About the Author
Pete Olsen is a recent law graduate from The Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law where he was President of Moritz's Sports and Entertainment Law Association.(read more)
Connect
Twitter @WideRights
Facebook.com: Wide Rights
Google Chat - Status:
WideRights@gmail.com
Email: Pete@WideRights.com
Blog Roll
(that you should read too):
Dear John (Amaechi)
Red Card Homophobia24
Everything that’s Wrong with Ohio State’s Lavender Jersey ‘Motivator’
19 Comments | Posted by Pete in Homophobia in Sport, Ohio State and SELA, Students and Bullying
Just over a week ago, the Columbus Dispatch ran a story highlighting (celebrating?) Ohio State football’s new approach to conditioning and training motivation in the Urban Meyer regime: avoid the lavender jersey.
The Dispatch’s Tim May describes Ohio State’s new director of performance, Mickey Marrioti, as “a colorful motivator,” and that “In a scarlet and gray world, a lavender shirt sticks out.”
How it works: you loaf on the field and Mariotti makes you wear a lavender shirt—something the Dispatch describes as “a stain that takes at least a week of renewed gusto to erase.”
Senior linebacker Etienne Sabino acknowledges the purpose of the program, “You don’t want to wear those.”
So what’s wrong with it?
First, and the focus of my concern, while being masked as a tool to build a competitive team environment, forcing a player to wear a lavender jersey as punishment is patently homophobic, sexist, misogynistic, etc. It takes a color that is feminine—and regularly associated with either women or the gay community—and assigns it to weakness, lack of commitment, or failure to work hard. It is then used to demean and humiliate, you know, because the color is capable of emasculating even the manliest of men.
A former professor of mine, Douglas Whaley, blogged on the subject as well. (It is actually how I found out about this.) Whaley writes: “It never occurs to Marotti, of course, that some of his players might actually be gay.”
That is the biggest problem I have with the lavender jersey. If there is a single gay player on that team (the roster lists 86 young men, so odds are, there is at least one) or even an assistant coach or other team personnel, that person is now pushed further in to the closet and feels even more unwelcome and ostracized by the team. Isn’t that rather contrary to the purpose of building a cohesive football team?
Professor Whaley submitted a letter to the Dispatch editors much to that effect:
“So Ohio State football’s new director of performance makes players who are loafers on the field, in the weight room, etc., wear a lavender shirt to embarrass them ["New strength coach a colorful motivator," Feb. 13, 2012]. Does he also use anti-gay slurs when referring to these slackers or is the shirt’s color enough to send the same homophobic message?”
Sheesh, such a contrast from Jim Tressel (who, by the way, is as outspokenly Christian as Urban Meyer) who, as you may have forgotten, was the first Division I NCAA football coach to be interviewed by a GLBT publication.
The second problem—beyond that first point that I’m sure many folks would roll their eyes at, suggesting it is just some over-sensitive, liberal agenda mumbo-jumbo—at best, the program violates numerous NCAA and Ohio state policies, and at worst, the program violates Ohio law and Title IX.
Where to start?
How about Ohio State Athletics’ “Our Values” statement? Most pertinent:
People. We will keep the well-being of our student-athletes, coaches and staff at the core of every decision.
I’m pretty sure the well-being of any gay athletes, coaches, or staffs have been ignored on this one.
Respect. We will celebrate a climate of mutual respect and diversity by recognizing each individual’s contribution to the team.
Violates this too.
What about the NCAA’s anti-hazing campaigns?
It turns out there is not an explicit hazing rule promulgated by the NCAA, but there are countless programs and initiatives the NCAA has initiated to prevent hazing. While most are directed at student-on-student hazing, it is much worse that hazing at issue here is coming directly from the institution—the entity usually charged with protecting the student-athletes from this type of conduct.
One initiative, NCAA’s hazing handbook, titled, “Building New Traditions: Hazing Prevention in College Athletics,” is illustrative.
Page 3. Comparing what is hazing versus team building.
Hazing: humiliates and degrades, tears down individuals, creates division, lifelong nightmares, shame and secrecy, and is a power trip.
This lavender jersey idea hits every single one of those…
Team building: promotes respect and dignity, supports and empowers, creates real teamwork, lifelong memories, pride and integrity, and is a shares positive experience.
… And none of these.
Page 4. What should athletic administrators be responsible for?
Well, crap, the athletic administrators are the ones doing the hazing here, so thinking they’d would act accordingly to prevent others from doing so is asking too much at Ohio State.
