Story here. Learn more about “Indian Mascots” here and here. Will the cheerleaders go next?
(Photos from here).
Not holding my breath, but still, this is very good news.
–Ann Bartow
Update: I stupidly failed to offer congratulations to Charlene Teters, the women who began protesting against the Chief many years ago, for her children. Her story is described in the excellent New Day Films documentary, In Whose Honor?
As a former Illinois resident and still U of I fan, I’m very glad to see the demise of Chief Illiniwek.
The cheerleaders might not be so bad if they didn’t have the women dressed in skimpy outfits. The acrobatic performances themselves can be pretty entertaining.
Even if the women got to wear the same amount of clothing as the male cheerleaders, I’d still take issue with designating cheerleading a “sport” for Title IX purposes.
I agree with Ann, it’s wrong to use it to satisfy Title IX. It’s entertaining and they are pretty too look at but I still think it sends a bad message to young girls that they can just be eyecandy. I’d rather have them out in the game being the star attractions than just “cheering on the men.”
I was a cheerleader at Stanford University and have also spent time coaching collegiate cheerleading and dance programs at other schools. And while I’m happy to agree that the arguments I’ve heard (that seek to designate collegiate cheerleading as a Title IX sport) are overly strained, I’m of the opinion that think.live.feminism has the wrong idea of the central purpose of most collegiate cheerleading programs. The programs I’ve come in contact with consider cheerleading competitions their primary athletic focus. Appearing at games is akin to community service. Of course, collegiate cheerleading programs lack uniformity and purpose differs substantially from school to school.
I would have hoped we would have advanced more by now. Skill and effort are needed in any sport. Cheering takes much of both. Why cannot a crowd of people be inspired by these virtues and not costumes? The ” equipment ” of the team is for safety first. I pray that is the same for the cheering team! MASCOT?? Maybe we need a new designation for this team member too! I hope new or better laws are coming down the pike to lead us, not just react to what is.
Jenny – The link in the post (crediting the photos) suggests that “cheerleading competitions” are not an emphasis of that program. It says the team “may” got to one competition each year. Instead their time seems to be taken up by things like:
Tailgate Appearances:
Spice up your tailgate by inviting the Illinois Cheerleaders! This fifteen minute pep rally by six cheerleaders will be packed with cheers, chants, stunts, and picture opportunities.
Not only that, but the requirements for the (Blue) squad that cheers at the Women’s basketball games seem to be less rigorous than the requirements for the (Orange) squad that cheers at Men’s basketball games.
bobc – I think you are correct that cheerleading involves athleticism, but as far as the Gamecock cheerleaders go, the men get the best workout, lifting the women into the air! The women have to be tiny and thin, so they can be lifted. I just don’t get cheerleading, but I know that some people really like it, so maybe I’m being too judgmental.
Just to clarify, I absolutely agree that using cheerleading squads to satisfy Title IX equity requirements amounts to cheating women out of athletic opportunities. In fact, I actually had no idea that cheerleading did count for Title IX purposes. I’d sort of presumed that it was just a student activity, like the marching band (or do they count that for Title IX too?).
luckyjim – Some cheerleading qualifies, some does not, see e.g.: http://www.americancheerleader.com/backissues/oct04/trailblazers.php
Ann, I think on this matter yes, you are being too judgmental. Take another look at that last picture you posted. Acrobatics like that don’t constitute a “sport”? Or are less of a “sport “than what the male cheerleaders engage in by lifting the female cheerleaders? That’s about as reasonable as saying that diving doesn’t constitute a sport because it’s just jumping off the end of a platform, or ski jumping doesn’t constitute a sport because it’s just letting gravtiy do its thing. Certainly there cheerleading programs at both the high school and college level that don’t require the same level of athelticism as is displayed in that photo, but the lowest common denominator shouldn’t be used to tar all cheerleading programs as being about nothing more than looking cute. The women in that photograph are demonstrating physical ability far beyond merely being “tiny and thin.”
I’m no big fan of cheerleading, either, but I readily admit that those women are engaged in a very demanding sport.
The (e.g.) female basketball cheerleaders I see spend less than ten minutes of a typical basketball game doing “acrobatics” and the moves are the same ones over and over – they get hoisted in the air and wave at the crowd. There are other performers (for example our mascot does antics, throws prizes into the crowd, leads cheers) that fill other “time out” time slots, and the typical halftime is taken up with the band, contests, video shorts, recaps, announcements, award presentations and the like. I realize this may be different at some schools, but I don’t see much sustained athleticism happening. I also don’t see the sorts of team play dynamics that are supposed to be so beneficial to players’ leadership skills, personal growth, all the explanations about why investment in sports is so important, happening with cheerleading. There is no competition and no scoring, no goals nor standards of success or productivity, just a lot of pompom waving and sign-holding-up to rally the crowd, which is fine but not, to me, a sport. The physical effort they invest pales in comparison to what athletes on team sports put out, in my opinion. No doubt it is different with some cheerleading programs, but few cheerleaders devote much time to “practice” when compared to swimmers, or divers, or gymnasts, any other sports team members. They spend time doing “personal appearances” which require them to be physically attractive, but not necessarily to break a sweat. “Competitive” cheerleaders do not need to perform at basketball games, and basketball games do not require cheerleaders with athletic scholarships! The mascot, band members, and “spirit crew” show up just for the fun of being there, and plenty of fully clothed students of all shapes and sizes could (and do) rally the crowds just as effectively as thin, pretty women in skimpy outfits. I’d rather use the scholarship money for actual competitors, if athletic scholarships are to be awarded.
Ann, I’m going to have to disagree with you about the athleticism of cheerleaders. There may be some programs in which cheerleaders are not serious athletes, but that’s like saying football isn’t a sport because some teams (say, in Div. III liberal arts schools) don’t treat it like a serious sport.
The collegiate cheerleaders I’ve known have been some of the most dedicated athletes around, their conditioning akin to that of gymnasts. My wife, who ran cross-country in a Div. I school, tends to agree, having noted that the cheerleaders (male and female) often trained harder (conditioning, weights, cardio) than most athletes in sports. If you run into some of these women, you will certainly agree that they are not just tiny and thin–most of them are solid muscle, and have flexibility and stamina to match.
I won’t comment on the whole skimpy uniform thing, but that’s an entirely different issue from their athleticism or seriousness as athletes.
Jeez, first an analogy to diving, now to football and gymnastics. These analogies fail because diving, football and gymastics are all actual sports. They have scoring and competition and winning and losing. You do not need a pretty face and nice skin to be on any of those teams.
I have seen a number of SEC, Ivy League and Big Ten collegiate female cheerleaders up close. One of my college roommates was a cheerleader. Today I tracked down a law student who used to be a cheerleader here at South Carolina. According to him: The women must be tiny and thin and pretty to make the squad, and remain thin to stay on the squad, so that they can be readily tossed and hoisted, usually by men. Muscle mass would make them too heavy. They are not required to work out nearly as rigorously as actual athletes on actual sports teams. They cheer only at home games. Most of their cheering is cheering, it is not physical stunts. I do not think this deserves an athletic scholarship.
As a collegiate cheerleader who was on the track at 5am every morning for team runs, in the gym in the early afternoon for weight training and on the mat each night for team practice, I find your comments insulting. There is extraordinary variation in the quality of collegiate cheerleading programs, I admit. I coached for a national cheerleading organization and judged collegiate national championships and I’ve seen it first hand. That is not to say, however, that there aren’t rigorous collegiate cheerleading programs out there that are “athletic” in nature.
I want to address some of the points you made in your Feb 21 comment:
1. I agree that analogies to football are not warranted but cheerleading, like diving and gymnastics, has scoring and competition and winning and losing (assuming we are talking about a competitive cheerleading program). If we’re going to take a hard look at NCAA sports for a more comparable sport, I would point to synchronized swimming (where tiny and thin women also wear skimpy outfits and toss each other around).
2. Speaking to your assertion that being pretty is a prerequisite of team members, I have a very average face and have never had a problem “making the team” based on the merit.
3. You graduated from your undergraduate institution in 1985. Collegiate cheerleading circa 1985 in no way resembles collegiate cheerleading circa 2007. The comparison is laughable for those familiar with the genesis of the activity/sport. So, I don’t see how your roommate’s experience is relevant to the current physical demands of the activity/sport.
2. Since when does being tiny and thin preclude athleticism? Isn’t it generally the case (and generally expected) that female NCAA gymnasts are tiny and thin? I can think of other examples of the tiny and thin requirement, e.g. the coxswain of the crew team (the coxswain doesn’t even row!!!).
