Episode #4: Use of the N Word in Sports: Changing the World or Continuing the Problem?

You can listen to this post as well over at ELRC Radio.

Welcome back, everyone! This is the Talking Tomboy – a podcast offering a critical look into the collision of sports and culture. I'm your host, Korryn Mozisek. Today, I want to explore a sensitive and hurtful topic – the use of the N word on sports fields. Because of the hate, harm, and history of the word, I will acknowledge that today's podcast is for mature audiences only. While I won't use the word myself, I realize that the word has such power that this discussion may offend or recall memories for some that are indescribably difficult. I hope that the point I make is poignant and insightful, but can understand why you might stop listening.

Why am I focusing such an injurious word this week? As NFL scouts, personnel, and hopeful players meet last week at the annual scouting combine, so did the Competition Committee. In the wake of the scandal in Miami and Michael Sams coming out as an openly gay athlete, the NFL has turned its attention to creating a more inclusive working environment. Of course, their aim is to prevent such heinous texts and bullying efforts like those from Richie Incognito becoming headline news and making the NFL look primitive and behind the times culturally. A point of discussion by the committee was whether players on the field be penalized for their use of slurs. Ozzie Newsome, who is General Manager of the Baltimore Ravens was quoted by ESPN as stating, “We did talk about it, I'm sure that you saw near the end of the year that Fritz Pollard came out very strong with the message that the league needs to do something about the language on the field. So we did discuss over the last three days.” And, the individual that Ozzie Newsome was referring to, Fritz Pollard Alliance, believes that such a rule penalizing slurs will be enacted by owners at their next meeting.

This development might be as interesting to everyone as it is to me, but it might not. This brings me to my focus today which is to highlight how the NFL's discussion of such a rule change is encouraging a cultural conversation to occur about the use of the N word. As a communication scholar, I am excited about this development. I strongly encourage everyone to watch or listen to the recent Outside the Lines' Special Report entitled “The N Word.” The special report highlights the explosive, hurtful history of the N word and the hopeful, loving appropriation of the word. I suspect that this may surprise some and trouble others, but the show does a wonderful job of tackling the complexity of the word and the divergent views about it. For today's podcast, I want to focus on why such different interpretations of the word can occur.

As a communication professor, I talk daily about the power of language. As a part of our discussions, I often highlight two concepts: context and power. We often think of communication as just the trading of information between individuals. You ask me where the bathroom is and I give you directions. Or I call myself a tomboy and I'm just describing my identity. I challenge my students, and today you the listener, to think about how we are not just trading information back and forth. I'm not just describing myself when I say I'm a tomboy. Instead, our exchange is a collaborative moment in time where we are framing our identities, our social norms, our beliefs, and importantly our world. Saying I'm a tomboy does not just describe, but creates an impression of who I am as a person for myself and those that listen to me. In this regard, I agree with John T. Warren and Deanna L. Fassett when they define communication in their textbook, Communication: A Critical/Cultural Introduction, as having three major aspects: first, our communication is a struggle between individuals to create and negotiate “common understandings, beliefs, and social systems;” (p. 7) second, our communication has consequences not only for those that offer it but also those that hear it, hence my disclaimer at the beginning of this podcast; and finally, our communication occurs in cultural contexts. This last portion argues that in certain contexts a certain phrase, style of talking, or gesture might be completely acceptable yet offensive in another. And, I'd like to suggest that this last element of the definition of communication is the hardest for all of us to navigate. Yes, we take experiences and learn from our past communication endeavors, but that does not create a blue print for every future instance of communication. The other concept I highlight is that of power – this is a question of who gets to decide what communication is appropriate and inappropriate and for whom, which I'll come back to shortly.

With these ideas in mind, let's turn our attention back to the NFL and its proposed rule banning slurs on the field. The intent of the NFL rule appears to be an instance where the league is communicating that use of these slurs creates an inhospitable and offensive workplace for players, thus the behavior of its employees needs to change. This acknowledges that such language does something—that it harms, injures, and demeans. And, maybe just maybe, even in a sport where violence is glorified that such harm and belittling by what some think of as just words crosses a line that we should not cross as a society. To be clear, I applaud such an acknowledgment by the NFL because of my background as a communication scholar and as someone who knows that the old adage “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” is just plain wrong! In this regard, I'd like to applaud the NFL's efforts; we are finally having a conversation as to why words do harm and why we should be responsible for our language choices. For this reason, the professor side of me is rejoicing.