No need to keep going through the document; there is plenty there if you want to read further.
How about the “Hazing Fact Sheet” promulgated by the Ohio State Union?
While more directed at student organizations and fraternities, I presume the rules also apply to athletic teams (and if they don’t officially, they should). The Student Code of Conduct definition of hazing: “Doing, requiring or encouraging any act . . . that causes or creates a substantial risk of causing mental or physical harm or humiliation.”
Okay, I’ve provided enough of the “soft” policies; how about some “hard” law now?
Civil liability for hazing is set forth in Ohio Revised Code § 2307.44: “Any person who is subject to hazing . . . may commence a civil action for injury or damages, including mental and physical pain and suffering, that result from the hazing.”
“If the hazing involves students in a . . . university . . . , an action may also be brought against any administrator, employee, or faculty member of the . . . university . . . who knew or reasonably should have known of the hazing and who did not make reasonable attempts to prevent it and against the . . . university . . . .”
That language looks really bad for Ohio State.
Now, the definition for hazing is written rather narrowly in § 2903.31, which could be a defense for Ohio State, in the event a player tried to sue about this.
A quick aside: I doubt any player—probably the only party that would have standing to actually sue about this—would ever bring a civil action about this. But, I think it’s generally a good idea to avoid violating laws whether or not you will actually be sued. (And you never know, maybe there is a gay player on the team or maybe one of those “loafers” doesn’t get their scholarship extended for next year and has a reason to sue.)
Anyway, the definition: “‘hazing’ means doing any act or coercing another, including the victim, to do any act of initiation into any student or other organization that causes or creates a substantial risk of causing mental or physical harm to any person.”
Arguably, the lavender jersey is not an “act of initiation.” If faced with a suit, I’m sure the school would say that the conditioning program is not an initiation to the team. The contrary argument is that especially during the early stages of team formation and conditioning, the norms and culture are being formed, and those are the team are being initiated to it. No knowing which argument would prevail, I would still go to the default perspective that a school—particularly one that hasn’t had the most pristine image as of late—should not test a gray area of the law.
Then there is Title IX.
Many only view Title IX as an equalizing device, providing more opportunities for women in sport. But the law is much more broad and can be used against gender stereotyping. The Women’s Sports Foundation provides a great synopsis of some cases that have addressed harassment based on gender expectations. The courts have ruled that “harassment based on gender non-conformity is a form of sex discrimination and, therefore, Title IX applies.”
Whether the conduct of the team (assigning the lavender jersey) or the conduct of the player (being the “loafer” leading to receiving the jersey) would trigger Title IX protection, again is debatable, but again, it seems like it would be risky for a school to continue conduct in such a gray area.
In sum, the lavender jersey motivation bothers me mostly for contributing to the homophobic culture of sports. But knowing that few athletic institutions will change their conduct because of that, hopefully all the violations of NCAA program, Ohio State University policies, and Ohio and federal laws may do the trick.
I’ve been in the works of planning a “homophobia in sports” type of event to be hosted at the Ohio State law school in mid-April. This issue will definitely have to be discussed, and I’ll be calling in the big shots to do the talking (and hopefully will be able to line up some meetings with athletic administrators as well).
A few hat-tips to send out: Professor Whaley for his original blog post, Andy Gammill for directing my attention to it, and Paul Alderete for creating the Ohio lavender jersey used as a thumbnail for this post (I have no idea what the actual lavender jersey looks like).
19 Comments for Everything that’s Wrong with Ohio State’s Lavender Jersey ‘Motivator’
Nate | February 25, 2012 at 1:04 am
Bob | February 25, 2012 at 9:04 am
That’s a rather stunted review, Nate.
You have to ask why the color lavender was chosen rather than, say, black, a color that quarterbacks often wear in practice: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_R3C5XxhDOfg/S8kHCq7ZO1I/AAAAAAAAAfk/BzQCYXyVSi0/s1600/DSC_0037.jpg
The reason is that a feminine color was desired to pursue the coach’s point, one that represented the behavior the coach perceived on the field–or rather, that Coach Meyer wanted to prevent through the humiliation of wearing a feminine color.
So even though you aren’t sexist and are in favor of the gay community being part of the community, your awareness of the color wheel places you on the outside looking in.
