III. The Gates and the Keepers: The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions
The rosy picture of ultimate centers the experiences of the 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). These terms do not capture or represent all experiences within ultimate, but instead serve to identify the ways that certain identities have disproportionate influence withing the ultimate community and U.S. society.
This vision often, intentionally or not, erases the experiences of many individuals whose experiences do not align with this view. The sport centers PWMs and PWWs to a greater extent, both in representation on the field and in the culture. While the fun-loving and “keep ultimate weird” vibes may be projected primarily by PWMs, the insistence on a narrow view of ultimate may limit the ability of some PWMs to speak out on their experience.[1] Ultimate’s culture has been molded around PWMs and, to some extent, PWWs to the detriment of all involved and those who might otherwise be interested in the sport, if not turned off by the sport’s image.
Racism, gender harassment and sexual assault, homophobia, ableism, and other harmful behavior exist within the ultimate community; however, they do not always appear as significant experiences or characteristics of the sport, as PWM do not experience these problems at all or to the extent that other groups do. Intentionally harmful actions and lack of representation in ultimate contribute a hostile environment for those who do not fit into this narrow ideal. These explicit issues do not take into account the more subvert forms of exclusion, such as when individuals with marginalized identities speak out about these issues and are met with silence or criticism from PWMs and PWWs. It does not factor in the ways that performative allyship can cause harm if the work focuses on, the important, but limited efforts around reading, education, and discussion without resulting shifts to action and behavior change. While the intent is good, the sum of these phenomena can give the false impression that ultimate is more inclusive than the lived reality, a form of gaslighting to Black, Indigenous, and people of color and those who experience harm within the community.
IIIa. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion + Culture, Climate, and Norms
While the data in Section II provide a foundational and numerical analysis of the failures of ultimate regarding representation related to race/ethnicity and gender, this is only one way to understand the White Gates and Keepers situation. The term diversity often describes the numerical representation of identities within a larger group. Are they present? Who is missing? Do the numbers reflect parity to the broader population? These are critical questions to ask, data to track and analyze, and they provide the basis to ask deeper questions about the experiences of the participants.
From diversity, equity and inclusion describe the how those identities function within the group and both have direct links to systems of power. In an equitable environment, all individuals have the resources, access, and power to achieve similar outcomes. This should not be confused with equal treatment, which gives everyone the same resources, access, and power. Also known as “colorblind,” “race-blind,” or “gender neutral,” these approaches ignore how the existing systems of power afford certain identities (PWM and PWW) more opportunity from the outset.
If diversity relates to representation and equity to access, inclusion refers to the treatment one receives within the group. 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. An inclusive environment does not seek to flatten the identities of the participants into a monolith, rather it allows each person to bring their layered past and feel valued for their unique contributions.
How do diversity, equity, and inclusion take shape in a group? The most dominant values perceived by the group form the culture. On the other hand, climate is 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).The norms are the standards for behaviors, actions, and viewpoints that uphold the culture and climate. When there is a misalignment, often the norms that have been set reinforce behaviors and privilege identities in a way that creates dissonance between culture and climate.
For ultimate, one vision of the culture may be the equitable and diverse sport that many hope it could be. The climate differs significantly from the reports documenting the experiences of Black, Indigenous, and people of color; women; sexual and gender minorities; disabled individuals/individuals with disabilities; and other people with historically excluded identities. In an extension of U.S. society, the norms of ultimate have been formed and idealize PWM and, to an extent, PWW. Even if all of the PWM in ultimate operate without intention to cause harm, their participation in a system that does not actively and intentionally strive toward equity and inclusion will contribute to future damage to others in the sport.
Both PWMs and PWWs have important roles to play in advancing equity and diversity. For those in leadership positions, their behavior and language can help create new norms through advocating for policy changes, holding themselves accountable regarding bias, and making space for Black, Indigenous, and people of color. PWWs in particular can make sure efforts have a strong focus on race, ensuring that forward actions do not repeat the history of gender equality which has centered the rights and needs of PWWs. The work of allyship is not easy. It is not perfect. While it can be thankless[2] and demand energy, the mere act of existence for many others with marginalized identities absorbs much more of their daily focus and causes more personal harm than PWM and PWW will endure from their allyship.
