I Where's the Line? an Analysis of the Shifts in Governance of Women's

Where’s the Line?

An Analysis of the Shifts in Governance of Women’s Lacrosse, 1992-1998

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Melissa C. Wiser, M.A.

Graduate Program in Education

The Ohio State University

2013

Dissertation Committee:

Sarah K. Fields, Advisor

Mary Thomas

Mollie Blackburn

Melissa C. Wiser

2013

Abstract

In 1998, eight separate organizations merged to form US Lacrosse, the national governing body for both men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse. Before the change in structure, the United States Women’s Lacrosse Association governed women’s lacrosse, while numerous organizations managed the men’s game. The organizational shift represented the first time these two distinct sports would be administratively joined in the

United States. A key motivating factor in the design of the merger was the long-term goal of inclusion at the Olympic Games; a base requirement of this attempt was one national governing body for one sport in one nation. Although men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse share a common name, the sports are historically distinct in course of play, field markings, and permissible physical contact. While located in broader sport systems rooted in gender equity and the notion of “separate but equal,” (e.g., Title IX and the

Olympic Charter), men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse are presented as different versions of the same game. This faulty assumption ignores the history of each and forecloses sport options for men and women who want to play the lacrosse that is not available to them. Thus, I argue that although it attempted to achieve gender equity for the lacrosses and their representatives, the merger that created US Lacrosse is problematic due to its founding premise that conflates the sports and constrains the future of women’s lacrosse specifically.

Dedication

Dedicated to Grandmom

Emilie Luise Lutz Horel

1913-2011

iii

Acknowledgements

Although it may feel isolating at times, a dissertation is a communal process. I am indebted to numerous people. First and foremost, I would like to thank Sarah Fields, my advisor, for her encouragement and creativity. She consistently devised new ways for me to consider not just the material but the entire intellectual process. My stubbornness and perfectionism frequently led to periods of limited productivity, but she constantly reminded me of the importance of my work and her faith in me as a scholar and as a person. I also appreciate the commitment of my committee members. Mary Thomas, whom I met in my very first graduate seminar, has challenged me intellectually for years and supported my efforts to conceptualize the power of a line on a field. Mollie

Blackburn, whose energy and vigor for knowledge is infectious, triggered fresh excitement in my work after our discussions. In addition, several professors served on my exam and proposal committees and gave me feedback on the direction of this project.

Melvin Adelman, and Sue Sutherland offered me valuable initial insights; Susan Bandy, who is generous with her time, was an important presence during this transitional period.

Of course, this dissertation would not have been possible without those whom I interviewed. Their willingness to make time to meet with me in their busy lacrosse schedules and to share their stories was invaluable. Their contributions were absolutely critical to this project. Without them there would have been no dissertation.

My friendships have been extremely important to me in this lengthy process.

Those whose time in Sport Humanities overlapped with mine were great friends. Claire

Williams, in particular, was also a mentor and helped guide me through many steps.

Lindsay Pieper, Dain TePoel, Andrew Linden, and Lauren Brown are friends who aided me on numerous occasions and made challenging my thinking enjoyable. Outside of

Ohio State, Elaine Stowell has been wonderful. She generated the field diagrams in

Chapter 2; whenever I need assistance, Elaine is there—on the field and off. Without the frequent phone calls with Jennifer Hansen-Glucklich, a dear friend who is always so far away, I never would have been able to face this process let alone write it all down. In addition, perhaps a practical matter, but no list of thanks would be complete without some acknowledgment for the undo feature in Microsoft Word. In a house full of cats, this function has proven to be invaluable on numerous occasions.

Over the entire grad school experience, my family has demonstrated amazing patience as well as love and support. My parents, Alan and Susan, have each developed the unique skill set of composing pep talks on demand. And my two older brothers, Jeff and Scott, thankfully cut back on the sisterly teasing the last few months, so I could focus. Now, I look forward to being able to travel east again to see them, and my sister- in-law Gina Tesauro and my nieces Sydney and Noelle, more often. Towards the end I could hear, “it’s twelve moves away but it’s there.” It kept me going. Mom, kkccbbbbb.

Finally, I would like to thank Linda Strapp, who has had to live with this dissertation almost as much as I have. I needed her to be there whenever I hit “send,” and she always was.

Vita

June 2000 ...... Upper Dublin High School, Pennsylvania

December 2004...... B.A. Women’s Studies, University of Maryland

December 2004 ...... B.A. German Studies, University of Maryland

June 2008 ...... M.A. Women’s Studies, The Ohio State University

Publications

Wiser, Melissa C. “Sports Clothing.” In American Sports: A History of Icons, Idols and

Ideas, edited by Murray Nelson. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2013.

Wiser, Melissa C. “What is Discourse? A Discussion on Discourse, Social Norms, and

Physical Education.” In The Dimensions of Physical Education and Health

Education, edited by Lori E. Ciccomascolo and Eileen C. Sullivan, 269-76.

Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2013.

Fields of Study

Major Field: Education

Specialization: Sexuality Studies

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………...ii

Dedication…………………………………………………………………...iii

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………….iv

Vita…………………………………………………………………………..vi

List of Figures………………………………………………………………..viii

List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………ix

Introduction………………………………………………………………… .1

Chapter 1: Trust and Responsibility………………………………………....18

Chapter 2: Lacrosse History………………………………………………....38

Chapter 3: Inside, Outside, Outside, Inside…………………………………70

Chapter 4: A Tale of Two Presidents………………………………………. .112

Chapter 5: Here We Go Again………………………………………………147

Chapter 6: One Name, Two Sports………………………………………….185

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………...213

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………225

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1 Women’s Lacrosse Field with Positions………………………….63

Figure 2 Men’s Lacrosse Field……………………………………………..64

Figure 3 Women’s Lacrosse Field………………………………………….64

viii

List of Abbreviations

AAHPER American Alliance of Heath, Physical Education, and Recreation

AAU Amateur Athletic Union

AIAW Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women

CALL Central Atlantic Lacrosse League

CIAW Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics for Women

DGWS Division for Girls’ and Women’s Sports

FIL Federation of International Lacrosse

IFWLA International Federation of Women’s Lacrosse Associations

ILF International Lacrosse Federation

IWLCA Intercollegiate Women’s Lacrosse Coaches Association

IOC International Olympic Committee

NCAA National Collegiate Athletic Association

NILOA National Intercollegiate Lacrosse Officials Association

NJLA National Junior Lacrosse Association

NGB National Governing Body

NOC National Olympic Committee

NUC National Umpiring Committee

PCOS President’s Commission on Olympic Sports

USCLA United States Club Lacrosse Association

USILA United States Intercollegiate Lacrosse Association

USL US Lacrosse

USLCA United State Lacrosse Coaches Association

USLOA United States Lacrosse Officials Association

USOC United States Olympic Committee

USWLA United States Women’s Lacrosse Association

Introduction

In 2008 the New York State Public High School Athletic Association voted to require helmets in girls’ lacrosse. The organization rescinded the decision shortly thereafter, but subsequent to this initial vote, leaders in the women’s lacrosse community scrambled to resist the pro-helmet momentum the vote ignited. In February 2011, the

New York Times published an article “A Case against Helmets in Lacrosse” that articulated an anti-helmet stance and highlighted key issues of safety in the contentious debate, namely whether or not increased equipment would help prevent concussions and other head and face injuries.1 The potential inclusion of helmets incited a heated dialogue that articulated notions of how lacrosse should be played.

This dissertation is not about helmets. Nevertheless, helmets serve as a symbol within the sport of women’s lacrosse and frame my entrance into the story of the organizational merger that created US Lacrosse. In 1998, eight separate associations joined to form one national governing body for lacrosse; this administrative shift was the first time that the sports of men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse in the United States were unified under one broad-based governance structure. The change was significant in that two disparate games coalesced into one system of governance. This dissertation is about the process of shifting into that system.

1 Alan Schwarz, “A Case Against Helmets in Lacrosse,” New York Times, February 16, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/sports/17lacrosse.html?_r=1&. 1

The motivating factor for this movement was the Olympics Games; in order for a sport to earn a spot on the Olympic Program, there could only be one national governing body within each country for the appropriate sport. In 1992, when the conversations regarding a merger for lacrosse in the United States began, at least eight organizations governed various facets of lacrosse administration. The groups were fragmented and many of their responsibilities overlapped. Substantial changes needed to be made in order for the Olympic dream to be realized.

In this work, I assess the merits of the process of this merger with a focus on women’s lacrosse and the United States Women’s Lacrosse Association (USWLA) specifically. The underlying foundations of the requisite dialogues amongst the groups demanded that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse sustain a similarity in order for the once separate groups to become a united organization; they needed to be one sport in order for the merger to make sense. Even though concerted efforts were made to keep the sports distinct in course of play and in organizational structure, the merger cemented the idea that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse were different versions of one sport; as long as they were part of the same national governing body, they could not be classified as wholly different games. In addition, domestic legislation indicative of the discourse on equal opportunity frame the structural expectations for gender equity in sport. Measures such as Title IX permitted separate but equal in regards to athletic participation.

Ultimately, I argue that the Olympic classification and the broader debates of the merger, both among the various organizations and within the USWLA membership base, obscured the bigger issue; namely, that the Olympic dream and dominant expectations of

gender equity in sport demanded sameness, and the entrance of men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse into those systems was problematic for what has historically been two different sports. In sum, the merger, although perhaps well-intentioned, was flawed.

Helmets and Changes in Women’s Lacrosse

For me, helmets were a symbolic step too far in a series of changes that had happened to the women’s game. Many participants are fearful of what the new equipment could mean for the longevity of the game. For instance, it is not uncommon to see those involved in the sport (athletes, officials, and coaches) wearing anti-helmet T-shirts at tournaments, and these individuals receive applause and verbal support when they pass by others. One T-shirt design in particular, marketed by Stick it!, claimed, “helmets are for boys” and on the back stated, “women’s lacrosse: it’s all about the skill.” Informing these slogans was the need to articulate the variances between two separate sports; women’s lacrosse participants rallied behind these ideas as a means to assert the value of their sport.

Further evidence of the importance of the helmet debate in women’s lacrosse came from the organizational level. US Lacrosse, the national governing body for men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse, announced in June 2011 that it approved the National

Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) to begin research on soft headgear for women’s lacrosse.2 Despite the claim that “US Lacrosse hopes to work with NOCSAE to develop specs for headgear designed specifically for the culture

2 US Lacrosse, “US Lacrosse Requests NOCSAE to Develop Unique Women’s Lacrosse Headgear Standard,” Officials Newsletter Women’s Edition, June 2011, http://cl.publicaster.com/ViewInBrowser.aspx?pubids=6778|6599|611096|6090&digest=MGwUyHrdRp9S zJovFkgUdw&sysid=1. 3

and rules of women’s lacrosse,” as well as the careful word choice of “headgear” and not

“helmet,” the organization issued a clarification entitled, “Correcting the Record:

Headgear, Not Helmets.”3 Significantly, it distributed this clarification only two weeks after the initial public announcement. Clearly, this issue mattered and continues to matter.

Tension was, and remains through 2013, high amongst women’s lacrosse participants regarding what could occur next in the sport.

As my relationship to the sport has shifted in multiple and expanding ways, so has the sport itself. I have participated in women’s lacrosse in multiple capacities; as a player, as an umpire, and as a scholar. Just prior to my sophomore season in high school (1998), and my first time playing Junior Varsity and Varsity girls’ lacrosse, US Lacrosse formed.

My last year wielding a crosse, or stick (2000), a restraining line appeared on the women’s field. My first year officiating (2005), soft-boundary lines were on the field as a predecessor to the hard-boundary lines that arrived the following year.4 In addition, goggles as a required piece of protective equipment was added in the interim years. Of course other changes occurred in between, but the aforementioned changes and the corresponding years relevant to my lacrosse career impacted me directly.

Rather than engage in the sort of simple blame game that dominates mainstream sports coverage, I elected to evaluate some of the changes in the sport through my graduate studies. This train of inquiry has led me to the merger. Prior to embarking on my

3 US Lacrosse, “Correcting the Record: Headgear, Not Helmets,” USL News &Updates, July 2011, http://cl.publicaster.com/ViewInBrowser.aspx?pubids=6778|6506|611096|700391&digest=PATDlWnrTocy 1LKMrayX0A&sysid=1. 4 There are two restraining lines on the women’s lacrosse field, one on each half thirty yards up the field from the goal line extended. The lines are used to determine offsides, or to limit the number of offensive or defensive players on those sections of the field. Boundary lines mark the physical dimensions of the field. Soft lines were dotted and served as guidelines. Hard lines were solid lines. 4

dissertation research, my knowledge of the merger was limited to historian Donald

Fisher’s brief reference to it in his history of lacrosse and to anecdotal references from my friends and colleagues in women’s lacrosse who were organizationally active during the merger process.5 Considering I was a high school player during the final years of the

USWLA’s existence, the fact that I lacked awareness of the broader concerns of my sport debated at the national level is not surprising. I was surprised, though, that as a college graduate with a degree in women’s studies and as an employee at a major women’s sport non-profit in Reston, Virginia, in 2005, that I was completely unaware of the merger that culminated in a national governing body located only an hour away in Baltimore,

Maryland—a merger that altered the governance structure of and impacted experiences in women’s lacrosse.

Chapter Breakdown

To support my overall argument that the merger, as designed through considerations of gender equity, demanded that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse be classified as the same sport, I present my supporting claims in six chapters. Through these pages, I look at why and how the merger occurred, but also analyze the founding premises of the shift.

Chapter 1

In the first chapter, I explore my relationship to the sport of women’s lacrosse and how that position as an active figure within the sport impacted my access to knowledge.

It is both a critical and practical presentation of my methodology. Within sport studies, it is common for academics to love the sports that they study, but it is rare that researchers

5 Donald A. Fisher, Lacrosse: A History of the Game (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002). 5

critically reflect on this duality when they are active participants in and scholars of the same game. I situate myself in relation to the academic discipline as well as expand on my role in the sport.

Chapter 2

Before I embark on a detailed discussion of the merger, it is imperative to understand the histories of men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse, because the varying histories challenge their classification as one sport. In this chapter, I argue that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse have historically been different sports. I review the limited academic literature on the games and trace their interacting and diverging historical trajectories. Their paths experienced moments of overlap, but they were not identical. In fact, they were more distinct than similar. I also compare the sports’ individual rulebooks from 1993, a critical year in the merger dialogues. This comparison illustrates that in 1993 in particular, the sports differed in relation to field markings, personnel, time factors, equipment, and permissible physical contact. Men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse were different sports.

Chapter 3

This chapter begins the factual presentation of events regarding the merger as well as assesses the merits of the foundations of the merger dialogues. I present how and why the Lacrosse Foundation initiated the path toward merger and that the Olympic model was essential to the structural design of the merger and its process. According to the

Olympic Charter, in order for a sport to gain Olympic recognition, it would have to meet a series of requirements, one of which was one national governing body for the sport in

each participating country. Separate organizations for men’s and women’s participants were not allowed. Therefore, the organizational makeups in the early 1990s for men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse prohibited the potential of Olympic inclusion. The sports had to be considered the same for the merger to make sense. The narrative takes the story up to US Lacrosse’s incorporation in 1996 and describes some of the debates and concerns between the Lacrosse Foundation, the group that began the dialogues, and the

USWLA, women’s lacrosse’s primary organizational body.

Chapter 4

Continuing with the presentation of events, this chapter explains the final steps of the merger for the USWLA and women’s lacrosse. The majority of men’s organizations agreed to the change earlier than the USWLA did. The final two Presidents of the

USWLA interpreted the merger dialogues differently, which resulted in discord among its leaders. During critical years of negotiation, the USWLA was unable to present a united front in response to the US Lacrosse’s requests. As a result, the USWLA did not have an opportunity to even explore the faulty foundations of the merger premise, that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse were one sport. In the end, the USWLA membership voted to join US Lacrosse in 1998. Perhaps as a result of these frequent back-and-forth exchanges, the final organizational schematic of US Lacrosse exhibited gender equity in the administration. Leaders from both sports would have equal opportunities to lead the organization overall.

Chapter 5

Those involved in women’s lacrosse and the USWLA supported and opposed the merger for multiple reasons. Although impossible to articulate all of the rationales, I identify a trend in responses for and against the shift in governance. History and the fear of repeating past outcomes in women’s sport governance that had been detrimental to women’s control over women’s athletics was a motivating factor for many women engaged in this dialogue. They did not want to lose the governance of the sport to a men’s sport organization, yet again. Some utilized this knowledge of the past as a means to prevent the past replicating in the future. History was a primary and framing theme. In addition, many articulated that the sports were different games, but the focus of those in favor of the merger seemed to be that the new opportunity offered women’s lacrosse the chance to have access to greater resources, such as paid staff and fundraising capabilities.

So even if the sports were different and in one governing body, the access to resources was considered to be a more viable reason for many. No one articulated that because the sports were the same or similar they should be joined organizationally.

Chapter 6

In the final chapter, I collect the various pieces that inform my argumentation and demonstrate how the long-term dream of Olympic inclusion and the structural demands of gender equity in sport models are flawed in considerations of two different sports— two sports with one name. Despite the fact that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse varied greatly, their inclusion under one governing body fostered comparisons between the sports that rendered not only women’s lacrosse as inferior to men’s lacrosse but also that potentially erased women’s lacrosse as a unique sport. Finally, the leaders of both

sports missed an opportunity in the merger dialogues to distinguish the sports and to declare them as separate. I pose that gender be removed as the key organizing principal in the sports of “men’s lacrosse” and “women’s lacrosse” so that the sport form is the primary means to divide participants instead of one’s gender impacting the participants’ ability to pick a sport.

Description of Leaders

In order to determine what happened as well as how the events impacted women’s lacrosse and its governance, I interviewed twelve individuals who played a critical role in the merger as a part of the USWLA or in the governance of women’s lacrosse in general.

It will be quickly apparent that with the exception of one, all of those whom I interviewed identified primarily with the women’s game. This emphasis was intentional. Although discussions with figures of the men’s game and their view on the merger and on joining administratively with a women’s lacrosse organization would undoubtedly be relevant, I intended to focus specifically on how this merger impacted women’s lacrosse. Before I was even aware of the details of the merger, my framing concerns were why and how the sport of women’s lacrosse changed. I discovered the importance of the merger along my quest. Thus, the primacy of this project is on the sport of women’s lacrosse in the merger process.

In Chapter 1, I analyze numerous factors regarding these individuals and my relationships with them. Here, I briefly describe their personal achievements in sport and their engagement in the merger dialogues. Because all of these individuals are very accomplished, and most are quite modest as well, I likely omitted relevant feats

unknowingly. These brief biographical sketches highlight their importance to the broader debates and demonstrate why I wanted to meet with them in the first place.

Priscilla Anderson

Priscilla Anderson was a National umpire and the first National Umpiring

Committee (NUC) Chair for women’s lacrosse under US Lacrosse.6 She played women’s lacrosse in high school in the Philadelphia area but did not become involved as an adult until she moved to upstate New York after college. She started officiating in 1981, which was also the same year she started attending NUC meetings. Because Sue McVaugh, who also lived in New York at the time, was a National umpire and on the NUC, Anderson

“just trucked along” to the meetings. As a result, she was privy to many organizational conversations and took on numerous leadership responsibilities prior to actually being in a formal position at the national level. She held the position of NUC Chair herself from

June 1999 to August 2003. In addition, she served on the US Lacrosse Board of Directors from August 2004 to August 2006. After a knee injury on the field in 2007 and a decision to return to school to become a physical therapist, she retired from officiating.7

Feffie Barnhill

Feffie Barnhill was a prominent collegiate and national team coach and served in numerous organizations. She played women’s lacrosse at Ursinus College and was head coach at the College of William and Mary from 1982 to 1998. She also was the assistant

6 A National rating is the highest rating US Lacrosse awards. According to the US Lacrosse Women’s Game Umpire Manual, a National umpire is qualified to officiate all college-level games. The NUC oversaw all matters of women’s umpires under the USWLA and then under US Lacrosse. The position name changed when US Lacrosse restructured in 2010; the NUC converted to the Women’s Game Officials Subcommittee. For consistency, I refer to committee as the NUC even after the date of change. US Lacrosse, Women’s Game Umpire Manual 2012 (Baltimore: US Lacrosse National Headquarters, 2012), 7:6. 7 Priscilla Anderson, interview with the author, January 7, 2012, Mount Upton, NY. 10

coach of the US national team at the 1989 World Cup. Organizationally, she was Vice

President of the USWLA, President of the Intercollegiate Women’s Lacrosse Coaches

Association (IWLCA), Chair of the USWLA Negotiation Committee during the merger,

Chair of the US Lacrosse Board of Directors 2000 to 2002, President of the Federation of

International Lacrosse (FIL) from 2008 to 2010, and in 2013 is Vice President of FIL.

Barnhill was inducted into the National Lacrosse Hall of Fame in 2006 as a contributor to the sport. Notably, Barnhill was involved in multiple organizations and was a key actor in both the national and the international mergers for men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse.8

Jane Claydon

Jane Claydon was involved in women’s lacrosse in Scotland domestically and internationally. In 1975 she became the Head of Physical Education at St. Leonards, a historical location for women’s lacrosse. After coaching in the United States at Merestead

Hockey and Lacrosse Camps in Vermont in 1977, she brought her team over to the

United States in the 1980s and continued multiple international exchanges in which she was involved. The first Women’s World Cup took place in England in 1982, and she hosted and organized the event. In 2007 she retired from St. Leonards and became

President of Lacrosse Scotland. She published a history of women’s lacrosse in 2009 entitled St. Leonards: Cradle of Lacrosse.9

Pat Dillon

8 Feffie Barnhill and Jane Claydon, interview with the author, September 8-9, 2011, Lewes, DE; “Board of Directors,” Federation of International Lacrosse, 2013, http://filacrosse.com/about/fil-board/; and “Ethel ‘Feffie’ Barnhill,” National Lacrosse Hall of Fame, 2005, http://apps.uslacrosse.org/museum/halloffame/. The websites included conflicting dates on the years she served in some positions. I omitted those dates, as her service is more important than when it occurred. 9 Jane Claydon, St. Leonards: Cradle of Lacrosse (St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland: West Port Print & Design, 2009); and Barnhill and Claydon, interview. 11

Pat Dillon’s involvement was as a top-level women’s umpire, having officiated numerous collegiate finals, and as a member of several leadership boards. Dillon’s women’s lacrosse involvement began when she played at Towson State College (now

Towson University). Ten years after graduation, she began umpiring and then quickly earned her National rating in 1989. She served on both the USWLA and US Lacrosse

Executive Committees and was Chair of the US Lacrosse Board of Directors from 2004 to 2006. She is most known for her time as the Rules Committee Chair; in fact, so known that she claimed people no longer simply say “hello” to her. Instead, it’s always “Hi Pat. I have a question.” She began with the USWLA in 1993 and held this position for the

Women’s Division under US Lacrosse until 2010. In 2007 she also took on the position of Secretary Rules Editor for women’s lacrosse through the National Collegiate Athletic

Association (NCAA). She was inducted into the National Lacrosse Hall of Fame in 2008 as a contributor.10

Susan Ford

Susan Ford served the sport of women’s lacrosse in multiple capacities. She played women’s lacrosse at Connecticut College. Upon graduation she started officiating and eventually earned her National rating. While umpiring as a National, she also was the head women’s lacrosse and field hockey coach at Wellesley College. She retired from officiating in 1999 for medical reasons, but also after she served on the USWLA

Executive Committee. Ford served as President during the primary years of merger discussion. In addition, she was a member of the US Lacrosse Foundation Executive

10 Pat Dillon, interview with the author, January 15, 2012, Philadelphia, PA; and “Pat Dillon,” National Lacrosse Hall of Fame, 2005, http://apps.uslacrosse.org/museum/halloffame/. 12

Board from 1998 to 2003. She was inducted into the National Lacrosse Hall of Fame in

2007 as a contributor.11

Kendra Gallagher

Kendra Gallagher wished to remain anonymous, so this name is an assigned pseudonym. In the remainder of the text I will simply refer to her as Kendra Gallagher.

She was a self-described leader in women’s lacrosse.12

Susie Ganzenmuller

Susie Ganzenmuller was a prominent women’s lacrosse umpire at the national and international levels. Although she rejects the nickname, many officials refer to her as

“God.” She has officiated twelve Final Four weekends at the collegiate level and two

World Cup tournaments. She began officiating in 1981 and earned her International rating in 1991. Under the USWLA she served as NUC Chair from 1992 to 1996 and under the International Federation of Women’s Lacrosse Associations (IFWLA) and FIL

(formed in 2008) served as Umpiring Rules Chair for multiple terms. The National

Lacrosse Hall of Fame inducted her in 2005.13

Dottie McKnight

Dottie McKnight worked as the only Executive Director of the USWLA from

1996 until 1998. She played some women’s lacrosse at Ursinus College, but the sport was not her primary one. Although her involvement in women’s lacrosse specifically was

11 Susan Ford, interview with the author, September 15, 2011, Grosse Point, MI; and “Susan Ford,” National Lacrosse Hall of Fame, 2005, http://apps.uslacrosse.org/museum/halloffame/. 12 Kendra Gallagher, interview with the author. In order to maintain anonymity, I omitted the date and location of interview in all citations. 13 Susie Ganzenmuller, interview with the author, May 7, 2011, Scottsdale, AZ; and “Susan L. Ganzenmuller,” National Lacrosse Hall of Fame, 2005, http://apps.uslacrosse.org/museum/halloffame/. 13

minimal, she was actively involved in women’s sport and physical education. For instance, she was the first women’s varsity basketball coach at the University of

Maryland from 1971 to 1975 and was the Coordinator for Women’s Athletics at the university.14

Sue McVaugh

Sue McVaugh played lacrosse at Swarthmore College, but mostly served the game as an umpire and as an administrator. While still playing in college, McVaugh started officiating and then earned her National rating and moved to New York, where she was the only National umpire in 1980. She first held the position of Home Office for the USWLA in the early 1980s, but needed to relinquish the position when her family moved abroad temporarily. She then was USWLA Treasurer from 1986 through 1990, during which time she also reacquired the Home Office position. From 1989 until 1994 she was Home Office until she moved again. During the years of the merger, she served as NUC Chair and was present at the Executive Committee vote that would decide whether or not the USWLA membership would vote on the merger. She elected to end her national organizational service in 1998, and she retired from women’s lacrosse officiating in 2010. She remained active in local women’s lacrosse organizations and served the Village of Hamilton, New York as Mayor from 2005 to 2011.15

Laurette Payette

14 Dottie McKnight, interview with the author, September 17, 2011, Washington D.C.; and “Coaching History,” University of Maryland Women’s Basketball, 2013, http://www.umterps.com/sports/w- baskbl/recordbook/coaching_history.html. 15 Sue McVaugh, interview with the author, January 8, 2012, Hamilton, NY. 14

Laurette Payette served and continues to serve women’s lacrosse as an umpire.

Her term as NUC Chair concludes in summer 2013. As part of her position as NUC

Chair, she sits on numerous committees at US Lacrosse that focus on the women’s game, umpiring, and rules. Prior to this position, she held numerous ones as a representative of women’s umpires at the national, regional, and local levels. She is also a top-level umpire and completed her first Division I Final Four weekend in 2013.

Steve Stenersen

Steve Stenersen was an integral figure in the formation of US Lacrosse. He became Executive Director of the Lacrosse Foundation in 1984. After the merger he stayed on with US Lacrosse as Executive Director; in 2008 his title formally changed to

President and CEO of US Lacrosse. He remains in 2013 at US Lacrosse in this position.

Prior to Stenersen’s efforts to lead the organizational merger, he was a prominent men’s lacrosse player himself. He played at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, where he earned NCAA national championships in 1981 and 1982. He also continued to play post-collegiate club lacrosse until 1990. Due to his experience in the domestic merger,

Stenersen also assisted the international governing bodies in the merger that created FIL in 2008.16

Val Walchak

Val Walchak’s involvement in women’s lacrosse extended into multiple arenas;

Walchak played at West Chester University, worked as a coach at Haverford Senior High

16 “About US Lacrosse Leadership Team,” US Lacrosse, 2009, http://www.uslacrosse.org/UtilityNav/AboutUSLacrosse/LeadershipTeam.aspx; and Steve Stenersen, interview with the author, February 22, 2012, Baltimore, MD. 15

and for multiple Philadelphia club associations, and as a District-rated umpire.17 She also volunteered for both the USWLA and US Lacrosse as the Insurance Chairperson from

1980 to 1997 and then from 1998 until 2010. She claimed that she is known as “the insurance lady.” Under the USWLA, Walchak developed the first Schoolgirls

Association in Philadelphia and in 1980 created the Schoolgirls Division at the USWLA

National Tournament, which continues under US Lacrosse.18 There is now an award in her name for the team that wins the tournament. As a coach, she is known for coaching the greats, specifically Chris Sailer and Cindy Timchal, who collectively have won numerous Division I National Championships and are in the National Lacrosse Hall of

Fame themselves. Walchak was inducted into the National Lacrosse Hall of Fame in

1999.19

On the following pages, I expound on these individuals’ experiences in relation to the sport of women’s lacrosse and its organizational changes. Through the presentation of events and the correlated analysis, it will become evident that the founding premise of the merger that created US Lacrosse, the national governing body for men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse in the United States, was problematic. The merger required two sports to be one sport, which has the potential to impact women’s lacrosse significantly in the

17 A District rating is the second highest rating awarded to women’s lacrosse officials. 18 National Tournament began in 1933and remains as an annual event. The participants of the events have shifted since its founding. Early players were members of club association; in 2013 the event consists mostly of high school elite teams. 19 “NT-Valerie Walchak,” US Lacrosse, 2009, http://www.uslacrosse.org/TopNav2Right/ Events/2013WomensNationalTournamentOld/NTValerieWalchakTrophy.aspx; “Valerie Walchak,” National Lacrosse Hall of Fame, 2005, http://apps.uslacrosse.org/museum/halloffame/; and Val Walchak, interview with the author. 16 August 2012. Villanova, PA. 16

future. Although the point of attention is on the historical matter of the merger, this work maintains a contemporary relevance. As I noted at the beginning of the introduction, current debates in women’s lacrosse motivated my engagement with this topic. Helmets were just one of numerous changes that piqued my attention. And currently women’s lacrosse feels to be on a precipice, but whether what follows is an up or a down swing has yet to be determined.

Chapter 1

Trust and Responsibility:

A Methodological Discussion of Insider Research and Access to Knowledge

Research on a group to which one already belongs engenders unique challenges.

What may seem like small decisions in representation and argumentation become quite complicated when the researcher is multiply invested in her work. As a women’s lacrosse official and a sport scholar writing her dissertation on women’s lacrosse, I frequently encountered and continue to encounter these challenges. In what manner should I approach insider research—a question I have asked myself since a course on complex ethnographies my first term as a PhD student, and a question that has plagued me since my committee members informed me during my candidacy exam defense that my allegiance appeared to be greater to my lacrosse community than to my academic one.

That comment in particular hurt, but mostly because it was accurate.

I frame this chapter around my quandary and use the dilemma as a means to present my methodological processes and considerations. I critically reflect upon my position as a researcher on a group in which I am multiply invested in relation to ideas of trust and responsibility. Through this investigation, I demonstrate the importance of reflexivity in insider research in particular. First, I review the literature on reflexivity and

insider research and reflexivity in sport studies, feminism, and sport history. Then, I present some background information on myself in relation to this dissertation topic.

Third, I locate my experiences during interviews within the insider/outsider discourse.

Fourth, I explicate my engagement with archival materials. Finally, I address the notion of responsibility in its multiple layers.

The Presence of the Researcher

Differing approaches to historical research embody differing understandings of the role of the researcher in the research process and the finished product. Sport historian

Douglas Booth utilized historian Alun Munslow’s framework of models of inquiry in historical research and located reconstructionism, constructionism, and deconstructionism within sport history.20 Key distinctions stem from variances in objectives and epistemologies. Under this paradigm, reconstructionists strive to determine what actually happened and believe that their role as the researcher is an objective one. Constructionists similarly think that sources can reveal what occurred in the past, but differ from reconstructionists in that they accept theory as a valuable framework in how they approach evidence. The presentation, however, remains objective in form. In contrast, deconstructionists understand that their history will always be a partial one. Additionally, the present is a critical component in the representation of the past, (i.e., the conditions in which historical research occurs inevitably impact the recording of the history). Reflexivity is indicative of deconstructionist history. Although

Booth described each of these approaches separately, it is imperative to consider as well

20 Douglas Booth, The Field: Truth and Fiction in Sport History (London: Routledge, 2005); and Douglas Booth, “Sport Historians: What Do We Do? How Do We Do It?” in Deconstructing Sport History: A Postmodern Analysis, ed. by Murray G. Phillips (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006). 19

that the line between each may not be so stark. Sport historian Murray Philips noted,

“New moments do not signal the demise of previous moments.”21

Reflexivity is a means in which researchers acknowledge their subject positions in their own work. A premise behind reflexive history is that the researcher is a critical actor in the production of history; the historian her/himself makes decisions in the acquisition of materials, the review of sources, and the production of scholarly texts. 22 Phillips described reflexivity as referring “to the positioning of the historian as author, rather than observer, who produces a self conscious [sic] narrative, rather than an author evacuated text.”23 Booth explained that “deconstructionist reflexivity requires authors to admit that history is an interpretation, rather than a recovery, of the past.”24 Thus, the employment of reflexivity challenges the authors to consider their orchestrating roles in the production of knowledge and to indicate these thought processes in the presentation of their own work.

Feminist academics questioned the objectivity of knowledge, challenged the possibility of complete or universal knowledge, and called for the valuation of norms that inform social position, including that of the researcher.25 Theorist Donna Haraway identified this promise of “vision from everywhere and nowhere equally and fully” as

21 Murray G. Phillips, “Introduction: Sport History and Postmodernism,” in Deconstructing Sport History: A Postmodern Analysis, ed. Murray G. Phillips (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006), 5. 22 Booth, Field. 23 Murray Phillips, “Commentary,” in “Sport History and the Cultural Turn,” ed. Douglas Booth and Murray Phillips, special issue, Sporting Traditions 27, no. 2 (2010): 67. 24 Booth, Field, 211. 25 Mary Hawkesworth, Feminist Inquiry: From Political Conviction to Methodological Innovation (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2006). 20

“god tricks.”26 One’s knowledge and one’s capability to experience is inevitably constrained by one’s social position. Thus, the presumption of objectivity is a farce. As a means to counter the assumption of universal objectivity, Haraway called for situated knowledges. She argued “for the view from a body, always a complex, contradictory, structuring, and structured body, versus the view from above, from nowhere, from simplicity.”27 She located power in the ability to see and clarified that one’s vision is always partial. This reconfiguration of understandings of knowledge production confounds universality and locates knowledge on the ground and on the body.

Importantly, Haraway’s naming of “god tricks” also identified dominant power dynamics. According to Haraway, knowledge in science is representative of a white, male gaze, which has functioned under the guise of neutrality. She described the gaze as one that “mythically inscribes all the marked bodies, that makes the unmarked category claim the power to see and not be seen, to represent while escaping representation.”28

Other feminist scholars utilized the terms standpoint and positionality to describe similar conceptions of the knower’s body in knowledge production. Philosopher Sandra

Harding described standpoint theories as those that “simply disagree with the further ahistorical and incoherent claim that the content of ‘modern and Western’ scientific thought is also, paradoxically, not shaped by its historical location.”29 Context is relevant in epistemological claims. One’s position in regards to social identity impacts the

26 Donna Haraway, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective,” Feminist Studies 14, no. 3(Autumn 1988): 584, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3178066. 27 Ibid., 589. 28 Ibid., 581. 29 Sandra Harding, “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: ‘What is Strong Objectivity’?” in Feminist Epistemologies, ed. Linda Alcoff and Elizabeth Potter (New York: Routledge, 1993), 63-64. 21

manners in which and means through which one experiences and makes meaning in the world. Anthropologist Kirin Narayan argued, “To acknowledge particular and personal locations is to admit the limits of one’s purview from these positions.”30 Philosopher

Nancy Hartsock similarly stated that a standpoint “carries with it the contention that there are some perspectives on society from which, however well-intentioned one may be, the real relations of humans with each other and with the natural world are not visible.”31 A lack of active recognition of positionality ignores the power of who may claim the moniker “objective researcher” and reifies the notions of white, male dominance. To ignore one’s standpoint, or to act as if there is a universal standpoint, is to assume a dominant gaze but not a universal one. A universal view is mythical. They have attempted to locate the creation of knowledge and have entered the body into scholarship; not just the researcher is relevant, but the body of the researcher is relevant in understandings of knowledge production. Researchers, then, have the responsibility to acknowledge their positionality in their texts.

The Researcher in Sport Studies

Although other fields grounded in the humanities and social sciences, including anthropology and sociology, have more readily accepted the need to overtly discuss methodological approaches and the position of the researcher specifically, sport

30 Kirin Narayan, “How Native is a ‘Native’ Anthropologist?” American Anthropologist 95, no. 3 (Sep. 1993): 679, http://www.jstor.org/stable/679656. 31 Nancy C. M. Hartsock, “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism,” in Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, ed. Sandra Harding and Merrill B. Hintikka, (Boston: D. Reidel Publishing, 1983), 285. 22

historians in particular have been reluctant to embrace these approaches.32 Historian Mike

Cronin used strong language to challenge the field of sport history, which he claimed did not challenge him. He argued that sport historians avoided the conversations generated by the cultural turn. “Rather than problematising how sport history might be studied and looking for new ways of seeing and doing, as the social historians had done in their shift to the cultural paradigm, the bulk of practitioners in sport history retreated to the library and the archive.”33 Other historians participating in the same forum on “Sport History and the Cultural Turn,” including Jaime Schultz, Daniel Nathan, and Murray Phillips, similarly indicated that not only has sport history been reluctant to engage with the ideas of the cultural turn, but that they envision the field will continue to exhibit that reluctance.34 Nathan, specifically in regards to the question of the future, noted that in ten to fifteen years sport history will likely be “more of the same.”35 This agreement that the field is slow to change is alarming not only because of a desire to expand the ways of knowing in the field but also because of the nature of work on sport.

Many scholars engage in work on sport because they enjoy participating in physical activity and athletics, whether they have played, watched, coached, and/or participated in another role within a sporting community. Inherently, then, sport scholars

32 Mike Cronin, “Reflections on the Cultural Paradigm,” in “Sport History and the Cultural Turn,” ed. Douglas Booth and Murray Phillips, special issue, Sporting Traditions 27, no. 2 (2010); Dan Nathan, “Asking a Fish about Water: Three Notes Toward an Understanding of ‘The Cultural Turn’ and Sport History,” in “Sport History and the Cultural Turn,” ed. Douglas Booth and Murray Phillips, special issue, Sporting Traditions 27, no. 2 (2010); Jaime Schultz, “Leaning into the Turn: Towards a New Cultural Sport History,” in “Sport History and the Cultural Turn,” ed. Douglas Booth and Murray Phillips, special issue, Sporting Traditions 27, no. 2 (2010); Phillips, “Sport History and Postmodernism;” and Booth, Field, 3. Booth noted that historians in general avoid open discussions of methodology. Schultz included exceptions in her work. 33 Cronin, “Cultural Paradigm,” 3. 34 Douglas Booth and Murray Phillips, ed.,“Sport History and the Cultural Turn,” special issue, Sporting Traditions 27, no. 2 (2010). 35 Nathan, “Asking a Fish,” 39. 23

are a part of sport. Despite these connections to the games and the reality that sport academics frequently conduct research on their sports, reflexivity on their insider status specifically appears absent, when, arguably, it could be the most relevant. Anthropologist

Linda Tuhiwai Smith named the critical issue in insider research as “the constant need for reflexivity.”36 Indeed, Cronin argued that sport historians’ love of sports actually

“hamstring the discipline, and hold back critical, different or innovative approaches.”37

Instead of grasping the opportunity to engage in a manner different than those outside the sport, sport scholars’ love of sports can shield their critical eyes. There is a lack of critical dialogue surrounding one’s membership to a group both prior to and after the period of study. Although many athletes and sport scholars study the sports they love as participants and spectators, few openly grapple with their positions as insiders to the group in which they study.

There are some notable exceptions of reflexivity in sport studies, especially in ethnographic works. Sociologists Pirkko Markula and Ben Carrington both reflected on past work in order to reinsert the reflexive. Markula claimed to have engaged in a critical dialogue with other “avid aerobicizers.”38 But after ten years, she reviewed her text and lamented that she “became increasingly troubled with the absence of [her] own body experiences in [her] research text.”39 Her published piece largely maintained the objective distance of researcher and researched. The discontent with herself was evident, and she

36 Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (London: Zed Books, 1999), 137. 37 Cronin, “Cultural Paradigm,” 4. 38 Pirkko Markula, “Postmodern Aerobics: Contradiction and Resistance,” in Athletic Intruders: Ethnographic Research on Women, Culture, and Exercise, Sport, Culture, and Social Relations, ed. Anne Bolin and Jane Granskog (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003). 39 Ibid., 72. 24

called for the greater usage of theory and overt navigation of the researcher’s body in academic analyses; her own “mixed feelings” on her lack of success in this arena served as an example of how not to operate.40 Although she could recall engaging with other aerobicizers when she conducted her research, that active dialogue was not represented.

Carrington similarly looked back on past work. Through fieldwork as a cricketer in Britain, he identified the processes of racial formation within black communities, which he began with an assumption of insider status. His initial piece was nonreflexive; this published article was a re-evaluation of his past work, and the personal stake in experiencing and physically noting the racial negotiations of his own experiences.

Although Carrington did not begin or continue on the cricket club he played with during his fieldwork, his intense self-introspection during the process, although added to the public text much later, explained that his own identity as a black man was constantly being renegotiated. His initial assumption of insider status based on race was problematic.41

Sociologist Reuben Buford May offered a rare example of an ethnographer researching a sport group of which he was a member. May coached a boys’ high school basketball team for two years prior to beginning five years of formal research; thereafter he fulfilled the role of “coach-researcher.”42 Although he struggled with the best means to present his ethnography, he opted for reflexivity because the presentation of the accounts and their analysis overtly through his voice acknowledged his own active participation in

40 Ibid., 71. 41 Ben Carrington, “What the Footballer Doing Here? Racialized Performativity, Reflexivity, and Identity,” Cultural Studies/Critical Methodologies 8, no. 4 (2008), doi: 10.1177/1532708608321574. 42 Reuben A. Buford May, Living Through the Hoop: High School Basketball, Race, and the American Dream (New York: New York University Press May, 2008), 196. 25

the events that transpired. In addition, reflexivity enabled him to express the similarities he felt with his players as well as to assess his fraught entanglement in the same social processes that he critiqued—namely the perpetuation of a sport structure that encourages underprivileged youth to use sport as a vehicle for social mobility.43

These examples are instructive in that they illustrate the importance of the body of the researcher as well as the importance of the researcher’s perception of the importance.

