answer to comprehensive exam question two cynthia miller...

Running head: LEADERSHIP IMPACTS DIVERSITY 1

Answer to Comprehensive Exam Question Two

Cynthia Miller Veraldo

Urban Educational Leadership Program

University of Cincinnati

September 8, 2012

LEADERSHIP IMPACTS DIVERSITY 2

Discuss the ways in which leadership impacts diversity within the context of Title IX.

Include in your discussion the role of Senior Women’s Administrator in the

contemporary athletic department.

I feel compelled to begin to answer this question with a small personal reflection. On

June 23, 2012, Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972 turned 40 years old. I

celebrated my 41st birthday one day later. I have literally grown up with Title IX in place. I

think about how different my mom’s experience in education and sport was from my own

because of this important legislation. She was funneled into courses like home economics and

literature electives instead of industrial arts or more challenging mathematics and science

courses. She was encouraged to become a homemaker, teacher, or nurse rather than the more

male dominated careers of doctor, lawyer, or engineer. She had the opportunity to play sports,

but it was very similar to intramurals - against other girls from her school. She never had the

opportunity to play interscholastically like my father. She did not have the opportunity to earn a

college scholarship for her athletic talents like a couple of her good male friends. Her

opportunities in sport and education were limited; these limitations may have directly impacted

her career path and life outcomes.

One generation later, opportunities for girls and women in sport expanded immensely and

much of that expansion was due to Title IX. I had the opportunity and was encouraged to take

any academic course I wanted in school. I knew I was going to college and could major in any

field of study I desired. I started playing t-ball at age 6 and when I got to junior high we

competed against all of the same schools and had the ability to earn the same championship titles

that the boys did in almost all of the same sports. I was recruited to college for my athletic

talents as well as my academic talents: my opportunities were rarely limited.


Today, my daughter has even more opportunities than I had at her age. Sport has

expanded exponentially outside of school and the opportunities to participate in a larger variety

of school sports have broadened as well. Uniform purchases are done on the same schedule for

both boys and girls sports, awards and recognition are handled in the same way, and coaches are

paid similarly to coach girls and boys. My daughter is constantly surprised to hear that girls did

not always have the opportunity to compete against other schools in sports or that girls were not

always able to earn a scholarship to play sports in college. My daughter knows gender inequity,

but mostly because of the stories and histories I share with her. I believe that we have come a

long way; however, there is still much work to be done for complete gender equity. Leadership

is essential in working toward that goal.

To begin a discussion of how leadership impacts diversity within the context of Title IX,

it is relevant to provide a timeline of events leading up to the passage of the important legislation

as well as mention some of the key leaders who contributed to the process.

Before women even competed in sports in universities and colleges, it is worthwhile to

acknowledge the leadership for gender equity from women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia

Mott, and Susan B. Anthony who led the way in the women’s suffrage movement in the United

States beginning in the late 1840s. Their leadership and perseverance made it possible for all

women in the United States to have economic and political rights such as owning property and

voting. Eventually their actions laid the groundwork for equality for women in all realms of life

including education and athletics. All three and many others who joined in the fight died before

they were able to see the fruits of their labor beginning with the passage of the 19th Amendment

which gave women the right to vote in 1920. However, because of their courage and

determination, women have the opportunity to lead in politics, business, education, and athletics.


Returning specifically to the context of sport, in 1885 the Association for the

Advancement of Physical Education (AAPE) now called the American Alliance for Health,

Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (AAHPERD) formed to promote physical education

in colleges and universities. In 1891 James Naismith invented the game of basketball and less

than a year later Senda Berenson introduced the game to the women of Smith College (Carpenter

& Acosta, 2005). In 1899 under the umbrella of the AAPE, the women who taught and played

basketball formed the Women’s Basketball Committee (WBC) in order to create their own rules

for the game. In the organization’s second year of existence Senda Berenson took over

leadership of the WBC for the next 16 years (Carpenter & Acosta, 2005). In the late 1880s and

early 1890s women’s participation in athletics continued to grow, particularly at the all women’s

colleges like Smith, Vassar, and Wellesley. In 1917 the Committee on Women’s Athletics

(CWA) formed to standardize women’s participation in all athletics and the WBC became a

subcommittee of that larger organization (Carpenter & Acosta, 2005).

The political climate for women’s suffrage grew throughout the early 1900s, then in 1920

the 19th Amendment passed and women gained the right to vote. Although much ground had

been gained for women both within and outside the context of sport, in 1923, 93% of physical

educators still opposed intercollegiate sport for women (Messner, 1994). The Women’s Division

of the National Amateur Athletic Federation took a firm stand against the highly competitive,

commercial nature of sport for women and instead promoted sportsmanship and enjoyment for

women in sport. In fact, Mabel Lee, the first female president of the American Physical

Education Association firmly opposed women’s athletics following in the footsteps of men’s

programs (Crowley, 2006). In the 1920s, some intercollegiate competition for women did take

place in the form of the telegraph approach where women would perform the sport, usually


archery or rifle, and telegraph their scores to a neutral official. This form of contest eliminated

the intensity of face-to-face competition (Crowley, 2006). Later, play days became very popular

in the 1930s through the 1950s. Women from several institutions would gather on one day to

play basketball, volleyball, track and field, and other sports. Teams were comprised of a mix of

individuals from the various universities so that competition was friendly and the importance of

winning was minimized. There was no emphasis on practice or preparation; the days were

organized for physical fitness and socializing (Crowley, 2006). By 1951, 28% of schools

reported intercollegiate athletic activities for women and 70% reported that play days were the

main form of athletics for females (Crowley, 2006). Eventually, “sport days” became a popular

means for women to express their athletic talents. Sport days differed from play days in two

main ways: 1) women from the same school competed against women from other schools, and 2)

women were often coached by female physical educators who volunteered their time to provide

these opportunities for women (Carpenter & Acosta, 2005). Competition intensified and began

to more closely resemble intercollegiate athletics for men.

