NCAA GIVES NEW MEANING TO GENDER-BIAS

By Diane M. Grassi

“We talkin’ about practice! Not a game. We talkin’ about practice, man. We ain’t talking about the game. But we talkin’ about practice!” No, we are not talking about the infamous press conference in May of 2002 and Allen Iverson’s response to questions as to why he missed practices with his Philadelphia 76ers teammates. Yet, in hindsight and compared to the esteemed wisdom of the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) Committee on Women’s Athletics (CWA) and their recent revelation, Iverson’s response seems quite apropos.

In a world where political correctness has run amok in every facet of U.S. society, why should the NCAA be any different than any other bureaucratic organization or private corporation? In fact, the NCAA in its efforts to try to separate itself from the image of it being an elitist governing body and only about the scholastic educations of our collegiate athletes, it once again fails us. While trying to convince educators and the public-at-large that it is all about the institution of education, as it prevails by operating similarly to a revenue generating entity, it continues to stumble upon its own misguided principles.

Title IX was enacted into law in 1972 in order to promote sports scholarships and equity for female student athletes seeking a secondary education. NCAA division schools received revenue to support various women’s team and sports commensurate to the men’s athletic programs. Yet, in its latest attempt to show how it is conscious of gender-equity in Title IX compliance, the CWA has hijacked Title IX and has misappropriated its original intent.

In fact, the CWA needed the past two years to study the latest twist on gender equity or gender-bias, depending upon from which vantage point it is seen, on the issue of the use of male varsity athletes as volunteer practice players primarily for Division I women’s basketball teams. The CWA recommended on December 13, 2006 to ban the use of non-scholarship eligible enrolled male varsity athletes from participating from any practices or training within women’s intercollegiate athletics programs at Division I or Division II NCAA colleges or universities. Division III already adheres to such a regulation.

Although not yet a mandate, the CWA believes that, “The use of male practice players violates the spirit of gender equity and Title IX and that any inclusion of male practice players results in diminished participation opportunities for female student athletes, contrary to the NCAA’s principles of gender equity, non-discrimination, competitive equity and student athlete well-being.”

But contrary to what the CWA believes, most Division I and successful women’s basketball coaches of both genders, coaches of soccer and volleyball teams as well as the Women’s Basketball Coaches Association (WBCA) believe that such a requirement would interfere with the development of female athletes and would provide a diminished return to their star athletes, should they be forced to eliminate the male practice players. Fortunately, NCAA committees, conferences and schools will be able to make proposals on the subject during the next year. A vote on the issue by the NCAA would not take place until at least January 2008.

But players such as Alana Larkin and Ivory Latta, both All-Americans and stars of the elite women’s basketball program at the University of North Carolina, relish the time they have playing against the guys. Their practices are intense and the height and strength of the men enhance their training drills, thus rewarding them in actual games. “Love ‘em,” says Latta. “That’s how they make us better. They give us attitude. They give us the killer instinct.” And Larkin agrees. “I don’t see us getting any better with girls practicing against us and practicing against our teammates.”

Likewise, Duke Basketball coach, Gail Goestenkors, endorses the practice of the men players and questions how they would get enough women players to challenge the height and jump capabilities of the very tallest and most accomplished female basketball players. And it is in that regard that the CWA overlooked the subtle accomplishments in women’s sports since 1972. There are remaining gripes about shortages and inequities in the number of female coaches and the inability of women’s sports, other than women’s basketball, still receiving little attention or enough scholarships. Yet, when it comes to basketball, it has led the way in women’s collegiate athletics. And so, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

Steeped in its own myopia, CWA committee members such as Patrick Nero, Commissioner of the America East Conference laments, “How are they to get better if they’re sitting in practice? It’s one thing to not be playing in a game because they haven’t reached that level yet, but for them to sit through an entire practice while men run up and down with their teammates, we just think it’s really against the spirit of Title IX.”

But to assume that because two or three male practice players equates no practice time for bench or second team players is misguided and gives little credit to the individual coaches who stand to lose games unless they practice all of their players. Just because the starters are practicing with men, does not mean that the bench players are not practicing with them at all. For the most part, they are actually practicing against the starters who are only made better by practicing at a higher level.

Also not given credence is the problem of the number of scholarships offered to female athletes. Not every school has the resources. According to Goestenkors, she only has 11 or 12 players on scholarship. “Now I have to have 15 on scholarships just so I can [have enough] to practice.” And who can argue with Tennessee coach, Pat Summitt, who has won more games than any other coach in the history of women’s basketball. She weighed in last week and said, “I think it would be detrimental to women’s basketball. If you look at what has happened, the parity in the game, the fact that we have male practice players, they challenge us. It’s not like they take away opportunities. On the contrary, they provide opportunities for our teams to work on specific game preparation.”

And also probably unknown to most people, according to Coach Summitt, when she coached the U.S. Olympic Women’s Basketball team as far back as 1984 she recalls, “We played against one female team in the exhibition games. The rest of the time, we played against males. The guys made us better.”

