The Best of Sports: Women on the US Team

It always baffles me how the Olympic Games seem to be the venue for all things “new.” Despite its history and tradition, the Games always seem to be the place for new superstars to emerge, new technology to be unveiled, and new records to be made. Even when the feats of humanity seem like they cannot be surpassed, the Olympics always brings out what was once thought impossible.

This year is no different.

Old records have fallen, the swimsuits are in a new fashion, and there are new athletes stealing our hearts. But something perhaps more subtle, but certainly no less significant has happened this year: the US, for the first time, has more females than males representing our country (269 women, 261 men). To a young audience, this news might seem of little significance, but consider that the last time London held the Olympics in 1948, women made up 9% of all participants, and as recent as 1996, 26 countries were not sending women to the Games.

Just like breaking a record on the track or in the pool, there is no better stage to break this record than on the grandest of them all: the Olympics. Sending a balanced contingent of men and women to the premiere sporting event in the world says that as a country, we have committed ourselves over decades to the advancement of gender equality in sports, and we are proud to show the world of that achievement. Although it might seem as simple as just picking a fair number, it is a reflection of a commitment to a core value that our country is built on: equal opportunity. It’s a value that we have long stood for, but not always exemplified. This year we celebrate 40 years of the Title IX, and we have taken to heart the many heroes and accomplishments that have emerge in these decades, all while recognizing that there is still ground to be covered in our quest for equal opportunity. And this achievement is yet another important milestone on that journey.

As gradual as the change that Title IX has inspired has been, we can lose sight of the magnitude of this year’s gender balance. Especially in recent Olympics, female athletes have always been on the eyes and in the hearts of Americans, whether they are on the balance beam or flying down the ski slopes (in fact it seems the only time of year that female athletes do get equal attention!).  But it is truly amazing to think that young girls around the country and around the globe watching the parade of Americans during the opening ceremony could see something that their mothers and grandmothers would not have been able to see when they were young: themselves.

The Worst of Sport: Punishment, Responsibility, and Penn State

What moral sense can we make of the sanctions that the NCAA levied against Penn State? Some argue that the sanctions are unfair because those directly responsible for failing to protect Sandusky’s victims are no longer at Penn State.  Others counter that the NCAA should have imposed the death penalty for Penn State’s egregious lack of institutional control.  Whatever your view, the sanctions clearly have a symbolic function; they express our shared moral outrage.  NCAA President Mark Emmert noted that the goal of the sanctions was not merely punitive but “to make sure that the University will establish an athletic culture and a daily mindset in which football will never again be placed ahead of educating, nurturing and protecting young people.” 

More than sanctions levied at a single university are needed for the kind of transformation that Emmert envisions.   Recall that up until last November, many regarded Joe Paterno as an icon of integrity in college football, who exemplified the virtues most revered in sports, such as hard-work, excellence, and above all, loyalty.  Senior officials at Penn State from the President to the Athletic Director also embodied those same virtues.  How then could men, recognized for their character, show what Judge Louis Freeh called in his scathing investigation of the Penn State scandal a “total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims?”

The Freeh report, while unsparing in its criticism of the individuals involved, revealed the true source of the problem -- a culture focused on winning and maintaining the appearance of institutional virtue but blind to those without power or influence, especially the most vulnerable among us—our children.  Although Emmert called the Penn State situation “anomalous in many respects,” the culture that led to and sustained the cover up is not unique to Penn State or to college athletics.   We have seen this culture thrive in the most revered of our social institutions throughout our country. 

Rather than simply focus on one institution that failed, we need to address a national culture that absolves us of responsibility for other people’s children.  We might start by making sure that all colleges that run sports camps and all youth sport organizations implement the Freeh report’s recommendations for mandatory abuse awareness and reporting programs.  However, we should not stop with policies and procedures that are designed simply to protect children from predator coaches. Creating a culture that nurtures and educates as well as protects demands a comprehensive child-centered approach to athletic programs for children at all ages.   The tragedy that has befallen Penn State is tragedy for all of us and a tragedy we must all address. 

Dr. Clark Power is a developmental psychologist and a professor at the University of Notre Dame. Power's expertise is in moral development of children, and has devoted much of his career to the service of children through the PLACT program, which he founded. Dr. Power will be commenting in a series of Blogs on the effects of the Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State University.