Check Feet

Check Feet

Ultimate’s Loose Policy Foundation

A brief, non-comprehensive review of 42 local disc organizations’ codes of conduct and player policies

Layne Scherer (she/hers)

E-mail: writetolayne at gmail dot com | Twitter: @laynescherer

Download | .pdf essay | .pdf highlights | .xlxs workbook

Uploaded: December 12, 2020

This essay is the second in a series. While you do not need to read the first essay, The Ultimate Gatekeepers: The gates of ultimate are white, and the keepers are men, you may access it here. The next essay will focus on mental health and well-being in ultimate.

I. Introduction: Policy should be an expression of community values

II. Data: For many, codes of silence

IIa. Defining the sample

IIb. Defining key terms

III. Policies = expectations + processes = accountability

IV. Policies and procedures are necessary and not enough

Appendix I: Definitions of key terms[1]

Appendix II: About the Author

Content warnings: racism, sexism, sexual misconduct, sexual assault

I. Introduction: Policy should be an expression of community values

Maybe rules, policies, and processes aren’t fun or exciting to many people. I opted to get a master of public policy to increase my ability to understand the theories, research, and methods for implementing ethical governance from small organizations to multilateral, global enterprises. I have been known to yell “I am the fun coach” and “We are recreating” during practices. I have made New Year’s resolutions to “be more fun” or, worse, “understand what is fun to me.”[1]

Ultimate fashions itself around a fun and laid-back image, characteristics that feel anathema to rules. Even the purported central tenet of the sport, Spirit of the Game, lends itself to an ideal that posits a kind of noble genteel quality meant to distinguish it from other sports. We, as ultimate players, center our sport around an acknowledgement of what proper behavior is on the field. We, as a sport, have determined that this will be the central approach applied to the culture and other off-field aspects. It, perhaps more than any other written document, believes itself to express a set of community values.

From the Spirit of the Game and the rules that govern play, local disc organizations have the ability to add their own guidance. Given the grassroots nature of ultimate and the importance of local disc organizations, these microenvironments roll up to form the broader identity of the sport. While these disc organizations play a crucial (and often un/derthanked) role in introducing new players to the game and maintaining leagues, a lifeblood of the sport, the codes of conduct and player policies do not always serve as helpful guides to players looking to learn about accepted behavior, understand their rights, and to learn about processes that may protect them.

Do you know what is even less fun than rules, policies, and procedures? Being a part of a system that has so little concern for your welfare that it doesn’t bother to codify protection for you or acknowledge your existence. A system dominated primarily by a single group often does not feel the need to have expectations codified for the edification other groups, as there is a misplaced belief that everyone understands the norms. In the event those with different identities try to enter the system, these individuals who disproportionately face bias, harassment, and abuse cannot bring those who commit harm to justice. At the bare minimum, there must be policies that outline acceptable behavior and accountability measures to address those who cause harm.

I decided to see where ultimate stands, and I found the footing for accountability loose at best.

[1] I consider myself to be a good coach; however, I am someone who says accountability is her love language. I’m really only the “fun” coach when I am the only coach. Also, what is fun to me often is staying home alone with my cat, some books, or an art project. Writing long essays dotted with footnotes is fun. Don’t @ me.

II. Data: For many, codes of silence

Note: If you do not care about data, you may wish to fast forward to section III for the analysis. Some key terms and definitions toward the start of this section may be useful to understand the rest of the essay.

IIa. Defining the sample

I gathered these 42 disc organizations through two primary ways: Google and asking for input from Twitter. This sample is non-comprehensive and non-representative of U.S. and Canadian disc orgs. I am not sure who I am missing; therefore, I am not sure how this audit and analysis may be biased. Due to the nature of the sample, I have categorized my review into statements that I found (yes) or those that could not be located (NL). I decided to code these as “not located” to accommodate the following issues:

The searches and scans I did were moderate in their attempts to located information. They were not meant to be thorough, as I wished to identify information that was readily and easily accessible. The information may exist in another location; however, it was not found during my search.[1]
There may be more up-to-date policies or policies in the process of edit and review that have not been posted to the website.
Some of the organizations referred viewers to the Code of Conduct or other information listed by USAU. My personal opinion is that this is insufficient in terms of policy, as many of the organizations do not make it clear if they follow a similar arbitration and grievance process for their members who are not part of USAU.
I elected against reviewing the state affiliates of USAU. My aim was to look at regional and local differences in comparison to USAU, which I hold here as the comparison group.

