ReviewUnderstanding the under-representation of African Am.docx

Review
Understanding the under-representation of African American
coaches:
A multilevel perspective
George B. Cunningham *
Laboratory for Diversity in Sport, Department of Health and
Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, 4243 TAMU, College
Station, TX 77843-4243, USA
By most accounts, diversity represents one of the most
important issues for managers of organizations for sport and
physical activity today (Cunningham & Fink, 2006; Taylor,
Doherty, & McGraw, 2008; Thomas & Dyall, 1999). Within the
US,
changing demographic trends, federal and local equal
opportunity laws, and societal pressures have positively
influenced
the demographic and deep-level diversity in the workplace.
With the increased diversity also comes the hope and promise of
improved organizational processes and outcomes. Researchers
have shown that, relative to their homogeneous
counterparts, diverse groups and organizations convey a greater
sense of inclusivity (Doherty & Chelladurai, 1999),
experience decreased employment legislation (Robinson &
Dechant, 1997), greater creativity (McLeod, Lobel, & Cox,
1996),
better decision making (Cunningham, 2008; Phillips, Mannix,
Neale, & Gruenfeld, 2004), and performance gains
(Cunningham, 2009; Cunningham & Sagas, 2004a). Given these

many benefits, it is hardly surprising to learn that sports
leagues around the world are engaging in various diversity
initiatives aimed at increasing the diversity of their personnel,
players, and consumers (for overviews, see Cunningham, 2007;
Taylor et al., 2008).
This increased attention, both among scholars and sport
managers, to diversity might lead one to believe that sport is a
place where diversity and inclusion are the norm.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. Rather, people who differ
from the
typical majority – that is, people who are not White, able-
bodied, heterosexual, Protestant males – are likely to face
prejudice
and discrimination based on their personal demographic
characteristics (Fink, Pastore, & Riemer, 2001), and this is
certainly
the case for African American coaches of university athletic
teams. Consider the case of National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) football teams.1 Though African
Americans represent the plurality of the players on these teams
(DeHass,
Sport Management Review 13 (2010) 395–406
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history:
Received 11 June 2009
Accepted 15 July 2009
Keywords:
Race

Coaching
Diversity
Racism
Prejudice
Discrimination
A B S T R A C T
The purpose of this paper is to present a comprehensive,
multilevel framework for
understanding the under-representation of African Americans as
head coaches of
university athletic teams. I argue that factors at the macro-level
(i.e., institutionalized
practices, political climate, stakeholder expectations), meso-
level (i.e., prejudice on the
part of decision makers, discrimination, leadership prototypes,
organizational culture of
diversity), and micro-level (i.e., head coaching expectations and
intentions, occupational
turnover intentions) all impact this phenomenon. The
framework’s applicability for policy
development and changes initiatives is also discussed.

� 2010 Sport Management Association of Australia and New
Zealand. Published
by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
* Tel.: +1 979 458 8006; fax: +1 979 862 4428.
E-mail address: [email protected]
URL: http://www.diversityinsport.com
1 Data from the NCAA (DeHass, 2007) suggest that all racial
minorities are under-represented in coaching and leadership
positions. Nevertheless, the
focus of this framework is on African Americans. This decision
was based on African Americans’ high rates of participation in
university athletics—especially
the high profile sports of football and men’s and women’s
basketball—and the attention this group has received in both the
popular and academic press (see
also Eitzen & Sage, 2003).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Sport Management Review
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c
a t e / s m r
1441-3523/$ – see front matter � 2010 Sport Management
Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by
Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.smr.2009.07.006
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.diversityinsport.com

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14413523
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2009.07.006
2008), they constitute but a fraction of the head coaches
(DeHass, 2007). In fact, since 1996, 199 football head coaching
positions have become available, yet only 12 have been awarded
to African Americans (Wojciechowski, 2008). And, these
trends are not confined to football but are evident across the
university athletics context (DeHass, 2007). These figures led
Wojciechowski to conclude that ‘‘the numbers fluctuate slightly
from year to year, but the simple numbing fact remains that
African Americans still can’t punch a hole through the turf
ceiling.’’
Given the pervasiveness of this disturbing trend, several
researchers have offered potential explanations. Reasons
advanced to explain this phenomenon include institutional
racism (Eitzen & Sage, 2003), prevalent stereotypes (Brown,
2002; Davis, 2007), discrimination toward the coach (Anderson,
1993; Cunningham & Sagas, 2005; Cunningham, Sagas, &
Ashley, 2001; Lawrence, 2004), a lack of role models (Abney &
Richey, 1991), barriers to entering the profession (Kamphoff &
Gill, 2008), and racial differences in opportunities and career
experiences (Cunningham, Bruening, & Straub, 2006; Hill,
2004;
Sagas & Cunningham, 2005), among others. While these studies
have contributed to the general understanding of the under-
representation of African American head coaches, they are, by
and large, limited by their focus on a single level of analysis.
Such a singular concentration is largely incomplete because it
fails to recognize that sport organizations are multilevel
entities that both shape and are shaped by myriad factors
(Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; for similar arguments, see
Benschop,
2006; Cunningham & Sagas, 2008; Prasad, Pringle, & Konrad,

2006). Theoretical frameworks should reflect these complex
realities. Consequently, the purpose of this paper is to advance
a multilevel model aimed at explaining the under-
representation of African Americans as university athletics
coaches. To do so, I draw from multiple theoretical frameworks
to
argue for micro-, meso-, and macro-level explanations. In the
following sections, I present the pervasiveness of the
phenomenon and outline the specific tenets of the framework.
1. African Americans in coaching positions
Interpretation of the data pertaining to African Americans’
representation in head coaching positions varies. To further
cloud the issue, the figures vary based on the sport. For
instance, African Americans represent 28.9% of the head
coaches of
men’s Division I basketball teams, figures that Robinson (2009)
described as ‘‘robust,’’ but they constitute 20.8% of all men’s
track and field head coaches, and 8.4% of all women’s
volleyball head coaches (DeHass, 2007). Thus, one is left with
questions
of how to make sense of these data and to what to compare the
proportion of head coaches. Researchers have advanced two
options.
Some analysts compare the proportion of African American
head coaches to their representation in the general US
population, a rationale that is consistent with federal
affirmative action standards. As an example, in his 2008 Racial
and
Gender Report Card, Lapchick gave NCAA men’s basketball a
grade of ‘‘A’’ since the proportion of coaches of color (24.2%;
DeHass, 2007) was greater than their corresponding proportion
in the US population (24%). And, women’s basketball
received a grade of ‘‘B’’ since the proportion of racial minority

