Wrong Side of History

I am posting this on both my blogs, because it has obvious Hancock roots and memories as well as the more obvious general application. (Slight) apologies to the Hancock Place Hancock Place followers if this has more political overtones than you are generally accustomed to seeing (t)here.

I noticed a FaceBook meme last week, pointing out that amidst all the celebration over American Olympic medals, there was little if any credit given to Title IX.

Talking to my softball girls the other day after practice, I noted that when I started teaching, there was only the GAA, a club for the “sporty” girls, but no interscholastic sports. The same was true when Carolyn attended Centralia HS – no Orphan Annies had she wished to play. Girls were limited to May Fete, a kind of dancing thing in white dresses around a May Pole. 

When forced indoors, my Tigers practiced in the “Girls Gym” (the one with the warped floor and no locker rooms and bleachers right next to the sidelines). One year I got permission to order new uniforms for the girls; the local sporting goods store ordered men’s slow pitch sleeveless uniforms. The huge (really huge, gigantic, biggest ever) arm slots were embarrassing. We rejected them and reordered from a company that specialized in women’s sports and equipment. 

In 1994 when it came time to select the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Scholar Athlete, there were two eminently worthy, 3-sport choices, ranked one and two in the class (only a B in one class separated them). Originally the coaching staff and administration picked the male candidate. “Obviously it’s --------------.” I dissented (not an uncommon position for me), despite the respect I had for the male candidate. “Ummm, [the female candidate] has a D-I scholarship offer and also played three sports, all at an exceptional level. This award is for an exceptional athlete who is also a (and in this case, also exceptional) scholar. Had the male had this resume, then it would be obvious. To my view, the choice is clear.” To the credit of the Athletic Director and others on the coaching staff, we rethought our choice and Hancock nominated the (IMO) most worthy candidate (of two almost equally worthy students).

Note, we had had previous female scholar athletes, so this is not intended as any kind of criticism of the coaching staff, administration, or process. In this case, however, the seeming tie at first went to the male, “obviously.”

My real point is this. Women’s sports did not progress because of the generosity of their male counterparts or because they recognized the long-standing inequality or sexism. Women’s sports and athletes progressed because people, mostly women, recognized their importance and worked and fought to create tools to elevate that status. When you were cheering the incredible accomplishments of the female athletes in Rio, you were also, like it or not, cheering for Title IX. Yes, that same Title IX that was decried, derided and disrespected by conservatives.

Those same conservatives also opposed (in their time, of course) declaring independence in 1775-76, the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, abolition in the mid 1800s, women’s suffrage in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, integration of the armed forces in the 1940s and 50s, civil rights for African-Americans in the 1950s and 1960s, women’s rights (including Title IX) in the 70s and 80s, gay rights at the end of the 20^th century and beginning of the 21^st.... 

I understand that change is scary, that people want to keep the things the way they were. And conservatives play a vital role, forcing those who would rush, without sufficient thought, into change, because, The.Law.Of.Unintended.Consequences.  But (and I’ve never had anyone offer any kind of counterpoint, coherent or otherwise) conservatives have been on the wrong side of history for centuries. [Addendum: to be fair – I hate that – conservatives probably DO get credit for the Bill of Rights, but that was before compromise was a dirty word.] I’ve noted my disinclination and skepticism about labels, so I’m not claiming any particular one for myself, but I could never be a conservative (unless we’re talking about the environment, which I definitely want to conserve, and, ironically, some so-called conservatives seem to discount).

Late Learner

Why has it taken me so long to become a good student? I think the expression “life long learner” loses something when you don’t really start maximizing your efforts until you qualify as a senior citizen.

Ironic as it may seem, for someone who loved his long career as a teacher (and is still loving it in its current, very limited, iteration), I was a bad student. My GPA declined every semester from my freshman year of high school on, finally bottoming out at .6 as a second semester college sophomore (after that, my year-designation rated as undetermined until I finally graduated). Yes, that is 0-decimal-point-six (3 Fs, a D and a C, for those of you keeping score at home, and didn’t include PE, which I also failed, and the speech course I dropped before I got an F there, as well).

