RebKell's Junkie Boards

[bluewolfvii]

[KatValeska]

[PSUAlum]

LTF you said,”I am not nearly so sure that she discriminated in any significant way against lesbians after 1991, and I doubt she had many on her team in those years”

Here are a few examples of Rene’s post 1991 activities as recounted in national news media. I know there are more that have just not come out and publicly told stories of post 1991. I hope you know now that Rene never did follow the anti-discrimination policies at Penn State.



Per a long article in the Boston Globe published on March 26, 2006 (BTW if I recall correctly this was printed around the same time that the Women’s Final Four was in Boston)

http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/womens_basketball/articles/2006/03/26/when_the_fouls_get_very_personal/


Courtney Wicks, who played for Penn State in 1996 and '97, said Portland told her family while recruiting her that she would not tolerate lesbians on her team. Wicks said Portland ''instigated a full-fledged gay-bashing session" after the team attended a professional women's game in Seattle in 1996. And, finally, Wicks said, Portland drove her off the team by accusing her of associating with a lesbian.

''She uses her power to ruin your life if you don't live by her code," Wicks said in a phone interview. ''It can be very debilitating emotionally. I feel like she singlehandedly tried to ruin my career."




Per a long article and sidebar about the Jen Harris in USAToday

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/womensbasketball/2006-05-11-portland-accusations_x.htm

"I had two separate conversations with her on the subject. One, I asked her directly why she felt the way she felt. Why she had this stance about not allowing lesbians in the locker rooms, on her team, or in her program. She said that she doesn't want her players to have to make a choice in the locker room. Basically, she almost made it seem, if you have a lesbian on the team, they could be predatorial and force you to make a decision you don't want to have to make, or force you to make a decision that you don't even really want to think about at that point in time, and it can be or is distracting. That was her big thing — distractions."

— Courtney Wicks, played for Portland as a freshman (1996-97), then quit in her sophomore season, in January 1998


"An athlete on the team told Rene, 'I know she's a lesbian.' So, Rene started to question my sexual orientation to others connected to the team. She said, 'If it's true, she can't work with the team.' I knew the culture at Penn State, I knew her history, but it was something I wanted and needed to do because my ultimate goal was to be an athletic trainer at Tennessee. So, I grew my hair long. I wore more makeup. I stopped going to alternative night at Players, the club on campus. I dressed differently. To the point where my parents noticed a difference. I knew I needed Rene's name on my résumé. She was asking questions. So, I had to give the appearance of being straight. It didn't come up again. I'd always been open about my sexual orientation. It was the first time in my life that I hid. I never had to do it before, and I've never had to do it since."

— Chris Demuth, student trainer for 1996-97 season


"I was in her office because we all have to have a coach-player meeting at the end of the season. We were talking about the softball team. ... She said that they hang out with us, so it makes them seem like they're not gay. That's when she said that we don't accept that on this team. I said, 'Oh, OK.'

— Amber Bland, played for Portland as a freshman (2004-05), was kicked off the team in March 2005, the same night as Harris. Reinstated a few weeks later, she left at the end of that academic school year.

[womens_hoops]

[scullyfu]

personally, i think its off the mark to believe that any university ad is going to consult voepel (or any other columnist) for their opinions on who to hire.

_________________
i'll always bleed Storm green.

[LTF1]

I read the Boston Globe article and didn't see much new there, except I did find my position re Harris:

"Yale coach Chris Gobrecht, who has gained a reputation for fostering a climate of diversity during her 25 years coaching Division 1 teams, including Southern California, Florida State, and Washington. Gobrecht expressed doubt about Harris's account.

''This particular case, to me, is fishy," she said. ''I don't put a lot of stock in somebody who says I'm heterosexual but I got kicked off the team because I was perceived to be homosexual. It sounds to me like she is the one with a problem."

The fact is that because of Portland's big mouth prior to 1991, she made herself a target for gay-lesbian rights organizations and any disgruntled player or former player who came down the 'pike. If Portland is as guilty as so many claim, it is amazing it took 14 years before a player came forward, and then one who claimed she was straight but that Portland only thought she was gay. And of course the racism angle--almost an afterthought--was thrown in to get the case to federal court.

