I. The Introduction: Eight years later, still outside the gates

When I opened my acceptance letter from the University of Michigan, I knew two things: I would return to Michigan for a master of public policy, and I would try out for the ultimate team. I had played pick up with my friends in high school, and I enjoyed throwing through undergrad. I knew I needed an extracurricular outlet, something to structure workouts and physical activity. Even though I felt uncomfortable trying out as a rookie graduate student, the program welcomed me with open arms. I loved playing for B-Fly. I admired Flywheel and all the competitors we got to play who would later go on to Nationals.

While I felt at home with the Michigan program, I noticed that I did not necessarily feel the same way about the sport in general. In the two years I played league with Ann Arbor Ultimate, I felt terrified before each game. I thought it could be my social anxiety, feeling unable to connect with the long-term players and awkward at social events. When I moved to D.C., I felt the same way attending games and social events with the Washington Area Frisbee Club (WAFC). I felt more at home with the team I coach at Catholic University of America; however, I often feel like the perennial outsider in many other ultimate situations. After forming the developmental club team Suffrage, I had the chance to make friends with teammates throughout and across seasons.

I thought more about the sport, the divisions, the culture of ultimate. In D.C., I appreciated that ultimate was one place where I could develop friendships and have conversations that didn’t revolve around work. I realized that some of my issues with league play was the rotating cast of characters. League was often mixed, and the involvement of men increased my fear of injury, intimidation, and irritation. I adjusted and fell in love with one of the clique mixed teams, one where the men treated the women with respect, and, as I grew more comfortable in my own skin, I felt equipped to hold others accountable for their behavior.

Eight years since I started playing, I can say that I have found a place in ultimate, and I don’t feel like I belong in the sport. Many of the reasons I don’t feel that ultimate has a place for me are the same ways that I don’t feel like I belong in broader U.S. society. Both prize cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied white men in positions of power. Whiteness permeates all aspects of the sport. Even though there are counter-culture currents in ultimate and veins of progressive values, the ability to set norms and access the highest levels of social prestige exist for white men predominantly.

Why do norms and social prestige matter? In addition to the “hard power” set by the rules of the game and the written policies, there is considerable room to enact “soft power”- the ability to determine how those rules are enforced, who gets to hold that power, and what characteristics are seen as ideal. The people who hold this power are the gatekeepers. The social prestige helps reinforce those norms: who gets to be cool, who is admired in the sport, and how do non-play aspects affect the broader community? This kind of capital helps determine which side of the gate you stand on and if you have the power to dictate who gets to belong. For ultimate, as in all aspects of life, the gates are white. The keepers are men.

II. The Numbers: Disproportionately white and male

Note: If you do not care about data, I suggest you hit fast forward, pick up at section III, and then loop back because you feel compelled to learn more!

As a policy researcher in higher education and science, one of the first concerns I had about diversity in ultimate was gaining a better understanding the numbers. Who is part of this sport and how does it compare to the U.S. adult population? While I’ve read articles on the lack of racial and gender diversity in the sport, I needed to satisfy my own thirst for analysis.

The first thing place I looked was in the USAU annual reports. While there is a breakdown of membership by type and gender, there is not a similar breakdown provided on race and ethnicity. I was able to locate that information on the USAU website; however, the data are not disaggregated by age, race and ethnicity, and gender.[1] This means that the data are presented as “age” OR “race and ethnicity” OR “gender.” I cannot, for example, locate the number of members 18 or under who are Asian. This means that the non-total figures for USAU in the tables are very rough estimates. This is not to say they are unreliable or that they can’t be used for general reference; however, they should not be taken as precise representations of reality. They would be best used as the basis for additional questions and analysis, rather than the basis for major policy change.

Additionally and puzzlingly, for race, USAU has a single category for “Hispanic/LatinX.” While there is a more detailed explanation Appendix I about why this is problematic for this analysis, it means that there is not an 1:1 comparison between the USAU data with U.S. Census data, that have a separate questions to elect Hispanic and Latino/a/x heritage and race/ethnicity .[2] For this analysis, given to have the most aligned groups, I opted to compare race and ethnicity using Asian, Black/African American, and white only. In terms of gender, USAU opened a category for non-binary and prefer not to say as options for gender by 2019, which is why the percent sum does not total to 100 for 2019. I am not endorsing these data collection or analysis methods; however, given the options, it seemed like the most appropriate approach.