Tony | February 27, 2012 at 11:59 pm
Pete, I normally agree with almost everything you write or say, but I’m having a real hard time seeing this as an issue….most of your arguments are based on correlating the color with being insulting to gays or women. But I think that connection is SUCH a stretch that unless gay slurs are being yelled at the players while wearing these shirt then I can’t correspond the color lavender in and of itself with being insulting to gays and women. Am I too young to see the direct correlation? I see these Ohio State football players wearing pastel colors out and about in the arena district or what not all the time. I agree that homophobia should never be tolerated in sports or anywhere, but the claims you’re making are a bit strong in my opinion, unless there’s something you know about the explicit motivations that we don’t.
Could any of your arguments that you made about rules being violated really be held up in court without knowing about intent? Would the court have to rule that colors like lavender in clothing are protected in discrimination clauses? It’s probably bad taste…yes, but illegal…I don’t think so.
In my opinion it’s not hazing…more of a thought of having to work to earn the right to wear the scarlet and grey. You wear red, white, grey, black…you’re wearing normal OSU colors. You wear blue, yellow, purple, orange, maroon, green, etc., you’re wearing the colors of another big ten team. So that leaves few colors to wear if you want to implement this decision. The best color for this system probably would’ve been something like brown, but somebody would find something insulting with that. Unless there’s intent for malice, I just don’t see a single colored shirt being able to be tied directly to homophobia.
Author comment by Pete | February 28, 2012 at 10:53 am
Tony, thanks for the comment and for reading.
I think the difference is someone choosing to wear a color on their own and it being thrust upon them. A player wearing pink/purple isn’t identifying themselves as gay or effeminate. BUT, when it is thrust on them, it IS used to emasculate them. Purple/pink have long been associated with being a woman or gay. The pink triangle, the symbol given to gays during the Holocaust, is the perfect example. Lavender is a color that is regularly associated with the gay community. I recently attended an annual conference called “Lavender Law.”
There are some additional rumors floating around about the “intent” or association with the gay community, but I’m unable to confirm them in order to make a strong statement using them.
There was a great comment on the Lantern article (http://www.thelantern.com/sports/ohio-state-football-coach-mickey-marotti-s-breakfast-club-from-hell-1.2782459#.T0z38_Egef4) that sums up how it is sexist/homophobic. And since I am pressed for time, I’ll just copy/paste it (ignore their inaccurate statements about there being openly gay players in the pros):
“To the last poster–you don’t really seem to understand what the term “sexist” means. It doesn’t mean “men only.” It’s a lot more complicated than that. It refers to behaviors, conditions, and/or attitudes that foster negative stereotypes based on gender. In terms of the use of the lavender shirt, it’s sexist because it’s basically saying that if you’re a loafer, you’re a woman. It marks whoever has to wear the shirt as as an outcast based on a negative gender stereotype.
And I’m sure this is going to come as some big shock to you, but that’s degrading and insulting to women.
As far as the homophobic overtones of the lavender shirt go, it’s the same thing. If you’re a loafer, then you’re an effeminate gay man. Again, it marks the player as an outcast, and given that there are out gay men in both the NBA and the NHL, it’s also an insulting and degrading negative stereotype.
What’s so bothersome about this whole thing is that it’s a horrible form of motivation because it’s based on the fear of being labeled as someone from a group the football team is purposely degrading. That’s not positive motivation at all. That’s teaching players how to fear and degrade anyone who isn’t just like Marotti’s fantasy of the perfect alpha-male football player, and the defense of such actions in these comments is just an exercise in rationalization.
My issue with this whole thing is that the choice of a lavender shirt is pretty obviously about the cultural associations that color has with both women and gay men. After all, why do you think the shirt is described as “lavender” instead of just as “purple”? Marotti certainly knew what he was doing.
I understand that athletes need to train hard and have to be motivated to do so. But there are positive ways to motivate people that don’t involve degrading others. Unfortunately, Marotti would rather play on these athlete’s insecurities about their own gender and sexual identities than to stop and think of a better way to motivate them. And he doesn’t seem to care how many of the women and gay people on campus he offends by doing it.
To me, this lavender shirt business is as offensive as having a loafing player have to wear a shirt that says “lazy and shiftless” across the front of it. And if you don’t get that reference, look up some information about what racism looks like. In the meantime, please stop trying to defend what here in the 21st century is an indefensible action.”