In 1925 the CWA changed names again to reflect a more comprehensive role. The new

name was the National Section on Women’s Athletics (NSWA). In 1937, the organization

published the Standards in Athletics for Girls and Women, this organization dealt with all aspects

of sport for girls and women (Carpenter & Acosta, 2005). The organization went through name

changes again in 1952 (National Section on Girls’ and Women’s Athletics – NSGWA) and in

1958 (Division of Girls’ and Women’s Sports – DGWS). “Athletics” was changed to “sport” to

reflect more of the participation opportunities for girls and women including instructional sport

and intramurals in addition to athletics (Carpenter & Acosta, 2005). In 1974 the organization

changed its name to the National Association for Girls and Women in Sport. Today the


organization first named for a single sport, the Women’s Basketball Committee, is 113 years old

and reflects expanded opportunities for girls and women in sport.

Other significant events leading up to the passage of Title IX include the 1954 Brown v.

Board of Education decision which declared that separate public schools for black and white

children and the laws establishing them were unconstitutional (Bell, 2004 ). The decision in this

court case laid some of the groundwork for enhancing the political climate in the United States

for more acceptance of equality of opportunity and the abolishment of segregation. One of the

aspects I find most important about both the decision in Brown v. Board of Education and Title

IX is that the context within which these important changes were made is schools. Even though

it is not a legislated right in the United States to provide all children with a public education,

political leaders found imperative that education be free of discrimination and provide the

possibility of equal opportunity for all children to learn. The leaders of these movements

positively impacted the diversity of students in schools and eventually the diversity of their

experiences of education. We have a long way to go to completely end discrimination in schools

and other aspects of life, but these significant events in our history laid the foundation to

continue the fight.

The other significant event that contributed to changing society’s views on equal and full

access to all aspects of public life was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Not only did this important

piece of legislation prohibit discrimination based on race and sex in public education, but the

application of the law extended to the workplace, restaurants, restrooms, and other public spaces.

All American citizens were gaining access and opportunity and the climate seemed open to

change. Two years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, the National Organization for

Women (NOW) was founded to work on issues of equality specific to the needs of women.


These socio-political events undoubtedly had influence on the leaders that eventually drafted and

lobbied for Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972.

One year prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the DGWS recognized and

accepted intercollegiate varsity competition for “highly skilled” women (Crowley, 2006). In

1964 the National Collegiate Athletic Association which had been the official governing body of

men’s intercollegiate sport since about 1905 (formerly called the Athletic Association of the

United States – AAUS) convened a special session to discuss its intentions in relation to

women’s sports. This is significant because at this time women’s sports had become much more

competitive and began to more closely resemble men’s sports in form, rules, and regulations. In

1965, the DGWS created the Commission on Intercollegiate Sports for Women (CISW) which

later became the Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (CIAW) to develop

guidelines for intercollegiate athletics events and championships (Crowley, 2006). Then in

1967, intercollegiate championships were held for women in the sports of gymnastics, track and

field, swimming, badminton, and volleyball. The expansion of championship competition for

women led to increases in participation and the need for a national organization that embraced a

more intercollegiate model that could expand participation opportunities and incorporate

institutional memberships. Under the direction of Walter Byers, the NCAA was interested in

exploring potential control and supervision of women’s sports. This was highly controversial

because leaders representing interests from physical educators and the DGWS opposed a male

model of intercollegiate athletics that embraced recruitment and scholarships which might lead to

exploitation.

In 1971, the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) was created to

incorporate an intercollegiate model, expand participation opportunities, and incorporate


institutional memberships for women’s athletics (Crowley, 2006). The creation of this

organization was significant because it meant that women could continue to grow and administer

their own sporting experiences without the influence of a male sport governing body. Women

had been successful in this endeavor for over 72 years and that momentum could continue. A

few months after the formation of the AIAW, Congresswoman Edith Green of Tennessee and

Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana proposed legislation focusing on gender discrimination and

gender equity in education - Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act 1972. This significant

piece of legislation stated “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded

from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under an

education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance” (Crowley, 2006, p. 133).

Opportunities for women in education undoubtedly grew, however, girls and women’s sport and

athletics became the most prominent beneficiary of Title IX (Ware, 2007).