As the researchers are the authors of the texts as well, they ultimately determine the representation of the stories. In addition, although these examples are a part of sport sociology as opposed to sport history, they remain instructive for my research and text on women’s lacrosse. As this research project considers concerns of recent history, the merger occurred in 1998, I am engaging with interview subjects who are still active within women’s lacrosse, as am I. As a natural extension, it may be more logical to see reflections of insider status in sociology than in history; many historical projects may focus on an era in which subjects are no longer living, which would render the insider question moot.

Background

As an official myself, I am already a participant in the sport that I study. My involvement in women’s lacrosse is current and intimate; I am intertwined professionally and personally in women’s lacrosse. As an official, I hold a National rating, and I serve on the Central Ohio Women’s Lacrosse Officials’ Association (COWLOA) as an advisory board member.44 In addition, I have numerous friendships and relationships with

43 May, Living Through the Hoop. 44 I actually was in the process of standing for my National during the interviews. 26

many officials and coaches, and I even met my partner literally on the field. Indeed, my personal involvement is what instigated my desire to conduct this research—my initial awareness of the topic as well as the passion to write about that which I care.

Over sixteen months, I conducted eleven semi-structured interviews with twelve individuals who were or are involved in the governance of women’s lacrosse, primarily as part of US Lacrosse or the USWLA (United States Women’s Lacrosse Association).

My list of interview subjects had to be streamlined based on proximity and funds. I interviewed those who I thought would be the most relevant to questions of the merger, but who also were close to my physical location, whether it be near to my home, my family members’ and friends’ homes, or close to tournaments or conventions I was working or attending as an official. One subject was visiting another on the weekend we were scheduled to meet, so I ended up interviewing both of them.

In preparation for the interviews, I composed an introductory script and a list of broad questions I wanted to address, but usually the interviews were lengthy, casual conversations and most of the questions were addressed as we conversed. Before concluding each meeting, I reread my sheet to ensure that I asked all of the questions I prepared. As much as possible I tried to maintain a similar structure and set of questions for each interview, but there were occasions when concessions had to be made, including the subject’s time constraints, the varying dynamics of our meeting locale (e.g., sitting at their home on a patio, or in their office space, or in a coffee shop), and physical health, including when I, the researcher, had food poisoning.

Despite differences in approach, length, and location, through these conversations, two points in regards to my role as the researcher in this work in particular became salient. One, my position as an official and the interviewees’ trust in me, as an umpire and as a person, impacted not only what they were willing to share with me but also my access to other materials. Two, those I spoke with are very excited about such a project. Their excitement translated itself, or felt as such, as if they were bestowing me with the responsibility of their passion—a daunting task.

Access to Knowledge

Interviews and Insider Status

My interviewees were aware of my employment as an umpire. In fact, I mentioned it in my introductory email to those who were not already familiar with me.

Especially in conversations when I did not know the individual prior to our contact, I put forth game stories as a means to connect and to build rapport. Sharing on-field stories usually prompted more conversations. In such instances, I was aware prior to contact that my position as an official could impact relationships. There were other times, however, where my position as a referee, and my friendships through officiating, played a role that

I was not expecting. I found very quickly through conversations with coaches that we speak very different languages. At times I was confused not only because I simply did not understand coaching strategies but because I was intimidated by the coach. In other moments, I understood what the coaches may have been saying, but strongly disagreed with their interpretations of a referee’s role. Being an umpire in those instances was almost adversarial, although usually just for a few moments. I intentionally tried to

contact subjects who were not officials, but as former USWLA President Susan Ford noted repeatedly in our interview, officials were the best workers and thus most involved.

“The umpiring membership was the strongest group in the USWLA bar none. . . .They were the worker bees, they were . . . the most supportive, most loyal with their dollars . . . and the most cohesive.”45 Also, in the past it had been more common for participants to fill multiple roles within sport, and many officials were also coaches and players. As a result, many of those I interviewed were officials at some point in their involvement.

Despite differences in opinions and professional roles, my engagement in women’s lacrosse aided in generating trust with my subjects, and they have demonstrated their trust to me in various ways.46 Some gave me contact information of others with whom I should speak; others gave me documents. Because of a meeting with me, one individual was inspired to clear old boxes out of her attic. Since our conversations she has scanned and emailed me several more documents for my use. Plus she has donated materials to the USWLA archives. Similarly, a subject who came armed with binders, notebooks, and posters, allowed me to look at all of the materials she brought. With the exception of a poster and a few files, she would not allow me to take pictures of organizational documents that she felt should be in the archives. She has since donated them and hoped her choice did not impact me too much, as those materials were not there when I visited the archives housed at the University of Maryland. In that instance, she

45 Ford, interview. Throughout the text, I use ellipsis to denote deleted text that did not change the meaning of the sentiment. I deleted sounds, such as “um” and unnecessary repetition of words and phrases to aid readability. 46 Because this discusses access to information as opposed to information and views they shared with me, I decided to leave out names and general descriptions from the methodological conversation. 29

trusted me to see the materials, but her own sense of organizational ethics prohibited me from using the materials outside of the USWLA archives.

Another subject offered me information because of the perception of friendship and trust. Although this subject “didn’t know me from Adam,” based on a hug witnessed an hour earlier between another umpire and me, the subject felt I was trustworthy and preceded to hand me seven full file folders. There was a caveat on how I could utilize these documents, but this subject trusted my judgment in what should ever “see the light of day.” A consistency in these three examples is that their trust in me as well as their own understandings of trust determined which texts I had access to and ready access to.

My subjects’ knowledge of my life on and off the field also factored into the stories they shared with me. One official started to tell me during our interview something off the record, and then decided instead to direct me to ask my partner about it, since my partner was involved in the situation as well. This interviewee did not want to be the one to tell me officially, but knew enough of my personal relationships to know that I could find the information in a different context. Of course, what the subject did not recall is that my partner has a poor memory, so I remain unaware of the details of this event that sparked raucous laughter on my audio recorder. Sometimes being an insider has unexpected limitations.

Archival Research

I conducted archival research at the USWLA archives housed at Hornbake

Library in the Maryland Room at the University of Maryland, the same institution at which I earned my bachelor degrees. I spent the November 11-13, 2011, weekend at the

archives; again, timing and funding limited my ability to access the collections. Using the finding aids as a guide, I narrowed down and reviewed files with titles that explicitly mentioned the merger, or with dates that corresponded with the merger years.

The USWLA archives were created as an archive distinct from US Lacrosse, as an intentional act to maintain its separate identity. Susan Ford, former USWLA President, and Dottie McKnight, former USWLA Executive Director, both indicated that the

USWLA archives were created specifically because they felt the USWLA was a distinct organization and deserved its own space outside of US Lacrosse.47 The University of

Maryland was selected as the home of the archive because McKnight had professional affiliations with the school, as a former women’s basketball coach at the university. In addition, College Park, Maryland is close enough to the US Lacrosse headquarters in

Baltimore, Maryland so that if someone was at US Lacrosse and needed something from the USWLA archives, it would still be accessible.48 Dottie McKnight also felt strongly that the Maryland Room was an appropriate location at the University of Maryland because of the role of men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse in the state’s identity;

Maryland is a hotbed of both men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse. Before the official merger took place, Dottie McKnight sent out a call to USWLA leaders to inquire if they had anything they felt should be included in an archive. According to McKnight, the materials “they were carting around, you know in people’s trunks and everything, and

[she] put a call out and said ‘Listen if you have anything let’s get it in here.’”49 Other

47 Ford, interview; and McKnight, interview. 48 Ford, interview. The cities are approximately thirty miles apart. 49 McKnight, interview. 31

than donated materials, what ended up in the archives was whatever materials were in the

USWLA office.

Perhaps because the USWLA office was created only a few years prior to the merger, during McKnight’s brief tenure as executive director, many of the materials are from later years in the organization or are documents that were passed down from former leaders to the subsequent ones. Many articles likely remain in individuals’ personal storage or are forever lost. Prior to the hiring of official staff, Sue McVaugh was considered to be the USWLA Home Office.50 She maintained the USWLA office from her home. When she went to England for a year, the office contents were moved to a storage unit. Ford shared a story about when she and McKnight were moving materials from the storage unit in Amherst, Massachusetts, to McKnight’s office off of River Road in Maryland.

Susan Ford: So Dottie and I go up to this place and it’s dark, it’s raining, and we

got flashlights, and we’re going through all of the records, everything we could

find. And, we threw out a lot of stuff that was just copies of copies, and nothing

important obviously. And by the end of the day, we packed everything in her car

to go down to Baltimore and I kept thinking, “God, look at this. It’s how many

years of history packed into the trunk of one car.” And how great that was and

how not so great that was.

She continued that in preparation for our meeting together in 2011 she thought, “Oh my

God, I still have USWLA in the back of my car.”51

50 Ford, interview; and McVaugh, interview. 51 Ford, interview. 32

My access to archival materials was also impacted by factors outside of my control. As already noted, some participants donated materials to the archives after our conversations; the contents of the archive has changed since my visit and likely will continue to evolve.

Outsider Status

Although I maintained an insider status in some interactions, I was continually negotiating an outsider status as well. The presence of an audio recorder in particular served as an at times haunting reminder of that status. In one instance I asked to turn the recorder on during dinner; we had chatted for a few hours in her living room then moved to her dining room table to eat. One can see the living room from the dining room and vice versa; the change in actual venue was minimal, but the tone of the conversation changed. She responded to my request to turn on the tape recorder in an affirmative but answered in a tone that implied she wondered why I would want to have it on, as “we were just chatting.” I turned off the tape recorder, but it left me wondering what had changed in the ten-foot move. To me, the chatting seemed as formal, or informal, as we had been in the sitting room during the official interview. Immediately by asking, as I could tell in her response, I had marked myself as a researcher in a moment when I was to be a women’s lacrosse comrade. The tone of both conversations was identical, but perhaps I was more of an outsider in the initial interview than I had even understood until later. Based on her response, she understood me as a researcher first, when I perhaps had not. My identities were conflicted.

The relationship between the researcher and the researched is dynamic.

Anthropologist Kirin Narayan explained, “Even as insiders or partial insiders, in some contexts we are drawn closer, in others we are thrust apart.”52 She posed that anthropologists view themselves “in terms of shifting identifications amid a field of interpenetrating communities and power relations.”53 Subjectivities shift relative to the situation; therefore, one should not presume to have an insider status necessarily or to achieve immediate access because of a perceived common identity. Indeed, I was repeatedly surprised when I was confronted with my shifting role.

Excitement and Responsibility

My position as a researcher locates me with a heavy responsibility. At first this responsibility was enticing and fun. I was excited by my project and so were those whom

I interviewed. In reviewing my interview recordings as well as my personal thoughts post interviews, which I recorded semi-regularly, I identified several expressions of happiness by my subjects that I was embarking on this research. One person wrote in an email

“thanks so much for your work on such an important piece of research. It will be a wonderful historical piece for the sport.” Several others expressed similar sentiments in our conversations. This excitement to have someone working on the history impacted the materials, again, as many came prepared with documents, books, booklists, and names, as already mentioned. Also, this excitement was and is amplified by my own excitement; I was and still am in awe of some of the individuals with whom I met, even before we sat down to talk. Admittedly, I felt quite shy in interactions when I was speaking with

52 Kirin Narayan, “How Native is a ‘Native’ Anthropologist?” American Anthropologist 95, no. 3 (Sep. 1993): 679, http://www.jstor.org/stable/679656. 53Ibid., 671. 34

someone whom I had been aware of prior to this research. My responses were slower, or I felt less likely to assert my views. This feeling usually abated as we conversed. Their accomplishments are astounding, and that undoubtedly adds to the sense of enormity of this project. But listening to their excitement and feeling their willingness to share, I would find myself asking myself, what are they entrusting me to do?

Along with this excitement, comes a great deal of pressure, and this is when I feel my responsibility become most heavy. One individual was not only excited that I was doing research but was happy that I was someone who “got it.” I am still unclear exactly what I got that someone else did not get, but I am very clear that there is a sense of expectation of what “getting it” would look like on paper. Another asked if she could see a timeline I was compiling, which included references of where I found the, at times conflicting, information, and she made corrections on it to ensure that I had it right. She has since sent me emails correcting other publications’ inaccuracies. These individuals are interested in the information on their sport being as accurate as they believed or remembered it. They want me to get it right—as they understand it. Of course, those with whom I met are not any more capable of being right than I am. They, too, are located within the historical and present moments and in power dynamics. Each of us, those who have lived the stories as well as those who have experienced the research process, have different views, varying situated knowledges.

I also know that this excitement may likely result in those I interviewed wanting to read my work. Although I am not utilizing ethnographic methodologies, there are some similarities since this recent history involves living subjects (i.e., they may actually read

this work). Anthropologist Caroline Brettell indicated that “Ethnographic texts take on a life of their own that is beyond the ethnographer’s control.”54 I am acutely aware of the level of education of these individuals—all have at least a bachelor’s degree, most have graduate degrees. They are an educated group; they will be following up on my work, which they are now invested in. A few queried what my timeline for publication was— not for my dissertation, but for my book! (A whole other type of pressure.) As much as I may try to temper what happens to the content of this text, once published it is out of my control how others will react. Research on a community in which I belong comes with risks. According to anthropologist Linda Tuhiwai Smith, “insiders have to live with the consequences of their processes on a day-to-day basis for ever more, and so do their families and communities.”55 Even though the history is recent, and determining “what happened” is perhaps possible, this determination remains no less interpretative than a history on an earlier era.

Of course, not only do I remain responsible to my subjects, who are at times my colleagues and friends, but I am also responsible to Sport Humanities, to my advisor, to my committee members, and to myself as a scholar. Frequently fellow scholars remind me that I will upset someone; I need to be prepared for that. Others inform me that most will likely not read my work, even if they say they will. This now returns me to the quandary presented earlier in this chapter. Where is my allegiance, and to which group am I responsible? I do not think I have to choose, nor will I, but I do think reflexivity serves as a means to be explicit in the tension I face. I, too, then am a subject in my

54 Caroline B. Brettell, “Introduction: Fieldwork, Text, and Audience,” in When They Read What We Write: The Politics of Ethnography, ed. Caroline B Brettell (Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, 1993), 4. 55 Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies, 137. 36

history. I have a responsibility to get it right, as a researcher. However, this notion of

“right” or “wrong” is limiting. Texts are open to multiple interpretations, and those which

I present are ultimately and inevitably subjective ones.

Presumably because of my awareness and personal status within women’s lacrosse, I have access to individuals, information, and knowledge. What I do with that access is the question that I need to juggle in the written representation of the histories.

I cannot take my position as a researcher on women’s lacrosse lightly. As a result, an acknowledgement and an analysis of my own location in the field as an insider and a researcher is imperative. Reflexivity is a means to represent that which is always an interpretation in a manner that is explicit in my, as the author, decision-making.

Chapter 2

Lacrosse History: A History of One Sport or Two?

Usage of the term lacrosse to refer to men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse generates confusion. Those who are not familiar with the sports frequently assume that they are the same sport played by different sexes. In actuality men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse are different sports.56 Currently in 2013 the sports exhibit some similarities, but in the early 1990s, during the years of the merger conversations, the sports were even more distinct than they are now.

An understanding of the historical relationship between the two sports clarifies how two sports with one name can be so disparate. More importantly, an understanding of the distinct tracks raises the question as to whether the sports, and the affiliated sport governing bodies, should be classified as one sport, a requirement for Olympic recognition. This chapter establishes the background on the histories of the lacrosses.

Notably, it contextualizes the motivations for and the concerns with the merger. I trace the convergent and divergent histories of men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse. I argue that, although men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse had intersecting moments of influence, the largely separate development and progression of each fostered different sports. In conjunction with the following chapter on governance and merger talks, these

56 To illustrate this point, when I watch a men’s lacrosse game, I do not understand the events of play or the rules. Despite my officiating qualifications in the women’s game, the men’s game remains foreign to me. 38

two chapters highlight what is at stake in the potential and then eventual coalescing of two sports into one governing body.

Academic Treatments of Men’s Lacrosse and Women’s Lacrosse

Academic works on men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse are limited. There are numerous coaching guides that serve as valuable primary sources, but there is little secondary literature on either sport.57 Notable exceptions to this claim are former military

Second Lieutenant Alexander M. Weyand and former lacrosse player and coach Milton

R. Roberts’s The Lacrosse Story, historian Donald M. Fisher’s Lacrosse: A History of the

Game, and former Lacrosse Scotland President and coach Jane Claydon’s St. Leonards:

Cradle of Lacrosse.58 The first two works addressed women’s lacrosse rather tangentially. Fisher dedicated a few pages to the sport, and Weyand and Roberts included a chapter entitled “Distaff Lacrosse.”59 This archaic term, derived from an implement used to spin wool, refers to the women’s domestic sphere; the association of women with the domestic sphere in relation to a competitive sport was at least problematic, if not indicative of marginalization of the women’s game. Although these works were sweeping histories of lacrosse, the authors dedicated few pages to and barely analyzed the state of women in the game. Evidently, women’s lacrosse was not the authors’ priority.

57 Some prominent examples include: Margaret Boyd, Lacrosse: Playing and Coaching (New York: A.S. Barnes, 1959); Celia Brackenridge, Women’s Lacrosse (Woodbury, NY: Barron’s, 1978); Tina Sloan Green and Agnes Bixler Kurtz, Modern Women’s Lacrosse (Hanover, NH: ABK Publications, 1989); David G. Pietramala and Neil A. Grauer, Lacrosse: Technique and Tradition, 2nd ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006); Mike Hanna, Lacrosse for Men and Women: Skills and Strategies for the Athlete and Coach, with contributions by Jackie Pitts and Dan White (New York: Hawthorn/Dutton, 1980); Bob Scott, Lacrosse: Technique and Tradition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976); Bobbie Trafford and Kath Howarth, Women’s Lacrosse: The Skills of the Game (Ramsbury, Marlborough, England: Crowood Press, 1989); and David Urick, Lacrosse: Fundamentals for Winning (New York: Sports Illustrated, 1988). 58 Alexander M. Weyand and Milton R. Roberts, The Lacrosse Story (Baltimore: H&A Herman, 1965); Fisher, Lacrosse; and Claydon, St. Leonards. 59 Fisher, Lacrosse; and Weyand and Roberts, Lacrosse Story. 39

Pieces that focus primarily or exclusively on women’s lacrosse are few.

Claydon’s work is a notable exception. She compiled a descriptive history which included valuable archival documents and photos of women’s lacrosse’s beginnings in

Scotland. It also introduced how women’s lacrosse traveled to the United States. Few theses and dissertations center on women’s lacrosse, and many that do are quantitative studies that consider the biomechanics of lacrosse.60 An exception is former Ohio

University women’s lacrosse coach, Catherine Brown’s dissertation on fair play in women’s lacrosse.61 Brown defined fair play as “understanding and respecting the rules, including the spirit, with equal opportunity and treatment for all players” and spirit of the rules as “observing the unwritten rules as dictated by the sport, by the tradition, by pride, and by not hurting people.”62 The study is quantitative, but a measure of the spirit of the game inherently has some qualitative assessments, and the purpose of her study served a larger social goal. She focused on fair play to assess how a women’s sport controlled by women was supporting fair play during times of transition, namely when collegiate governance was shifting from the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women

60 A ProQuest search of dissertations with women’s lacrosse or female lacrosse in the title generated only five results. Catherine L. Brown, “Attitudes towards Fair Play in Women’s Lacrosse” (PhD Diss. Ohio State University, 1983); Christin R. Chamberlain, “Comparison of Lower Extremity Biomechanics between Female Division I Gymnastic, Lacrosse, and Soccer Athletes” (master’s thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2006), ProQuest UMI 1435064; Karen E. Collins, “An Examination of Factors Influencing Entrapment and Burnout among Collegiate Female Field Hockey and Lacrosse Coaches” (PhD Diss. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 2002), ProQuest UMI 3049154; Deidre Connelly, “An Investigation of Assertive Sport Behavior in Female Lacrosse Athletes” (PhD Diss. University of Virginia, 1988); and Aaron Michael Randolph, “Analysis of the Effectiveness of a Preseason Strength and Conditioning Program for Collegiate Men’s and Women’s Lacrosse” (EdD Diss. Lindenwood University, 2012), ProQuest UMI 3550873. 61 Brown, “Attitudes towards Fair Play.” 62 Ibid., 14, 6. 40

(AIAW) to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and how this shift impacted engagement with the concept of fair play.63

In addition to women’s-lacrosse-specific works, academic treatments on women’s sport history in general overlook lacrosse as well. Prominent broad-based women’s sport texts contained minimal reference to the sport. Historian Susan Cahn’s widely respected book Coming on Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Twentieth-Century Women’s Sports included a passing reference to the sport, and historian Mary Jo Festle’s work Playing

Nice: Politics and Apologies in Women’s Sports was void of any reference to women’s lacrosse.64 Allen Guttmann, another sport historian, acknowledged lacrosse’s existence and discussed its beginnings at schools in Great Britain but did not extend his analysis beyond this initial recognition.65 In contrast to all of these texts, one of the earliest academic accounts of women’s sports history included the most information regarding and analysis of women’s lacrosse in sociocultural and historical studies of sport. The

American Woman in Sport, a text that addressed the historical, sociological, psychological, and biophysical aspects of the woman athlete, considered women’s lacrosse in three of the four listed disciplinary frameworks.66 With only a few exceptions,

63 Brown, “Attitudes towards Fair Play.” I elaborate on the importance of these organizations in Chapter 5. The NCAA began hosting Division I championships for women’s lacrosse in 1982. 64 Susan K. Cahn, Coming on Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Twentieth-Century Women’s Sport (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994); and Mary Jo Festle, Playing Nice: Politics and Apologies in Women’s Sports (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996). 65 Allen Guttmann, Women’s Sports: A History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991). 66 Ellen W. Gerber, Jan Felshin, Pearl Berlin, and Waneen Wyrick, The American Woman in Sport (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1974). 41

lacrosse in general and women’s lacrosse in particular is underrepresented in the literature.67

History of Lacrosse

Spiritual Meanings

Much of what is known academically of “lacrosse” prior to the publication of the first rulebook is what is recorded by missionaries and other European settlers in North

America. The first written record of lacrosse was from Huron County in the 1630s.68

Prior to white intervention, traditional Native American lacrosse represented numerous meanings for its participants and their tribes. The game served as both a training ground for combat as well as a tool in diplomacy among tribes.69 Men were the only participants in the matches; women were spectators. The game also “reinforced each [native] nation’s unique relationship with the Creator and embodied Man’s relationship with Nature,” and thus maintained a strong spiritual connotation.70

This primacy on written history has been challenged. In a counter narrative, the

North American Indian Traveling College explained and reclaimed this absence of written accounts as related to the tradition of oral history. The members expressed that history as recorded by white men was based on their cultural values and not those of the native nations. The introduction of the text, Tewaarathon (Lacrosse): Akwesasne’s Story of Our National Game, explained: “Much has been written in the record books about the

67Anecdotally, at sport sociology conferences, I have been the only one presenting on lacrosse, men’s lacrosse or women’s lacrosse, at every conference I have presented at or attended. 68 Thomas Vennum, American Indian Lacrosse: Little Brother of War (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994). 69 Fisher, Lacrosse, 13-14. 70 Ibid., 14-15. 42

accomplishment of our White brothers who admired, learned and helped develop the game into its present forms, field and box lacrosse. We appreciate their contributions, but feel that we have been pushed out of the way of recognition. We will be pushed no longer.”71 The publication of the text was an act of resistance against the dominant historical narrative.

According to the North American Indian Traveling College, tewaarathon was a gift from the Creator and served numerous purposes. It was played to bring the Creator amusement, to recognize those on Earth who had brought honor to the Nation, and to thank the Creator for allowing the medicine person to continue to stay with the Nation to aid those who were younger. In addition, lacrosse was a means to demonstrate the

Nation’s remembrance of the gift of lacrosse when a member was ill; the hope was that the Creator would look favorably on this recognition and spare the individual.72 Lacrosse demonstrated great spiritual significance, but it also acted as a medium to settle disputes between feuding parties. Even then a spiritual connection maintained, as the Creator determined the outcome.73 Between 1700 and 1800 the connection of lacrosse to the

Creator waned when some Mohawks converted to Christianity and lacrosse was played more for sport than for spiritual purposes.74

Beginnings of “Organized” Men’s Lacrosse

Once lacrosse entered the process of modernization, its construction shifted from that of a spiritual practice to that of an organized contest. In contrast to its earlier forms,

71 North American Indian Travelling College, Tewaarathon (Lacrosse): Akwesasne’s Story of Our National Game (NAITC, 1978). 72 North American Indian Travelling College, Tewaarathon, 8. 73 Ibid., 34. 74 Ibid., 35. 43

the modernization of lacrosse restructured the custom. Sport historian Melvin Adelman identified six characteristics that are expressed differently between premodern and modern sport: organization, rules, competition, role differentiation, public information, and statistics and records. Modern sport exhibited formal organization, standardized rules distributed by organizations, competition levels with hopes of national recognition, differentiation in participant roles between spectators and players, the recording and distributing of information publically, and the recording and valuing of records and statistics.75 Organized, or “modern,” men's lacrosse developed from the Canadian dentist

William George Beers’ interpretation and modifications to the Mohawk ball game tewaarathon in the latter half of the nineteenth century. 76 The name lacrosse, however, preceded Beers’ involvement. French settlers used the term la crosse (game of the crozier) to describe stick and ball games in general; the term then remained that which was predominantly used to describe the activities of the Native Americans.77 Many

Native American and First Nations tribes have versions of a stick and ball game, but

Beers’ understanding of the game developed from the Mohawk’s specifically. The sport now known as men’s lacrosse is an appropriated form of these practices.

Beers is considered the “father of modern lacrosse.”78 Although Beers was not the first white man to play lacrosse, Fisher credited him with the abovementioned title for creating a written record of the rules that first standardized lacrosse in 1860.79 In 1867

75 Melvin L. Adelman, A Sporting Time: New York City and the Rise of Modern Athletics 1820-70, Sport and Society (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986), 6. 76 Fisher, Lacrosse. 77 Boyd, Lacrosse; Vennum, American Indian Lacrosse; and Weyand and Roberts, Lacrosse Story. 78 Fisher, Lacrosse, 25. 79 Fisher, Lacrosse. 44

Beers published a second rulebook that dictated there would be twelve team members on the field per side, umpires would regulate play, and in order to win, a team had to be the first to score three goals. The year 1867 also saw the creation of the first national governing body for sport in Canada, the National Lacrosse Association.80 In 1869 Beers published a full rulebook for lacrosse.81 Beers’ involvement initiated the creation of a modern sport.

These alterations to the Native American game were not benign. Through such changes to the game, Beers hoped to turn the Native American version into a rational sport that would distinguish the white Canadian participants from the native participants.

Fisher stated that “according to Beers, lacrosse should be viewed as a symbolic torch passed from the noble savages of primitive Canada to modern progressive gentlemen of a nation-state.”82 Fisher’s claim that lacrosse was a “symbolic torch” indicated that Beers seemingly had no intention of supporting the existence of parallel lacrosse communities.

In fact, through rules, lacrosse would highlight white superiority. Beers justified the standardization of the field length as shorter than what the Native Americans typically used because “whites have only ever beaten the Indians because they played on smaller fields than the latter are accustomed to; and there is no doubt but that if the red skins had goals half a mile apart, the whites would seldom, if ever, get a chance to touch the ball.”83

Increased regulations and order was understood for whites to demonstrate supremacy in a controlled environment; a field with limitless distance, or a lack of confinement, was seen

80 Ibid., 29. 81 William George Beers, Lacrosse: The Game of Canada (Montreal: Dawson Brothers, 1869; Kessinger Legacy Reprints); and Fisher, Lacrosse. 82 Fisher, Lacrosse, 26. 83 Ibid., 27-28. 45

to be to the Native Americans’ advantage. Superiority would be demonstrated through control. In Native American contests, the field size could vary substantially, even up to a mile and half long. In 1869, Beers wrote, “The distance from one goal to the other should be proportioned by the number of players; two hundred yards is a fair length for twelve players a side.”84 Beers’ decision to standardize the field length was intended to change the game from what Native Americans were accustomed to in order to claim dominance, not only of the white race but of a civil society.

Similarly, Fisher acknowledged the impact of social control in determining who participated in lacrosse. He claimed that “because American society regarded American

Indians as savages . . . lacrosse enthusiasts’ public celebration of their game as native probably undermined any potential for multiclass support. After all, only well-to-do sportsmen felt secure enough about the alleged superiority of their race and class to associate themselves with Native Americans in any way.”85 Through the public depiction of Native Americans as primitive and their game as romantic, those whose own social worth was in question largely avoided the game. Those in the upper class whose social superiority was already clear had more flexibility in their sport affiliations. Thus, lacrosse’s participants consisted either of the “savages” themselves or those who were far superior and in no way in danger of slipping into savagery.

On-field competitions, Fisher suggested, were representative of a racial war. He stated that the lacrosse field, for the Indian, “furnished an opportunity to prevent total

84 Beers, Lacrosse, 83-84. 85 Fisher, Lacrosse, 87. 46

racial subordination.”86 Through participating in the modernized version of their heritage’s game, Native Americans sought to reclaim social status. The lacrosse field offered Native Americans a unique venue in colonial relations to be potentially superior to the whites, the colonizers. The white competitors, however, interpreted such contests differently. According to Fisher, “lacrosse men tolerated [Native Americans] so long as

[they] knew [their] place.”87 Regardless of which squad reigned supreme, the lacrosse field served as a contested territory that re-inscribed racial hierarchy through contests between Native Americans and whites.

The separation of participants, however, was not always as clear as whites versus natives. Some contests included racially mixed teams. However, even when skin colors intermingled, race remained a social factor. In reference to lacrosse, for example, club requirements in late nineteenth century Canada required that Indians not be permitted to compete on teams. Despite this edict, some clubs “hired light-skinned native ‘ringers’ who spoke fluent English and passed for Anglo.”88 What enabled some Native Americans to participate in organized lacrosse was their social mobility, as dictated by racial passing.

Organizationally men’s lacrosse grew first in Canada and then migrated to the

United States. The Canadian immigrants and Native Americans in the Northeastern and

Mid-Atlantic States established club teams for men and spread the popularity of men’s field lacrosse toward the end of the 1800s.89 Governance of the men’s field version of

86 Ibid., 104. 87 Ibid., 108. 88 Ibid., 46. 89 Weyand and Roberts, Lacrosse Story; and Fisher, Lacrosse. 47

lacrosse shifted forms numerous times and depended on the level of play, (e.g., intercollegiate, club, and/or amateur play). Important for this dissertation, the United

States Intercollegiate Lacrosse League formed in 1905 after the Intercollegiate Lacrosse

Association and the Inter-university Lacrosse League joined together. Then it became the

United States Intercollegiate Lacrosse Association (USILA) in 1926. Also important, the

Lacrosse Foundation, which focused on fund raising and general promotion of the sport, was founded in 1959.90 Men’s lacrosse also developed in different iterations. Men’s box lacrosse, a mostly indoor adaptation of the sport, developed in the 1920s as a means to utilize ice hockey facilities in the summer months and became the primary version of lacrosse played by men in Canada.91

Women’s Lacrosse Beginnings

Women’s lacrosse was popular first in Scotland and then imported to and expanded within the United States. There is no exact event that sparked the beginning of women’s lacrosse, but there are records of physical educators at St. Leonards School attending men’s games, in Montreal, Canada in 1884, and then they brought the game to their students.92 According to historian Jane Claydon’s history, a diary account by Clara,

Lady Rayleigh of a match of “the Indian game of La Crosse played between twelve

Montrealists and twelve Indians” stated: “It is pretty and exciting, something between lawn tennis and football—I could have watched it for hours!”93 Miss Lumsden, a former

Headmistress at St. Leonards, also in attendance at the game, similarly recorded the

90 Scott, Lacrosse. 91 Fisher, Lacrosse. 92 Claydon, St. Leonards. 93 Ibid., 16. 48

events. She described it as “a wonderful game, beautiful and graceful. (I was so charmed with it that I introduced it at St. Leonards.)”94 Both Claydon and historian Kathleen E.

McCrone referenced this letter in their respective works. They explained that Lumsden had already left St. Leonards by the year of this match, but they assumed that Lumsden shared her appreciation of the sport with Miss Dove, her successor, who then likely started lacrosse at St. Leonards.95 In 1890 lacrosse was officially added to the St.

Leonards program, and the first recorded women’s lacrosse match took place on March

27th.96 After the turn of the century, women’s lacrosse spread to other colleges and universities in Britain.97

Although earlier attempts were made to encourage participation among women, women’s lacrosse did not become popular in the United States until the late 1920s and the 1930s when physical educators who studied in Europe transported the game to their places of employment in the United States.98 Rosabelle Sinclair, whom Claydon referred to as the “Grand Dame of Lacrosse,” was born in Hughesofca, South Russia, now known as Donetsk, Ukraine, in 1890.99 She grew up in the United States and then attended St.

Leonards School in Scotland. Upon completing school, Sinclair moved to the United

94 Ibid., 16. 95 Claydon, St. Leonards; and Kathleen E. McCrone, Playing the Game: Sport and Physical Emancipation of English Women 1870-1914 (University Press of Kentucky, 1988). 96 Claydon, St. Leonards, 20. 97 McCrone, Playing the Game. Whereas in Native American practices and in early lacrosse games in Canada and in the United States the participants were only men, in Scotland the situation was the opposite. There was a record of a coed match in England in 1886, and men’s traveling teams played exhibitions in Great Britain, but the primary participants of any form of lacrosse in Scotland appeared to be women. Jane Claydon stated in our interview that although men had played some men’s lacrosse in Scotland, the sport had only become organized in the late twentieth century. Weyand and Roberts, Lacrosse Story; and Barnhill and Claydon, interview. 98Claydon, St. Leonards; Fisher, Lacrosse; Gerber, Felshin, Berlin, and Wyrick, American Woman; and Weyand and Roberts, Lacrosse Story. 99 Claydon, St. Leonards, 80. 49

States again and in 1925 was appointed the Athletic Director at Bryn Mawr School in

Baltimore. Shortly thereafter she introduced women’s lacrosse to the school and formed what is considered to be the oldest team in the United States.100 Sinclair was inducted in

1992 as the first woman in the National Lacrosse Hall of Fame, which honored its first class in 1957.101

Contemporaneously with Sinclair, Joyce Cran, originally from Scotland, strove to include women’s lacrosse at her place of employment, Wellesley College. According to

Fisher, in 1929 at a American Physical Education Association convention, Cran announced that lacrosse was an “ideal game for girls” and that it was superior to field hockey because of the posture the athletes maintained during the course of play.102 In field hockey the athletes hold the sticks with one hand on the end or toward the top of the stick and the other lower on the stick. When a player dribbles the ball, she crouches, as the ball is in contact with the ground or near the ground. In contrast, in women’s lacrosse, the stick is oriented in the air, except when picking the ball up from the ground, and one hand is located towards the bottom of the stick and the other closer to the top. The resultant difference is women’s lacrosse includes more upright positioning, and field hockey demands a bent back. In 1931 Cran, Sinclair, and others formed the United States

Women’s Lacrosse Association (USWLA) and Cran served as the first President.103 The

USWLA was the first governing body of women’s lacrosse in the United States and

100 Claydon, St. Leonards. 101 “Rosabelle Sinclair,” National Lacrosse Hall of Fame, 2005, http://apps.uslacrosse.org/museum/halloffame/. It is important to note the timing here. Although the first class of men was inducted in 1957, women were not inducted until 1992. This year was likely not a coincidence, as that was the same year the Lacrosse Foundation formally initiated a public dialogue on the potential of a merger. 102 Fisher, Lacrosse, 148. 103 Claydon, St. Leonards, 88. 50

lasted until 1998 when it joined with men’s lacrosse associations as part of the merger that created US Lacrosse. Cran Barry (married name) founded Cranbarry Equipment, the first specific women’s lacrosse equipment company. She was inducted into the National

Lacrosse Hall of Fame in 1993.104

Historical Relationship between Men’s Lacrosse and Women’s Lacrosse

From the brief descriptions that precede this section, it is evident that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse have some historical similarities; tewaarathon was central to both. It is also evident that they have historical differences as well. I initially understood women’s lacrosse history to be similar to that of other prominent women’s sports, meaning that it began as an adaptation from the men’s sport. As an extension, then, women’s lacrosse would have developed with adaptations from the men’s game that reflected and perpetuated societal expectations of femininity and female physicality. The secondary literature appeared to support this basic claim. According to McCrone, women’s lacrosse rules in the early 1900s in Britain were intended to be less strenuous than the men’s. The field was smaller, halves were shorter, body contact and checking was prohibited, shooting from within the crease was banned, and guarding one’s own crosse was disallowed.105 Fisher similarly claimed that women’s lacrosse was adapted for women. He explained the trajectory of women’s lacrosse as the following: “Originated by

Iroquois Indians, modernized by Canadian gentlemen, adopted by English sportsmen, and

104 “Joyce Cran Barry,” National Lacrosse Hall of Fame, 2005, http://apps.uslacrosse.org/museum/halloffame/. 105 McCrone, Playing the Game, 139. The term crease refers to the circle that surrounds the goal on the field. Although the term had been used in women’s lacrosse, now it officially refers to only the circle around the goal in the men’s game. The women’s game uses the term goal circle instead. It is not uncommon, though, to hear someone say “crease” in reference to the goal circle. Crosse refers to the stick used to play men’s lacrosse or women’s lacrosse. 51

feminized for British schoolgirls, women’s lacrosse in Britain and then America was as much a product of Victorian sporting culture as it was of Native Americans.”106 Both historians presented the women’s rules as modified versions of the men’s.

Other scholars queried whether women’s lacrosse truly was derivative of men’s.

Gerber expressed both a related and a separate history of the sports. “The modified

English game is the basis for the American women’s game, while the American Indian game is the basis for the American men’s game.”107 Sociocultural scholar Susan Forbes offered a slightly different interpretation of the path. “In reality, although it initially bore some similarity to the men’s game (e.g., number of players on the field, names of playing positions, shape of sticks/crosses), women’s lacrosse is connected to the men’s game and to the indigenous sport only in roundabout ways.”108 Indeed, Rosabelle Sinclair understood the sports to be different. “Lacrosse, as girls play it, is an orderly pastime that has little in common with the men’s tribal warfare version except the long-handled racket or crosse that gives the sport its name. It’s true that the object in both the men’s and women’s lacrosse is to send a ball through a goal by means of the racket, but whereas men resort to brute strength the women depend solely on skill.”109 Certainly Sinclair utilized loaded language that pointed to racial stereotypes and socioeconomic class

106 Fisher, Lacrosse, 150. This literary trajectory was a problematic homage to Weyand and Roberts’s no less problematic quotation of lacrosse’s roots. “Lacrosse, considered to be America's first sport, was born of the North American Indian, christened by the French, and adapted and raised by the Canadians. Modern lacrosse has been embraced by athletes and enthusiasts of the United States and the British Commonwealth for over a century.” Weyand and Roberts, Lacrosse Story, 1-2. 107 Gerber, Felshin, Berlin, and Wyrick, American Woman, 113. 108 Susan L. Forbes, “Lacrosse,” in International Encyclopedia of Women and Sports, ed. Karen Christensen, Allen Guttmann, and Gertrud Pfister (New York: Macmillan Reference, 2001), 645. 109 Claydon, St. Leonards, 80, 90. Quotation in Claydon’s book and the citation merely stated “Quote by Rosabelle Sinclair,” thus the original source is unclear. 52

expectations, but she also clearly situated women’s lacrosse as distinct from men’s lacrosse in her own era.

Through our conversations, some of the women I interviewed indicated that they too questioned the path of women’s lacrosse’s history. When I suggested the notion of adaption, former USWLA Executive Director Dottie McKnight said the following:

Dottie McKnight: Well, I don’t know, it came from England and when you say

that it was adapted from the men, I don’t think so.

Melissa Wiser: Talk more about that if you don’t mind.

Dottie McKnight: What’s that wonderful book that we who didn’t know much

about lacrosse and we were coaching or teaching it . . . I want to say Boyd . . .

Melissa Wiser: Margaret Boyd?

Dottie McKnight: Margaret Boyd. That book. She was sort of like the godmother

of it all when I was in college. That was the book; we all had to have it. . . . I

don’t think England has much or had much back then in men’s lacrosse. . . . My

brief understanding, I would not say that in this country it originated adapted from

the men. I would say it came from Margaret Boyd and the Brits.110

Jane Claydon, former President of Scotland Lacrosse, also relayed the importance of Boyd in our conversations. During the interview she referred to Boyd’s book as “the sort of Bible we were brought up on.”111 Margaret Boyd, former captain of the All

England team, first president of the International Federation for Women, and teacher and coach of women’s lacrosse in Britain and the United States published her guide Lacrosse:

110 McKnight, interview. 111 Barnhill and Claydon, interview. 53

Playing and Coaching in 1959. Her intent was to help train new players and coaches of lacrosse to start programs in their schools.112 Both McKnight and Claydon, each from different sides of the Atlantic Ocean, understood Boyd not only to be a primary figure in teaching women’s lacrosse but also in translating it for those who may not have been originally familiar with the sport.

In addition, Claydon resisted the notion that women’s lacrosse was modified from men’s. During our conversations, she explained why she thought differently.

Jane Claydon: See, I would have said that the two games as far as I know were the

same initially. Feffie [Barnhill] and I went to the Birmingham Archives quite

recently and there we saw the very first rule book for women, which was dated

. . . 1912 to 1913. It was fascinating. It was the men’s rulebook and in italics after

each law, they called it, were the women’s slightly different interpretations. I

think it was about the 1930s that the men started to change and the women’s

game, I think, is a little bit more close to what was the original game.113

Claydon’s description of an early rulebook pointed to the men and women sharing rules and not women’s modified from men’s.

Claydon’s description redirected the trajectory Fisher posed. According to her understandings, women’s lacrosse was more similar to organized men’s lacrosse’s earlier iterations, and then the men’s game changed. Later in the interview, she repeated this concept.