head coaches (14.1%) was less than their representation in the
US population (24%).
Others have countered that the aforementioned comparison
standard is overly munificent. Cunningham (2007), for
instance, has suggested that ‘‘from a practical standpoint, not
all people in a population have an equal chance to enter a
particular league or sport, especially as a coach’’ (p. 90); thus,
using the general population as a standard of comparison is
flawed and potentially provides too generous a picture of the
diversity-related culture in a particular sport. As an alternative,
several researchers have argued that former athletes represent
the largest pool of potential coaches, and as such, this
proportion should be used as the standard of comparison (e.g.,
Everhart & Chelladurai, 1998). Statistical evidence seems to
support this rationale, as a strong majority of coaches
previously participated in university athletes (Cunningham &
Sagas,
2002).
When considering players as the point of comparison,
conclusions drawn are less than optimistic. In Fig. 1, I draw
from
various data sources (www.census.gov; DeHass, 2007, 2008) to
present the proportion of African Americans in the general
US population and their proportion as players, assistant
coaches, and head coaches in four different contexts: the entire
NCAA, NCAA Division I women’s basketball, NCAA Division I
men’s basketball, and NCAA Division I football. At each level,
the
proportion of African American assistant coaches and head
coaches is markedly less than the corresponding proportion of
African American players. The biggest differences occur in
football, where 46.4% of the players, 23.2% of the assistant
coaches,
and just 6.1% of the head coaches are African American.

Framed another way, African Americans are 7.6 times more
likely to
be seen as a player than they are as a head coach in the football
context. It is also worth noting that even in women’s and
men’s basketball – contexts where the proportion of African
American head coaches has been described as ‘‘robust’’
(Robinson, 2009) – African Americans are at least twice as
likely to be seen as a player than they are as a head coach. The
evidence is clear: African Americans are severely under-
represented as both assistant coaches and head coaches of
university
athletic teams. But, why is this the case? In the following
section, I provide possible explanations for this occurrence.
2. A multilevel model to explain the under-representation of
African American coaches
The multilevel model addresses factors at the macro-level (i.e.,
institutionalized practices, political climate, stakeholder
expectations), meso-level (i.e., prejudice on the part of decision
makers, discrimination, leadership prototypes,
organizational culture of diversity), and micro-level (i.e., head
coaching expectations and intentions, occupational turnover
intentions). Consistent with a systems theory approach
(Chelladurai, 2009; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), the factors at
each level
G.B. Cunningham / Sport Management Review 13 (2010) 395–
406396
http://www.census.gov/
are also thought to influence one another. An illustrative
summary is presented in Fig. 1, and the model’s underlying
tenets

are presented in the following space.
2.1. Macro-level factors
Macro-level explanations for the under-representation of
African American head coaches focus on those elements
external to the specific athletic department but which still exert
considerable influence on that entity. The most prevalent of
these are institutionalized practices, political climate, and
stakeholder expectations.
2.1.1. Institutionalized practices
Activities become institutionalized when, as a result of habit,
history, and tradition, they become standardized and
unquestionably accepted as ‘‘the way things are done’’ (Scott,
2001). Over time, and as the result of varying legitimizing
forces, entities within a given environment are likely to
implement similar institutional practices and activities,
consequently coming to resemble one another. This process has
been termed institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell,
1983) and has been observed in various contexts in sport and
physical activity (Danylchuk & Chelladurai, 1999; Kikulis,
2000). As organizations continue to adhere to these
institutionalized activities, the practices become further
embedded,
habitualized, and perpetuated. Through language and the
socialization process, new members of an organization or
profession come to see those behaviors as the ‘‘obvious’’ or
‘‘normal’’ way to do things. As Zucker (1987) noted,
institutional
activities ‘‘are maintained over long periods of time without
further justification or elaboration, and are highly resistant to
change’’ (p. 446).
By many accounts, racism has become institutionalized in the

US. Feagin (2006), for instance, argued that with its slavery
ties, the United States represented ‘‘the only major Western
country that was explicitly founded on racial oppression’’ (p.
2),
and consequently, racism has been systemic in the country. This
perspective is consistent with that held by critical race
theorists, who suggest that racism is endemic in America such
that it is embedded in the social institutions, laws, and culture
(Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Tate, 1997). Indeed, the way in
which public schools are organized and financed, racial
profiling among many enforcement agencies, the informal
nature of job selection, health care provisions, the organization
of
the US legal system, and even the notion of meritocracy all
serve to privilege Whites while casting persons of color,
including
African Americans, as ‘‘others’’ (Applebaum, 2003; Coates,
2003; McIntosh, 1990; Williams, 2004).
Racism is also an institutionalized practice in sport (Eitzen &
Sage, 2003; Long, Robinson, & Spracklen, 2005; Singer,
2005a, 2005b). Consider the evidence. Racist ideologies that
promote Whites as smarter, more ethical, and better leaders
than their African American counterparts are continually
perpetuated in sport (Coakley, 2009). This ideology serves to
reinforce common stereotypes that denigrate and subjugate
African American athletes and coaches (Sailes, 2000).
Institutional racism impacts the positions African Americans
play (e.g., Sack, Singh, & Thiel, 2005) and the coaching and
administrative duties they are able to assume (Anderson, 1993;
McDowell & Cunningham, 2007). Not only have these ideals
Fig. 1. Proportion of African Americans in the US population,
as players, assistant coaches, and head coaches. Notes: Data
gathered from www.census.gov,

