Chris Evert is all about policing gender norms

All the rhetoric about trans and intersex athletes affects the way ciswomen in general but, in this situation, cis women athletes, are being discussed--and criticized. This is not new nor is it a revelation activists and scholars have been trying to make people aware of this for years. But it was on display at this year's US Open, when one of the vocal proponents of banning trans women in sports, made comments about a cis woman playing like a man. 

I missed Chris Evert's on-air comments about Karolina Muchova because I have made a concerted effort to watch the women's matches on ESPN3 where Mary Carillo has been doing actual good commentary. When I have had to listen to Evert (yes, I know mute is an option), it is just painful. In general, I don't see what her appeal is. The majority of her comments are guesses at what the players are thinking. But her comments this year (and likely in the past--there is some rich discourse analysis to be done I suspect) have been especially grating in regard to women players.

Evert started the whole men have bigger, better faster everything comments on the air during Muchova's match against Naomi Osaka and then continued them on X after the match. This truly horrible article reports on the situation. I link to the truly horrible article because it does when I imagine a lot of people do when it comes to Chris Evert--cite her behavior as an anomaly and deem her not sexist because she has been a (self-proclaimed) proponent of women's sports.* 

"The truth is that we know Evert did not mean anything sexist toward Muchova." 

I don't think that is clear at all--or even remotely true--that Evert was not engaging in sexism. 

Evert said on X that Muchoka wants to "play like a guy" and then got called out by Ons Jabeur (who sadly is not able to play the US Open this year) and Nick Kyrgios, which is a low bar when you are offending the man accused of domestic abuse (an issue that deserves a post--or a dissertation--of its own). Muchoka simply disagreed with Evert's assessment and Evert apologized in a subsequent post. 

So while that moment might be put at rest, i.e. no one is talking about it anymore, the comments and others that Evert has made on air (I don't follow her on social media) makes it clear that she has a very specific opinion on how women should be behaving and that that vision is quite narrow. 

Evert may not be in the inner circle of the anti-trans advocacy like her pal Martina Navratilova, but she has made her position clear and it reflects her belief that there are very distinct differences between all men and all women. Her belief that Muchova wants to play like a man (a criticism leveled against gay player Amelie Mauresmo and Black players like Serena and Venus Williams) is a means of policing gender boundaries, which is exactly what the save women's sports are doing. Because Muchova wants to hit the ball harder and move faster (which I imagine most tennis players desire regardless of gender) she is exhibiting masculinity, according to Evert. 

Earlier comments in the week about Elena Svitolina also point to her belief in women's inherent inferiority. During a Svitolina match, Evert went on and one about how lucky Svitolina is to basically have two coaches because her husband, fellow player Gael Monfils, can give her advice and hit with her. Evert cites all of his experience on the tour as such a valuable asset. To be clear, Monfils is a good player. His ranking is also currently lower than his wife's. He is a little bit older but they both have been playing since childhood. In other words, I don't think he adding soooo much to her game or that they don't learn from each other. But Evert does kind of acknowledge what Svitolina brings: a calming influence [to the fiery Black man]. It was all so stereotypical. 

The women's semifinal with Jessica Pegula and Muchova is about to start. I am curious to see what Evert has to say. But not sure if I am so curious that it is worth staying up late for on a school night. ;)

* this is the moment I always like to point out that Evert did not join forces with Billie Jean King as one of first group of a dozenish women to break away and start their own tour because she didn't want to lose the sponsorship money she was getting as America's straight, white sweetheart. 

The Katey Chronicles: The lawsuit

 cross-posted at the Title IX Blog

--------------------------------------------------

Well The Boston Globe published the news (paywalled*) behind former women's ice hockey coach Katey Stone's press conference two hours before the conference The surprise factor was gone by the time I tracked down the clips. The two pieces of the press conference (Stone's lawyer's remarks and Stone's remarks) can be found at Hockey News. Some former players spoke as well but I have not seen those clips yet. 

There is plenty to say about this lawsuit and press conference. 

First, looking back at my predictions, I should have placed more emphasis on retribution than on moving forward with "apologies." Most of today was digging in to "truths." There were no apologies. There was some very interesting running around the allegations though. More on that below. 

It was very clear that Stone is irate that she was not allowed to speak back in 2023 when everything went down. I am not positive that she believes coming to her defense would have saved her job and reputation, but I think she believes that. She ended her remarks with "my voice will at last be heard."

