Gender Politics in US College Athletic Departments

The Case of the University of Minnesota Merger

Lisa A. Kihl, Vicki D. Schull, Sally Shaw

• Publisher: Palgrave Pivot
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN:
  9781137485083
• eBook ISBN:
  9781137485090
• Topic: Didattica
• Subtopic: Amministrazione nella didattica

This book examines the gendered politics in the context of a merger of the women's and men's athletic departments at the University of Minnesota over a ten year plus span. Examining the athletic department merger helps us understand women's continual under-representation in University athletics despite Title IX legislation passing 40 years ago. Using interview with organizational stakeholders and archival document data, the book explores how organizational change in the form of a merger is gendered with relation to the premerger, merged, post-merger stages.

© The Author(s) 2016

Lisa A. Kihl, Vicki D. Schull and Sally ShawGender Politics in US College Athletic Departments10.1057/978-1-137-48509-0_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction and Theoretical Framework

Lisa A. Kihl¹ , Vicki D. Schull² and Sally Shaw³

(1)

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

(2)

Minnesota State University, Mankato, Minnesota, USA

(3)

University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

Abstract

Drawing on historical documents, interviews, and media, we illustrate the history of gender segregated athletic departments in the USA and sport organizations internationally. The social and political pressures that led to their amalgamation (i.e., Title IX in the USA and neoliberal forces internationally) are discussed. Subsequently, an overview of the conceptual framework, tying together the gender, organizational politics, and merger literature is also delineated.

Keywords

NeoliberalismGender relationsMerger stages

End Abstract

The merger of the men’s and women’s athletic departments at the University of Minnesota changed the sporting landscape of that institution forever. Minnesota’s merger was not an isolated incident as, since the 1980s, mergers of sport organizations based on gender have been a common feature of the sport landscape. Many of these combinations were the result of organizations’ attempts to eliminate redundancies in operations and services while capitalizing on the synergistic potential between similar organizations (e.g., the English Hockey Association merger in 1997, the University of Arkansas athletic department merger in 2007, and the New Zealand Golf merger in 2005). The analysis of merging gendered sport organizations provides a rich context in which to understand not only the occurrence of a radical organizational change but also the politics involved during organizational change processes which can be gendered. In this book, we draw from the gender, organizational politics, and merger literature to create a framework to help us understand this merger in terms of the gendered political nature of organizational change.

Rationale for Mergers

One of the ripple effects of the passing of the Title IX, ¹ legislation was the national trend of merging women’s athletic departments into pre-established men’s departments (Hult, 1989; Santomier, 1979). Prior to Title IX, men’s athletics were administered by separate departments and conversely women’s athletics were typically administered by physical education departments. Title IX spurred increased women’s competitive opportunities that posed financial and governance challenges for institutions, and contested men’s power and traditions (Uhlir, 1982). Legitimating and supporting separate women’s intercollegiate athletic departments assumedly created competition for resources and constrained men’s athletics, so that most higher education “administrators chose to create (generally without negotiation or comprise) monolithic administrative sub-units” (Santomier, 1979, p. 27).

Women’s sports had their own governance and rules structures, conferences, and administrators that were separate, even in sports played by both genders, such as tennis. These structures differed greatly from men’s sports. For example, the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) was formed in 1971 to govern women’s college sports, while the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) governed men’s college sports (Staurowsky, 2003; Wu, 1997). The separate structure, teamed with the well-established philosophical educational model of “for women by women,” resulted in a high number of female athletic administrators and educators within women’s college sport programs (Willey, 1996; Wu 1997). Women’s athletic departments were governed much according to the AIAW governance ideals and the men’s athletic departments were governed mirroring the NCAA’s ideals of capitalism, commercialism, competition, classification of revenue and non-revenue sports, and a judicial system of compliance (Hult, 1980). The governance of Minnesota’s men’s and women’s athletic departments were representative of these two types of governance philosophies.

Despite the NCAA’s efforts to lobby against Title IX regulations, including attempts to exempt men’s revenue sports from its application (Spitz, 1997), in 1974 the Department of Health, Education and Welfare declared that universities and college athletic programs must comply with the law, which provided protection and safeguarded equal opportunities for female athletes on their campuses. Title IX enforcement, therefore, required men’s and women’s athletics to share resources (i.e., money, facilities, personnel, and authority) (Hult, 1989). Advocates of men’s programs and/or “old boys” networks pressured university administrators to merge departments, and many believed that equal opportunity could occur only through consolidation. Consolidation would allow for the amalgamation of athletic conferences and unified governance rules for men’s and women’s sports. The presence of two athletic departments presented overlaps between men’s and women’s organizational structures, redundancies in services, and budget inefficiencies, so, in line with many other American universities, the University of Minnesota administration put in place a proposal to merge the two departments, which we describe in Chapter 3. Mergers are a product of neo-liberal philosophies and policies and we turn briefly to this subject in order to provide a context for the merger.

