There are a few important, useful buzzwords I’ve learned as an undergraduate at a liberal arts institution, with “privilege,” “diversity” and “segregated fees” being a few. But another important one I’ve picked up is the importance of being “sex-positive,” or to not shame or limit the ability of others to express their sexuality with a consenting adult, regardless of orientation, sex drive or kink.
As someone who thinks adults should be able to do it however they please, I at first was taken aback by a new National Collegiate Athletic Association rule that strictly prohibits coach-athlete relationships, even if the two involved are of age, and labels such relationships a form of sexual abuse on the part of the coach, though it’s not necessarily criminal behavior, according to Inside Higher Ed.
There shouldn’t be a problem if the two are consenting adults, right? At first blush, calling a consensual relationship “sexual abuse” seemed to be incredibly harsh. However, the power dynamics between coaches and players sets up athletes – who are mostly women in the relationships – to be exploited, according to Inside Higher Ed. Calling authority-athlete relationships “sexual abuse” is an effective and necessary deterrent to protect players who are in an inherent position and the NCAA is right to enact this measure.
The leverage a coach has over a player – regardless of whether they abuse it or not – makes the consent of an athlete “illegitimate” in the eyes of the NCAA, according to Inside Higher Ed. As someone with a sibling who is a Division 1 athlete in the state, I know how many amazing opportunities athletes earn and how much of that is controlled by a coach and an athletic department. Conversely, this means a lot can be taken away.
I can hear the critics now: “A person of age should be able to decide for themselves!” It fits with the idea of being sex-positive. In most every other scenario, I would totally agree. Up until now, there have not been many policies explicitly banning such relationships, and that is probably the reason why – they’re fine under the eyes of the law. However, the regular perimeters for a consenting, healthy relationship have dissolved in a coach-player relationship. The NCAA’s stamp of illegitimacy is correct.
Athletics at the University of Wisconsin has seen its share of abuse, most recently with the case of former Associate Athletic Director John Chadima and the incident at the Rose Bowl this year. While Chadima was never in a relationship with any of the men he allegedly abused, it demonstrates how sports authority figures – even beloved ones – have the capacity to betray trust. Two startling examples from Inside Higher Ed that occurred outside UW include a basketball player who was forced to trade sex for time on the court and a swimmer who killed himself after he was molested.
Imagine a relationship with a TA gone awry – you end things with a TA and you fear for your grade come the end of semester. Imagine that anxiety, and now multiple it by each year an athlete has left. Multiple it by scholarships, athletic dreams, housing and how your team looks at you. There’s too much at stake for an athlete, too much power in the hands of a coach and the NCAA is right to try their hardest to make sure their relationships do not come to be.
Adelaide Blanchard ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in journalism.
