Editorial: NCAA’s anti-discrimination policy still has a ways to go

In April, the NCAA released a new requirement for prospective hosts of NCAA official events: They must demonstrate that their site will provide a safe, inclusive environment for fans and players alike. While North Carolina’s now infamous HB2 law, which requires transgender individuals to use the bathroom of the gender identity assigned to them at birth, was not mentioned by name, it has become clear that the NCAA will not condone this type of discrimination, and this isn’t just for show. Earlier this month, seven events were officially relocated from North Carolina thanks to the new policy.

This is an important step for the NCAA to take, because while plenty of groups claim zero tolerance toward any type of discrimination, responsibility is often placed on individuals to prove the discrimination is problematic. Now, institutions have to prove that they are actively inclusive, as the NCAA attempts to curb discrimination at its events.

None of this is to say that the policy is without its flaws. Many have spoken out, saying that this policy is just in place to make the organization look better without actually taking steps to protect its members. While it may ban events in North Carolina, for example, the NCAA allows schools like Brigham Young University (BYU) to participate, even though it actively bans homosexuality and discriminates against gay and lesbian student athletes in myriad ways. In addition to disallowing same-sex couples from living together on campus, BYU's honor code outwardly states, "Homosexuality is inappropriate and violates the honor code."  Even LGBTQ groups supportive of the NCAA's measure, like Athlete Ally, who called the policy “a wonderful step in the right direction,” still call into question the opaqueness of the regulation. In Athlete Ally’s recommendation to the NCAA, they call on the athletic association to pass more specific ordinances related to inclusiveness, such as implementing LGBTQ-inclusive marketing and outreach programs for NCAA events.

Even if this policy were to perfectly address institutionalized discrimination from the hosts, forms of discrimination, like slurs and threats levied against LGBTQ players and fans, still cause barriers to entry for these marginalized groups. Case Western Reserve University’s LGBT Center outlines the many ways LGBTQ discrimination still manifests itself in college sports, including coaches requiring athletes to keep their sexuality under wraps or using anti-gay slurs to criticize performance. The NCAA's discrimination policy fails to push measures such as sensitivity training for student athletes — and, more importantly, coaches — to create more inclusive communities within their teams.

Others are upset that the NCAA has failed to take action on other pressing issues such as sexual assault controversies. While schools like Baylor University are accosted for not taking action on accusations of sexual assault by student athletes, many posit that the NCAA should also be held accountable for its lack of oversight. This may seem like an unrelated issue, but Title IX, which protects against discrimination in sports on the basis of sex, also requires accurate and timely reporting of any sexual assault or rape. However, the NCAA takes little action when these crimes are handled by athletic departments internally. If the NCAA wants to create an environment free of discrimination — in which every student athlete and spectator feels safe — it must take action against sexual assault in NCAA-affiliated schools as well.

None of this is to say that the NCAA anti-discrimination policy is a failure. The fact that the primary college athletic association is outright condemning discriminatory practices and taking actions to ensure that participants and spectators alike feel secure is no small feat. But if the NCAA is truly committed to an inclusive, safe and non-discriminatory community, this small step needs to be one of many more.