After the passage of Title IX, women’s sport continued to flourish particularly under the

leadership of the AIAW. Nonetheless, there continued to be tension about whether or not

women should have the benefit of financial aid for athletic participation. The DGWS had a long

standing belief that athletic scholarships were a source of abuse and exploitation (Carpenter &

Acosta, 2005). Many members of the AIAW initially agreed with this position, however when

polled by the organization, 80 percent supported a change in the DGWS’s policy on financial aid

for female athletes and wanted the authority to award athletic scholarships (Carpenter & Acosta,

2005). In March, 1973, the DGWS revised its philosophical statement on granting athletic

scholarships and recommended the following summarized guidelines: 1) athletic programs

should be offered to enrich the lives of the participants, 2) adequate funding for the entire

program (i.e. offering a variety of sports, adequate travel needs, appropriate food and lodging,


competent officials and coaches, and safe equipment and facilities) should receive priority over

granting athletic scholarships, 3) a focus on educating the participants rather than exploitation for

athletic talent, 4) coaches should devote time to developing the entire program rather than

recruitment of athletes, 5) students should be encouraged to choose a university based on the

education it provides rather than the athletic scholarship, 6) particular sports should not be

favored in granting athletic awards, and 7) participants should be encouraged to participate in

sports for reasons other than financial assistance (Carpenter & Acosta, 2005). These guidelines

were very ambitious, but were pointedly antagonistic to the male model of athletic financial

assistance.

After the passage of Title IX, the NCAA as a whole became uncertain whether or not

they could continue to restrict opportunities to male student athlete participation only. Would

women demand to participate on men’s teams? Numerous questions and concerns triggered the

NCAA to respond to Title IX. In 1974, one of the first attempts was the association’s effort to

convince the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), the appointed body to

oversee compliance to Title IX, to exclude athletics entirely from Title IX. That effort failed.

Later that year, the association took action to try and protect the revenue generating sports from

mandatory compliance to Title IX. Together the NCAA and Senator John Tower of Texas

drafted the Tower Amendment which called for provisions to Title IX that would have revenue

producing sports like football, men’s basketball, and baseball be excluded from compliance to

Title IX. The amendment failed. In continuing the effort to protect the revenue producing

sports, the NCAA and Senator Jacob Javits of New York drafted the Javits Amendment which

essentially added provisions to Title IX that recognized higher equipment and uniform costs,

more officials, etc., and that those differences should not signify inconsistency of support that


would trigger a Title IX compliance problem (Carpenter & Acosta, 2005). This amendment

passed.

In 1975, the NCAA fought further to protect revenue producing sports and pushed a bill

that proposed “any revenue generated by a sport could be used first to offset any expenses of the

generating sport before being shared with any other part of the athletic program’s budget or other

sport” (Carpenter & Acosta, 2005, p. 194). This bill did not pass. At this point and continuing

until 1978, HEW grappled with how institutional compliance would be assessed and enforced.

Finally in 1978, all colleges and universities were required to be in compliance with Title IX and

then in 1979, the three prong test for determining compliance was introduced (Carpenter &

Acosta, 2005). A school must meet one of the following three prongs to achieve compliance:

1. Participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers

substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments.

2. The school can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is

demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of

that sex.

3. The school can demonstrate that the present program fully and effectively

accommodates the interests and abilities of the members of that sex (Carpenter &

Acosta, 2005, p. 76-77).

If an educational institution is not in compliance with Title IX, the penalty is withdrawal of

federal funds; however, federal funds have never been withdrawn regardless of estimates that 80

to 90 percent of all educational institutions are still not in compliance with Title IX (Women’s

Sports Foundation, 2011). When schools are not in compliance the United States Department of

Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR), who took over enforcement of Title IX from HEW in


1990, typically finds the institution in conditional compliance with plans to address the identified

problems (Women’s Sports Foundation, 2011). Lack of true enforcement for non-compliance to

Title IX is likely one reason why gender equity has not been fully realized. Leadership could

more completely and positively impact diversity with a commitment to social justice by

enforcing compliance.

When mandatory compliance to Title IX was implemented, individual institutions

became more uncertain of whether or not they could provide equitable opportunities for men and

women under two separate associations (AIAW and NCAA). At the same time, the NCAA

determined it would be in their best interest to control women’s athletics. In the 1980-81

academic year, the NCAA took over control of women’s intercollegiate athletics and was able to

block the AIAW’s access to national championship financial resources contributing to the

demise of the AIAW (Crowley, 2006). At the time, “the AIAW offered 41 national

championships in 19 sports to over 6,000 teams in 960 member colleges and universities”

(Carpenter & Acosta, 2005, p. 107). Throughout the 1970s and 80s, the NAGWS and the AIAW

provided strong leadership and positively impacted opportunity for girls and women in sports.

As the NCAA took control of the AIAW, men’s and women’s athletic programs merged on

college campuses. Women’s sports, formerly and almost entirely administered and coached by

women, were taken over by men. In the merge, men assumed the role of head athletic director

and women were relegated to associate or assistant roles in administration and assigned as

assistants in coaching (Carpenter & Acosta, 2005). In 1972, a year after the AIAW was created

and the year that Title IX was passed, 90 percent of head athletic directors of women’s programs

were women; since 1980, the percentage of female head athletic directors has lingered between

15 and 21 percent (Claussen & Lehr, 2002). This percentage of head female athletic directors


seems disproportionate to the 42.9 percent of female athletes participating in all three divisions

of the NCAA today (NCAA, 2011).

In 1981, at the time of the merger, the NCAA created the position of Primary Woman

Administrator (PWA) to be implemented at membership institutions to assist in the merging of

men’s and women’s athletics as well as to ensure continued representation of women in athletic

department activities and administration (Claussen & Lehr, 2002; Tiell & Dixon, 2008).