Russ Rose, women’s volleyball coach at Penn State University notes, “I feel comfortable that every player in my gym has the opportunity to make progress because they are allowed to come in and get individual instruction anytime they want. I think it would do more damage to my second team to have the first team beat the heck out of them every day. Now, the second team has a chance to beat the first team on a daily basis, and some of those second team kids get a chance to elevate their play. You need your starting team on one side and a formidable opponent on the other.”

And Stanford University women’s volleyball coach, John Dunning, although he does not use male practice players says, “Good coaching is learning how to balance: to create in players a sense of self-esteem balanced with pushing them to get better. If you can create a setting in practice that’s harder than games, by having better people on the other side of the net, as long as that’s managed properly then that certainly make sense.”

While the NCAA remains dismayed about the lack of women’s coaching opportunities, it props up its ill-serving methodology on gender equity through statistics which do not paint the entire picture. For example, in 1972 more than 90% of women’s teams were coached by women. In 2006 this number has fallen dramatically to 42.4%. In 1972 more than 90% of women’s athletic programs were administered by female athletic directors. In 2006 92% of Division I Athletic Directors are male and 8% are female. Yet, since 1972, the quality of the play of female athletes and the strength of individual programs has improved significantly.

The silver lining, which the NCAA and CWA need to take a serious look at, is the actual realized accomplishment of the women athletes in these programs, who exemplify the true meaning of the student athlete. With the exception of the WNBA, which after 10 years is running on fumes going into 2007, there are no professional athletic opportunities for women athletes. For those who are lucky enough to reach the Olympics in individual sports such as track and field or swimming, it is a long, long road, and they rarely ever reach the compensation or notoriety of their male counterparts.

College is the time for female athletes to shine, be it from the expertise of a male coach, female coach, or male practice players. And with the advent of the NCAA Final Four Basketball Championship, by way of the success of the men’s tournament, the women’s NCAA Final Four focuses more attention on women’s sports than any other event with the exception of the Olympics. By extension, a positive and supportive environment for the future of all girls across the U.S. from all walks of life is finally emerging. And those girls in search of all kinds of future endeavors are no longer pure fantasy but translate into real possibilities.

And for those of you too young to remember or not born yet, there was a time when a male coach would never want to be associated with coaching women. They would not take those coaching jobs because they thought it was a step down, that women were not worth the effort and looked upon it as a humiliation. And there certainly was a time when you would never get an undergraduate male athlete willing to volunteer his free time to play basketball with a girl. In fact these guys are not just practice players but have become the designated cheerleaders for the women. They then encourage their male friends to go to games and support women’s sports at their schools. So, there are hidden trade offs too.

Women’s sports will continue to thrive because of the attention paid and insight given by men in collaboration with women. Gender equity will not evolve without the support of men. Its intent was not to bar men. Its intent was to help women succeed. And unless the NCAA realizes that, Title IX will not fulfill its intended purpose.

Copyright ©2006 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net

TROOPS PAY HIDDEN COST OF MULTIPLE DEPLOYMENTS

By Diane M. Grassi

The ravages of war are hell and collateral damage that includes loss of life, permanent disability and war-related illness in both military and civilian populations is expected. But too often American soldiers have been stung by the treatment they have received with respect to their healthcare upon returning stateside.

Unanticipated by the United States Department of Defense (DOD), healthcare services provided returning soldiers from the War in Viet Nam and more recently the Gulf War were grossly under-funded, and the criticism that endured thereafter was a lesson thought to be learned for future U.S. military engagements. And in that effort, the U.S. military has been sure to launch continual public relations campaigns to project an image that active duty troops deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan receive the best healthcare that money can buy.

The Department of Defense’s Deployment Health Clinical Center website reads, “Fostering a trusting partnership between military men and women, veterans, their families and their healthcare providers to ensure the highest quality care for those who make sacrifices in the world’s most hazardous workplace.” But when it comes to the mental healthcare status of troops during deployment and upon their return to the U.S., it is woefully lacking.

There is no longer a shortage of laws and regulations in place as existed during Viet Nam or during the Gulf War with respect to mandated healthcare screenings for returning soldiers. But a lack of political will by the Department of Veterans Affairs in concert with the DOD added to a lack of oversight by a lethargic U.S. Congress, has made life extremely difficult for soldiers with acute mental health problems or those hoping to avoid them by seeking help.

Multiple administrative dilemmas at play at once have impacted the quality of life for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and upon their return. Immediately, due to a shortage of manpower, troops are now being re-deployed to battle as many as five times with less and less time to decompress between tours of duty. Were there not a need for so many bodies in the field, troops displaying emotional problems would be a liability and sent home for treatment.

Colonel Elspeth Ritchie, an expert in psychiatry for the Army’s Surgeon General has insisted that the DOD still prioritizes the mental health of service members. But she admitted that, “Some practices, such as sending service members diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) back into combat had been driven in part by troop shortage.” Absent of outwardly exhibiting symptoms of mental disorders such as PTSD, many troops fail to report their problems due to fear of retribution or are not aware there is a problem until they start acting out in other ways such as through drug or alcohol abuse.

