As you’re probably aware, a federal judge ruled last week that Quinnipiac University in Connecticut could not count competitive cheerleading as a varsity sport, and thus had to reinstate volleyball at least for another year. After that, the school might still eliminate volleyball if it finds a satisfactory way, according to the judge, to comply with Title IX.
I was asked on an ESPN.com chat last week what I thought of the ruling, and said I was still sorting my way through it. And here’s why. It’s not because I disagree with the judge’s decision. I think it was absolutely the right one.
The trickier issue, to me, comes in trying to determine what is a “sport.” I would guess a lot of people might think competitive cheer is just some made-up hokum that should be getting left behind as we start the second decade of the 2000s, rather than being debated as a “sport.”
Meanwhile, others will point to the stunts that are done, the physical prowess of the participants, the sense that it really is competitive, the increasing participation numbers … and say, “Well, why not?”
I think I’m residing in the ground between these two views. I always have been more open to a broader definition of “sports.” In part because I think, as I’ve mentioned before in this blog, that too often the sports that get criticized as not being “real sports” are those not traditionally defined as legitimate by a mostly male point of view. In part because they stress physical attributes in which men don’t necessarily have any advantage in over women, such as grace and flexibility.
Competitive cheer would seem to me, if it’s done correctly, to have the potential to be counted as a varsity sport. And it may appeal to some participants in a way that other athletic activities wouldn’t. So I’m not of the mindset to just automatically toss competitive cheer on the junk pile with eye-rolling derision.
Thus, I could see a school trying to cultivate a competitive cheer program if it really believes that’s serving a recognizable and measurable student interest.
But I can’t agree at all with competitive cheer ever the taking the place of a traditional sport such as volleyball. If Quinnipiac wanted to add cheer to what it already had as women’s sports, then maybe that would be more palatable to people. But to replace volleyball? That’s absurd.
Furthermore, it seems hard to believe that Quinnipiac officials truly thought this would actually go unchallenged or that they had the slightest chance of defending it in court.
Look, if it were up to me (as if, right?) there would be five women’s sports any college with an athletic department would definitely have: basketball, track and field, volleyball, softball and soccer. From all the data I’ve seen, they are the five most participated-in sports by girls. So it just makes sense to have them available to female student-athletes in college. (The possible exception being, in some cases, softball because of the impact a particularly cold and/or rainy climate can have on that sport).
But I just can’t fathom schools ever putting volleyball in the crosshairs … unless they’re in the process of getting rid of their entire athletic department.
So … the right decision was made by judge Stefan R. Underhill. It wasn’t a grenade thrown at competitive cheer, nor should it have been. But it did send a firm message. And now maybe Quinnipiac will seriously work on solving its athletic department’s financial issues in a way that is fair and sensible.
*_Radio today: On “She’s Got Game,” (1 p.m. Central time), Brenda VanLengen and I will be talking with the Indiana Fever’s Katie Douglas and former Colorado coach Ceal Barry, who is now chair of the Division I women’s basketball issues committee.
http://www.cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1007/22/cnr.05.html
CNN interviewed Nancy Hogshead-Maker and her response congealed all tmy meandering thoughts on this topic. The transcript can be found via the link above.
One specific point she made is how the NCAA determines what is and isn’t a “sport” and Cheer did not meet the most basic requirement (which has little to do with athletic ability and everything to do with infrastructure for the competition).
As always, thanks for a great read.
I agree Mechelle…while I can appreciate Cheer as an athletic endeavor – I have trouble seeing it as a competitive sport. I also admit I harbor negative feelings about “Cheer” after dealing with them for 6 years at Tech. They often seem to forget that we were there to watch women’s basketball first. Tech got a technical foul once because Cheer wouldn’t get off the court after halftime and I had a little chat with some of them after the game.
Frankly, I also think it’s in poor taste at a women’s basketball game to have to watch them shaking their butts during halftime or whatever.. I used to love watching our girls walk back out onto the court through “Cheer” making them (politely) move out of the way.
Sorry…too many years watching girls flick their hair doesn’t convince me of the sportiness.
It’s much more a performance than a “sport” and that doesn’t take away from it’s athleticism.
If they were planning to replace a men’s sport with male cheerleaders, everyone would immediately call it ridiculous. That the same situation with a women’s sport has to go to court shows how far we still have to go.
[...] 27, 2010 by Helen From Mechelle’s blog: The cheerleading thing As you’re probably aware, a federal judge ruled last week that Quinnipiac University in [...]
Great article. I’m from the UK where cheerleading is a totally alien culture!! I think it’s right to recognise the athleticism in cheerleading, and one could argue it’s closer to sports/activities such as gymnastics, but you hit the nail on the head when you said it should not replace volleyball. If the roots of cheerleading are in supporting another sporting activity eg. the basketball game going on in front of them, what’s next, which crowd does the best wave competitions?
It’s hard enough getting girls/women into sport (especially I might add here in England) so to take women’s sport off the agenda is a definite no no.
pilight – you hit the nail on the head.
This decision is the latest salvo in an ongoing 15 year argument between my oldest daughter (cheerleader) and my youngest daughter (bball, vball, track). For the time-being the younger seemed to get the last word with a facebook post to her sister that stated that the cheerleading is not a sport position was now confirmed by a US district court judge.
It does feel a bit like this is a case of ‘only in America’. Where else would one even consider that it might be a sport, let alone take a case to court to decide the question?
Whilst the culture of cheerleading may be alien in the UK however, that doesn’t mean that there is no cheerleading whatsoever. Every so often there will be something about it in the media, and one recalls that when the Rupert Murdoch backed channel Sky Sports started up in the early 1990′s and pioneered showing a ‘live’ Monday night match, cheerleaders were one of the features of their supposedly innovative approach to the game!
Generally though, I think that it is as likely to catch on here as gridiron football. (Not very)
The cheerleading/sport debate has been going on for a long time. As a grad student in sports psychology this discussion was often quite heated. My argument, in addition to the lack of competition was that cheerleading is NOT an inclusive “sport”. When was the last time you turned on a college football game and saw an overweight, unattractive cheerleader? High school cheerleaders have become more inclusive but the top colleges–no way. Have you seen many cheerleaders with short hair, glasses, tatoos? You do not have to look like a beauty queen, wear a bow in your hair, a lot of make-up and have perfect teeth to participate in sports.
To me, it’s not unlike ballroom dancing. I think the athleticism and conditioning of a ballroom dancer far exceeds that of many, ahem, golfers or baseball players. To say it isn’t a sport shouldn’t be a negative assessment, just that it’s not in that category.