112 Barnhill and Claydon, interview; and Boyd, Lacrosse. 113 Barnhill and Claydon, interview. Although I have not seen this source myself, I include the quotation because it indicated what Claydon understood to be of importance. 54

Jane Claydon: My understanding is that the men and the women play the same

game until the 1920s or so and certainly these rules that came in in 1912 for the

women were in italics and were very similar to the men's rules. And Rosabelle

Sinclair when she first started her girls playing in 1926, I think everyone thought

it was a very rough game, but it was still very similar then. And then the men

went to helmets and so on and went off on a tangent, and the women, I think,

stayed on the straight and narrow until relatively recently, (i.e., ‘70s, ‘80s), when

things began to change with their restraining lines and boundaries and so on. I

mean otherwise I think it was quite traditional. I really don't know, but that's my

understanding.114

Not only did Claydon express related histories, but she also implied that women’s lacrosse was a purer version of the game. Men’s lacrosse traveled off of a path, while the women maintained it.

Elsewhere this idea has been expressed. A 1989 coaching guide explained the relationship as the following:

The men’s rules have changed drastically, but the game women play is very

similar [to Beers’ 1869 rulebook]. Women still play with twelve players and still

use the original names for the positions except for those known as fielders. The

original players known as fielders are named defense wings, attack wings, and

homes. The women still play without boundaries. The rule about players stopping

114 Barnhill and Claydon, interview. Restraining lines refer to lines on the field that restrict movement. Despite the shared name, the lines on the men’s lacrosse field and the women’s lacrosse field differ in function; the number of players and the type, as in position, of players permitted on either side of the line(s) vary. Men’s lacrosse has one restraining line, while women’s lacrosse has two. Notably, the restraining lines were added to women’s lacrosse in 1998 at the college level and in 2000 at the high school level. 55

on the whistle when a foul occurs is still in effect. Players may move when the

umpire says “play.” All of the original rules about fouls still apply.115

US Lacrosse similarly supported this notion of women’s lacrosse maintaining the course of the sport. According to the US Lacrosse website in May of 2013, “Men's and women's lacrosse were played under virtually the same rules, with no protective equipment, until the mid-1930s. At that time, men's lacrosse began evolving dramatically, while women's lacrosse continued to remain true to the game's original rules.”116 In both of these excerpts it is evident that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse developed in contrasting manners, despite an overlap in rules and regulations at one point in time.

These different examples and perceptions demonstrate that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse have related histories, but they are not co-linear ones. These examples also highlight that participants’ perceptions of the history of the sports vary and actively resist the notion that women’s is derived from men’s. There is not an established history of women’s lacrosse that definitively locates its development in isolation from or in relation to men’s lacrosse.

The varying interpretations are relevant because they challenge the location on or the engagement with a progress narrative in women’s sport. Sports comparisons and articulations of differences between men’s and women’s sports are not new or unique to lacrosse. Repeatedly leaders within women’s sports and physical activity have modified, adjusted, or aligned rules in women’s sports in comparison to the men’s. Basketball is

115 Green and Kurtz, Modern Women’s Lacrosse, 5. 116 “About the Sport,” US Lacrosse, 2009, http://www.uslacrosse.org/UtilityNav/AboutTheSport/Overview.aspx.

perhaps the most extensively researched women’s sport. After a century of modified rules, women’s basketball came to resemble men’s in order to challenge the social hierarchy in sports.117 Although it is important to note that leaders in women’s basketball specifically intended that the rules should remain similar to men’s as long as they were adapted to support the spirit of women’s sports.118 According to Festle, “Women’s basketball discarded the differing rules and adopted men’s practices, seeking legitimation through sameness.”119 Despite this move, women's basketball remained marked as inferior in broader society. Sport sociologist Michael Messner claimed that the remaining differences between men's and women's basketball, as well as the minimal media attention given to women's basketball, ghettoized the sport in relation to the dominant, masculine center of sport.120 Despite changes to basketball for women’s to appear more similar to the men’s rules, women’s athletes continued to be considered inferior players in relation to men’s. This move toward sameness may be instructive for considerations of men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse within a broader sport context.

The historical relationship between the sports is relevant beyond its importance in supplying background information. Within a male dominated mainstream sport setting that is also engaging with considerations of gender equity in sport, a common perception among sport activists is that women’s sports should strive to be identical in rules to the

117 Although women’s basketball frequently differed from men’s, the distinctions were rooted in socioeconomic class and the varying expectations of femininity. For further discussion of the trajectories of women’s basketball, see Cahn, Coming on Strong , Chapter 4 “Order on the Court: The Campaign to Suppress Women’s Basketball.” 118 Joanna Davenport, “The Tides of Change in Women’s Basketball Rules,” in A Century of Women’s Basketball: From Frailty to Final Four, ed. Joan S. Hult and Marianna Trekell (Reston, VA: National Association for Girls and Women in Sport, 1991). 119 Festle, Playing Nice, 286. 120 Michael Messner, Taking the Field: Women, Men, and Sports (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 2002). 57

men’s. This structural similarity of a women’s sport to a men’s would illustrate women’s advancement in sport, because the underrepresented group would then participate in the same manner as the dominant group. However, such a path presumes that men’s sports are and should be the standard against which women’s sports compare themselves. In reference to men’s lacrosse and women’s specifically, a consideration needs to be whether the sports are similar enough to be entered on a path towards sameness. In short, if the two sports are in fact different games, then the path merging women’s lacrosse with men’s lacrosse is not social progress from a diminished deviation of the original game but instead the destruction of an entirely different game.121

Following the paths posed by historians and participants, men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse maintained historical similarities and derived differences in course of play as they advanced separately. Regardless of what sparked the differences, the men’s organizations and women’s organizations remained separate, which enabled separate rules. These understandings of the lacrosses’ developments challenge the notion of a progress narrative and raise the question as to whether two sports should be joined together in one governing body.

Although questions of how a women’s sport should be played are not unique to women’s lacrosse, what is unique about women’s lacrosse is the separate governance of the sports and the differences in course of play. An understanding of the relationship

121 Arguably, a similar comparison led to the elimination of six-on-six women’s basketball in Iowa. Six-on- six had been a common form of women’s basketball, but many state associations phased out the sport. Not only was the number of players different than five-on-five basketball, but other rules varied as well, such as a cap on the number of dribbles and restrictions on which positions could travel the extent of the court. In Iowa the sport remained into the 1990s. However, a relevant distinction in this example from women’s lacrosse was that women’s physical educators aimed to remove six-on-six basketball, while men’s leaders fought for it stay. Shelley Lucas, “Courting Controversy: Gender and Power in Iowa Girls’ Basketball,” Journal of Sport History 30, no. 3 (2003). 58

between the sports would aid the conversation of how the sports should relate to each other in the future. These conversations matter currently, as I produce this dissertation, but also at the time of the merger. Inherent in the debate of an organizational merger is the idea of how should the sport(s) advance, and what should be the focus of the organization after that point in time.

Comparison of Men’s and Women’s Rules

To demonstrate the variances in course of play, I will note some prominent differences between the sports in regards to equipment, time, personnel, field markings and their subsequent meaning in relation to play that takes place on the fields, and the rules related to contact. Of course I could delve into much greater detail regarding the rules and their specifics, but for the purposes of this general discussion, I identify the baseline differences in regards to these foundational areas. To compare the rules, I have selected the men’s 1993 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rulebook and the women’s 1993-1994 USWLA rulebook.122 As the merger talks began in earnest in

1992, 1993 is an appropriate selection to discern how the rules compared early in the negotiation process.

Equipment

The crosse, or stick, was a key element that demonstrated the distinctions between the games. Although the crosses seemed similar in appearance, they varied in length and

122 National Collegiate Athletic Association, 1993 NCAA Men’s Lacrosse Rules (Overland Park, KS: National Collegiate Athletic Association, 1992); and United States Women’s Lacrosse Association, Official Lacrosse Rules 1993-1994 (Hamilton, NY: USWLA, 1993). The USWLA rulebook was used for all levels of competition. The first NCAA women’s rulebook was published in 2006. The men used the NCAA rulebook for high school as well, but leagues and state administrative bodies could modify the rules for its corresponding groups. 59

construction. Women’s lacrosse required all field sticks to fall within the same length range, 0.9-1.1 meters or 36-44 inches.123 Men’s lacrosse sticks needed to meet a similar requirement for midfield and attack players’ sticks, short crosse (40-42 inches), but defensive players had crosses, or long crosse (52-72 inches), which were much longer in length than the attack sticks and all women’s sticks.124

Stick pockets in men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse also embodied contrasting ideologies. According to the women’s lacrosse rulebook, the crosse was not permitted to have a pocket. When the umpire holds the stick horizontally, the top of the ball must remain “even with or above” the top of the sidewall.125 In the men’s game, the relationship of the ball to the stick was reversed. A stick was illegal if the entire ball was visible below the sidewall. “The pocket shall be deemed to have sagged too deeply if the top surface of a lacrosse ball, when placed therein, is below the bottom edge of the side wall.”126 The reality of these rules is that the officials determined the legality of the sticks based on opposite views, top or bottom, of the sidewall.127 As a result, the variance in permissible pockets demanded varying amounts of force to release the ball from an opponent’s stick. The outcome of these practical distinctions was that it was more difficult to remove a ball from a men’s lacrosse stick than from a women’s. It is logical, then, that it would be more difficult to maintain possession of the ball in women’s

123 USWLA, Official Lacrosse Rules 1993-1994, 2. 124 NCAA, Men’s Lacrosse Rules, 16. 125 USWLA, Official Lacrosse Rules, 2. 126 NCAA, Men’s Lacrosse Rules, 18. 127 The sidewalls for both the men’s sticks and women’s sticks were approximately two inches deep. NCAA, Men’s Lacrosse Rules, 16; and USWLA, Official Lacrosse Rules, 2. 60

lacrosse. These incongruities in crosses point to differing expectations of physical contact as well as varying techniques utilized to maintain possession.

Helmets are the most contentious difference in protective equipment currently, although the debate concerning head protection certainly is not new to the sports. Men wear hard helmets and women do not.128 Men wore hard helmets with a face mask and chin pad. They also wore protective gear all over their bodies excluding their legs; goalies were an exception. Men were required to wear mouthpiece, protective gloves, shoulder pads, shoes, and jerseys.129 Goalies were required to wear throat and chest protection and could wear shoulder pads.130 Goalies are an exception in the women’s game as well. They were required wear a “face mask and/or helmet” and throat and chest protection.131 They could wear padding on the hands, arms, legs, shoulders, but they were not required to. Field players were required to wear a mouth piece. Additional protective equipment was only permitted, medical or otherwise, if the umpires determined other players would not be endangered through its wearing.132

Time

Even the time of the game was envisioned differently. The men’s game was divided into four fifteen-minute periods totaling sixty minutes.133 For women’s lacrosse

128 For a brief period, 1986-1996, girls were required to wear helmets in the state of Massachusetts. According to Susan Ford, protection of the eye, not the head, was what motivated this requirement. Ford, interview. 129 NCAA, Men’s Lacrosse Rules, 18-19. 130 Ibid., 19. 131 USWLA, Official Lacrosse Rules, 9. 132 Ibid., 10. 133 NCAA, Men’s Lacrosse Rules, 28. 61

the time was divided into two halves totaling fifty minutes with the exception of college play, when the total time was sixty minutes.134

Personnel

The number of players on the fields during contests varied as well. The men’s game had ten players on the field: the goalkeeper, defense, midfield, and attack.135 These general terms were widely understood amongst fans and participants in many field sports.

In contrast, women’s lacrosse positions were more unique in name. The women’s game had twelve players: the goalkeeper, point, coverpoint, third man, two defense wings, two attack wings, center, third home, second home, and first home.136 To relate to the more common terminology, the defensive positions were point, coverpoint, and third man, the midfield were the defense wings, attack wings, and center, and the offensive positions were the homes. Although the players could move anywhere on the field, offense, defense, and midfield correlated to their primary functions. See figure 1 for a diagram of the women’s lacrosse positions at the start of play and after each goal.

134 USWLA, Official Lacrosse Rules, 10. 135 NCAA, Men’s Lacrosse Rules, 22. 136 USWLA, Official Lacrosse Rules, 7-8. 62

Figure 1. Women’s lacrosse field with positions

Field Markings

Distinctions between the lacrosses also extended to the field itself. Although field markings may not be the first aspect of a sport that nonfans notice, the markings on the men’s and women’s fields were clear evidence of substantial dissemblance. A quick review of the field lines indicated stark differences. See figure 2 and figure 3.

Figure 2. Men’s lacrosse field

Figure 3. Women’s lacrosse field 64

Physical differences included the size, shape, and role of field areas. The men’s field was 110 x 60 yards with distinct endlines and sidelines that indicated the limits of the playable area. When a player in possession of the ball stepped on the line, he lost possession. When a loose ball hit the ground, it was out of bounds.137 In contrast to the men’s, the women’s field had “no measured boundaries,” but “an area of 110 x 64 meters

(120 x 70 yards) [was] desirable.”138 There was no physical boundary line on the field.

The umpires would determine the boundaries prior to the game and communicate them to the captains in pregame.139 However, this did not necessarily imply that if someone went out of bounds that her team would lose possession; umpires directed the player to bring the ball back on field.

For those who may not be familiar with the concept of no visible boundaries, a humorous anecdote from former USWLA National Umpiring Chair (NUC) and Home

Office Sue McVaugh illustrated how it functioned in the course of play. In high school, her school had two fields, an upper field and a lower field. The fields were separated by a six or eight foot drop.

Sue McVaugh: The reason I know these dips so well is because like I said I was a

point [low defender position]; if a shot missed, there were no boundaries, so I

would run—my opponent [likely a first home] and I would run—after the ball,

down there, and come chugging back. The clock would be running, and [we] just

kept on going. And one time I went up actually behind the stands and I almost ran

into the opposing coach because I expected her to get out of the way. . . . And one

137 NCAA, Men’s Lacrosse Rules, 35. 138 USWLA, Official Lacrosse Rules, 4. 139 Ibid., 6. 65

time there was a sunbather right at the side of the field and the coaches decided

amongst themselves that they wouldn’t tell her that she was actually right in the

middle of the game. I mean, she thought she was off the field; the coach was sort

of funny just to let her sit there. . . . There really were no boundaries.140

Certainly the individuals in this story specifically had some fun with others’ lack of familiarity with a boundary-less field, but the illustration is clear. The concept of a playing field was fluid, and the presence of movable or immovable obstacles did not necessarily denote an end to the playable area.

On the men’s field, a square marked the center of the field and indicated the location of the face off, which (re)started play. In a face off, the ball began on the ground and the players held their sticks on the ground with the reverse surfaces of the crosses lining up, but not touching. When the referee blew the whistle, the players moved and tried to direct the ball in any manner with the crosse.141

The women’s field had a center circle and center line that indicated the location of the draw, which (re)started play. In a draw, the players stood with their sticks somewhat parallel to the ground and their stick heads back to back. The umpire placed the ball between the stick heads; when the referee blew the whistle, the players moved their sticks up and away in order to legally send the ball into play.

In addition to the boundary lines and center markings, the men’s field had a center line, two defensive clearing lines parallel to the endlines, and two wing areas marked

140 McVaugh, interview. 141 NCAA, Men’s Lacrosse Rules, 31-32. 66

with lines parallel to the sidelines.142 The center line was used to determine offside.

According to the men’s rulebook, offside was when a team had “fewer than three men in its attack half of the field (between the center line and the end line)” and/or when it had

“fewer than four men in its defensive half of the field (between the center line and the end line).”143 The defensive-clearing line was used as a point of reference for the attack to advance outside of its own defensive end within ten seconds.144 The wing area was used as a line to limit the location of players prior to the face off.145

The women’s field had different lines and concepts. There was no offside call and no time limit on clearing the ball down field, so no field lines were used as a reference to determine the fouls. The field did have an 8 meter arc and the 12 meter fan stemming from the goal line. These lines were references for penalty administration. As part of the critical scoring area, these lines indicated where play would be restarted if there had been a foul within the different lines.

Rules Related to Contact

Men’s lacrosse was considered a contact sport; women’s lacrosse was not. That was the simple distinction in contact, but the differences were far greater than such classifications. In men’s lacrosse, stick-to-body contact and body-to-body contact may have been considered legal with limitations. In order for a bodycheck to be legal, the opponent had to either have possession of the ball or be within five yards of it, and the

142 Ibid., 13. 143 Ibid., 37. 144 Ibid., 39. 145 Ibid., 33. 67

check had to be above the waist, but below the neck, and not from behind.146A crosse check, or a check from “that part of the handle of his crosse that is between his hands, either by thrusting it away from this body or by holding it extended from his body,” was illegal.147 Slashing, which included movement towards or contact of the stick with the body with “deliberate viciousness or reckless abandon” was illegal, but not all contact of the stick to the body was illegal.148

In contrast, women’s lacrosse had numerous classifications of illegal body-to- body and stick-to-body contact. The following summary, though, clarified the primary distinctions. “Body to body [sic] contact will be called either charging or blocking.

Crosse to crosse [sic] contact is either a legal or illegal check. Body to crosse [sic] contact will be called either detaining, blocking, or no call.” Stick checks were illegal if the opponent reached across the body if she was level to or behind the ball carrier or if the check caused the stick to hit the ball carrier.149 These classifications show that the players’ movements were limited in relation to other players’ movements; that is, their movements were not permitted to forcibly move or cause them to move into their opponents.

The lacrosses embodied significant dissimilarities, including, but not limited to physical contact. In addition to varying ideologies concerning contact, the sports also maintained separate equipment, field designs, and terminology. The games had three similarities: the ball, the goal cage, and the circle around the goals. Both playing areas

146 Ibid., 50. 147 Ibid., 51. 148 Ibid., 50. 149 USWLA, Official Lacrosse Rules, 17. Emphasis removed. 68

had a circle that surrounded the goal. The balls were the same, as were the goal cages.

The circles were similar, but the circles around the goals (goal circle in women’s lacrosse, crease in men’s), varied in size and the goals were situated differently in relation to each other.

Conclusion

Locating the history of women’s lacrosse is relevant because it queries what did men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse look like during the years of merger discussions and whether the sports were similar enough to be considered one sport, a requirement I unpack in the following chapter. Men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse had different rules and separate organizations. As is evident in the above comparison of the sports in the

1990s, they were distinct and different. Despite these differences, the perceived similarities and overlapping cultural roots aligned the sports in the merger dialogues. In

1998, US Lacrosse was created and the USWLA ultimately decided to join the organization that would be the national governing body for lacrosse—men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse.

Chapter 3

Inside Outside, Outside Inside:

An Analysis of the Impact of the International in the Domestic Reorganization

Although there were multiple motivations for the merger, undeniably, the long- term goal of Olympic recognition was a driving force in the design of the merger process.

Despite its primary role, I was unaware of the relevance of the Olympics until I began conducting interviews; the minimal secondary literature on the merger did not acknowledge the role of the international aim.150 What became evident very quickly, through the interviews and in my review of the primary documents, was that in order for the goal of international recognition of lacrosse to come to fruition, dramatic domestic

(re)organization of lacrosse was necessary.

In this chapter, I examine what international recognition, with the end goal of inclusion on the Olympic Games program, entailed. First, I introduce the earliest steps in the discussion on the creation of a national governing body for both men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse. Second, I assess what the international and national administrative bodies required to meet the criteria of an internationally recognized sport. Ultimately, I argue that the desire for international recognition framed the scope of “lacrosse” for the

150 Fisher’s history does not devote many pages to the merger, as he attempted to trace the history of the sport from white intervention to the conclusion of the twentieth century. The rationale acknowledged for the organizational merger was the rapid growth of lacrosse could lead to the sport’s demise if not reigned in organizationally. Fisher, Lacrosse. 70

national governing body. Through an analysis of the international motivations and the subsequent impact on governance, it will become evident that lacrosse, for both men and women, had to be considered a single sport for recognition. The efforts to join the dominant amateur sport model encouraged conformity in sport forms, a conformity to which men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse were not accustomed. In addition, these changes in governance set the terms of the conversation regarding the relationship of men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse; that which had been different (men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse) needed to enter into organizational unity (one national governing body for lacrosse).

Lacrosse Symposium

The process of creating a national governing body for lacrosse began as an annual lacrosse symposium. There are indications that the Lacrosse Foundation, as led by

Executive Director Steve Stenersen, initiated this concept of gathering to discuss the state of the game in 1988, but other associations, including the National Collegiate Athletic

Association (NCAA) and the United States Intercollegiate Lacrosse Association (USILA) in conjunction with Washington College, hosted similar roundtable events in the same year.151 Regardless of which group prompted the initial conversation, in December of

1992, the Lacrosse Foundation, a men’s lacrosse fundraising and promotion group, hosted a Lacrosse Symposium at Princeton University that would set the wheels in motion for the creation of a unified national governing body.

151 Paul Krome, “One Decade, One Sport: At 10th Anniversary, US Lacrosse Marks History, Embraces Future,” Lacrosse Magazine, January 2008; Steven B. Stenersen to Harold M. Ness, 6 September 1988. US Lacrosse Papers. US Lacrosse Headquarters Collection (hereafter cited as US Lacrosse Papers); and Memorandum by Jim Grube to Selected Members of the Lacrosse Community, 27 October 1988. US Lacrosse Papers. 71

During the two-day meeting, the participants identified a series of objectives and inhibitors to those objectives for the overall mission of growing the sport of lacrosse.152

Under the broad goal of developing a “set of recommendations to strengthen the game of lacrosse,” they identified four objectives—all related to increasing the number of participants in lacrosse and the quality of services offered to them.153 Preventing or hindering the eventual completion of these goals were fourteen major inhibitors. On a list organized by importance, the third inhibitor was “lack of a governing body” and justified as a “need for a support structure” and a “need for a control organization.”154 The participants understood the absence of a national governing body for lacrosse to be a primary concern that the sport faced in its efforts to grow.

United States Women’s Lacrosse Association (USWLA) members played a part in this early process. The Symposium Committee aimed to include representatives for multiple constituencies in lacrosse, which included prominent figures in the women’s game. However, these figures were present as individuals and not as representatives from

152 The organizers deliberately selected attendees who would represent male and female: college coaches, high school coaches, officials, youth lacrosse representatives, and club players, and one fan/Foundation member. Members of the panel were: Bill Beroza (Facilitator), JoAnne Ambrogi, Randy Natoli, Hal Ness, Chris Sailer, Cathy Samaras, Sue Schooley, Bill Tierney, and Joan Wagner. Mike Corcoran, Mike Messere, and Rich Reichert were ex-officio members. Memorandum by Geoff Miller to Steve Stenersen, 16 October 1992. US Lacrosse Papers; and Report on Lacrosse Symposium, 11-12 December 1992. US Lacrosse Papers. 153 Report on Lacrosse Symposium, 11-12 December 1992. US Lacrosse Papers. The four objectives were: “increase participation of players/coaches & officials 10-20% annually, start 10-50 new youth programs each year nationally by region ([Lacrosse Foundation] Chapter), increase clinic participation by running a minimum of 50 new clinics in 1993, [and] increase the quality of lacrosse play and understanding of the sport by running player/coaches/officials clinics on an increased basis.” 154 Report on Lacrosse Symposium, 11-12 December 1992. US Lacrosse Papers. The sixteen inhibitors, with justifications excluded, were: “1. Lack of media exposure via national and international organization; 2. Lack of national representation for the development of the game; 3. Lack of a governing body; 4. Image of the game; 5. Apathy of current and past presidents; 6. cost of initiating new programs; 7. National youth participation low; 8. Rules need to be reviewed at all levels; 9. Lack of database of participants at all levels;10. Apportionment of funding to revenue producing sports; 11. Player/coach/official/fan knowledge lacking; 12. Violent aspects of the game; 13. Field Space; [and]14. Competition from other sports.” Report on Lacrosse Symposium, 11-12 December 1992. 72

an organization. Most notably, Cathy Samaras, future and final President of the USWLA, was in attendance. (I expand on her role in Chapter 4.) Specifically, the women symposium participants were charged with meeting with the USWLA leaders to discuss the symposium and to consider the potential of future involvement with the Lacrosse

Foundation.155 From the beginning, those participating identified the women’s lacrosse organization as a key component to the creation of a national governing body for men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse.

Within the week following the symposium, Steve Stenersen met with Michael

Harrigan from Trigon Sports. Trigon Sports International, Inc. was a sport consulting firm founded in 1977 by Harrigan and Jack McCahill and specialized in working with and representing national sport organizations.156 Both Harrigan and McCahill had been integral figures in the creation and composition of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, a law explored in detail later in this chapter. This meeting would be the beginning of a professional relationship between the Lacrosse Foundation and Trigon Sports that would last until 1996. In this meeting, Harrigan expressed that the motivating “cause” behind the campaign to create a national governing body for lacrosse would be the Olympics.

Lacrosse aimed to be included at the Olympic Games.157

Between the brainstorming meetings for the Symposium and the sit-down meeting with Harrigan, the focus on the longevity of lacrosse shifted. Before the Symposium, the focus appeared to be on how to keep individuals involved in the sport longer. Geoff

Miller, Symposium Committee Chair, posed the following questions as examples of what

155 Report on Lacrosse Symposium, 11-12 December 1992. US Lacrosse Papers. 156 Trigon Sports International, Inc., n.d. US Lacrosse Papers. 157 Michael T. Harrigan to Steve Stenersen, 21 December 1992. US Lacrosse Papers. 73

the participants would be discussing. “How do we make lacrosse a lifetime activity for those who become involved with it? How do we integrate the game from the youth to club level and then beyond one’s playing career? What do we need to do to create consistency in the game of lacrosse from when a youngster picks up a stick to the point where adults lose touch with the game or become fans, volunteer coaches, officials, etc.?”158 The final report of the Lacrosse Symposium suggested a need for increased visibility at the national and international levels, but still maintained a need to prioritize youth as well.159 These examples illustrated the development of the sport for participatory purposes.

After the Harrigan meeting, the framing principals shifted towards elite-level competition. Harrigan articulated that the Lacrosse Foundation had two primary objectives—the “growth of the Foundation and the formation of a national governing body for the sport.”160 The Olympics would then be a cause that would increase the visibility and prestige of the sport globally. In so doing, the Lacrosse Foundation membership would increase, along with its funds.161 The focus away from the sport and more towards the organization illustrated a change in ideology as well. Lifetime sport represented a participatory model, while Olympics were an elite model. Harrigan’s involvement appeared to redirect the mission to an extent.

Olympic Aspirations

158 Geoff Miller to Steve Stenersen, 16 October 1992. US Lacrosse Papers. 159 Report on Lacrosse Symposium, 11-12 December 1992. US Lacrosse Papers. 160 Michael T. Harrigan to Steve Stenersen, 21 December 1992. US Lacrosse Papers. 161 Ibid. 74

Although both men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse held international contests and major international competitions by 1992, neither was an Olympic sport.162 At some point in time in the distant past, men’s lacrosse had been included on the Olympic program. There are inconsistencies on the information, but multiple sources suggest that men’s lacrosse was an exhibition sport, if not an official one, at at least one Olympic

Games. According to historian Donald Fisher, lacrosse was an exhibition sport at the

1904 St. Louis, 1908 London, 1928 Amsterdam, and 1932 Los Angeles Olympic

Games.163 The More than a Game documentary, produced by US Lacrosse, similarly claimed that men’s lacrosse was an exhibition sport at four Olympic Games but only included 1928 and 1932 specifically.164 On the Olympic Games website, men’s lacrosse is listed in 1904 and 1908 as if they were regulation sports, but the event results are blank.165 Regardless of men’s lacrosse’s status at the earlier Olympic Games, the sport had not been included in any format for multiple decades when Harrigan and the

Lacrosse Foundation articulated in 1992 the eventual goal of inclusion.

There are numerous requirements and conditions that need to be satisfied in order for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to recognize a sport, let alone include a sport at the Olympic Games. Three major steps must be accomplished in order for a sport to be included in the Olympic Games; the sport itself must satisfy criteria in regards to

162 The first men’s world championship was held in 1967, but the idea of holding a tournament every four years did not start until 1974. The first women’s world championship event was held in 1982. “World Event History & Results,” Federation of International Lacrosse, 2013, http://filacrosse.com/world-events- results/. 163 Fisher, Lacrosse. 164 US Lacrosse, More than a Game: A History of Lacrosse (Baltimore: US Lacrosse, 1998), DVD. 165 Olympic Movement, “Official Olympic Games Results,” accessed May 17, 2013, http://www.olympic.org/olympic-results. The absence of results may suggest that the lacrosse events were non-medal earning exhibition games. 75

global participation, the national organizations must satisfy criteria in regards to domestic governance, and the international organizations must satisfy criteria in regards to international governance. All the requirements must align for consideration.166

According to Rule 52 of the Olympic Charter in force as from July 23, 1992, which would have been in effect when the conversations about the lacrosse merger in the

United States began, an Olympic sport needed to be a global sport. Depending on whether the sport in question was applying to be a part of the summer or winter games, the number of countries that practice the sport varied, but critical to each event was the gendered component of participation rates. Sports needed to be “widely practised by men in at least seventy-five countries and on four continents, and by women in at least forty countries and on three continents.”167 A sport needed to be a global sport for both men and women in order to be included. If men’s lacrosse was viewed as an entirely separate sport from women’s lacrosse, it had no chance of garnering IOC recognition, thus conflating men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse was critical to attaining any potential

Olympic status.

In terms of organization, the IOC needed to recognize the national governance of that sport. The National Olympic Committee (NOC) was to be the only organization within each country for its respective sport that the IOC would recognize, as per Rule

31.168 To apply for NOC status, the organization had to comply with four conditions in relation to membership and affiliations. Most relevant to the lacrosse reorganization was

166 International Olympic Committee. Olympic Charter: In Force as from 23rd July 1992. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Olympic%20Charter/Olympic_Charter_through_time/1992- Olympic_Charter.pdf. 167 Ibid., 70. 168 Ibid., 41. 76

the Rule 32 1.2 declaration that “an NOC shall not recognize more than one national federation for each sport governed by such IF [International Federation].”169And finally for recognition, Rule 33 explained that “a national federation must be affiliated to an IF recognized by the IOC and conduct its activities in compliance with both the Olympic

Charter and the rules of its IF.”170 In sum, the IOC had to recognize the NOC and in order to be an NOC the organization needed to represent only one sport and had to be recognized by an international organization that also only represented one sport and that the IOC recognized. Additionally, the sport’s participants needed to be men and women around the world.

With these stipulations, if lacrosse, both men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse, were to be considered for inclusion in the Olympic Games, the governance within the

United States would have to be dramatically altered. What all of these regulations ultimately meant for men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse in the United States was that there could only be one national governing body for the sport of lacrosse if that national governing body was to be recognized as a NOC eventually. In addition, internationally the governance of men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse would have to be altered as well.

The International Federation of Women’s Lacrosse Associations (IFWLA) governed women’s lacrosse and the International Lacrosse Federation (ILF) governed men’s lacrosse in 1992. Ultimately, in 2008 change did occur and the organizations merged to form the Federation of International Lacrosse (FIL).171 Nationally and internationally, the

169 Ibid., 43. 170 Ibid., 47. 171 “FIL Overview,” Federation of International Lacrosse, 2013, http://filacrosse.com/about/. Notably, this new organization mirrored the Olympic structure and demanded that only one association from each 77

lacrosses needed to be organizationally unified, which would also imply that the men’s and women’s games were in fact the same sport.

Domestically, the reorganization required to create one national governing body involved numerous separate associations. Additionally, men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse were organized quite differently in the early 1990s. Men’s lacrosse was fragmented. Practically each role within men’s lacrosse had its own organization. The role of some organizations was evident from the group’s name; the United States

Lacrosse Coaches Association (USLCA) served coaches at all levels of the men’s game.

Both the United States Lacrosse Officials Association (USLOA) and the National

Intercollegiate Lacrosse Officials Association (NILOA) coordinated officials and facilitated communications between officials and other positions in men’s lacrosse. The

United States Intercollegiate Lacrosse Association (USILA) fostered the growth of men’s lacrosse at the collegiate level. At least two large club organizations existed, as well as numerous regional ones. The United States Club Lacrosse Association (USCLA) supported men’s lacrosse at the amateur level, and the Central Atlantic Lacrosse League

(CALL) provided opportunities for amateur participation in men’s lacrosse as well.172

Finally, the Lacrosse Foundation was a fundraising body that strove to promote the sport of lacrosse.173 Apparently gender neutral, the National Junior Lacrosse Association

country be a member and be recognized by the international organization. So if the merger had not taken place in the United States in 1998, but had internationally in 2008, FIL would not recognize both a men’s lacrosse national governing body and the USWLA. Federation of International Lacrosse, Constitution (June 2012), 4, http://filacrosse.com/wp-content/themes/sportedge/downloads/FIL_Constitution.pdf . 172 Fax Transmission by Steven B. Stenersen to Dottie McKnight and Susan Ford, 13 May 1997. United States Women’s Lacrosse Association Papers, University of Maryland Libraries (hereafter cited as USWLA Papers). 173 Ibid. The mission statement indicated that it promoted men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse, but US Lacrosse papers show that the Lacrosse Foundation primarily supported men’s lacrosse. 78

(NJLA) served youth lacrosse and had only been founded in 1992; it was a new organization.174 In contrast, primarily one organization ran all levels of women’s lacrosse—the United States Women’s Lacrosse Association (USWLA). The

Intercollegiate Women’s Lacrosse Coaches Association (IWLCA) specifically served college coaches, but this group worked closely with the USWLA.175 In order to meet the criteria of international recognition with the end goal of becoming an Olympic sport, both men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse would have to be united under one national governing body. Although it would not be necessary for each of the listed roles to be part of the national governing body in order to move toward recognition, there would need to be a central organized unit. The USWLA served such a purpose for women’s lacrosse.

Men’s lacrosse did not have a similar organization in the 1990s.

Proof of the Olympic Games valuation of a national governing body arrived when the Lacrosse Foundation attempted to join the cultural program of the Atlanta Games. In

1993 the Lacrosse Foundation submitted a proposal to the Atlanta Committee for the

1996 Summer Olympic Games to include two lacrosse exhibitions. Patty Vaughan of the

USWLA as well as Harrigan and Stenersen met with Charlie Battle, Managing Director of Sports and International Organizations for the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic

Games in March 1994 to discuss the potential of lacrosse being added to the cultural program.176 Harrigan indicated that inclusion at the games would be valuable for

174 Fax Transmission by Steven B. Stenersen to Dottie McKnight and Susan Ford, 13 May 1997. USWLA Papers. 175 Ibid. 176 Michael T. Harrigan to Charlie Battle, 23 March 1994.US Lacrosse Papers; and Memorandum by Michael T. Harrigan to Steve Stenersen, 4 April 1994. US Lacrosse Papers. I am unsure of Vaughan’s formal role with the USWLA at these meetings. 79

lacrosse; the potential for international exposure could assist in becoming an Olympic sport.177 The lacrosse contingent hoped that inclusion as a cultural event would have been

“the spark that ignite[d] significant international interest in lacrosse.”178

In August of 1995, the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games responded to the Lacrosse Foundation’s request. The committee decided against the inclusion for several reasons. First, the IOC eliminated exhibition sports from its program. Second, the

Atlanta Committee did not find it logistically feasible to accommodate lacrosse as part of the cultural program. Lacrosse, as a sport, would need a sporting facility, all of which would be in use during the games. Third, the managing director explained that with so many sports wanting to be a part of the Olympic Games, the committee could not justify supporting lacrosse when it was not even recognized as an international federation.179 In a letter to Harrigan, also from the committee, the managing director was more direct. He stated, “of course, the real problem as I understand it is they have not yet gotten their act together as far as organizing a national governing body and international federation.”180

Not only did lacrosse lack a unified governing body, but the representatives from the

Olympics perceived a lack of a unified governing body to be disorganized. Although not from the IOC, this rejection highlighted the importance of unification for eventual inclusion. If lacrosse were to be an Olympic sport, changes were necessary.

The Amateur Sports Act of 1978

177 Memorandum by Michael T. Harrigan to Steve Stenersen, 4 April 1994. US Lacrosse Papers. 178 Steven B. Stenersen to Richard E. Szlasa, 2 June 1993. US Lacrosse Papers. 179 Charles H. Battle, Jr. to Steven B. Stenersen, 30 August 1995. US Lacrosse Papers. 180 Charles H. Battle, Jr. to Michael T. Harrigan, 31 August 1995. US Lacrosse Papers. 80

According to Harrigan, a national governing body for lacrosse would need to be formed according to the dictates of the Amateur Sports Act.181 The Amateur Sports Act of 1978 was drafted in response to a series of embarrassing administrative errors on the part of the United States officials at the 1972 Olympic Games, which stood in stark contrast to the proficient performances of Soviet athletes and officials.182 Cold War tensions amplified the magnitude of this discrepancy.183 The United States Olympic

Committee (USOC) was also inefficient. Both the NCAA and the Amateur Athletic

Union (AAU) staked claim to amateur athletes; the AAU served as the national governing body for multiple sports, but the NCAA had to release athletes from their intercollegiate responsibilities to enable them to travel as members of a national team.

Both organizations engaged in power struggles over these athletes. In addition, there was no central organizing body to solve such disputes or even to develop Olympic-level athletes at the grassroots level. Past US success was partially related to other countries’ failures and inabilities to produce elite-level athletes after the impact of World War II.

After Munich in 1972, the international athletic environment changed.184

181 Michael T. Harrigan to Steve Stenersen, 21 December 1992. US Lacrosse Papers. 182 James A.R. Nafziger, “The Amateur Sports Act of 1978,” BYU Law Review 47 (1983). Specific mistakes included a doctor’s lack of athlete notification that a prescription was on the IOC’s banned substance list, a coach giving his athletes incorrect race times meaning they missed the events, and athletes refusing to face the flag during medal ceremonies. In addition, the US men’s basketball team famously lost to the Soviet squad after an incorrectly administered timeout led to additional time being added to the game clock after the game had ended. The IOC review ruled in favor of the USSR’s team. The US team members still have not accepted their silver medals. David Clay Large, Munich 1972: Tragedy, Terror, and Triumph at the Olympic Games (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2012). 183 For further discussion of the impact of the Cold War on United States’ and Soviet sporting policies, see Rob Beamish and Ian Ritchie, Fastest, Highest, Strongest: A Critique of High-Performance Sport (New York: Routledge, 2006); and Allen Guttmann, The Olympics: A History of the Modern Games (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992). 184 Michael T. Harrigan, “A Class Act,” The Olympian, January 1989. 81

After President Gerald Ford appointed the President’s Commission on Olympic

Sports (PCOS) to review the roles of the organizations and to develop recommendations and after numerous Congressional votes, the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 passed.185 The new Act, which amended the 1950 Act to incorporate the United States Olympic

Association, redefined and clarified the criteria for recognition by the USOC and the criteria to receive support to be recognized by the IOC. It defined a national governing body as an amateur sports organization that the USOC recognized within the dictates of the Act.186 The Act clearly stated that “The Corporation [USOC] shall recognize only one national governing body for each sport for which an application is made and approved.”187 It then detailed thirteen eligibility requirements for recognition, all of which pertained to the need for the national governing body to focus on one sport, to have ethical leadership, or to be able to meet the organizational needs of amateur sports competition at the national and international levels. In addition, the Act clarified that the national governing body may only be a member of one international sports federation.188

Both the United States Government’s legislation and the Olympic Charter that were active at the time of the merger required near identical qualifications in order for the domestic and international Olympic bodies to include a sport.

Notably, within the Act there was a specific clause related to sex. The national governing body needed to be “governed by a board of directors or other such governing board whose members are selected without regard to race, color, religion, national origin

185 Harrigan, “A Class Act;” and Nafziger, “Amateur Sports Act.” 186 Amateur Sports Act of 1978, 36 U.S.C. §103 (1978). 187 Id. 188 Id. 82

or sex, except that, in sports where there are separate male and female programs, it provides for reasonable representation of both males and females on such board of directors or other such governing board.”189 The Act did not dictate how an organization should represent men’s and women’s versions of the sport within the national governing body, but did indicate that both sexes be included at the decision-making level of the organization.

Steve Stenersen made it clear in our interview that the Amateur Sports Act of

1978 was rightly selected as the pattern of action for lacrosse.

Steve Stenersen: There is a best practice in the industry standard with respect to

amateur sports governance, which is the Amateur Sports Act of 78 . . . which

describes the tenets, the structural tenets of amateur sport governance for Olympic

sport bodies . . . . We reached out to a number of Olympic governing bodies,

some in Colorado, many of them in Colorado Springs, others in California, winter

sports in Lake Placid, some in Chicago, and we learned a lot from them. . . the

positives and negatives. . . .Some of those unified international structures predated

the Amateur Sports Act of 78, but the Amateur Sports Act of 78 essentially kind

of shook the cage and made everybody comply in a consistent way—in

structurally and organizationally—and we found to a person that everybody

involved in the organization, everybody involved in all of these organizations said

“absolutely that was the best move we made. Yes, it was tough, yes it was

189 Id. 83

difficult . . . but structurally and organizationally this is what you guys should

do.”190

Although Stenersen posed it almost as an option, if lacrosse were to be eventually included in the Olympic Games, following the Amateur Sports Act was a requirement.

There were options in how the national governing body would be organized structurally but not much flexibility in terms of which organizations were permitted to exist. The

Amateur Sports Act set the terms for how USOC recognition could be accomplished.

Significantly, Michael Harrigan and Jack McCahill of Trigon Sports were co- authors of the Amateur Sports Act.191 Harrigan served as the Executive Director on the

PCOS and McCahill its General Counsel. Trigon Sports’ description of its own services touted that the USOC was its first client.192 The same individuals who composed the

Amateur Sports Act that created criteria for national-governing-body structures with a focus specifically on Olympic recognition would be the architect of the blueprint for the national-governing-body structure for lacrosse. Based on Harrigan, McCahill, and

Trigon’s past accomplishments, creating a professional association with them likely suggests that the Olympics were a goal prior to that first meeting between Stenersen and

Harrigan.

Harrigan’s Proposals

After an initial presentation to the multiple organizations in June 1993, the

Lacrosse Foundation formally hired Harrigan as an independent consultant from Trigon

190 Stenersen, interview. 191 Michael T. Harrigan, “A Class Act,” The Olympian, January 1989. 192 Trigon Sports International, Inc., n.d. US Lacrosse Papers. 84

Sports in November 1993 to navigate the creation of the national governing body.193

The Lacrosse Foundation asked for financial support from the other organizations that were a part of the merger discussions in order to pay for Harrigan’s $3,000 monthly retainer. At least four organizations (USCLA, USILA, USLCA, and CALL) initially committed their funds, $3,000 each, to the cause.194 The Lacrosse Foundation committed

$7,500. The IWLCA indicated that although they would like to stay involved in the merger conversations, they had limited funds and were unable to contribute financially.195

This initial monetary contribution demonstrated organizational support for the dialogue regarding a merger, but not necessarily support of the merger itself. Based on the contributions, it is evident that many groups were willing to engage in conversation and exploration at the very least.