DeHass (2007, 2008). Historically Black Colleges and
Universities excluded.
406 397
http://www.census.gov/
been intact for centuries (Rader, 1999), but also they are
continually transmitted through various media sources
(Buffington,
2005; Woodward, 2004) and conveyed to others through
language and socialization (Coakley, 2009). Not surprisingly,
Yale
head football coach Tom Williams, an African American,
described the painfully slow pace of diversity-related change in
university athletics as ‘‘glacial’’ (as cited in Robinson, 2009).
All of these factors have served to limit the career advancement
and opportunities of African Americans, thereby resulting in
their under-representation in head coaching positions.
2.1.2. Political climate
In addition to institutionalized practices and processes, another
factor thought to influence diversity-related initiatives is
the political climate. The prevailing political climate and social
dynamics of a particular time or administration has the
potential to influence a sport organization in a number of ways,
including the emphasis placed on competitive and
participant sport opportunities (Coakley, 2009), the provision of
funding for sports facilities (Crompton, 1995),
empowerment (or lack thereof) of unions (Abercrombie, Hill, &
Turner, 2000), education (West & Currie, 2008), and
most relevant to the current discussion, diversity-related
activities. For instance, the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964,

which, among other achievements, guaranteed employment
protection for women and racial minorities in the US, and
Voting Rights Act of 1965, which ensured the voting privileges
of racial minorities, were both signed into law under President
Lyndon Johnson, who was a member of the more progressive
Democrat party. Compare this to the attempts of President
Ronald Reagan and President George W. Bush, both members of
the more conservative Republican party, to alter Title IX of
the Education Amendments—a law outlawing gender
discrimination in federally funded educational activities that
served to
dramatically increase sport opportunities for girls and women.
Of particular importance to the current discussion is the
influence of the political environment on equal employment
opportunities and the enforcement of laws governing such
activities. Saguy (2002) noted that the framing of diversity
issues
‘‘is informed by political and legal traditions’’ (p. 256), and
there is considerable evidence to support this contention
(Marshall, 2005; Ogmundson, 2005). For instance, enforcement
of equal employment legislation and fair labor practices is
thought to be more stringent when the political climate is more
progressive than conservative. Cunningham and Benavides-
Espinoza (2008) found support for this contention in their
analysis of sexual harassment, as the claims filed with federal
agencies mirrored the political environment in the United States
during that time. In discussing the nature of their findings,
the authors suggested that ‘‘the actions and social policies of
the president of the United States may set the tone for the
political environment, and in a related way, the emphasis on
civil rights (p. 781).
In drawing from this literature, I argue that the political
environment is also likely to influence the proportion of African
American head coaches. With a more progressive or liberal

political environment, opportunities for African Americans
should increase, while with more conservative political
environments, opportunities should remain stagnated or
potentially
decrease. There is some initial support for this proposition: at
Ivy League schools, which are located in the more progressive
East Coast of the US, nearly 50% (7 of 16) of the football and
men’s basketball coaches are African American—a percentage
far
greater than any other athletic conference (Robinson, 2009).
2.1.3. Stakeholder expectations
Expectations from stakeholder groups represent a third macro-
level factor. Stakeholders are key constituents who can
both impact and are impacted by organizational activities
(Freeman, 1984). These constituents can be classified into
various
groups, such as alumni, students, faculty, athletes, and so on,
and each stakeholder group is thought to possess unique
perceptions, desires, and needs. Thus, from a strategic
management perspective, ‘‘understanding the priorities of and
dealing
with identifiable stakeholders. . .offers strategic and cognitive
efficiency advantages over conceiving of an organization’s
environment as being composed of innumerable individuals and
institutions’’ (Wolfe & Putler, 2002, p. 64). Or, framed
differently, gaining insights into and addressing the
perceptions, needs, and wants of key strategic stakeholder
groups can
result in optimal organization–environment fit, thereby
increasing the success the organization enjoys.
Alumni and boosters represent one stakeholder group that has a
particularly strong influence on university athletic
departments, their operations, and the persons (especially

coaches) they employ. The strength of this stakeholder group is
augmented all the more when considering the relative
homogeneity of priorities expressed by its members (Wolfe &
Putler,
2002), thereby ensuring the consistency of their message. To
understand the extent to which athletic departments are reliant
upon alumni and boosters, one simply need examine the
financial reports presented by Fulks (2008): during the 2005–
2006
academic year, 24% of the total revenues generated by NCAA
FBS athletic departments came from alumni and booster
donations. This amounts to a median of US $8.5 million
annually. And, make no mistake, these monies are rarely
altruistically
donated, but rather, oftentimes come with strings attached (see
also Sperber, 2000). Given this tremendous financial
influence, the persuasive power of alumni and boosters is
undeniable.
Because athletic department rely so heavily on alumni and
boosters for their monetary donations, there is the perceived
need to employ personnel with whom the donors can identify.
This perceived need is most heightened when hiring coaches,
and particularly those who coach football—a sport that has been
referred to as the ‘‘front porch’’ of an institution (Beyer &
Hannah, 2000). As Michael Rosenberg of the Detroit Free Press
(Rosenberg, 2004) noted:
It is largely about money. It is about a face to show the alumni,
especially the ones with big wallets. College coaches
don’t just coach; they are, in many ways, the public faces of
their schools. And if the big donors don’t like a coach
because of his weight/accent/skin color, schools will stay away.
406398

Lapchick drew similar conclusions:
I have had discussions with people in searches for coaches and
athletic directors that the final decision was made to
hire a White male because they were afraid their alumni, who
also happen to be strong boosters of the football
program, would not contribute nearly as much or as readily to
an African American athletic director or football coach
(as cited in Wong, 2002, p. 1).
These quotations illustrate the need for boosters to (a) identify
with the head coaches and (b) to give large sums of money
to support the department’s activities, two factors that may
result in preference for White coaches over coaches of color.
2.2. Meso-level factors
Research at the meso-level typically focuses on factors
operating in the organization and the ways in which decisions,
structures, and processes at that level of analysis serve to
perpetuate the under-representation of African American
coaches.
Meso-level factors include prejudice on the part of the decision
makers, discrimination, leadership prototypes, and
organizational cultures of diversity.
2.2.1. Prejudice
By far, prejudice and discrimination represent the most common
explanations for the under-representation of African
Americans in coaching positions. In providing these
explanations, authors will sometimes use prejudice and
discrimination

interchangeably, and other times, they will refer to prejudice
and discrimination as if they were unidimensional constructs.
Both practices provide incomplete pictures of these complex
phenomena. A close examination of the social psychology and
sociology literatures demonstrates (a) that prejudice is a
psychological term focusing on people’s attitudes and beliefs
while
discrimination has sociological foundations and is concerned
with people’s behaviors (Abercrombie et al., 2000), and (b)
both
prejudice and discrimination are multidimensional constructs
(Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005; Greenhaus, Parasuraman, &
Wormley, 1990; Hing, Chung-Yan, Hamilton, & Zanna, 2008).
As the influence of discrimination is addressed in the following
section, the remainder of this section focuses on the various
forms of prejudice and how they influence the under-
representation of African American coaches.
Discussions of racial prejudice may conjure images of the ‘‘old
fashioned’’ racist who explicitly and openly harbors
negative attitudes and emotions toward racial minorities. While
‘‘old fashioned’’ racism still exists, it is increasingly taboo to
openly express such prejudice. In fact, as early as 1947,
Campbell described overt racism as antiquated and socially
unacceptable, and people’s willingness to voice racist
sentiments has decreased over time (Dowden & Robinson,
1993). In its
place is a more subtle form of racism coined aversive racism
(Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000, 2005). Aversive racists are people
who consciously and sincerely support egalitarian ideals and do
not believe that they personally harbor prejudiced feelings
toward racial minorities; nonetheless, these persons
unconsciously have feelings of unease toward historically
disadvantaged groups and therefore seek to avoid interracial
interactions. When such interactions are unavoidable,
aversive racists will experience anxiety and discomfort, and will

