Federal Court Rules Cheerleading is NOT a sport. - MERGED THREADS

Parent Cafe
61

<p>

</p>

<p>How exactly is that “left out of the discussion” when it gets raised in every single discussion of Title IX anywhere, including this thread (several times)? There are at least three answers to that point, although one of them is not sympathetic to the current Titlx IX regime.</p>

<p>First, it seems possible, even likely, that “men as a group” are more interested in sports because sports “as a group” provide far more economic opportunities to men as a group than to women as a group – more professional outlets, and much higher professional payrolls. There’s not much the government or colleges can do about that, but that doesn’t mean that they should just passively accept the imbalance and translate it to scholarship and training opportunities in college, too. And over time the parity in college athletics DOES have an effect on the “real” world. WNBA players earn a fraction of what their male counterparts in the NBA earn, but pre-Title IX there was no such thing as a WNBA OR college scholarships for women basketball players. So what kind of effect do you think that had on high school girls’ interest in playing basketball?</p>

<p>Second (and related): Those of you who have grown up in a Title IX world have no idea how few athletic opportunities were open to women in the pre-Title IX world, and how little interest there appeared to be among women in those few opportunities. And, in fact, mere passage of Title IX did nothing to change that. It was the aggressive Labor Department regulations that finally forced colleges to hire coaches, start teams, etc. The result – and it has been a pretty direct result – was to unleash a veritable flood of female sports participation. It has really been only one generation, and women’s involvement in sports has increased exponentially, and I don’t think there’s any real indication that a plateau has been reached. So, if you think sports are a good thing, that has to be a good thing.</p>

<p>Third, part – a large part – of the difference in men’s and women’s interest in sports has to be due to the topic of this thread. A large portion of the physical, athletic activities that women have done traditionally, and are drawn to now, are defined as “not sports” because they lack scoring and head-to-head competition. Dancing, yoga, and, yes, cheerleading. Circus arts. Perhaps Title IX has too male a conception of what sports is. Why DOES an activity need scoring, competition, and winners/losers in order to be considered worthy?</p>

62

<p>

</p>

<p>I always say that my high school was the reason for Title IX. 3200 students and no girls’ sports.</p>

<p>I don’t think it’s true that males as a group are more interested in participating in sports than females. Guys may watch more sports, but looks at the rosters of the kids’ rec soccer and baseball/softball teams. I don’t think more boys sign up than girls. Go to my kids’ former middle school. Just as many girls sign up for athletics as boys. </p>

<p>I admit that I get misty-eyed at school pep rallies…they honor the girls’ and boy’s teams equally and the kids think nothing of it…but in four years of HS, I never saw a single girl recognized at a school pep rally.</p>

63

<p>

</p>

<p>Our high school pep rallies were a joke. They tried adding all these “reality-TV” type games to them. Also, they talked about EVERY SINGLE group in one pep rally. Was normally one of the most boring things ever. My dad tells me they’re even worse now!</p>

64

<p>hops_scout, it’s just the idea of an inequality being corrected within my lifetime. Think Rosa Parks - no one thinks a thing about where anyone sits on the bus, but it’s moving to think of all the work and sacrifice that went into making that mundane activity be mundane. Girls think nothing of being in school sports, but I remember when they weren’t allowed, so it moves me. It has nothing to do with the content of the pep rallies themselves.</p>

65

<p>

</p>

<p>Because that’s the origin of the word. Sports referred to games and eventually games involving physical activity.</p>

<p>That holds for football, basketball, baseball, (all types of) hockey, golf, wrestling/boxing, tennis, soccer and other traditional sports. It doesn’t hold for cheerleading, dancing, or other primarily artistic endeavors that are now frequently billed as sports. It also doesn’t hold for artistic endeavors like marching band that also require strenuous physical activity but aren’t billed as sports.</p>

<p>And while there may be more to basketball than getting it through the hoop, it doesn’t mean there’s any extra reward for being artistic. All the fancy dribbling in the world is pointless if you don’t score. And an acrobatic dunk in traffic doesn’t get you any more points than an open 15 foot jump shot. You’ll even find some old basketball fans that think the sport is less watchable now because of the focus on individual showmanship over effective team play.</p>

66

<p>I would like to add my support to what MissyPie and JHS are saying about women’s sports in our lifetime:</p>

<p>“Those of you who have grown up in a Title IX world have no idea how few athletic opportunities were open to women in the pre-Title IX world…”</p>

<p>When I attended high school, the only girls’ sport was the softball team. That wasn’t a problem for me because I can trip over my shoelaces. However, my sister was a truly, truly gifted athlete and there was nothing for her. What a waste and what a shame! Today, I go down to my local high school and I see beautiful, healthy, competitive girls in a bunch of different sports. And yet, if it weren’t illegal, our school board would still cheat girls’ sports, because I hear them discuss it at board meetings. This makes me furious. (!!!)</p>