In addition to hiring Harrigan, the Lacrosse Foundation also formed the National

Governing Body Steering Committee led by Jim Potter, former Lacrosse Foundation

President. USWLA members were part of this committee and the broader merger discussion process; Susan Ford, then President-Elect of USWLA and Pat Dillon,

USWLA Rules Committee Chair, served on the committee. In Potter’s introductory letter to Ford, “At previous meetings, we all came to the conclusion that establishing an NGB

[National Governing Body] was in the best interest of lacrosse. With that decision behind us, it is now time to dedicate our efforts to structure and implement such an

193 James L. Potter to Elaine Knobloch, 5 October 1993. US Lacrosse Papers. 194 Steven B. Stenersen to Howard Borkan, 6 January 1994. US Lacrosse Papers; Steven B. Stenersen to Lou Spiotti, 6 January 1994. US Lacrosse Papers; Steven B. Stenersen to Thomas R. Hayes, 6 January 1994. US Lacrosse Papers; Steven B. Stenersen to Joe Groves, 6 January 1994. US Lacrosse Papers; Louis W. Spiotti to Steve Stenersen, 4 February 1994. US Lacrosse Papers; and Steven B. Stenersen to National Governing Body Steering Committee, 14 March 1994. USWLA Papers. 195 Dee McDonough to Steve Stenersen, 31 January 1994. US Lacrosse Papers. 85

organization.”196 This statement identified that the committee was focused on carrying the dream of one unified national governing body to fruition. Ford’s inclusion, though, did not indicate that the USWLA was automatically in support of the efforts.

Despite this engagement, Harrigan faced resistance in his attempts to communicate with the groups. In just his first report, he reminded them that “Neither I nor anyone else can mandate an NGB because lacrosse is only governed by the tenets of the Act if it chooses to be so. What has to be done here is that the components of the sport have to realize that is in their best interest to form an NGB. Based upon the common emerging thread, I can then shape the NGB that makes it in the interest of everyone to be a part.”197 Quite quickly, Harrigan learned that uniting separate lacrosse organizations would be no easy task. He encountered difficulties with the groups’ seeming lack of acceptance that a national governing body was indeed the best course of action.

The USWLA was a group that specifically had concerns with the entire notion of unification with the men’s organizations in a national governing body. Very early in

Harrigan’s reports, he acknowledged the hesitance of the women’s group. In a report that compiled his answers to numerous questions he had received, he specifically addressed the question of whether men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse were the same sport— obviously an important consideration based on the IOC dictates of one national governing body for one sport. The question posed stated: “Will existing organizations within the sport of lacrosse lose power or be ‘taken over’ if a national governing body is

196 James L. Potter, Jr. to Susan Ford, 15 September 1994. US Lacrosse Papers. 197 Memorandum by Michael T. Harrigan to Steve Stenersen, 3 March 1994. US Lacrosse Papers. 86

formed?”198 His response: “Unequivocally NO!” Harrigan indicated that the “USWLA will integrate but not lose its identity with the NGB.”199 In response to a question on why men’s and women’s lacrosse should even be included in one governing body, he stated “I will only add that although I am fully aware there are differences between the men’s and women’s games, there are far, far more similarities that can be exploited with an integrated organization (NGB) with the proper autonomous features built in.”200

Harrigan’s comparisons of women’s and men’s lacrosse indicate the importance of the games’ identities early on in the national governing body conversations. His retort also exemplified the importance of his following his own agenda. As already noted, he had experience working with Olympic institutions and those desiring to be related to the

Olympics. In comparison, there is no documentation of any lacrosse involvement on his part prior to this one. His focus was on the national governing body, not the sport.

After meeting with representatives from several groups regarding the process of forming an national governing body, he articulated these concerns.

Some elements on the women’s side, which seems better organized than the men,

are fearful of being “swallowed up” by the men. This will not happen and cannot

happen if the tenets of the statute are followed in terms of governance of the NGB

and the right of the men and women to separately govern their respective games.

There is also a fear, expressed by some, that any association with the men will

destroy the women’s game. I don’t see how this logic plays out to this scenario if

the women’s right to govern its game is preserved. There is not a country in the

198 Michael T. Harrigan to Steve Stenersen, 3 November 1993. USWLA Papers. 199 Ibid. 200 Ibid. 87

world that there is not a united, i.e. men and women, NGB for lacrosse or any

country where this configuration is not being developed and most feel it has

benefitted the sport for both. While I recognize the two games have different

rules, there are also great similarities. U.S. NGBs with both a men’s and women’s

component have, for the most part, flourished over the years and there are some

dissimilarities in rules as well in some of these.201

He may have addressed the question, but arguably he did not consider the concern to be one of valid merit. He also did not examine the extent of the differences between the sports, which is greater than in instances of men’s and women’s games in other sports.

Simultaneously, he posed that separate sports could be under one umbrella organization.

This appears to go against the IOC and USOC’s demands for one sport in one national governing body, if he believed the sports were indeed different. He did believe in the quality of the Amateur Sports Act, which again he was a primary author thereof. But his arguments for how the sport should combine demonstrated a minimal understanding of the relationship between sports.

Less than a year into his contract, Harrigan expressed concern with the progression of lacrosse into one national governing body. He stated:

This project has been far more difficult than I originally anticipated principally

because the points of view are so different between the men and the women and

within each of the men’s and women’s constituencies as well. Moreover, unlike

the mid-70s Olympic reorganization efforts, there was a light at the end of the

tunnel which would bind all of the covered NGBs to the recommendations made.

201 Memorandum by Michael T. Harrigan to Steve Stenersen, 5 May 1994. US Lacrosse Papers. 88

In lacrosse’s case, we do not have this luxury. If one or more of the extant

lacrosse organizations refuse to cooperate with the serious recommendations I am

about to make, it will be truly difficult to accomplish the creation of a trusted

NGB for the sport. It can still be done but it will be more difficult.202

Although the National Governing Body Steering Committee was committed to the notion of a unified governing body and although Harrigan was hired to pursue such efforts, there was unrest amongst the groups and along gendered lines. Indeed, the differences between the sports of men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse as well as the distinct roles of the organizations complicated the process.

In November 1994, Harrigan produced and presented “Lacrosse: A Vision of

Organization for Future Growth;” this report was intended as a specific assessment of and recommendations for the governance of the sport of lacrosse under the tenets of the

Amateur Sports Act of 1978.203 In the report, Harrigan identified what he felt was the one model that made the most sense for lacrosse. Numerous sports governing bodies had been required to reorganize in order to meet the requirements of the Amateur Sports Act; and he used those experiences as comparison points for this instance. Through the examples of field hockey and bowling, Harrigan attempted to explain the benefits of the field hockey model as opposed to the detriments of the bowling model. Men’s field hockey and women’s field hockey had separate governing bodies, but in order to meet the criteria, the men’s organization dissolved and merged its assets with the women’s

202 Memorandum by Michael T. Harrigan to Steve Stenersen, 12 October 1994. US Lacrosse Papers. The “mid-70s Olympic reorganization” to which he refers was the PCOS and USOC efforts that I described briefly earlier in this chapter. 203 Trigon Sports International Inc., report “Lacrosse: A Vision of Organization for Future Growth,” n.d., 2. US Lacrosse Papers. 89

organization. There was then only one national governing body for field hockey. Bowling similarly had separate men’s and women’s organizations, but rather than merging assets, the two organizations remained separate under one larger umbrella organization.

According to Harrigan, the bowling structure had been counterproductive because the separate but united organizations led the national governing body as opposed to the national governing body leading the organizations.204 As a result, he posed that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse merge in a manner similar to field hockey. Just six months after he stated that women and men could remain separate within, he proposed otherwise, but they could still maintain separate men’s and women’s divisions within the broader structure.

Harrigan felt this model would be most effective, but both the men’s and women’s organizations would have to be prepared for substantial changes. The men’s lacrosse groups would “have to sacrifice some of their heretofore independence and autonomy for the good of the sport.”205 For instance, the Lacrosse Foundation, with its paid staff and established programs, already fulfilled some of the roles Harrigan expected a national governing body would, such as insurance and fundraising programs. A concern, though, was that it remained provincially (Baltimore) focused.206 The USILA

Harrigan classified as an “anachronism” and compared it to the AAU of the 1970s, the same organization that the Amateur Sports Act greatly limited the power thereof.207 The

204 Trigon, “Vision of Organization.” US Lacrosse Papers. 205 Ibid., 7. 206 Ibid., 8. 207 Ibid. 90

USILA organized and ran the intercollegiate varsity and club championships.208 After the

NCAA took over many of the responsibilities of the USILA, the USILA had “not found

[a mission] yet and probably never will be able to do so, through no fault of its own.”209

The outcome was overlap and conflict with other groups. The United States Lacrosse

Coaches Association (USLCA) was “into everything but what it should be.” Harrigan was similarly concerned with the overlap of function with other groups as well as a focus that was outside what the responsibilities of a coaching organization should be, (i.e., a coaches group should not be hyperfocused on rule making). The club organizations were the “least cohesive” and focused on their “independent fiefdoms.”210 He continued:

“There is level of snobbery effused at one extreme (USCLA) with a level of attempt just to survive (e.g. [sic] club associations in Georgia, Kansas City, etc.) at the other extreme.”211 These groups would benefit most from unifying as their independence and geographical disparities generated concerns. Harrigan also challenged the NJLA for its limited outreach to other organizations when it could have benefited its own success. For instance, there were opportunities for coaching programs within the NJLA, but instead of utilizing a coaching association that was already established, it developed its own.212

His critiques of the USWLA were equally harsh but rooted in a different issue. In contrast to the men’s groups overlapping roles, the women “needed to overcome the notion that joining with the men in an NGB will be the downfall of women’s lacrosse as

208 Fisher, Lacrosse. 209 Trigon, “Vision of Organization,” 8. US Lacrosse Papers. 210 Ibid., 9. 211 Ibid. 212 Ibid., 10. 91

it is known today.”213 Although the Lacrosse Foundation had attempted to reach out to the group, the USWLA responded with distrust.214 In addition, his concern with the practical functioning of the women’s side was that the USWLA did not “have the resources to fulfill the demand of the sport.”215 He cited the lack of resources to hire full time staff to aid with administrative functions and the size of the board that drains financial resources as primary aspects of the organization that limited its effectiveness.

The forms of change and adjustment that the men’s and women’s groups would have to make differed, as Harrigan identified. The men’s groups would have to share power and responsibilities; the women’s groups would have to change ideologies.216

The conclusion of Harrigan’s report posed the question, “What if lacrosse constituencies do not agree to do this?” His response: “On the men’s side, chaos will continue; on the women’s side, the demand for services will continue not to be met.”217

The organizations would each face different hurdles, but based on Harrigan’s critiques, none of them was equipped to take on the role of national governing body for lacrosse.

As a result, they would all have to change.

USWLA and its Trepidations

The USWLA’s initial concerns with their interactions with Harrigan were related to the foundation of the entire premise of a national governing body. In 1994, within a month after Harrigan’s presentation to the NGB Steering Committee, the USWLA

213 Ibid., 7. 214 Ibid., 10. 215 Ibid. 216 At this point in time, the USWLA had not yet committed any funds to the merger effort. It was possible that a lack of financial investment may have encouraged a less-than favorable report. 217 Trigon, “Vision of Organization,” 35. US Lacrosse Papers. 92

responded to his report in a letter Ford authored. She listed several specific points, but the overarching one was the undertone of the report and drafted bylaws; namely that “there seems to be a bias throughout these materials which consistently gives the Lacrosse

Foundation ‘favored nation’ status.”218 The USWLA board inquired as to why the entire merger conversation even began and why the Lacrosse Foundation specifically would be interested in creating an organization that could be its demise. The Lacrosse Foundation had “prompted, supported and steered” the process. The USWLA challenged the

Lacrosse Foundation’s investment in the merger efforts and questioned, “Can anyone really believe that the Lacrosse Foundation is acting simply as a facilitator for these discussions? Maybe; but it’s a stretch.” 219 Although the USWLA did not identify a specific reason that the Lacrosse Foundation’s efforts troubled them, they were suspicious of the actions.

Additional concerns pertained to the relationship of the men’s and women’s sports. The USWLA queried as to why the Lacrosse Foundation would be considered the

“corporate shell” under Harrigan’s plan. This suggests that the Lacrosse Foundation did not see the national governing body efforts as its end, but rather as an evolution of the group and its staff. Since the USWLA was the only national organization that served multiple aspects of the sport of lacrosse at the time, why should not the USWLA be utilized as the shell? The history of women’s sport was present in the trepidation Ford described in her letter, as she noted in response to this issue, “Even if we had no other doubts,” the usage of the Lacrosse Foundation as the shell corporation “would re-

218 Susan S. Ford to Michael Harrigan, 1 December 1994. USWLA Papers. 219 Ibid. 93

introduce the reservations with which we are all too familiar…again.”220 Although unnamed in this instance, as the ellipses are in the original text, past occurrences in women’s sports prompted some fears among members of the USWLA; they did not want them repeated.221

Ford also critiqued Harrigan’s flippant understanding of the rule differences between men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse and which organizations were responsible for which rules. He claimed that the NCAA would have the authority to change the rules for lacrosse.222 Ford responded that the USWLA wrote the rules for women’s lacrosse even at the collegiate level, so this statement ignored the history of women’s lacrosse at that level.223 In addition, she challenged Harrigan because he noted in his report “Rule making will be consolidated so that there will be one set of rules.”224 She retorted, “We want to be very clear that there must always be at least two (2) sets of rules: one for the women’s game and one for the men’s. This is a careless reference regarding a sensitive issue, and that’s unfortunate.”225 Ford’s response reiterated the importance of the sports being distinct in practice. But again, the assertion of separate rulebooks also seems to undermine the premise of a national governing body that represents one sport—the core factor in these organizational debates.

Harrigan responded to each of Ford’s enumerated concerns in a letter on

December 12, 1994. He noted that any of the organizations could be the shell

220 Ibid. 221 I elaborate on these past instances in women’s sport history in Chapter 5. 222 Trigon, “Vision of Organization,” 19. US Lacrosse Papers. 223 Susan S. Ford to Michael Harrigan, 1 December 1994. USWLA Papers. 224Trigon, “Vision of Organization,” 30. US Lacrosse Papers. 225 Susan S. Ford to Michael Harrigan, 1 December 1994. USWLA Papers. 94

organization; “It makes no difference! End of subject! End of issue!” He continued that creating a new non-profit would also be an option but that would take more time. He posed the usage of the Lacrosse Foundation as the basis of the national governing body not because the Lacrosse Foundation specifically should be the basis in-and-of-itself, but instead because it had the resources. Once the national governing body would be created, the Lacrosse Foundation would no longer be in the same form. All the financial and administrative resources would be those of the national governing body.226 In regards to the rulebook and the NCAA, Harrigan explained that as a private organization, the

NCAA has the right to set its own rules. Indeed that right was articulated in the Amateur

Athletic Act of 1978. Harrigan felt the creation of a national governing body would actually enable the women to have more leverage in advocating for their rulemaking function in the NCAA.227 Finally, in regards to Ford’s other questions about rules and the creation of a singular rulebook, he indicated that she had not read the report carefully enough. It was not his intent for the comments in the section from which her rules question arose to be read as one; he simply did not want to rewrite that the rule requirements were for two games not one.228 Regardless of whether Harrigan’s passage was self-evident, Ford’s response indicated the importance of identity and control over

226 Michael T. Harrigan to Susan Ford, 12 December 1994. USWLA Papers. 227 Ibid. The NCAA did in fact take over the women’s lacrosse rulebook for intercollegiate play and published its first rulebook in 2006. Many leaders in women’s lacrosse were frustrated with this change, especially since it also led to two rules committees for women’s lacrosse, one under US Lacrosse and the other under the NCAA. Although I am not aware of the exact reasons for the shifts, NCAA Rules Secretary Pat Dillon suggested that the NCAA was interested in spending money on officials training programs for women’s lacrosse, and in order to do that, according to its own organizational rules, the NCAA needed to have its own rules committee for that sport. Dillon, interview. 228 Michael T. Harrigan to Susan Ford, 12 December 1994. USWLA Papers. A “misreading” that I committed as well when I reviewed the documents. 95

the women’s game for the USWLA. There was no interest on the women’s side to merge sports.

Upon conclusion, he expressed frustration with the USWLA, as he had not been able to meet with representatives from the group to discuss the measures required or necessitated in the creation of a national governing body.

I must say, however, in closing, that it would have been beneficial to the USWLA

and me if I had had an opportunity to meet with the USWLA in some plenary

fashion during the last year. I am absolutely certain that some of the questions

now raised could have been dispensed with, particularly those that relate to proper

interpretation of the Amateur Sports Act and the absolute need to separate the

games within the NGB. Further, the absolute distrust of the Lacrosse Foundation

is apparent. . . . The only solution is for all to give up the same and for all to get

the same increased benefits as a result. To be sure, men’s and women’s lacrosse,

aside from rule differences, have varying needs. . . . But unifying into the NGB,

as proposed, is in the best interest of the sport.”229

Harrigan understood the USWLA to be a thorn in the side of the broader project, a project in which he whole heartedly agreed.

Harrigan’s Continued Role

Despite organizational concerns and Harrigan’s presence as a controversial figure, he remained in charge of the merger efforts. In February 1995, Lacrosse Magazine, owned by the Lacrosse Foundation, included an article on Harrigan’s November

229 Michael T. Harrigan to Susan Ford, 12 December 1994. USWLA Papers. 96

presentation to the constituent groups of lacrosse.230 The author described the overall goals of the report and the general mission of forming a national governing body. The members of the Lacrosse Foundation, not just the leadership, would then be aware of not only the presence of dialogue, but also the proposed plan of how it could occur. Notably, the author advocated that “The first step toward implementing the NGB would be for all corporations and independent constituent groups of lacrosse to accept the recommendations of the Harrigan report.”231 This sentence was offset and highlighted in the text; even those who did not read the article in its entirety, would understand that the

Harrigan report was to be the model from which the national-governing-body process would be based.

On February 4, 1995 the Lacrosse Foundation Board of Directors accepted

Harrigan’s report in principal.232 It also appointed Jim Potter to be the Lacrosse

Foundation’s representative in the NGB Focus Group.233 In addition, it accepted

Harrigan’s recommendation that: “All corporations and other independent constituent groups of lacrosse need to adopt this Report’s recommendations and By-Laws provisionally, pending creation of the NGB. Corporations need to dissolve and merge their assets into the NGB, contingent on this creation of the NGB according to the By-

Laws. Assets so merged will continue to be used for the purposes originally intended.”234

230 Keith Maynard, “Report Ties Lacrosse Growth to Establishment of NGB,” Lacrosse Magazine, February 1995. 231 Maynard, “Report Ties Lacrosse Growth,” 26. 232 Francis G. Riggs to James L. Potter, 6 February 1995. USWLA Papers. 233 The National Governing Body Steering Committee and the NGB Focus Group may be one in the same. Lists of the committee members overlap, but references to the Steering Committee are more common and are present both before and after the creation of the NGB Focus Group. Due to this confusion, I refer to the groups in the same manner in which they are referenced in the cited documents. 234 Francis G. Riggs to James L. Potter, 6 February 1995. USWLA Papers. 97

Potter, as interim chair of the NGB Focus Group, contacted the group members in hopes that each representative from the constituent groups would bring a positive resolution of support of the Harrigan report to the meeting in March 26, 1995.235 The Lacrosse

Foundation, NCAA, USCLA, USLCA, and CALL already had indicated their general approval of a national governing body, but not of the Harrigan plan specifically.236

In contrast, the USWLA armed itself with a means to gather more information.

Susan Ford contacted legal counsel and the women members of the Task Force, Pat

Dillon, Jackie Pitts, and Sue Lubking, and indicated that at the time of the March 1995 meeting, “the USWLA is in no position to vote on this issue. However, I do not want to go any further into this process ‘blind.’”237 She wanted to be prepared for all conversations at the meeting, and wanted the women have a “strategy” going into it. At that time of the meeting, they would not support the national governing body efforts, as represented by Harrigan’s report, in principal without the criteria they demanded clearly delineated. The criteria were: “we can preserve our organizational identity. In other words, that the USWLA secretly lives! inside the ‘women’s division’—or something very close to that. We can preserve the integrity of our sport. We can preserve the rules of our game.”238

In addition to lacrosse organizing groups and governing bodies, Harrigan shared his report with organizations that had a financial investment in lacrosse. Harrigan

235 Memo by Jim Potter to NGB Focus Group Members, 9 February 1995. USWLA Papers. 236 Ibid. 237 Susan S. Ford to Patty [Vaughn], 19 February 1995. USWLA Papers. 238 Ibid. 98

contacted Peter Brine at Brine, Inc.239 Brine was a prominent manufacture of lacrosse equipment that started producing molded plastic lacrosse heads in the 1950s.240 Harrigan stated:

If you agree with what I have recommended—and I will bet that you will after

reading the study—you and Brine, Inc. can help by encouraging the various

lacrosse constituents to move ahead. It is important that you do that because the

major manufacturers in the sport are obviously a key component in the current

and future success of the game and wield a key role in ensuring the welfare in the

sport. Moreover, it is my conclusion that it is in the interest of the key

manufacturers to do so and not any great political risk to them to advocate

implementation.241

Representing the financial component of moving behind the national-governing-body process, Harrigan sought to secure the manufactures’ support.

Prior to the upcoming meeting, Harrigan felt the need to respond to groups to explain that this overall effort was not a Lacrosse Foundation project. But he did indicate that “this project is not going to get done unless the Foundation continues to take the lead. It is that simple.”242 While lauding the role of the Lacrosse Foundation, in the same letter, Harrigan also challenged the Lacrosse Foundation’s total commitment to the merger process. “What the Board members of the Foundation need to recognize—and I am persuaded for multiple reasons that the majority of them do not—is that there is

239 Michael T. Harrigan to Peter Brine, 22 February 1995. US Lacrosse Papers. 240 “About Us,” Brine, 2013, http://www.brine.com/info/about/. 241 Michael T. Harrigan to Peter Brine, 22 February 1995. US Lacrosse Papers. 242 Michael T. Harrigan to Steve Stenersen and Jim Potter, 28 February 1995. US Lacrosse Papers. 99

NOTHING more important going on in the sport of lacrosse right now that is more important than this project. NOTHING.”243 Although not mentioned in Harrigan’s letter,

Potter included in his response that Harrigan’s retainer expired on February 28, 1995.244

The undertone of Harrigan’s accusations was that this contract had not yet been renewed.

The comment was an early articulation of multiple concerns regarding payment. Potter, clearly troubled by Harrigan’s challenge, clarified the Foundation’s commitment. He indicated that the Lacrosse Foundation had contributed $33,125 to the effort up to that point. He explained, though, that further financial backing would have to come from the

NGB Focus Group at the March 26, 1995 meeting.245 Perhaps indicative of mounting doubts with his performance, the group was slow to re-sign Harrigan.

Some of the key decisions and suggestions made at the meeting addressed groups’ concerns, but they also simultaneously demonstrated continued unrest and uncertainty.

First, no current organization was to be used as the corporate shell of the new national governing body. A new corporation would be formed. Second, there was no set timeline for a merger; “each group would be able to come in when it was ready, thus eliminating the pressure created by the train’s-leaving-the-station urgency.” Third, the men’s groups that were in support of the merger would start coming together. And fourth, a woman was to become co-chair of the NGB Focus group.246 Ford indicated at the meeting and to her constituency that USWLA would likely decide on whether to support a merger before

September of that year; and she would serve as this co-chair, but thought she should be

243 Ibid. 244 Jim Potter to Michael T. Harrigan, 10 March 1995. US Lacrosse Papers. 245 Ibid. 246 Notes from NGB Focus Group meeting by Susan Ford, 26 March 1995. USWLA Papers. 100

supported by the USWLA or someone else should be appointed.247 After reporting to the

USWLA on these changes, she followed up with Harrigan with further questions. One in particular was if the USWLA decided not to join a merged national governing body, would the new organization still have a women’s division?248 Essentially, if the USWLA decided not to merge, would there be competition for women’s lacrosse in the new organization? I saw no response from Harrigan, but the USWLA needed to know to what extent a future national governing body could impact the USWLA, whether it followed or not.

Although the USWLA was perhaps the most public in its apprehension with the merger, other groups expressed points of contention. Specifically, the NJLA was “not yet convinced that they’re going to be better off within than they are without.”249 Harrigan, in attempts to be proactive regarding this reluctance, suggested that he be a part of the individual group meetings in order to foster trust. He hoped that increased communication and involvement would “hopefully result in a positive cloture [sic] on the matter and a realization by the women (and other groups) that pursuing what has been recommended is in the best interest of the sport, either the men’s game or the women’s game.”250 Despite other groups’ doubts, Harrigan framed the USWLA as not only the most reluctant, but also the most misguided.

Harrigan’s payment was also a topic of conversation at the March 26, 1995 NGB

Focus Group meeting. Harrigan would not be involved until he had been paid for services

247 Ibid. 248 Susan [Ford] to Mike [Harrigan], 28 March 1995. US Lacrosse Papers. 249 Notes from NGB Focus Group meeting by Susan Ford, 26 March 1995. USWLA Papers. 250 Michael T. Harrigan to Susan Ford and Jim Potter, 29 March 1995. US Lacrosse Papers. 101

rendered and a new contract had been negotiated.251 Subsequent letters from Harrigan revealed that his definition of the sport’s commitment to the project was directly correlated to its usage of financial resources—specifically the checks paid to him. Just days after the meeting, Harrigan wrote Potter and Ford regarding numerous steps that needed to be taken. The majority of three of the four pages of the letter detailed the payments Harrigan deserved and his estimates of the separate organizations’ annual budgets. 252 The groups, according to Harrigan, were clearly not spending enough money on him.

Towards the end of 1995, there was rising discontent with Harrigan and his role.

An unsigned letter indicated that a meeting with Harrigan, Potter, and the USILA went poorly, and many coaches present at the meeting expressed distrust of Harrigan as a person, which then translated to distrust in the national-governing-body project.253 This response was the opposite that Harrigan intended through his attendance at group meetings. Harrigan stepped away for eight months, due to the payment dispute; he rejoined the project at the end of 1995.254 Starting November 1, 1995, the NGB Steering

Committee paid Harrigan’s fees.255 This payment was made possible by a $15,000 grant from the Lacrosse Foundation.256 In September, the USWLA also committed $3,000 to

251 Notes from NGB Focus Group meeting by Susan Ford, 26 March 1995. USWLA Papers. 252 Michael T. Harrigan to Susan Ford and Jim Potter, 29 March 1995. US Lacrosse Papers. 253 Unsigned letter to Jimmer [Potter], 5 December 1995. US Lacrosse Papers. 254 Michael T. Harrigan to Jim Potter, 2 February 1996. US Lacrosse Papers; Michael T. Harrigan to Jim Potter, 7 February 1996. US Lacrosse Papers; and Michael T. Harrigan to Jim Potter 19 February 1996. US Lacrosse Papers. 255 Memo by Jim Potter to NGB Steering Committee, 15 January 1996. US Lacrosse Papers. 256 Memo by Jim Potter to Lacrosse Foundation Board of Directors, 16 January 1996. US Lacrosse Papers. 102

the efforts.257 This move illustrated a change in the USWLA’s viewpoint. Still the group did not back the merger itself, but it was willing to participate and contribute financially to a project. Earlier, Ford stated that the USWLA would not support in principal until three criteria were met. Now, they were getting involved even without the three criteria having been explicitly met. The Lacrosse Foundation was the largest financial backer by far.

By May 1995, the CALL, USCLA, NJLA, USLCA, USLOA, and the Lacrosse

Foundation committed to the concept of a national governing body. USILA was supportive of the efforts, but was unsure if it would participate.258 The June meeting of the NGB Steering Committee was to be devoted to beginning the organization of the

Men’s Division of the national governing body.259 In 1995, Harvey Cohen, Counsel to the

NGB Steering Committee, “was given a green light to proceed with forming the corporation, US Lacrosse, Inc.”260 Any group who was ready to join could then start the process as of June 1, 1996.261

Continued Steps toward Merger

In January 1996, Harrigan presented another set of documents for review to the organizations involved in the dialogues prior to the upcoming Steering Committee meeting. These documents responded to specific questions from organizations as well as addressed the broad categories of financials, staffing, structure, and timing. Taken in

257 Susan S. Ford, “NGB Study Ongoing: USWLA Commits Funds,” Women’s Lacrosse, October/November 1995, 7. USWLA Papers. 258 Jim Potter to NGB Steering Committee Members, 18 May 1995. US Lacrosse Papers. 259 Ibid. 260 Susan S. Ford to Members of the Executive Board, 1 October 1995. USWLA Papers. 261 Ibid. 103

sum, a theme within the comments was the larger concern of control. For instance a prominent question was, would each organization lose its ability to run the programs it had previously? Harrigan assured them that the new national governing body would not take over the responsibilities of the established constituent groups; they would remain with the appropriate role in the new organization, except in the instance of overlap.

Similarly, in regards to financials, each group would maintain the budget for its allocated purpose. For example, the USWLA’s money would be used by the Women’s Division in the national governing body. Staffing remained an area where control would not reside within the departments and their correlated functions. Despite USWLA’s protests,

Harrigan asserted that the Lacrosse Foundation was the only organization of the group that had substantial staff that was knowledgeable about the game. He added that it would be unrealistic to fire the entire staff on a set merger date.262 This new round of recommendations attempted to assuage the groups’ concerns, but also established which requests were realistic in Harrigan’s view.

At the January 19, 1996 meeting, those present made multiple decisions and debated specific suggestions regarding the merger process. Most notably, it was decided that the Fritz Stude Corp would be the corporation that would change its name to USL,

Inc.263 The Lacrosse Foundation was not the corporate shell. In addition, it was proposed that there would be a one-year transition period during which the Lacrosse Foundation

262 Memo by Jim Potter to USWLA/IWLCA Officers, 16 January 1996. USWLA Papers. 263 Minutes of the NGB Steering Committee Meeting, 19 January 1996. USWLA Papers. There is no indication as to what this corporation was or why it was selected in the meeting minutes. Also, the documents referred to the new national governing body as USL, Inc. for a few months in 1996. In the majority of the documents, the national governing body was referred to US Lacrosse. I refer to the group as US Lacrosse throughout for consistency. 104

Executive Director (i.e., Steve Stenersen) and staff would remain in charge. Then, after that year, there would be a search committee for the position of Executive Director, but

Stenersen, as Executive Director of the Lacrosse Foundation at that time, “would be considered in view of his experience.”264 According to the minutes, the CALL, USCLA,

USLCA, USLOA, and NCAA were in favor of considering the current Lacrosse

Foundation Executive Director for the position at the US Lacrosse level, although

Stenersen was not named specifically in the minutes. The USILA did not want to commit, as it was unsure as to whether it supported the merger at all let alone this decision. Due to its affiliation with USILA (it supplied referees for the USILA) NILOA did not feel it could vote, if the USILA abstained. And the IWLCA and the USWLA both indicated they would present the idea to their members for their opinions.265 Even if not voting on pertinent decisions, the constituencies engaged in dialogues that took steps towards the eventual creation of unified group.

Despite these steps, Harrigan expressed a great deal of frustration with the lacrosse groups’ lack of progress. Now, more than three years since Harrigan’s initial involvement, many of the debates remained similar. The disparate organizations seemingly did not want to concede the powers that they had. He noted that:

Unfortunately, the inbred and longstanding fiefdoms are such that I doubt

seriously if the NGB will ever come into being, at least not in the form that is in

the best interest of the sport. Apparently, lacrosse is happy with its overlapping

and fiercely independent fiefdoms and I suspect it will continue that way when all

264 Minutes of the NGB Steering Committee Meeting, 19 January 1996. USWLA Papers. 265 Ibid. 105

is said and done, to the detriment of the sport’s best interests. It can still be

rescued but I see it all slipping away.266

At this point, the Lacrosse Foundation caused Harrigan a great deal of consternation because it was now a group that had to change. The organization seemed to fear its own demise; “The Lacrosse Foundation may want a continuation of the status quo, especially now that it has learned that its position is not secure even within the men’s lacrosse communities.”267

Harrigan implied that the Lacrosse Foundation was no longer invested in the overall project of a merger, once it realized that its own organization might not be the group into which others moved. Harrigan repeatedly challenged the Foundation’s frequent phrase that “the NGB project is the most important thing going on in lacrosse right now” and suggested that the Foundation deemed other matters to be of greater importance.268 Excluding Potter, Harrigan indicated that those involved in merger discussions clearly had not been reading his reports and updates and were posing questions that he had already answered. He also implied that meetings with him had been postponed or cancelled. In contrast, he applauded the USWLA’s frequent questions; at least the questions demonstrated engagement in the process and not a stalemate.269 This was a change in mindsets among the groups.

Harrigan’s Exit

266 Michael T. Harrigan to Jim Potter, 2 February 1996. US Lacrosse Papers. 267 Ibid. 268 Ibid. 269 Michael T. Harrigan to Jim Potter, 7 February 1996. US Lacrosse Papers. 106

During this time, members of the Lacrosse Foundation expressed concern that

Harrigan was not completing his job appropriately. There was a disagreement pertaining to the roles of the involved parties, (i.e., how Harrigan was to complete the tasks of his position). Harrigan indicated that Frank Riggs, President of the Lacrosse Foundation, did not understand the priorities needed to ultimately create a national governing body.270

The Foundation threatened to pull Harrigan’s funding in February 1996, and then on

March 6, 1996 the NGB Steering Committee, as represented by Jim Potter, informed

Harrigan that his services would no longer be required.271 Harrigan replied that his contract was not on a month-to-month retainer, and that they had requested his services through June 1996, the proposed launch date for the national governing body. He also challenged the Steering Committee’s authority to hire and fire, since it had not retained him in the past. Harrigan warned that if he was not paid what he was due, as no one had paid him since he was re-retained in November 1995, he would pursue legal action.272

Harrigan continued to remain in communication with Potter via letter correspondence regarding questions of his employment and the overall mission of the project. He outright accused the Lacrosse Foundation of using him as “a scapegoat for the

Lacrosse Foundation’s political agenda.”273 He specifically explained that the Lacrosse

Foundation intentionally withheld from members of the Steering Committee and constituent groups the plan that the Lacrosse Foundation would remain in existence in some form after the national governing body was created. Harrigan and Potter had been

270 Michael T. Harrigan to Jim Potter, 2 February 1996. US Lacrosse Papers. 271 Michael T. Harrigan to Jim Potter, 19 February 1996. US Lacrosse Papers; and Michael T. Harrigan to Jim Potter, 7 March 1996. US Lacrosse Papers. 272 Michael T. Harrigan to Jim Potter, 7 March 1996. US Lacrosse Papers. 273 Michael T. Harrigan to Jim Potter, 26 March 1996. US Lacrosse Papers. 107

aware of this in December, but since others were not, they had different expectations from Harrigan during the January meetings with the separate groups.274 In his own view,

Harrigan had been used as a “fall guy.”275 He maintained that he could not focus on transition issues, when the organizational structure had not yet been agreed upon. On

March 29, 1996 the Lacrosse Foundation issued what it thought would be the final check to Michael Harrigan for his services.276

True to his promise on April 30, 1996 the Law Offices of John A. McCahill contacted Stenersen and returned the Lacrosse Foundation’s final payment to Harrigan.

McCahill declared that Potter and the Lacrosse Foundation breached their contract with

Harrigan and Trigon Sports. He proposed a settlement and announced that if they did not decide to settle the matter, they would file suit on May 15, 1996.277 On May 14, John

West, representing the Lacrosse Foundation, replied and indicated that he was prepared to defend the legal matter, if McCahill would take him to court.278 Almost a year later, on

March 31, 1997, the claims were formally settled and dismissed with prejudice in the

Circuit Court for the City of Alexandria, Virginia.279

Formation of US Lacrosse

Without Harrigan’s guidance, the merger continued. US Lacrosse was still scheduled to come to fruition in June 1996. At that point, the USWLA had not yet decided how it would act in relation to the merger. As a result, the USWLA formally

274 Ibid. 275 Ibid. 276 Steven B. Stenersen to Michael T. Harrigan, 29 March 1996. US Lacrosse Papers. 277 John A. McCahill to Steven B. Stenersen, 30 April 1996. US Lacrosse Papers. 278 John H. West, III, to John A. McCahill, 14 May 1996. US Lacrosse Papers. 279 John H. West, III, to Steve Stenersen, 4 April 1997. US Lacrosse Papers. 108

asked the Steering Committee to delay the incorporation of US Lacrosse a year in order to give the USWLA time to explore its options further.280 In the end, the formation of US

Lacrosse was not delayed, but the stance of the USWLA was a primary topic of conversation at the first joint US Lacrosse/Steering Committee meeting on June 1, 1996.

At the meeting, Ford explained that the USWLA was interested in staying involved in conversations, but wanted to do so in an advisory capacity. Without the USWLA, US

Lacrosse decided to proceed with the administration of the men’s division. It would temporarily hold off on planning the Women’s Division.281

Further administrative decisions were made in 1996. At the June 24, 1996, meeting of the US Lacrosse Executive Committee, there was discussion of the importance of distinguishing between the Lacrosse Foundation and US Lacrosse. It needed to be clear that the Lacrosse Foundation was merging into US Lacrosse and not that the Lacrosse Foundation would turn into US Lacrosse.282 It was determined that the

Lacrosse Foundation would remain in existence as a fundraising body.283 In addition, the

NJLA unanimously approved to merge into US Lacrosse.284 The USWLA indicated that it would be a conflict of interest for its members to serve on the Executive Committee of the US Lacrosse; as a result, USWLA members were invited to attend meetings to participate but not to vote.285 In September, the Lacrosse Foundation held a vote to permit

“the regular operating activities of the Lacrosse Foundation, Inc. be transferred to and

280 Eileen M. Blackwood to Jim Potter, 29 May 1996. US Lacrosse Papers; and Minutes of the National Governing Body Steering Committee, 1 June 1996. USWLA Papers. 281 Minutes of the National Governing Body Steering Committee, 1 June 1996. USWLA Papers. 282 Minutes of the USL, Inc. Executive Committee Meeting, 24 June 1996. USWLA Papers. 283 Thoughts on Executive Committee Meeting, n.d. USWLA Papers. 284 Minutes of the USL, Inc. Executive Committee Meeting, 24 June 1996. USWLA Papers. 285 Barrett W. Freedlander to Lee D. Stevens, 26 June 1996. US Lacrosse Papers. 109

merged into United States Lacrosse, Inc.”286 Finally, on October 7, 1997 the IRS announced that the US Lacrosse, Inc. was a public charity and not a private foundation.287

It is a 501(c)(3) organization.288 US Lacrosse was formed.

Conclusion

US Lacrosse formed with the eventual inclusion at the Olympic Games as a primary point of emphasis. According to the Olympic Charter, each country could only have one national governing body for each sport. As a result, if lacrosse wanted to be added on the Olympic Program, the governance structure in the United States would have to change dramatically. Unique for lacrosse, though, was that not only would women’s lacrosse and men’s lacrosse merge organizationally, but conceptually they also needed to be understood as one sport.

During Harrigan’s era of involvement, the focus of the merger was clearly on the

Olympics. Undoubtedly this related to his previous experience in Olympic governance, but also the optimism present in the ideas of the merger. As long as Harrigan was involved, the Olympics were a focal point. Even if not overtly named, the Olympics remained an underlying motivation. Once US Lacrosse formed, the dialogues continued partially because the USWLA was not yet on board. The focus shifted towards how could the groups in favor convince those who were questioning or opposed to join. Domestic reorganization and alignment with the women of the USWLA was a much more prominent point of contention.

286 Barrett W. Freedlander to John Stalfort, 19 September 1996. US Lacrosse Papers. 287 Lawrence H. Berger to Steven B. Stenersen, 30 October 1997. US Lacrosse Papers. 288 Internal Revenue Service District Director to US Lacrosse Inc., 7 October 1997. US Lacrosse Papers. 110

Evidence of the desire to become part of the Olympics eventually remained a framing issue, if background, throughout the process. In a US Lacrosse-produced documentary copyrighted in 1998, the same year US Lacrosse officially opened, the narrator declared in the closing comments, “US Lacrosse has brought a new focus to the game that will lead one day to lacrosse as a full-fledged Olympic Sport.”289 The timing of the comment in the documentary implied a final statement and was the only auditory reference to US Lacrosse in the documentary. The Olympics were a primary goal throughout and after the national-governing-body process. Despite this focus, lacrosse in any iteration was still not an Olympic sport in 2013.

289 US Lacrosse, More than a Game. 111

Chapter 4

A Tale of Two Presidents:

USWLA and its Organizational Changes

After Michael Harrigan’s involvement in the US Lacrosse-merger process ended, the merger dialogues entered a new phase. The Olympics remained an end goal; Steve

Stenersen and US Lacrosse certainly did not and have not given up on that dream.290 But the frequent references to the Olympics in correspondence subsided. Instead, the tone of the dialogues shifted in two prominent manners. One, US Lacrosse was trying desperately to understand why the United States Women’s Lacrosse Association

(USWLA) was reluctant to join a merged national governing body. Two, the USWLA was deciding whether it would join and what structural demands needed to be met before the leadership would even permit the membership to vote on the merger itself.

Simultaneously, USWLA was also engaging in substantial structural reorganizations of its own.

In this chapter, I review the course of events that eventually led to the USWLA’s official incorporation with US Lacrosse as well as evaluate the means in which the various parties presented the events in question. Two different presidencies in the

290 In 2013 Stenersen is the President and CEO of US Lacrosse. His title changed in 2008, and there is no longer an executive director at the organization. US Lacrosse has an Olympic Development Subcommittee that focuses on the advancement of lacrosse to Olympic status. 112

USWLA exemplified conflicting views on the merger for women’s lacrosse, but actions and reactions of each highlighted the persistence of women’s lacrosse leadership to not join US Lacrosse until its needs were sufficiently addressed. Although the leadership, under the guidance of both Presidents Susan Ford and Cathy Samaras, fought for

USWLA’s demands in its negotiations with US Lacrosse, I demonstrate that the USWLA was inconsistent in its message during its final years of operation. With the leadership repeatedly shifting its point of focus, the USWLA could not dedicate itself to a single stance or issue. If the leadership could not agree, how could it possibly challenge the problematic foundations of the merger itself?