Throughout the 1980s, both men’s and women’s participation rates in intercollegiate athletics

continued to expand. Athletic departments grew and there was a need to examine the role and

tasks of the PWA. In 1990, the PWA designation was changed to Senior Woman Administrator

(SWA) recommended by a Gender Equity Task Force under the supervision of the Committee on

Women’s Athletics in the NCAA (Tiell & Dixon, 2008). A formal definition of the SWA was

included in the NCAA manual. The definition states:

An institutional senior woman administrator is the highest ranking female involved with

the management of the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program. An institution with

a female director of athletics may designate a different female involved with the

management of the intercollegiate program as a fifth representative to the NCAA

governance system (as cited in Tiell & Dixon, 2008, p. 340).

In addition to the PWA/SWA appointments on college campuses, in 1991, the NCAA appointed

its first president of female memberships, Judith Sweet. Sweet had been the head athletic

director at the University of San Diego since 1972, when she became the first woman to oversee

a combined athletics program (NCAA, 2012). Sweet played a major role in overseeing the

implementation of the SWA at membership institutions. Twenty-one years later, the role of the


contemporary SWA has received much attention from academic scholars of intercollegiate

athletics. The following section discusses some of that important research.

The Role of the Senior Woman Administrator in the Contemporary Athletic Department

“According to the NCAA, the purpose in creating the position of SWA was to ensure that

females were involved in meaningful ways in athletics department decision making, and

to ensure that women’s interests were represented at all levels of intercollegiate athletics

– campus, conference, and national” (Claussen & Lehr, 2002, p. 215).

To better understand the role of the SWA in the contemporary athletic department I have

chosen to focus on three research articles that are commonly cited in the literature. The first

article is a study conducted by Claussen and Lehr (2002) which focuses specifically on decision

making authority of the SWA. The second article is a study conducted by Tiell and Dixon

(2008) which also focuses on decision making authority in the roles and tasks of the SWA, but

this article focuses more on gender norms and role congruity. The third article is a study

conducted by Hoffman (2010) which focuses on the dilemmas of the SWA. All three of these

articles combine to provide important insight into the role of the SWA in the contemporary

athletic department.

The purpose of the Claussen and Lehr (2002) article was to investigate the types of

decision making authority held by SWAs in relationship to important athletic department

functions. Questionnaires were sent to 784 SWA’s of all three divisions in the NCAA. They

had a response rate of 61% (66% - Div. I, 56% - Div. II, and 57% - Div. III), with a total of 479

questionnaires returned. About 62% held the title of Assistant Athletic Director (AD), Associate

AD, or Senior Associate AD. in addition to the SWA title. The instrument they used analyzed

eleven typical functions of the SWA ascertained from previous research and literature on the


SWA. The eleven functions included: “a) student-athlete concerns, b) gender equity, c) business

affairs, d) personnel affairs, e) external communication, f) marketing/development, g) athletic

advisory committee, h) legislative process, i) disciplinary/grievance procedures, j) strategic

planning, and k) mission/philosophy formulation” (Claussen & Lehr, 2002, p. 219). Claussen

and Lehr (2002) used modified RACI charting to understand the level of decision making that

the participants had in each of the functions listed above. The RACI charting technique asks

respondents to categorize their level of authority and decision making in the functions listed

above with the following words: a) (R)esponsibility, b) (A)pproval, c) (C)onsulted, or

(I)nformed; they could also respond None. (R)esponsibility and (A)pproval were considered as

decision making authority and (C)onsulted and (I)nformed were considered advisory. Results of

all three divisions combined show that SWAs more often possess advisory rather than decision

making authority. The top three areas of decision making authority were gender equity issues –

45%, student-athlete concerns – 41%, and discipline/grievance procedures – 38%. When

breaking the numbers down by division, it appears that SWAs in division I schools have a little

more decision making authority. The top three areas for these SWAs were gender equity issues

– 56%, personnel affairs – 54%, and disciplinary/grievance procedures – 50%. Across all

divisions, SWAs have the least decision making authority in the area of marketing/development

– Div I – 12%, Div II – 11%, and Div III – 14%.

These results indicate that if the position of SWA was created to ensure that females are

involved in meaningful ways in athletics department decision making authority, the NCAA and

member institutions are not living up to their claims. Claussen and Lehr (2002) reveal that most

SWAs at all three divisional levels possess only advisory authority for most athletic department

functions. This finding suggests that women’s interests are not being met and significant


differences could result in resource allocation, profitability, and visibility of women’s athletics

(Claussen & Lehr, 2002). The areas where SWAs do tend to have more decision making

authority tend to be in the relational aspects rather than the business aspects of the department.

This trend may negatively impact an SWA’s potential for promotion to the position of head

athletic director (Claussen & Lehr, 2002).

The second study which provides insight on the role of the SWA in the contemporary

athletic department was conducted by Tiell and Dixon (2008). The purpose of this study was to

find out if: a) SWAs execute decision making functions in the athletic department, b) SWA’s

tasks are geared toward programs that are primarily gender-focused or gender-neutral, and c)

SWA’s roles and tasks are performed consistent with gendered norms. The participants for this

study were Division I, II, and III Athletic Directors and Senior Woman Administrators. A

questionnaire containing 16 demographic questions and 24 questions pertaining to perceptions of

job responsibilities, defined with previous literature, was specifically designed for this study.