<p>To me, whether or not cheerleading gets legally determined to be a sport should be carefully analyzed to see whether it would result in other women’s sports somehow getting screwed over. By that, I mean let’s please be careful that approval of cheerleading does not result in decision-makers then being able to drop other women’s sports. My inclination is to say leave cheerleading out of the sports category (this is NO reflection on the athleticism or difficulty of the activity) for this reason alone.</p>

<p>Also, the idea that it should be OK to offer fewer women’s sports because women could take choir or art instead is exactly the kind of tortured ridiculous offensive illogic that forced us to pass Title IX to begin with.</p>

67

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ve visited Olympia (in Greece) and went to the museum there. From what I recall (It’s been about 15 years), the term sport referred to a pastime. The first Olympic events weren’t games; these events were individual activities–wrestling, running, javelin throwing, boxing, and chariot riding.</p>

68

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Perhaps there should be a debate over the meaning of game.</p>

69

<p>“This is a HUGE judgement call that as a mother of a collegiate cheerleader, I find offensive. What makes you think ALL gymnasts’ tumbling is superior to cheerleaders’? Clearly you’ve never seen southern cheerleading. My daughter has competed since first grade and has done school cheerleading since seventh.”</p>

<p>Of course it’s a judgement call. Just like all the debate about whether or not a number of activities are “sports” is a judgement call. I’m sure all the calls are based on observation. Personally, I don’t take offense when someone says gymnastics, diving, or any other activity shouldn’t be a sport because it’s judged. I disagree, in part because I understand the judging for some of those activities, and in part because after a summer of softball I’m not sure umpires (or referees) are always all that more objective than a judge! </p>

<p>Still, I thought we were talking about a philosophy here - what makes a sport, are the current NCAA guidelines appropriate, and how does Title IX tie in. Until the quoted post, I never got the feeling that this was a personal attack on cheerleaders and their parents as opposed to a general discussion.</p>

70

<p>"Why would “that you do something” be the only basis for making an athletic endeavor a sport? I can shoot a basket–I did something. Does that put me in the same category as Paul Pierce or Kevin Garnett? There’s more to basketball than putting the ball through a hope. There’s a level of artistry that IMO is akin to what gymnasts and figure skaters do. The sports where an athlete scores points (I guess that’s what you mean by doing something) also involve judgment calls. Refs make subjective decisions all the time in basketball, baseball, and football. To me, it’s the level of athleticism (among other criteria) involved that makes an activity a sport and I’d put competitive cheerleading in that category. "</p>

<p>You don’t play a football, basketball, volleyball etc game and then decide the winner by deciding who was more graceful or who had better uniforms.</p>

<p>I don’t think it’s at all insulting to certain activities to say they are not sports. Ballet dancers are not insulted that their reward is a standing ovation rather than a number on a scoreboard.</p>

<p>Cleaning hotel rooms is probably as tough a physical and mental challenge as there is, but that doesn’t make it a sport.</p>

<p>Let ice dancers and figure skaters perform in ice shows. Let gymnasts perform in Vegas shows and in circuses. Let divers thrill tourists by diving off cliffs at resorts.</p>

71

<p>"I can shoot a basket–I did something. Does that put me in the same category as Paul Pierce or Kevin Garnett? "</p>

<p>Yes, it does…that’s the beauty of sport. If you’re out on the court with Pierce and Garnett, and you throw up a crazy awkward off-balance shot that just happens to go thru the hoop, it counts EXACTLY as much as Pierce or Garnett throwing down a graceful flying 360-degree monster slam dunk.</p>

72

<p>i hardly think that ‘competitive cheerleading’ rises to the level of (rosa parks’s contribution to) the civil rights movement. but that’s just me.</p>

<p>schmaltz: i completely agree.</p>

73

<p>

</p>

<p>Cheerleading in first grade? Seriously? That must indeed be a southern thing. No problem with cheerleading, but the thought of encouraging it among elementary school girls starts getting a little beauty-pageant-ish to me.</p>

74

<p>For all the sports I am familiar with, you have leagues of teams. Your team competes with each team in the league 1 on 1 in contests that typically take 2-4 hours, and you keep a record of wins and losses (your schedule). After the schedule is complete you determine a league champion, usually by means of a playoff but sometimes just by which team has the best record. The league winners then often meet in a regional or national tournament, ultimately leading to a national champion.</p>

<p>Does this exist for competitive cheerleading? I honestly don’t know… the only competitive cheerleading I have seen is on ESPN where they bring in teams from all over to compete in a corporate-sponsored event.</p>

75

<p>Pizzagirl…just out of curiosity, do you have a problem with six year old girls participating in dance and being involved in the recitals? What about the elementary-aged girl who watches the summer olympics with her family and is so impressed after watching the gymnastics or diving competitions that they want their parents to enroll them in lessons? If the parents can afford it, and the CHILD wants to learn, then why not? Cheerleading, IMO, is no different. It’s not “beauty pageant ish”. It’s a SPORT. The problem, I believe, is the perception of cheerleading. The competitive cheerleader of today is not the girl twenty years ago who stood on the sideline waving pom poms who only worried about dating the star football player. This activity has evolved into a full-fledged, hardcore sport. Schools like U of Kentucky, LSU, U of F, U of Central Florida, Tennessee, U of Louisville, etc. are known for their incredible cheerleading programs. They continue to do well at NCA nationals every year and offer phenomenal scholarships to talented athletes (BOTH male and female). Many schools are trying to elevate their programs as well. I see this as a step back and feel people need to wake up and see what truly happens on the competition floor today rather than basing their opinions on oudated and misguided perceptions.</p>

