Sexism & Misogyny at the Place

I know I haven’t posted here in a while. But the recent furor over Donald Trump’s hot-mic reminded me of a story that is not particularly flattering but maybe needs to see the light of day.

It was my first or second year and there was definitely a locker-room culture thriving at the Place. Certain male staff members would ask generously endowed female students to deliver a note to another member of the club. The least offensive one that I can remember went something like, “Check out the knockers on this one.” In the incident I observed (I was in another teacher’s classroom), the receiving party smirked, wrote something to add on, and sent the girl on to another staff member.

I did observe the players huddling together on occasion, guffawing and chortling like schoolboys, if schoolboys guffawed and chortled, There were certain favorite messengers but several students apparently qualified. I was quietly, but obviously, appalled and evidently was denied membership in a group I would never have joined, even if asked.

Disgusting, you say? Absolutely. But if you think it’s only because these were young women who were also students, you’re missing the point and bigger picture. Sexism and misogyny were perhaps more prevalent then (we hadn’t even started debating the Equal Rights Amendment yet) than today, but, obviously those attitudes are not just lurking in the darker corners, but occasionally come strutting into the open.

I guess my question is, how would you feel if it were your daughter or sister who was the object (the absolutely correct word) of those kinds of words and actions? I know my answer.

Women's Sports

I am posting this on both my blogs, because it has obvious Hancock roots and memories as well as the more obvious general application. (Slight) apologies to the Hancock Place Hancock Place followers if this has more political overtones than you are generally accustomed to seeing (t)here.

I noticed a FaceBook meme last week, pointing out that amidst all the celebration over American Olympic achievements and medals, there was little if any credit given to Title IX.

Talking to my softball girls the other day after practice, I noted that when I started teaching, there was only the GAA, a club for the “sporty girls,” but no interscholastic sports. The same was true when Carolyn attended Centralia HS – no Orphan Annies, had she wished to play. Girls were limited to May Fete, a kind of dancing thing in white dresses around a May Pole. 

When forced indoors, my Tigers practiced in the “Girls Gym” (the one with the warped floor and no locker rooms and bleachers right next to the sidelines). One year I got permission to order new uniforms for the girls; the local sporting goods store ordered men’s slow pitch sleeveless uniforms. The huge (really huge, gigantic, biggest ever) arm slots were embarrassing. We rejected them and reordered from a company that specialized in women’s sports and equipment. 

In 1994 when it came time to select the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Scholar Athlete, there were two eminently worthy, 3-sport choices, ranked one and two in the class (only a B in one class separated them). Originally the coaching staff and administration picked the male candidate. “Obviously it’s --------------.” I dissented (not an uncommon position for me), despite the respect I had for the male candidate. “Ummm, [the female candidate] has a D-I scholarship offer and also played three sports, all at an exceptional level. This award is for an exceptional athlete who is also a (and in this case, also exceptional) scholar. If the male had that resume, then it would be obvious. To my view, the choice is clear.” To the credit of the Athletic Director and others on the coaching staff, we rethought our choice and Hancock nominated the (IMO) most worthy candidate (of two almost equally worthy students).

Note, we had had previous female scholar athletes, so this is not intended as any kind of criticism of the coaching staff, administration, or process. In this case, however, the seeming tie at first went to the male, “obviously.”

My real point is this. Women’s sports did not progress because of the generosity by their male counterparts or because those in power recognized the long-standing inequality or sexism. Women’s sports and athletes progressed because people, mostly women, recognized their importance and worked and fought to create tools to elevate that status. When you were cheering the incredible accomplishments of the female athletes in Rio, you were also, like it or not, cheering for Title IX. Yes, that same Title IX that was decried, derided and disrespected by conservatives.

Those same conservatives also opposed (in their time, of course) declaring independence in 1775-76, the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, abolition in the mid 1800s, women’s suffrage in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, integration of the armed forces in the 1940s and 50s, civil rights for African-Americans in the 1950s and 1960s, women’s rights (including Title IX) in the 70s and 80s, gay rights at the end of the 20^th century and beginning of the 21^st.... 