But others call into question that idea of power I discussed earlier. Many might be offended by Michael Wilbon's use of the word on the Outside the Lines special report. Others might be troubled by the disclosure that use of the N word is pervasive in our culture. I'd like to focus on how there is another important discussion happening in relation to the NFL's proposed rule and this conversation focuses on who should have the power to restrict or police an individual's speech. This question asks whether an almost entirely white ownership and league management with limited diversity should control the language on the field where the majority of players are black. As I pointed out earlier, the N word has been appropriated by some individuals to be a term of endearment, of love. Moments of appropriation of the word aim to return the power of its use back to those who once were subject of its ridicule. As the Outside the Lines guests highlight, there are different etymologies and contexts that the N word gets used. So whether it comes from a white individual and in a context of hate means something very different than when it comes from a black individual and ends in an -a rather than -er. This brings me back to that point we discuss in my classes, that of context and power as being important to the impact of language, particularly in the world that it creates and the effect it has. And, I must say, that I understand and cheer the points made by Wilbon and others of questioning who gets to decide speech patterns and the meaning of language. Why? Because this gets us thinking about using language with a purpose and with reflexivity—two traits that I'd love for all my students to leave my Human Communication class with.

In the end, I'm not sure whether I support an NFL rule change because I am troubled by who gets to decide appropriate and inappropriate language and worry about how such a rule change might be another exercise of power over a group that has faced historical discrimination that we should all acknowledge and be reflexive of. But I am absolutely positive that I am happy that a conversation is happening regarding the N word. It is not that I think it should be used or that we should transform it to just a term of endearment and love because it will never have that connotation for many since it has such a dark, sinister, and evil past. Instead, I am encouraged by the fact that as a culture we are having a conversation about slurs, their power, and how our language choices have a real impact. So I encourage each of us to think about how our language can empower and love yet also demean and harm. Who thought the NFL would be the party that would get us to think about such a complex topic?! That's the ballgame for this week. I hope you tune in next time when I discuss another intersection of sports and culture. Thanks for listening everybody!

Episode #3: Hate in the Locker Room?

You can listen to this post as well over at ELRC Radio.

Welcome back, everyone! I'm Korryn Mozisek and you're listening to The Talking Tomboy. In this week's episode, I want to discuss my excitement regarding recent developments in the NFL from Michael Sam's declaration that he is gay NFL hopeful and to Ted Wells' report on bullying in Miami. I'm sure all of you are wondering whether you heard me correct...my excitement? Yes, I want to discuss the possibilities and changes that may come from these two developments in the NFL. Why? Because each event challenges the masculine assumptions of the sport of football.

Mariah Burton Nelson, writes in her book, The Stonger Women Get, The MoreMen Love Football, that sports are an arena where culture clings to notions of dominance, brutality, and aggression even if that means pushing out weaker individuals in the process. Not strong enough? Take a hike. Not man enough? Hit the road Jack! Unlike other arenas where civil rights laws have worked to eliminate difference and disparity, sports are a space where male supremacy reigns. In many ways, it harkens back to a time before libbers pestered on about women's right to vote and equality. Nelson states, “Sports offer a pre-civil rights world where white men, as owners, coaches, and umpires, still rule. Within a sports arena, a man can express racist, sexist, and homophobic attitudes not tolerated in many other parts of society.” (p. 7) In contrast to sexual harassment charges or dismissal from your job, it seems the world of sports believes that such behaviors are a part of the bonding process of men. This continues a boys will be boys attitude where individuals who don't fit the manly, dominant, aggressive norm are objects for ridicule because they aren't behaving like a man. The result? One group faces contempt and a cycle of inequality continues.

