A story of cheerleaders and how they are to give women equality
Here’s a strange story, from the often strange world of American college sports. You may possibly not have heard of it, but in Hamden, Connecticut, there is a higher education institution called Quinnipiac University. It has hit upon an interesting wheeze to get round legal equality requirements imposed under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act 1972, which provides:
‘No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.’
Broadly speaking this has been interpreted to mean, amongst other things, that college sports programmes must make equal or equivalent provision for men and women. As many sports are gender-specific, the assumption has been that universities operate within the law if they ensure that there are roughly the same opportunities for men and women to participate in sports, even if not always in the same games or teams.
In Quinnipiac University the powers that be decided to disband the women’s volleyball team, and to compensate for the lost sporting opportunities it augmented instead its cheerleading squad, claiming that this was more cost-effective and served more women. Now five of the former volleyball players have sued the university, claiming that it was in violation of its legal obligations as ‘cheerleading’ is ‘not a real sport’. The case is currently before the United States District Court, and the outcome may turn out to be decisive in the development of women’s sports across America.
So what are the issues at stake here? First, it seems to me that there is a major need for American higher education to get sports into some sort of perspective. I am hugely committed to our own sports activities, and believe that sports and athletics have added great value to DCU. But nevertheless, in many US universities this has got out of hand, and educational activities are taking second place to sports. This is not, or should not be, sustainable.
Secondly, while it is inevitable that men and women will often play in different teams, the value of their sports should be equivalent, and it is particularly important to avoid the impression that women should play a supporting role, rather than be athletes in their own right. I hope this case is decided correctly!
Explore posts in the same categories: sport, universityTags: athletics, cheerleading, Quinnipiac University, volleyball
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
June 25, 2010 at 3:01 am
College sport is important in the US in a way that would be hard to fathom for an outsider. It brings with it some problems: some of the athletes don’t seem terribly commited to their studies and in some cases there is a high proportion of drop-outs as they join the professional game. The drop-out rate tends to be higher for African-American students than whites: the opportunities are better.
But on the whole, college sport brings huge pleasure and pride to staff & students and its a big part of how people identify with their college. Basketball is very important in the University of Kentucky and during “March madness” the whole city (of Lexington) is engrossed in the competition so it builds a very strong bridge between town & gown.
In my experience, there is nothing similar in Ireland (or elsewhere that I can think of): people graduate, they move on and they don’t really look back. Oxbridge colleges may be something of an exception to this. One implication of all this is that getting money out of alumni is very difficult. Aside from the financial reasons, its probably desirable for students to have a more life-long relationship with their university. So I would say a bit more college sport could be a good thing.
June 25, 2010 at 4:21 am
Most US universities get a lot of money from sports, particularly football and the TV rights.
The feminists argued for and got the title 9 legislation and it was a disaster for minor sports like wrestling, fencing, soccer etc.
The vast majority of American women do not play competitive sports, apart from continuous beer and sex along with their male undergraduates.
So title 9 has destroyed sports, apart from big money makers like football, we have obese students and non academic athletes.
Sad but the alumni pay the millions as fans– it is what it is
June 25, 2010 at 8:24 am
Are they not asking a Court to decide if Cheerleading is a sport. And if so surely there has to be a Mens group under this legislation.
Still, you have to give it to the writers of Glee when they gave the line ‘Dolphins are just gay sharks’ to one of the Cheer Leaders.
June 25, 2010 at 9:35 am
I think it’s important to understand the background of Title IX. While I don’t know the history, I can comment that football is huge at large (particularly state) universities, and essentially a male-only sport. Football tends to involve a lot of money – not least the donations it is said to help generate from athletic-minded alumni.
The tack that ‘cheerleading is not a sport’ could be problematic (it’s closely related to gymnastics, clearly a sport, and dance, a physical activity that is sometimes made into a competition, well, sport). But cheerleading is not an Olympic sport, while volleyball is.
At least with regard to American football culture, cheerleading does not stand on its own. Its purpose is subsidary to that of the team playing (in a way that, say, marching band, another football accompaniment, generally isn’t). Male cheerleaders are not totally unknown at the college level, but I’m not aware of professional squads of male cheerleaders. Cheerleading does have a competition structure outside of its sidelines activity–but that’s not what it’s known for, at least in the world at large. Particularly in professional football (cf. the Dallas Cowgirls), the point (as I see it) is objectification of women.
Cheerleading is gendered by its very nature–thus making Quinnipiac’s move very suspect from the perspective of gender equality (and thus Title IX).
June 25, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Typically, I can’t remember now where I read this, but I definitely did read not long ago that analyses of the money spent by US colleges on sports is generally greater than the amount of donations given by the alumni. This of course is a classic problem for charities etc, in that the cost of raising money can often outweigh the amount given.