also try to end the interaction as quickly as possible. Finally,
aversive racists are likely to behave differently than ‘‘old
fashioned’’ racists. Unlike the ‘‘old fashion’’ racist, who will
openly
discriminate, aversive racists will not discriminate in situations
with strong social norms or when the discriminatory acts
could be attributed to the self. Rather, aversive racists will tend
to discriminate when the normative structure is weak, when
there are vague guidelines for the appropriate course of action,
and when a negative response can be attributed to a factor
other than race (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000, 2005). This dynamic
is what Son Hing et al. (2008) refer to as the attributional-
ambiguity effect.
A number of studies have supported this framework (see
Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000, for a review). Of particular
interest here are two studies related to employment. In the first,
Dovidio and Gaertner (2000) varied African Americans’
and Whites’ qualifications for a job and then examined
recommendations for hiring. When the applicant was clearly
qualified or clearly unqualified, discrimination against African
American applicants did not exist. However, when the
qualifications were less obvious and the appropriate decision
more ambiguous, Whites recommended hiring the White
candidate more frequently than they did for the African
American. Another noteworthy portion of this study is the
authors’ ability to track responses over time. From 1989 to
1999, ‘‘old fashioned’’ forms of prejudice (as measured on a
self-report scale) decreased, but the pattern of subtle
discrimination—that which would be manifested by aversive
racists—remained unchanged.
The underlying dynamics of these decisions was addressed in a
study by Hodson, Dovidio, & Gaertner (2002), where
participants made recommendations for admissions into college.
As with the Dovidio and Gaertner (2000) study, differences

in the recommendations did not vary based on race when the
applicant was especially strong or especially weak; however,
for those applicants with ambiguous information, prejudiced
Whites were more likely to recommend admission for Whites
than they were for African Americans. The authors found that
the differences in recommendations were based on the way the
raters viewed the supporting materials. When prejudiced Whites
reviewed the African Americans materials, they were likely
to weigh the weaker portions of the packet (e.g., standardized
test scores) as more meaningful and important than they did
when reviewing the Whites packets. Thus, the standards shifted
to accommodate the racially biased decision so the rater
would not be viewed negatively. Similar findings have been
observed with legal decisions made by jurors (Hodson, Hooper,
Dovidio, & Gaertner, 2005).
406 399
This research has clear implications for the under-representation
of African American coaches. While I do not doubt that ‘‘old
fashioned’’ racists are in some decision making roles within
university athletics, to paint all forms of racial prejudice against
African American coaches in this light is both unreasonable and
counterproductive. As researchers have demonstrated, when
job applicants are clearly qualified or clearly unqualified, racial
bias is unlikely to influence the decision. However, most
coaching searches are not this straightforward. Many coaches
(sometimes hundreds) apply for a given job, all with varying
strengths and weaknesses. Standardized selection procedures are
also lacking. This situation neatly fits the conditions for when
aversive racism will manifest: when the normative structure is
weak, guidelines for apposite behavior are ambiguous, and
when a potentially controversial decision can be justified with

other supporting evidence (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000, 2005).
Thus, the prevailing norms, processes, and structures for hiring
coaches of university athletics teams make it ripe for aversive
racism to prevail, and for African Americans continue to be
under-represented in those employment roles.
2.2.2. Discrimination
Though the underlying dynamics differ, both ‘‘old fashioned’’
and aversive forms of racism result in discrimination against
African Americans. But, just as prejudice has different
dimensions, so too does discrimination. Specifically, Greenhaus
et al.
(1990; see also Ilgen & Youtz, 1986) identified two types of
discrimination—access and treatment. Access discrimination
prevents members from a particular group from entering a
particular job, organization, or profession. Treatment
discrimination, on the other hand, ‘‘occurs when subgroup
members receive fewer rewards, resources, or opportunities on
the job than they legitimately deserve on the basis of job-related
criteria’’ (Greenhaus et al., 1990, pp. 64–65). Researchers
have found that both forms of discrimination are prevalent in
the university athletics context.
The data presented in Fig. 1 illustrate that African Americans
have limited access to coaching positions across a variety of
sports, and one might conclude from these data alone that
access discrimination is present. What the statistics do not
convey, however, is whether or not access to the coaching
positions is dependent upon the race of the head coach. This is
an
important distinction because access discrimination is
concerned with limiting opportunities for members of
historically
under-represented groups (Greenhaus et al., 1990); thus, if
access discrimination is truly present, then differences should

be
observed in the racial compositions of the coaching staffs
guided by Whites and those guided by African Americans.
Cunningham and Sagas (2005) found that this was the case in
their analysis of the racial composition of men’s basketball
coaching staffs. They compared the proportion of assistant
coaches of color on the staff to the corresponding percentage of
all
former men’s basketball players who had graduated (48%). This
standard was based on the aforementioned argument that
former athletes represent the largest pool of potential coaches
(Cunningham & Sagas, 2002; Everhart & Chelladurai, 1998).
Their results were telling. Overall, African Americans
represented just 33% of all assistant coaches—a proportion
significantly
less than the 48% standard. But, the results varied dramatically
based on the race of the head coach. African Americans
comprised just 30% of the coaches on staffs headed by a White
head coach, but among those guided by an African American,
they represented 45% of all coaches. Thus, the under-
representation was due to their lack of access to coaching
positions
when the head coach was White. Equally striking, among the
staffs guided by a White head coach, 1 in 6 (or 16.2%) did not
have any assistant coaches of color.
While Cunningham and Sagas’ (2005) research focused on the
access assistants had to coaching positions, their findings
are applicable to the discussion of head coaches as well.
Consider, for instance, that these findings were observed among
men’s basketball staffs, a context continually praised for the
diversity of its coaching staffs (Lapchick, 2009; Robinson,
2009).
How much more, then, would the findings be observed for head
coaching roles or in settings less convivial to African

