No.48 September 2006 |
|||
print / save view |
Introduction
In 1975, the picture in regard to sports rights
and equity for women in the USA seemed to be altering for the better.
This was the year our federal education program equity steps began to
be enacted. Three years earlier, when the landmark Title IX law was actually
passed, I had been named to the Executive Board of the group that oversaw
the World University Games program in the United States. In the summer
of 1975, I attended the World University Games event (a track meet) in
Rome, Italy. In the hustle and bustle accompanying the pre-event preparation
of a national team for an international event, by default I was assigned
to be the “USA Representative to the General Assembly” (governing
body of World University Games, FISU). I don’t remember any other
women being there in a room of about 100 other country representatives.
Having been a national level participant in softball and leader in national
college level sports in the USA, I was keenly aware of the frequent
(virtually universal) phenomenon of women’s sport being overseen
by men. It seemed to me, rooted as I was in a context of civil rights
advocacy for women in sport, that FISU policy and practice was grossly
unfair towards women, cutting itself off from the resources of highly
qualified women in roles of coach, athletic trainer, team doctor, chef
de mission, national representative, game official and others. Thus,
although I was quite sure my male colleagues expected me to go to the
General Assembly and sit quietly, I was unable to allow this opportunity
pass. As the meeting drew to a close, President Primo Nebiolo scanned
the Assembly with a final call for “any further business”
and I raised my hand. I walked to the microphone and delivered a two-minute
pitch for increasing the role of women in the FISU movement. The audience
sat in stunned silence and President Nebiolo was livid. As I sat down,
he made a comment in Italian to the group (I was told later it was simply
“unflattering to women”) and sadly he took out his fury
on my male compatriots whom he accused of high stupidity for allowing
such a woman in a public role.
It was a classic vignette of the times 30 years
ago, but it does illustrate a crucial observation in regard to “human
rights.” I felt the FISU movement was “flawed” in that
many barriers blocked women from leadership and the result was injustice.
Dr. Nebiolo, the Founder of FISU (now deceased) felt I had violated his
human rights in that I had introduced “politics” into the
world he had created; a world he thought should be free of the “profane
political issues” that divide people. How could the two of us view
our human rights so differently? While the “ideal,” or the
theory, of certain “inalienable human rights” is a universal
(etic phenomenon in linguistics), the concrete enactment of our rights
is highly time and culture bound (emic). Only in the context of international
treaty bodies creating instruments, then ratified by hundreds of countries
with built-in self and other monitoring and reporting systems, do we actually
begin to see “universal” human rights emerge. The history
of the past six decades in the United Nations’ (UN) system gives
evidence of a continual expansion, differentiation and increasing specificity
of attention to the role of physical recreation and leisure in human development
as a human right. Consistently, the benefits to be derived from such lifespan
physical activity were initially conceived to be neither
necessary nor valuable for women, young girls, older women, or those with
disabilities.
Within the United Nations system, Schuler (1995) notes a strong international
consensus has evolved and expanded to cover a “growing field of
vital concerns and threats to human dignity” (p.2). With the texts
and activities advanced through the UN Year of Sport and Physical Education
in 2005 and the Secretary General’s Task Force on Sport for Development
and Peace, sport can be said to be a new focal human right. The question
remains - in what sense is access to sport/physical recreation and its
benefits universal and in what sense is it “privileged?”
The dynamic character of human rights concepts must be recognized based
on a combination of factors such as evolving definitions of human rights,
emerging forms of human relationships, new political forces and technological
changes (Schuler, 1995). Feminist scholars and activists (men and women
alike) have coined phrases such as “engendering human rights”
in order to raise awareness and stimulate action towards three goals:
While these words were intended to describe the general context of women’s
rights as human rights, there are innumerable examples of their exemplification
in the sport area.
The ensuing text explores three themes: (a) a brief description of the
basis of “play/sport as a human right” within UN treaties
and conventions; (b) the Olympic Movement as an NGO (non-governmental
organization) actor within human rights systems; and (c) evidence suggesting
“sport as a universal human right” is part illusion for
women.