Jerry | February 29, 2012 at 8:44 am
As a communicator with the football program, I’d like to offer a correction and some background: There are no lavender vests or pullovers being worn by Buckeyes during their workouts. The pullovers that the coach mistakenly referred to as “lavender” are actually purple. Very purple. The coach sincerely but mistakenly thought the color was lavender when he mentioned the pullovers during an interview. The players wear standard gray shirts with scarlet workout shorts during conditioning drills. Some performers also wear a colored mesh pullover for various achievements. Some fast guys get red pullovers. Others get a green pullover, etc., etc. The coach made no attempt to associate the color purple with anything other than with players who don’t go 100 percent at all times. Purple, quite simply, was the only color left from a handful of different colored pullovers that are typically worn in-season by members of our “scout” team as practice jerseys of our upcoming opponent.
Author comment by Pete | February 29, 2012 at 9:04 am
Thanks for the comment, Jerry. I’ve seen that response already. :)
Tony | February 29, 2012 at 10:57 pm
Thanks Pete for the more information…I do see more about why the color lavender is harmful and what it means now. I guess it is just my naivety on the history of oppression of gay people and other groups apparently. I am glad that Jerry posted what he posted though, because that’s what I was hoping this was a situation of. Just one of the few colors remaining to choose from and a coach mistakenly calling it something with a negative connotation.
Whether that is true 100% or not, I still hold to my argument that the fact that it is just a color and nothing more is not enough grounds to call for legal action without more evidence of intent. There just aren’t that many colors to choose from. BUT I do see why it should be reprimanded or at least the topic delved further into to understand the intent and if there was a negative meaning for it that is insulting to other groups.
But I do thank you and the Lantern for covering this, because without reporting and putting pressure on the football program, an explanation can’t be given and there is reason to feel upset about it. And if you do find that there is further intent, I think then discussing the legal issues is 100% necessary.
I guess the overall point I’m trying to make is that I applaud and agree with you bringing this topic/subject/controversy up and putting pressure on the football program to explain why this is not a homophobic act… I just think I was turned off a little bit by talking about legal action without more evidence. Do you see that point I’m trying to make, or if not could you give me an explanation why the acts that you covered were enough to warrant some of the violations that you mentioned (not being sarcastic. I just really am curious)?
Rebecca Kay | March 2, 2012 at 11:28 am
Much ado about nothing. I understand the rationale behind the jersey – identify the slackers and let everyone know who they are. In my opinion, people concerned with the color of the jersey are the folks that probably have homophobic issues. Lavendar does not mean gay or feminine or pansy. To me, it just means “NOT scarlet and gray”. OK, perhaps it would be more feasible to use maze and blue for the jersey of shame, but, come on … this is such a NON issue!!!
nate | March 2, 2012 at 2:03 pm
I should wear a lavender jersey for taking time out of my day to read this blog.
Bill Doren | March 2, 2012 at 5:02 pm
Get a life guy. This is AMERICA if u gays don’t like what is said then move to another country. It’s a shame the average man cannot voice his opinion or some group pisses and moans. We as the majority have to buckle under to the minority. What has this country become?
James Farrell | March 2, 2012 at 7:07 pm
Pete Olsen, you and your former professor are acting like children ! Next, you’ll be reporting that The Ohio State University is homophobic because they wont change the school colors to accomodate the gay community.
It’s crybabies like you and professor Whaley that eat away at my American Pride. We are forced to conform to every person/group that feels they have been wronged in some manor.
You are pushing YOUR view/agenda onto something that has nothing to do with being gay to begin with. So what, the shirts are purple……it’s a motivational tool. It lets everyone on the team know exactly who isn’t putting in the effort, nothing more, nothing less.
You were born with a pair of balls, how about acting like you have testosterone flowing in your veins and quit being so sensitive over a “color”.
One last piece of advise for you and professor Whaley…… MAN UP !
Joseph | March 5, 2012 at 7:33 pm
I’m not sure how you honestly put up with caveman comments along the lines of that by Mr. Farrell, the ultimate display of the “internet tough guy.”
This article (much better thought out and written than “you were born with a pair of balls”) brought up an interesting debate on other sites today as well. One such dialog unfortunately was left unfinished.
It is my hope that the site changes their comment policy statement to include race/ethnicity/sexual orientation as topics that honestly should be avoided on a sports site. It is interesting that currently, homophobic and small minded comments are left to be applauded on the site, while those deriding such comments are attacked and ultimately silenced.