What is ironic is that with Portland, players straight and lesbian knew what her personal feelings were. If a player were a lesbian and still wanted to go to Penn she knew what she was getting in to. Or she may have thought, "No way I'm going to Penn with Portland there." How many coaches are out there who share Portland's distaste for lesbians but simply keep quiet? This doesn't stop them from discriminating and unwitting players may have little clue to a coaches feelings on the matter.

And now, after Portland has been such a target, no coach in her/his right mind will say boo. I find smothering speech rarely if ever a good thing

I'm off to watch LSU

[womens_hoops]

[LTF1]

I think you are right re Oncale, however ironically, if

"Harris wins the case [moot now of course] framing a sexual orientation discrimination case as a failure to conform to gender stereotypes will likely become the legal standard. However, the “gender nonconformity equals sex discrimination” argument assumes that every homosexual acts in a stereotypical way, and will not provide protection for potential plaintiffs that do not"

S: http://sportsentertainment.ncbar.org/Newsletters+/Newsletters/Downloads_GetFile.aspx?id=6020.

which if so, might explain why everybody seemed eager to settle.

I also wonder if this isn't just an avenue to get around Higgins (not particularly honest if it is) re discrimination base on orientation

wh:"So gay players either didn't go there, or they stayed in the closet if they did. So Rene effectively got to enforce her policy of discrimination even after 1991. How convenient."

Unfortunately, yes. But the alternative is for gay players to go another program where the coach may be just as hostile to gay players but not know it (and still wind up in the closest) OR go to a program where gay players are welcomed

And I am glad to see you could post without swearing

[womens_hoops]

[LTF1]

wh:"it never **** lasts."

Hmm. So have you seen professional help about what could be an OCD?

wh:"Higgins v. New Balance? The First Circuit case? It's not controlling law in Pennsylvania anyway, so there's no need to "get around" it. "

I'm sorry, I thought Harris filed in federal court.

But didn't you say "The core of the case was based on Hopkins and Oncale"? Isn't that "controlling law in Pa"? and if so, isn't "Higgins" as well? I am so confused. (And I am so glad you are so smart that I know you will put me straight)

wh:"There's nothing dishonest about the argument in any event. Orientation discrimination is not illegal under federal law. But gender discrimination is. And in many cases, orientaion discrimination is inseparable from gender discrimination. When you require (gay) women to behave like traditional, feminine, "normal" (straight) women, you can discriminate both ways at the same time."

Which is why it is ok to stereotype the behavior of gay (and straight) people in court (now that is progress-sarcasm)

And as I wrote, I believe you are right about Oncale. (But apparently you just want to fight, which is ok I guess)

In any case I don't find Harris credible and apparently at least some "progressive" folks don't either eg the Yale coach I quoted earlier. We disagree on Harris, which almost necc means we disagree on what should have happened to Portland. I am willing to leave it at that.

[womens_hoops]

[LTF1]

wh:"Rene v. MGM (9th Cir.) is more generous. The Third Circuit has indicated that it will likely follow MGM."

I know what is binding in one circuit is not binding in the next. I do find it interesting however that various circuit courts may choose which precedents in other circuits to follow or not. (Does Congressional intent matter at all here?)

wh:"I'm still not sure I understand what you mean"

The article I quoted from the NC bar suggested that if Harris had won that the "gender nonconformity equals sex discrimination argument assumes that every homosexual acts in a stereotypical way, and will not provide protection for potential plaintiffs that do not"

Maybe that or my interpretation of it is wrong. (I am under the assumption however that not all lawyers agree on all interpretions)

wh:"It's not that I'm so smart. It's just that I'm a lawyer."

Well that is understandable as I have taught students who went on to be lawyers and in my experience they really are no brighter on average than any one else who graduates from college (nor are Ph.Ds in history for that matter)

[womens_hoops]

[CamrnCrz1974]

Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, 305 F.3d 1061, 1063-64 (9th Cir. 2002) holds the fact a harasser may be motivated by hostility based on sexual orientation is irrelevant; it is enough the harasser engaged in severe or pervasive unwelcome physical conduct of a sexual nature.

Hopkins is the mixed-motives case.

Oncale does not protect homosexuality, but holds same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII if the victim is targeted "because of (biological) sex," irrespective of the gender of the alleged harasser.

[womens_hoops]

[CamrnCrz1974]