USWLA before the Merger

In order to comprehend the gravity of the structural changes in which the organization engaged, it is imperative to understand how the USWLA functioned on its own. Prior to the merger, the USWLA was a membership-driven, volunteer-run organization. Several of those I interviewed referred to the USWLA as a part of the

“bake-sale mentality.” Priscilla Anderson, former National Umpiring Committee (NUC)

Chair and the first under US Lacrosse, explained the USWLA as a “bake-sale kind of network where volunteers either gave up their time or baked goods to raise money to run the program.”291 Laurette Payette, NUC Chair in 2013, confirmed this concept as well and stated “you didn’t really ask people to pay for things or . . . pay for a clinic.”292

Anderson elaborated further.

291 Anderson, interview. 292 Payette, interview. 113

Priscilla Anderson: We put a lot of volunteer hours in, and that's what the makeup

was right along. . . and these were all people that had a whole life that they could

do this. So this was their full-time work so to speak. And it's what made it

work.293

Volunteers who approached the organization as if it were their full-time employment sustained it and fulfilled its goals and missions; the group ran on free labor and donated time.

USWLA raised the money it needed to operate from membership dues and small- scale fundraising efforts. Pat Dillon, former USWLA Rules Committee Chair, explained that the USWLA’s “bake sale” consisted of T-shirt sales.

Pat Dillon: We’d sell T-shirts and it was the big thing back in USWLA. Oh God.

T-shirt sales to fund our team to go to World Cup and T-shirt sales to fund

national tournament. It was just, it was that kind of mentality versus now with US

Lacrosse and a merged organization where you have somebody, you know, in the

sponsorship and marketing [department] who’s going to approach Nike for, “we'd

like you to be,” or Champion, “be the convention sponsor” ($100,000

sponsorship) and this in advertising or whatever. No: we’d be selling T-shirts. So

that's just the night and day difference.294

In contrast to people donating their time or personal funds, US Lacrosse employed individuals in specific fundraising departments to acquire large financial contracts and sponsorships. The scale was simply smaller in comparison.

293 Anderson, interview. 294 Dillon, interview. 114

This assumption of service and minimal fundraising was present in the USWLA’s administrative management as well. Without a formal national office, the USWLA had a position called Home Office. Sue McVaugh held the position twice and she explained her role in the following manner:

Sue McVaugh: There were no hours or anything. If someone wanted something

. . . they would call, and then I would write out an invoice and stick it in and send

out a rulebook or manual or whatever it was. . . . I had office hours four hours a

day, a separate phone line, a separate fax line, a computer. I printed the labels

from my own house. . . . I had a room dedicated to the office, and it was a long

line of book shelves and I just had all of the supplies on the various shelves, you

know rulebooks, drill books, manuals, and if somebody called and said, “Can you

give me a print out of all the officials in Ohio?” I could do that.295

McVaugh could not recall if she had been paid a nominal sum for her time, but the work certainly extended beyond the official four hours. The Home Office ran all of the administrative workings for the entire organization. When she completed her service in that capacity, she “drove the Home Office in a U-Haul to Massachusetts.”296 The organizational materials were few enough that they fit within a U-Haul vehicle that she operated herself. Although small and volunteer run, USWLA, the national organization for women’s lacrosse, offered services to its members and existed for sixty-seven years in that manner. If the USWLA decided to merge, which of course in the end it did, a joining with US Lacrosse would mean a substantial shift in scale in finances and resources.

295 McVaugh, interview. 296 Ibid. 115

President 1: Susan Ford

The focus of Susan Ford’s presidency, which began in July 1995, was to prepare the USWLA for multiple eventual outcomes. In order to edify her constituencies, she disseminated information widely to the leadership and to the membership and equipped those involved with the knowledge necessary to make educated decisions. Evidence of this desire to inform all parties included frequent articles in the USWLA newsletter, invitations for non-board members to attend board meetings, calls for USWLA members to submit their opinions in writing, and the conduction of a phone survey. Throughout the processes, Ford emphasized that having a conversation about the merger in-and-of-itself was not indicative of support of the merger; it was information to enable a decision.

Regardless of whether the leadership desired to join the national governing body,

Ford encouraged the members to support being part of the national-governing-body process. She coined it a “pay-for-play proposition.”297 Through being involved in the negotiations, the USWLA would impact how the new group would be constructed. Once the process was complete, the USWLA could ultimately then decide if it wanted to join.

She explained to the USWLA Executive Board, “Whatever direction we go, staying the course begins with your commitment to being on board and taking a turn on watch.”298

She encouraged surveillance of the situation and a presence at the table. As evidence of that position the Executive Board voted on September 17, 1995, to support the national-

297 Susan Ford, “National Governing Body Questions and Answers,” Women’s Lacrosse, July 1995, 7. USWLA Papers. 298 Susan S. Ford to Members of the Executive Board, 1 October 1995. USWLA Papers. 116

governing-body concept in principal and committed $3,000 to the efforts, which helped pay for Harrigan’s salary.299

As Ford supported the USWLA being a part of the process, she simultaneously sought to reorganize the USWLA structurally. Then the USWLA would have a strong foundation regardless of the outcome. The transition to US Lacrosse would move more easily or the USWLA would be able to continue to operate autonomously but with a solid base. As was, the organization as structured was simply not able to meet the needs of the membership and the continued growth of the sport would make the structure even more inadequate. She claimed, “We need an upgrade. This should be a positive change too, because after all we’ve earned it!”300 Perhaps the biggest example of structural change was the creation of the position of Executive Director. This individual would assist in the transition, be the Women’s Division head under US Lacrosse, and apply for the

Executive Director of US Lacrosse.301 The USWLA Executive Director would report to the President and the Board and aid them as needed. Ford explained, “If we have an executive director combined with a statement detailing specific conditions to be met, that may provide just the kind of safety net people—even those who favor the merger—need to see.”302 The merger was an opportunity for the USWLA to reevaluate its structure, whether or not it decided to join the men’s lacrosse organizations.

299 Susan S. Ford, “NGB Study Ongoing: USWLA Commits Funds,” Women’s Lacrosse, October/November 1995, 7. USWLA Papers. 300 Susan Ford, “National Governing Body Questions and Answers,” Women’s Lacrosse, July 1995, 7. USWLA Papers. 301 S. Ford to Mike Harrigan, 9 December 1995. USWLA Papers. 302 Ibid. 117

In an effort to explain the multiple possibilities for change, Ford posed that the

USWLA could also downsize. As a national governing body for women’s lacrosse, it could still focus on its top priorities, perhaps writing the rules and certifying umpires and coaches. Through such control, the USWLA could still “GUARD THE GAME.”303

Maintaining the integrity of the game was the biggest concern for many of the members.304 The USWLA maybe would not operate on as grand a scale as a women’s division of US Lacrosse would, but the USWLA would still maintain its top priorities, such as writing the rules and certifying umpires and coaches. She did not indicate at this point in the dialogues which model she supported, but instead attempted to prepare for all of the multiple possibilities. Ford ultimately supported disseminating information widely.

In line with that belief, she repeatedly shared with the leadership and membership the positive and negatives of multiple decisions.

Evidence of her desire to be upfront, in the beginning of 1996, Ford released a document on “Framing the Future” to the USWLA membership to explain what she saw as the relevant information on the process as well as the positives and negatives of a merger.305 The positives related to ideas of growth and access to resources. Through the merger, lacrosse organizers would be able to share staff, to not duplicate tasks, to have access to more groups across the country, and to share funds and space. The negatives pointed to competition and divided services. For instance, another group could try to take over or challenge the USWLA’s jurisdiction over the rules of women’s lacrosse (either

303 Susan Ford, “National Governing Body Questions and Answers,” Women’s Lacrosse, July 1995, 7. USWLA Papers. 304 Ibid. 305 “Framing the Future,” January 1996. USWLA Papers. 118

the NCAA or the new national governing body), and that these new ideas of competition could lead to more changes in the USWLA, as opposed to future changes being decided by the organization itself.306

Armed with information, the USWLA Board eventually approved a plan of action almost a full year after it committed funds to the merger effort. It was “to continue to negotiate and be a presence at the table with USL, Inc., and, at the same time, to strengthen the internal administrative mechanisms within the USWLA through tasks like amending the bylaws, reorganizing membership and developing a strategic operating plan.”307 This duality of roles became the constant for the USWLA—trying to expand itself as it was trying to decide whether to merge.

As part of these efforts, effective July 27, 1996 Dottie McKnight became the

Executive Director of the USWLA.308 McKnight explained that her role as Executive

Director, a part-time position, was to support the President and the Board and not to make final decisions herself. She led the administrative efforts. In contrast, the President would promote her individual platform, but the Board and the President were the ones who made decisions for the group.309 Although McKnight did not have a history of extensive involvement in women’s lacrosse, she did in women’s sports. McKnight had been the head women’s basketball coach at the University of Maryland and for twenty years had been the President and Managing Owner of Athletic and Sport Consultants, Inc.

Practically speaking, McKnight also already had office space, so the USWLA did not

306 Ibid. 307 Susan Ford, “From the President’s Desk,” Women’s Lacrosse, August 1996, 1, 7. USWLA Papers. 308 “USWLA Mc-Knighted,” Women’s Lacrosse, August 1996, 1. USWLA Papers. 309 McKnight, interview. 119

need to expend funds on property or a lease.310 It was able to balance cost effectiveness and the appearance of a professional organization.

Continuing in the spirit of exploring possibilities, in September 1996, the

USWLA hosted its own symposium for lacrosse entitled “Direction 2000: A Symposium for the Future of Women’s Lacrosse.”311 The USWLA leadership sought the guidance of prominent leaders of women’s sport in general, who had experienced organizational changes themselves, to discuss the future of women’s lacrosse as well as to celebrate the success of women athletes at the 1996 Summer Olympic Games and the twenty-fifth anniversary of Title IX. Donna Lopiano, Executive Director of the Women’s Sports

Foundation, was the featured speaker and Carole Oglesby of Temple University was the facilitator.312 Both were former Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women

(AIAW) Presidents who had previous experience in organizational transitions.313 They identified “paramount considerations” that would be the basis for a strategic operating plan for the USWLA, while simultaneously discussing the merger with the men’s organizations. Collectively the items reflected the need to respect the history and to continue the traditions of the women’s game, to maintain unique aspects of the women’s game, and to sustain women’s leadership while also growing the game, regardless of the final governance structure.314 Throughout these interactions, it was evident that preserving the women’s sport as such was a critical matter to the membership.

310 McKnight, interview; and Ford, interview. 311 Fax by Susan S. Ford to Steve Stenersen, 23 September 1996. US Lacrosse Papers. 312 Susan Ford, “From the President’s Desk,” Women’s Lacrosse, November 1996, 1, 4. USWLA Papers. 313 In Chapter 5 I elaborate on the importance of the AIAW in this process. 314 “Paramount Considerations,” Women’s Lacrosse, November 1996, 1. USWLA Papers. 120

To aid in the navigation of such goals, the USWLA formed its own negotiating team to go to the table with US Lacrosse. The formation of this committee was, again, in no way a commitment to a merger.315 This committee contained representatives from the seven constituent groups of the USWLA—officers, college coaches, schoolgirls, umpires,

US squad, post-collegiate club players, and staff. It was charged with presenting a proposal to the USWLA Executive Board. It would need to clarify specifically for the board answers to the USWLA’s top two priorities: “1. A governance structure, from the national level to the grass roots, which guarantees through appropriate structure, language and method, autonomy to the women to set policy and direction for and administer all aspects of the women’s game and 2. A financial plan which guarantees, again through structure, language and method, equity in representation and allocation.”316 Ford had felt consistently that women had a stake in this project even if they decided not to join; as a result, the USWLA Negotiating Team would need to get involved to “shape at least some of the pieces of this new organization so that they look like and act like and do what women need; and so that, in turn, a merger can be a realistic option for the USWLA to consider, on its own merits, by virtue of what it can provide, having been built in many important ways, by women for women.”317 Through its involvement, the USWLA could help create an organization it would want to join, an organization that would meet its needs. Ironically, though, through these conversations, the USWLA would also help

315 Susan Ford, “From the President’s Desk,” Women’s Lacrosse, November 1996, 1, 4. USWLA Papers. 316 Susan Ford, notes from meeting of the USWLA Negotiating Team and US Lacrosse, 6 March 1997. USWLA Papers. 317 Susan Ford to Dottie [McKnight], 2 March 1997. USWLA Papers. 121

create viable competition that would operate on a broader scale, if it decided not to join the national governing body efforts.

The USWLA Negotiating Team expressed the broader group’s concerns to US

Lacrosse. In the spring of 1997, the USWLA Negotiating Team met with US Lacrosse representatives on two occasions.318 The overarching concerns expressed in these meetings notes were similar to those articulated throughout the process. In these meetings, the USWLA membership’s general reasons for reluctance were acknowledged, specifically that the USWLA was being taken over by a men’s group, that the merger was

“happening too fast,” that the differences in philosophy were significant, and that “it’s not working, but it’s still mine.”319 This was a universal reference to ownership. In addition to the overarching matters mentioned, there were specific questions related to whether the Lacrosse Foundation staff was being used as the staff for the new organization, how USWLA funds would be allocated if the group would join, and how would the Women’s Division function under the larger organization.320 The persistence of issues may indicate that the USWLA was unwilling to move on from these questions, but it may also suggest that they were not receiving answers that adequately addressed their concerns.

The USWLA Negotiating Team located two primary structural areas in need of revision in the merger plans—governance and finances—and elaborated on these areas in

318 The negotiating team consisted of: Susan Ford, Dottie McKnight, Sue McVaugh, Feffie Barnhill, Eileen Blackwood, Ashley Duncan, Erin Brown, and Joanne Brew. 319 Susan Ford, notes from meeting of the USWLA Negotiating Team and US Lacrosse, 6 March 1997. USWLA Papers. 320 Ibid. 122

the report presented to the USWLA Board on May 23, 1997.321 The negotiating team presented its own recommendations for structure. Similar to the proposed US Lacrosse structure, the USWLA committee called for two divisions for men and women, but instead of divisions called them separate associations, the Women’s Lacrosse Association and the Men’s Lacrosse Association. Their primary question regarding finances was what would happen after the first year after the merger was complete; US Lacrosse had already indicated that each organization’s budgets and programs would remain intact for one year after merging. What would happen the subsequent years was the concern of the team.

They posed that the Women’s Lacrosse Association and the Men’s Lacrosse Association would each develop plans and have them reviewed by the respective boards. Fundraising and joint measures would be run though the US Lacrosse finance committees.322

The USWLA Negotiating Team identified three potential outcomes of their report. The first, the USWLA Executive Board would approve the team to continue working with US Lacrosse with the goal of creating a merger plan; second, the Board would direct the team to end negotiations and to remain independent; and third, the

USWLA Executive Board would approve the team to continue working with US

Lacrosse with the goal of creating a merger plan and would identify specific areas of concern in the negotiating process.323 The outcome of the board meeting was only to determine whether talks should continue and, if so, what format the talks would be in.

The meeting was not intended as a time to vote on the merger. At the meeting, the board

321 Report of the Negotiating Team, n.d. USWLA Papers; and Susan Ford to USWLA Executive Board, 14 May 1997. USWLA Papers. 322 Report of the Negotiating Team, n.d. USWLA Papers. 323 Susan Ford to USWLA Executive Board, 14 May 1997. USWLA Papers. 123

decided to continue to negotiate with US Lacrosse, to draw up a merger plan, and to place advisors on the US Lacrosse Board of Directors.324 The vote was 24-4-2.325 More negotiations were to come. Under the subsequent USWLA President, this vote proved to be a source of contention.

In the same spring, USWLA also hired a consultant who would be involved in the remainder of the process. In April 1997, Michele Uhlfelder First Vice-President of the

USWLA and the Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee announced communications with a facilitator, Barry Fader, co-owner of Invision Growth, a venture capital and strategic consulting firm. In addition, Fader was a former men’s lacrosse player.326 He was to lead a three-day strategic planning session June 6-8, 1997. After the meeting,

Fader would compile the ideas expressed and then send out a questionnaire to the Board of Directors.327 Ultimately, a strategic plan would be the outcome.

Ford was invested in progress and moving forward during her presidency. She valued the USWLA history, but was concerned that the history could prevent the future.

She wrote that she was:

reminded of the realities of doing business with a system so rooted in the past that

it cannot function efficiently or effectively in the present. . . . to be successful in

324 Susan Ford to USWLA Advisors to the US Lacrosse, Inc. Board of Directors, 27 June 1997. USWLA Papers. 325 Cathy Samaras to USWLA Representatives to USL, 30 July 1997. USWLA Papers. The USWLA Board was quite large. The board members represented the following positions: Officers (President, First Vice President, Second Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer); Districts (Central, Deep South, Midwest, New England, Philadelphia, and South); Club Associations (California-South, California-North, Chesapeake, Colorado, IWCC, Maryland Colleges, New England Colleges, Northwest, Philadelphia-First, Philadelphia- Second, Virginia, and Washington); Girls Associations (California-South, Chesapeake, Empire, Florida, Long Island, Midwest, New England, New Jersey, Northwest, Pennsylvania, Santa Barbara, and South); Constituencies (Rules, Umpires, Squad Coach, Squad, and IWLCA). 326 Michele Uhlfelder to Finance Committee, 12 April 1997. USWLA Papers. 327 Michele Uhlfelder to Board of Directors, 23 June 1997. USWLA Papers. 124

today’s world, organizations need to be streamlined in order to function in ways

that “get things done.” So, while we will always be able to point to our roots with

pride, we must also recognize the real benefits of becoming an organization which

can “take off” to take advantage of various opportunities—which seldom knock

twice.328

In this excerpt, Ford described a shift away from the bake-sale mentality under which the

USWLA operated and towards a professional sport model. Not formally named, but, as I demonstrated in the preceding chapter, the structure that informed the opportunity she responded to in this quotation was the Olympic-sport model. Although the Olympics were not a motivating factor for Ford, the drive for the Olympics informed this entire opportunity she described.

One of Ford’s missions in her presidency was to devise and implement a strategic plan for the USWLA. She was unable to accomplish this in its entirety during her term, but she did set the wheels in motion. During her term, the USWLA actively engaged in the dialogues and committed to impacting the purpose and structure of the end organization. Simultaneously, the USWLA began the process of rebuilding itself. Dottie

McKnight was hired as the Executive Director, a first glimpse of a professional model for the USWLA. Although Susan Ford was no longer involved with the USWLA in a formal position, she remained involved in the merger talks as an informal advisor to US

Lacrosse. She resigned her position as Past President on June 10, 1997; partially due to

328 Susan Ford, “From the President’s Desk,” Women’s Lacrosse, November 1996, 4. USWLA Papers. 125

her conflicting views with the next President, Ford did not think she would be helpful to the President in a formal capacity.329

President 2: Cathy Samaras

In contrast to Ford, Cathy Samaras, the next and final President of the USWLA, appeared to focus on an anti-merger stance. Samaras’s platform, as published in the

USWLA newsletter in January 1997, described a desire to expand the USWLA. For instance, she claimed:

As we approach the year 2000, our direction should take us to expansion, internal

growth and self-empowerment. We’re going to get stronger and bigger within.

This life within will radiate with enthusiasm which reflects caring and begets

action. Coupled with our passion for the sport—this transition to a new century is

alive with spirit . . . catch it!330

These statements were prophetic of her stance during her term as President of the

USWLA. Although Ford also wanted the USWLA to grow as an organization, her interests laid in preparation for what was to come. Samaras’s presidency focused on strengthening the USWLA on its own, as an independent group.

Immediately at the start of her term, Samaras was intent on clarifying the relationship between US Lacrosse and the USWLA. Samaras was concerned that the vote to continue conversations with US Lacrosse and to serve in advisory positions on the board was misinterpreted to have the groups “blend together unnoticed by the USWLA

329 Susan Ford to USWLA Advisors to the US Lacrosse, Inc. Board of Directors, 27 June 1997. USWLA Papers; and Ford, interview. 330 “New Officers Look to the Future,” Women’s Lacrosse, January 1997, 4. US Lacrosse Papers. I contacted Samaras for an interview in the same manner as I contacted others but received no response. 126

membership. . . . A quick move in the May meeting to observe at the USL [US Lacrosse] meetings has been confused to mean a melding into their committees.”331 She seemed to believe that US Lacrosse and the former USWLA President Ford were essentially staging a coup. As a result, Samaras wanted to create a new committee, a Liaison Committee, with an active USWLA Board Member as chair, since Susan Ford resigned as Past

President.

Samaras halted all USWLA communications with US Lacrosse. Two individuals specifically removed were Susan Ford and Val Walchak, Chairperson of the Insurance

Committee.332 Ford already resigned, but Samaras clarified that relationship with US

Lacrosse as well. She requested that everyone who served as USWLA Representative to

USL no longer serve “until we can fully understand our position.”333 In addition, she notified Ford that she was “no longer authorized . . . to act on behalf of USWLA, Inc. in any capacity,” which included any committee position with US Lacrosse.334 Samaras notified Barrett Freedlander, US Lacrosse President, that if Ford were to be on the US

Lacrosse Executive Committee, it was not in relation to the USWLA.335 Despite this clarification, Ford stayed involved in the efforts, but in a less formal role. She remained in frequent communication with Stenersen.

Walchak left her position as well. She had been Insurance Committee Chairperson since 1980, and Samaras changed insurance providers for the USWLA without notifying

331 Cathy Samaras to USWLA Representatives to USL, 30 July 1997. USWLA Papers. 332 Through archival documents, it is clear that there were some professional misgivings among Samaras, Val Walchak, and Susan Ford. However, I do not have documentary evidence to support how and why these divisions occurred. 333 Cathy Samaras to USWLA Representatives to USL, 30 July 1997. USWLA Papers. 334 Cathy Samaras to Susan Ford, 30 July 1997. USWLA Papers. 335 Cathy Samaras to Barrett Freedlander, 8 August 1997. USWLA Papers. 127

Walchak. According to a letter addressed to Walchak, Samaras disapproved of Walchak’s presence at a US Lacrosse meeting. “If you are observing the insurance dealings of USL, on your own, as a fact-finding mission, that is your business. But don’t confuse our directives from the Board in May.”336 Walchak did not represent USWLA in this meeting, according to Samaras.

Thereafter, Walchak was told not to attend an upcoming Board Meeting; she went anyhow and had what she described as an almost violent interaction.

Val Walchak: After the meeting was over, I went up to the President and asked if

I could speak to her. And she came right up to me . . . and . . . she said, “Do you

want to go outside and duke it out?” And it kind of made me more angry, but I

said “I want to talk to you. And you want to go outside.” . . . I said, “No I don't

want to.” But I said, “Before we start, you’re in my personal space and I would

appreciate if you'd give me some room here.” And then I just . . . told her how I

felt. . . how I felt it was very rude that I had done so much work, especially

insurance, and everything else, and tonight [without] giv[ing] me the courtesy of

letting me know, you know that she had gone to another provider for the

insurance. Completely just . . . dropped us. . . . I was upset for the organization

because my whole focus had always been, protect the organization.337

After Walchak left, she worked with US Lacrosse in a similar capacity as US Lacrosse

Insurance Chairperson.

336 Cathy Samaras to Val Walchak, 30 July 1997. USWLA Papers. 337 Walchak, interview. In her description of the interaction, Walchak did not refer to Samaras by name. She referred to her as “the President,” but the documents clearly indicate who held the position at the time. 128

Evident from the archival documents and in line with this interaction between

Walchak and Samaras, during the final year of the USWLA’s existence there was a heightened sense of frustration between the USWLA and US Lacrosse. Emblematic of this tension were the multiple responses to a listserv posting. “Dave” posed a series of questions regarding the merger and specifically queried about women’s lacrosse. He wrote: “The women’s organization, the USWLA, had serious doubts about joining. Of course it’s hard to imagine Rugby Football and American Football in the same national governing body just because they use the same ball, have the same physical goals and both are contact sports. Men’s and women’s lacrosse use the same ball, the same physical goals, mouth guards and the same stick until the net is strung.”338 This question pointed to the repeated claims of difference between men’s and women’s lacrosse and implied a sense of understanding if the women desired not to join the merger.

Steve Stenersen posted a lengthy reply to “Dave’s” questions, a reply that sparked a great deal of consternation amongst the members of the USWLA. Stenersen specifically pointed out that the new leadership opposed a merger and cut off communications.

The executive leadership of the USWLA will not even return phone calls at this

time, let alone sit down to discuss US Lacrosse. It appears that there is a growing

rift within the USWLA between executive leadership that wants to retain

independence and power, while ignoring what’s happening all around them, and

338 Lacrosse listserv positing by Steve Stenersen to [email protected], 20 August 1997. USWLA Papers. 129

the general membership of the USWLA who simply want what’s best for the

long-term interests of women’s lacrosse.339

Without identifying specific individuals by name, Stenersen publically expressed frustration with members of the USWLA leadership and challenged their motivations.

Stenersen concluded his entry with his understanding of the relationship between men’s and women’s lacrosse.

US Lacrosse believes that men’s and women’s lacrosse are two different versions

of the same game—lacrosse—and that much more can be accomplished if men’s

and women’s lacrosse are unified under one central administration than if they are

fighting against each other for resources and exposure. Although men’s and

women’s lacrosse are different—and should remain that way—there is far more to

be gained from cooperation. Let’s face it, where men’s lacrosse develops,

women’s lacrosse soon follows . . . and vice versa. The games are universally

linked, and should remain that way. Both men’s and women’s lacrosse will

benefit greatly by working together under US Lacrosse.340

The response to Stenersen’s post was swift. The next day Dottie McKnight,

USWLA Executive Director, wrote a letter to Stenersen stating that he “managed to stir up most of the sleeping demons and have caused incalculable damage to negotiations between our organizations though this writing.”341 She explained to him that mergers are

339 Ibid. 340 Ibid. 341 Dorothy B. McKnight to Steve Stenersen, 21 August 1997. USWLA Papers. 130

difficult situations and that “words and tone of voice must indicate merger not takeover.”342

Stenersen’s next response expressed frustration with the current status of negotiations with the USWLA. He challenged the lack of public dialogue on the merger issue; there had not been any articles in the USWLA newsletter in 1997, whereas there had been several the years prior.343 And he questioned the motives behind several decisions that appeared intent on undermining the progress of US Lacrosse. For instance, the removal of USWLA advisors to the US Lacrosse Board, the decision to focus on the youth game, the efforts to reevaluate the insurance program, and the reinterpretation of the USWLA Executive Board’s vote to continue to meet with US Lacrosse and plan a merger document.344

Although this exchange sparked heated emotions on both fronts, it did not engage with, what I would argue to be, the extremely relevant concern of “Dave,” namely that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse were substantially different and was an organizational merger the appropriate forum for two distinct games. Neither group challenged this conversation, and each focused more on assertions of power and control than the roots of the sports.

After the rapid and argumentative line of communication in response to “Dave’s” post, the groups reengaged in formal organizational dialogues but did so cautiously and inconsistently. Samaras reinstated the USWLA Negotiating Team in September as well.

342 Ibid.. 343 Steven B. Stenersen to Dottie McKnight, 25 August 1997. USWLA Papers. 344 Dorothy B. McKnight to Steve Stenersen, 21 August 1997. USWLA Papers. 131

Feffie Barnhill returned as chair.345 She also met with Barry Fader, the consultant who ran the Visioning Conference in June earlier in the year.346 Fader proposed that his company, InVision Growth, assist the USWLA in evaluating the merits of merger and then aiding with implementation, if that path were to be selected.347 He offered that his company be involved in all four steps of the proposal-writing process (preproposal, proposal, negotiation, and implementation); US Lacrosse indicated that it anticipated

USWLA would create a merger proposal. On October 1, 1997 the USWLA Executive

Committee voted to accept Fader’s proposal to represent USWLA.348 Samaras invited

Fader to the process with a letter entitled “Welcome to the jungle!”349 This was, perhaps, an apt description of the organizational environment during the preceding three months.

US Lacrosse’s frustrations with the USWLA only increased. Freedlander contacted Samaras at the end of the month to discuss US Lacrosse’s invitation for representatives of the USWLA to attend the US Lacrosse Board Meeting in October

1997. He explained that when USWLA representatives were invited to attend meetings, it was presumed that the USWLA would be working on a merger plan. Now, US Lacrosse indicated it did not know “where the USWLA stands in terms of merger.”350 Freedlander questioned whether the USWLA’s presence was still appropriate. Perhaps adding credence to some of Samaras’s concerns, Freedlander indicated that he did not feel it was

345 Fax by Feffie Barnhill to Negotiating Team, 16 September 1997. USWLA Papers. 346 Fax by Barry Fader to Cathy Samaras, 19 September 1997. USWLA Papers. 347 Ibid. 348 Dorothy B. McKnight to Barry Fader, 1 October 1997. USWLA Papers. 349 Cathryn L. Samaras to Barrett W. Freedlander, 10 October 1997. USWLA Papers. It is unclear from where the money for such negotiations came. Walchak did note in her interview that the behavior of the USWLA Board shifted from the past, such as meeting locations and menu during the meetings. There was a pattern of openly spending more than in the past. Walchak, interview. 350 Fax by Barry Fader to Cathy Samaras, 19 September 1997. USWLA Papers. 132

appropriate for USWLA representatives to be there if the USWLA was not actively working on a merger plan. He requested written documentation of such a plan.351

Samaras responded on October 10, 1997 and replied that “the USWLA is quite serious about the merger issue and is moving forward.”352 She also explained that by the end of the month they would have a date for a merger presentation.

US Lacrosse seemed to want to work with the USWLA but also seemed to be willing to move forward even if the USWLA did not want to work with it. Freedlander responded to Samaras yet again, explaining that “Formation of a women’s division of US

Lacrosse is consistent with our mission to build the game for both sexes. We hope that the USWLA will work with us to develop the women’s division of US Lacrosse.”353 This sentence implied that US Lacrosse was intent on having a women’s division whether the

USWLA joined or not. This tone is mirrored in the October US Lacrosse marketing plan as well as the November/December 1997 issue of Lacrosse Magazine. The cover included a title line “US Lacrosse: Teaming up for a better sport!” coupled with an animated rendering of US Lacrosse members. Noticeably, the image included women players, coaches, and umpires.354 In addition, in the accompanying article, US Lacrosse stated “Whether or not the USWLA decides to merge, US Lacrosse remains committed to the representation and support of both men’s and women’s lacrosse.”355 US Lacrosse intended to include women’s lacrosse even if the USWLA decided against the merger. It would govern both men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse regardless.

351 Ibid. 352 Cathryn L. Samaras to Barrett W. Freedlander, 10 October 1997. USWLA Papers. 353 Barrett W. Freedlander to Cathy Samaras, 5 September 1997. USWLA Papers. 354 Lacrosse Magazine, November/December 1997. 355 “The Dawn of a New Day: US Lacrosse is Born!” Lacrosse Magazine, November/December 1997, 21. 133

US Lacrosse asserted its primacy in lacrosse governance through publications. An

October 1997 letter to all youth programs and administrators explained that “effective

January 1, 1998, US Lacrosse will serve as the national governing body for US lacrosse and continue the tradition of promoting and developing the game.”356 Samaras passed a copy on to all USWLA officers and asked, “Do we have any avenues open to stop them from pretending to be what we ARE? They are NOT the national governing body for women-does saying it make it so? . . . They can’t be the NGB because we are.”357

This was not the first time a grammatical article was the center of discussion.

Earlier in the year, in February 1997, the Lacrosse Foundation sponsored a publication entitled, Coaching Youth Lacrosse. Included in the text was a message from US Lacrosse, which was identified as “the national governing body for the sport of lacrosse.”358 At that time, Susan Ford, as President of the USWLA, contacted Freelander to demand that the line be removed before the document was distributed. As representative of the USWLA, she noted that there were two national governing bodies for lacrosse. US Lacrosse served as the national governing body for men’s lacrosse, but the USWLA was the national organization for women’s lacrosse. Freelander responded that the Board of US Lacrosse agreed to remove the language from the book with the inclusion of a sticker over the phrase in question.359 Despite the fact that Ford had already taken on this issue, US

Lacrosse engaged in a similar rhetorical battle later in the year.

356 Joseph R. “Jody” Martin to all Youth Programs and Administrators, 8 October 1997. USWLA Papers. 357 Cathy Samaras to Officers, 21 October 1997. USWLA Papers. 358 Susan S. Ford to Barrett W. Freedlander, 11 February 1997. USWLA Papers. 359 Barrett W. Freedlander to Susan S. Ford, 14 February 1997. USWLA Papers. 134

USWLA planned its response. Fadar advised against pursuing legal action.

Instead, he suggested that he meet with Stenersen and Freedlander. He then could

“establish a straightforward working relationship with USL, unobstructed by past relationships and minimally affected by the emotions surrounding the merger issue.”360

The identification of US Lacrosse as the national governing body suggested that US

Lacrosse had already taken over the USWLA’s role, when the latter organization still existed and had not even voted to merge.

The USWLA leadership returned to the USWLA newsletter as a means to communicate with its membership. Samaras explained that the USWLA needed to change its approach towards lacrosse in order to be competitive. “Our volunteer-based governing body must step in time with the pulse of global athletics. Development, rules, marketing, administration and image packaging must take on the profile of a competitive entity.”361 She hinted at proposing an alternative governance option—USWLA as a business. Although it may appear that the USWLA was trying to progress outside of and maybe even up against US Lacrosse, Samaras also updated the membership on the US

Lacrosse discussions within the same article. She explained, “We are in the midst of professional negotiations with the board of USL, Inc. While things look positive, we must maintain our own game.”362 In the same issue, Barry Fader introduced himself and his role to the membership.

An outsider appeared to enable a less heated dialogue, as tensions quickly rose amongst the key figures. On December 4, 1997, representatives from US Lacrosse met

360 Barry [Fader] to USWLA Officers, 22 October 1997. USWLA Papers. 361 Cathy Samaras, “Making the Connection,” Women’s Lacrosse, November 1997, 1. USWLA Papers. 362 Ibid. 135

with the USWLA. At this meeting, there were several issues discussed—some resolved, others noted as a specific area of work. One thing that the USWLA promised was a timeline; by December 12, 1997, they would provide US Lacrosse with the date when the

USWLA Board would have its decision on the recommendation for merger.363 Such dates would also be relevant to the USWLA’s role in helping select a Women’s Division

Director in US Lacrosse. Just two days after this meeting, the USWLA Board met and hashed out some of these dates.364 In mid-February merger information would be distributed to board members, March 7-8 the Board would vote on whether the vote would go to the membership, March 15 US Lacrosse would receive a letter of intent if

USWLA recommended the merger, mid-March merger information would be sent to

USWLA members, and on April 17 the final USWLA members votes would be counted.365 The USWLA was moving towards merger.

Stenersen responded to Fader and his efforts positively. He indicated that he was

“extremely enthused about your [Fader’s] leadership in helping the USWLA to focus its future on US Lacrosse, and that US Lacrosse remains committed to its efforts to work with the USWLA to develop a merger proposal.”366 Coupled with his enthusiasm remained points of contention. There were specific and broad reaching concerns that were discussed at the December 4th meeting that were not addressed in the meeting notes, and he requested that they be added to the next meeting’s agenda. One of his points specifically addressed communication. “In order for a successful union between the

363 Key notes from meeting of representatives of US Lacrosse and United States Women’s Lacrosse Association, 4 December 1997. USWLA Papers. 364 Barry Fader to Steve Stenersen, 12 December 1997. USWLA Papers. 365 Barry Fader to Steve Stenersen, 12 December 1997. USWLA Papers. 366 Steven B. Stenersen to Barry Fader, 23 December 1997. US Lacrosse Papers. 136

USWLA and US Lacrosse to result, we must work together in an atmosphere of trust, in the spirit of cooperation, with the utmost integrity, and under the premise that change and evolution are both inevitable and, if well-planned, positive. US Lacrosse is concerned that USWLA representatives who serve on the US Lacrosse board and who do not represent these ideals will undermine the mission of the organization.”367 This quotation was reminiscent of the tone used to describe the merger conversations when Carole

Kleinfelder was USWLA President; Stenersen was yet again frustrated by the lack of communication and demanded more.368 In addition, though, the underlying tone presumed the only positive step was merger and that all of those involved in the talks should feel similarly. Throughout the conversations, Stenersen and the Lacrosse

Foundation and then US Lacrosse remained consistent in its push towards merger. The

USWLA was not in comparison. Likely, Stenersen was relieved that engagement was rekindled.

Prior to the agreed upon deadlines, the US Lacrosse Representatives and USWLA

Board met two more times—on January 27, 1998 and February 7, 1998—to work through remaining issues.369 As a result of these meetings, the groups compiled a list of agreed upon changes to the proposed bylaws.370 Included in these changes was a provision. It stated:

367 Ibid. 368 Kleinfelder preceded Ford as President of the USWLA. I address some of her arguments in the next chapter. 369 Fax by Steven B. Stenersen to Larry Berger, Barrett Freedlander, Spook Hilgartner, and Jim Potter, 30 January 1997. US Lacrosse Papers; and Fax by Barry Fader to Steve Stenersen, 29 January 1997. US Lacrosse Papers. 370 “USWLA-US Lacrosse Agreements for Merged Organization,” 18 February 1998. USWLA Papers. 137

The respective leadership of the USWLA and US Lacrosse recognize that, with

all the good faith discussion and intentions demonstrated to develop this set of

agreements by which a merged organization would operate, a cohesive, unified

organization is not guaranteed. Both parties recognize the rights of either

organization to separate after such merger should it determine it appropriate to do

so and recognize the rights of each organization to the identity, funds, and

constituency it brought into the merger. The parties agree that, for a period of two

years after the effective date of a merger, each shall have the right to dissolve this

merger after it has, in its estimation, exhausted its reasonable avenues to resolve

the issues causing consideration for such dissolution.371

The USWLA would have an out and this provision was important to many. If the members did not like what they entered into, they had an option to leave as an organization.

Cathy Samaras’s presidency exhibited a distinct approach towards the merger as compared to Susan Ford’s. While Ford focused on the dissemination of information and restructuring the USWLA, Samaras appeared to prioritize the strengthening of the

USWLA solely. So much so in fact that she seemingly rejected those who had been involved with US Lacrosse. This was particularly noteworthy, as Samaras was present at the Lacrosse Symposium in 1992, which was the first time the goal of creating a national

371 Ibid. 138

governing body for men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse was publically declared.372 She too had connections with the Lacrosse Foundation and US Lacrosse.

The USWLA Vote

The USWLA was moving towards a merger decision in the spring of 1998. Prior to the membership’s involvement in the process, the Executive Committee needed to vote as to whether the membership would have the opportunity to vote as well. In order to get a sense of how the Executive Committee representatives should vote, some board members polled the groups they represented. For instance, Sue McVaugh, NUC chair, asked the NUC members to turn to their areas and to inquire as to how the officials felt about a merger. She noted, “I will be asked to represent the 1000 plus umpires by casting a vote at the Board meeting. I don’t think that we can decide this just amongst ourselves.”373 In a letter distributed to NUC members and umpiring chairs, McVaugh stated, “No matter what the outcome, we must go forward united, so please help me to represent you accurately.”374 She even distributed a questionnaire so that she would understand her constituencies’ concerns and attempt to answer them and vote in line with their preferences. The Executive Committee vote then involved all USWLA members directly and indirectly.

Ultimately, the board decided to send the vote to the membership. It passed the following motion:

372 I have found no recorded evidence of her view on the Lacrosse Symposium, but she was one of the invited participants. 373 McVaugh to National Umpiring Committee, 24 September 1997. Priscilla Anderson Papers. Private Collection (hereafter cited as Priscilla Anderson Papers). 374 Sue McVaugh to NUC Members and Local Umpiring Chairs, 25 February 1998. Priscilla Anderson Papers. 139

The Executive Board adopt [sic] a resolution to approve the plan of merger with

US Lacrosse as presented and direct [sic] that the plan be submitted to the

members entitled to vote there upon at a special meeting by mail ballot as follows:

Now be resolved that the plan of merger is approved and the officers are

empowered to direct the Executive Director to submit the plan to a special

meeting of the members by mail ballot as provided for in the by-laws with all

ballots to be post marked on or before April 17, 1998 and to take any and all steps

reasonable and advisable to effectuate the above.375

The motion passed 34-2-2; the two abstentions represented the voters whose phone connections were lost.376 It was decided that the vote would go out to the adult membership on March 16, 1998.377 Information would be available on the USWLA website for all members to review. 378

After the meeting, USWLA utilized its newsletter as a means to communicate the potential positives of the merger with the members. In the USWLA newsletter, McVaugh described the meeting as “deceptively calm.”379 At the meeting, Negotiating Team Chair,

Barnhill, indicated that the “package on the table represented the best scenario for a single men [sic] and women’s organization.”380 In the same newsletter, President Cathy

Samaras exhibited a rare, almost pro-merger tone. She explained, “Our goal has been and continues to be to promote participation and excellence in the traditional game of

375 Minutes of the Special Executive Board Meeting, 7 March 1998. USWLA Papers. 376 Ibid. Priscilla Anderson recalled the outcome of the vote as one margin. According to the written records, the vote was what I note in the text. Anderson, interview. 377 Minutes of the Special Executive Board Meeting, 7 March 1998. USWLA Papers. 378 Sue McVaugh, title indecipherable, Women’s Lacrosse, March 1998, 1. Priscilla Anderson Papers. 379 Ibid. 380 Ibid. 140

lacrosse. The merger will not affect this goal, but will provide us additional resources to attain it as we move from volunteerism to a structure that will be a better vehicle to promote and expand our game.”381 In this simple statement, she pointed to women’s lacrosse as the purer form as compared to the unnamed men’s game and also highlighted the opportunity to move women’s lacrosse to a more effective and professional model. In addition, she expressed a more favorable tone towards merger than she had previously.

She simultaneously demonstrated a tone of frustration about the process and her presidency, though. “If the decision is made to merge, I want to finally begin doing what

I was elected to do—promote the game of women’s lacrosse.”382 It is also imperative to note that on page 13 of this newsletter issue US Lacrosse included a job posting for the

US Lacrosse Women’s Division Director. It began: “As a result of the pending merger of the United States Women’s Lacrosse Association into US Lacrosse.”383 This inclusion suggested a presumption that the USWLA would vote in favor of the merger. In addition, the language indicated a swallowing as opposed to a partnership, with the usage of “into” instead of “with.” The merger appeared inevitable.