Also interesting is how the “majority” thinks the “minority” shouldn’t piss and moan, while pissing and moaning themselves. I mean what has this country become when a white heterosexual male can’t get HIS way each and every time? So it is “just a color.” Then what is the harm in changing it if it bothers a group of people? Ohhh, because maybe it is meant to mean… Gotcha.
Author comment by Pete | March 5, 2012 at 9:28 pm
Thanks for the comment, Joseph.
I generally don’t respond to the idiotic comments on message boards (or even on my own page) because there is no point in doing so. The anonymity of the internet brings out the worst of it, and to be honest, I do not have time to engage in a flame war. (Go read my post about Kobe Bryant’s use of “fag” if you want to really see some hateful stuff directed at me.)
If anyone wants to seriously discuss a matter in a civil manner, my contact information is widely available. They can identify themselves and we can go from there.
You can gladly extend that to anyone posting anonymously on whatever random message boards are discussing this.
Bob | March 6, 2012 at 8:50 am
Mr. Farrell,
I’m not sure when you aborted logic and reason, but it’s clear you were successful in doing so.
Your inability to compose a sentence erodes my pride in America; your inability to think erodes my pride in people; your cowardice would be better served in an era that embraced your ideas, before Thomas Paine wrote of a common sense you will never know.
Here’s the problem, you rhinoceros filth: the coaching staff is associating a color with weakness. The color chosen could have been anything. The color should have been irrelevant. But by choosing a color associated with homosexuality, or associated with femininity, the coaching staff–perhaps unwittingly, but successfully–made a statement about our society…or rather, its take on it.
That statement is wrongheaded and antiquated. Like you.
Now scurry back into the hole in the earth from whence you came, rodent. I hope someday you follow the light and let evolution run its course, though I’m guessing you don’t believe in that either. And why should you? You’ve no reason to believe in it since you’re stuck firmly in the past.
Jehovah's Other Witness | March 6, 2012 at 9:13 am
If James Farrell was a house he’d no longer be for sale since he just got OWNED.
Perhaps Mr. Farrell, having been cast into the black hole of PWNED cyberspace warriors, should have all his subsequent posts on the internet be accompanied by a little white flag since everyone will know the world over that he’s a failure and that he’s given up.
YOUR SILENCE IS DEAFENING MR. FARRELL! WHERE ARE YOU? Stuck in the abyss of your empty soul? Yeah. That happens.
Bucksfan_57 | March 6, 2012 at 9:55 am
Folks here’s the deal. Obviously this practice is offensive to a significant percentage of gays and women in our community. Us “manly men” may not understand why they are offended, but GUESS WHAT … THAT DOESN’T MATTER!!! If you are a decent human being who has respect for others, and you find out that something you are doing offends a significant percentage of the population YOU STOP DO{ING IT. Fortunately, coach Meyer is a decent human being and has stopped this practice.
Bob | March 6, 2012 at 11:14 am
Excellent point and post, Bucksfan!
dave | March 7, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Why do Gays look for controversy when there is none.
Is it hetro phobic?
The jersy did not have any referesnce to being Gay to the players did it.
I am for Gay rights, but when you look to create controversy I say enough is enough.
Just like when Gays went after the Christmas carole Deck the halls.
That has been sung for ever, No ” don we now our Gay apparel” is not gay bashing.
If the gay community wants respect, they should quit trying to make everyone homophobic based on things that have gone on for years.
Bob | March 8, 2012 at 11:54 am
Dave. Don’t be a maroon.
First, argue what’s being argued. We’re not discussing a Christmas song. We’re discussing a football uniform.
Second, it’s not “looking” for controversy when problematic actions are undertaken and are identified by third parties.
Back to your cave, man.
<< Columbus Blue Jacket Rick Nash joins other NHL stars for ‘You Can Play Project’
The first thing I thought of when I read about the lavender jersey motivational technique had nothing to do with sexual orientation, or sexism… I thought, “That’s an ugly color. I’d never want to wear that.”
This piece is simply what you tried to claim it isn’t: “over-sensitive, liberal agenda mumbo-jumbo”
I’m not saying you’re a liberal, and I’m not disparaging you if you are, or are not. The point is if you look at the lavender jersey that way, perhaps you are being too sensitive. Because I am a person who is all in favor of the gay community being considered, simply, a part of the community. No gay label needed. And I have great respect for powerful women, so I’m not sexist.
Lavender is just an ugly color. It takes hard work to DESERVE to wear the Scarlet and Gray. If you don’t earn it, you get to wear a color that shows your laziness. That’s all.