76

<p>My daughter attended a K-12 public school for a chunk of elem & for middle school.</p>

<p>Some of the high school teams ( I think basketball) had 2nd & 3rd graders for a few games as cheerleaders. They didn’t do it very often , it was more a way to get kids involved with big brother/sisters, but they had a great time, and they looked adorable- epecially compared with the older teams from the other schools.;)</p>

77

<p>Cheerleading is still about cheering for someone else. I don’t have a problem with a middle or hs girl pursuing it, but I guess when it comes to a first grader, I don’t see the need to set up for her that boys do things and girls cheer for them. Then again I don’t even know of any place that teaches cheerleading to young girls. They take gymnastics and / or dance if they are so inclined. I’m strongly guessing this is southern vs northern here.</p>

78

<p>

</p>

<p>When my D had her interview with Harvard, the alum who conducted the interview (gentleman in his fifties) could not understand the concept of competitive cheerleading. When she explained that she was a six time national champion, he looked perplexed and said, “You cheered on a football team that went on to win several national titles?” “No,” she replied, “In competitive cheerleading you don’t cheer for any other team. You cheer as a squad in front of judges who then give you a score. You compete against the other cheerleading squads for the highest score.” This concept was completely unknown to him. Our daughter did not cheer to support another team (boy’s football, basketball, etc.) until middle school. Also, although I will agree cheerleading is typically more prevalent and serious in the south, it has gained a fairly strong foothold in the north as well.</p>

79

<p>

</p>

<p>Yet there are still cheerleaders on the sidelines waving pom poms, dancing, doing flips, standing in a variety of formations and plenty of other things. How exactly is competitive cheerleading different (aside from the apparent lack of something to actually <em>cheer</em> for)? Highest toss wins? Longest hold? Most consecutive flips? Fastest completed routine? I don’t recall seeing anyone question the athleticism that cheerleading requires, because really that’s beside the point.</p>

80

<p>I have been thinking a lot about this thread, because it has so many interesting cross-currents. </p>

<p>Anyone who knows me – online or in real life – knows that by culture and predisposition I am with those who are sneering at “competitive cheer”. My instinct is to dismiss it as a kitschy Dixieism – one step up from beauty pageants and other “competitions” to see how conventionally submissive a girl can be – and to be suitably alarmed at the prospect that it could replace “real” sports like volleyball at the college level. Of course it’s athletic, we say, but there must be something wrong with it.</p>

<p>But what, exactly, IS wrong with it? That it involves somewhat subjective scoring and style points? So does gymnastics (and skating, and boxing, for that matter), and unlike those sports cheer actually requires teamwork, real coordination among more than a couple people, a positive sports value for most of us. That its competitive infrastructure is relatively new and not yet fully developed (no network deal)? Get to that in a sec. That it derives from a classic activity representing the second-class status of women? Yeah, that troubles me, but somehow I manage to get past how boxing, wrestling, fencing, judo, karate, tai kwan do, football, lacrosse, hockey, etc. all derive from not-entirely-laudable assumptions about what men are supposed to be doing.</p>

<p>Lots of people are having trouble defining “real sports” here. Is head-to-head binary competition necessary? Not in golf or any speed/measurement sport, like track and field, or swimming, skiing, or skating. Is unambiguous scoring necessary? I like unambiguous scoring, but the trend has been moving the other direction, so that skating and gymnastics have been joined by the whole plethora of “X-Games” that are mostly judge-scored. And, as noted earlier, even in the classic binary competitions provided by boxing and martial arts, there is a lot of subjective scoring involved (since we are unwilling to score by the unambiguous criterion of major injury ).</p>

<p>Really, what’s wrong (if anything) with cheer is simply that it’s girly. Girls do it, mainly, girls like it, and it only recently became (overtly) competitive because so did girls. If it were a real sport, men would be doing it in large numbers.</p>

<p>And that just isn’t right. In the end, sports equality for girls doesn’t just mean that they get to have their own helmet-sports, concussions, and scoring titles. Why shouldn’t it mean that they get their own sports, too? Sports where the question isn’t whether there are a few girls who can do stuff almost as well as mediocre boys, but whether there are things girls can do that boys can’t?</p>

<p>People say that cheerleading (and ice skating, and gymnastics) are too close to dance to be called sports. So what? Why don’t dance and yoga – activities that appeal to and occupy millions of girls – count as sports? Because there is no (overt) competition, and no (overt) scoring, and art matters? Why, exactly, do we value scoring and devalue art? Because we want clear winners? Again, so what? Why is that the be-all and end-all?</p>