GIRLS in the football locker room - a dream for most hot-blooded boys. For some female athletes, though, it is also their dream. Unfortunately, due to the recent sex-discrimination settlement to former Duke University football kicker Heather Sue Mercer, fewer women are likely to realize such dreams anytime soon.
Because Ms. Mercer was "illegally cut ... from the football team solely because of her gender" in 1996, Duke University must pay her $2 million in punitive damages ("Kicker Cut By Duke Gets $2 Million," The Washington Post, Oct. 13).
Justice was served. Duke officials knew about the discrimination and did nothing to stop it, as proved in the trial. Discrimination on the basis of sex is wrong. However, the settlement rewarded in this case stands to perpetuate the very crime that was prosecuted. This is because schools are under no obligation to allow female students to try out for the football team. By opening the door to females, universities are legally bound not to discriminate against them. The risk of a lawsuit will discourage many schools from recruiting women for football or allowing them the chance to walk on to the team.
While strides have been made to promote opportunities for female athletes, this case highlights the fact that the playing field is far from level. The infamous Title IX legislation that prohibits the very discrimination Mercer was subjected to has opened many doors for women.
In the span of 15 years, the National Federation of State High School Associations saw a rise in the number of female football players - from eight to 658. The Powder Puff league this is not.
But women who now play for high school teams just had their hopes dashed. The advent of Mercer's trial caused recruiting lists to get shorter because schools are now less willing to grant scholarships or walk-on status to females. U.Va. may not be recruiting women for next year's team, but we could stand to have a kicker who can nail a field goal from 48 yards. Mercer could, and so can other women. But with a $2 million price tag, who's going to buy?
Now that signing women to the team presents such a burden to administrators and coaches, discrimination against women will still subtly pervade our country. Weary of lawsuits like the one against Duke, recruiters will avoid approaching women players altogether.
In effect, the football locker room just turned back into the old boys club. This lawsuit will not compel coaches to appreciate female athletes. Instead, it reminds them why they didn't want girls in the first place.
Even at schools where female players have done well, coaches are scared by the implications of the Mercer settlement. Because the law doesn't require giving women the opportunity to try out, a simple cost-benefit analysis is reason enough to keep girls out.
Our own football Coach George Welsh couldn't be reached for comment but said in a previous interview that if a woman was the best kicker out there, he'd consider using her, but wouldn't want his authority as a coach undermined just because the player was female ("A Kicker Sees Her Chance Blocked," The Washington Post, Oct. 22). Clearly, there are few coaches willing to assume this risk.
There is no clear-cut solution to this problem. Although Heather Sue Mercer deserved compensation for her losses and suffering, a more pragmatic resolution was in order. The settlement could have ordered university officials to receive training in dealing with female players. Or it might have had the money put toward a scholarship for women athletes. Coaches must understand that excluding women is not the only option.
The precedent set by the Mercer decision has the potential to affect college-age women for years to come. Now seen as a liability, women hoping to earn a place on traditionally male athletic teams face fewer chances and more prejudices.
Collegiate athletic programs can't afford the type of penalty that was slapped on Duke a few weeks ago. As a result, the cost of female athletes has risen and the quality of athletics has been cheapened.
It is true that far more opportunities for female athletes exist now than 20 years ago. The Mercer settlement, however, just struck a blow to the wrong team. Women put back on the sidelines? Yes. But keeping us out of the game forever? Keep dreaming.
(Katherine Martini's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
Letters to the Editor: The resignation of University President Jim Ryan
6 hours agoFollowing this resignation, The Cavalier Daily has received letters from the University community which provide various perspectives on what this moment means to them and to the University’s future.
U.Va. Medical Students: Defend academic freedom
By U.Va. Medical Students | 4 days agoTo yield in the face of federal pressure does more than betray the University’s core values — it encourages future attacks on academia.
MICHAELSON: U.Va. must not surrender to authoritarian pressure
By Wesley Michaelson | 4 days agoThis University belongs to the people of Virginia — not to Washington, not to unelected federal appointees and certainly not to political donors with an agenda. This is our University. And we will fight for it.