However, this issue also maintained a critical edge of the merger. Just a page after her initial article, Sue McVaugh wrote a piece on the change of services that members would receive. She noted:

Less than 24 hours after returning from the March USWLA Executive Board

Meeting, I was saddened and angered to receive a phone call from a UWSLA

381 Cathy Samaras, title indecipherable, Women’s Lacrosse, March 1998, 1. Priscilla Anderson Papers. 382 Ibid. 383 “Position Available: US Lacrosse Women’s Division Director,” Women’s Lacrosse, March 1998, 13. Priscilla Anderson Papers. 141

Officer. The purpose of the call was to inform me that the USWLA newsletter,

Women’s Lacrosse, would not complete its publication schedule this year, [sic] in

fact would only publish this issue and one more. It seems that even before the

USWLA membership has voted on the merger we are giving up services. No

Publications Committee has met—or even been appointed—no USL Women’s

Division has been organized, and already the newsletter has been eliminated in

the minds of some. . . . If we are “merging” shouldn’t our publication be

considered equally?384

She concluded this piece with “Should this David be unequal to Goliath’s might, let me thank you for all of the articles, letters, and photos that you have sent over the years.”385

This quotation was relevant in that it posed a literary analogy about underdogs, but here the smaller ones would not likely reign victorious. The USWLA would not survive these debates.

In the end, the USWLA members voted in favor of the merger. Of 2,746 potential ballots, 688 were returned—a 25% rate of return. (2,798 ballots were mailed, but 52 were returned with bad addresses.) The membership voted overwhelmingly in favor of the merger; 572 voted “yes” and 116 voted “no.”386 Although the return rate was low, undoubtedly frustrating for the leadership, as this issue consumed and divided the board for years, the majority clearly supported the change.

Aftermath

384 Sue McVaugh, title indecipherable, Women’s Lacrosse, March 1998, 2. Priscilla Anderson Papers. 385 Ibid. 386 Dottie McKnight to Executive Committee, n.d. USWLA Papers. 142

USWLA officially dissolved and the sport of women’s lacrosse became part of

US Lacrosse’s jurisdiction. In June the US Lacrosse Board of directors approved the merger of the USWLA “with and into” US Lacrosse.387 USWLA would effectively join

US Lacrosse on August 1, 1998, which was the beginning of US Lacrosse’s fiscal year, and USWLA closed its doors on September 30, 1998.388 Dottie McKnight completed her tenure as USWLA Executive Director when the lease on her office space expired.389 On

December 11, 1998, the Women’s Division of US Lacrosse approved its bylaws.390 In

1999, the US Lacrosse and the USWLA finally reached an agreement to the terms of merger.391 The USWLA was no longer operational.

The resulting governance structure of US Lacrosse illustrated a concerted effort to represent men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse equally. The overall organization was divided into two divisions, the Men’s Division and the Women’s Division. Then, the

Executive Committee of the US Lacrosse Board of Directors included eight positions, with an intentional alternation in leadership roles. Meaning, the Chair and the Secretary came from the same division (Men’s Division or Women’s Division) and then the Vice

Chair and Past Chair came from the same division. This measure ensured that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse had an equal opportunity to head the entire organization.

387 Resolutions of the Board of Directors, June 1998. US Lacrosse Papers. 388 US Lacrosse, “Overview of Structure, Policies, and Procedures” Version XVI, 1 November 1998. US Lacrosse Papers. 389 McKnight, interview. 390 “Women’s Division of US Lacrosse, Inc., Bylaws,” 11 December 1998. US Lacrosse Papers. 391 Lawrence H. Berger to Cathy Samaras, 18 February 1999. US Lacrosse Papers; and Lawrence H. Berger to Francis G. Riggs, 14 July 1999. US Lacrosse Papers. 143

Other Executive Committee positions were Treasurer and Council (each of these were non-voting and gender neutral) and two At-Large (one from each division).392

The entire US Lacrosse Board of Directors also incorporated council representation. Councils served as a means for the membership to communicate with the board their concerns for specific aspects of the games. The council representation on the board included the following: athletes, coaches, officials, post-collegiate clubs, at-large, affiliated organizations (NCAA), collegiate clubs, regions, and youth. With the exception of affiliated organizations and youth, each council’s representation to the board was divided equally from the men’s sport and the women’s sport. Youth was classified as gender neutral. In total, the board included as many as thirty-four voting members.393

US Lacrosse also altered the structure for local involvement as well, not just how governance would be addressed at the national level. The Lacrosse Foundation divided its members in chapters and had forty-five chapters in total. The USWLA utilized a district structure and had twenty-seven districts. The Men’s Division and Women’s Division leadership had to still meet to decide how the old systems would be unified into a new structure, according to the sixteenth version of the US Lacrosse Structure, Bylaws, and

Policies, and Procedures.394 In the end, a hybrid of both systems resulted.

As of June 16, 1998, the following organizations had merged or planned to merge into US Lacrosse: the National Junior Lacrosse Association, the United States Officials

392 US Lacrosse, “Overview of Structure, Policies, and Procedures” Version XVI, 1 November 1998. US Lacrosse Papers. Although it is unclear as to whether or not this is the final version, based on the version number and the date of the document, I am assuming that this structure is close to the final version if not the final version. 393 US Lacrosse, “Overview of Structure, Policies, and Procedures” Version XVI, 1 November 1998. US Lacrosse Papers. 394 US Lacrosse, “Overview of Structure, Policies, and Procedures” Version XVI, 1 November 1998. US Lacrosse Papers. 144

Association, the National Intercollegiate Lacrosse Officials Association, and the United

States Lacrosse Coaches Association, the United States Club Lacrosse Association, the

Lacrosse Foundation, the United States Women’s Lacrosse Association, and the Central

Atlantic Lacrosse League.395 The United States Intercollegiate Lacrosse Association decided that it would wait and see how US Lacrosse functioned before it would join.396 In

September, US Lacrosse had documentation that the “USILA Associate members voted in August, [sic] 1998 to break away from the USILA and merge into USL.”397 The organization would not join as a unit, but some of its members would. US Lacrosse clearly anticipated that the Intercollegiate Women’s Lacrosse Coaches Association would

“follow lead” of USWLA, however, the group never joined US Lacrosse and remains a separate organization.398 On September 12 and 13th, USWLA held a meeting to discuss

US Lacrosse committee restructuring. At this meeting, it was approved that USWLA should recommend to US Lacrosse that the IWLCA be an Affiliated Sports

Organization.399

Conclusion

During its final years of existence, the USWLA leadership was divided. Two different presidents with their differing approaches towards and views on the merger delivered inconsistent messages to the USWLA membership. In contrast to the Lacrosse

Foundation and US Lacrosse organizationally, the USWLA’s frequent changes in leadership and subsequent approaches limited the USWLA’s ability to deconstruct the

395 “Status of Merger Transactions,” 16 June 1998. US Lacrosse Papers. 396 Ibid. 397 “Status of Merger Transactions,” 15 September 1998. US Lacrosse Papers. 398 Ibid. 399 USWLA Motions, 12-13 September, 1998. USWLA Papers. 145

Lacrosse Foundation and US Lacrosse’s messages and to examine the underlying issues, as they related to the sport of women’s lacrosse. Instead, the USWLA invested a lot of energy in fighting itself. In addition, when US Lacrosse decided to include a Women’s

Division, with or without the support of the USWLA, it left the USWLA with few options. A small organization with limited funds would have experienced great difficulties as it attempted to compete with a fully funded national governing body.

146

Chapter 5

Here We Go Again:

An Analysis of USWLA’s Leaders’ Motivations for and Concerns with the Merger

The women of the United States Women’s Lacrosse Association (USWLA), not surprisingly, had varying views on the merger; it is not possible to say that they were either all for or against the idea. Although the final membership vote was overwhelmingly in favor of a merger into US Lacrosse, the leadership involved in the organization expressed trepidation and doubt regarding the process. Some were openly in support of the change and others openly opposed. But many who were in support demonstrated a concessionary tone; if a larger men’s organization expressed interest in women’s lacrosse, the leaders of women’s lacrosse should be involved in the process from the beginning in order to impact the foundation of the new group. The women were also keenly aware of the power of men’s sporting organizations. Several interviewees overtly discussed their knowledge of or involvement in earlier organizational mergers and acquisitions in women’s sport and knew that they wanted to avoid those past outcomes. The male dominance of US American sport and the historical patterns of women’s sport organizations conflicting with men’s sport organizations played prominent roles for many women in making their decision about how to vote.

147

In this chapter, I explore the myriad of reasons in favor of and in opposition to the merger from the perspective of the USWLA’s leadership.400 Based on organizational publications and interviews with prominent participants in the merger process, I argue that even those who approved of a merger seemingly did not vote in favor because of their desire to join the sport of women’s lacrosse with the sport of men’s lacrosse.

Instead, multiple constituencies voted in favor because of their desire to grow the game, have access to increased resources, and to be involved in what may have been an inevitable change. US Lacrosse was forming a Women’s Division regardless of the

USWLA’s decision to join or not. Although all relevant and valid concerns for a sport organization to consider, these arguments rarely addressed the core questions: were men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse the same sport? If not, then would an organizational merger of groups that represent distinct sports be appropriate? The inclusion of individual opinions, through published pieces and in interviews with me, suggested that people did understand these to be different sports and that did impact their view on the merger. Despite that, the question of should two different sports be merged, did not play a prominent role in the organizational dialogues.

Past Governance Changes in Women’s Sports

Women’s sport history in the United States contains numerous examples of governance changes; the idea of men’s sports organizations attempting to acquire the responsibilities or to take over the control of women’s athletics was repeated multiple

400Although the members were a relevant factor in the decision, as evidenced by the vote itself, I did not have a means to gauge their responses or views on the process unless they submitted letters that the USWLA published in its newsletter.

148

times within the twentieth century. One of the earliest ideological battles extended over multiple decades in the first half of the century. These debates circulated around questions of what form should physical activity for women take on and what role should women play in women’s physical activity and athletics. At the core of the disjuncture was competitive sport.

Various groups of women’s physical educators collaborated to contest the

Amateur Athletic Union’s (AAU) attempts to stake claim over women’s sport.401

Women’s physical educators adopted the credo “a sport for every girl” and “every girl in a sport,” which also implied that the sport was designed for the needs of women generally, as opposed to the women specializing in a particular sport.402 In order to accomplish this goal, they advocated for female coaches, as women would understand the constitutions and limits of other women.403 In so doing, they also advocated for a system that offered them job security.404 The women physical educators then set the terms for women’s athletic endeavors that were connected to educational institutions.

401 The organizational workings of this era are particularly complicated and at times confusing, due to the overlapping membership, affiliations, and ideals of the groups. Some included were the Committee on Women’s Athletics (CWA), the Women’s Division of the National Amateur Athletic Union (NAAF), the National Section of Women’s Athletics (NSWA), the National Association for Physical Education of College Women (NAPECW), and the Athletic Federation of College Women (AFCW). Although each association had a unique role, for the purposes of this dissertation, I refer to leaders of these groups as Women’s Physical Educators—a term that reflects their common professional ideals. For a detailed account of the groups interactions, see Joan S. Hult, “The Governance of Athletics for Girls and Women: Leadership by Women Physical Educators, 1899-1949,” in A Century of Women’s Basketball: From Frailty to Final Four, ed. Joan S. Hult and Marianne Trekell (Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 1991). 402 Cahn, Coming on Strong, 62. 403 Hult, “Governance of Athletics.” 404 Historian Martha Verbrugge explained that when men’s and women’s separate programs at colleges and universities considered consolidating, women’s physical educators resisted the efforts. Comparatively, the men’s programs, which focused on athletics, differed vastly from the women’s physical education programs. Joined departments could lead to increased oversight and loss of control at the institution and in the profession. Martha H. Verbrugge, Active Bodies: A History of Women’s Physical Education in Twentieth-Century America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). 149

Contrastingly, within the AAU, men held the primary leadership positions.405 In addition, the AAU and Olympic model demanded elite-level participation and the commercialization of sport.406 The AAU’s understanding of women’s athletics did not necessarily embody the ideals of the women’s physical educators.

The merits of the declarations within this debate could be assessed in regards to gender dynamics and expectations of gender, race, and class during that era.407 An analysis of these ideas is outside the scope of this dissertation. What is pertinent to this work is the reality and the beginning of a trend of men’s sport organizations with men in leadership positions challenging the women’s physical activity and athletics that consisted of women in leadership positions. Ultimately, historian Susan Cahn described these interactions as ending in a “stalemate;” none of the groups gained convincing control over women’s competitive athletics.408 Although early physical education women did not lose their control over governance in this instance per se, it is indicative of a pattern that continued throughout the twentieth century. Future generations of women’s leaders in sport would in fact lose their leadership roles.

AIAW and the NCAA

Later in the century, women’s leaders in women’s sports encountered similar battles to those of their predecessors at the beginning of it. Yet again, the women’s

405 Historian Robert W. Ikard argued that although physical educators wanted women to coach women, there was no training of women coaches. Thus, men often coached women’s teams as well and some even resented having to coach both. But the anti-competition model that women’s physical educators supported did not include the contests that the AAU hosted in its leagues. Robert W. Ikard, Just for Fun: The Story of AAU Women’s Basketball (Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 2005). 406 Hult, “Governance of Athletics.” 407 For an excellent analysis of not only the events but also the social ideologies at work in the dialogue, see Chapter 3 “Games of Strife: The Battle over Women’s Competitive Sport” in Cahn, Coming on Strong. 408 Cahn, Coming on Strong, 82. 150

educational model of athletics was situated in opposition to the men’s commercial model of sport. The Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) was the organizational offspring of the early women’s physical educators and was formed in 1972 from the Division for Girls and Women in Sports (DGWS).409 Although the women of the AIAW supported competition to an extent, an ideological shift from previous generations, the AIAW promoted education over competition. Similar to the earlier debates, AIAW also strove to avoid exploitation, both exploitation of the female athletes as sex objects and exploitation of the athletes in a win-at-all-costs model. After the passage of Title IX and the organizational battles between the AIAW and the National

Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), women largely lost their governing control of intercollegiate women’s athletics.

The Cold War was at least a large part of the NCAA’s impetus for interest in women’s sport. Due to a correlation of successful American male Olympians and their participation in the NCAA, the NCAA understood women’s sports as an opportunity. The battle for control of women’s sports began then as a fight with the AAU, as a broader quest to control amateur athletics. The same group that earlier women physical educators battled now clashed with the NCAA, in the 1960s. The NCAA then actively took meetings with women’s leaders in athletics but still indicated that it was an organization for men only.410

409 DGWS was also under the broader organizational umbrella of the American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation. 410 Ying Wushanley, Playing Nice and Losing: The Struggle for Control of Women’s Intercollegiate Athletics, 1960-2000 (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2004). 151

Women’s leaders in sports attempted a proactive approach, in response to the

NCAA’s increased presence in women’s athletics. The DGWS formed an affiliated group, the Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (CIAW) in 1966, which then in 1972 converted to the AIAW as an independent organization; this offered the group the opportunity for members and staff. The CIAW announced in 1967 that it would begin hosting national championships for women’s sports. It established its claim over women’s intercollegiate athletics before the NCAA could.411

Repeatedly throughout the decade, the NCAA attempted to affiliate with the

AIAW on numerous occasions, but through the interactions it was clear that the NCAA understood a potential affiliation to be an assertion of control on its part rather than a collaboration of equals; the AIAW would be under the NCAA’s umbrella of power.412 An example of a specific proposal literally stipulated that the leaders of the AIAW would serve as a Women’s Division under the NCAA. Then the women’s physical educators would have been required to follow the dictums of the NCAA. Needless to say, this proposal was drafted without input from the AIAW.413

Contemporaneously with the NCAA and AIAW debates was the passage of Title

IX. Title IX, enacted in 1972, incited ideological battles of sex, athletic participation, and education. Title IX of the Education Amendments Act stated, “No person in the United

States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving

411 Ibid. 412 Ibid. 413 Festle, Playing Nice. 152

Federal financial assistance.”414 Because in the United States athletics are affiliated with educational institutions, interscholastic and intercollegiate sports would also need to meet the demands of the law. Debates pertaining to how schools needed to achieve compliance with the law ensued after its passage. At the time of the passage of Title IX, collegiate institutions often separated women’s and men’s athletic departments.415

Title IX added an additional complication to the question of intercollegiate governance of women’s athletics. Festle identified a two-prong plan of the NCAA’s in relation to Title IX. “It would lobby hard to stop the government from mandating equal opportunity in athletics, but in case that failed it would keep the possibility alive of taking over women’s sports.”416 Part of this strategy included the Tower Amendment. Senator

John Tower of Texas presented an amendment to Title IX that would essentially exempt revenue-producing sports from the law’s breadth. This amendment was defeated, but it demonstrated a concerted effort by the NCAA and other sport advocates to maintain the status quo in men’s intercollegiate athletics.417 Once it became apparent that the schools would be required to offer equitable athletic opportunities, as defined by the law, for men and women, the men’s organization focused on how to incorporate women’s sports into their organization and how to generate a profit.418

By the end of the 1970s, AIAW had shifted its embodiment of the educational model and fully engaged in a commercial model. It permitted scholarships and had

414 Linda Jean Carpenter and R. Vivian Acosta, Title IX (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2005), 3. 415 Cahn, Coming on Strong. 416 Festle, Playing Nice, 130. 417 Festle, Playing Nice. 418 Cahn, Coming on Strong. 153

television, albeit unsuccessful, contracts.419 Soon after the group articulated its formal anti-scholarship policy, it faced a lawsuit. In 1973, a group of women filed suit against the AIAW and other defendants and claimed that the AIAW rule that prohibited women who had received athletic scholarships for athletics from participating in AIAW national championships was discriminatory.420 In the end, the AIAW revised its policy on scholarships and called for increased regulations thereof.421 This shift in view was significant because it illustrated the AIAW’s desire to remain in control as opposed to remaining consistent with its stated ideologies.422 It was additionally noteworthy because women brought the lawsuit against a policy established by women for women’s sports.

Some collegiate women athletes openly desired the commercial model of sport.423 A prominent public example of this shift in thinking was Billie Jean King and her successful professional tennis career. Her then husband, Larry King, made her aware of sex discrimination in collegiate athletics when he had a scholarship as a tennis player, and she did not despite being arguably the best athlete at their school, Los Angeles State

College. As a woman, she was not eligible for an athletic scholarship.424 Women athletes desired competition and activity fought in order to acquire those opportunities, which suggested that an anti- or limited-competition model may have already been outdated.

419 Wushanley, Playing Nice and Losing. 420 Wushanley, Playing Nice and Losing. The lawsuit, Kellmeyer, et al. v. NEA, et al., was against the National Education Association; the American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation; the DGWS; the AIAW; the National Association of Physical Education of College Women; the Florida Commission of Intercollegiate Athletics for Women; and the Southern Association for Physical Education of College Women. 421 Wushanley, Playing Nice and Losing. 422 Ibid. 423 Ibid. 424 Susan Ware, Game, Set, Match: Billie Jean King and the Revolution in Women’s Sports (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011). 154

Although NCAA member institutions repeatedly voted down measures for the

NCAA to start hosting women’s national championships, the NCAA continued its efforts to stake a claim on women’s intercollegiate sport. By the 1981-1982 academic year, the

NCAA was slated to host national championships for women.425 Women’s lacrosse was one of the sports that hosted a NCAA Division I championship that year.426 In addition, by the late 1970s, institutions had to follow Title IX regulations; as a result, member institutions struggled with how to handle split governance for men’s and women’s athletics, when, by law, men’s and women’s athletics needed to be treated equitably.

Different structures limited the extent to which that could occur.427

An ensuing legal battle ultimately led to the demise of the AIAW. In 1981, the

AIAW filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA to prevent the NCAA from sponsoring national intercollegiate women’s championships. In 1983 the court entered judgment in favor of the NCAA. Part of the judge’s ruling related to the increased occurrence of integrated organizations in amateur sport.428 AIAW’s demand for separate but equal was antithetical to the ideas of equality. Led by physical educators, the AIAW leadership seemingly managed their finances poorly and spent too much on legal fees to survive.

Legal costs were the organizations number one expense, and during the years it offered national championships, it spent a far greater percentage on legal fees.429

425 Wushanley, Playing Nice and Losing. 426 “Lacrosse: National Collegiate,” NCAA, 2000, http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/champs_records_book/1999-00/w_lacrosse.pdf. 427 Wushanley, Playing Nice and Losing. 428 Ibid. 429 Wushanley, Playing Nice and Losing, 117. For instance, on average the AIAW spent 21.5 percent of its income on legal fees and only 8 percent on its national championships. 155

Historians disagreed somewhat in their interpretation of the AIAW/NCAA interactions. Ying Wushanley and Mary Jo Festle agreed on the basic course of the events, but the tone with which they interpret the actors vary. Namely, Festle presented the NCAA as an organization that callously pushed AIAW to the side and took over its duties without consent. She, too, was critical of the leaders of the AIAW but more so sympathetic. They internalized the gender dynamics, therefore believing that women were not as physically capable as men. Their ideas were outdated, but reflective of dominant gender expectations of the time. Wushanley presented the AIAW as a hypocritical and outmoded organization whose leaders advocated for policies that were no longer appropriate for women who desired to participate in competitive and elite athletics.430

Wushanley additionally argued that in the end the ideological differences between the AIAW and the NCAA became less relevant due to the course of law. The legal documents and court decisions demanded equity under the law, so men’s sports and women’s sports could not have different forms in educational institutions. The structure of men’s sports was the cultural norm, so men’s sport operated as the standard.431 In sum, the framing of the law after gender equity limited how sports could be organized.

Changes in Women’s Sport

The NCAA’s assumption of the AIAW’s duties also impacted women’s lacrosse at the collegiate level. Prior to the NCAA, both the USWLA and the AIAW ran tournaments for women’s lacrosse. In 1978, USWLA ran its first sanctioned collegiate

430 Festle, Playing Nice; and Wushanley, Playing Nice and Losing. 431 Wushanley, Playing Nice and Losing. 156

championship tournament and in 1981 the AIAW ran a national championship for women’s lacrosse.432 The NCAA sponsored its first Division I National Championship in

1982.433 Feffie Barnhill, former William and Mary women’s lacrosse coach and member of the USWLA Negotiating Team, briefly discussed in our conversations how the NCAA affected women’s collegiate lacrosse.

Feffie Barnhill: The hard part came when the AIAW was beginning to fold and

there was a gap of a couple of years where the NCAA didn't really embrace

women's lacrosse. It did basketball, but they didn’t lacrosse. And there was a

group of leaders who said, “Well the AIAW is folding, but that doesn't mean we

can't run a lacrosse tournament.” So then in the record books, if you look back I

think there were three years . . . that . . . the US[WLA] ran a national collegiate

championship.434

Barnhill explained that although the NCAA was starting to create tournaments for women’s lacrosse, she did not feel that the NCAA was truly in support of the sport. She implied that the NCAA was more interested in making a profit than supporting the smaller sports.

After the NCAA started a Division I championship, the USWLA offered a championship structure for Division II and Division III because the NCAA did not. It was on a much smaller scale than what the NCAA offered at the Division I level; the teams

432 Jana Friedman Brown, “From Obscurity to International Prominence: An Amazing Century for Women’s Lacrosse,” Lacrosse Magazine, August 1999; and “Women’s Lacrosse Timeline,” US Lacrosse, 2009, http://www.uslacrosse.org/UtilityNav/AboutTheSport/Overview.aspx. 433 “Women’s Lacrosse Timeline.” 434 Barnhill and Claydon, interview. 157

themselves had to pay for their own expenses. The NCAA then began offering Division

III championships in 1985.435

Feffie Barnhill: It was like, okay, do we really want to try to compete against the

NCAA? . . . So everyone was filling in the gaps trying to make the best for the

opportunity. It was all based on not everyone can play, but at least we can do

something for a weekend or a Friday/Saturday or Saturday/Sunday, out of school,

people get together and at least it can be claimed as a championship.436

Based on Barnhill’s description, the USWLA and the AIAW attempted to offer opportunities to participate but knew that what they offered was smaller than what the

NCAA could support. Rather than directly competing against the NCAA, they hosted championships in arenas that the NCAA did not address. Notably, though, Barnhill stated: “Everyone was in support [of the AIAW].” It was important to many for women to run women’s sport.437

After the aforementioned administrative battles, what Barnhill and others appreciated about the AIAW was a reality no more. Women’s presence in coaching and administrative positions decreased dramatically. To illustrate this point, physical education and legal scholars Linda Carpenter and Vivian Acosta have conducted a longitudinal study since 1977, between the years of Title IX’s passage (1972) and the release of Title IX’s regulations (1979). In 1972 over 90% of women’s intercollegiate

435 “Lacrosse: National Collegiate,” NCAA. 436 Barnhill and Claydon, interview. 437 Ibid. 158

teams across all sports were coached by women.438 In 1992, the year of the first Lacrosse

Symposium that openly included a discussion of the creation of a national governing body for men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse, the percentage of women coaches of women’s teams in all intercollegiate sports at all divisions was 48.3% and in 1998, the year the USWLA merged into US Lacrosse, it was 47.4%.439 For coaches of women’s lacrosse specifically, the percentages remained higher for coaching positions, but between the years beginning the merger talks and ending them, the percentages noticeably shifted from 95.7% to 86%.440

For athletic directors the trend was similar, although the context slightly different.

In 1972 over 90% of schools had female athletic directors for any separate female program. Using the same years as watershed dates for lacrosse, 1992 saw 16.8% and

1998 19.4% of all divisions had female athletic directors of joined athletic departments.441 After Title IX enforcement began, men’s and women’s athletic departments at colleges and universities united, which almost always resulted in men holding the head athletic director positions.

The changes in leadership positions were starkly different than participation on a whole. As a point of comparison, the number of female intercollegiate athletes overall rose dramatically. Prior to Title IX, in 1970, schools had 2.5 women’s teams on average.

438 R. Vivian Acosta and Linda Jean Carpenter, “Women in Intercollegiate Sport: A Longitudinal, National Study Thirty-five Year Update, 1977-2012,” (unpublished manuscript, n.d.), 17, http://acostacarpenter.org/AcostaCarpenter2012.pdf. As these numbers are percentages, the raw numbers in comparison are unclear; the number of athletic programs for women in 1972 was dramatically lower. Although the percentage was higher, the actual numbers were undoubtedly much lower. 439 Acosta and Carpenter, “Women in Intercollegiate Sport,” 18. 440 Ibid., 20. 441 Ibid., 33. 159

By 1992 this average number rose to 7.09 and by 1998 7.71.442 This sharp drop in numbers of women’s coaches and administrators in all sports is commonly considered to be one of the unintended consequences of Title IX. Namely, as more girls and women are participating in competitive athletics as athletes, the inverse is occurring in leadership and decision-making positions. The numbers of women coaches and athletic directors have declined.443 As women’s participation rose, the percentage of women in leadership positions dropped.

Views on the Merger and the Merger Process

Because many of those involved in the USWLA and US Lacrosse merger had been involved with the AIAW in some participatory capacity, the outcome of the

AIAW/NCAA battles aided a sense of distrust with men’s sports organizations in the US

Lacrosse merger. The leadership and membership frequently verbalized their concerns with this association.

During the primary years of merger discussion, the USWLA’s newsletter, produced at least four times a year and distributed to all USWLA members, included numerous articles on the merger and in 1996 a special edition of the newsletter addressed the topic specifically. It served as a forum for the leadership to communicate the concerns of the merger with the membership. Within this publication, the leadership also utilized the medium as a means for public debate. In this section, I focus on published viewpoints on the merger and responses from my interviewees to ascertain the views of those

442 Ibid., 4. 443 Mary A. Boutilier and Lucinda F. SanGiovanni, “Politics, Public Policy, and Title IX: Some Limitations of Liberal Feminism,” in Women, Sport, and Culture, ed. Susan Birrell and Cheryl L. Cole (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1994.)

160

involved in the process. Dialogue circulated around resources and only minimally engaged with the broader questions of the foundations of the sports themselves. The conversation remained focused on whether or not to engage in the merger, not that the concept that required two sports under one structure was flawed. Although some of those opposed verbalized that the sports were different, those who were in favor focused on resources. Even those who supported the merger did not appear to be motivated by a desire to merge sports. Organizational dynamics dominated conversations.

In Opposition to

Many leaders prior to the merger and during the merger were openly opposed to uniting the organizations. Carole Kleinfelder’s term as USWLA President was 1993-

1995, but she stepped down from her position early. Although she left her formal position, she continued to engage in the merger dialogue. In 1995, she published an article in the October/November issue of the USWLA newsletter that opposed the merger. She acknowledged that the USWLA needed to undergo some organizational changes, but thought that should happen within its own structure and without joining the other organizations. She vetoed the notion of even speaking with the men’s groups; as

President she turned down the opportunity to engage with the Lacrosse Foundation, due to how the conversations began, the differing ideologies of the organizations, the differences between the sports, and the past history of organizational challenges in women’s sports.444

444 Carole Kleinfelder, “A Question of Governance: To Merge or Not to Merge?” Women’s Lacrosse, October/November 1995, 6. USWLA Papers. 161

Kleinfelder questioned the motives of the Lacrosse Foundation specifically in wanting to work with the women. The discussions began on the Lacrosse Foundation’s terms and with individuals selected by the Lacrosse Foundation. According to her, “the committee did not appear to be one interested in all sides to a question and its import to women and our game. Rather, the group was populated with pro-merger people whose strategy was to promote the idea rather than encouraging thoughtful, honest discussion.”445 She continued with the accusation that the Lacrosse Foundation was not interested in the USWLA, but “they are [sic] interested in females who play lacrosse, i.e., our 5000 members.”446 The clear implication here was that the organization was invested in making money off of the participants as opposed to caring for the sport. This ideological distinction was critical to Kleinfelder’s concerns. She explained:

The USWLA philosophy and traditions are rooted in education. The proposed

NGB is rooted in the business of promotion and marketing with girls and women

the “untapped” market focus. As is the case with men’s athletics, there is a strong

temptation to go after the stuff everyone has these days: buildings; snappy

licensing deals; media contracts; big-time commercial backers, etc. under the

control of one body. It smacks of “ownership,” and I, for one, do not believe

anyone or anything should “own” a sport.447

The AIAW/NCAA was instructive here, as she specifically reminded the readers of that organizational interaction and warned, “History is a wonderful teacher that helps us avoid

445 Ibid. 446 Ibid. 447 Ibid. 162

willful blindness in deliberations.”448 Kleinfelder clearly opposed a commercial model of sport in women’s lacrosse and advocated for awareness of motives behind decisions, which arguably the AIAW was not consistently aware of during its existence.

Michael Harrigan of Trigon Sports, still involved at this point in time, replied to

Kleinfelder’s article directly in a letter to the women’s lacrosse constituents written on

December 7, 1995 and published in the February/March 1996 UWSLA Newsletter.449

Although Harrigan noted at the beginning of his response that he respected Kleinfelder’s views, through his word selection and lack of elaboration on some critical points, he instead demonstrated the very concerns Kleinfelder expressed. For instance, he claimed that the Lacrosse Foundation did not have a particular bias in the process because “[his] client for this project has included all of lacrosse.”450 This simple and emphatic statement problematically unified separate organizations into one joined mission. If the USWLA could not even decide on its stance on the merger as an organization, how could Harrigan imply that he represented all the various groups in the process? He also later contradicted this stance when he disputed his salary; he argued that the Lacrosse Foundation hired him, so the Steering Committee was not authorized to hire and fire him.451 This inconsistency may suggest that he himself did not believe that he represented all of the groups within lacrosse. He then implied that the USWLA’s usage of their own consultant would be counter to its own argumentation, because if the organization brought in their

448 Ibid. 449 Mike Harrigan, “The Harrigan Response: A Question of Governance: To Merge or Not to Merge: A Letter Submitted by Mike Harrigan on December 7, 1995.” Women’s Lacrosse, February/March 1996, 5,8. US Lacrosse Papers. 450 Ibid. 451 Michael T. Harrigan to Jim Potter, 7 March 1996. US Lacrosse Papers. 163

own, “now, where would be the bias?” and continued that the Lacrosse Foundation brought people together in good faith.452

In addition, his specific reply to the AIAW comments from Kleinfelder was marginal. “The absorption of the AIAW by the NCAA has no relevance to proposed

NGB for lacrosse. The AIAW/NCAA issue was governed by completely different factors and a completely different set of circumstances.”453 Although context differed, their responses were informed by the prior outcome. More engaged involvement by Harrigan likely would have been productive to assuage some fears of the past repeating itself.

Harrigan’s minimal attention to broader social issues suggested a lack of respect for the real concerns the women’s leaders had based on past experiences.

A point that Kleinfelder and Harrigan did agree on, but only to an extent, was that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse were different. According to Kleinfelder,

“Women’s lacrosse is not men’s lacrosse. My view on men’s lacrosse is that it is violent.

So why would one bring two different sports together to make it one?”454 Harrigan agreed with Kleinfelder that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse were different and continued that:

each game must have the absolute authority to map its own destiny with regard to

the games that are played. It is not possible to read the report and by-laws for the

proposed NGB and draw any other conclusion. However, despite the differences

452 Mike Harrigan, “The Harrigan Response: A Question of Governance: To Merge or Not to Merge: A Letter Submitted by Mike Harrigan on December 7, 1995.” Women’s Lacrosse, February/March 1996, 5,8. US Lacrosse Papers. 453 Ibid. 454 Carole Kleinfelder, “A Question of Governance: To Merge or Not to Merge?” Women’s Lacrosse, October/November 1995, 6. USWLA Papers. 164

in the games, we are still talking about lacrosse and not lacrosse vs. soccer or

lacrosse vs. field hockey.455

Within this agreement his expression of difference remained within the confines of one sport; according to Harrigan, the lacrosses are not so different that they are wholly other sport forms. He continued that if women’s lacrosse leaders did lose their autonomy in the organization, “women’s lacrosse will have only itself to blame for such an outcome.”456

Again, the notion that the sports had a relationship that made them more similar than wholly different sports was essential in justifying grouping them together in an administrative body. Harrigan replied to Kleinfelder’s concern within the framework of

“Olympics as a cause.” The International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) requirement of one governing body for one sport molded his response; the sports needed to be one in order for the Olympics to happen, even as a distant, end goal.

In April 1996, Carole Kleinfelder wrote another letter, this time to the editor of

Lacrosse Magazine, the Lacrosse Foundation’s publication, which was published in the

May 1996 issue. Again, Kleinfelder expressed a strong anti-merger view. She reiterated her suspicions of the Lacrosse Foundation’s intent in representing women’s lacrosse and blamed the Lacrosse Foundation for generating strife within the USWLA. Kleinfelder began the letter thusly:

The United States Women’s Lacrosse Association is 65 years old and currently

455 Mike Harrigan, “The Harrigan Response: A Question of Governance: To Merge or Not to Merge: A Letter Submitted by Mike Harrigan on December 7, 1995.” Women’s Lacrosse, February/March 1996, 5,8. US Lacrosse Papers. 456 Ibid. 165

the National Governing Body of Women’s Lacrosse. To me, the current debate

about a “merged” NGB for men’s and women’s lacrosse is not what’s best for

those sports, but about control, money, power, gender and the survival of the

[Lacrosse] Foundation in the City of Baltimore. The Foundation is not an NGB,

Rather [sic] it is a self appointed [sic] development center for men’s lacrosse . . .

and their [sic] eagerness to tap into the women’s buying power and marketability

is well documented.457

The Lacrosse Foundation operated as a business, and she strongly believed a business model should remain outside of women’s lacrosse. She continued then, “The Foundation has driven a wedge in our association [USWLA] and made a once cohesive group divisive . . . and this is the very group that will administer the proposed new NGB.”458

The merger dialogue divided the women’s lacrosse community, and she clearly questioned the integrity of the Lacrosse Foundation and its ability to govern both sports.

This time Steve Stenersen, Executive Director of the Lacrosse Foundation, replied and published his response to Kleinfelder’s letter literally alongside her writing; they were published in the same issue, on the same pages. In comparison to Harrigan’s response, Stenersen’s piece focused on elaborating on and filling in gaps that Kleinfelder had in her letter; he did not belittle Kleinfelder or the USWLA. He carefully distinguished the various groups that were involved in the process and their differing roles. Most importantly, the Lacrosse Foundation was the fundraising body of men’s

457 Carole Kleinfelder, Letter to Lacrosse Magazine, Lacrosse Magazine, May 1996, 42. Her usage of “national governing body” here in reference to the USWLA was not inaccurate in the sense that the USWLA ran the national matters of women’s lacrosse. But the USWLA would not have met the definition of an NGB according to the Olympic criteria. 458 Carole Kleinfelder, Letter to Lacrosse Magazine, Lacrosse Magazine, May 1996, 42. 166

lacrosse. The Lacrosse Foundation and the new national governing body were not one and the same. The new national governing body would be a conglomeration of multiple associations, of which the Lacrosse Foundation was merely one. He responded that members of the USWLA had been included throughout the national-governing-body process; representatives were on the Steering Committee as well as part of the interviews with Harrigan. Kleinfelder’s claims that the Lacrosse Foundation was, according to

Stenersen, locating targets to increase a profit were offensive. The national governing body would be invested in advancing support for the game. He continued, “The only divisiveness that has been created with the USWLA has been that caused by those who refuse to even consider the potential of a more efficient and effective organizational structure for lacrosse.”459 He then identified Kleinfelder’s letter as “not only inappropriate” but also “irresponsible.”460 He posed “a spirit of cooperation—among all peoples, both male and female—represents our cultures [sic] future.”461 Through his tactful response to Kleinfelder specifically, he seemingly avoided further villainizing everyone who was in opposition to the change. This tactic was starkly different than

Harrigan’s.

Certainly Kleinfelder was not the only USWLA member opposed to the merger.

In 1996 the USWLA published a special edition of its newsletter that included numerous articles both in opposition to and in favor of the merger. All but the last page of the newsletter included articles about the merger; the last page addressed pressing concerns in women’s lacrosse, such as the addition of the restraining line, which had been

459 Steven B. Stenersen, Response to Kleinfelder, Lacrosse Magazine, May 1996, 43. 460 Ibid., 66. 461 Ibid., 43. 167

proposed at that point. Sue McVaugh, USWLA Home Office, edited the special edition in an effort “to present the well-considered, thoughtful opinions of many people who care about women’s lacrosse.”462

Throughout the responses, there was a duplication of themes. The authors, whether they were members who submitted letters or were organizational leaders, feared repetition of past governance changes in women’s sports and understood women’s lacrosse and men’s lacrosse to be different sports. Janet Grubbs, collegiate women’s lacrosse coach and former national team player, acknowledged the personal and professional impact of this decision-making process. “This is not only a business decision but a decision of the heart.”463 As it was, the process seemed “much more like a takeover than a merger.”464 She continued, “Consider what happened when NCAA took over

AIAW. There were decreases in the number of women coaches and women lost control of their own destinies. How many women are in the top positions in NCAA? An equal number?”465 In addition, she queried:

How will this “merger” affect the women’s game of Lacrosse [sic]? To me, men’s

and women’s lacrosse are two different sports, both with their individual beauty.

Will the joint rules committee suggest that the rules become more similar so that

both men and women can umpire both games? Will the men change their rules so

that their game has more finesse and is less physical? Hmmmmm! Will the bigger

462 Sue McVaugh, “Bad Penny,” Special Edition: Comments on the NGB and the Game of Lacrosse, Women’s Lacrosse, 1996, 2. USWLA Papers. 463 Janet Grubbs, “Coach/Former Player Urges Caution on Merger,” Special Edition: Comments on the NGB and the Game of Lacrosse, Women’s Lacrosse, 1996, 2. USWLA Papers. 464 Ibid. 465 Ibid. 168

games be umpired by both men and women? How many women do you see

umpiring the finals in basketball?466

Through the hypothetical examples she posed, Grubbs highlighted the lack of equality in other collegiate sports and posed the concern that women’s lacrosse would lose women in their present and future positions in the sport and that the sport itself would change. In contrast to other comments, Grubbs offered an alternative along with her concern. She suggested that the USWLA remain as the national governing body for women’s lacrosse, but then also explore a joint venture that could use shared resources with the USWLA and the Lacrosse Foundation.

Despite the fact that clearly more women were involved in women’s lacrosse organizations than men at the time of the discussions, there were some men who engaged in the merger dialogues as USWLA members. Erik Nelson, a self-identified “man, a lacrosse player, and a lacrosse player’s spouse,” explained the reasons he felt the

USWLA should not merge with the men’s groups.467 He expressed concern that the women’s game would lose that which makes it unique, including the national tournament, the national team, and lacrosse without protective equipment like eyewear and helmets.

He continued:

In just about every similar situation I can think of, women within integrated

466 Ibid. 467 Erik Nelson, “NGB Feedback,” Special Edition: Comments on the NGB and the Game of Lacrosse, Women’s Lacrosse, 1996, 4. USWLA Papers. 169

organizations have had to scratch and claw for every bit of autonomy and

responsibility they can get; the current USWLA, for all its limitations, has these

things in spades. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don’t give that away!468

Again, the ideas of women’s lacrosse and men’s lacrosse being different sports and the history of women’s sports organizations impacted views on the merger.

Others’ responses demonstrated more of a noncommittal view on the merger process. Notably, seven Past Presidents composed a letter together indicating their concerns with the merger talks.469 Their biggest concern was that the process was “going too fast.” They called for the USWLA Executive Committee to be dogged in their quest for answers and to not agree to anything until they were satisfied with the responses.470

Although the tone of the letter suggested they were opposed, what they were requesting were detailed responses to their questions. Kleinfelder’s letter to Harrigan and his response that did not directly address all of her concerns was only written a few months prior to this letter’s publication.

Mirroring the division that Kleinfelder expressed in her letters, Sarah Feyerherm,

Washington College Head Lacrosse Coach, wrote, “we need to be careful that this issue doesn’t tear us apart as an organization and as supporters of women’s lacrosse.” She reminded the reader that becoming divided would not help the overall mission of women’s lacrosse and that they must remain involved and educated in order to ultimately

468 Ibid. 469 The seven Past Presidents were Caroline Haussermann, Kathy Heinze, Carole Kleinfelder, Jane Oswald, Jackie Pitts, Betty Shellenberger, and Lee Walter. 470 Past Presidents, “An Open Letter to the USWLA Membership,” Special Edition: Comments on the NGB and the Game of Lacrosse, Women’s Lacrosse, 1996, 3. USWLA Papers. 170

succeed.471 The women in women’s lacrosse needed to look at the issues and not disengage in order to maintain a community and an understanding of what would be best for the sport.

Even toward the end of the decision-making process, the concerns of the USWLA remained similar and some seemingly came to fruition. After the USWLA Executive

Committee voted for the merger vote to go to the membership, the March 1998 edition of the USWLA Newsletter devoted much space to the membership vote on the merger and included relevant documentation and ideas for the members to consider as they decided their votes.

In our conversations, Sue McVaugh elaborated on her feelings of discontent with the merger and her role as National Umpiring Committee (NUC) Chair and as a voting member on the USWLA Executive Board.