Play/Sport as a Basic Human Right
The trajectory of expansion and elaboration of human rights in sport/physical
activity is continual as the various task forces and committees of the
UN system have generally met annually in attempts to perfect attainment
of the broad goals of the treaties and conventions. Focal points along
the path can be identified from 1948 (when the process began) to the
1978/79 conventions, to the decade of special action on women’s
issues 1995-2005 and the 2005/06 period in which the spotlight falls
dramatically upon sport.
In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the
UN General Assembly, setting out a framework of rights and duties in
the broadest dimensions. Article 1 characterizes all individuals as
born free and equal in dignity and rights. The second article describes
the entitlements holding without discrimination of many types, including
sex. Article 24 calls for the right to rest and leisure to all, while
Article 27 enumerates the right to participate in the cultural life
of the community (Koenig, 2000).
Three documents prepared in 1978/79 served to particularize the rights
accruing from those identified previously as universal. UN bodies issued
“The Convention of the Rights of the Child” and “The
Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women” (CEDAW)
(Koenig, 2000). Children (ostensibly boys and girls alike), were to
be granted an education “to prepare for an active adult life…”
(p. 70). Children were also granted access to leisure, recreation and
cultural activities (Koenig, 2000).
Within the CEDAW framework, two statutes directly mention physical activity
and one of the more general statues can be seen as relevant to the discussion.
Part III, Article 10 guarantees education equality between men and women
including the same opportunities to participate actively in sports and
physical education (United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women,
2006). Article 13 identifies the right to participate in recreational
activities, sports and all aspects of cultural life. Article 10 contains
language calling for the elimination of stereotypical roles of men and
women at all levels and in all forms of education. Denial of women’s
access to sport/physical activity has been related to stereotypical
views of the needs and interests of men and women (International Working
Group on Women in Sport, n.d.).
The 1978 Charter on Physical Education and Sport came from the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
The framers enshrined the notion that the exercise of human rights is
predicated on the freedom to develop and preserve one’s physical,
intellectual and moral powers and that access to physical education
and sport should be guaranteed for all (UNESCO, 1978).
In the period 1995-2005, documents emanating from the 4th World Conference
on Women held in Beijing (referred to as the Platform for Action or
PFA) and the Beijing+5 Outcomes Document took center stage. As Koenig
(2000) states, “The Beijing Platform for Action, prepared and
approved by delegates of all governments present at the Conference,
is the most complete document produced by the UN relating to women’s
rights” (p. 9). Although direct and indirect references to sport/physical
activity benefits are scattered throughout the 12 areas of concern addressed
in the Platform for Action and Beijing+5 Outcomes, in the interest of
brevity, I only mention the three direct application statements in the
PFA:
By 2004, the UN Inter-agency Task Force on Sport for Development and
Peace had been created and illustrated the mainstreaming of girls and
women’s concerns in a general initiative. A key concern of the
Task Force has been the facilitation of the Millennium Development Goals
11 (MDG) of the UN. All of the MDGs impact girls and women and two (maternal
health and the empowerment of women) address concerns directly. Sport
and physical activity will increasingly be utilized as vehicles for
the attainment of MDGs in diverse ways including the following: incorporation
of sport in comprehensive development planning; establishment of partnerships
within the UN, IOC, sport sector, NGOs and the corporate world; encouragement
of the media to actively promote sport for development (UNICEF, n.d.).
The Olympic Movement as an NGO Actor
The identification of sport as an important tool in the civil society
search for development and peace must not be seen as a cosmic accident.
Sport scholars have, for decades, been producing an important body of
evidence for the benefits of life-long participation in sport/physical
activity. Many have, individually and collectively, taken “evidence-based
advocacy” to the keepers of the Olympic flame as well as policy
makers in governments around the world (Oglesby, 2002). The IOC describes
itself now as an international NGO in a time when the non-governmental
and corporate sectors have become crucial in the effort for an equitable
and peaceful world (Bonbright, 2004; Karajkov, 2006).
