The US Women’s National Hockey Team is currently playing in the World Championships in Michigan. (And the team has made it through to the semi-finals.) Prepared to boycott this tournament over gross inequities in pay and treatment between them and the men’s team, there was a (nearly) 11th hour resolution to the situation. (The financial terms have not been confirmed by either the team or USA Hockey but they include monthly stipends–year-round–instead of just during the Olympic year; that previous agreement amounted to a total of $6,000 over the course of four years from USA Hockey to national team members.)
It was a moment of triumph for women’s sports. It was a highlight of my week–and others I know felt similarly. It was a show of solidarity and steadfastness. USA Hockey, with whom the national team had been in negotiations for over a year, initially poo-pooed the threat of the boycott and sought out other athletes–first from Division I schools, then II, III and then on to high school and rec league teams. And they never found enough players to field a team– a team that would have been (no offense to my rec league friends) quite substandard.
The men’s team also backed the women, suggesting that if USA Hockey did not prevent the boycott, they too would boycott their upcoming world championships.
In addition, the women effectively utilized social media platforms and the mainstream media took notice. The story was widely covered, including on ESPN!
Sadly, with the ink on the contracts barely dried*, other news came out from the world of women’s hockey. The University of North Dakota is cutting its DI women’s team. This is a team that feeds the national teams of the US and other countries.A team that produced two of the US national team’s current stars–sisters Monique and Jocelyne Lamoureux (who transferred from Minnesota).
This does not appear to be a Title IX issue though this very confusing article said Title IX was considered and something about funneling the budget from women’s hockey to both men’s and women’s sports. Running the numbers–last year’s reported figures–and taking into account that two teams were cut last year and, along with women’s ice hockey, men’s and women’s swimming will be cut at the end of the year, they appear to be in compliance with participation opportunities.
In other words, there is little to be done. Because, unlike the US women’s national team, they do not–like most intercollegiate women’s hockey teams–have widespread support. And part of the reason support for the team might be low is because of institutional priorities. The money saved from the five sports cut in two years will be going to the school’s football program–no matter what UND says. Yes, state budget cuts are likely coming and the cuts are a response. But cutting these teams to address those budgets are a choice–an institutional choice–that allows the university to maintain the financial support to football– a program that recently (2012) joined the “big time” Big Sky Conference–a move that requires a lot of capital.
I think USA Hockey was genuinely surprised by the support the national team rallied. They pushed back hard against a team that represents them and represents them well (despite the lack of support these women receive from the organization). In other words, USA Hockey was forced to bow to the pressure of popular opinion and a culture of community within the world of hockey.
I don’t know if UND can garner that support. The Lamoureux twins have made public statements about the cut and sent a letter to the university president asking for the team to be reinstated. They have said will use similar tactics employed by the national team in its campaign. And maybe it will work.
But I had hoped that the “mere” fact that this is a highly successful team that sends its players on to the Olympics would have been enough for the administration to put it in the keep column. That they would see being the only intercollegiate women’s hockey program in the state as a responsibility. That these accomplishments and status would be a source of pride and perhaps even marketing for the school.
But maybe I should not be too surprised that a university which put its own athletic teams–including football–in jeopardy by continually defying and fighting the NCAA’s ban on Native American mascots, does not know how to act in its own best interests, let alone ethically.
* it seems as good a time as any to trot out this cliche.