Sue McVaugh: Before the merger happened, I was really concerned that we

would lose control. I never worried about the game itself, because I didn’t think it

was of interest to the men. But the way I saw it was . . . the old men’s

organization was called the Lacrosse Foundation and it wasn’t anything like

USWLA.472

McVaugh questioned whether two organizations that had been distinct in structure and ideology could come together in a manner that valued all populations represented. She continued:

471 Sarah Feyerherm, “My Thoughts on the NGB,” Special Edition: Comments on the NGB and the Game of Lacrosse, Women’s Lacrosse, 1996, 1, 3. USWLA Papers. 472 McVaugh, interview. 171

Sue McVaugh: As umpiring chair I was fortunate enough to represent US umpires

at the international meetings. One was at Baltimore, but one was at Stockholm,

and I remember being at Stockholm, and this was before the merger, and talking

to . . . the other umpires, the group in the meeting and something happened . . . I

can’t remember what the issue was, but we were to do something with the men, or

we were thinking about it. . . and they forgot us. And they just went ahead. And

then they came in all apologies all, you know, “It wasn’t a slight, we didn’t mean

to do this, we just forgot.” And after they left, and people were sort of glossing

over it, “They just forgot, they didn’t mean anything,” I just stood up and said, “I

just have to say forgetting us is the worst they could do. That is showing the least

respect. They don’t even consider us to be an enemy. We are so beneath them,

they forget us.”473

McVaugh did not mention details of the event or further interactions, but her feeling regarding the incident was evident. The women within this organization were not only excluded but also forgotten. What also remained unclear is what the affiliation of those involved was with the US Lacrosse merger process. But this story serves as a prominent example of feeling excluded and the relevance in the debates of that exclusion.

As NUC chair, McVaugh was also part of the voting process within the USWLA.

She explained her thoughts on USWLA Executive Committee vote, which is what led to the vote going to the membership.

Sue McVaugh: The merger was on the table and then I was umpiring chair, I

know that. And I went back to the all the regional, called districts then, district

473 Ibid. 172

representatives of which there were six. . . . And I said, “You’ve got to poll your

people and come back and tell me how [to vote],” and they said they wanted to

merge, so I had to vote “yes” for the merger. . . . I hated that vote. I did not want

to vote for that. . . . I was representing them; I was not representing myself. . . .

As a member I voted against, but it passed and I think it passed

overwhelmingly.474

NUC Chair through 2013, Laurette Payette did not elaborate extensively on her feelings in opposition to the merger at the time. Although she did indicate that she was

“very against it,” she noted that her feelings against the merger actually motivated her need to stay involved in the organization of the sport after the merger passed.

Melissa Wiser: Why did you stay so heavily involved in the governance after the

merger? . . . Was there a conscious decision?

Laurette Payette: Yea, because you want to preserve as much as you can. There’s

the history and you want to take the history with you. I knew at some point, I

knew that I wouldn’t be doing the Athletic Director and teaching forever and what

I wanted to beyond, it was very deliberate.475

The leaders expressed multiple reasons that they opposed the merger. They included but were not limited to a distrust of men’s sports organizations, a desire to keep women in charge of women’s sports, and a belief that the sports were different. Even though the

Olympics were a primary reason for the conversations amongst the various men’s

474 Ibid. 475 Payette, interview. 173

lacrosse and women’s lacrosse groups, inclusion of the Olympics in the USWLA newsletter was notably absent.

In Favor of the Process

Many authors of articles included in USWLA publications and the special edition specifically indicated reasons for which the USWLA should be involved in the merger process or should be open to the idea of change, even if the merger was not the ultimate answer. Numerous articles pointed to the reality that women’s lacrosse was growing and that the USWLA would have to change its methods and structure—whether it participated in the eventual merger or not—in order to meet the needs of the sport. For instance, USWLA First Vice President Jean Stettler reminded the membership that in relation to meeting the needs of the participants in women’s lacrosse, “Currently, the

USWLA can only do part of this service and this part has been and is being done very well, but I think the growth of the game is beyond our reach right now” and advised them to consider how the game should look in ten years and what could each member do to accomplish that goal.476

Sue Lubking, a USWLA Past President, did not sign the aforementioned Past

Presidents’ letter. According to Lubking, “With or without us, some plan will go forward.

Why not have our best involved with the planning to insure that all of our concerns are addressed and implemented in the proposed environment?”477 In order to control the future of women’s lacrosse, one had to be a part of the process, and, consistent with her

476 Jean Stettler, “What Does the Future Hold?” Special Edition: Comments on the NGB and the Game of Lacrosse, Women’s Lacrosse, 1996, 1, 3. USWLA Papers. 477 Sue Lubking, “Past President’s Response,” Special Edition: Comments on the NGB and the Game of Lacrosse, Women’s Lacrosse, 1996, 5. USWLA Papers. 174

claim, she was a member of the NGB Steering Committee. Importantly, she noted that she was on this committee to monitor women’s inclusion, not because she openly supported the idea of a merger necessarily. In addition, she denounced the other Past

Presidents’ claim that the merger was happening too quickly, because it implied “there is a commitment to join with the men.”478 The only commitment was to be involved in the planning.

Similarly, Elaine Knobloch, USWLA Treasurer, called for members of the

USWLA to “get in on the ground floor” of the merger dialogues.479 Though, her opinions were much more openly pro-merger. As an organization, the USWLA would not be able to continue to function as it was. A joining with men’s organizations would allow for greater resources, in the form of office space, staff, and funds. In addition, one national governing body would create “one voice for lacrosse.” Confusion would then be minimized, and lacrosse participants, male or female, would not have questions about to which association to turn.480 In fact, in the interview, Susan Ford explained that Steve

Stenersen frequently received correspondence on women’s lacrosse because parents would find the Lacrosse Foundation and did not know that women’s lacrosse maintained a separate governance structure.481 Knobloch insisted that neither men’s lacrosse nor women’s lacrosse would change in the way they were played, just the way they would be governed.482

478 Ibid. 479 Elaine Knobloch, “Why Help Form an NGB?” Special Edition: Comments on the NGB and the Game of Lacrosse, Women’s Lacrosse, 1996, 6. USWLA Papers. 480 Ibid. 481 Ford, interview. 482 Elaine Knobloch, “Why Help Form an NGB?” Special Edition: Comments on the NGB and the Game of Lacrosse, Women’s Lacrosse, 1996, 6. USWLA Papers. 175

In our interviews, many of the participants with whom I spoke indicated similar reasoning behind their support of the merger. The USWLA lacked the resources and the means to compete with other organizations or to sustain the needs of women’s lacrosse at that time. For instance, Susie Ganzenmuller, former NUC Chair, explained “I think it was something we needed to do, because I don’t think the women would have survived.” She then clarified that she thought women’s lacrosse would have survived, but if the

Olympics were really a push, the sport needed to be a part of a joint governing body to survive.483

Similar to others, Dottie McKnight, former USWLA Executive Director, also noted the need for resources.

Dottie McKnight: I just thought it was the best thing. Frankly Steve [Stenersen]

could pick up the phone, I’m sure, and call someone who played lacrosse at

[Johns] Hopkins and say “Hey we really need $10,000,” and that man would call

around and they would have $10,000. I couldn’t do that. . . . I couldn’t get over a

$1,000. So financially it was just not going to work. So the merger happened that

this division and that division, and the Presidents are every other year from each

division. And so you have the past, the future president, they may be from the

men’s division, and the president, active president, for two years is from the

women’s division. You can’t ask for anything better than that.484

A merged organization would allow women’s lacrosse to have access to finances that simply were not available to them before. In addition, McKnight acknowledged that the

483 Ganzenmuller, interview. 484 McKnight, interview. 176

negotiation process ultimately created a structure that attempted to be equal in regards to the administration of men’s lacrosse and of women’s lacrosse.

With changes in social dynamics, the USWLA would also struggle with its small scale and volunteer base as the primary means to run the group. It needed funding opportunities. Val Walchak, USWLA Insurance Chairperson expounded on the reality.

Val Walchak: I mean I could see the handwriting on the wall. . . . There is no

infrastructure in this organization [USWLA]. We don't have staff. Volunteers are

waning and, you know, there were several reasons for that. When this

organization started in the ‘30s and through to the ‘70s, most of the women who

play lacrosse and the officials and that, they were either stay-at-home moms or

women who weren't married or didn't have families yet or they were teachers and,

I mean these were women who had time that they could volunteer. And they had

summers off, they had holidays off, they had all of this off. Once Title IX came

in, women had a much greater opportunity of doing something besides teaching or

nursing. I mean the world opened up to us with Title IX. And not that it's

completely open, but it's certainly far [more] open then it was back in the ‘60s and

‘50s. You know women had a whole different perspective on their lives. Careers,

careers even with family, careers that were very demanding and didn't have

summers off . . . and so, US women's lacrosse, there was a major impact on the

volunteers and the amount of time that women could devote that. So I was always

somebody who wanted to be on the cutting edge of things. I believe that we

177

needed to merge. I strongly believe that we needed to merge, not from an

organizational standpoint but from a governance and funding standpoint.485

Walchak referenced a reality in shifting opportunities. As some women focused on careers which may or may not have included women’s lacrosse, the bake-sale mentality would struggle because of the inevitable decrease in volunteer hours.486 Regardless of the accuracy of this claim, it pointed to a real concern. Could the USWLA continue to function as it was? Many believed not.

Even though the women’s governing body had limited resources compared to the

Lacrosse Foundation and the potential resources of US Lacrosse, those who opposed US

Lacrosse may have aided the outcomes for the positives of women’s representation. For instance, Pat Dillon, Rules Editor, noted:

Pat Dillon: I am not a real patient person. . . I like to get things done and then

move on to the next thing, so taking this long to get to a point that I thought was a

no-brainer was frustrating for me. I mean I understand it's a process we probably

had to go through and some good things did come out of that. We did get things in

the bylaws for US Lacrosse that I thought protect the women's game with the

whole board structure and in how things were laid out. So it ended up being a

good thing. . . . I think it went on a lot longer than it needed to because we had

485 Walchak, interview. 486 This observation is not entirely supported by those I interviewed, as many of them sustained full-time employment and volunteered for the USWLA. However, the sample is too small to make any sweeping claims about the composition of the leadership of the USWLA during its existence. 178

some people who really were so anti-merger, they were never going to change

their mind. . . . It was a little tougher than I think it needed to be.487

In spite of Dillon’s frustration, she recognized that this engagement may have aided the inclusion of the USWLA members’ demands in the eventual structure of US Lacrosse.

Specifically, that women would maintain control of the women’s game.

Protection was a theme in another sense as well. Joining with the men’s groups allowed women’s lacrosse to have more administrative protection.

Susan Ford: I was getting letters as the President . . . and seeing letters that Carole

[Kleinfelder] had gotten when I was Vice President from mothers and fathers

whose daughters were getting hurt . . . and they were coming at us pretty strong.

. . . When you’re President of an organization like this with no lawyer to go to, no

staff, no nothing, you’re thinking, “I am so exposed out there. We are so

exposed.” And I don’t think people had ever thought that way before.488

Ford described a need in an increasingly litigious society for organizational support.

During this timeframe goggles and then even helmet debates dominated conversations on safety. Women’s lacrosse would be aided organizational support to engage in these bigger legal dialogues. In addition, Dillon, Ganzenmuller, and Ford mentioned their concerns with the ability of the USWLA to meet the sport’s needs financially and administratively.

487 Dillon, interview. 488 Ford, interview. 179

Although Ford exhibited efforts that led the USWLA toward the merger, she was not in outright support of the change. I posed the question directly, had the merger been worth it? She replied:

Susan Ford: I think if the USWLA had been able to find a Sugarmama who could

have given us the money that we needed when we needed it to do the things that

we should have done so that we could compete, don’t forget that we would have

been competing, that I would have preferred to go that way. I think everybody

would have. On the other hand, I think that if it had happened at the USWLA had

been able to exist within the structure of the NGB, it may have been the best of

both worlds. I think that a women’s organization would have a very difficult time

competing against another organization, which would have spawned the women’s

game. And I think because I felt strongly that that was what was going to happen,

I thought we are gonna lose this game. I mean, if we don’t take advantage of

what’s out there, again, someone else is going to take control. And we will lose

this game.489

Susan Ford’s understandings of the benefits of the merger go back to the ideas of a volunteer-run organization that did not have the resources to exist in an industry when another body was interested in the same product. In addition, she feared what would happen if women lost the game. The merger was an option for women to maintain some control over the women’s sport. But she also noted that the ideal would have been if the

USWLA could have still existed under the broader umbrella.490 Such a structure would

489 Ibid. 490 Ibid. 180

have been similar to the bowling groups’ merger that Harrigan addressed and dismissed in his early reports to the board.491 That potential appeared to have been largely ignored in broader conversations.

Priscilla Anderson, first NUC Chair under US Lacrosse, who described herself as

“kind of more pro[merger],” similarly noted that there may have been other options that no one explored. Again, I asked her if it had been worth it.

Priscilla Anderson: Was it worth it? Yes I think so. I think it had to go that way

because of the big business being required in order to keep up with our growth. I

don't know, well let me rethink that, merger to do that? No. I don't think a merger

was necessary. Merger answered or achieved our needed direction. But I don't

think it was necessary. The merging of the two games into a governing body. No I

don't think it was necessary. At the time it achieved or started to achieve what

needed to be done, and that was the only way I think a good majority of us saw it

happening. . . . Yeah that's a good question, but I think my answer now is no. No

it wasn't necessary.492

Anderson’s change in opinion during our conversation and her expression thereof offered some valuable insight. Notably, that many understood the merger to be the only means for the growth to occur and to be sustained. This pointed to a limited discussion, or the feeling that there was limited discussion, of alternatives to a merger.

McKnight also indicated that the AIAW/NCAA acquisition impacted her take on the merger. But in contrast to earlier expressions of the AIAW/NCAA debates as a fear of

491 Trigon, “Vision of Organization.” US Lacrosse Papers. 492 Anderson, interview. 181

what would happen to women’s lacrosse, McKnight understood the merger of US

Lacrosse to be better than that of the AIAW and used those experiences as a comparison of what not to happen.

Dottie McKnight: I mean that is the best you can do. If AIAW had done that,

instead of putting up their back and fighting and everything, I don’t think they had

as good an offer from NCAA as we had from US Lacrosse.

Melissa Wiser: During it, would you say that you were cognizant . . . [of] what

happened with AIAW and NCAA?

Dottie McKnight: Oh absolutely.

Melissa Wiser: How so? Like how did it come into your thinking?

Dottie McKnight: Because I watched it; I watched AIAW die. I mean, a slow

agonizing death, which was kind of stupid, [Under breath]. . . I’d been involved

with field hockey and probably administratively more, many years ago when they

got into some financial difficulty. . . . Anyway, that was obvious that that was

going to have to be a coed organization. The men, of course in field hockey in the

United States are not nearly as strong and so in that case the women sort of took it

over, and, but I believe they have a men’s division and a women’s division within

USA Field Hockey as well. So I had those two kind of experiences saying to

myself, and then I talked to a friend who is Australian who is, well she was

president of the international women’s [IFWLA] and she was sort of mentally

fighting it, but had noticed from her a few years later, “Well we’ve done it in

182

Australia too. You know we now have a coed organization.” It’s . . . the way it is.

So yes, I was influenced by that. It took women quite a while; one or two women

. . . got involved in NCAA right away. And of course some of them were [made a

grimace]. Well, people blamed them for doing that, and that in retrospect, you

say, “Do you know what? They saw the writing on the wall.” . . .

Melissa Wiser: Well and if they hadn’t, how worse off or different would it have

been? If someone had to have done it, for women to be a part of it.

Dottie McKnight: Oh yea, well NCAA, they would have taken it over anyway. . .

. Melissa Wiser: You said “slow agonizing death.”

Dottie McKnight: Yea it was. And a couple of women and a few people thought

they [NCAA] were not being fair to AIAW. And wait a minute? You know look

at it. It’s a wholly different thing. The minute you get into the whole Title IX and

then you’re going to have business sports for the women, so to speak, AIAW

wasn’t equipped to handle it at that point. I didn’t think. So, I was influenced.493

Significantly, McKnight explained how the AIAW/NCAA interaction was not the same as what US Lacrosse and the USWLA experienced, but she nevertheless understood an importance and an inevitably of an organization that encompassed both men’s and women’s iterations of a sport. She also validated Wushanley’s claim that Title IX entered women’s sport into a business model. In the next chapter, I expand on the relevance and limits of such gender equity legislation as it applied to sport.

Conclusion

493 McKnight, interview. 183

Although there was a majority vote to merge, the rationale for the merger in the minds of those I interviewed and those who wrote published articles were related to the context of a broader sport culture. Women’s sport governance shifted towards men-run organizations and away from separate women’s sport groups. Along with these changes came a varying approach to sport governance. The organizations that gained or sustained control were those that had financial resources and that functioned as a business. The educational ideals of previous organizations were minimized or the organizations themselves ceased to exist.

Due to this history, many involved in the USWLA merger dialogues expressed trepidation about the process. Some feared the potential outcome for women’s lacrosse if the USWLA entered into negotiations with the men; the USWLA would be another

AIAW. But others interpreted the AIAW situation to be instructive and used those experiences as a means to prevent the same ends. Indeed, those conversations impacted the final posed structure of the new organization, and specific attention was paid to create an organizational structure that allowed for equality in input for the men’s game and the women’s.

There were multiple reasons to oppose and to support the merger. Among these reasons to oppose was the claim that the sports were distinct. In contrast, among the reasons to support was not that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse were the same or similar sports. This absence highlights that practical and material needs motivated the

USWLA’s reasons for the merger, not the structure of the sports themselves.

184

Chapter 6

One Name, Two Sports:

A Review of the Relationship between Men’s Lacrosse and Women’s Lacrosse and

Notes on the Future

After presenting the numerous pieces and steps involved in the merger with a focus on how the decision-making process impacted the USWLA specifically, I consider the broader question of, was the merger a suitable solution for the sport of women’s lacrosse? With the stated goal of lacrosse joining the Olympic Program at a future time, the United States could only have one national governing body for lacrosse. Of course, men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse were distinct in rules, field markings, permissible physical contact, and course of play. They were not the same sport. The merger, with the

Olympics in sight, however, cemented the idea of men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse as one sport.

In this chapter, I argue that although US Lacrosse and the USWLA through its frequent negotiations attempted to represent women’s lacrosse equitably at the national- governing-body level, ultimately the dominant system of gender equity in amateur sport was flawed in relation to men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse specifically. To bring this argument together, I address five key points. First, I elaborate on critiques of gender-

185

equity measures in sport. Second, I note the impact of comparisons between sports, an expected if not inevitable outcome of a gender-equity system. Third, I present my interviewees’ responses to the idea of men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse being different sports. Fourth, I explore whether the Olympics were a worthwhile pursuit for men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse, with a focus on women’s lacrosse. Finally, I relate gender equity to the lacrosses and pose an alternative. In sum, men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse are different sports, but the broader system of gender equity as exemplified in the merger process, constrains the future potential for the sports to remain different and valued as such. Men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse were different sports and the merger limited the extent to which that statement will still be true in the future.

Gender Equity

In the previous chapters, it has been evident that gender equity played an important structural role directly and indirectly in the merger process. Title IX demanded athletic opportunities for women in educational institutions. The Olympic Charter required representation of men and women over their respective iterations of their sports in the national governing body of the sport, and for a sport to even be considered, a set amount of countries on a set number of continents needed to have women participating in leagues. Leadership in institutions had to meet structural demands to ensure relevant and viable representation for women’s athletes.

Although perhaps good on paper, these legislative attempts also aided outcomes that impacted women’s sports differently than men’s. In the preceding chapter, I identified, as Wushanley argued, that by making equity a course of law, the standard

186

became men’s sports culturally. No longer could differing approaches towards athletic participation coexist, as the law demanded sameness. Now, this may appear gendered as the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) represented women’s athletics and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) had only represented men’s athletics up until a point. But the presence of different sport structures, the educational model and the commercial model, could no longer operate within the same institutions. So other interpretations of how sport could function were obliterated. In addition, although Title IX increased the number of athletes, the unintended consequences of Title IX were stark. The number of women in leadership positions in women’s athletics decreased dramatically.494 Negatives accompanied the positives.

A central tenet in these constructions of gender equity was that sport would be separate but equal. Sport historian Susan Ware argued that liberal sport activists missed a critical opportunity in the 1970s. “By focusing so single-mindedly on issues of access, sport activists often failed to challenge the core principals of a system that had denied women athletes their rights and opportunities in the first place.”495 Instead, gender equity legislation demanded that women were acknowledged in the system, and then society prioritized the system to be that of men’s sports. Furthermore, as Title IX was frequently touted as a positive, landmark outcome in women’s sports, society also ignored that Title

IX simultaneously entrenched the power of sex differences in sport. Ware contended that:

Ironically, Title IX has also made it significantly harder to envision a brave new

athletic world precisely because the sports revolution it sparked unfolded in an

494 See Chapter 5 for specific numbers. 495 Ware, Game, Set, Match, 13. 187

athletic system so rigidly divided by gender. Reconciling these dual legacies—the

unleashing of women’s athletic potential versus the inadvertent (or perhaps not so

inadvertent) reinforcement of sex segregation in sports—will be a major challenge

as the women’s sports revolution continues to evolve.496

Title IX’s impact and role as a celebratory symbol created a different obstacle to surmount. Women’s performances would then be compared to men’s but only on separate playing fields. Coed sport would, and continues to be, an anomaly.497

Comparisons in terms of resources and opportunities dominate broader conversations of rights in sport.

The merger was located within the broader dialogues of cultural and legal expectations of gender equity in sport. The final organizational schematic of US Lacrosse acknowledged the importance of both men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse to the overall governing body. As Pat Dillon, former USWLA Rules Committee Chair, noted, the

496 Ibid., 178. 497 In the 1960s and 1970s there were more public dialogues among sport activists calling for integrated sport. The National Organization for Women (NOW) suggested a “unitary” team model; both girls and boys would be permitted to try out for one team. Then, if the resulting team was primarily one sex or the other, then a separate team would be created for the underrepresented sex. The proposal was rejected as cost ineffective, but it offered both opportunity and a separate arena in which women could develop athletically as a group. Sport activist and former NOW President, Wilma Scott Heide demanded that other criteria be utilized instead of sex to divide sport participants and that women hold leadership positions in men’s sports specifically. Then the power dynamics in sport sex segregation would diffuse with time. Finally, black liberation and sport activist Harry Edwards warned women to not make the same mistakes as blacks did in the civil rights movement; they should not settle for mere inclusion, but should instead demand meaningful change. Sport should be integrated “where the structure and physical requirements of the activity allow.” As awareness of trans- and intersex athletes increases in the twenty-first century, there is a greater opportunity to engage with the potential of sport not being divided by perceived biological sex, but the literature indicates that popular sport models respond in a manner that further reifies the notion of sex differences. Testing and regulations to identify ones “true” sex still support a binary, sex-segregated system. Ware, Game, Set, Match; Wilma Scott Heide, “Feminism for a Sporting Future,” in Women and Sport: From Myth to Reality, ed. Carole A. Oglesby (Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1978); Harry Edwards, “Desegregating Sexist Sport,” in Out of the Bleachers: Writings on Women in Sport, ed. Stephanie L. Twin (Old Westbury, NY: Feminist Press, 1979): 191; and Heather Sykes, “Transsexual and Transgender Policies in Sport,” Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal 15, no. 1 (2006). 188

persistency of those who were reluctant to join led to equitable representation.498 Dottie

McKnight, former USWLA Executive Director, indicated that the women could not have asked for anything better.499 The overall chairs alternated terms and there would be a

Women’s Division and a Men’s Division. The focus was on equitable representation, the primacy on rights as related to gender. Again, on paper that seemed like a positive. The question that was obscured here was, was it an appropriate option in an appropriate forum?

This question leads to yet another. Was “separate but equal” the terms to which men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse should be forced to follow or would “different and different” have been more apt? Priscilla Anderson, former National Umpiring Committee

(NUC) Chair, challenged the validity of the US Lacrosse setup and its long-term impact.

Priscilla Anderson: Because we are now one governing body . . . it would be a

thought that “why don't they become one game?” And now because we’re

recognized as a governing body, “oh they're not the same game?” For people that

are new it's like “what do you mean? They're not the same rules?” So if we had

maintained our own governing body, well then it would be absolute. There are

two different sports. . . . So it makes it more confusing I think the way it's set up

now.500

Anderson pinpointed what I believe is the heart of the matter. Even with the acknowledgement of women in control over women’s lacrosse rules, within one system and structure, the potential of the sports to remain distinct is limited. Conceptually,

498 Dillon, interview. 499 McKnight, interview. 500 Anderson, interview. 189

individuals inside and outside, will wonder why the sports are truly different.

Comparisons will abound with potentially negative outcomes for women’s lacrosse.

Comparisons

Comparisons through language between men’s sports and women’s sports are common and well documented in sport sociology. For instance, sociologists Michael

Messner, Margaret Carlisle Duncan, and Kerry Jensen argued that as women’s participatory opportunities and the subsequent media coverage thereof increased, commentary of women’s sports repeatedly marked the gender of the participants and in so doing perpetuated a hierarchy of naming. A common example, the authors identified the women’s collegiate basketball championships referred to as the “Women’s Final

Four.” In contrast, the men’s sports remained unmarked, the “Final Four,” thus locating men’s athletics as the unnamed standard against which others are compared. In addition, commentators utilized infantilizing language to describe the women athletes, such as

“girls” and “young ladies,” while they used vocabulary that situated men as adult participants in the contest.501 Even when men’s sports were not present, women’s athleticism was implicitly compared to men’s. These examples highlighted the primacy assumed with men’s athletics and that men’s participation was valued as a professional endeavor as opposed to a hobby.

Similar gendered comparisons occurred between men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse. Many of those with whom I spoke expressed great frustration with men’s lacrosse being “lacrosse” and women’s lacrosse being “women’s lacrosse.” Susie

501 Michael A. Messner, Margaret Carlisle Duncan and Kerry Jensen, “Separating the Men from the Girls: The Gendered Language of Televised Sports,” in Women and Sports in the United States: A Documentary Reader, ed. Jean O’Reilly and Susan K. Cahn (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2007). 190

Ganzenmuller, former NUC Chair, said, “The men say ‘lacrosse.’ We always have to have the qualifier ‘women’s lacrosse’ and the men should have to use the qualifier too, I think.”502 Dillon stated:

Pat Dillon: That's where I think women's lacrosse kind of loses out on the deal;

they don't understand, they talk about lacrosse and to the general public lacrosse

is men's lacrosse because that's what they see on TV and that's what they see on

the NCAA level because games are pushed more. It's changing admittedly. Once

you get on TV and the national scene, you are having more people see women's

lacrosse and understand that there is a difference. But if they haven’t, then they

see men's lacrosse and that’s “lacrosse.”503

She continued, “It's the whole sports thing and you've probably gone through this too.

But I hate this.”504 Dillon hated the priority given to the men’s sports in language.

Comparisons are common within sport, however, in these examples, not only is there a primacy placed on the gender of the participants, but also on a sport form.

Although not related to the US Lacrosse merger specifically, the Federation of

International Lacrosse (FIL) merger, also a product of the larger Olympic goal, included instances of the politics of naming. Feffie Barnhill, a key figure in both mergers, explained:

Feffie Barnhill: The men felt that they needed and wanted to be the same [name

as before] . . . ILF, International Lacrosse Federation, and they thought that’s

what every other model of Olympic countries were. And the women said . . . “We

502 Ganzenmuller, interview. 503 Dillon, interview. 504 Ibid. 191

will not accept any of these merger documents unless the men are willing to

change their name.” The one thing was the name that no one would get over, not

just the one or two leaders that were afraid, but 100% membership.505

The women involved in the international merger process believed the name of the unified group needed to be a new one. Otherwise, the women would have simply been relocating within the men’s group, and they did not support that perception.506 Barnhill described that the group came up with its name almost by chance. One of the committee members stated to the others that she had to call her boyfriend, Phil. After many deliberations, hearing this name uttered in another context sparked a connection. “Phil” led to “FIL,” the Federation of International Lacrosse.507 The newly merged international organization possessed a name under which up until that point neither men’s lacrosse nor women’s lacrosse participants had played and worked.

Language usage not only in names but also in word choice during contests impacted sports in broader contexts as well. Commentary on rules and perceptions of rule differences was evidence of value differences in sport. Media scholar Kelly Poniatowski found that commentators during the 2006 Olympic coverage made frequent remarks regarding the illegal body checking in women's ice hockey in relation to the amount of equipment that the women athletes wore to play despite the lack of checking. References to this greater amount of equipment than the men's participants and the limited contact promoted the idea that women needed to be more protected in a collision sport.

505 Barnhill and Claydon, interview. 506 Ibid. In this instance, the men’s lacrosse organization would be the corporate shell, but largely because the men’s group had appropriate incorporation papers, while the women’s group did not. 507 Barnhill and Claydon, interview. 192

Therefore, she argued that there was an increased allowance for women to be physically active as compared to the pre-Title IX era, but they remained inferior to men. Then, the presence of rule differences and the perception, as demonstrated through word choice, of these rule differences served to uphold hegemonic masculinity and the value of sex differentiation in sport.508 Poniatowski’s work was instructive because the author demonstrated that women's and men's sports encouraged comparisons and these comparisons created and perpetuated important understandings of gender and gendered capabilities in sport specifically. Modifications in sport rules, and those of contact in particular, repeatedly (re)located women's athletic participation as inferior to men's.

Commentary during women’s lacrosse contests located women’s lacrosse lower on a sport hierarchy than men’s lacrosse as well. Dillon commented:

Pat Dillon: Using the right language for particular sports is kind of like a sign of

respect that you have for that sport. You care enough about it to learn about it and

learn how to speak the language of that sport. You know, I mean it is the draw.

It's not a face-off. So don't talk about it that way, kind of thing. You know if I

went into field hockey and called something that they do the wrong name, it just

shows that you don't really care about the game; you don’t know about the game

and you don't really want to know. Language can be important for a lot of

different other things, I guess. . . . You talk to somebody like me and I'm saying

this, “So what position did you play?” And I say, “Oh I was the left defense

wing.” And everybody goes, “What's that?” Nobody knows what a left defense

508 Kelly Poniatowski, “‘You’re Not Allowed Body Checking in Women’s Hockey’: Preserving Gendered and Nationalistic Hegemonies in 2006 Olympic Ice Hockey Tournament,” Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal 20, no. 1 (2011). 193

wing is anymore. So we've kind of lost some of the, the cover point, the point and

the things that made our game unique. Now we’re the attack, the midfield, and the

defense. Well anybody can be that. That's what the men are. Attackers, middies

defenders. I was a cover point. . . . I had a specific job to do because I was the

cover point or I was the third man or I was the first home or you now so. We lost

a little bit of that.509

Through these examples, Dillon identified that not only was inaccurate language used, but terminology from the men’s was misapplied to the women’s. And, in reference to changes since the time of the merger, the terms and arguable roles of the positions themselves, have shifted and been incorporated into the women’s game as well. Dillon pointed towards the potential of changes, as well as those that have already taken place, to women’s lacrosse through comparisons with men’s lacrosse.

This sense of frustration but also concern in word choice in commentary during live contests extended to the voice of authority in those making said comments. Kendra

Gallagher, a leader in women’s lacrosse, expressed in reference to the NCAA’s role in women’s lacrosse at the collegiate level:

Kendra Gallagher: They [NCAA] allow it to be televised without any information.

They allow people to use the wrong terms. They allow men to call the game who

don't know anything about the game.510

When I asked her to clarify which terms in particular, she stated:

509 Dillon, interview. See Chapter 2 for a description of the terms and see Figure 1 for the location of the positions on the field. 510 Gallagher, interview. Pseudonym applied. 194

Crease, face-off, I mean, man down, three-man crew, I mean just everything: the

default is the men's game. And that's not [just] lacrosse. That’s society; I mean

you just default to what is seen on TV or what has been around the longest,

whatever.511

Gallagher expressed frustration with the broader societal expectations of men’s dominance in sport. She noted that was all of society; I pose it functions uniquely when the sports are dissimilar. I expand below.

Barnhill similarly challenged the voice of authority. She displayed her feelings on the usage of inaccurate language.

Feffie Barnhill: It pisses me off big time. To hear a man do the game, he doesn't

know the rules and he doesn't know the terminology. And I've written many an

email to cable companies stating there are some quality, good people [who could

be working the game instead].512

She continued:

I'd say that's probably my biggest pet peeve in life right now. . . .It's not that men

can't learn all the rules in our game; it's that . . . they just hired someone to just fill

a spot versus hire someone who knows the game.513

It is imperative to make a distinction here. Yes, Barnhill shared a concern of men doing the play-by-play reporting for a women’s sport, when a woman was likely available to fill the position. But I also add that a man in sex-segregated sport system would not have had

511 Ibid. See Chapter 2 for explanation of crease. Man down refers to if a team is playing with one fewer player on the field due to a yellow-card penalty. Three-man crew refers to the officiating crew. Gallagher would prefer goal circle, person down, and three-person crew to the examples she supplied. 512 Barnhill and Claydon, interview. 513 Ibid. 195

the opportunity to have ever played women’s lacrosse in any organized fashion. Thus, in this instance, a gender that did not have access to an entire sport form, was reporting on it. Nevertheless, men commentate on women’s lacrosse contests.

These interpretations of the importance of comparisons can be extended to US

Lacrosse’s valuation of men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse. In 1998, the same year that

US Lacrosse became officially operational, the national governing body produced a documentary entitled More than a Game. The film repeatedly referred to men’s lacrosse as “lacrosse” throughout its historical presentation and had a separate section on women’s lacrosse specifically. The women’s lacrosse portion even interrupted the historical narrative of the overall sport’s progression. After the chapter on the women’s game, the story returned to the progression of the men’s sport, identified as only “lacrosse,” in the

1890s.514 Women’s lacrosse was a tangent in the broader story of lacrosse, which was clearly men’s lacrosse. As I detailed in Chapter 2, the relationship between the histories of men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse are complex. Relevant in this instance is that a documentary produced in the same year that the USWLA was deciding whether or not to join with the national governing body, the same national governing body distributed a documentary that framed women’s history as secondary. In addition, when I visited US

Lacrosse headquarters and museum in February 2012, this documentary was playing in the museum. Indeed, that is how I became aware of it. This representation remained a part of the dominant historical narrative.

All of these examples are relevant because in the merger process and in lacrosse thereafter, women’s lacrosse is situated as secondary to men’s lacrosse. Notably, when

514 US Lacrosse, More than a Game. 196

sports are different, the impact of gender marginalization, which occurs in regards to countless sports, is compounded. In the above examples, the entire sport form is denigrated, if not negated entirely. These comparisons and their results return us to considerations of the difference between men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse.

Relationship between the Sports

In order for the premise of a merger to meet the requirements of Olympic recognition to make sense, it would be presumed that the sports under consideration would be the same. Despite the logic in this foundational assumption, those involved in the leadership did not understand the sports to be the same.

At the time of interviews, I did not yet conceptualize the relevance of the role of the Olympics’ specific calls for one national governing body. Early in the interview with

Steve Stenersen, President and CEO of US Lacrosse, he explained men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse in the following manner:

Steve Stenersen: We’re [US Lacrosse] unique because we’ve got at least two

versions of a root sport. We’ve got the women’s game and the men’s game . . .

but that is a little unique in sport.515

Later, when I returned to his statement and asked him to clarify further what he meant by

“two versions of a root sport,” he joked as to whether I was trying to trick him. When I posed the question, I did not realize the importance of it. After he asked me to repeat the question, which was then followed by a deliberate pause, he explained:

Steve Stenersen: I’ll just re-enforce, I mean, that’s kind of a statement of the

obvious. They are two adaptations of the same ancient sport that was modernized

515 Stenersen, interview. 197

at the turn of the twentieth century. I think that they, so those historic roots

forever tie the two versions of the game together and should. And I think that each

version of the game has evolved a unique culture that I think is important

historically, and I think that the reason that decisions have been made in the

histories of both of those versions of lacrosse have been very different. . . . One of

the things we believe organizationally is that both versions of the game can learn

from each other and we feel strongly that greater collaboration between our game

structures is good, not bad. Not because we want the men’s game to become

women’s lacrosse or because the women’s game becomes men’s lacrosse, but

because both represent unique histories, unique perspectives and relatively unique

experiences for one that can be valuable to the other.516

He also added that his response derived “from a straight organizational efficiency standpoint.”517 When I posed the question to Stenersen, I understood the role that

“different sport” played in women’s lacrosse and men’s lacrosse, as a member of the community myself, but I did not understand the importance of the policy—the importance of someone heading the lacrosse national governing body having an answer in line with that policy. His response, as he noted, clearly focused on the needs of an organization, but through his words, it was also just as evident that the sports were distinct. The word “unique” littered his explanation. He was merely careful in how he noted those distinctions.

Feffie Barnhill discussed a similar phrase.

516 Ibid. 517 Ibid. 198

Feffie Barnhill: Right after we merged with US Lacrosse they [unclear if she is

referring to US Lacrosse or USWLA] did a strategic plan. . . . The first thing we

did was mission and vision and then we clearly had one important statement that

we made and that was . . . that lacrosse is one sport but two games. And once we

could agree that that's what it was . . . US Lacrosse: One sport, two games. And

this sort of tagline . . . about the sport of lacrosse meant both games.

Although this was the party line, in her explanation of the concept she also expressed its flaw.

Feffie Barnhill: As long as people see it [lacrosse] as that and understand that [one

sport, two games], but 98% of the people you talk to have only seen one half of

the game. You know you go to sit in a bar and talk to a guy . . . and talk to a

woman . . . they've only seen their gender unless they have a kid who's playing the

other gender.518

Despite the usage of the phrase that was intended to include men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse, Barnhill illustrated that the majority of people are not familiar with both games.

The first concern with this observation is exposure; do those who did not play have an opportunity to learn of the other gender’s game? But second, and more important, is a concern of whether the sports are different. When I asked the former

USWLA members what they understood to be the relationship between men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse or whether they were similar or different sports, the majority indicated that they saw them as distinct. Dottie McKnight and Laurette Payette, two former physical educators, identified a similarity in implements and similar motions with

518 Barnhill and Claydon, interview. 199

the implement. Therefore, from a base understanding of kinetic movement, there was a similarity.519 But when directly posed with the question of what do you see as the differences between men’s and women’s lacrosse, Payette responded with strong laughter, “The differences? How about the only thing that’s the same is the ball and the goal and throwing and catching.”520

This was a trend in response. Anderson answered, “I truly see these as two different games. . . I see no connection at all.”521 Dillon stated, “I think we’re of, in two different universes. You know this whole Mars/Venus thing? I think that's the way it is in the lacrosse world too.”522 Through employment of a popular gender stereotype, Dillon suggested that the games were polar opposites.523 Susan Ford, former USWLA President, explained, “Same name, different game. I just, I don’t see a relationship. Except, I mean, it’s the same ball. As far as I’m concerned that’s it.”524 According to these responses, base equipment was similar, but those were the limits of such similarities.

To further illustrate this point of the sports being distinct from each other, some women I interviewed indicated that they do not understand men’s lacrosse. Ganzenmuller expressed that thought exactly. “I don’t understand men’s lacrosse.”525 Both Sue

McVaugh and Anderson stated that they even attended some men’s games in order to learn it. McVaugh shared:

519 McKnight, interview; and Payette, interview. 520 Payette, interview. 521 Anderson, interview. 522 Dillon, interview. 523 I do not agree with such oppositional and binaried claims of gender, but I believe Dillon’s usage of this phrase was intended to illustrate a stark distinction between the sports. 524 Ford, interview. 525 Ganzenmuller, interview. 200

Sue McVaugh: I did have a friend whose son went to Colgate . . . and I could

never go to his games because I always had games of my own, but last year I did

go to a couple and I would sit with her and she would explain it to me.526

Similarly, Anderson explained:

Priscilla Anderson: I did take the time a couple of years ago to go to some guys’

games, as they did serve on the chapter committee, US lacrosse Chapter in

Syracuse. . . . I did try and learn more about the men's game and actually sat with

some moms and some officials, who definitely know the men's game, and I said

“explain this to me.” And so I did try and learn it, so both sports have their

merit.527

Due to the working relationship under US Lacrosse, Anderson felt compelled to learn about the men’s games. These examples highlight that although these sports are contained under one governing body, if leaders in that group, both former head umpires no less who specialize in understanding sport rules, are unable to follow the course of play of the sport, then the differences must be severe. I noted a similar sentiment in

Chapter 2, but these interviews demonstrate that this is a theme; I am not abnormal in my lack of comprehension of men’s lacrosse.

In sum, the majority of the leaders I interviewed classified men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse as distinct. In addition many of those I met with indicated they did not understand men’s lacrosse. As former and current top figures in women’s lacrosse, their lack of comprehension was illustrative of the degree of difference. And, through my

526 McVaugh, interview. 527 Anderson, interview. 201

review of documents and through conversations with leaders of the USWLA, it was evident that many supported the merger due to material resources. The primary focus in the design of the merger process, not in the eventual organizational structure of US

Lacrosse, but in the entire premise of a merger, was the Olympics. The Olympics required one governing body for one sport. But are men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse the same sport? Especially in considerations of the games in the 1990s, during the years of discussion of the merger, I argue emphatically no. And leaders in the merger process felt the same.

Olympics a Viable Reason

The Olympics played a critical role in the merger that created US Lacrosse. As I demonstrated in Chapter 3, the eventual inclusion of lacrosse at the Olympic Games was a primary reason for the merger and a key motivator in the design of the structure of the organizational change. Despite the primacy of the Olympics in the foundations of the merger, many of the reasons both for and against that USWLA leaders articulated had little to do with the Olympic Games and international competition. In Chapter 5, I delineated these varying reasons. The USWLA’s leaders’ rationales in favor of the merger derived from a need for resources, a desire for the game to grow, and a fear that the USWLA could not sustain itself as the sport grew. But the Olympics were not a focal point.

Although the Olympics were a key organizing factor, some of the USWLA leadership expressed that the Olympics were not a motivating factor for them or that it

202

was a distant dream, not a reality. For instance, Anderson indicated that the Olympics were not a good enough reason to merge.