Like The Ultimate Gatekeepers essay, this analysis has gaps and should not be taken as a complete view of the ultimate community to be the sole driver of policy change. In many ways, this dataset serves as a companion to The Ultimate Gatekeepers, as it collects common information across local and regional disc organizations, a separate unit of analysis from individual USAU members. Many organizations have democratically elected boards[2] and procedures for change that deserve respect. Similarly, while it does not cover ultimate in totality, I hope it provokes additional questions, reflection, and motivation to review and update policies.

IIb. Defining key terms

The organizations that I reviewed used different terms for their guidance and governance documents. While some used similar language, below are the definitions that I used to guide the analysis:

Code of Conduct and Player Policies: These document(s) may include terms for the membership of the organization, how players should conduct themselves when attending games and/or social events sponsored by the organization, the organization’s mission and vision, arbitration or grievance procedures, and any rule modifications for leagues to use. While they may exist as separate documents, I also included any diversity, equity, and inclusion policies I could find as within the larger umbrella of code of conduct.
By-Laws and other governance documents: These documents contain details related to the governance of the organization itself. These likely include descriptions of the board of directors, committees for the board, elections, process for removing board members, term limits, and other information pertaining to the way the organization is managed.
Equal opportunity membership: The statement must include information on who the organization allows to participate based on demographic information, such as age, and skill-based information, such as ability level.
Anti-harassment (general): These statements, often separate from membership, must include direct language related to the organization’s tolerance for harassment of members. These statements of include demographic categories or other information on groups that are protected from harassment.
- Anti-harassment (race): Within the general anti-harassment statement, is there specific language that ensuring that individuals of all racial and ethnic backgrounds are protected?[3]
- Anti-harassment (sex & gender identity): Within the general anti-harassment statement, is there specific language ensuring that individuals of all sexes and genders, including sexual orientations and gender identities, are protected?[4]
Specific information on sexual misconduct and assault: This statement MUST include language that separates harassing behavior from sexual misconduct and assault. As my experience primarily has been with adults and given the separate liability issues that come with interactions with minors, organizations that ONLY provided language related to misconduct or abuse of minors did not meet the threshold.[5]
- Specific information on sexual misconduct and assault (across sexual orientation and gender identities): Within the general misconduct and assault, is there specific language that identifies protection for individuals of all sexes and genders?
Arbitration or grievance process: This statement must contain information for members on how to file a complaint against another member in the organization.

IIc. The numbers

Due to the interpretative aspect of this analysis, I decided against calling out specific organizations in this report. Since there may be differences of opinion if the language does or not meet the goals I have defined, I have provided a link to my workbook if individuals would like to see if their disc organization was included in the analysis and how I reviewed their policies.

The majority of readily available codes of conducts I reviewed lacked language that provides information on equal opportunity for membership, anti-harassment policies, information on sexual misconduct and assault, or arbitration or grievance processes (see Figure 1 below). In the event there were general anti-harassment statements, many did not make the effort to afford specific language that would protect individuals from different racial and ethnic backgrounds or across all gender identities and sexual orientations. The largest absence I found in the review was the lack of policies addressing sexual misconduct or assault.

Research from RAINN suggests that nearly 1 in 6 women will experience sexual assault in their lifetime. Notably, women from the ages of 18 to 34 years old are the most likely to experience sexual assault.[6] Given the prevalence of sexual assault and the overlap in time when most women are likely to play ultimate and experience sexual violence, the absence of policies specific to sexual misconduct and assault is a major oversight. Further, these policies fail to note sexual and gender minorities[7] as groups that would benefit from additional protection from both harassment and sexual violence, which they are more likely to experience then their heterosexual and cisgender peers.[8] While USAU does have policies that address these issues, there are many individuals who play ultimate through their local disc organization that may not be aware of USAU as an entity, let alone the code of conduct established by it.

