Support women's sports and SHARE this story with your friends!

On November 22, 2011 the NY Daily News published an article titled "MLB's new collective bargaining agreement to add 'sexual orientation' to discrimination clause."Sounds progressive right? Not exactly.

The new CBA, released Tuesday, added the words “sexual orientation” to its section on discrimination. This development was first reported by the Daily News, and later confirmed by a news release, issued jointly by MLB and the Players’ Association, that read, “Non-discrimination based on sexual orientation were added to Article XV.”

Article XV, Section A of MLB’s expiring Basic Agreement, in effect from 2006-2011, states: “The provisions of this Agreement shall be applied to all Players covered by this Agreement without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.”

In the new agreement, the words “sexual orientation” were added to Article XV. Michael Weiner, the union’s executive director, said that the decision was not motivated by requests from his membership, but by “the lawyers on both sides just recognizing that it should be there.”

So the MLB is basically covering its behind but doesn't actually believe in equitable treatment of its players.  The victory in this new CBA is that same-sex partners are allowed to transfer their pensions and other benefits to their partner, that is, if they are willing to admit that they are in a same-sex relationship.  The article includes quotes from retired MLB player, Billie Bean, who came out only after he stopped playing.  Bean says 

“I don’t know if legislation is going to provide the safety and security that players need,” Bean said. “If you’re a distraction, you’re going to be removed one way or another. They’ll find a way.

“If you’re a marginal player, you fear losing your job at any moment. If you’re a young baseball player who just happens to be gay, you might feel safer keeping it to yourself.”

I think most of us would like to think that policy change is always a step in the right direction, which it certainly helps; but, how effective is policy change when the institution itself is not ready to change? Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a policy that, although intended to protect military personnel, merely emphasized the reluctance of the institution to accept diversity.  What I found most interesting from this article was the how it ended:

Still, there remains disagreement within locker rooms whether an MLB team is ready to accept an openly gay teammate. When news of the same-sex marriage law broke, several Mets said privately they would be uncomfortable with an openly gay teammate (while others said they would be comfortable).

“Most of us are still Neanderthals,” one Met explained.

I think that the unwritten "Code" in sports (e.g. You hit my batter, I'm going to hit yours. You take liberties with our best player then you had better keep a close eye on your superstar. Instead of running up the score the coach pulls off his/her best players towards the end of the game) that acts as a self-policing mechanism of the game and its players is the best way to protect openly gay players within sport IF (and this is a big IF) players can be convinced that those who make homophobic remarks and disrespect certain individuals based on sexual orientation are the ones who are transgressing the norm.  Thus, the masculine (and feminine) norm of sports must change in order for any safety to exist for LGBTQ players. How this happens on a league-wide basis I haven't got a clue; but I do know that it has to come from the players, not the lawyers.

Support women's sports and SHARE this story with your friends!

• Baseball
• Sports
• SportsPLUS
• OpEd
• Discrimination/Title IX
• Sexism
• LGBT

View Original Post at cszto.blogspot.com

View Resident_Badass's Full Profile