IIIb. Systems of Power Dictate the Past and the Future
At the heart of these issues is power. Who has access to it? How do they wield it? How does it reinforce existing inequities in the broader U.S. society? In ultimate, there is awareness that the leadership positions from the national organizing bodies, the most elite teams, and at the local level have been held primarily by PWM and PWW. Intentionally or unintentionally, the impact of having a homogenous leadership group will mean that their perspectives, lived experiences, and biases will drive the culture, climate, and norms of ultimate. The behaviors deemed acceptable, the skills prized, and the way PWM and PWWs receive the most acclaim will continue to alienate others who do not see their identities represented and included. As I have heard Dr. Kenny Gibbs (he/his) state about scientific research: “The enterprise cannot be excellent if it is not diverse.” [3] Even if the culture of ultimate upholds inclusive excellence, the power structures have not shifted substantially and radically enough to elicit change.
There is a range of the type of harm that can result from this climate. The policies and guidelines that codify the sport can have harmful biases, such as the way that spirit of the game centers the characteristics of sportspersonship embodied by PWM and PWW at the detriment of others.[4] For harassment, procedures around reporting and mediation can be problematic if they have been overseen primarily by
PWM, who do not experience racism and face gender harassment at lower rates;
PWW, who do not experience the intersectional experience of racism and sexism;
And or individuals without the lived experience of trauma, who may not understand how these policies could cause additional harm.
In addition to the policies encoding the biases and limitations of those create them, an individual who sees a governing body or administration led entirely by people who do not represent them, the lack of representation can be silencing. There is a reasonable fear that those individuals may not understand the frequency, pain, and urgency of racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or other hostile language. PWMs and PWWs can be biased that these events may not happen that often, feel as bad, or cause as much immediate concern since they have not been exposed as a target of the behavior. The process, notably if it lacks transparency and accountability about outcomes, can cause as much harm or more as the policies that govern it.
Individuals can contribute to a hostile climate from outright aggression to more subtle actions of racist, gendered, and otherwise biased behavior. I’ll spare you explanations of explicit bad behavior and focus more on the less obvious and, sadly, likely more common behaviors. The language people use can exhibit these prejudices, which can arise from the individual’s consciously held beliefs and reflect how that individual has internalized the bias embedded in the group and U.S. society. For example, racism can also appear in the use of “savage” to describe a play without acknowledging how that word has been used commit genocide and harm to Native American and Indigenous groups. It is describing Black athletes more consistently as “athletic” or “defense-oriented” than noting their strategy, their throwing skills, or their other talents.
In term of racism, I would like to acknowledge how it is possible for marginalized groups to commit and contribute to racism as well. Horizontal aggression, a form of bias that occurs between historically excluded populations, can arise as a symptom of white supremacy and the idea of a socio-racial hierarchy. In ultimate, the notable presence of Asian players gives us an important role to play, even if we receive racism from PWM and PWW. As allies, we can dismantle racism by reflecting on and addressing our own biases related to Black, Indigenous, and other people of color.[5]
Harm reduction around language can also address all forms of ableism and combat stigma against those who have emotional, mental, or physical disabilities.[6] For mental health, the use of “crazy” or “I am going to kill myself” in common parlance ignores how these terms contribute to stigma against those with mental health issues.[7] Phrases such as “blind spot” or “deaf ear” trivialize the experiences of individuals with vision and hearing disabilities. Using words like “crippled” to describe minor injuries or “paralyzed” to describe the experience of freezing or being stuck can similarly belittle those with physical disabilities.
While there are those who consider this kind of language modification to limit free speech, I offer it as an invitation to show those you care about consideration and kindness. PWM and PWWs who hold social power, notably leaders, can help set the tone for the group to make the environment more inclusive. Not every person will mind the use of biased language, but why take the risk when the English language is rich with alternatives? Could a play be awesome or wicked instead of nuts? Could we call jerseys “lights and darks” instead of “whites and blacks” for practice? It is not a demand to be perfect, but a chance to grow and modify behaviors with inclusion in mind.
With regard to experiences biased by gender, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine defines gender harassment as “verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status about members of one gender.”[8] While gender harassment can be experienced by all genders, the National Academies report shows data that sexual harassment is
More likely to be committed by men
More likely to be experienced by women
More likely to be experienced by women of color and people who are sexual-and-gender minorities
See Appendix II: Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine for more
This could include making a new parent feel like an inadequate coach if they cannot spend as much time with the team.[9] It is the type of play that looks off a player based on the beliefs thrower has about the gender of the potential recipient, a common experience for new women-matching players that can contribute to the decision to leave the sport. It is misgendering players. It is the failure to invite individuals to share pronouns.[10]
While these incidences alone are enough (for me at least) to cause irritation and perhaps darken the day at most, the cumulative impact of gender harassment can cause a level of trauma similar to the experience of a single, more severe event. This is not to create a comparison of trauma; however, I want to emphasize that the lived experiences of identities that face higher levels of harassment accrue trauma from these events over time. Additionally, the greater the difference in power between the harasser and the target, the greater the damage can be. A coach harassing a player has a greater potential for damage than between peers, although both can cause trauma.