Since my involvement with ultimate has been at the adult level (college, club, and adult leagues) and the basis for my commentary, I limited the analysis to the following parameters:

• USAU: The adult population is all players age 19 and older. I used the percent of players 19 and older as the weight to estimate the adult categories for race/ethnicity[3] and gender.

• U.S. Adult: I used Census data; however, I could not make a clean match. For ease, I used the age category from 18-64 years old. Since the college division is the largest in USAU, I decided that a suitable comparison group would be individuals in the U.S. enrolled in college or having completed a baccalaureate or more advanced degree.

• Caveats: Again, there are issues with these data, and the figures are very rough estimates not suitable for extrapolation. Please see Appendix I for an extended discussion of the decisions made, the reasons why, and the ways that I believe these choices could skew the results.

[1] While the lack of disaggregated data is frustrating, it is by no means unusual.

[2] The U.S. Census defines Hispanic as Hispanics or Latino refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race. This includes people who reported detailed Hispanic or Latino groups such as: Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Dominican Republic. Central American (excludes Mexican): Costa Rican, Guatemalan, Honduran, Nicaraguan, Panamanian, Salvadoran, and Other Central American. South America: Argentinian, Bolivian, Chilean, Colombian, Ecuadorian, Paraguayan, Peruvian, Uruguayan, Venezuelan, or Other South American. Spaniard: All Other Hispanic or Latino. Origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States.”

According to the Pew Research Center: “In 2010, the Census Bureau began testing a question that combined the race and ethnicity questions into one, allowing Hispanics to select Hispanic as their race or origin. But it did not receive approval to make the change from the Office of Management and Budget, which has the final say on what is asked in federal surveys.”

[3] USAU options for “Ethnic and Racial Identity” on USAU player profile include: American Indian/Alaska Native/Aleutian; Asian; Black/African American; Hawaiian Native/Other Pacific Islander; Hispanic/LatinX; Multiracial; Other; or Prefer Not to Say. Options for “Gender Identity” are Male, Female, Non-Binary, and Prefer Not to Answer.

IIa. Numbers by race and ethnicity: The gates are white [1]

Overall, the estimated comparison by race shows underrepresentation of all race and ethnic groups (white, Black/African American, and Asian) in ultimate (see Table 1). This is likely due to the significant number of USAU who elected against providing race/ethnic background data to USAU. In 2019, an estimated 2,536 (6.0%) of adult members chose “prefer not to say” and 5,809 (13.8%) left the field blank. To put this into context, “blank” is the 2nd most prevalent category after white, making the margin of error in all categories significant. This is a stark comparison to the U.S. Census figures, which put all other races not listed in White, Black/African American, and Asian at 2.7%.

Looking within groups, the largest estimated difference between representation in the U.S. population and USAU adult membership is in the Black/African American category. The percent of total for USAU members is 1.5 percent of the total, while the U.S. comparison group has 10.3% of all adults as Black/African American. An important reminder that the U.S. population comparison group is limited to those enrolled in or have completed higher education, and that figure is significantly less than parity to the true U.S. population. Not only does this underscore the disservice the U.S. education system has done to Black and African American individuals, who have been historically excluded from educational opportunities, it means that the failure of ultimate to represent Black/African American players compared to the true U.S. population is even more severe than listed in Table 1 below.[2] Holding the total constant, there would need to be AT LEAST 6.87 times more Black/African American members (approximately additional 4,459 players) to reach parity with levels seen in the U.S. adult comparison groups.

While the gap between Asian players and total U.S. adults, remember that the U.S. adult population only includes individuals who are enrolled in higher education or have received a baccalaureate or more advanced degree. Asian and Asian-Americans have been earning degrees above parity for decades; therefore, the figure in Table 1 is likely closer to parity with the true U.S. population. Holding the total constant, USAU would need AT MOST 1.25 times more Asian members (approximately 4,474 additional members) to reach parity with the U.S. comparison population.

In terms of the considerations for Table 1 below, is entirely possible that there are more Black/African American or Asian players that did not elect to mark their race or marked “prefer not to say.” If the 8,345 players who left the field blank or did not say were split evenly between Black/African American and Asian players, it would almost get those groups to parity. Additionally, individuals may have selected these options if they felt like their race or ethnicity was not represented (for example, Middle Eastern and North African descent is not listed for USAU and is not a category for the U.S. Census) or they may not have felt comfortable disclosing. Having a better understanding of who did not respond and who prefers not to say, in addition to updating the Hispanic/LatinX category, could provide a stronger dataset for analysis.