It is important to remember that while women face higher levels of harassment and assault, other individuals who do not conform to gender-binary or the gender expectations face bias, stigma, and increased risk of harm. This includes individuals who are non-binary, gay and queer men, transgender men, intersex, and heterosexual men who do not perform traditional masculinity based on height, weight, strength, dress, and other dimensions.

Additionally, only one organization designated mental health as a protected class and only a few provided a designation for disability.[9] Given the presence of ableism in ultimate and broader western society, the failure to note mental health and disability as protected identities erases the challenges faced by these individuals. As someone with ADHD, anxiety, and major depression, while the lack of inclusion is not a surprise, contributes to feeling invisible and is a disappointment given the progressive values that many in the sport claim.

These lapses come alongside the inclusion policies that govern field use, weather, pets, and pick-up players. This signals that organizations care more about how and when fields are used or if a dog can appear on a sideline than protecting the players with marginalized and excluded identities. A well-intentioned organization that “trusts” its players to behave without bias or thinks that rules undermines the fun environment of the sport fails to understand that the sport largely reflects the views of cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied white men of relative to higher socioeconomic means (referred to as PWM privileged white man/men from here on out and PWWs for cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied white woman/women of similar class).

[1] If you feel strongly that this does not reflect reality, you may contest the results by contacting me at writetolayne at gmail dot com. Or, better, you may conduct your own analysis.

[2] Lack of access and barriers to participation in elections in the U.S., from presidential to local sports organizations, is a whole different kettle of fish. On the local sports end of the spectrum, I would be heartened to see more people give a fuck about how their organizations are run. This includes voting, running for leadership positions, and providing more support. I hear a lot of complaints about how organizations are organized without a willingness to contribute energy, resources, or ideas to how things might improve.

[3] I realize, now, I might have looked for nationality/nation of origin as well. On my first day of orientation for my master of public policy, the associate dean said most of policy is “figuring out a way to count things.” At the time, I found it very dry and discouraging. In practice, I have found myself agreeing with him, glumly and grimly.

[4] Initially, I had been inclined to have a separate category that looked for protections for transgender individuals. Given the disproportionate harm and bias received by this group, I believe they merit specific language to ensure their protection. I am not sure if I made the right call here to make the division based on language that calls attention to sexual orientation and gender identity more broadly.

[5] Of issues that deserve attention, the world of youth ultimate could use more voices. For example, Katherine Eo’s Coach A: Abuse in Ultimate stands as a testament for increased attention and protection of youth.

[6] RAINN (Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network): https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence

[7] Sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations include, but are not limited to, individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, transgender, Two-Spirit, queer, and/or intersex. Individuals with same-sex or -gender attractions or behaviors and those with a difference in sex development are also included. These populations also encompass those who do not self-identify with one of these terms but whose sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or reproductive development is characterized by non-binary constructs of sexual orientation, gender, and/or sex from the National Institute of Health Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office.

[8] There are number of resources on this, including the Human Rights Campaign and the National Academies report Sexual Harassment of Women: Culture, Climate, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

[9] This was not done systematically. I also see that I could have done this. This is my bad.

III. Policies = expectations + processes = accountability

By default, the majority group defines the culture and norms, and ultimate reflects a strong imprint by PWMs, and to an extent PWWs.[1] PWMs do not need to protection in documented rules to the extent that those with other identities do, as they have the social power and standing to shape the unwritten expectations. In the absence of explicit policies, we fall back on these expectations, which leave everyone who is not a PWM without recourse.