The response rates were as follows: Div I – ADs 53% (n=168) and SWAs 63% (n=200), Div II –

ADs 55% (n=142) and SWAs 59% (n=161), Div III – ADs 66% (n=232) and SWAs 55%

(n=213). Results indicate the roles and tasks performed the least by SWAs were fundraising,

budget management, educating others on masculine issues, participating on senior management

team, and acting as a decision maker. There was significant difference between all three

Division ADs and SWAs in perceptions of involvement in key decision-making, participation on

senior management team, working to accomplish goals within the group structure, and

monitoring the implementation of the gender equity plan with SWA’s perceptions mean’s being

higher than those of ADs.


In general in all three divisions, both ADs and SWAs agreed that SWAs performed roles

on behalf of both men’s and women’s programs with regard to public relations, staff selection

and supervision, and program supervision; however in Division II and III, SWAs do not perform

roles on behalf of either men’s or women’s programs when it comes to financial operations or

increasing revenue. In addressing the final question regarding performing roles and tasks

according to gendered norms, Tiell and Dixon (2008) discuss the literature on role congruity

theory and make connections between communal roles which are thought to be more feminine

(nurturing, mentoring, and role modeling) and agentic roles which are thought to be more

masculine (allocating resources, strategic decision making, and disciplining). Their findings

indicate that SWAs do perform roles consistent with communal norms such as advocating for

female issues and monitoring compliance with Title IX, serving as role model, and working

within the group. In general, Division I athletic departments seem to be doing a better job of

including women in meaningful decision making and Division I SWAs perform roles and tasks

that are role congruent as well as role incongruent. Tiell and Dixon (2008) confirm Claussen and

Lehr’s (2002) study which found the SWA does lack decision making authority in the

contemporary athletic department and that a lack of decision making in the more high profile and

financial aspects of the department may inhibit advancement into head athletic director positions.

Additionally, even though it appears progress has been made in Division I, the roles and

responsibilities of SWAs continue to conform to female norms of behavior. A question I will

consider in my study is whether or not SWAs choose roles and responsibilities that fall along

female norms or if they are assigned to those roles because they are female.

The third study which provides understanding about the role of the SWA in the

contemporary athletic department was conducted by Hoffman (2010). The purpose of this study


was to better understand the influence of the SWA role in the advancement of women into top

leadership positions in the contemporary athletic department. Hoffman interviewed six women

who held the role of SWA at their Far West region - Division I institution. Grounded theory and

critical post-structural feminist theory was used to analyze the interview data. Post-structuralist

feminist theory highlights the multiple power relations between men and women in the social

construction of practices that disadvantage women in organizations, language, policy, customs,

social relationships, and other everyday practices (Hoffman, 2010). These theoretical

frameworks uncovered one theme and four dilemmas that explain the influence of the SWA on

women’s leadership in athletics. Hoffman (2010) names the theme The Early “SWA” vs.

Today’s Senior Associate Athletic Administrator, and found that initially the SWA was created to

ensure women had a voice at the table as athletic departments merged into one. Early SWA’s

had access to university presidents at the NCAA convention and through the NCAA athletic

certification process. Later the governance structure changed in relationship to the convention

and certification, so SWA access to the presidents was eliminated. Today the SWA is seen as a

role for women leaders, not as a senior associate athletic director.

The first dilemma Hoffman (2010) uncovered is The SWA – The Sole Woman

Administrator. In Division I athletic programs there is an average of 5.78 administrators per

institution, but only 1.71 are women (Hoffman, 2010). Once the SWA role is filled with a

woman, additional women may be overlooked for other positions in senior management in

athletics, meaning the SWA will be the only woman administrator. Hoffman’s (2010) second

dilemma is The SWA and Title IX. The SWA is often responsible for monitoring the NCAA’s

gender equity plan. This presents a dilemma because other administrators do not see gender

equity as their responsibility even though the responsibility should be shared. Furthermore, if the


SWA speaks up when there is an equity issue, she is seen as confrontational in the organization,

on the other hand if she does not speak up when an issue occurs, she is not doing her job. The

third dilemma is The SWA as a Terminal Position. The SWA often oversees academics or

compliance and women’s sports, but rarely oversees men’s high profile teams or the financial

arms of the department (marketing, business office, fundraising, etc.). Hoffman (2010)

confirmed Claussen and Lehr (2002) and Tiell and Dixon’s (2008) statements of lack of decision

making authority in the financial arm and high profile team sports may prohibit SWAs from

advancing into the role of head athletic director. The last dilemma Hoffman (2010) discusses is

“My SWA” – The Senior Woman Advocate. The SWA is often seen as the care-taking position

in the department who advocates for student-athletes and female coaches; however this role is

not as valued as the more decision making roles. This role follows along female norms as

discussed in the Tiell & Dixon (2008) study. In conclusion, Hoffman (2010) notes that super-

performance, rather than subordination, innovation, or separatism is the only strategy available to

women who want to be taken seriously and who seek upward career mobility. Hoffman (2010)

also states that the role of SWA “pinches the pipeline at the senior level of department leadership

and allows only one woman to advance” (p. 71).

