athletes equitable shares of NIL monies is another chip. This news is old by now. (Though t...
Read more