Priscilla Anderson: Those Olympic goals were so far off. I mean they’re still so

far off, it's unbelievable. . . That was being pushed as well, “if you won’t do this

we could never get into the Olympics,” and it made us feel like the bad guy, so to

speak. And those goals, when you research that, which we did, those goals are just

far off. Period. It's not that the US hasn't done leaps and bounds and helping to go

move towards that, but it wasn't in my opinion a legitimate reason to merge at the

time. Because it wasn't going to happen immediately because of that [the

merger].528

Not only did some feel that the Olympics were not a good reason, but that it would not happen. Dillon referred to the Olympics as the “pie-in-the-sky.”529

Ganzenmuller speculated that it would never happen, or at least not that she would experience. “I don’t know, I hope, I wish them well, but I don’t think it’s going to happen in my lifetime. I would be excited if it would, as long as it’s men and women.”530

Actually, the fact that Olympic recognition was so far off, led to leaders having fears as to what that would mean at the level of the national governing body. For instance, Susan

Ford, who rarely referenced the international component at all, either in the documents or in conversation, queried during the process, “with Olympic participation a long way off, would there be consideration given to eliminating the women’s division; [sic] at least

528 Anderson, interview. 529 Dillon, interview. 530 Ganzenmuller, interview. 203

until such time as the Olympic option was more viable?”531 Because the dream was unattainable or attainable at an unforeseen time, leaders even wondered if the women’s game would be hurt during the wait.

Some speculated whether the different sports, even with the same name, would actually hurt the Olympic prospects.

Susie Ganzenmuller: The problem is you look at men’s basketball and women’s

basketball; the game is the same. Men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse, the game

is not the same, so I’m not sure if there are going to be any implications because

of that.532

Jane Claydon also expressed concern.

Jane Claydon: I think a stumbling block is going to be there isn't one game; it's

two games. . . . Maybe in lacrosse you have to look at a new game with modified

rules on both sides [men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse] or perhaps a different

number of people. I don't know. Probably eight a side or ten a side [on each

squad].533

Here, Claydon actually posed that a new version of lacrosse may have to be formed to meet Olympic demands. Ironically, Ganzenmuller and Claydon both explained that the conflation of differences, as exemplified in domestic and international mergers, could hurt the Olympic effort. The location of two sports under one governance structure does not automatically make them the same sport. This potential would void the entire framing premise of the merger.

531 Susan Ford to Dottie [McKnight], 2 March 1997. USWLA Papers. 532 Ganzenmuller, interview. 533 Barnhill and Claydon, interview. 204

There is another conceivable roadblock for Olympic recognition that is playing itself out in 2013. Although further analysis of these interactions is outside the scope of this dissertation, I include it as it remains important to consider whether the Olympics were a viable or realistic path for lacrosse—men’s lacrosse or women’s lacrosse. FIL recognizes the Iroquois Nationals (men) and Haudenosaunee Nationals (women) as one member nation. There are two concerns here. First, Barnhill mentioned in our conversation that the Iroquois Nation struggled greatly with accepting women competing in the Creators game. It was historically and spiritually for men only. This assertion violates the international guidelines of gender equity; to be an Olympic sport, the governing bodies need to recognize both the men’s and women’s versions of the sports.

FIL has followed suit in its structure and established a timeline for compliance. It appears that will not be met in this instance.534 Second, Barnhill additionally noted that the

Olympics would not recognize the Iroquois and Haudenosaunee as a member nation because it is not a globally recognized sovereign nation.

Feffie Barnhill: But it will never be an Olympic sport that Iroquois would . . . be

able to compete [in]. We would have to walk through multiple walls to allow a

tribe of indigenous people to be its own country representation because you see

what would happen in Africa. Whereas each country is allowed to be a USOC

[United States Olympic Committee] member but you can’t say “this country plus

this tribe can play.” Now, we could say . . . that we could offer that anyone who

was an Iroquois would have the opportunity to try out for either Canada or US,

and if they're good enough you can make it or if you are not, US could say “no we

534 Ibid. 205

don't want them.” And those are all potential things down the road. . . But that's

still a hurdle that has not been solved.535

Again, without diverting too much into the details of the debate, lacrosse’s historical trajectory is pertinent in this instance. The Mohawks, a member tribe of the Iroquois

Confederation, developed tewaarathon, from which William George Beers developed lacrosse. FIL valued the history and permitted the Iroquois Nation to participate as such.

But participation for the Iroquois as a national team in the broader, non-sport specific contests, such as the Olympics, would not be possible.536 Although the inclusion of the

Iroquois and Haudenosaunee Nationals in FIL would not foreclose eventual Olympic inclusion of the sport, inclusion of national representation with only a women’s or men’s governance structure would. Certainly a complex situation of power dynamics, identity, and citizenship that remains relevant here to consider whether or not entrance into a sport structure that excludes a country that the international federation desires to recognize, is an appropriate option for lacrosse. As part of the quest to join the Olympics at some point in time, another international organization is pitting its own ideals against those of the

Olympics and selecting the Olympics’ over its own.

535 Barnhill and Claydon, interview. 536 This political debate came to a head when the team representing the Iroquois Nation was denied entry into the United Kingdom in 2010 for the Men’s World Championships. Now, for the 2014 men’s championships, the Iroquois team received a lower ranking because it did not participate in the previous World Games. The nation’s governing body filed a protest in May 2013. Matt DaSilva, “Iroquois' 2014 Status in Hands of FIL General Assembly Decision to Drop Team from Blue Division Faces Second Appeal,” Lacrosse Magazine.com, May 23, 2013, http://laxmagazine.com/international/2012- 13/news/052313_iroquois_lacrosse_2014_status_in_hands_of_fil_assembly; and “Iroquois Nationals Penalized Again for Being Native?” Indian Country Today, April 26, 2013, http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/04/26/iroquois-nationals-penalized-again-being-native- 149049.

206

Although there were and continue to be some real complications in the process of becoming an Olympic sport, some seemed resigned in their acceptance of the Olympic model.

Kendra Gallagher: The merger was: if you want what men have, sometimes you

make sacrifices. . . . If you want to be an Olympic sport, you have to be a

combined governing body. If the women want to participate in an Olympic sport,

you, by law of the world, you have to be in a merged governing body. So what,

we’re going to cut off our nose, and never compete internationally because we

want to be our own cult over here on the left? I'm not going to go for that. But

whoever is working within that organization has to make sure that they are always

the burr under the saddle or whatever you want to call it, be the people that are

saying “what about the women?” I mean it's the same as civil rights. I mean it's

the same thing. It takes a lot of energy. . . . I don't have any problem at being

under the same organization if the organization treats both of them equally.537

Gallagher related the concessions that she felt had to be made as simply a matter of

Olympic recognition. As a result, though, she would fight harder to ensure that gender equity was accomplished.

It’s All in a Name

Men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse must be linked in perpetuity in order to achieve the Olympic goal of inclusion, and whether the women in the USWLA were motivated because of the Olympics or not, they entered themselves and the sport into that system. And with the pressures to enter into the Olympic system, men’s lacrosse needed

537 Gallagher, interview. 207

women’s lacrosse to be invested. It is impossible to say what would have happened to the governance of women’s lacrosse had the USWLA not joined. However, if lacrosse was to be part of the Olympic movement, it needed to enter, presuming that the sports were related enough to have the same name.

Potentially, if women’s lacrosse leaders had focused its efforts on changing the sport’s name, their merger dialogues could have been different than what they were.

Gallagher posed the overlapping name as the source of the entire debate.

Kendra Gallagher: They [men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse] don't compare.

They are two different games. That's kind of the problem. We probably should

call our sport a completely different name. Whatever that word, the Indian word.

. . . If it had a different name, people wouldn't be comparing it. But it has the same

name, so they compare it. They both use sticks, I mean you know, but they have

different rules different intents.

Others identified the overlapping name “lacrosse” as the root of the problem as well. The exchange with Anderson demonstrated this concern.

Priscilla Anderson: We could have renamed our sport, gotten out of the whole

mess.

Melissa Wiser: Would you have supported that?

Priscilla Anderson: Would I have supported that? I think at that time it wasn’t

even thought of. So there was no consideration at the time. I think the main

thought at the time was how to move our sport forward with what it needed, so I

don't think that was even a consideration. It wasn't even on the table. Because the

208

benefit of the merger was our growth and our handling the growth, so it wasn't

really a naming right thing. . . . Part of the dilemma with this merger was . . . just

being recognized and even though that we really knew we were different sports,

but losing that recognition because of a name. And then having to merge because

of the name—that was a very confusing time. Because so much had to do with the

reason of it, and then you're talking about the game . . . We didn't have a term to

use other than the “women's game” and “lacrosse” to differentiate. So if we had

the term “stickball,” so we called our game “stickball” and the guys called their

game “lacrosse,” I think it might've been easier to swallow. And then your

question of would there even have been a consideration of a merger then?

Probably not because internationally we would be playing stickball. And then that

would be recognized by the Olympic Committee. Stickball.538

Not only could differing names have shifted the conversation, but they also may have opened the sport forms to participants who formerly did not have the opportunity to participate. In a sex-segregated sport system, men may not play women’s lacrosse and women may not play men’s lacrosse. Payette agreed. “If there were some way to rename them, I would be all for that because . . . I think both genders are interested in both games.”539 Due to sex segregation, the sports are foreclosed to potential participants.

Women’s lacrosse leaders have recently attempted to engage in such critical dialogues. Payette shared that the Board of Governors on the women’s side [in response to helmets debates] took part in an exercise to develop a new name. Although an

538 Anderson, interview. 539 Payette, interview. 209

important cause, she explained that “people gave up on it so quickly. It’s frustrating because there’s no resolution; it’s the itch you can’t get rid of.”540 She posed possible names that intentionally removed gender from the sport identifier, for instance, physical and non-physical lacrosse or contact or non-contact lacrosse. These possibilities remove gender, but maintain lacrosse in the name. They also locate the primary differences as contact, whereas I contend the discrepancies extend deeper. Regardless of whether these names are appropriate for the different sports, their proposal illustrates both an engagement with the need for a new name, as well as a rejection of that process. As

Payette noted, people gave up quickly.

Separate Sports

Ultimately, I believe that the sports, both men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse, missed an opportunity to consider meaningfully the potential of men who want to play the sport that is understood to be “women’s lacrosse” and women who want to play the sport that is understood to be “men’s lacrosse.” If we break claims of the two sports as men’s and women’s and instead solidify the two as separate games, the sport choice is the means to divide participants, not the players’ genders. In order to break through this charged debate, I suggest we shift the means through which we classify the two lacrosses.

If the gendered comparisons are rendered less relevant, then the game that is women’s lacrosse may no longer appear as modified and secondary. I pose we consider them different sports before we lose the lacrosse that has been played by women to the lacrosse that has been played by men. Indeed, several of those I interviewed expressed that men should be allowed to play women’s lacrosse and women should be allowed to play

540 Ibid. 210

men’s, but they were less inclined to support coed. Even if not coed, sex would then still be removed as the primary organizing principle. Sport choice would be instead.

Throughout the merger dialogues, the USWLA articulated the need for the women’s game to remain as such. USWLA posed the question to Harrigan after his initial presentation and members articulated this concern in the special edition newsletter. The concern was a constant. Repeatedly it was named as a different game, but there was not an alternative option posed for a different sport. The path that was followed would benefit women’s lacrosse in terms of resources, but if men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse are different games, then that path was an inappropriate one. The focus of the debates was on sameness and equity. I argue that this was the wrong conversation in this instance. The structural focus on equity distracted from the foundational necessity, namely that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse needed to be the same sport for the merger’s long-term goal to have any merit. If that is the case, then the potential for the sports to coalesce into one, most likely at the expense of women’s lacrosse, increases dramatically.

Conclusion

The merger is not simplistically good or bad, but its framing premise is problematic. The broader international vision required that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse enter into a model of gender equity. The concern with this has been widely demonstrated with Title IX. Women’s sports entered into a men’s model where women’s sports were rendered inferior. Although the merger attempted to keep women in control

211

of women through a conscious effort, it still required a similarity. The Olympic model itself was stringent and not what was the best for the sport of women’s lacrosse.

Men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse have related histories; they overlap and intersect at varying points. However, their governance was distinct in the United States until 1998. The long-term impact on the sports, and on women’s lacrosse specifically, remains to be seen. What is evident, though, is that those active in women’s lacrosse, some currently some formerly, are unhappy with the treatment of women’s lacrosse in relation to men’s lacrosse. Throughout the merger process and continuing, comparisons between the sports rendered women’s lacrosse inferior to the men’s. A focus on equity, albeit very important, distracted from the question of whether the sports were distinct or not. Instead, an opportunity for various groups to engage in more sport forms was overlooked.

212

Conclusion

After six years of proposals, meetings, conversations, and votes, in 1998 US

Lacrosse opened its doors and became operational. Eventually, eight organizations joined to create this new national governing body for the sport of lacrosse, representing the first time that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse existed under one governance structure in the United States. The merger began as a conversation about how to grow lacrosse. It rapidly converted to a mission to establish lacrosse as an Olympic sport. In order to join the Olympic Program, a national governing body needed to recognize only one sport and it must be the only national governing body for that sport in the related nation. Motivated by a desire to be included in the Olympic Games, the design of the merger followed the dictates of the Amateur Sports Act and the Olympic Charter. As a result, it was presumed that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse needed to merge structurally to embark on the

Olympic Dream.

Coupled with the structural merging was the potential for conceptual merging as well. In this dissertation, I have argued that the foundational premise of the merger dialogues was faulty. The premise only makes sense if the sports are the same, but men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse are different sports. Historically men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse have progressed independently of each other, despite moments of overlap and intersection. In course of play, field markings, physical contact, and

213

equipment the sports are distinct. Thus, the merger was problematic; it demanded and cemented the notion that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse were two versions of one sport.

A gender-equity model in sport fostered such oversimplification and conflation of the sports. Domestic and international sport-related legislation, such as Title IX, the

Amateur Sports Act, and the Olympic Charter, demanded inclusion of men and women sport participants in recognized sport forms. Despite the activist intents of these laws, they supported a separate but equal structure. Even if men and women play the identical sport, they would not play together. In the instances of men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse, the separate but equal doctrine is inappropriately applied. Different and different would be a more appropriate comparative schematic, as men play a wholly different sport than women and vice versa. But in a dominant sport system that values men’s sports over women’s, it is presumed that as women advance athletically, women’s sports should or could mirror the physicality of men’s sports. Although I support broadening society’s view on the limits of the female body in sport, this is the wrong conversation in relation to women’s lacrosse. Progress for women’s lacrosse would not be advancing towards men’s lacrosse, as that could lead to erasure of women’s lacrosse entirely.

The merger debates did not engage consistently with such conversations, as I am posing here. Instead, the critical question of whether it was appropriate to engage in a merger with a foundational premise of being one sport in order to one day join the

Olympic games was obscured. The United States Women’s Lacrosse Association

(USWLA) was largely unable to take on such a question, due to the frequent changes in

214

leadership and the divisiveness that the merger dialogues generated. With Presidents

Kleinfelder, followed by Ford, and then by Samaras, the leadership’s views on and approaches towards the merger consistently waivered. The organization was unable to develop a unified front or consistent message with such dramatic shifts in leadership.

In addition, those who supported the merger exhibited a concessionary tone.

Many expressed a desire for increased resources or opportunities for the sport to grow.

These resources would be yet another example of gender equity, in that what the organization made available to the men’s sport it would also have to make available to the women’s. Those in favor did not state they wanted to join the men’s organizations because the sports should be joined; the support derived from the organizational rationale.

US Lacrosse did try to represent men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse equitably.

The organizational structure was a far superior outcome as compared to the National

Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for

Women (AIAW) debates. The leaders of US Lacrosse would alternate each term, so the

Men’s and Women’s Divisions would have equal opportunity to lead the entire organization. On paper, US Lacrosse and the efforts of USWLA members who resisted earlier proposals created a fairer structure within the system.

The USWLA also had minimal options. The Lacrosse Foundation created a conversation in which the USWLA had to engage. The Lacrosse Foundation instigated and supported the initial steps in the process. As it progressed, more groups became involved, but the Lacrosse Foundation remained the backbone of the project. The leaders

215

of the Lacrosse Foundation and then US Lacrosse were consistent in their mission to create a national governing body for the sport that would encompass all the requisite constituent groups. At some point, though, the conversation converted into a competition.

Once it became evident that US Lacrosse was proceeding with a Women’s Division regardless of the USWLA’s involvement, it was clear that the project would likely lead to the USWLA’s demise either in 1998 or in the near future.

Throughout the process, the fact that women’s lacrosse was distinct from men’s lacrosse was repeatedly posed. Despite this frequency, the issue of men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse being distinct games was not handled in a manner that addressed the inappropriateness of the Olympic Model. Leaders posed the fear of men taking over; they attempted to avoid another AIAW/NCAA situation. A valid contention, but this approach focused on control as opposed to the sport itself. If the sports were different, then the proposal of a merger does not make sense. In fact, it may actually go against what the

Olympic Model demands. An identical name is not necessarily indicative of the same sport. Although participants in the merger debates repeatedly identified the differences between men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse, the validity of these distinctions was consistently obscured.

I concluded the body of this dissertation with a claim that the leaders involved in the merger missed an opportunity to declare men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse as separate sports. If we shift the gendered identifier of the games and understand them as separate sports, one that has been played by men and one that has been played by women,

216

then both lacrosses can be embraced before the sport known as “women’s lacrosse” is lost.

Changes in Women’s Lacrosse

With the benefit of writing in 2013, fifteen years after the merger, I can ask, did the games remain different or has women’s lacrosse become more like men’s lacrosse?

Did the change in governance impact the sport itself? A detailed response to these questions could be another dissertation, but I will briefly acknowledge some relevant examples worthy of discussion.

I posed a similar question in my interviews, and when the interviewees responded they were extremely careful to not blame the merger in and of itself. They identified multiple social and cultural factors that could lead to changes in women’s lacrosse. For instance, they named athletes specializing in one sport, students and parents participating in the quest for an athletic scholarship to Division I programs, and medical professionals engaging in sport safety research as potential contributors to changes in women’s lacrosse. All of these components have increased in the time period since the merger.

Thus, I cannot say with certainty that a merging of the sports organizationally led to changes in the women’s sport specifically. I can, however, highlight some factors that likely have influenced the sport and identify some changes that I have experienced.

The growth of the game has occurred quickly and perhaps too quickly for those already familiar with the sport to sustain it. At the collegiate level representing all divisions, in 1992, 16% of schools offered women’s lacrosse. In 2012, 39.3% of schools

217

offered women’s lacrosse.541 After just twenty years, the percentage of teams that offer women’s lacrosse programs has increased significantly. This is positive in considerations of the growth of the sport and more opportunities for more participants to play.

This positive also has a potential negative. According to the same study, at the collegiate level, between 1992 and 1998 the percentage of women coaching women’s lacrosse teams dropped from 95.7% to 86%. In 2012, the percentage dropped slightly, again, to 85.1%.542 The percentage remains a majority, but it represents a significant decrease from before the merger started. Women are not coaching women’s lacrosse at the same rate as in years past.

This poses a concern beyond identity politics and desiring women in leadership positions in women’s sports. If men are filling the remaining positions, they are coaching a sport they could not have possibly played. Laurette Payette, National Umpiring

Committee Chair, explained the problem. “Men who played men’s lacrosse are coaching women’s lacrosse like men’s lacrosse.”543 Steve Stenersen, President and CEO of US

Lacrosse similarly described the situation. “Most of the dads [coaching girls’ lacrosse] aren’t trying to convert the women’s game to the men’s game but their experience in the men’s game is suddenly and imperceptibly creeping into perhaps how they are coaching the women’s game.”544 Although the potential for changes to women’s lacrosse are not necessarily intentional, due to the experiences of the coaches, changes are still nevertheless occurring.

541 Acosta and Carpenter, “Women in Intercollegiate Sport,” 12. 542 Ibid., 20. 543 Payette, interview. 544 Stenersen, interview. 218

Changes in style of play are part of a process of active negotiation. Pat Dillon,

NCAA Rules Secretary, acknowledged such an engagement in her understanding of men in the women’s game. She stated that men who come to the women’s game:

Pat Dillon: Either take one of two routes. . . . They either embrace the women's

game and change their thinking and not try to make the women's game the men's

game that they've come from or they continue to try and make the women's game

the men's game. And somewhere along the line they may have an epiphany and

switch and I think the ones that do have that epiphany and switch have the greater

success and the greater understanding of the game and probably have more of an

appreciation, more fun with the game, once they accept the women's game for

what it is. The ones who continually are pushing and pushing to make the

women's game more like the men's game, I think they're the ones who butt heads

with everybody else in the game.545

Dillon demonstrated an active negotiation of the sport in her example. While some fight to change the sport, others incorporate themselves into the mix and appreciate the sport as it was at the time. Nevertheless, the sport is fluid and changes with those who are in it.

But who is in the game impacts that game. It is also significant to note, as Dillon does, that women are not coaching and officiating men’s lacrosse as men are in women’s lacrosse.546

545 Dillon, interview. 546 Ibid. Although I do not have specific numbers to support this argument, due to Dillon’s position in the NCAA and her involvement in US Lacrosse, her anecdotal reference likely has some merit. In addition, Acosta and Carpenter found that in intercollegiate sport overall, women coach between 2 and 3.5% of men’s teams, which is approximately the same range when Title IX was passed. Acosta and Carpenter, “Women in Intercollegiate Sport,” 17. 219

Stylistically, play has changed. Permissible physical contact has increased, although the notion that women’s lacrosse is a non-contact sport has been a misnomer for quite some time. A 2006 rule clarification stated, “A player must not . . . initiate crosse to body, or body to crosse contact.”547 The addition of this rule highlighted that even if crosse-to-body and body-to-crosse contact is prohibited, body-to-body contact is not necessarily illegal. This is a shift from the 1993 rules presented in Chapter 2.

Changes extend to the field itself. In Chapter 2 I included diagrams of the men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse fields in 1993. In 2013, there are some noticeable changes to the women’s field. The out-of-bounds line is perhaps the most dramatic one. Certainly there was a concept of leaving the field of play, but that flexible point was to be determined by the officials as well as the natural terrain. In 2006, the rulebook included hard boundaries or solid painted lines. The addition of the out-of-bounds lines not only altered the field of play but also shifted the understanding of possession. During games prior to hard lines, an official would warn a player if she were running too far off field.

She would retain possession of the ball once she returned to the field. As of 2006, when a player stepped on the line while in active play, she automatically lost possession of the ball.548

In addition to the sheer presence of the line, the concept of out of bounds after a shot on goal mirrors that of the men’s game. This similarity is important to point out because it deviates with common understandings of out of bounds present in other popular sports. If a team carries or passes a ball out of bounds, the other team gains

547 US Lacrosse, 2006 Women’s Rules: Official Rules for Girls and Women’s Lacrosse (Baltimore: US Lacrosse National Headquarters, 2006). 548 Ibid., 6. 220

possession. But after a shot, the closest player, regardless of which team, closest to the ball when it crosses the end- or sideline, receives possession of the ball. Essentially, the team that shot and caused the ball to go out of bounds could still regain possession. The similar wording and conceptualization of out of bounds may suggest that the national governing body made an attempt to unify the ruling in the men’s and women’s games.

Collectively, these changes to the women’s sport itself are significant. Although I cannot argue that the changes are motivated by the men’s game, I point to the fact that many of these changes resemble aspects of men’s lacrosse, such as the concept of out-of- bounds and increased physical contact. If more people become involved in women’s lacrosse who had only known men’s lacrosse, such outcomes could continue to occur.

Sports are constantly changing, but these similarities to a different sport that already existed are noteworthy.

In addition, US Lacrosse realigned its governance structure in 2010. The separate

Men’s Division and Women’s Division that had been so integral in the initial merger negotiation processes no longer exist in the same format. Multiple divisions now exist that represent various components of the organization, as opposed to the different sports.

These divisions are Game Administration, Sport Development, Membership, Marketing, and US Lacrosse Foundation.549 The councils of the former Men’s Division and

Women’s Division converted into subcommittees. US Lacrosse claimed that the committee and board structure still demands that men’s lacrosse and women’s lacrosse

549 “US Lacrosse Leadership Team.” 221

are represented equally in the new structure.550 Only ten years after the merger, the organization became more centralized. As a result, the women leaders may not have as much direct control over their sport as they had initially in the newly merged governing body. One of the key criteria in the merger negotiations has already shifted in the new reorganization.

Due to the aforementioned rule changes and increased presence of those who could not have played women’s lacrosse, the claim that women’s lacrosse and men’s lacrosse are distinct is dwindling in its accuracy. The sports remain different, but the women’s game appears to be increasing in similarities to the men’s. And the governance structure, which was critical to the merger dialogues, points to another potential for change in the future. It is too soon to say whether the change will be positive or negative for the sports, but it clearly is different than what was originally intended just fifteen years ago.

Because those involved in the merger dialogues did not challenge the foundational premise of the efforts, there is a possibility that women’s lacrosse could quickly be lost. Significant changes already point to that potential. The leaders on all sides of the debate missed a crucial opportunity to label the games as different sports.

Perhaps that would have delayed Olympic recognition even further, as then the separate sports would have had to develop and grow domestically and internationally because men and women would have had to populate each version. Perhaps one of the two sports would have achieved it at some point, but it certainly would have been a painstaking

550 US Lacrosse, 2009 Annual Report, 2010. http://www.uslacrosse.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=2ny- PwP-594%3D&tabid=2814. 222

process to start, and likely would have taken even longer than the current lacrosse process will take.

I now return this dissertation to where it began: helmets. During the 2011 US

Lacrosse National Convention, Laura Hebert, who in 2013 is Chair of US Lacrosse, referred to helmets as the “tip of the iceberg.” The implication is that the helmet is one of several threats to the women’s game, and symbolically the helmet has served as a line of demarcation. Although similarities have increased, the games are still distinct. An appearance of similarity makes the inclusion of helmet seem like a logical progression, but only if men’s lacrosse is that which women’s lacrosse is intended to move towards. A lack of critical dialogue of the distinctions between the sports, not the athletes’ bodies, erases women’s lacrosse as a sport in-and-of-itself. In addition, this articulation is currently relevant, as the helmet dialogue circulates around these questions of what is lacrosse. The discourses utilized consistently argue that the sports are different, but it is a struggle for those who are not familiar with the sports to see the distinctions.

This dissertation argues that although men’s and women’s lacrosse share the name lacrosse, the sports are distinct in manners other than the presumed sex and gender identification of the athletes. I caution women’s sports advocates against assuming that women athletes moving towards what is perceived to be a more aggressive sport is automatically an improvement for women’s sports on a whole. The reality is likely that

223

helmets would not be a suggestion for women’s lacrosse if they were not already present in men’s.

224

Bibliography

“About the Sport.” US Lacrosse. 2009. http://www.uslacrosse.org/UtilityNav/AboutTheSport/Overview.aspx.

“About Us.” Brine. 2013. http://www.brine.com/info/about/.

“About US Lacrosse Leadership Team.” US Lacrosse. 2009. http://www.uslacrosse.org/UtilityNav/AboutUSLacrosse/LeadershipTeam.aspx.

Acosta, R. Vivian and Linda Jean Carpenter. “Women in Intercollegiate Sport: A Longitudinal, National Study Thirty-five Year Update, 1977-2012.” Unpublished manuscript, n.d. http://acostacarpenter.org/AcostaCarpenter2012.pdf.

Adelman, Melvin L. A Sporting Time: New York City and the Rise of Modern Athletics 1820-70. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986.

Anderson, Priscilla. Interview with the author. January 7, 2012. Mount Upton, NY.

“Ethel ‘Feffie’ Barnhill.” National Lacrosse Hall of Fame. 2005. http://apps.uslacrosse.org/museum/halloffame/.

Barnhill, Feffie and Jane Claydon. Interview with the author. September 8-9, 2011, Lewes, DE.

Beers, William George. Lacrosse: The Game of Canada. Montreal: Dawson Brothers, 1869. Kessinger Legacy Reprints.

Beamish, Rob and Ian Ritchie. Fastest, Highest, Strongest: A Critique of High- Performance Sport. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Booth, Douglas. The Field: Truth and Fiction in Sport History. London: Routledge, 2005.

Booth, Douglas. “Sport Historians: What Do We Do? How Do We Do It?” In Deconstructing Sport History: A Postmodern Analysis, edited by Murray G. Phillips, 27-54. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006.

225

Booth, Douglas and Murray Phillips, ed. “Sport History and the Cultural Turn,” Special Issue, Sporting Traditions 27, no. 2 (2010).

Boutilier, Mary A. and Lucinda F. SanGiovanni. “Politics, Public Policy, and Title IX: Some Limitations of Liberal Feminism.” In Women, Sport, and Culture, edited by Susan Birrell and Cheryl L. Cole, 97-109. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1994.

Boyd, Margaret. Lacrosse: Playing and Coaching. New York: A.S. Barnes, 1959.

Brackenridge, Celia. Women’s Lacrosse. Woodbury, NY: Barron’s, 1978.

Brettell, Caroline B. “Introduction: Fieldwork, Text, and Audience.” In When They Read What We Write: The Politics of Ethnography, edited by Caroline B. Brettell, 1- 24. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, 1993.

Brown, Catherine L. “Attitudes towards Fair Play in Women’s Lacrosse.” PhD diss., Ohio State University, 1983.

Brown, Jana Friedman. “From Obscurity to International Prominence: An Amazing Century for Women’s Lacrosse.” Lacrosse Magazine, August 1999.

Cahn, Susan K. Coming on Strong: Gender and Sexuality in Twentieth-Century Women’s Sport. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.

Carpenter, Linda Jean and R. Vivian Acosta. Title IX. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2005.

Carrington, Ben. “What the Footballer Doing Here? Racialized Performativity, Reflexivity, and Identity.” Cultural Studies/Critical Methodologies 8, no. 4 (2008): 423-52. doi: 10.1177/1532708608321574.

Chamberlain, Christin R. “Comparison of Lower Extremity Biomechanics between Female Division I Gymnastic, Lacrosse, and Soccer Athletes.” Master’s thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2006. ProQuest UMI 1435064.

Claydon, Jane. St. Leonards: Cradle of Lacrosse. St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland: West Port Print & Design, 2009.

Collins, Karen E. “An Examination of Factors Influencing Entrapment and Burnout among Collegiate Female Field Hockey and Lacrosse Coaches.” PhD diss., University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 2002. ProQuest UMI 3049154.

Connelly, Deidre. “An Investigation of Assertive Sport Behavior in Female Lacrosse Athletes.” PhD diss., University of Virginia, 1988.

226

“Joyce Cran Barry.” National Lacrosse Hall of Fame. 2005. http://apps.uslacrosse.org/museum/halloffame/.

“Coaching History.” University of Maryland Women’s Basketball. 2013. http://www.umterps.com/sports/w-baskbl/recordbook/coaching_history.html.

Cronin, Mike. “Reflections on the Cultural Paradigm.” In “Sport History and the Cultural Turn,” edited by Douglas Booth and Murray Phillip. Special Issue, Sporting Traditions 27, no. 2 (2010): 1-13.

DaSilva, Matt. “Iroquois' 2014 Status in Hands of FIL General Assembly Decision to Drop Team from Blue Division Faces Second Appeal.” Lacrosse Magazine.com. May 23, 2013. http://laxmagazine.com/international/2012- 13/news/052313_iroquois_lacrosse_2014_status_in_hands_of_fil_assembly.

Davenport, Joanna. “The Tides of Change in Women’s Basketball Rules.” In A Century of Women’s Basketball: From Frailty to Final Four, edited by Joan S. Hult and Marianna Trekell, 83-108. Reston, VA: National Association for Girls and Women in Sport, 1991.

“The Dawn of a New Day: US Lacrosse is Born!” Lacrosse Magazine, November/December 1997.

Dillon, Pat. Interview with the author. January 15, 2012. Philadelphia, PA.

“Pat Dillon.” National Lacrosse Hall of Fame. 2005. http://apps.uslacrosse.org/museum/halloffame/.

“Board of Directors.” Federation of International Lacrosse. 2013. http://filacrosse.com/about/fil-board/.

Edwards, Harry. “Desegregating Sexist Sport.” In Out of the Bleachers: Writings on Women in Sport, edited by Stephanie L. Twin, 188-191, 196-197. Old Westbury, NY: Feminist Press, 1979.

Federation of International Lacrosse. Constitution. June 2012. http://filacrosse.com/wp- content/themes/sportedge/downloads/FIL_Constitution.pdf.

Festle, Mary Jo. Playing Nice: Politics and Apologies in Women’s Sports. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.

“FIL Overview.” Federation of International Lacrosse. 2013. http://filacrosse.com/about.

227

Fisher, Donald A. Lacrosse: A History of the Game. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.

Forbes, Susan L. “Lacrosse.” In International Encyclopedia of Women and Sports, edited by Karen Christensen, Allen Guttmann, and Gertrud Pfister, 641-45. New York: Macmillan Reference, 2001.

Ford, Susan. Interview with the author. September 15, 2011, Grosse Point, MI.

“Susan Ford.” National Lacrosse Hall of Fame. 2005. http://apps.uslacrosse.org/museum/halloffame/.

“Susan L. Ganzenmuller.” National Lacrosse Hall of Fame. 2005. http://apps.uslacrosse.org/museum/halloffame/.

Ganzenmuller, Susie. Interview with the author. May 7, 2011, Scottsdale, AZ.

Gerber, Ellen W., Jan Felshin, Pearl Berlin, and Waneen Wyrick. The American Woman in Sport. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1974.

Green, Tina Sloan and Agnes Bixler Kurtz. Modern Women’s Lacrosse. Hanover, NH: ABK Publications, 1989.

Guttmann, Allen. The Olympics: A History of the Modern Games. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992.

Guttmann, Allen. Women’s Sports: A History. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991.

Hanna, Mike. Lacrosse for Men and Women: Skills and Strategies for the Athlete and Coach. With contributions by Jackie Pitts and Dan White. New York: Hawthorn/Dutton, 1980.

Haraway, Donna. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14, no. 3 (1988): 575-99. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3178066.

Harding, Sandra. “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: ‘What is Strong Objectivity’?” In Feminist Epistemologies, edited by Linda Alcoff and Elizabeth Potter, 49-82. New York: Routledge, 1993.

Harrigan, Michael T. “A Class Act.” The Olympian, January 1989.

Hartsock, Nancy C. M. “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a

228

Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism.” In Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, edited by Sandra Harding and Merrill B. Hintikka, 283-310. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing, 1983.

Hawkesworth, Mary. Feminist Inquiry: From Political Conviction to Methodological Innovation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2006.

Heide, Wilma Scott. “Feminism for a Sporting Future.” In Women and Sport: From Myth to Reality, edited by Carole A. Oglesby, 195-202. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1978.

Hult, Joan S. “The Governance of Athletics for Girls and Women: Leadership by Women Physical Educators, 1899-1949.” In A Century of Women’s Basketball: From Frailty to Final Four, edited by Joan S. Hult and Marianne Trekell, 53-82. Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 1991.

Ikard, Robert W. Just for Fun: The Story of AAU Women’s Basketball. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 2005.

International Olympic Committee. Olympic Charter: In Force as from 23rd July 1992. http://www.olympic.org/Documents/Olympic%20Charter/Olympic_Charter_throu gh_time/1992-Olympic_Charter.pdf.

“Iroquois Nationals Penalized Again for Being Native?” Indian Country Today. April 26, 2013. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/04/26/iroquois- nationals-penalized-again-being-native-149049.

Kleinfelder, Carole. Letter to Lacrosse Magazine. Lacrosse Magazine, May 1996.

Krome, Paul. “One Decade, One Sport: At 10th Anniversary, US Lacrosse Marks History, Embraces Future.” Lacrosse Magazine. January 2008.

“Lacrosse: National Collegiate.” NCAA, 2000. http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/champs_records_book/1999-00/w_lacrosse.pdf.

Lacrosse Magazine, November/December 1997.

Large, David Clay. Munich 1972: Tragedy, Terror, and Triumph at the Olympic Games. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2012.

Lucas, Shelley. “Courting Controversy: Gender and Power in Iowa Girls’ Basketball.” Journal of Sport History 30, no. 3 (2003): 281-308.

229

Markula, Pirkko. “Postmodern Aerobics: Contradiction and Resistance.” In Athletic Intruders: Ethnographic Research on Women, Culture, and Exercise, edited by Anne Bolin and Jane Granskog, 53-78. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003.

May, Reuben A. Buford. Living through the Hoop: High School Basketball, Race, and the American Dream. New York: New York University Press, 2008.

Maynard, Keith. “Report Ties Lacrosse Growth to Establishment of NGB.” Lacrosse Magazine, February 1995, 25-27.

McCrone, Kathleen E. Playing the Game: Sport and Physical Emancipation of English Women 1870-1914. University Press of Kentucky, 1988.

McKnight, Dottie. Interview with the author. September 17, 2011, Washington DC.

McVaugh, Sue. Interview with the author. January 8, 2012, Hamilton, NY.

Messner, Michael. Taking the Field: Women, Men, and Sports. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 2002.

Messner, Michael A., Margaret Carlisle Duncan and Kerry Jensen. “Separating the Men from the Girls: The Gendered Language of Televised Sports.” In Women and Sports in the United States: A Documentary Reader, edited by Jean O’Reilly and Susan K. Cahn, 265-81. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2007.

Nafziger, James A.R. “The Amateur Sports Act of 1978.” BYU Law Review 47 (1983): 47-99.

Narayan, Kirin. “How Native is a ‘Native’ Anthropologist?” American Anthropologist 95, no. 3 (1993): 671-686. http://www.jstor.org/stable/679656.

Nathan, Dan. “Asking a Fish about Water: Three Notes Toward an Understanding of “The Cultural Turn’ and Sport History.” In “Sport History and the Cultural Turn,” edited by Douglas Booth and Murray Phillips. Special Issue, Sporting Traditions 27, no. 2 (2010): 29-44.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. 1993 NCAA Men’s Lacrosse Rules. Overland Park, KS: National Collegiate Athletic Association, 1992.

North American Indian Travelling College. Tewaarathon (Lacrosse): Akwesasne’s Story of Our National Game. NAITC, 1978.

230

“NT-Valerie Walchak.” US Lacrosse. 2009. http://www.uslacrosse.org/TopNav2Right/ Events/2013WomensNationalTournamentOld/NTValerieWalchakTrophy.aspx.

Olympic Movement. “Official Olympic Games Results.” Accessed May 17, 2013, http://www.olympic.org/olympic-results.

Payette, Laurette. Interview with the author. August 26, 2011, Macedonia, OH.

Phillips, Murray. “Commentary.” In “Sport History and the Cultural Turn,” edited by Douglas Booth and Murray Phillips. Special Issue, Sporting Traditions 27, no. 2 (2010): 61-80.

Phillips, Murray G. “Introduction: Sport History and Postmodernism.” In Deconstructing Sport History: A Postmodern Analysis, edited by Murray G. Phillips, 1-24. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006.

Pietramala, David G. and Neil A. Grauer. Lacrosse: Technique and Tradition. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.

Poniatowski, Kelly. “‘You’re Not Allowed Body Checking in Women’s Hockey’: Preserving Gendered and Nationalistic Hegemonies in 2006 Olympic Ice Hockey Tournament.” Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal 20, no. 1 (2011): 39- 52.

Randolph, Aaron Michael. “Analysis of the Effectiveness of a Preseason Strength and Conditioning Program for Collegiate Men’s and Women’s Lacrosse.” EdD. diss., Lindenwood University, 2012. ProQuest UMI 3550873.

Schultz, Jaime. “Leaning into the Turn: Towards a New Cultural Sport History.” In “Sport History and the Cultural Turn,” edited by Douglas Booth and Murray Phillips. Special Issue, Sporting Traditions 27, no. 2 (2010): 45-59.

Schwarz, Alan. “A Case against Helmets in Lacrosse,” New York Times. February 16, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/sports/17lacrosse.html?_r=1&.

Scott, Bob. Lacrosse: Technique and Tradition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.

“Rosabelle Sinclair.” National Lacrosse Hall of Fame. 2005. http://apps.uslacrosse.org/museum/halloffame/.

Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books, 1999.

231

Stenersen, Steve. Interview with the author. February 22, 2012, Baltimore, MD.

Steven B. Stenersen. Response to Kleinfelder. Lacrosse Magazine, May 1996.

Sykes, Heather. “Transsexual and Transgender Policies in Sport.” Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal 15, no. 1 (2006): 3-13.

Trafford, Bobbie and Kath Howarth. Women’s Lacrosse: The Skills of the Game. Ramsbury, Marlborough, England: Crowood Press, 1989.

United States Women’s Lacrosse Association. Official Lacrosse Rules, 1993-1994. Hamilton, NY: USWLA, 1993.

Urick, David. Lacrosse: Fundamentals for Winning. New York: Sports Illustrated, 1988.

US Lacrosse. 2006 Women’s Rules: Official Rules for Girls and Women’s Lacrosse. Baltimore: US Lacrosse National Headquarters, 2006.

US Lacrosse. 2009 Annual Report, 2010. http://www.uslacrosse.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=2ny-PwP- 594%3D&tabid=2814.

US Lacrosse. More than a Game: A History of Lacrosse. DVD. Baltimore: US Lacrosse, 1998.

US Lacrosse. “Correcting the Record: Headgear, Not Helmets.” USL News &Updates. July 2011. http://cl.publicaster.com/ViewInBrowser.aspx?pubids=6778|6506|611096|700391 &digest=PATDlWnrTocy1LKMrayX0A&sysid=1.

US Lacrosse. “US Lacrosse Requests NOCSAE to Develop Unique Women’s Lacrosse Headgear Standard.” Officials Newsletter Women’s Edition. June 2011. http://cl.publicaster.com/ViewInBrowser.aspx?pubids=6778|6599|611096|6090& digest=MGwUyHrdRp9SzJovFkgUdw&sysid=1.

US Lacrosse. Women’s Game Umpire Manual 2012. Baltimore: US Lacrosse National Headquarters, 2012.

Vennum, Thomas. American Indian Lacrosse: Little Brother of War. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.

Verbrugge, Martha H. Active Bodies: A History of Women’s Physical Education in Twentieth-Century America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

232

Walchak, Val. Interview with the author. August 16, 2012, Villanova, PA.

“Valerie Walchak.” National Lacrosse Hall of Fame. 2005. http://apps.uslacrosse.org/museum/halloffame/.

Ware, Susan. Game, Set, Match: Billie Jean King and the Revolution in Women’s Sports. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011.

Weyand, Alexander M., and Milton R. Roberts. The Lacrosse Story. Baltimore: H&A Herman, 1965.

“Women’s Lacrosse Timeline.” US Lacrosse. 2009. http://www.uslacrosse.org/UtilityNav/AboutTheSport/Overview.aspx.

“World Event History & Results” Federation of International Lacrosse. 2013. http://filacrosse.com/world-events-results/.

Wushanley, Ying. Playing Nice and Losing: The Struggle for Control of Women’s Intercollegiate Athletics, 1960-2000. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2004.

Archives and Private Papers

United States Women's Lacrosse Association. Papers. University of Maryland Libraries.

US Lacrosse Papers. US Lacrosse Headquarters Collection.

Priscilla Anderson Papers. Private Collection.

233