One consideration for race/ethnicity (also gender) that is not featured here is the rate of change. While the numbers in all groups appear on an at-glance scan to be increasing, the rate at which they are increasing is worthy of additional analysis. If ultimate, for example, continues to add white players at a rate disproportionate to growth of other race/ethnic groups, the composition of the USAU membership will only be less representative in relation to the U.S. adult population, even if the numbers of the other groups continue to increase. An analysis of the growth by race in the youth division and over time may help provide additional context.

[1] I made the conscious choice to lead with race and ethnicity, as often conversations in equity (ultimate and beyond) center gender first. In ultimate (and perhaps in life), there is a greater ability to create micro-environments based on gender. Women, who have been marginalized in ultimate, can opt to play in the women’s division, which increases their ability to see peers and have role models of their own gender. Black, Indigenous, and other players of color have not been provided with these structures, with notable exception of party tournament teams, Color of Ultimate (Atlanta Flying Disc Club) games, and the excellent highlight reel compiled by Max Charles (he/his) and Lili Gu (she/hers).

[2] If college continues to be the most common entry point to ultimate, the sport by default will attract the groups most represented in higher education. Another reason to invest more in culturally aware, non-colonial youth approaches to grow the sport.

IIb. Numbers by women and men: The keepers are men [1]

Comparing estimates from 2010 and 2019, women have made marginal increased in their representation and remain marginalized in comparison to their presence in the U.S. college-enrolled and college-educated population (Table 2). Based on the estimated 2019 figure of 42,015 adult members, holding the total constant, USAU would need AT MOST 2.1 times as many women as members (approximately 28,499 players) to achieve parity with the U.S. comparison group. Like the analysis of Asian players above, the distance between current figures and representational parity may not be quite as severe since women have been enrolled in college and earning degrees at higher rates than men. In 2020, the U.S. Department of Education noted that 36.6% of women over 25 years old had a bachelor’s degree or above compared with 35.4% of men.[2]

[1] I titled the category as “by men and by women” as there is not enough historic data through USAU or the U.S. Census for comparison with all other genders.

[2] National Center for Education Statistics: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_104.10.asp. If there are 114.8M women and 106.7M men 25 and older in the U.S., that means there are 4.25M more women in the U.S. that have bachelor’s degrees or higher than men. To put that in context, the population of Kentucky.

IIc. Multiply by 0: No data, no representation

While the numbers above provide a rough sketch of the lack of race/ethnic and gender parity in ultimate, there are a number of groups that could not be analyzed due to impartial or missing data, such as sexual and gender minorities[1] and disabled individuals/individuals with disabilities.[2] A more comprehensive analysis would include other data currently collected by USAU, such as region, socioeconomic status, the youth division, and type of membership. In particular, an analysis using the income data available on USAU’s site may provide useful figures to explore socioeconomic stratification within ultimate. Given the expense of ultimate (notably at high levels) and the tendency for many individuals to begin play during college, the population of ultimate players likely skew toward a higher socioeconomic status than the average income in the U.S. population.

If ultimate is a mirror of the rest of U.S. society, it would have a climate harsher and less welcoming and inclusive to Black, Indigenous, and other women of color. This approach that approaches identities as overlapping layers rather than exclusive categories was coined by scholar Dr. Kimberlé W. Crenshaw (she/hers), known as intersectionality.[3] A critique against the ways white women have co-opted the feminism movement, she states:

Feminist efforts to politicize experiences of women and antiracist efforts to politicize experiences of people of color have frequently proceeded as though the issues and experiences they each detail occur on mutually exclusive terrains. Al-though racism and sexism readily intersect in the lives of real people, they seldom do in feminist and antiracist practices.

The lack of disaggregated data will continue to lead to rough estimates rather than precise figures that can allow for an intersectional interrogation. For example, lingering questions remain in this analysis like what if white women are driving the growth in the women’s division? Even if the numbers of white women go up, without knowing how many women of other races and ethnic backgrounds, the analysis would be unable to show if the current state of the sport is limiting access and inclusion of Black, Indigenous, and players of color at a disproportionate rate. While anecdote can help supply theories and surface questions about which groups may need additional support and may be harmed by data, without an ethical and responsible methods to collect and share data about additional groups, representation without data cannot lead to numerical analysis.