This does however make the current situation in many US colleges, in which sports overshadow academic activities, and the college football coach is paid more than the college president, highly suspect. And that’s even before we get to the issue of gender bias involved in this case and many other college sports.
And no, cheerleading is not a sport. The US District Court can have that judgement from me for free!
June 25, 2010 at 12:53 pm
People have to pay for tickets though Jilly! There is also advertising and sponsorship. I would be surprised if the colleges lose money on sport. Although I am not sure, I think the finances for sport are separate from the college. So in U.Kentucky the basketball coach, Calipari, is being paid $38million for a six year contract, thats not university money: it could not have been spent on academic activities.
But so what if the coach is paid more than the university president? You can probably get a very good university president for 200k ($ or €): you won’t get a decent sports coach for that. And in competitive sports it can make a huge difference.
Duke University is another instituion where basketball is very important and I guess the basketball coach is paid way more than the university provost.
However Duke is a very serious university which is probably better than any Irish one in just about anything (ok, apart from Irish history, language etc).
June 25, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Honestly Kevin, the piece I read definitely stated that many colleges actually do lose money on sports. Now, lots of things don’t make money but are still worthwhile, so that’s not necessarily a problem in and of itself. And I’m deeply biased because I can’t see the point of sport at all, I’d rather watch grass grow.
I’m certainly not questioning the academic quality of many of the US universities that have big sports programmes. But I do think it’s a bit weird that many almuni can apparently be more easily tempted to give money to that than to the academic programmes and scholarships which were in most cases what they benefitted from themselves when they were students. I suppose I also don’t really understand the motivation of ‘philanthropy’ which expects something in return for the donor (black-tie dinners, golf weekends, tickets to a basket-ball game etc). If it’s a good cause then you give to the cause, surely? I give (small) monthly payments to a couple of charities, and I certainly don’t expect them to do anything in return for me: they’re there to work for the various causes they support, not for me. Like I said, I don’t really get it.
June 25, 2010 at 10:45 pm
You might well be right, I was only guessing. Sport is part of college life so if it loses money like the library “loses money” then so be it. If the college had no sports they would have trouble attracting students. U.Chicago has gone to the opposite extreme but they are an outlier. Personally I like some sports ‘though not the ones popular here. But thats irrelevant to the general issue.
On alumni donation we may be talking at cross-purposes: I had in mind alumni donating to the university. So I think sports can help build a more rounded relationship between students and their university, they come back for ball games, reunions, they buy the apparel for their kids etc & maybe cough up a few dollars. That all sounds pretty healthy.
I agree that virtue is, or should be, its own reward but a bit of reciprocity helps. If you want to get people to fill in surveys, donate blood and so on giving them something can make a big difference: people feel appreciated. Conspicuous donations to charity like the charity balls featured in society magazines I find odious.
June 25, 2010 at 4:13 pm
The money issue here is tricky–but, essentially, college football is the only extremely profitable college sport. There are a few college basketball programs, like Callipari’s Kentucky, that make profits in the 5-15 million dollar range. By comparison, a big time college football program can profit 75 to 80 million dollars every season. Even a mediocre “big” college football team will earn a seven figure profit.
College football in America is a professional sport in every way except for the fact that the athletes don’t get paid. You might call a full scholarship payment. I don’t, not representative to the work they put in and the profits they generate. I have had football players in my classes before and can tell you that they aren’t having the same experience as any other student.
Cheerleading has grown into a stand alone sport in America, much do to Title IX. I taught for a high school for a few years that had a top cheerleading program–our students (boys and girls) would compete in regional and national competitions during football’s off-season. They have daily practices and do work extremely hard at their sport.
That said, the Quinnipiac decision does leave something of a funny taste in my mouth.
June 26, 2010 at 7:54 pm
One fact that you have left out is that the cheerleading team in question is a competative cheerleading team. They do not “just” support the other (primarily male) sports, but compete with other cheerleading teams for states, regionals and nationals. I’m not sure about how things are set up at Quinnipiac but in some schools the competition teams are actually seperate from the regular cheer squads that cheer at games because as an actual sports team they have to follow the rules for length of season.
Competitive cheerleading fits all the criteria of a “sport” as defined in the dictionary. It incorperates dance and gymnastics, as well as athletic jumps and stunts. There is actually a movement to make cheerleading an olympic sport and in the meantime it is quickly becoming an international one (one still dominated by the USA, admittedly) as was evidenced at the Cheerleading Worlds and International Cheer Union Championships this year.
I am very interested to see how this unfolds.