Second, I am sure there is some merit to this discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges sex discrimination based on differential treatment including pay. Stone said in her remarks that the AD, Erin McDermott, told her privately that this (the Globe investigation that compelled Harvard to do an external investigation) would not be happening if she were a man. Maybe. But it is not as if men have not been fired for abusive behaviors. Maybe that statement is true at Harvard--which is all that Stone has to prove since she is not suing SPORT--just Harvard. 

It also alleges that she was subject to more stringent standards than men in the department. I assume that this is in regard to the allegations that she would punish players unevenly for infractions--including an athlete who was driving under the influence. Apparently men coaches are allowed that leeway. 

This gets to a larger issue that I have tried to tackle when writing and thinking about coaching behaviors. These standards for what is acceptable in coaching are just whack. Why do we continue to accept this behavior in coaches? 

Words like "respect," "dignity," "good character," and "integrity" were used at the press conference by Stone and her lawyer, Andrew Miltenberg. If you want to prove that you are those things and are capable of teaching those things, you need receipts. Maybe the women who were sitting behind her were the receipts. But I find nothing dignified about yelling at athletes in anger or ignoring their injuries or body shaming them (an unaddressed allegation). 

Third, Harvard has a lot of blame to bear. Differential treatment to coaches means athletes are certainly receiving differential treatment. But if anyone is letting any athlete who commits a crime (DUI) continue to be part of Harvard athletics then that's just a different level.

The pay differential is going to be a tough one though. Courts have allowed differential pay between men and women coaches because schools come up with rationales about money brought in from camps and endorsements and a bunch of other factors including market value. I would love it if this case changed some of those precedents.  But I think Stone will actually have better luck saying that Harvard would not have fired a man for the same (bad) behavior. 

This brings me to the speculative part of this post: what is Harvard going to do with that unreleased external investigation report? I assume it has some damning information about Stone that they would use in a trial to justify their actions. (Also big sticking point that she actually "retired" officially. Note to others who are experiencing job discrimination--make them fire you!) But I assume it also shows that some of these behaviors went unchecked for years. That puts Harvard in danger of a lawsuit from former players. My ultimate prediction is that there will be a no-fault settlement and that no one will be allowed to speak about it and the details of that report will remain buried. And Stone's desire that her voice will be heard will go unfulfilled.

Finally, I want to talk about a few ick moments from the press conference.

One--the throwing of women of color under the bus. Miltenberg's remarks called out Dr. Claudine Gay who led the internal investigation when she was dean of Arts and Sciences. He suggested that she has brought down the reputation of Harvard recently implying that her investigation could not be considered reliable. He also mentioned the phrase Stone used that triggered the internal investigation. He said that the phrase about Indians and chiefs "may offend some people notwithstanding that it's a common phrase." That is the non-apology I was expecting. He is dancing very carefully around accusations of wokeness. It is disappointing when proponents of Title IX fail to check their white privilege and downplay racism to bolster claims of sex discrimination. 

Stone did some dancing too: around the allegations that she ignored and/or exacerbated players' mental health concerns. After saying that the mental health crisis is real she talked about the difficulty as a coach trying to find a balance between pushing too hard and "affirming mediocrity" and that "cultural norms make it more difficult to set a high bar." She characterized her program as one of an "earn it" mentality not an "entitlement mentality." If someone can get Stone to talk without a script in front of her (I'm looking at you podcasters!!), I bet with very little prodding she would go off about "kids today" and their lack of resiliency and sense of entitlement. 

I am curious about one thing. Every other case of sex discrimination in which gay women in athletics have been fired/dismissed (e.g., Iowa, Minnesota-Duluth) also alleged sexual orientation discrimination in their lawsuits. Maybe there is just no evidence of that in this case, but it does not follow the strategy I have seen about throwing everything into a lawsuit to see what sticks. 

I may be done with this story for now. But who knows--something interesting could happen next week and I will back with more lukewarm takes. 

 

* The Wall Street Journal was actually first to this story. Theirs is also paywalled. 

The Katey Chronicles: Part II Coaching norms

Oh hey--here's the post I never finished about former Harvard women's ice hockey coach Katey Stone. I had basically abandoned it as irrelevant/old news. 

But Stone has made it relevant! Thanks, Katey. 