The three studies presented above do a good job of explaining the role of the SWA in the

contemporary athletic department. To summarize, the SWA performs at least eleven functions:

“a) student-athlete concerns, b) gender equity, c) business affairs, d) personnel affairs, e) external

communication, f) marketing/development, g) athletic advisory committee, h) legislative

process, i) disciplinary/grievance procedures, j) strategic planning, and k) mission/philosophy

formulation” (Claussen & Lehr, 2002, p. 219). A majority of SWAs in all three divisions

perform these functions on an advisory level rather than with true decision making authority.


The roles and tasks performed least by SWAs were fundraising, budget management, educating

others on masculine issues, and participating on senior management team (Tiell & Dixon, 2008).

In all three NCAA divisions, SWAs performed roles on behalf of both men’s and women’s

programs with regard to public relations, staff selection and supervision, and program

supervision; however in Division II and III, SWAs do not perform roles on behalf of either

men’s or women’s programs when it comes to financial operations or increasing revenue. In

general, the roles and responsibilities of SWAs continue to conform to female norms, behaviors,

and expectations. While the position of SWA was initially created to ensure women had a voice

in the decision making processes in the athletic department, the position has evolved in a

quandary. SWA’s access to presidents and others in more authoritative positions has diminished;

those in positions to hire may overlook women for senior level leadership roles because they

might feel the quota of a female administrator has been filled with the SWA. The SWA has

become the only monitor for Title IX and gender equity and faces heavy scrutiny in that role.

Due to the lack of decision making authority in men’s high profile sports and the financial arms

of the department, as well as performing roles and tasks that adhere to female norms, SWA’s

advancement to the head athletic director role is improbable. Given these circumstances of the

SWA in the contemporary athletic department, it is paramount that leadership positively impact

diversity.

Leadership Impacts Diversity

Dantley and Tillman (2010) discuss three components of social justice: a) leadership for

social justice, b) moral transformative leadership, and c) social justice praxis. For me, the first

component, leadership for social justice exemplifies my conceptualization of how leadership can

impact diversity; “leadership for social justice interrogates the policies and procedures that shape


schools and at the same time perpetuate social inequalities and marginalization due to race, class,

gender, and other markers of difference” (p. 24). Leadership can impact diversity in the

contemporary athletic department if leaders challenge rather than reproduce the policies,

procedures, and practices that perpetuate social inequalities and marginalization due to

difference. Although diversity encompasses numerous, important markers as well as

intersections of difference, this paper will focus more specifically on gender diversity. I will

begin by discussing sport as a site for social reproduction of male dominance and hegemony. I

continue with a discussion of three approaches to the analysis of social inequality in sport, and I

conclude with an assertion that leadership for social justice is essential in the contemporary

athletic department.

Critical feminist theorists contend that sport is a gendered activity and “the meaning,

organization, and purpose of sports are grounded in the values and experiences of men and are

defined to celebrate the attributes and skills associated with masculinity” (Coakley, 2001, p. 45).

Gender logic is grounded in the notion that men are naturally physically and emotionally

superior to women (Coakley, 2001). Pierre Bourdieu (1984) asserts that sports provide ‘physical

capital’ that is not valued for girls and women, but is highly valued for boys and men; ‘physical

capital’ that is valued for girls focuses on beauty (Hargreaves, 1994). All of these assertions

contribute to the concept of male hegemony. Hegemony develops and operates as a result of

buying into dominant ideology. Hargreaves (1994) states that hegemony is a persuasive form of

control;

hegemony embodies a sense of culture as a way of life imbued with systems of meaning

and values which are actively created by individuals and groups in different social

settings, such as families, schools, the media, leisure contests, and sports (p. 23).


Sports are popular vessels through which male hegemony is transmitted. An example of male

hegemony in sport would be a scenario where a parent drops their teenage daughter off at

cheerleading practice (an activity that values beauty and grace) where on the same field their son

practices football (a sport that values strength, power, and dominance). The conscious or

unconscious act of funneling their children into gendered activities further promotes the idea of

gender logic and male hegemony. “Male interests predominate in most sports, and in many of

them male hegemony has been more complete and more resistant to change than in other areas of

culture” (Hargreaves, 1994, p. 23). The development of ideological views that support male

hegemony reproduce and contribute to consequences of social inequality which can manifest in

various forms of discrimination (Donnelly, 1996). Although the aim of ideology is to transmit

and legitimize dominant power relations and produce cultural continuity, hegemony, is not static

(Hargreaves, 1994). There is potential for oppositional ideas, counter-hegemonic practices,

challenge, and resistance.

Donnelly (1996) discusses three forms of analysis used to approach social inequality in

sport. Note that all of these forms of analysis do not necessarily challenge or resist male

hegemony. The first form of analysis is categorical and when focusing on gender inequality,

researchers use biology and psychology to explain and reinforce gender difference. An example

of a categorical analysis might be to compare scoring in men’s and women’s professional

basketball. A categorical analysis may conclude that women are not as tall, as strong, or as

aggressive as men and therefore do not score as many points and thus play an inferior game.

Recall, sports were created by men to highlight the skills associated with masculinity, so women

would naturally experience lower levels of capacity and performance. In sport, male


achievement becomes the standard thus reproducing the notion of female inferiority. The

reinforcement of female as inferior can contribute to the persistence of gender discrimination.