You might be thinking, after all that pessimism, how can I be hopeful about the recent NFL developments? Well, I am hopeful and it is because of the ways that Wells' report and Sam's coming out shines a light on the racist, sexist, and homophobic attitudes of sport. The recent refrain seemed to be that X major sport (be it hockey, basketball, baseball, or football) wasn't ready for an open, homosexual male player. Why? Don't you know that player would be a distraction and harm team chemistry?! In the wake of Michael Sam's announcement, we heard that familiar line that football was not ready just yet for an out player. Maybe in 5-10 years, but as Peter King reported, many player evaluators thought such an announcement would harm Sam's draft status and that teams might stay away from him to prevent the distraction. But...players feel differently. Donte Stallworth, an individual who has made moral mistakes and been accepted back in the NFL, quickly responded to such rhetoric from front office's and sports pundits to state, that by arguing that if a team can't handle such a known situation as Sam's sexuality then they are a losing franchise to begin with. Stallworth's view was that it isn't because of their moral or political standing, but that if Sam's became a media distraction, then how is said team going to handle a playoff or Super Bowl run? It wouldn't and those are even bigger so called distractions. Yes, there was push back from some players, but many expressed acceptance of a player regardless of sexual orientation that helped a team win. And, a recent, confidential ESPN poll of players revealed that 86% of players did not care about a teammate's sexual orientation. The troubling findings from the poll: first, 62% of NFL players experienced teammates and/or coaches using homophobic slurs last season; and second, while players would be accepting of a gay teammate, their reticence is over where the “line” is in regards to joking.

This brings me to the Wells report. I won't go into great detail regarding the report – there are many online reports that you can read if you are interested. But the report expresses a concern regarding the world of bullying in locker rooms and in professional sports. The report notes the graphic and persistent nature of the bullying that would be unacceptable in any other profession. What makes the report interesting is that begins to shape the belief that the bullying that Nelson discussed earlier and that Martin and others were subjected to is unacceptable even in such an environment as professional football. After the report, Mark Schlereth, a former offensive lineman for the Washington Redskins and Denver Broncos, wrote a piece expressing his frustration with the reports coming out of Miami. In the ESPN article, he states, “I despise the stories of bullying that came out of Miami. It breaks my heart that the good-natured ribbing that is a part of every locker room could get to a point that a young man felt his only option was to walk away from the game that he's worked his entire life to play.” Schlereth goes on to discuss the mythical “code” of the locker room and the sport. Importantly, Schlereth admits that there is sophomoric behavior as a part of the ribbing between teammates, but that leaders in the locker room need to be around to know when to tell a fellow teammate when a line has been crossed and that acceptance and love for one another is also a part of that locker room environment. The Wells report, then, has turned the spotlight on to delineating where the line of good fun ends and where torment and bullying begins. Of course, it also establishes the question as to whether such behavior is good for team bonding. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view), a few Dolphins employees are losing their jobs over their behavior – nope, it wasn't just Richie Incognito as bully. This development indicates to me that bullying as a pastime in NFL locker rooms is coming to an end.

Rather than seeing the Wells report as a stain or Sam's announcement as headline news, we should them as proof of a changing culture where acceptance or at least tolerance are encouraged even in the most masculine of arena, the National Football League. I can only hope that Michael Sam's receives the same support in the NFL as he did from fellow Mizzou students when they created a wall to stand with Sam recently when the Westboro Baptist Church arrived to protest on campus. And, I can only hope that the Wells report will create a change in the culture of the NFL locker room. At the very least, the discussion of these two developments reveals that sports can no longer drag its feet and be behind the times with its slurs and derogatory language. In fact, the commentary from fans and pundits point to the fact that sports need to catch up to an increasing cultural acceptance of gays, lesbians, and even the emotionally (so-called) sensitive man. So yes, I will see these developments as positive because just maybe the acceptance and hilarity of racist, sexist, and homophobic attitudes in the locker room are on their way out. That's the ballgame for this week! Take care every one. 

Episode #2: Women's Ski Jumping at the Olympics

You can listen to this post as well over at ELRC Radio.

A sign from the protest efforts of female ski jumpers in 2009.

Austria's Daniela Iraschko-Stolz soars during a women's ski jumping training session at the 2014 Winter Olympics. (Matthias Schrader/Associated Press)

Welcome back everyone. I'm Korryn Mozisek and this is "The Talking Tomboy" – a show which offers a critical look into sports and culture. This week we discuss the history that is being made at the 2014 Sochi Olympics and I don't mean the high costs, overruns, or unfinished facilities. Instead, I want to take a look at the history that is being made by female athletes in the sport of ski jumping.