Americans, such as football or baseball? Further, that the race
of the head coach substantially influenced the race of those
hired to his staff is particularly meaningful for discussions of
head coaches. After all, 90% of all athletic directors are White
(DeHass, 2007), and thus, pro-similarity bias is likely to be
even more prevalent when hiring head coaches. There is
considerable support for this latter point. For instance, a
participant in one qualitative study noted, ‘‘Administrators hire
White coaches because the vast majority of administrators are
White’’ (as cited in Brown, 2002). Powell (2008) advanced
similar arguments, albeit from a different perspective: ‘‘As long
as blacks are unable to hold true power in sports, the issue of
hiring will remain’’ (p. 213). Collectively, these dynamics limit
the access African Americans have to head coaching positions.
Just as access discrimination limits access to head coaching
positions, treatment discrimination negatively affects African
American head coaches when they are on the job. Most of the
research in this area focuses on assistant coaches, with findings
suggesting that African Americans face open hostility from
opposing players (Lawrence, 2004), are oftentimes valued more
for their ability to recruit and relate to athletes (most of whom
are African American) rather than for their coaching abilities
(Brown, 2002), and receive fewer returns for their human and
social capital investments than do Whites (Sagas &
Cunningham, 2005; Sartore & Cunningham, 2006). Anecdotal
evidence points to a similar pattern among head coaches.
Consider, for instance, that African American football coach
Tyrone Willingham was the only head coach in University of
Notre Dame history to be relieved of his duties prior to his
contract expiring (Whitlock, 2005). Further, a given African
American’s failures (such as not winning enough games) are
oftentimes painted as representative of all African Americans,
though this is not the case for Whites. In expounding on this
dynamic, Wojciechowski (2008) wrote that ‘‘the trickle-down
effect is that skittish university presidents and athletic directors

can use those failures as an excuse not to hire head coaches.’’
In the same article, University at Buffalo athletic director
Warde Manuel further noted the apparent contradiction by
adding,
‘‘If I White person is not successful in a particular position,
that doesn’t mean that another White person would not be
successful’’ (as cited in Wojciechowski, 2008). The differential
treatment of and adjustable standards applied to African
Americans is characteristic of treatment discrimination
(Greenhaus et al., 1990) and perpetuates their under-
representation.
406400
2.2.3. Leadership stereotypes
Just as prejudice and discrimination limit the opportunities
African Americans have to be a head coach, so too do
leadership prototypes. According to leadership categorization
theory (Lord & Maher, 1991), people develop mindsets over
time of who can lead and what leaders should be. These
characteristics develop into leadership categories such that
people
develop ideas of a standard example or typical leader. People
then contrast a given leader with the leadership prototype they
have developed in their minds, a process known as recognition-
based process. Those persons who possess characteristics
that are consistent with the stereotypes are likely to be viewed
as more effective than are their counterparts.
In a study that is particularly relevant to the current analysis,
Rosette, Leonardelli, and Phillips (2008) drew from
leadership categorization theory to argue that, ‘‘at least in the

United States, a central characteristic of leadership is ‘being
White’ and accordingly, evaluators will perceive that White
leaders are more prototypical business leaders than are leaders
who are racial minorities’’ (p. 759). Consider, for instance, that
people are consistently seeing Whites in prominent
leadership positions, such as company executive,
congressperson, and the like. Further, US history influences
these
perceptions, as over time, many of the top leaders in politics
and business (e.g., Bill Gates, George Washington, Conrad
Hilton,
and John D. Rockefeller) have been White. These factors are
thought to shape who people believe should be leaders and how
effective leaders of different races are. Rosette et al.’s studies
provided support to this rationale, as ‘‘being White’’ was seen
as
a prototype for business leaders, though not necessarily for
everyday employees (Studies 1 and 2), and White leaders were
considered to be more effective than were leaders of color,
especially when the organization’s success was attributed to the
leader (Studies 3 and 4).
Leadership categorization theory (Lord & Maher, 1991) and the
findings from recent studies (Rosette et al., 2008) inform
the current discussion as well. Specifically, it is possible that
coaches of color are perceived as better suited as players,
assistant coaches, or recruiters (Brown, 2002; Anderson, 1993)
than they are for head coaching roles. These expectations are
shaped by who people have historically seen in these roles and
by who they believe is best suited to handle these
responsibilities (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Rosette et al., 2008).
Consider, for instance, that Whites have historically held the
primary leadership and coaching positions on athletic teams (for
recent trends, see DeHass, 2007), and, as former head coach
Fitz Hill has commented ‘‘You say you’re trying to find the best
person for the job, but when you do that you don’t have a

qualified African American picture that comes to mind’’ (as
cited in Brown, 2002). Thus, the historical trends shape
people’s
perceptions about who can and cannot hold particular job roles
and contribute to the continued under-representation of
African American head coaches.
2.2.4. Organizational culture
The culture of the workplace is the final meso-level factor that
influences the representation of African American head
coaches. Schein (1990) defined culture as ‘‘(a) a pattern of
basic assumptions, (b) invented, discovered, or developed by a
given group, (c) as it learns to cope with its problems of
external adaptation and internal integration, (d) that has worked
well
enough to be considered valid, and therefore (e) is to be taught
to new members as the (f) correct way to perceive think, and
feel in relation to those problems’’ (p. 111). An organization’s
culture is manifested through observable artifacts, values, and
basic underlying assumptions. Culture is strongly shaped by the
people within the organization (Schneider, 1987; Weese,
1995), influences the attraction and recruitment of employees
(Cable, Aiman-Smith, Mulvey, & Edwards, 2000; Schneider,
1987), and has been linked to a number of important outcomes,
including organizational effectiveness (Smart, 2003; Smart &
Wolfe, 2000).
As might be expected, organizational culture also impacts a
number of diversity-related outcomes. For instance, Doherty
and Chelladurai (1999) argued that organizational cultures of
diversity—that is, ones that are characterized by respect for
differences, exhibit tolerance for risk and ambiguity, have a
strong people-orientation, and value equifinality—are likely to
enjoy more success than are their counterparts, particularly
when that culture is meshed with actual employee diversity.

