Kirsty Coventry is not progress

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has elected a new president, Kirsty Coventry. Coventry is the first woman to earn the position. While this appointment has generated celebration among those who see it as progress in an organization with a history of male leadership, it raises important questions about representation, policy direction, and the true meaning of progress.

Why do people continue to peddle the idea that women in leadership equals progress. That gender essentialism--especially regarding women's "nature"--is still so prevalent despite soooo many examples to the contrary astounds me. But this is about Coventry so let's go there. 

She is a former Olympian (not unlike past presidents). She swam in five Olympic Games and won seven medals. This makes her the most decorated African athlete. Coventry is from Zimbabwe and has served on various IOC committees and on the Zimbabwean Olympic Committee. She is the youngest person to serve as IOC president as well. 

Coventry's stated policy positions raise significant questions about her leadership direction. Her support for a total ban on transgender women in sports represents a shift from previous Olympic policy, which delegated gender eligibility decisions to individual sport governing bodies. This was not a good policy, but it was not an outright ban. Will Coventry pursue a ban that comes from the IOC itself? 

Reminder: these bans are sexist. They rely on a discourse of protecting white women and maintaining standards of white Western femininity. They reinforce a belief that women are inferior--the very same belief that has kept women out of leadership positions. 

But Coventry is African, no? Yes, she is a white woman with a British last name in a country that is a former British colony. In what ways does she represent Africa? How is she positioned—or expected—to represent an entire continent? The failure to examine leadership through an imperialist lens misses crucial context, particularly regarding how her policies might affect athletes from the Global South. 

Of particular concern is how Coventry's stance on transgender athletes might affect policies regarding intersex and DSD athletes. With World Athletics recently announcing a return to chromosome testing of women athletes—a practice that has disproportionately targeted women from the Global South—will the IOC under Coventry follow suit? Her proclaimed commitment to "maintaining neutrality" raises questions about whether she will advocate for athletes' rights, particularly regarding protest and human rights issues, or address geopolitical concerns for examples those involving Russia, Israel, or U.S. policies. 

Despite claims that the IOC presidency is "the most powerful position in sport," the Olympics face declining relevance amid recurring scandals, excessive costs, and hosting interest largely limited to countries with questionable human rights records. Coventry's most enduring legacy may ultimately be securing the first Olympic Games on African soil, should she accomplish this goal.

No NIL for you!

  This much belated post about the administration's reversal of Biden (out-the-door) era guidance on distribution of NIL monies is cross-posted at the Title IX Blog. 

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 Center 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 to be fair these days news seems to get old within hours.) But the presidential administration basically scoffed at the idea that women athletes--those folks so in need of protection that bills and executive orders galore have banned transwomen from sports--will get anything resembling what men will receive. I have yet to see much from the save women's sports folks about this. In a somewhat paradoxical commitment to ideological consistency The Independent Women's Forum, via lawyer Beth Parlato, has said that Title IX does not apply to NIL and that the left needs to stop trying to expand and distort Title IX's original intent. I am not convinced she knows what the law's original intent was or who was supporting it. Also, what group that has Independent Women in its title is arguing against greater economic power for women?? I mean, this one, it seems. I did not see any mention of this on the web pages of Champion Women, the Independent Council on Women's Sports or any of Riley Gaines's socials. 

This is the memo from the Department of Education website (which still exists at the time of this writing). It is short and the case is not compelling. Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary for civil right, called the Biden guidance "burdensome." We have heard this before. Probably in a lot of places. But it was a sentiment many white men expressed when Title IX was passed. Certainly we cannot give women the same number of opportunities or the same amount of money, they protested. And Title IX did not require that. Those protests are the reason the three-part test exists. It was so opportunities for participation do not have to be 50/50. Budgets do not have to be equal. Coaching salaries do not have to be equal (though I still think there is more to be done in this area). Things need to be equitable; needs--for medical care for example--need to be met. And financial aid does not need to be equal--but it needs to be equitable. 

The issue is not that is it burdensome to work toward equality. The issue is that it is hard for some people to fathom giving up their privilege. 

What can be done?

