This update actually has nothing to do with Title IX--at least that we know of right now--but since I wrote recently about the second paid administrative leave of a female coach at FGCU I wanted to report on the "resolution" of this situation. Though there seems to be no word on the investigation of volleyball head coach Jaye Flood's shirt-grabbing incident, the investigation into the student welfare issues surrounding assistant softball coach Gina Ramacci is complete. Ramacci has been fired for an inappropriate sexual relationship with a student-athlete.
The article says that Ramacci has a "partner" and that she denies having a sexual relationship with a player on her team. She and her lawyer are planning on looking at the report this weekend. But right now she will remain on paid leave until December when her current contract expires. But apparently whether or not Ramacci had a sexual relationship with the unknown player, she will stayed fired because of an overall inappropriate relationship with said student-athlete. Additionally there seems to be issues about whether Ramacci knew about illegal drug use by players, her own disparaging remarks about head coach, David Deiros, and relaying confidential information about one student-athlete to another.
It is difficult to say much about this situation. Ramacci is young and likely naive about "appropriate" behavior for a coach having so recently been a player herself. Also, her situation as an apparently out coach is something I suspect we will be hearing about more and more. Many more teenagers are out when they get to college--if not earlier. They don't really know what it is to be closeted. But they are encountering an older generation that has not been so open and welcoming. Of course, if Ramacci did have a sexual relationship with one of her players there is no question that this was wrong. But given that neither coach nor player admitted to a sexual relationship, it may just be that coach and player did not know how to establish boundaries. And this is not surprising given that the atmosphere at FGCU for women, let alone gay women, does not seem all that good. Why wouldn't two gay women who share a love of a sport and are close in age develop a relationship that may read to others as inappropriate? Given FGCU's recent history I am reluctant to embrace uncritically the findings of this particular investigation.
The article says that Ramacci has a "partner" and that she denies having a sexual relationship with a player on her team. She and her lawyer are planning on looking at the report this weekend. But right now she will remain on paid leave until December when her current contract expires. But apparently whether or not Ramacci had a sexual relationship with the unknown player, she will stayed fired because of an overall inappropriate relationship with said student-athlete. Additionally there seems to be issues about whether Ramacci knew about illegal drug use by players, her own disparaging remarks about head coach, David Deiros, and relaying confidential information about one student-athlete to another.
It is difficult to say much about this situation. Ramacci is young and likely naive about "appropriate" behavior for a coach having so recently been a player herself. Also, her situation as an apparently out coach is something I suspect we will be hearing about more and more. Many more teenagers are out when they get to college--if not earlier. They don't really know what it is to be closeted. But they are encountering an older generation that has not been so open and welcoming. Of course, if Ramacci did have a sexual relationship with one of her players there is no question that this was wrong. But given that neither coach nor player admitted to a sexual relationship, it may just be that coach and player did not know how to establish boundaries. And this is not surprising given that the atmosphere at FGCU for women, let alone gay women, does not seem all that good. Why wouldn't two gay women who share a love of a sport and are close in age develop a relationship that may read to others as inappropriate? Given FGCU's recent history I am reluctant to embrace uncritically the findings of this particular investigation.
Posts
3 comments:
Funny how a double standard applies here. Had this been a male coach and a female student, there is little doubt that you would be all over the student being taken advantage of since at least you admit it was "wrong." Yet, because the two are gay, "it may just be that coach and player did not know how to establish boundaries" and "Why wouldn't two gay women who share a love of a sport and are close in age develop a relationship that may read to others as inappropriate?"
Much like your blind support of the first prong to where discrimination can only apply to women, it's easiest to apply whatever standard is most convenient to your argument. You either apply standards all the time or not at all. Conduct is either wrong or it isn't. If she did what it is alleged she did, it is a fireable offense. No excuses based on gender.
And comments seem to be deleted only when they destroy your argument. Unsurprising from those who can't construct a cogent one themselves.
The author was critical of any sexual relationship between coach and player. If you had read the post carefully (instead of scanning it for ammunition for your flame thrower) you'd see that the author said that very clearly. She then went on to suggest that, in light of the hostile atmosphere for women coaches and lesbians at FGCU, it's possible that this particular relationship has been misconstrued, as there is no proof of a sexual relationship at this time. As for double standard, if this story took place at a university where there was institutional hostility towards men and heterosexuals, well, a similar note of caution would have been raised.
Comments are deleted when they do not make sense. If you don't like our blog, read someone else's.
"The author was critical of any sexual relationship between coach and player." How wonderful! Pray tell, exactly where that is in the article? Do you mean this sentence, “Of course, if Ramacci did have a sexual relationship with one of her players there is no question that this was wrong.”
What a strong refutation! Who cares that most of the blog entry was filled with strongly supported arguments, (nay, indisputable proof!) about how the poor coach was “naïve about “appropriate” behavior” and that because she is an “out coach” it is a situation that we’re going to see “more and more.” It is truly sad that such a talented coach could not “establish boundaries” and “develop a relationship that may read to others as inappropriate” because she was clearly forced to do so by the “atmosphere”.
Wrong.
The coach made a choice, period, and so did you in sheer speculation on any excuse that might somehow justify behavior that, if the athlete and student were of differing gender, would have led to a quick firing without any defense of age, sex, or naivety. The author's moral outrage for illegal and unethical conduct supported by evidence that had to be strong enough to support the lawsuit coming down the pipe pales against hypothetical defenses that come straight out of a bad lesbian coming-of-age erotica pulp novel. There is no proof available to you to confirm that there was a sexual relationship, but there is also no proof that there wasn’t. To immediately jump to the defense of someone who at the very least did something that any coach shouldn’t – well, the clothes of the emperor have come off. Yours is not an objective or even subjective blog; it’s one that discriminates by sex and orientation. Might as well be honest about it.
Accusing those who point out the gaping holes in your intellectual honesty of wielding a flamethrower is just lighting the Molotov yourself. I don’t know if FGCU discriminates or not; I hope they don’t. I do know that your blog takes out of context quotes routinely to deny many of the downsides of Title IX and distorting reasonable articles by others, and has to date never posted an entry about any incident taking “place at a university where there was institutional hostility towards men and heterosexuals”. From everything you've written, such an environment cannot exist, despite men's sports being eliminated right and left.
You don’t delete comments when they don’t make sense. You delete them when they point you out as being intellectually bankrupt.
Post a Comment