Cunningham’s (2009) recent study provided empirical support
for this contention. Fink and Pastore (1999) advanced similar
arguments, though their framework described such
organizations as proactive in nature. Across a variety of
contexts, these
authors found that proactive cultures were linked with a number
of desired outcomes, including employee diversity,
attraction of a diverse fan base, and overall effectiveness (Fink
et al., 2001; Fink, Pastore, & Riemer, 2003).
This research suggests that the culture of the workplace has the
potential to meaningfully influence the diversity of the
employees, including the head coaches. Those athletic
departments characterized by a culture of diversity and
inclusion are
much more likely to have diversity enmeshed into all
organizational activities, create mentoring activities that better
enable
persons of color to move up the organizational hierarchy, have
bold top management leadership, and be proactive in their
recruitment and hiring of persons from historically under-
represented groups (Cunningham & Singer, 2009). Such
workplaces stand in stark contrast to those with a culture of
similarity (e.g., Doherty & Chelladurai, 1999; Fink & Pastore,
1999)—those with closed membership, homologous leadership
teams, unstructured hiring and promotion standards, and
that see diversity as a liability rather than an asset. Indeed,
cultures of diversity and inclusion are needed to address the
under-representation of African American head coaches.
2.3. Micro-level factors
Finally, micro-level factors also influence the under-
representation of African American head coaches. Researchers
in this
tradition focus on the coaches themselves and have

predominantly incorporated psychological (e.g., social cognitive
career
406 401
theory; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994) and social psychological
(e.g., social identity theory; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) theories. I
incorporate two micro-level factors into the current model: head
coaching expectations and intentions, and turnover
intentions.
2.3.1. Head coaching expectations and intentions
In their articulation of social cognitive career theory, Lent et al.
(1994) described various factors thought to influence one’s
decision to follow a particular academic path or pursue a given
profession. These included perceived barriers, supports, self-
efficacy, and outcome expectations—all of which could be
considered one’s expectations related to a particular activity.
Each
of these factors is thought to then influence behavioral
intentions and, ultimately, the given behavior. Empirical
support for
these relationships is robust, having been used successfully to
understand and predict career choices (Flores & O’Brien,
2002), managerial aspirations (van Vianen, 1999), and academic
choice among college students (Ferry, Fouad, & Smith,
2000), and, particularly germane to the current discussion, head
coaching intentions (Cunningham & Singer, in press;
Cunningham, Doherty, & Gregg, 2007), among others.
Research pertaining to racial differences in coaching
expectations is mixed. Student-athletes of color anticipate

considerable barriers related to coaching, including limited
advancement opportunities (Cunningham, 2004), that their race
will be held against them during their coaching careers
(Cunningham & Singer, in press; Kamphoff & Gill, 2008), and
that
they will have few professional role models racially similar to
them (Kamphoff & Gill, 2008). Interestingly, however, racial
minority student-athletes anticipate high levels of satisfaction
from coaching and a strong intent to enter the profession
(Cunningham & Singer, in press, Study 1). Focus group
interviews shed light on this dynamic, as the athletes intimated
that
they expect to experience discrimination in whatever profession
they pursue, and consequently, they believe that remaining
involved in athletics will offer enough benefits to counteract the
anticipated barriers (Cunningham & Singer, in press, Study
2). The desire to help and mentor other minority athletes reach
their potential also contributes to this desire (Kamphoff &
Gill, 2008).
Assistant coaches of color have expressed similar sentiments
when asked about their prospects in the coaching
profession. Across multiple studies and samples, African
Americans have indicated that they experience racial
discrimination, have truncated advancement opportunities, and
enjoy less career satisfaction than do their counterparts
(Cunningham et al., 2006; Cunningham & Sagas, 2004b, 2007;
Sagas & Cunningham, 2005). These effects are especially
pronounced among football coaches, and there is little doubt
why, when one considers their dismal representation as head
coaches of that sport (see Fig. 1).
Despite these poor work experiences, African American
coaches, like the student-athletes they coach, have continuously
expressed high intentions to pursue and apply for head coaching
intentions (Cunningham et al., 2006). Thus, despite the data

suggesting that doing so might be a fruitless endeavor, coupled
with a history of facing prejudice and discrimination during
their career, African Americans continue to pursue leadership
positions. As one African American coach commented, ‘‘after a
while, it makes you think, ‘Why go through with it?’ because
you’ve seen the track record. But at the same time, you have to
make yourself go through with it because you don’t want to
allow the excuse, ‘Well, they’re not applying’’’ (as cited in
Wixon,
2006).
2.3.2. Turnover intentions
While the repeated discrimination and truncated career chances
do not seem to limit African Americans’ decision to apply
for head coaching positions, there is considerable evidence that
it does negatively impact their career longevity
(Cunningham & Sagas, 2004b, 2007; Cunningham et al., 2006,
2001). As with the head coaching expectations, these findings
are also strongest among football coaches, though they have
been observed across a variety of coaching contexts. Declining
health (Cunningham et al., 2006), a lack of time with family
(Cunningham et al., 2006), a lack of advancement opportunities
(Cunningham & Sagas, 2004b, 2007), low career satisfaction
(Cunningham & Sagas, 2004b, 2007), and treatment
discrimination (Cunningham & Sagas, 2007) all contribute to
this end.
Racial differences in occupational turnover can have serious
repercussions, not the least of which is a potential
supply-side shortage of African Americans to fill head coaching
positions. As Tsui and Gutek (1999) articulated, ‘‘small
effects could accumulate and lead to non-trivial consequences.
For example, a small tendency for the most different
groups to leave can, over time, result in increasingly more
homogeneous groups as one moves up the organizational

hierarchy’’ (p. 40). The data presented in Fig. 1 supports this
contention, as in each coaching context, the proportion of
African Americans negatively trends the higher up the
organizational hierarchy one moves (i.e., from player to
assistant
coach to head coach). When the differential turnover rate is
coupled with the macro- and meso-level factors already
working against their advancement, understanding the under-
representation of African Americans in coaching positions
becomes crystallized.
2.4. Relationships among multilevel factors
For simplicity’s sake, factors and the macro-, meso-, and micro-
levels of analysis have been presented separately. In
practice, however, the different levels do not operate in
isolation, but instead, influence and are influenced by one
another
(Chelladurai, 2009; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Such reciprocal
relationships are illustrated in Fig. 2, and examples are
provided in the following space.
406402
Perhaps the most evident examples of the multilevel effects
come in the area of what Kozlowski and Klein (2000) referred
to as direct effects models. Here, factors at one level influence
the outcomes at another. For instance, treatment
discrimination (meso-level) impacts coaches’ desire to leave the
profession (micro-level) (Cunningham & Sagas, 2007).
While direct effects certainly occur, a more plausible
specification takes into account how factors at multiple levels
of