The former coach is set to make an announcement and tell her side of the story (it seems?) tomorrow! (So I better get this done today!) She will be accompanied by her lawyer and three former players from different eras of her tenure at Harvard. 

I really have no idea what she will say so I am just going to throw out some predictions (I've been listening to a lot of podcasts about the Emmys so I am in that mode).

• she will largely deny the allegations against her (more on those below) and sue Harvard for wrongful termination (or something like that since she technically retired)
• she will use the presence of the three former players to bolster those claims
• she will "apologize" to those who misconstrued her behavior as racist or her coaching style as violent and abusive
• actually scratch that last part--I have never seen a coach acknowledge that their coaching style might actually be damaging their athletes
• she will announce the foundation of some kind of academy or organization for women in hockey that she is working on with the three women by her side

Now back to that originally scheduled post from 18 months ago!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II of my series on the revelations that Harvard women's hockey coach created a toxic culture in her program, seemingly from the moment she arrived, is focused on the accusations and  how they fit into my findings from a study of coaching in women's DI hockey that I conducted as a masters student at Simmons College. 

Here is a list of the accusations*

• in accusing her players of a lack of respect, she said there were too many "chiefs" and not enough "Indians"
• fostering an environment of hazing which included a Naked Skate in which players were forced not only to skate naked in the empty arena but also slide across the ice
• other hazing: forced alcohol consumption, public costume wearing, role playing with sexual overtones
• body shaming 
• causing such emotional distress that players sought mental health services and then ignoring players' mental health needs
• a system of favoritism that resulted in uneven disciplinary measures being applied 
• negative motivation 
• downplaying injuries (including concussions) so as to compel players to return early
• encouraging teammates to gang up on one another

The administration was complicit in these behaviors. Some of the former players (there were 16) who talked to the Globe reporters said they filed reports about Stone's behaviors but nothing was done. The public response by the AD, Erin McDermott, is an indication why:

"Our current women's ice hockey team has not fostered a culture of hazing. However, it is clear that some traditions in recent years were experienced differently by different people and not all were comfortable with those activities or with expressing concerns relating to the program."  

Translation: "sorry" you felt compelled to skate and slide over the ice naked and that you could not trust any of us in positions of power to make that stop. Oh, and that skating and sliding on ice naked was uncomfortable FOR YOU. We're not doing that anymore. Maybe. 

This is not just a Stone issue--no coaching problems are ever isolated to the coach. Despite similarities to the behavior of former Rutger's men's basketball coach Mike Rice, this situation only resulted in Stone's departure. At Rutgers were was a more widespread cleaning of house before they brought in a women AD as evidence of that cleaner house. I guess Harvard doesn't really know what to do since is already has a women AD. 

All these accusations are horrible. None are surprising. And they are likely not specific to ice hockey (though ice hockey has been known for some truly horrible hazing "traditions"). 

The women I spoke with for my study over a decade ago reported similar things. No one talked about hazing but a frequent conversation was about coaching behaviors that included incessant yelling--and not just to be heard in a game; yelling in practices, yelling in locker rooms, yelling on buses. I heard about yelling that was accompanied by other violent behaviors including the throwing of trash cans in locker rooms. 

The other big issue I heard about was treatment during injuries. In addition to pressure to come back that happened verbally, there was some passive aggressive tactics used. Players reported that coaches would simply ignore them if they were injured, even when they were physically there for rehab or team meetings. If a player was not healthy, she was not on the team. Healthy as in playing--most of them were never truly healthy because they were pressured to return to play sooner than was medically advised.

I talk about this issue a lot in my ethics class. Many students are future athletic trainers and we discuss the implications of letting coaches override medical advice. It is a rampant issue in intercollegiate sports that is underreported and discussed. 

So while the stories about hazing and racism made the most headlines in Spring 2023, we should refrain from creating a hierarchy of badness here. All of them caused damage and were unacceptable for anyone who is supposed to be an educator. 

* Annoyingly, the specifics of the abuses are difficult to track down because The Boston Globe, which did the investigation, is behind a paywall and the subsequent articles that reported on how the allegations forced Stone to retire just focus on her accomplishments as a coach. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there it is. I had initially planned for a part III in which I explain how abusive behavior works against the best interests of a coach and muse on the concept of success. 

I may still do that but I will definitely be back to talk about this press conference. (Hopefully sooner than next summer!)