Accessible and transparent policies make expectations explicit. They signal the group’s values, especially who the group values. Language that calls out protection for people who may experience bias or harm due to their race/ethnicity or as a sexual or gender minority can serve as the foundation for greater equity and inclusion. It shows that the creators have the desire to protect more than PWMs and PWWs, and policies can signal to PWMs and PWWs when their customary behavior must change to comport with standards.

In tandem, transparent processes give people the ability to hold others accountable. In small communities like ultimate, review boards and mechanisms for reviewing complaints can be awkward; however, the absence of a process is a silencing act that demonstrates to those who are most likely to encounter harm that they have no standing to report damages they have experienced in the system. In an ideal world, these processes would not need to exist. Even if the disc organization intends well through existing codes of conduct, the absence may have a different impact. In the world that people with marginalized and excluded identities live in, the process can indicate that the system acknowledges the challenges and abuse that many face. The acknowledgment helps reassure individuals who have experienced harm reassert their agency, as they then have an avenue to report or not, as they see appropriate.

[1] See Appendix 1 for definitions of culture, norms, and other key terms.

IV. Policies and procedures are necessary and not enough

While policies and procedures are critical, they are also the bare minimum. A group must also have a climate that honors targets of harassment and assault, a process designed to result in just outcomes, and an appropriate balance of privacy to protect all involved and transparency for broader accountability. A system that receives no reports does not necessarily reflect that there are no problems. It means there are no reported problems. This kind of loose footing creates slippery slopes, allowing equity and inclusion to fall by the wayside.

Why might this occur? It may mean that information about the system is confusing or difficult to access. There may be financial barriers, in the instance there are filing fees. The environment may be a hostile environment to those who have filed. There may not be enough privacy once the process has begun to protect both those who have filed and those against whom a complaint has been made.

Individuals must believe that the process can work to come forward. The group climate must provide a certain level of psychological safety and security. This does not mean that the process is foolproof or may not need additional revision to ensure that it does not cause further trauma. Any process meant for accountability must be dynamic to be just. It must be capable of change as well. For those who have revamped systems or instituted new procedures, a system that works in an environment that supports targets will receive more reports.

While the image of ultimate may rely on fun and spirit to draw in new players, who gets to have that experience? Fun for whom? It is significantly harder to enjoy your recreation of choice if there isn’t a sense of trust established with those in the group. Policies and procedures, as dry as they may seem, can help broker that sense of trust and firm the foundation for ultimate to build on.

Appendix I: Definitions of key terms[1]

Climate: How the participants perceive the group’s interactions. Many times, the climate (what is experienced on the ground) does not align with the culture (the aspirational and values-driven image)
Culture: How the most dominant values and expectations are perceived by the group.
Diversity: The term diversity often describes the numerical representation of identities within a larger group.
Equity: In an equitable environment, all individuals have the resources, access, and power to achieve similar outcomes.
Inclusion: An inclusive environment, which does not by default have to hinge on diversity but often can be bolstered by it, welcomes all individuals and affirms their identities.
Norms: The standards for behaviors, actions, and viewpoints that uphold the culture and climate.

[1] Pulled from The Ultimate Gatekeepers (Scherer, 2020).

Appendix II: About the Author

I, Layne Scherer (she/hers), have been involved in ultimate since 2012, where I joined University of Michigan’s B-Fly for two years as a graduate student. Upon graduation, I moved to Washington, D.C. where I am an assistant coach at the Catholic University of America (since 2015), and a founding player and now coach of Suffrage, a women’s developmental club team (est. 2015). I have contributed to Ultiworld’s D-III (W) coverage and officiated for the AUDL. I am the founder of the Sports Wiki Visibility Project (on hiatus) and a facilitator with the Time for the Ultimate Talk project.

In my professional life, I am a Study Director and Senior Program Officer at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine with the Board on Higher Education and the Workforce. My policy portfolio includes K-12 teacher development; undergraduate and graduate education; mental health and wellbeing; and culture change in the scientific research enterprise. My professional background includes federal service, non-profit grants management, and the philanthropic sector. I earned my B.A. (English, history of art) and M.P.P. from the University of Michigan.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse