According to the University of Notre Dame’s Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA), “Notre Dame opened its doors to female students in 1972 and from that time has demonstrated a commitment to creating well-supported opportunities for female student-athletes” (“Equity”). That same year, Title IX was enacted to create an equal opportunity for both men and women to participate in school sports. However, this overlooks the important influence of gender stereotypes on the publicity for men’s and women’s basketball teams. Although Notre Dame follows Title IX’s rules by providing an equal number of opportunities for men and women to participate in varsity sports, it fails to follow the spirit of the law. At Notre Dame, the way that men’s and women’s basketball is promoted reinforces gender stereotypes. The promotion implies that there is an inherent difference in male and female basketball players, and that there is a masculine and a feminine, rather than a universal, type of athlete. In fact, the promotion suggests that a masculine athlete is inherently worth more. In order to avoid aversive discrimination, especially in the publicity for basketball, Notre Dame needs to treat its basketball teams, male and female, as inherently equal.

Title IX partially ensures the equal portrayal of athletes by requiring that institutions receiving federal aid publish the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA), which includes the minute details of each team’s membership and finances. Notre Dame’s annual EADA explains the athletic and academic success and financial aid for the basketball teams. Attached are tables that give details of the basketball program, down to the average assistant coach’s salary. The availability of information, although it is required by law, nevertheless bolsters Notre Dame’s reputation as an equal opportunity provider in varsity sports. However, if members of the Notre Dame community blindly judge its “success” in providing equal treatment by simply noticing that it publishes information, gender stereotypes and aversive discrimination will still lurk in the world surrounding the computer screen. In order to avoid this complacence of simply accepting an effort for equality, individuals must realize what information is published and its effect on gender roles.  

Notre Dame avoids gender stereotypes and treats its men’s and women’s basketball teams as inherently equal by providing near equivalent financial aid for both basketball teams. For example, for the 2005-2006 school year, the per capita operating expense for the men’s team was about $61 thousand while it was $44 thousand for the women’s teams, a difference of 28%. Although it seems that this would imply unequal subsidization for men, in reality the men’s basketball team covered 99% of their overall expenses with their revenues while the women’s team’s revenues only covered 17% (“Higher”). This suggests that, in general funding, Notre Dame supported women’s basketball more financially than the men’s team, that women were not encouraged to be financially independent. This hints that, to some extent, women are and should be inferior and reliant on Notre Dame, a mostly patriarchal institution. However, without knowing the actual amount Notre Dame contributed to each team, this conclusion is uncertain. For a comparison of financial treatment, funding for scholarships is a better measure than funding in general because the EADA provides explicit statistics for student financial aid. For men’s basketball, the scholarships awarded to student-athletes were only 3% higher than those for the women’s team (“Higher”).When awarding scholarships, Notre Dame avoids reinforcing gender stereotypes by providing equal funding to both teams. This reassures not only potential athletes, but also the larger Notre Dame community, that the university is committed financially to treat men and women equally. 

Likewise, the 2005-2006 media guide covers for the men’s and women’s basketball teams abstain from assigning gender roles, choosing instead to emphasize their common athletic nature. Since media guides are a representation of Notre Dame and reflect its beliefs to the public, an unbiased and fair coverage of all basketball players is morally necessary and will increase Notre Dame’s attractiveness to potential athletes. Mary Jo Kane and Joan Ann Buysse, authors of “Intercollegiate Media Guides as Contested Terrain,” stress that “colleges and universities, set the tone…for what we think and feel about women’s participation in sports…and should provide leadership in ensuring equitable media treatment” (235). Notre Dame’s media cover guides show leadership in its drive to portray basketball players as athletes, i.e. neither as masculine nor feminine. Both media covers picture men and women as athletes in action. Although the front covers specify whether the team is male or female, this does not suggest that men and women are different types of athletes. Rather, it merely mentions which team the media guide covers. Similarly, when looking at the minute details, although only the men’s media guide has “MEN’S” in a smaller font above “Basketball,” this does not necessarily imply that male basketball players are superior. Rather, it is an artistic touch that looks more atheistically pleasing on the cover. In both media covers, Notre Dame presents its basketball teams as pure athletes which not only attracts serious players but also diminishes gender roles.  

In addition, Notre Dame also treats its basketball teams as inherently equal in that it avoids masculinizing or feminizing basketball or favoring either team through its campus newspaper, The Observer. When asked how The Observer portrayed the basketball teams, Ken Fowler, sports editor at The Observer, explained: “You want to try either emphasize the importance of this [game] as a school or just talk about specifically what happened and make it so everyone can understand…latch on to the team” (Fowler) . An examination of articles written during the middle of the basketball season, January 23rd to the 27th, 2006, supports Fowler’s assertion of an unbiased writing style. As Fowler claimed, the writers tell “specifically what happened” (Fowler). The articles, selected as a general sample of writing, are written in the same style and contain many short summaries, stats, and quotations. Furthermore, both teams are identified as simply the “Irish.” Although sociologist Victoria Carty points out the typical media focus on sexual appeal and femininity in the press coverage of female athletes, her claim does not extend to The Observer (132). By deliberately not labeling women basketball players as the “Lady Irish” and writing most articles with the same length and quality, The Observer is portraying all basketball players for what they are, athletes, not feminine or masculine players. This finding reinforces George B. Cunningham’s assertion that not-for-profits such as campus newspapers should portray women as serious athletes since subscribers are usually administrators and coaches who support Title IX (869). Although Cunningham’s and Carty’s focus on “de-feminizing” basketball may appear to incorrectly suggest that there is a masculine and feminine type of athlete; in truth, this focus points out the media’s potential to artificially divide basketball into masculine and feminine qualities. Fortunately, The Observer’s unbiased approach in its quality basketball coverage diminishes the negative effects of gender roles. Without the stress of having to fit a gender role, athletes are better able to compete and represent Notre Dame.

Although the quality of reporting in The Observer treats the basketball teams as inherently equal, the “denial of continued discrimination” against women in the unequal number of articles written about the basketball program strengthens gender stereotypes (Swim et al. 199). Ken Fowler stressed that, “If we [the sports staff] were to cover one team a lot more, that would just be blatantly changing their importance, but I think because we covered them equally…we’re implying that they should be equal” (Fowler). However this assertion failed in a tabulation of online articles about the men’s and women’s basketball teams. During the 2005-2006 school year, The Observer published 63 articles about the men’s team versus 52 for the women’s, a 17% preferential treatment existed for the men. While one could suppose that this is due to an uneven distribution of games, both teams played 30 games in the 2005-2006 season. This disparity in the amount of coverage strengthens the historical division of power in which women are the weaker sex (Kaufman 144). However, most crucial is the unconscious denial of discrimination against women. If even the sports editor is unaware of bias in The Observer, this perception gap highlights the aversive prejudice in daily activities and the most basic need for awareness of the portrayal of gender roles. 

Although there is a disparity in the number of articles about the basketball program in The Observer, both teams have one media guide that portrays the players as serious athletes on the cover. However, the player’s biographies inside the covers suggest an inherent difference in male and female basketball players by alluding to stereotypical gender roles. Despite the fact that both guides give a short summary of each player’s history, career statistics, and honors, the men have an entire page devoted to game-by-game statistics while the women have an overview and a “Getting to know” box that tells fans about the player’s favorite food and vacation spot. Such personal information deliberately uses traditional gender roles to promote women’s and men’s basketball. Women are partially portrayed as sexually attractive and personable objects, as evident in the fact that only the women have a photo in which they are wearing a dressy outfit. Similarly, the men’s statistics page puts more emphasis on their physical accomplishments according to the masculine gender construct. Although advertising interacts with the public in a codependent process and the media guides may be seen as only reflecting an overall belief, Notre Dame is called to be proactive and better the world as a Catholic institution and a university. If Notre Dame continues to strengthening outdated gender stereotypes, it will encourage students to accept their “given role” and hamper their ability to challenge social norms.  

Similarly, posters that Notre Dame uses to promote its basketball teams allude to an inherent difference between male and female basketball players and strengthen gender stereotypes. For the 2006-2007 season, the men’s poster consists of a bold title, “NOTRE DAME BASKETBALL” whereas the women’s poster says, “NOTRE DAME WOMEN’S BASKETBALL” in letters half the size. Quibbling over the exact wording of the title is inconclusive. However, the women’s poster adds, “You Bring the Spirit, We’ll Bring the Game,” in bubbly letters, implying that women need more emotional support than their male counterparts. When this statement is taken into consideration with the men’s and women’s titles, male and female basketball players at Notre Dame are portrayed to be inherently different. Furthermore, the men’s poster features photos of players in game movements and screams of action and excitement. In contrast, the women’s poster depicts players in static poses around a schedule, suggesting that women are attractive but inanimate athletes. In addition, another feminine stereotype, that of being a caring, family-oriented individual, comes across in a category added only to the women’s poster: promotion. The promotions include “Family Night” and “Teddy Bear Toss.” Notre Dame also alludes to the importance of men’s and women’s basketball through the artwork on their respective posters. Whereas the men’s poster consists of modernistic artwork in natural color tints and hues, the women’s background is covered in a light shade of green, as if the regular Irish green is too masculine for the women’s team. This evidence strongly suggests that basketball at Notre Dame is marketed as different for men and women and that men’s basketball is more “natural” or important. Not only does this behavior strengthen gender stereotypes, but it also demeans women inside and outside the basketball program.

Unequal treatment is also prevalent in ticket sales. At Notre Dame, the severely unequal ticket prices for men’s and women’s basketball suggest the “superior quality” of men. The cheapest price for an individual’s 2006-2007 season tickets is $240 for a bleacher seat in men’s basketball but only $58 for women’s basketball (“Men’s” and “Women’s”). In monetary terms, men’s basketball is worth about four times more than women’s basketball. Psychologist Michelle R. Hebl and her colleagues studied universities supporting a NCAA Division I Collegiate Basketball team and concluded that there was an “increasing disparity in the price of men’s and women’s basketball tickets” and that value of the women’s team was negatively impacted by this difference (233). In addition, with the men’s and women’s team averaging 9,400 and 6,600 fans per home game respectively, a 42% difference, a connection between value and the price of tickets is established (“Notre Dame” and “2005-06”). Although one may argue that lower ticket prices encourage higher attendance, the negative effect of lowering value overwhelms this potential benefit. That ticket prices vary in the first place suggests an inherent difference between male and female basketball players; that the difference is incredibly large alludes to the “superiority” of men’s basketball. These two negative effects not only turn away athletes who seek equal treatment, but also reinforce the historical division of power in which men have the upper hand (Kaufman 144). When this stereotype is encouraged, women are less likely to assert their rights.    

The “superiority” of male basketball players is worsened through campus e-mail. An advertisement sent in October 2006 informs Notre Dame students of an opportunity to receive vouchers and a men’s basketball fan club shirt, thus granting them the opportunity to buy 2006-2007 season tickets for the men’s basketball team. However, the event on October 26, 2006 also included a Chicago Bulls player and a chance to win $50,000 (Notre Dame Ticket Office)! With such attention and focus on the men, the association between masculinity and Notre Dame basketball is firmly established. Interestingly, there is a one-line sentence at the bottom of this enticing advertisement that reminds students that they could be admitted free to all women’s home games with their student ID. This incredibly brief mention of women’s basketball demeans their worth and ties their identity to a subservient feminine gender role. It would have better if women’s basketball had not been mentioned at all.

When asked how articles about basketball in The Observer affect current gender roles, Ken Fowler, sports editor, paused and added, “I would almost say that we expect more out of the women’s basketball just because of the more recent history [ND women’s basketball NCAA championship in 2001] that we can hearken back to...” (Fowler). Yet with such a recent NCAA championship, why is the women’s team “worth less” compared to men’s team? Although Notre Dame promotes only the athleticism of its basketball players in its online EADA, through finance, on the media guide covers, and in The Observer, other promotion implies an innate difference between men’s and women’s basketball and that men’s basketball is “worth more.” If Notre Dame is not fulfilling the holistic spirit of Title IX by treating its basketball teams as inherently equal, then discrimination is beginning at the very institution where free thinking should abolish it. This aversive prejudice demeans both men and women. Negative reinforcement encourages women to accept that they are “weaker,” prevents athletes from reaching their full potential, and shuts off contributions that would diversify and add interest to areas such as basketball. Most importantly, by holding women to “feminine” characteristics, men are tying themselves to “masculine stereotypes.” To fix this disparity and tweak the game plan to treat all basketball players as athletes first and foremost, Notre Dame needs to take the initiative and only advertise athletic qualities such as hard work, determination, patience, and skill. Alternatively, Notre Dame could emphasize both physical and social qualities and avoid gender specific colors and fonts. To place women on par with men monetarily, slowly increasing the value of tickets for women’s basketball will increase the public’s perception of their worth. If nothing is done, the power of stereotypes will continue to affect the well-being of all individuals. After 34 years, it is time to stop the affirmation of binding gender roles to fabricate a difference in Notre Dame basketball.

When signing the permission waiver, Ken Fowler requested that it be noted that his opinions do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Observer’s editorial board.

 Works Cited

“2005-06 Notre Dame Women’s Basketball.” Notre Dame Athletics. 19 March 2006.

University of Notre Dame. 4 Nov. 2006 <http://www.cstv.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/nd/sports/w-baskbl/auto_pdf/cumulative-stats>.

Buysse, Jo Ann and Mary Jo Kane. “Intercollegiate Media Guides as Contested Terrain:

A Longitudinal Analysis.” Sociology of Sport Journal 22 (2005): 214-238.

Carty, Victoria. “Textual Portrayal of Female Athletes.” Frontiers 26.2 (2005) 132-155.

Cunningham, George B., et al. “Gender Representation in the NCAA News: Is the Glass

Half Full or Half Empty?” Sex Roles 50.11/12 (2004): 861-870.

Fowler, Ken. “ND WOMEN’S BASKETBALL: Rutgers routs Irish squad.” The Observer 25 Jan. 2006. 2 Nov. 2006 <http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/storage/paper660/news/2006/01/25/Sports/Nd.Womens.Basketball.Rutgers.Routs.Irish.Squad-1504142.shtml?norewrite200611072139&sourcedomain=www.ndsmcobserver.com>.

Fowler, Ken. Personal Interview. 3 Nov. 06.

Griffin, Bobby. “MEN’S BASKETBALL: Biting back.” The Observer 25 Jan. 2006. 2

Nov. 2006 <http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/storage/paper660/news/2006/01/25/Sports/Mens-Basketball.Biting.Back-1504133.shtml?norewrite200611072136&sourcedomain=www.ndsmcobserver.com>.

Griffin, Bobby. “MEN’S BASKETBALL: Last-second jumper lifts Marquette.” The Observer 23 Jan. 2006. 2 Nov. 2006 <http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/storage/paper660/news/2006/01/23/Sports/Mens-asketball.LastSecond.Jumper.Lifts.Marquette-1493286.shtml?norewrite200611072124&sourcedomain=www.ndsmcobserver.com>.

Hebl, Michelle R., et al. “Paying the Way: The Ticket to Gender Equality in Sports.” Sex Roles 51.2/3 (2004): 227-235.

Leonard, Pat. “MEN’S BASKETBALL: Bouncing back.” The Observer 27 Jan. 2006.

Nov. 2006 <http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/storage/paper660/news/2006/01/27/Sports/Mens-Basketball.Bouncing.Back-1515300.shtml?norewrite200611072140&sourcedomain=www.ndsmcobserver.com>.

Leonard, Pat. “MEN’S BASKETBALL: Irish can inch close, but can only get so far.” The Observer 25 Jan. 2006. 2 Nov. 2006 <http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/storage/paper660/news/2006/01/25/Sports/Mens-Basketball.Irish.Can.Inch.Close.But.Can.Only.Get.So.Far-504144.shtml?norewrite200611072135&sourcedomain=www.ndsmcobserver.com>.

“Men’s Basketball Ticket Information.” Tickets. 2006. University of Notre Dame. 4 Nov.

2006 <http://und.cstv.com/tickets/nd-tickets-m-baskbl.html>.

“Notre Dame: Season Statistics.” Men’s Basketball. 23 March 2006. University of Notre Dame. 4 Nov. 2006 <http://und.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2005-2006/teamcume.html>.

Notre Dame Ticket Office. “Men's Basketball Student Tickets.” Online posting. 25 Oct

2006. IRISHLINK-URGENT. 25 Oct 2006 <https://webmail.nd.edu/horde/imp/login.php>.

Kaufman, Michael. “Men, Feminism, and Men’s Contradictory Experiences of Power.”

Theorizing Masculinities. Eds. Harry Brod and Michael Kaufman. London: Sage

Publications. 1994. 142-63.

Observer Sports. “Men’s Basketball: Irish host hot Georgetown team tonight.” The Observer 24 Jan. 2006. 2 Nov. 2006

<http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/storage/paper660/news/2006/01/24/

Sports/Mens-Basketball.Irish.Host.Hot.Georgetown.Team.Tonight-

1502826.shtml?norewrite200611072130&sourcedomain=www.ndsmcobserver.co

m>.

Observer Sports. “ND Women’s Basketball: Nerve ‘RAC’ing.” The Observer 24 Jan. 2006. 2 Nov. 2006

<http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/storage/paper660/news/2006/01/24/Sports/Nd.Womens.Basketball.Nerve.racing-1502822.shtml?norewrite200611072131&sourcedomain=www.ndsmcobserver.com>.

Retter, Eric. “ND WOMEN’S BASKETBALL: Bulls pay visit to the JACC.” The Observer 27 Jan. 2006. 2 Nov. 2006 <http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/storage/paper660/news/2006/01/27/Sports/Nd.Womens.Basketball.Bulls.Pay.Visit.To.The.Jacc-1515307.shtml?norewrite200611072142&sourcedomain=www.ndsmcobserver.com

Retter, Eric. “ND WOMEN’S BASKETBALL: Holding on.” The Observer 23 Jan. 2006. 2 Nov. 2006

<http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/media/storage/paper660/news/2006/01/23/

Sports/Nd.Womens.Basketball.Holding.On-1493277.shtml?norewrite200611072127&sourcedomain=www.ndsmcobserver.com>.

Swim, Janet K., et al. “Sexism and Racism: Old-Fashioned and Modern Prejudices.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68.2 (1995) 199-214. University of Notre Dame. “Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act.” University of Notre Dame: Varsity Athletics. 2006. 4 Nov. 2006 <http://www.nd.edu/athletics/disclosure.shtml>.

University of Notre Dame. “Higher Education Act Reporting.” University of Notre Dame: Varsity Athletics. 1 July 2006. 4 Nov. 2006 <http://www.nd.edu/athletics/EADA_2006.pdf>.

 “Women’s Basketball Ticket Information.” Tickets. 2006. University of Notre Dame. 4 Nov. 2006 <http://und.cstv.com/tickets/nd-tickets-w-baskbl.html>.