As you may have noticed—whether you check this blog regularly, once a month, or if this is your first time—there has been a dearth of updates.  It has made no difference whether I’ve been busy (during finals) or not (during break between semesters).  Merely, I have not had the motivation to write.

The reason: I haven’t felt compelled by anything.

Sure, of course, there have been minor developments within the scope of what I normally write about.  And I do my best to pass those on via Twitter or Facebook.  “Random sports person vocalizes his support of the gay community!” or “Random sports person does something homophobic!” or “Random athlete playing random sport at a random level of competition just came out!”

Not to minimize the importance of those events—because each incremental step is newsworthy—but I have nothing to add to those stories that I haven’t said already.  In fact, I even have categories for each of those topics: Allies in Sport, Athletes Coming Out, and Homophobia in Sport.  While the individual details may vary from story to story, generally, my commentary will be the same.  And it gets repetitive.  I’ve always wanted to be offer more than, “Here is Story X, plus repetitive, obvious commentary.”

Anyway, enough of the reasons why I haven’t written; clearly, I’m writing, so I must have a good reason!

And that reason: I could not believe the comments made by my classmates when discussing whether women could coach men.

First, some context.

The course is “Sports Law” and the previous week we had discussed the scope of authority for the commissioners of leagues to act for “what is in the best interest of the sport.”  (Aside: I wish every law school course was like this!)  This week, in wrapping up that subject and with those commissioner powers and responsibilities in mind, we were asked to think about and to discuss the following questions under the heading of “Sports and Social Ethics”:

• Do you ban the athlete who is HIV or AIDS positive?

• Does the American with Disabilities Act come into play?

• Is there discrimination in sports not only against HIV positive people but also gay and lesbian athletes, minorities, or women in general?

• What do you think of the Rooney Rule? And should there be percentages of a certain minority of players and coaches and should it tie to the overall population?

• Should Affirmative Action be applied in sports?

• Should athletes have a right of free speech even if they say something distasteful, or can their team govern what they say based on the potential embarrassment?

• Should athletes be allowed to make protests or demonstrations while they are part of a team?  This includes considerations of free speech, freedom of religion and assembly in a public building. [And now, Social Media.]

Whew.  What a list.

Honestly, the class could have (and I would have enjoyed) spending an hour-plus on any one of those questions.  But with limited time, we were only able to discuss a few, and in far more brevity than the subjects could warrant.

The discussion began with the first question listed, “Do you ban the athlete who is HIV or AIDS positive?”  The professor added some context: other players in the league (even up to all but the single athlete in question) are refusing to play.  If you’re commissioner, do you ban the athlete?  Or, if you’re a plaintiff’s attorney, do you take the case?

Of course, I had something to say.  I mentioned that the risks of transmitting HIV or AIDS in that fashion are significantly low, and that there are far more risky elements of any sport that are not acted upon; therefore, to act on this would be discriminatory.  Others fairly retorted that in the interest of the entire game, rather than the interest of a single player, if 99% of the league refused to play with that athlete, prohibiting the HIV/AIDS athlete may be your only course of action.

While I could go on and on about that subject, what I consider to be the absurd comments sparking my interest to write came next.  So, yes, after over 700 words of ramble, I’m finally getting to the substance of what I wanted to write about.  (Sorry for stringing you along this far.)

We moved on to discussing the Rooney-Rule of the NFL.  If you’re not familiar with it, basically, any NFL team that is hiring a new head coach must have three “finalists” and one of those three finalists must be a “minority candidate.”  We discussed the merits of it, whether it has been successful or not, whether it is still needed, etc.

And then the professor posed the question: Should a rule like the Rooney-Rule be imposed for women coaches in NCAA men’s sports, because, for example, there are no women head or assistant coaches in men’s Division I basketball ? (The professor was not, nor am I, familiar with any women coaches at that level).

The response simultaneously astounded and bothered me.

And it came from both men and women.

Ignoring the merits of a rule like the Rooney-Rule and whether there would even be women interested in coaching men as general matters (which both were discussed), those that spoke suggested that a woman would not even have the capacity to do so.