The IOC posits itself as a “family”, encompassing in its
two arms virtually the family of (hu)man. The more familiar arm, the
Olympic Games organizational structures, includes the IOC, the International
Federations, the National Olympic Committees, the Organizing Committees
of each game manifestation, athlete coaches, judges, associations and
clubs out of which athletes develop (International Olympic Committee,
n.d.). The other arm of the Olympic Movement is Olympism; a less formal
use of the various structures to promulgate an overarching philosophy
of sport for all. The texts regarding Olympism are perhaps familiar
to us: “Olympism is a philosophy of life exalting and combining
in a balance whole the qualities of body, mind and will; Olympism places
sport at the service of harmonious development including knowledge,
competitive spirit, excellence, fair play” (International Olympic
Committee, 2004). As we have seen, the admonition of Olympism that the
practice of sport is a human right to which all must have the possibility
of access, is not new. What is relatively new, however, is the intentional
collaboration of the Olympic Movement with the UN, UNESCO and WHO to
bring sport to the service of real, concrete development through sport
as a tool for local, community, economic development projects, HIV/AIDS
education, humanitarian assistance and more (International Olympic Committee,
2006).
The 2004, 10th World Sport for All Congress, an activity of the Sport
for All Commission of the IOC, concluded with a declaration enumerating
the most important considerations when viewing the benefits of sport
for all. These were categorized in areas of health, social and economic
benefits and touched on matters such as increased sense of well-being
and identity; social skill development; social cohesion; and preventive
protection for a variety of diseases of chronic inactivity with a resultant
benefit of better quality of life and reduced societal health care costs.
Perhaps Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed the recognition of the
power of sport as a development tool best:
“Beyond physical well-being, sport can play
an important role for a safer, more prosperous and peaceful society, through
its educational values and worldwide network…sport can help bridge
cultural and ethnic divides, create jobs and businesses, promote tolerance
and non-discrimination, reinforce social integration and advocate healthy
lifestyles” (International Olympic Committee, 2006).
In a world where sport is tasked to accomplish all of that, access
to its benefits must absolutely be a full and complete right.
Sport for Women: A Universal Right or Illusion?
Before any human rights violation can be challenged
and eradicated, it must be recognized. It is well beyond the scope of
this paper to document the illusory aspects of a concept such as the universal
right of girls and women to sport. This conscious-raising and documenting
task has been carried out through the four world conferences on women
and sport of The International Working Group (web site = www.iwg-gti.org/e/index.htm),
actions of international organizations such as Women Sport International
(web site = www.womensportinternational.org) and national organizations
such as the Women’s Sports Foundation of the USA (web site = www.womenssportfoundation.org).
The Brighten Declaration, serving as a veritable declaration of human
rights for women in sport, has now been ratified by 280 organizations
in over 100 countries. However, two prime examples of past, and continuing,
human rights violations structurally affecting the universal right of
girls and women to sport are (a) the low levels of women in sport leadership
and (b) sexual harassment in sport.
Women in Leadership in the Olympic Movement
The IOC has accepted/recognized the rhetoric and data coming from its
own Working Group on Women (now a Commission) and the aforementioned
groups insisting that women’s sport experience is neither full
nor complete if it ends at participant levels. Prior to the mid-1990s,
it was the rare woman who was an IOC member (Princess Ann of Great Britain).
To its credit, the IOC set goals for its constituent bodies in regard
to women’s leadership participation. An extensive study by the
Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy at Loughborough University, UK
has produced an extensive data set of which the following table is the
barest beginning.
Women in Sport Leadership – Olympic Movement
Dec. 2004
NOC Continental Associations’ Board Membership
A study of the barriers that account for such data (and reams of other
data that have been compiled internationally and country by country)
as well as of the suggested means of overcoming difficulties, form the
way ahead. It is heartening to see small, but positive, steps and commitments
being made to move more rapidly.