Ski jumping was included during the first Winter Olympics in 1924, but 2014 marks the first time that women will compete in the sport. While women have routinely participated at the youth level or been asked to test hills in advance of the Olympics, like Lindsey Van was in her hometown of Salt Lake City, women have had to put up a significant legal and cultural fight to be a part of the Olympic program. Why have women been barred until this year? Because of the danger the sport posed to them. Of course, all sports have inherent dangers from torn ligaments, broken bones, concussions, along with sprains. So what is so different about ski jumping? In 2005 as female ski jumpers and their families began pushing for inclusion at the international level, “Gian Franco Kasper, president of the Federation Internationale de Ski, stated: 'It’s like jumping down from, let’s say, about two meters on the ground about a thousand times a year, which seems not to be appropriate for ladies, from a medical point of view.'” The risk is not that women have more brittle bones or have a higher risk of injury based on their anatomy; no, instead, Kasper and others' perspective was that the women might injure their reproductive organs and threaten their ability to follow through with nature's intended contribution to the world of children.

This position might seem absurd to some listeners, especially since we are in the 21^st century. But the arguments by Kasper and others regarding the medical risks to women are not new. Instead, these have long been the arguments used to prevent girls and women from participating in sports. Little League Baseball argued in favor of their Boys Only rule in the 1970s that girls were physically inferior, more likely to be injured, and more likely to be disfigured for life by an injury which is also known as a broken nose. Little League Baseball cast themselves as protecting the little girls from future shame based on their looks and pressure from libber parents. There are other sports as well – for example, Hillary Clinton has previously discussed how she played a restricted version of 6-on-6 basketball as a child where the girls were only allowed to run half of the court. Women's tennis does not play as many sets as men. And, softball games only go 7 innings instead of baseball's 9. By not running up the full court or playing fewer games, then the fragile women were not at the same risk as the male counterparts.

With this in mind, we should think about how female athletes are described as different and inferior to their male counterparts. One group is thought of as embodying femininity within culture while the other group is displaying the masculinity of culture. Sports encourages beliefs about how boys and men should be tough, strong, athletic, physically imposing, and dominant. But sports have also restricted girls and women's abilities to perform these characteristics. Instead, the girl who continues to behave like a boy (aka a tomboy) into high school and college has her sexuality questioned because she can't want to be strong, tough, or dominant; that just isn't ladylike! Instead, female athletes can be strong but not too muscle bound and can be tough but while wearing makeup and ribbons to accentuate their attractiveness and sexual availability. Many theorists, including Andrew Billings and Gina Daddario, have examined television coverage of the Olympics and found that there are differences in the ways that male and female athletes are presented to the viewer. Men are often called by their last name and the focus is on how their mental or physical strength explains their success over the competition. In contrast, women are referred to by their first name or fairy tale, princess like nicknames. Their grace, flexibility, and emotions are the focus of the coverage, not their strength or toughness.

But ski jumping challenges many of the assumptions that physical differences are to explain for female athletes' inferiority. The sport relies on technique, aerodynamics, and less weight, not more to excel in the sport. By being lighter, less muscle bound, and having good technique women might just fly past their male competitors. Many have argued that it is not real concern for the physical impact or toil the sport puts on any body, male or female, that has been to blame for women's exclusion from the sport. Instead, it is because women really threaten the masculine-feminine dichotomy in sports. Women’s Ski Jumping Vice President, Vic Method, offered such an interpretation when he stated, “This is a big macho event in Europe. If suddenly you’ve got these little size-four girls jumping comparable distances, the men don’t look so macho anymore.” So while officials argued there weren't enough women participating in the sport or that it posed a risk to the women's health, in reality it came down to the fact that these women flying through the air challenged the beliefs about who is supposed to excel in sports. Suddenly their lighter and shorter frames are an advantage rather than a deterrent to their success. With each jump through the air, the female ski jumpers prove that their legal fight for inclusion was all worth it. They offer a glimpse at excellence and a challenge to the belief that female athletes are inherently inferior to their male counterparts. They may only be jumping from the normal hill in this Olympics while the men will also be jumping from the large hill, but make sure to enjoy watching them fly even if it is only for a few brief seconds because they are evidence of some cultural progress. That's the ball game for this week. Thanks for listening.