analysis subsequently influence the outcomes of another.
Kozlowski and Kelin referred to this dynamic as a mixed
determinants model. Indeed, my articulation of the current
framework has focused on degree to which macro-, meso-, and
micro-level factors all affect whether or not an African
American obtained a head coaching position (micro-level).
As another possibility, Kozlowski and Klein (2000) suggested
that mixed effects models are also possible. In this case,
factors at a single level of analysis are thought to influence
subsequent processes and outcomes at multiple other levels. As
an
example, proactive cultures of diversity influence a member of
an under-represented group’s likelihood of employment
(micro-level), employee satisfaction (micro-level), workplace
creativity (meso-level), and organizational performance
(meso-level) (Cunningham, 2009; Fink et al., 2001, 2003).
Further, given that organizations in a given environment
oftentimes seek to replicate the effective practices of others
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; but see also Aguilera, Rupp,
Williams,
& Ganapathi, 2007), it is likely that diversity practices among
successful athletics departments (e.g., Stanford University) will
influence industry efforts (macro-level).
3. Conclusions
The purpose of this paper has been to outline the comprehensive
framework for understanding the under-representation
of African American head coaches. In doing so, I have argued
that factors operating at the macro-level (i.e., institutionalized
practices, political climate, stakeholder expectations), meso-
level (i.e., prejudice on the part of decision makers,
discrimination, leadership prototypes, organizational culture of
diversity), and micro-level (i.e., head coaching expectations
and intentions, occupational turnover intentions) all shape the

current trend. While other researchers have predominantly
focused on a single level of analysis and its subsequent
influence, the model presented here is the first to explicitly
recognize
that the under-representation of African American head coaches
is a multilevel, dynamic phenomenon. In addition to
explaining what factors are at work, I have also articulated how,
why, and when these factors exert their influence. While the
framework was conceived to provide an understanding why
African Americans are under-represented as head coaches, it
also has the potential to influence policy and change initiatives.
From a multilevel, systems perspective—such as the one
adopted here—change efforts cannot focus on a single level, but
instead, need to recognize and take into account the
intersectionality of macro-, meso-, and micro-level factors. Let
us
consider steps taken by the NCAA. At the macro-level, action is
needed to change the institutionalized nature of racism in
university athletics. Some steps have been taken in this general
area, such as when the NCAA issued a mandate barring
institutions with hostile and abusive Native American imagery
from participating in NCAA-sponsored championships or
hosting championship tournaments (Williams, 2005b; see also
Staurowsky, 2007), but more efforts are needed to address
the institutional factors that continually reproduce African
Americans’ absence in leadership roles. At the meso-level, the
NCAA has been active in providing diversity training for
member institutions and in various activities aimed at
promoting
diversity and inclusion at the departmental level (Williams,
2005a). Additional efforts, such as adopting policies like those
in
the National Football League, where all head coaching searches
must include one interview with a coach of color (i.e., the
Rooney Rule), would likely yield immediate results. Finally, at

the individual level, the NCAA provides minority coaching and
leadership clinics—programs aimed at increasing the human and
social capital of coaches of color. Many of these change
activities have only recently been implemented, so time will tell
as to their effectiveness.
While the NCAA’s change efforts represent a bottom-down
initiative, change can also have emergent properties, such as
when individuals influence organizational structures and social
policy. Powell (2008) provides an exceptional overview of
how activism on the part of several African American athletes
helped improve the conditions, recognition, and pay athletes
receive today. He writes:
Fig. 2. Illustrative summary of multilevel model.
406 403
Activism by Curt Flood and John Mackey, pioneers in free
agency, made baseball and football players rich. Activism by
Jim Brown and Bill Russell and other black athletes pushed the
envelope and racial boundaries, broke barriers, created
awareness, shattered myths and stereotypes, held white folks
accountable, and essentially boosted and improved
sports in general for the black man (p. 28).
And, other examples abound: John Thompson’s advocacy for
African American athletes, Arthur Ashe’s fight against
discrimination in tennis and his efforts to raise AIDS
awareness, C. Vivian Stringer’s battle against prejudice and
bias
expressed toward female athletes of color, and Harry Edwards’
fight to change people’s racial attitudes and beliefs through

sport. These activists, and other like them, have tirelessly
worked to not only change individual’s views toward race, but
also
the racialist systems in place.
As these examples illustrate, change is possible. But, it takes a
collective effort—a unified endeavor to transform the
institutionalized systems in place, ensure a political
environment where diversity is valued, eradicate decision
makers’
prejudices, stereotypes, and discrimination, create and sustain
university workplaces characterized by diversity and
inclusion, and transform the coaching profession into one where
opportunities for African Americans abound. While
daunting, these change efforts are critical to ensuring that sport
is a place characterized by diversity and inclusion. Inaction is
not an option.
References
Abercrombie, N., Hill, S., & Turner, B. S. (2000). The Penguin
dictionary of sociology (4th ed.). New York: Penguin Books.
Abney, R., & Richey, D. (1991). Barriers encountered by Black
female athletic administrators and coaches. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation, and Dance, 62,
19–21.
Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J.
(2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A
multilevel theory of social change in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 836–863.
Anderson, D. (1993). Cultural diversity on campus: A look at
intercollegiate football coaches. Journal of Sport and Social
Issues, 17, 61–66.
Applebaum, B. (2003). White privilege, complexity, and the