Wait…  What?!

I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

The arguments seemed to suggest that a woman would be lacking in what I’ve grouped together as two ways: (1) competence and (2) leadership.

(1) Competence

The argument:

All/most/many coaches of men’s basketball played at that level at some point and even if a woman played at some point, the game is different (size of the ball, speed, size, physicality, etc.); so therefore, a woman would not even be able to coach men satisfactorily.

My response:

I’m sorry.  What?!?

Okay, sure, most of the coaches at that level did play at that level.  And yes, it certainly could be beneficial, both from understanding the game and in getting a little credibility from the male players on the team.  But a requirement?!  Not even close.

Plenty can be learned through observation.  Fundamentals can be learned and taught by anyone.  (In fact, the woman’s game has been known for having better fundamentals.)  Xs and Os can be drawn up by anyone.  Boxing out, free throws, pick and rolls, court spacing: None of it is so profound that it cannot be learned, even without having played at the exact same level of competition.

Oddly enough, I’ve written about this before, after a woman was selected to coach a men’s football team in D.C. in 2010 (of which Vernon Davis of the San Francisco 49ers tweeted his criticisms of the move).

At that time, ESPN columnist Jemele Hill tweeted, “If ur against women coaching fb, fine. but dont make it an athletic argument. plenty of bad/mediocre male athletes are coaches.”

Indeed, there are plenty of coaches who were horrible at their sport, or never played at all.  In 2007, ESPN columnist Andy Katz wrote the piece, “Coaches prove you didn’t have to play to win,” specifically highlighting successful men’s college basketball coaches who never played at that level.

And there are examples in every sport and at every level.

Furthermore, as I mentioned in the class discussion, Nancy Lieberman coaches men of the Texas Legends in the NBA’s development league, a level of play (speed, skill, etc.) above college.  She played at the highest level of women’s basketball, both professionally and in the Olympics.  She also coached in the WNBA.  She has proven to be able to coach women and men competently. Where one has done it, there are more.

(2)  Leadership

The argument:

Male collegiate athletes would not respect (listen to, accept direction from, etc.) a woman coach, and therefore, the woman coach could not lead the team.

My response:

Again, what?!  This is the same argument that has discriminatorily prevented women from advancing in the corporate world.  This is the same argument that was made in opposing African-American coaching white players.  It is pathetic.

Really, I think it comes down to distinguishing between whether the male athletes would not respect a woman coach or could not.

Clearly, they could.  They possess the capacity to do so.  Throughout their lives, undoubtedly, they’ve had the opportunity to be in a position where a woman was in charge: either their mother or another family figure, a school teacher, a police officer, or work supervisor.  The capacity is there.  They know how to do it.  They know how to respect someone with authority over them.  Thus, they could respect a woman coach.

Then, the question is, would they?

I’m sorry, but if your answer is still, “no, the woman coach would not be respected,” then I have to say that the problem is the male athletes and not the woman coach.

(3) Would there be enough interest to warrant a Rooney-Rule?

I know I said I’d ignore this issue, but since students in the class brought up how there probably is not enough women interested in coaching men’s basketball to warrant a Rooney-Rule, I have to at least say something.

The sentiment is probably true, but it only has merit if the rule operated in the exact same fashion as the Rooney-Rule, requiring that a woman be interviewed for all vacant positions.

But, that view fails to consider that the rule could be modified to balance the level of interest in coaching with the interest of breaking down this gender barrier.

Here’s my quick solution:

Any woman interested in coaching a men’s sport submits their name for consideration to the NCAA, specifying what she thinks she is qualified to coach and where should would like to coach (examples: specific geographic regions, in a specific conference, specifically-named teams, teams based on success, etc.).  The NCAA can then pre-screen the applicant to assure that at the bare-minimum, she would be worth consideration for the positions she has expressed interest.  Then, if a team is looking to hire, they must consult the list, and if a woman candidate matches the school, she must be interviewed.