Donnelly’s (1996) second form of analysis of social inequality in sport is distributive

analysis. This form of analysis focuses on equality of opportunity particularly in the distribution

of participants, programs, positions, funding, and facilities. The distributive analysis is

comparable to a liberal feminist framework. Liberal feminism focuses on the similarities

between the sexes and supports individual rights and equal opportunity in all aspects of life

including education, politics, government, economics, and sport (Messner & Sabo, 1990). The

early advocates of the women’s suffrage movement and the later advocates of Title IX legislation

employed a liberal feminist framework in their work for equal rights and opportunity in

government and education. Although the distributive analysis of inequality and the liberal

feminist perspective address some issues of discrimination and equality, there is no attention to

the “ideological and symbolic dimensions of gender oppression” and “the distinctly masculine

modes of thought and practice in sports” (Hargreaves, 1994, p.29). In other words, feminine

epistemology is ignored; women’s ways of knowing and doing may be different from that of

men. “Real equity requires the development of new models of sport participation, and new

organizations shaped by the values and experience of women and of men who do not see

themselves in terms of dominant definitions of masculinity” (Coakley, 2001, p. 222).

Donnelly’s (1996) third form of analysis is relational analysis which examines social

relationships in their social contexts. “Relational analyses are frequently conducted employing

ethnographic methods in order to determine the meaning of sports to individuals representing

various social categories, and the relationships among those individuals” (Donnelly, 1996, p.

231). An example of a relational analysis would be an investigation into the experiences of men


and women in obtaining senior level leadership positions in Division I intercollegiate athletic

departments. In relational analysis, it is presumed that sport is historically influenced, socially

constructed and culturally defined by the interests of the powerful and dominant groups in

society (Donnelly, 1994). Individuals are analyzed to understand acceptance of or resistance to

the status quo. Relational analysis is important for social justice work and the impact of

leadership on diversity because it can “interrogate the policies and procedures that shape schools

and at the same time perpetuate social inequalities and marginalization due to race, class, gender,

and other markers of difference” (Dantley & Tillman, 2010, p. 24). All three of the forms of

analysis demonstrate the positionality of the researcher and provide a window to interpreting

how we have come to understand production and reproduction of inequality in sport (Donnelly,

1996).

Title IX was important legislation that contributed to an expansion of opportunity for

women in education and sport. Today, about 42% of the athletes competing in all three

Divisions of the NCAA are female as compared to 15% when Title IX was first implemented

(Carpenter & Acosta, 2005). Although this is a tremendous gain, women still have a long way to

go for true equity in athletics. In the 2002 – 2003 academic year, women received $133 million

less than men received for athletic scholarships (Carpenter & Acosta, 2005). In that same year,

Division IA schools spent three times more on their men’s athletic programs than they did on

their women’s programs (Carpenter & Acosta, 2005). In 2002, 44% of women’s teams had a

female coach, whereas before Title IX, 90% of women’s teams had a female coach (Carpenter &

Acosta, 2005). Prior to Title IX, 90% of athletic director’s of women’s programs were women,

in 2004, 18.5% of women’s programs were directed by females and 17.8% of women’s athletic

programs had no female in the administrative ranks (Carpenter & Acosta, 2005).


According to the review of literature on Title IX and the Senior Woman Administrator, as

previously presented in this paper, it is apparent that women are vastly under-represented in

senior level leadership positions in intercollegiate athletics. There is also strong evidence to

support that even though there is representation in the leadership role of SWA, that role holds

very little decision making authority, the SWA does not always oversee both men’s and

women’s programs, the roles often conform to female norms, and the likelihood of advancing

into the head administrator role is improbable. Additionally, sport continues to be an area of

culture where male hegemony predominates and is more resistant to change (Hargreaves, 1994).

Given these challenges and complexities, it is paramount that researchers of gender in sport

continue to examine the power relationships in intercollegiate athletics to develop strategies for

women to enter and be retained in leadership positions in college sports. Additionally, when

women earn leadership positions in athletics, they will need to form networks, develop

leadership training programs, act as mentors, and develop recruitment strategies to encourage

other women who may succeed them (Thorngren & Eisenbarth, 1994). These are ways

leadership can positively impact diversity in the contemporary athletic department.

The leadership of men in intercollegiate athletics will become extremely important as

well. “Girls need to see many diverse women who love and participate in sport activities and

they need to see these same women being respected by their peers: male coaches, administrators,

and athletes” (Thorngren & Eisenbarth, 1994, p. 2). Men represent the majority of coaches and

administrators of women’s athletic programs; women will have to rely on men to advocate for

their participation, programs, and leadership. Men experience sport in a number of ways. More

than a few men may want to create options to play sports that are not based on power,

performance, aggression, or domination; both women and men realize that achieving gender


equity requires a change in our fundamental ideologies about sport is played (Coakley, 2001).