Here, it is important to mention the broader implications of harassment and bullying. Often, while the person with more power commits the harm, the target of the harassment ends up leaving the community. A player bullied by peers or the coach quits the team. A victim of intimate partner violence withdraws from ultimate, which may have been a critical social support network, while the other partner remains. While this is not unique to ultimate, it means that those who might benefit the most from the support of a community and social interactions recede and suffer the tandem trauma of harassment and isolation. Without holding the most visible and most powerful accountable for abuses of power, the majority of targets will remain silent. Transparent processes for filing claims and the willingness to hold those who harm others accountable is necessary to creating a sense of safety and trust for those who have already experienced trauma.
According to the National Academies report, the consequences of harassment can take their toll for the organizations and group as well. Harassment can damage the mental and physical health of those who experience it. In addition to individuals who are the target of harassment, all others who witness or have exposure to the harassing behaviors can experience ambient harassment. When a person sees someone like them experience harm, their levels of stress and fear that they may be targeted can increase. As in academic science, the lack of inclusion and equitable treatment of all individuals means those from marginalized identities are more likely to leave, causing a loss of talent to ultimate at large.
The culture of ultimate does not end with the game itself. The atmosphere of party tournaments or post-tournament parties. The socializing which typically includes high volumes of alcohol. The clothing. The language. The expectations of what it means to be a good teammate. The impact of social media and the celebrities, notably PWM who can bully others and commit gender harassment only to meet continued support, fanfare, and monetary gains through their persona.[11] All of these put PWM first and PWW in a distant second. The consideration, the experiences, and the safety (physical and psychological) of all other identities come as an afterthought, if at all.
If, as the research shows, that the most potent predictor that a woman will leave academic science is the perceived tolerance for harassing behavior, how can we translate that finding to an ultimate setting? The power and the responsibility to change rests with those who hold power, PWM and PWM. Too often, the work of equity and inclusion falls on the shoulders of Black, Indigenous, and people of color. Women. Sexual and gender minorities. I know that there are many who have said this before me, but without a significant shift in the climate and norms in ultimate to center equity and inclusion rather than whiteness and masculinity, ultimate will continue to fail attracting and retaining people with historically excluded identities.
[1] For more on how narrow gender norms harm men in addition to people of other genders, I highly suggest Peggy Orenstein’s (she/hers) Boys and Sex: Young Men on Hookups, Love, Porn, Consent, and Navigating the New Masculinity (2020).
[2] As a personal aside, please do not ask people with marginalized and excluded identities to thank you for your allyship. There are a lot of books, resources, podcasts, and other resources about the work that you are free to google, digest, and act upon.
[3] You can follow him on Twitter here.
[4] I am not as well-read on the issues with racism and spirit of the game. Chris Lehmann (he/his) wrote a series for Ultiworld on race and ultimate, with Part Three on Spirit: Part One, Part Two, and Part Three. Both/And does work on addressing racism in ultimate and beyond, and I can give a personal recommendation for the Asian American* Diaspora Workshop led by Chip Chang (she/hers) and Rena Kawabata (she/hers). Disc/Diversity does work on systemic inequities. I do not have a comprehensive list of resources, but I would be interested is someone compiled one.
[5] Again, I can’t say enough about the Asian American* Diaspora Workshops led by Chip Chang and Rena Kawabata. I learned about horizontal aggressions from their leadership. Also a shoutout to Jillian Du and Amy Wickner for leading an Asian/American affinity group for women and non-binary players in the D.C./MD/VA area.
[6] For more resources on ableism and language:
· National Center on Disability and Journalism the Disability Language Style Guide
· Principles of Harm Reduction from the National Harm Reduction Coalition
· Violence in Language: Circling Back to Linguistic Ableism by Autistic Hoya
[7] For more work dedicated specifically to mental health and ultimate, visit Time for the Ultimate Talk. In full disclosure, I’m one of the lead facilitators.
[8] The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine hosts Sexual Harassment of Women: Frequently Asked Questions as a free resource.
[9] Women are more likely to receive negative feedback of this kind than men, although parents of all genders may experience negative bias.
[10] I say invite rather than ask, as some individuals with marginalized identities may not feel comfortable doing so. Cisgender individuals have the ability to normalize the sharing of pronouns by offering theirs up first.
[11] Say, for example, Brodie Smith (he/his).