The system would prevent a team from being handcuffed by the obligation when no candidates are interested while simultaneously provide an avenue for qualified woman to enter into the league.

Simple enough.

Sure, there may not be many women interested, but I would much rather that interest be the only roadblock than antiquated views about competence and leadership.

Andy Katz, ESPN, Jemele Hill, Moritz College of Law, Nancy Lieberman, Texas Legends, Vernon Davis Hide

Today, it has come out that Miami Dolphins GM Jeff Ireland, while conducting a pre-draft interview with Dez Bryant, asked if Bryant’s mom was a prostitute.  Naturally, this has caused uproar in the national sports media outlets.  That type of question crosses every possible line that could exist for a pre-employment job screening interview and is completely irrelevant to assessing a player’s athletic abilities.

Yahoo Sports broke the story.

The Huffington Post picked it up. 

It was a topic on ESPN’s Pardon the Interruption.

National sports media writers are tweeting over it:

Jemele Hill, Peter King, Michael Smith x2 x3.

I don’t mind all of this coverage.  It all needs to be said.  Ireland’s questioning was unacceptable.  Teams should not be able to show such disrespect for players and their private lives during the pre-draft process.

But, I HAVE to ask:

Where was the national media coverage when Bryant had to talk about his mother’s sexuality AND when he said “I didn’t like it. Really, I still don’t”?

That tidbit was just a blip in a much larger article in the Dallas Morning News about Bryant’s overall maturity level.  From what I saw, it never made it beyond a post on the Outsports blog.

I realize I can’t dictate what stories become news and those that do not.  But I cannot believe that a story about a high-profile draftee being so homophobic, directed specifically at his own mother, gets ignored while another question to that same player about his mother is creating such a scene.

There is also a second part of this overall story that could be extremely disturbing, if true.  I have no way to confirm this, but I did consider: could Bryant’s mother’s sexuality have influenced Ireland to give more clout to the prostitution rumor?  Would he have asked the question if she were straight or would he tossed the rumor aside as nonsense?

I would love to be able to ask that of Ireland and to get a truthful answer.

Dallas Morning News, Dez Bryant, ESPN, Huffington Post, Jemele Hill, Miami Dolphins, Michael Smith, NFL, OutSports, Pardon the Interruption, Peter King, Yahoo Sports Hide

The questions is grossly archaic—bringing us back to the days when a woman’s role in society was to be a stay-at-home mom—yet, the question is just now being addressed and traditional coaching roles being challenged.  Remember: the sports world is old-fashioned and grounded in its views of gender norms.  (Check back tomorrow when we expand the question to consider if gays and lesbians can/should coach.)

The question has come to issue with Coolidge High in Washington DC announcing on March 12^th that Natalie Randolph will be their head football coach (Washington Post article here).  Randolph joins Debbie Vance, from Lehman High in Bronx, NY, as the only female high school football head coaches.

Randolph is certainly qualified: she has played five seasons in the Independent Women’s Professional League and was an assistant coach for two years at another DC high school.  Further, according to the Post’s article, she is very well-liked by the students and the players; when she was introduced to the team, she was met with overwhelming applause.

She acknowledges that people will have negative things to say, but she will not be swayed: “I can’t control what people say.  The first thing is, I love football, no matter whose domain it is. I’m going to do it. If I let people dictate what I do, I wouldn’t be where I am.”

Vernon Davis, tight end for the San Francisco 49ers who grew up in the DC area, blew up his Twitter and provided the predictable arguments against having a woman head coach.  Here are some of his tweets:

-          Back home in dc where I grew up, a nearbye high school just hired all women to coach the varsity football team. That is ridiculous

-          A woman can’t relate to a boy like a man can in my opinion! What do you all think about that? They even have a woman strength coach.

-          Football is a mans sport way, not woman. That’s why there is cheerleading and other things.

-          Females can do anything, but a boy will respond to a man better than a woman when partcipating in this game of football.

-          You show me a woman that can run a better route than Jerry Rice then j will let her be my coach.