Public Law 105-85, Section 762-767 enacted as part of the 1998 Defense Authorization Act was presented in 1997 in order to force the DOD to comply with both pre-deployment health assessment and post-deployment health assessment for returning soldiers as the result of healthcare problems them after the Gulf War. Through the filing of forms 2795 and 2796 respectively, their purpose is to trigger physical as well as mental health evaluations of troops. However, oversight of such examinations is spotty and the way in which the mental health assessment is recorded, if at all, is based upon the troop’s own self-evaluation by way of answering 4 questions concerning PTSD symptoms.

The 1998 law requires evidence that face-to-face interviews are done upon demobilization, but the DOD has refused to turn over such documentation to the Congress, for the past four years, in order to verify that it has been adequately done. Therefore, all of the regulations in the world are of little use unless there is implementation of said regulations.

And leaving the care of returning soldiers up to themselves or their families is hardly the way system was set up to work. There are nearly 70 stories of soldiers who have committed suicide either in Iraq, Afghanistan or stateside since the inception of the War on Terror. There could be more since suicides are considered part of non-combat related casualties and such statistics remain sketchy. And in most of these cases, either the families of these soldiers had pleaded for help for their loved ones, fellow soldiers reported abnormal behaviors, or soldiers themselves confided in their superiors about their troubles. Unfortunately, too many never came forward at all, fearing stigmatization.

The military subscribes to the “watchful waiting” concept with respect to mental health problems. But when it concerns PTSD, symptoms often take 6 months to a year to manifest during which time a person may have already resorted to self-medication through illicit drugs or alcohol accompanied by violent or other self-destructive behaviors. Such presents more need for preventative assessments, not less.

For those troops who have requested face-to-face evaluations there are some areas of the country which have a waiting list up to a year and then there is often dispensing of anti-depressants, often by clinicians without any psychiatric training, without any accompanying counseling or therapy of follow-up. There is even a highly touted “telemental” therapy which troops can eventually utilize which is basically counseling by e-mail or instant messaging on the internet. It is hardly adequate for a person experiencing severe anxiety, night sweats, flashbacks, or bouts of paranoia.

A May 2006 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that four of five returning troops, potentially at risk for PTSD, were not referred for further mental health evaluation. Half of those eventually got help on their own but less than 10% were referred through the military. A September 2006 GAO report highlighted that the VA underestimated the cost of serving veterans upon return from Iraq and Afghanistan due to pre-war budget figures, yet still failed to report such problems to the Congress.

In December 2006 the GAO released an additional report which shows that the funds allocated to the VA for mental health have not been spent on mental health care accordingly. The report discloses that the VA has no system in place to track spending on mental healthcare and that funds may have gone to other resources instead. But such an indictment of the VA does not alleviate lawmakers of their oversight responsibilities, either.

Dr. Frances Murphy, Undersecretary for Health Policy Coordination at the VA said in March 2006 that there is a need for improvement for mental healthcare for an increasing number of veterans seeking help. She said, “VA clinics do not provide mental health or substance abuse care, or if they do, waiting lists render that care virtually inaccessible.” “The VA needs more capacity so that vets can get treatment and don’t have to wait,” according to Paul Sullivan, a former senior analyst at the VA prior to April 2006 and now Director of Programs for Veterans for America, an advocacy organization.

Furthermore, while waiting to see a VA doctor, veterans with severe symptoms of PTSD are often denied disability benefits should they turn to illegal substances as a way to cope. They are then vulnerable to the categorization of “willful misconduct” since the military has a zero tolerance policy for drug abuse. And those who have received benefits are subject to losing them should they be found abusing drugs. Ironically, the VA is tolerant of alcohol abuse, just not illicit drugs. But even then, only if a medical doctor finds that the veteran also has been diagnosed with PTSD may they then continue to receive their disability benefits.

Veterans from the present and ongoing wars have been the best advocates for those presently active duty soldiers, reservists still on call and those now discharged. Such organizations and grassroot efforts have successfully lobbied lawmakers, attended and testified in hearings on Capitol Hill and in doing so have unearthed the inadequate access to mental healthcare for troops. And as typical of U.S. medical insurance plans, mental healthcare always takes a back seat to physical medicine. And it continues to remain the biggest hidden cost as the result of the War on Terror.

Yet through their plight for their brethren in uniform, former brothers in arms have proven that it is not always just a matter of throwing money at a situation to solve a crisis, as inadequate access to mental healthcare presents a crisis of its own. Certainly the invisible front line and a deceptive enemy have made for a war unlike any other that the U.S. military has previously fought.

Yet, much like prior wars fought by the U.S. armed forces, present and future veterans of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will have not only fought for their health and survival on the battlefield but many must continue to fight to an ineffectual government for their continued survival. Certainly, it was to suppose to have been better by now, but sadly it is but another testament to benign neglect by those with the power to affect change.


Copyright ©2006 Diane M. Grassi
Contact: dgrassi@cox.net