1. Lawsuit(s). As soon as things start getting divvied up, someone(s) is going to sue. This seems like a class action type of thing so I predict a campaign around it will emerge. Word of advice to athletes: choose your lawyers and your allies carefully. Make sure you know what their commitment to equality looks like; make sure they understand intersectionality. 
2. Strikes. Withhold your labor, women athletes. I know this is a sacrifice. But a lot of people make a lot of money off of women's collegiate sports these days. Leverage that. 
3. Solidarity. If you are one of those women athletes who gets a lot of attention--use your platform. If the women's golf team's strike is not going to draw eyes because people do not care about women's golf where you are, but they do care about seeing the softball team go to Oklahoma City and you are a member of that softball team...stand with them. Women basketball players are in a great position right now and there are notable activists among them (hey there, Paige Bueckers!). Take a lesson from your comrades in the WBNA and all they have done (and maybe WNBAers should head back to their alma maters and do some strategizing). Also--MEN--some of you are getting screwed by this too. Stand together. Also, also--men who are benefitting--your presence and voice in the name of equality is required. 

Is it a no-win for women hockey referees?

 My N of one today is yesterday's ECAC quarterfinal game between Cornell and Union. It was game 2 and a must-win for Union who lost Friday night to the Big Red. 

That was a very testy meet-up with (near?) fights. Certainly the most physical-after-the-whistle game I had seen all year. (I missed previous Union/Cornell games earlier in the season but knew they had been close.) At Friday's game I thought the refs had let things escalate. Chances when they could have given matching roughing penalties they let go. I assume "warnings" were given but even if they were, there were no discernible follow-ups on those.

One linesperson from the Friday night game was back on Saturday afternoon and the two new refs and one new lines person joined her; it was an all-women crew. (Friday night had been two women and two men who issued 3 penalties against Cornell and two against Union--much to the dismay of the crowd.) I assumed that whomever comprised the four-person team would have known the tenor of the game Friday night and thus would work to shut that &*%^ down early.

Nope. Within minutes there was a post-whistle gang shoving behind the net. And nothing was called. And so it went for most of the game. One stern talking-to led seemed to lead to a tripping call a few minutes later but overall there was a lack of consistency in the calls and a lot of whistles that got close to lips but never blew. In the end, 5 penalties were given to each team though the last Cornell penalty came at minute 20 of the third period in an almost laughable epitome of the officiating that afternoon. 

Of course number of penalties assigned does not really tell us anything (take that quantitative research!!). But when they are given and what they are matter. The refs yesterday did not call the right penalties early enough in the game. 

Here is the gender dilemma. They clearly did not have control of the game. Thus many would view them as incompetent--because they are women. But did they refrain from making calls because they did not want to be seen as too conservative, i.e., not letting the players be aggressive? It is possible. My past research on women's DI ice hockey players informs some of what I witnessed this weekend. 

One, women hockey players want to be allowed to play aggressively. Some want to be able to check. Since I did that research, rules have allowed for more contact so it is unclear where most players now stand on level and type of contact they are allowed to engage in. 

Two, some women spoke of wanting to play for men coaches rather than women because they believed they had more experience. Some did not have a preference; but no one said they preferred women as coaches. In the course of this convo, one person (a former Olympian) said she did not like women referees because they did not know what they were doing. (Because I was focused on coaching I did not pursue this, but the same player said she preferred men as coaches even though she had gone to a college with a woman coach.)

Three, a lot of the players I spoke with during my research talked about women coaches being worse than the men they had had in terms of compassion (for injuries for example) and yelling (and sometimes throwing things). Things that might be categorized as "toughness." I theorized--and maintain--that in a sport that is categorized as masculine women who become leaders have to compensate for their perceived femininity by enacting masculinity. And sometimes it is of the toxic variety. This was on display when Katie Stone's history during her tenure at Harvard came to light. 

The situation with refs is different of course. Though certainly teams and coaches get to know refs to a certain extent, the relationship is not the same. So basically every ref is judged on each "performance" and very few performances can cement a reputation. Because women are relatively new to officiating at the elite level (because of the system not because of them as individuals) and because there are fewer of them overall, they are combatting multiple and contradictory stereotypes at once. I do not envy them. But I still want better officiating because what I saw this weekend bordered on dangerous--in an unnecessary way, i.e., beyond the risks one takes when playing hockey.