Diversity and inclusiveness are critical aspects of social justice. In addition to the

suggestions above, for leadership to positively impact diversity, leaders will need to incorporate

a social justice framework. Larson and Murtadha (2003) discuss three important aspects of

leadership for social justice: a) deconstructing existing ideologies of leadership using aspects of

critical race theory, gender representation and multiculturalism; b) portraying alternative

approaches to leadership (care, justice, love, spirituality, etc.); and c) constructing new systems,

theories, and processes which incorporate social justice (making recommendations for practice

which incorporate the thoughts and actions of multiple voices and perspectives) (Dantley &

Tillman, 2010). Leadership can positively impact diversity in intercollegiate athletics when

leaders interrogate and deconstruct male hegemony and incorporate alternative approaches to

leading which embrace an ethic of care and justice for all. Additionally, leadership in athletics

must consider feminine, as well as alternative epistemologies to construct new forms and

practices of intercollegiate athletics. Furthermore, Dantley and Tillman (2010) offer five

overarching characteristics that can be applied to educational leadership for social justice; I

contend that these characteristics can also be applied by leadership in intercollegiate athletics to

positively impact diversity:

1. A consciousness of the broader social, cultural, and political context.

2. The critique of the marginalizing behaviors and predispositions of schools and their

leadership.

3. A commitment to the more genuine enactment of democratic principles.

4. A moral obligation to articulate a counter-hegemonic vision or narrative of hope.

5. A determination to move from rhetoric to civil right activism (p. 23).


Athletic leadership must understand the social world is changing. Women represent on average

54% of the general student body on college campuses, but only 42% of intercollegiate athletes

(Carpenter & Acosta, 2005). Furthermore, the number of minority athletes increased by 400

athletes in 2011 (NCAA, 2012). Athletic leadership must be willing to critique behavior that

marginalizes women and minorities and work toward equalizing opportunities in participation as

well as coaching and leadership. Athletic leadership must be willing to understand counter-

hegemonic practices and diverse ways of knowing and doing rather than assimilating individuals

into the male hegemonic culture. Lastly, athletic leadership must move from professing a value

and appreciation for inclusiveness and diversity to integrating a proactive, continuing

commitment to positively impacting diversity.

To conclude, the events leading up to and the enactment of Title IX of the Educational

Amendments Act of 1972 provide a solid context for a movement toward equality in

intercollegiate athletics. The implementation of the Senior Woman Administrator demonstrated

an effort for inclusiveness. Leadership for social justice provides a framework for how

leadership can positively impact diversity in the contemporary athletic department. All of these

factors contribute to the hope that generations beyond my daughter never experience gender

inequity.


References

Bell, D.A. (2004). Silent covenants: Brown v. Board of Education and the unfulfilled hopes for

racial reform. New York: Oxford University Press.

Carpenter, L.J., & Acosta, R.V. (2005). Title IX. Champaign, IL; Human Kinetics.

Claussen, C.L., & Lehr, C. (2002). Decision making authority of senior woman administrators.

International Journal of Sport Management, 2002(3), 215-228.

Coakley, J. (2001). Sport in society: Issues & controversies, (7th Edition). New York, NY:

McGraw H-Hill Higher Education.

Crowley, J. (2006). In the arena: The NCAA’s first century. Retrieved from

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/in_the_arena584e1fee-ea5d-4487-

be73-cb2f718232d9.pdf.

Dantley, M. E., & Tillman, L. C. (2010). Social justice and moral transformative leadership. In

C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in

education (2nd

ed.) (pp. 19-34). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Donnelly, P. (1996). Approaches to social inequality in the sociology of sport. Quest, 48(2), 221-

242.

Hargreaves, J. (1994). Sporting females: Critical issues in the history and sociology of women’s

sports. New York, NY: Routledge

Hoffman, J. (2010). The dilemma of the Senior Woman Administrator role in intercollegiate

athletics. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 2010(3), 53-75.

Larson, C., & Murtadha, K. (2003). Leadership for social justice. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The

educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 134 –

161). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/in_the_arena584e1fee-ea5d-4487-


Messner, M. (1994). Sports and male domination: The female athlete as contested ideological

terrain. In S. Birrell & C. Cole, (Eds.), Women, Sport, and Culture (pp. 65-80).

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Messner, M. A., & Sabo, D. F. (1990). Toward a critical feminist reappraisal of sport, men, and

the gender order. In M. Messner & D. Sabo (eds.), Sport, men, and the gender order:

Critical feminist perspectives (pp. 1-15). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

NCAA (2011). NCAA grad rates top 80%. Retrieved from

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2011/Oct

ober/NCAA+grad+rates+top+80+percent

NCAA (2012). NCAA honors past presidents, dedicates new building. Retrieved from

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2012/June

/NCAA+honors+past+presidents,+dedicates+new+building

NCAA (2012). Student-Athlete participation 1981-1982 – 2010-2011: NCAA sports sponsorship

and participation rates report. Retrieved from

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/PR2012.pdf

Thorngren, C. M. & Eisenbarth, B. S. (1994). Games yet to be played: Equity in sport leadership.

Women’s Educational Equity Act Publishing Center Digest, 1994(June), 1-9.

Tiell, B. & Dixon, M. (2008). Roles and tasks of the senior woman administrator (SWA) in

Intercollegiate Athletics. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 2(3),

339- 361.

Ware, S. (2007). Title IX: A brief history with documents. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s

Women’s Sports Foundation (2011). A Title IX primer. Retrieved from


http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/home/advocate/title-ix-and-issues/what-is-title-

ix/title-ix-primer

ttp://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/home/advocate/title-ix-and-issues/what-is-title-i

ttp://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/home/advocate/title-ix-and-issues/what-is-title-i

answer to comprehensive exam question two cynthia miller...

Documents