Obviously I picked things up a little in order to graduate and get my teacher certification, although the following anecdote is telling, and this takes place AFTER I was married (and graduated, but that’s another story. Anyway, it’s one thing to explain a bad grade to a parent; to your wife....) Carolyn had accidentally locked herself out of our first apartment and went next door to a neighbor, asking for a ride up to UM-St. Louis to retrieve a key. Her friend said, “You’ll never find him, that place is huge.” True, although certainly not on the scale it is today. Carolyn’s response, “No, it will be fine, he’ll be in the commons playing bridge.” She had no problem getting the key.

I actually did become a decent student at Webster University (née College) for my master’s, even joining as adjunct faculty for a class or two. I didn’t exactly revert to form for my Counseling masters (GPAs for masters degrees are a joke, requiring mostly attendance), but I complained a lot and had to force myself to actually show up to class. However, unlike my undergrad studies, I actually did show up.

Two weeks ago I finished a coaching clinic in Kansas City. I began attending these about 25 years ago, as I was about to take over the reins of Hancock’s softball program. For 10-12 years these conferences served as the kick-off (apologies for the wrong sport metaphor) for our Spring season. I kind of got away from them for a while, but still attended sporadically. This year I returned (the AARP room rate was cheaper than the sold-out “special” conference rates) and found myself taking copious notes at all the the sessions, even the ones that were less than relevant for me.

I occasionally wonder how much more I might have learned in college had I cheated by actually going to class, reading the material (but really, shouldn’t books with college text price points read themselves?), taking notes, etc. Of course, like my MAT from Webster, this clinci has immediate, practical applications. I can visualize how I’m going to use the information and look forward to being able to apply it sooner rather than later. My mind still wanders, of course, but only because I’m projecting forward something I just heard/learned.

I’m looking forward to sharing what I learned this weekend with my great “teammates” of the WGHS coaching staff, the remarkable young women who play for us, and the parents who support us all. My 40^th softball team is just around the corner and I’m anticipating once again, another enjoyable season. I am fortunate; I have had teams with bad records, but never a bad team. 

It didn’t hurt, of course, that softball season is also a harbinger of warmer weather, as I stared out at the ice from my hotel room in Kansas City and see the ice/snow combo still covering our deck at home.

On Cheering #2

Warning: If you are or were a cheerleader, you might find this offensive.

That is not my intent, not my goal. I recognize that cheerleaders can be athletic and, if their squads go to competitions, could even be considered athletes. I’ve known intelligent, ambitious, morally upright cheerleaders who did not fit the stereotype. While stereotypes do not arise out of vacuums (nobody says, “Hey, let’s make up a stereotype about __________!”) and are damaging to both the typer and typee, that isn’t the point of this, either.

I’m glad my daughter never had any desire to be the public cheerer for someone else’s accomplishments. I hope Becca wants to have her own accomplishments rather than cheering for some boy’s or group of boys. I’m not suggesting avoiding the excitement and enthusiasm for a school team’s accomplishments. I recognize that cheerleaders help organize and generate that support; but I’d rather she (or any girl) BE the athlete rather than the athlete’s cheering section. If a girl is athletic enough to do all the things required of a cheerleader (I’m talking at the games -- too snarky?), then she’s athletic enough to do a sport or other activity herself.* Let the boys come and cheer for her, not reduce herself to a subservient role.

*In all fairness, at Hancock there was only one girls sport per season for a long time (the Fall season now boasts softball, volleyball & cross country) and cheerleaders cheered ONLY at basketball games; they could, and did, participate in other sports in the other seasons. To his everlasting credit, Ed Stewart required the cheerleaders to cheer at both boys and girls games and a couple guys joined the cheerleaders in at least two years I remember.