-          RT @jdj86: @VernonDavis85 Sum HS boys don’t have a male at home (esp in the DC area) to guide them but fball coaches help fill that gap. 2/2

-          I wish the woman coaches all the luck in the world and hope they become successful at what they are doing. I agree, anything is possible.

Okay, now ignoring that last tweet which screams of agent-imposed-damage-control and the remarks that are absurd (suggesting cheerleading as what women should be doing), the valid themes are that players need a male coach to be like a father—tough, disciplined, authoritarian—and that you need to be able to play the sport in order to coach it.  I guess I’ll just address these arguments in order:

(1) You need a male coach to instill discipline, be a father figure, blah, blah, and blah.

This argument stems from the militaristic style of coaching that tears down the players and builds them back up as a team.  The coaching style definitely has its merits: it does build discipline and character, it does build team camaraderie, and it does challenge boys to become men, as cliché as that sounds.  The argument is furthered by suggesting that these values traditionally are instilled by a father, and as many of these players may not have a father-figure in their life, that the male coach should fill the role.

To counter these points, I would just say first, the authoritarian style can easily go too far and become abusive (see: Mark Mangino); second, there are women that are just as capable of being tough if needed; third, just as a man may be able to get the most out of his players being tough, a woman may be equally successful building a team being compassionate, discovering what motivates the players, etc.; and fourth, there are many sources needed for both father and mother figures—football is not the exclusive source, and further, a female coach can be an important mother-figure as well.

On this topic, the football practice scene from The Blind Side comes to mind (if you haven’t seen the movie yet, go rent it).  In it, the Michael Oher character is new to practice with his coach trying to teach him techniques of blocking.  With progress slow, Oher and his coach both get frustrated.  Then, Oher’s adopted mother Leigh Anne Tuohy, played by Sandra Bullock, walks up to Michael and says, “This team is your family, Michael. When you look at him, you think of me. Now you have my back. Are you going to protect your family, Michael?”  He responds, “Yes, ma’am,” and from that point forward is a dominant left tackle.  I don’t know if this is one of those iconic scenes from the movie that is true or Hollywood-embellished, but it illustrates the point: there are various ways to get everyone to perform and sometimes it is the non-traditional, other-gendered perspective that is most successful.

(2) You need to be able to play the sport to coach it.

I infer this argument from VD’s tweet that he’d allow a woman coach if she can run a route as good as Jerry Rice.  Again, there are certainly benefits if a coach has experience playing the game, but it is by no means a requirement.  Again, see: Mark Mangino, only this time actually see him.  There is no way he could run a route as good as Jerry rice, or a route at all for that matter, but he coached Division I football for years.  Further, football is a sport where the positions require such distinct skill sets that very few have ever been equipped to play at different places (George Blanda, quarterback-slash-kicker extraordinaire, comes to mind as an exception).  If it was required that you could do the job of each position in order to coach, there would be no qualified male coaches either.

Jamele Hill, an ESPN personality who I was fortunate enough to meet a few years ago at Leigh Steinberg’s Super Bowl party, is always on the scene when race or gender gets brought up.  After VD’s tweets, the idea of a woman coach became the focus of Hill’s twitter for a few hours.  She seemed especially keen to point out the fallacy in suggesting you must have athletic ability to coach:

-          OK w/ comment abt young boys responding differently 2 women. but @VernonDavis85 4got his coaches cant run J rice route, either.

-          If ur against women coaching fb, fine. but dont make it an athletic argument. plenty of bad/mediocre male athletes are coaches

Let’s also not forget that Randolph does play.  Five years in a woman’s professional league surely makes her more experienced than many of her male counterparts across the country.

Ultimately, coaching positions, like any other job, should be given based on qualifications.  Race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. should not be disqualifying traits.  If you can do the job, you can do the job.  Check back tomorrow as I write the 2^nd part to this coaching question: can/should gays and lesbians coach?

Jemele Hill, Mark Mangino, Natalie Randolph, The Blind Side, twitter, Vernon Davis, Washington Post Hide