3. Again, you miss the point that tossing and hoisting, when executed properly, require significant “athletic” effort on the part of the “flyer” (the woman). Not to mention that tossing and hoisting are not the only aspects of cheerleading that require exertion. I would also point to tumbling as an example.
4. If muscle mass is a qualifier, why is golf a title IX sport?
5. I agree that there are schools at which the cheerleaders do not work out as rigorously as actual athletes on “actual” sports teams but, at other schools, cheerleaders do work out as rigorously as “actual” sports teams.
Perhaps I didn’t read the above comments carefully enough but I don’t think any of us were arguing that cheerleading should be a Title IX sport or that cheerleaders should qualify for athletic scholarship. It seems to me that the comments here argue that some collegiate cheerleading programs have sufficiently rigorous requirements to qualify cheerleading (at those schools) as an athletic endeavor. At least that was the point I was trying to make.
Jenny, you have set up all kinds of false arguments that I clearly did not make. For example: If muscle mass is a qualifier, why is golf a title IX sport? If you read what I wrote, it is that according to a (RECENT) cheerleader I spoke to, muscle mass is a DISqualifier FOR FEMALE CHEERLEADERS because muscle mass = weight. For male cheerleaders, however, muscle mass is a prerequisite. Male cheerleaders, unlike the women, are also free to be on the heavy side or even overweight. They also get to wear pants. They don’t have to wear make-up, either. The whole spectacle of cheerleading at basketball games is an excercise in female objectification.
Also, despite your professed cheerleading expertise, you seem unaware that many schools have banned or severely limted the amount of tumbling and tossing that cheerleaders do at games as a result of safety concerns. Some cheerleaders may be capable of great athleticism, but the catastrophic impact of getting dropped on a hard floor has meant that many schools do not want it on display during a game.
Ann,
I did read what you wrote and the fact that muscle mass is a disqualifier for female cheerleaders at Southern California does not make it so at all schools. I agree that there is pressure for female cheerleaders to be lean to facilitate stunting. I think it would be accurate to say that lean muscle mass is required whereas bulky/excessive mass is a disqualifier.
I am fully aware of limitations placed on sideline stunting by certain schools, athletic conferences, and competitive cheerleading associations. Going back to my original comments, I view game appearances as “community service” for the truly competitive cheerleading squad. I should have qualified my remarks in that i think the true athleticism comes in to play at competitions not on the sidelines. I have been thinking of what happens at collegiate-level competitions as my frame of reference.
Jenny, the whole point of mentioning cheerleading in the original post, and in every comment I have made since, WAS ILLINOIS CHEERLEADERS AT ILLINOIS SPORTING EVENTS, where the Chief has been featured, okay? It had nothing to do whatsoever with “collegiate cheerleader competitions.” According to their official website Illinois cheerleaders don’t even attend competitions (stated max of one per year).
Ann, perhaps the reason Jenny and I (and others) have been talking about cheerleading, broadly, including “collegiate cheerleading competitions,” is that you have been doing the same. Of all your posted comments, only a portion of the 18 Feb. post directly addresses cheerleading at UofI. All your comments on this post refer to cheerleading in much more global terms–whether or not it should be considered a sport under Title XI, comparisons among various programs from programs other than UofI’s, etc.. It’s hardly fair to marginalize her comments as off topic when they are precisely as global as yours have been.
However, even if you want to limit the discussion to UofI, based on the pictures you posted, it seems likely there is more required of the female cheerleaders than just clapping in a synchronized fashion. I get it, you don’t like cheerleading. Fine. I don’t really like it either, actually. You couldn’t have paid me to be a cheerleader in high school or college. But I don’t pretend that because I don’t like it that it doesn’t require rigorous athletic training that outstrips most of what my friends in other athletic programs had to do.
kmg, you write “But I don’t pretend that because I don’t like it that it doesn’t require rigorous athletic training that outstrips most of what my friends in other athletic programs had to do.’
I don’t know how you purport to know how “rigorous” the training is that any given cheerleading squad undergoes. A maximum of ten minutes of acrobatics per game would not seem to require all that much. My guess is that the basketball cheerleaders are not nearly as fit or strong as the basketball players. I’m not sure why this is so important to you, but if you want to believe that cheerleaders train harder than other athletes, obviously you are free to do so.