[1] From the National Institutes of Health’s Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office: “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.”

[2] “Person with disability” is a person-first approach and “disabled person” is an identity-first approach. Some groups and individuals in the disabled communities prefer one over the other. When in doubt, listen or ask how the individual or group prefers to be referred to.

[3] For more on Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality, you can read her paper “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color” or do a Google.

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).

IV. The Motivation: “Change is Possible,” She Screamed into the Void

When I have been asked why I dedicate my spare time, money, and effort into ultimate, sometimes I cannot come up with an answer.[1] While I don’t believe that I can change the world, part of me feels that I might be able to have an impact on ultimate. In my experience, ultimate has been a smaller, more niche community where I have met many others who have the courage to integrate equity and inclusion into their lives. My drive isn’t purely altruistic either. There’s a selfish and perhaps naïve part of me that if I can nudge ultimate to feel safer, maybe I will also feel more welcome.

Ultimate has been an arena where I have pushed myself. Unlike the efforts I put into relationships with loved ones and in my professional life, the work in ultimate has lower stakes attached. As a captain, I can practice active learning and grow as a leader. As a coach, I can try to develop an inclusive team environment and develop with a team that trusts me. As a member of the community, I can try to hold myself accountable to being better, apologize when I’ve done wrong, and continue to learn. I have taken the skills I’ve built in ultimate into my personal relationships and my professional life.

I am grateful that I have had a chance to develop in situation that matters but does not carry the same weight as other choices in my life. For others who love the sport, I want them to have a space to learn and grow as well. I want to dismantle the gates and let more people in. You have the chance to use this community to practice courage and make space for others as well.

I want to see more groups like the Premiere Ultimate League, VC Ultimate, and Without Limits receive support and funding. Groups that have tried new structures for leadership, taken a stand for Black Lives Matter, and broadened, at least, representation in ultimate. I feel that these groups, as many female entrepreneurs might encounter while seeking start-up funds, encounter higher barriers to entry than say rather the American Ultimate Disc League, which I experienced gender discrimination from as a former official and who I believe has shown poor leadership and decision making.[2]

Is all of this on ultimate alone? Of course not. There are major biases in the U.S., in venture capital funding, in sports, in journalism and the media, and in data that pervade all aspects of life. Would I rather see in-depth profiles of Dom Fontenette, Tiina Booth, and Darryl Stanley rather than the kind of navel-gazing, white male journalism from David Gessner’s The Ultimate Glory? Absolutely. The Sports Wiki Visibility project created those profiles, and a single PWM Wikipedian railroaded the entire effort.[3] A reminder that those with power within a system, including those online, can dictate the way we remember and understand history.

Finally, as you may have surmised by this point, the exhaustion I face also steals from me the core of what a sport might give me: joy. I hold my own privileges, and I feel honored to meet people similarly dedicated to making ultimate a more inclusive sport; however, I, like many other players with marginalized identities, feel burned out from an unequal burden to make this community more inclusive. Sometimes the work feels invisible. Thankless. Futile. The systems of oppression that benefit PWM and PWW in the U.S. show up in ultimate, and it is hard to imagine that they wouldn’t have the same negative impact on the people who were intentionally excluded for so much of U.S. history.

Why write this? Why keep going? For me, in my professional life and in ultimate, often I expend effort knowing that I might make no impact or, more generously, I might not be able to see or measure the results. The lack of feedback can feel disorienting. But, I believe if you keep screaming into the void, eventually you may hear a voice calling back. Maybe you’ll get to hear from others who are dedicated to this work and make your way toward those who have been committed to this work for many more years than you have been. If you're lucky like I have been, you get to learn from them and find a new community.

And, even if the only voice I hear back belongs to me, I can press on staying true to myself and answering my own call for what is right.

[1] I am the person who asks this question of me most frequently. Also, the main reason I stay is the honor of being a coach to so many incredible humans.

[2] I retired from the AUDL as an official on October 26, 2020, as a result of watching the AUDL launch an equity drive for new shareholders that ignored the multiple meanings of equity (despite their equity plan, which…has anyone done an accounting of their efforts?) during the final weeks of an election that included racial animosity and violence at the center.

[3] In full disclosure, I founded the Sports Wiki Visibility Project in spring 2020 with the goal of raising the profiles of contributors to the sport through Wikipedia entries. It is on hiatus, but I hope to restart the effort at some point.