Violations through Sexual Harassment in Sport
Within the realm of sport, sexual harassment was seldom spoken of, and
certainly never researched, until the past 15 years. Pioneers such as
Brackenridge, Leahy, Kirby and Greaves, Fasting and Sundgot-Borgen have
lead the way in shining a light on this topic of concern. Their research,
only touched on in this paper, carefully documents that (a) sexual harassment
in sport exists; (b) both women and men are harassed; (c) women are
harassed significantly more often; and (d) harassers are most often
(though not always) men. Data from studies in Canada, Australia, United
States and Norway indicate between 22% and 45% of women sport participants
experience sexual harassment.
The researchers are careful to point out potential flaws in their own
research due to factors such as variation in definitional understanding
of concepts, sampling problems, ethics and consent difficulties, underreporting/non
responses and other factors. (Brackenridge, 2001; Fasting, Brackenridge,
& Sundgot-Borgen, 2003). The purpose of noting these excerpts from
major works (even with some flaws) is to indicate the importance of
our commitment, within a human rights framework, to take note of the
need to safeguard women and children through clearer definitions of
harassment, abuse, appropriate and inappropriate behaviors within the
sport context.
The paths for women and men towards human rights in sport have been
presented here as the same when seen in broad, theoretical strokes,
and delayed for women as we look at the timelines for the appearance
of national/international level policy related to the rights of women.
The divergences appear when we take the lens of the microscope to the
level of on-the-ground programs. The creativity and persistence of sport
scholars, activists, teachers, coaches and interested volunteers is
challenged when they attempt to create action programs that overcome
economic, tradition and culture barriers and attract girls and women
to a sphere only recently opened to them.
But we are on the path.
References
Abaka, C. (1999). Framework for a human rights approach
to women’s health: the work of the CEDAW Committee. Retrieved 10
September 2006 from www.un.org/womenwatch/DAW/CSW/rights.htm
Brachenridge, (2001). Spoilsports: Understanding
and preventing sexual exploitation in sport. London: Rutledge.
Bonbright, D. (2004). A justice oriented global civic
society intrastructure: Vision or Illusion. Civicus. Retrieved
19 September 2006 from www.civicus.org.
Fasting, I., Brackenridge, C., & Sundgot-Borgen,
J. (2003). Experiences of sexual harassment and abuse among Norwegian
elite female athletes and non-athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport 74, (1), 74-97.
International Olympic Committee. (n.d.). Olympic Movement.
Retrieved 10 September 2006 from http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/movement/index_uk.asp.
International Olympic Committee. (2004). The Olympic
Charter. Lausaunne, Switzerland: Author.
International Olympic Committee. (2006, January 24).
News about development through sport. Retrieved from http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/missions/
humanitarian/full_story_uk.asp?id=1610.
International Working Group on Women and Sport. (n.d.).
Brighton Declaration. Retrieved 10 September 2006 from www.iwg-gti.org
Brighton Declaration.
Karajkov, R. (2006). NGO’s: Who else will do
the work. Retrieved 10 September 2006 from www.worldpress.org/europe/2415.cfm.
Koenig, S. (2000). A human rights resource packet,
New York, NY: Peoples Decade for Human Rights Education.
Oglesby, C. (2002). Evidence-based advocacy and women in sport/physical
activity. Paper
delivered at Div. 47 award lecture, Annual Convention of America Psychological
Association.
UNESCO. (1978). International charter of physical education and sport.
Paris, France:
Author.
UNICEF. (n.d.). UNICEF. Girls' education campaigns.
Retrieved 9 September 2006 from http://www.unicef.org/girlseducation/campaign_sport_education_girls.html.
United Nations (2004). Sport for development and
peace: towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Geneva,
Switzerland: United Nations Inter-agency Task Force on Sport for Development
and Peace.
United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women.
(2006). Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against
women. Retrieved 8 September 2006 from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/.
Contact: Dr. Carole Oglesby WomenSport International (WSI) California State University USA carole.oglesby@csun.edu ![]() http://www.icsspe.org/portal/index.php?w=1&z=5 |