I understand that change is scary, that people want to keep things the way they were. And conservatives play a vital role, forcing those who would rush, without sufficient thought, into change, because, The.Law.Of.Unintended.Consequences. But (and I’ve never had anyone offer any kind of counterpoint, coherent or otherwise) conservatives have been on the wrong side of history for centuries. [Addendum: to be fair – I hate that – conservatives probably DO get credit for the Bill of Rights, but that was before compromise was a dirty word.] I’ve noted my disinclination and skepticism about labels, so I’m not claiming any particular one for myself, but I could never call myself a conservative (unless we’re talking about the environment; that is something I definitely want to conserve, and, ironically, some so-called conservatives seem to discount).

Program Building: The JEG

Just a short piece, at least in part because on the political front I don’t know where to start, and, some would say, don’t know when to stop, either. So those thoughts will continue to percolate until they spew messily all over the counter. Not sure anyone is looking forward to that mess.

A former, now friend, who shall remain nameless but knows who she is, wrote to thank me and let me know that she had received kudos (and some $$) from her bosses, based in part on her written communication skills. The credit is hers, of course, because she took instruction that was available to everyone and developed skills that continue to serve her well.

But where those skills were honed was in the JEG room. JEG was born in my second attempt as a journalism adviser (my first was short-lived and less than memorable because I had no clue as to what I was even supposed to do). When Curt Kenner left Hancock (and, for a while, teaching, until finishing his career in journalism at Lindbergh) after the 1977-78 school year, the high school needed a new yearbook adviser. In true Hancock fashion, I was selected because I had the best camera, a Nikon, and knew, more or less, how to use it. I never was journalism certified, but worked (very hard) at learning the skills needed to teach it and train young journalists.

With the help of Rich Wall (and the gang at Schiller's Photo – an uncompensated and unsolicited plug) and some enthusiastic young photographers, together we learned how to set up and run a darkroom and some of the toys we inherited from Curtis (like a huge process camera). The next year, trying to tap into the Foxfire (cultural journalism) trend, we resurrected the school newspaper and, eventually, a literary magazine.

I believed that to build a program that would be a source of pride for its members, we needed to create an identity and tradition, just like any team, organization, or club. Thus was born the Journalism Education Group (JEG). We were successful enough that the acronym stuck for a long while. (In fact, I think it survives to this day.) We muraled the wall outside of our door with paintings of front pages and yearbook covers. My alt. kids also decorated the darkroom with the names of their favorite music groups, some of which I not only remember but have on my playlist: Ramones, Blondie, Sparks, Gruppo Sportivo, Devo, Roxy Music, The Tubes, etc. Music drove a lot of work printing pix in the dark and breathing the chemicals.

Anyway, we grew and developed not only an identity, but a certain amount of power. As you might guess, that was not always well received. But I contend to this day that Hancock’s first state championship was actually in 1985 when we were awarded All-Missouri status in a state sponsored competition for the school newspaper, one of only two St. Louis schools to be so recognized (the other was Kirkwood, a perennial all-state journalism program). 

There were a couple unfortunate by-products of that success: the school principal did not speak to me for a year and a half; I got tired of the conflict and quit the post after that year. Our HQ in Room 102 was then broken up like Germany after World War II, and moved to another, more easily observable, location in the building. I had some great young journalists in the pipeline and still feel bad about abandoning them, but the situation had become untenable and I needed to step away from the fight.

I returned, under a different principal, to the position in 1990-91 and stayed for another six years, and while the second batch of student journalists was more mainstream and less alternative, they were equally successful and proved that location is just one challenge, not an obstacle.

The point of this, however, is that I believe a strong journalism program is the best college (and life) prep available on the high school level. Think about the skills: writing under pressure with deadlines and for public consumption; editing one’s own writing as well as those of others; finding multiple ways to say the same thing in fewer or different words; researching supporting ideas with evidence and detail; talking with people, making cold calls, developing and living within a budget; working as a team, playing well with others, committing to excellence.

Unlike many people, the students in JEG understood that being critical was NOT being disloyal. They felt a part of something important, something that had a tradition, something that was bigger than any individual, something that could make the school they loved better. I could go on and on, and, seeing as how I don’t have anyone to edit me, probably would, except I said this would be short. (You didn’t really believe that, though, did you?)

I’m proud of many things about my Hancock career, but the bright trajectory of the JEG (which, after several stops and starts, is once again in capable hands) I consider one of my top achievements, and, if you look at the alums of that group (both the 80s and 90s versions), you’ll find a significant (and diverse) number of successful Hancock graduates in a variety of fields. I’m proud of each and every one of them.