Neoliberalism, Mergers and Title IX

Neoliberal political thought privileges market forces in all areas of society, including public service provision. Valuing entrepreneurialism, the free market, and free trade (Harvey, 2005), neoliberalism seems to be a simple, clear ideology. Valuing personal freedom and dignity were at the core of its development (Harvey, 2005). Personal freedom in this context is usually understood as the ‘freedom’ to act as an individual and compete with others for resources. For organizations such as the athletic departments at the University of Minnesota, this meant a focus on budgetary efficiencies and effectiveness over community awareness and development (Misener & Mason, 2009). In neo-liberal dominated Western societies, key stakeholders might argue that mergers are rational and based on the best interests of the organizations involved. However, within that same neo-liberal environment, mergers often result in job losses, uncertainty, politicking, and fear.

Gender and Neoliberalism

Neo-liberalism’s ideology of competition promotes the individualization of the workforce. Under the banner of ‘freedom’ to change jobs and be flexible in working opportunities, such individualization can in fact promote uncertainty within organizations as workers have little or no job security. Compounding this, mergers also promote de-unionized and non-contracted work for women (Tienari, 2000). In such an environment, women are less likely to form a collective voice, thus dampening calls for diversity within organizations (Blackmore & Sachs, 2003). The reduction of a collective voice can provide well-defined arenas for individual politicking, organizational politics, and power struggles between previously separate groups attempting to control and influence organizational decision-making (Nguyen & Kleiner, 2003; Tienari, 2000).

We know from extensive organizational research that power and politics are far from symmetrical, particularly when power is considered from a gender perspective (Fletcher, 1999; Fraser, 1988). It is therefore often women who fear they have more to lose than their male counterparts in organizational politics. While Harvey (2005) does not address gender in his analysis of neoliberalism, others have (Teghtsoonian, 2005). Researchers in this area argue that applying the ‘free market’ to equality removes responsibility for gender from communal groups and makes it the responsibility of none (Bacchi & Eveline, 2003). With the associated competitive pressures of neo-liberalism, gender equity takes a back seat in organizational priorities.

Alongside this move toward the free market is the development of commercial enterprise. In US intercollegiate sport, neoliberal-influenced market forces have been explicitly utilized to capitalize on commercial enterprise, turning sport from a competitive, educational, and participatory activity into a commercially driven business (Hult, 1989). Arguably, it was this philosophy that led to the push for mergers in the 1980s as the powerful NCAA took over women’s intercollegiate sport from the AIAW. As the implications of Title IX began to bite in the form of reduced spending on some men’s intercollegiate sport programs, powerful individuals in the NCAA promoted the idea that the only way to recoup those losses was to take over women’s sport (Uhlir, 1987). Lobbying hard, and undermining the AIAW, the NCAA established alternative women’s competitions and championships. Unsurprisingly, with its greater access to television rights and funding, the NCAA’s competitions were more attractive to the larger universities’ women’s programs (Uhlir, 1987). In 1982, the AIAW folded and, along with it, the demise of an educationally focused women’s sport program in intercollegiate sport was underway.

There are multiple consequences from this period in intercollegiate sport. Most importantly for us is the dramatic decrease in the numbers of women in leadership positions since the 1970s. As early as 1984, Seha stated:

The plight of female professionals in athletic administration and coaching contrasts sharply with the growth of opportunities for female athletes. These professional women have been systematically eliminated from positions of control in women’s athletic programs. Departmental mergers and the demise of the AIAW were the principle reasons for this loss. (p. 124)

In 1987, Uhlir noted 90% of women’s programs were headed by men. This trend has continued well into the 2000s, and the latest report indicated 89.4% of NCAA Division I athletic departments are led by men (Acosta & Carpenter, 2014).

The embrace of neoliberalism has created an anomaly that may be unique to sport. In the wider organizational research, some have critiqued the short-term contract environment of neoliberalism for undermining women’s ability to climb the leadership ladder (Blackmore & Sachs, 2003). In sport organizations, however, mergers actually represent situations in which women were in leadership positions, from which they were removed post-merger. Research from Europe and Australasia supports the American experience. In England, Wales, Australia, and New Zealand, women successfully led women’s golf, hockey, squash, cricket, and other sports (Velija, Ratna, & Flintoff, 2012). As those organizations merged, more men than women were appointed to leadership roles, as men were most often considered to be ‘the best person for the job’ or were better at putting themselves forward for powerful positions (Shaw, 2006). The one area in sport where women were in significant leadership roles has been undermined by the mergers influenced by neolibe...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Frontmatter
• 1. Introduction and Theoretical Framework
• 2. Ms. and M
• 3. To Merge or Not to Merge: That Is the Question!
• 4. Minnesota’s Merger Syndrome
• 5. The Rubber Hits the Road!
• 6. We Are Minnesota!
• Backmatter