social construction of race. Educational Foundations, 17(4), 5–
19.
Benschop, Y. (2006). Of small steps and the longing for giant
leaps: Research on the intersection of sex and gender within
workplaces and organizations. In A. M.
Knorad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of
workplace diversity (pp. 273–298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Beyer, J. M., & Hannah, D. R. (2000). The cultural significance
of athletics in U.S. higher education. Journal of Sport
Management, 14, 105–132.
Brown, G. T. (2002). Diversity grid lock. The NCAA News.
Retrieved February 15, 2003, from
http://www.ncaa.org/news/2002/20021028/active/3922n01.html.
Buffington, D. (2005). Contesting race on Sundays: Making
meaning out of the rise in the number of Black quarterbacks.
Sociology of Sport Journal, 21, 19–37.
Cable, D. M., Aiman-Smith, L., Mulvey, P. W., & Edwards, J.
R. (2000). The sources and accuracy of job applicants’ beliefs
about organizational culture. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 1076–1085.
Campbell, A. A. (1947). Factors associated with attitudes
toward Jews. In T. Newcomb & E. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in
social psychology (pp. 518–527). New York:
Holt.
Chelladurai, P. (2009). Managing organizations for sport and
physical activity: A systems perspective (3rd ed.). Scottsdale,
AZ: Holcomb-Hathaway.
Coakley, J. (2009). Sports in society: Issues and controversies
(10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Coates, R. D. (2003). Introduction: Reproducing racialized
systems of social control. American Behavioral Scientist, 47,
235–239.
Crompton, J. L. (1995). Economic impact analysis of sports

facilities and events: Eleven sources of misapplication. Journal
of Sport Management, 9, 14–35.
Cunningham, G. B. (2004). Already aware of the glass ceiling:
Race related effects of perceived opportunity on the career
choices of college athletes. Journal of
African American Studies, 7(1), 57–71.
Cunningham, G. B. (2007). Diversity in sport organizations.
Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb-Hathaway.
Cunningham, G. B. (2008). Understanding diversity in
intercollegiate athletics. Journal for the Study of Sports and
Athletes in Education, 2, 321–338.
Cunningham, G. B. (2009). The moderating effect of diversity
strategy on the relationship between racial diversity and
organizational performance. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1445–1460.
Cunningham, G. B., & Benavides-Espinoza, C. (2008). A trend
analysis of sexual harassment claims: 1992–2006. Psychological
Reports, 103, 779–782.
Cunningham, G. B., Bruening, J. E., & Straub, T. (2006).
Examining the under-representation of African Americans in
NCAA Division I head-coaching positions.
Journal of Sport Management, 20, 387–417.
Cunningham, G. B., Doherty, A. J., & Gregg, M. J. (2007).
Using social cognitive career theory to understand head
coaching intentions among assistant coaches of
women’s teams. Sex Roles, 56, 365–372.
Cunningham, G. B., & Fink, J. S. (2006). Diversity issues in
sport and leisure: Introduction to a special issue. Journal of
Sport Management, 20, 455–465.
Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2002). The differential effects
of human capital for male and female Division I basketball
coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise

and Sport, 73, 489–495.
Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2004a). People make the
difference: The influence of human capital and diversity on
team performance. European Sport
Management Quarterly, 4, 3–22.
Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2004b). Racial differences in
occupational turnover intent among NCAA Division IA assistant
football coaches. Sociology of Sport
Journal, 21, 84–92.
Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2005). Access discrimination
in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport and Social Issues,
29, 148–163.
Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2007). Perceived treatment
discrimination among coaches: The influence of race and sport
coached. International Journal of Sport
Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2008). Gender and sex
diversity in sport organizations: Introduction to a special issue.
Sex Roles, 58, 3–9.
Cunningham, G. B., Sagas, M., & Ashley, F. B. (2001).
Occupational commitment and intent to leave the coaching
profession: Differences according to race.
International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 16, 131–148.
Cunningham, G. B., & Singer, J. N. (in press). ‘‘You’ll face
discrimination wherever you go’’: Student athletes’ intentions
to enter the coaching profession. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology.
Cunningham, G. B., & Singer, J. N. (2009). Diversity in
athletics: An assessment of exemplars and institutional best
practices. Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate

Athletic Association.
Danylchuk, K. E., & Chelladurai, P. (1999). The nature of
managerial work in Canadian intercollegiate athletics. Journal
Davis, T. (2007). The persistence of unconscious racisms in
college sport. In D. D. Brooks & R. C. Althouse (Eds.),
Diversity and social justice in college sports: Sport
management and the student athlete (pp. 263–280).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
DeHass, D. (2007). 2005–06 ethnicity and gender demographics
of NCAA member institutions’ athletics personnel. Indianapolis,
IN: The National Collegiate Athletic
Association.
DeHass, D. (2008). 1999-00–2006-2007 student–athlete race
and ethnicity report. Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate
Athletic Association.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage
revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in
organizational fields. American Sociological
Review, 48, 147–160.
406404
http://www.ncaa.org/news/2002/20021028/active/3922n01.html
Doherty, A. J., & Chelladurai, P. (1999). Managing cultural
diversity in sport organizations: A theoretical perspective.
Journal of Sport Management, 13, 280–297.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and
selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science, 11,

319–323.
Dowden, S., & Robinson, J. P. (1993). Age and cohort
differences in American racial attitudes: The generational
replacement hypothesis revisited. In P. M.
Sniderman, P. E. Tetlock, & E. G. Carmines (Eds.), Prejudice,
politics, and the American dilemma (pp. 86–103). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of
prejudice towards female leaders. Psychological Review, 109,
573–598.
Eitzen, D. S., & Sage, G. H. (2003). Sociology of North
American sport (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Everhart, B. C., & Chelladurai, P. (1998). Gender differences in
preferences for coaching as an occupation: The role of self-
efficacy, valence, and perceived barriers.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68, 188–200.
Feagin, J. R. (2006). Systemic racism: A theory of oppression.
New York: Routledge.
Ferry, T. R., Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (2000). The role of
family context in a social cognitive model for career-related
choice behavior: A math and science
perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 348–364.
Fink, J. S., & Pastore, D. L. (1999). Diversity in sport?
Utilizing the business literature to devise a comprehensive
framework of diversity initiatives. Quest, 51, 310–
327.
Fink, J. S., Pastore, D. L., & Riemer, H. A. (2001). Do
differences make a difference? Managing diversity in Division
IA intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport
Fink, J. S., Pastore, D. L., & Riemer, H. A. (2003). Managing

employee diversity: Perceived practices and organizational
outcomes in NCAA Division III athletic
departments. Sport Management Review, 6, 147–168.
Flores, L. Y., & O’Brien, K. M. (2002). The career development
of Mexican American adolescent women: A test of social
cognitive career theory. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 49, 14–27.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder
approach. Boston, MA: Pitman/Ballinger.
Fulks, D. L. (2008). Revenues/expenses: 2004–06 NCAA
revenues and expenses of Division I intercollegiate athletics
programs report. Indianapolis, IN: National
Collegiate Athletic Association.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup
bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model. Philadelphia, PA:
Psychology Press.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2005). Understanding and
addressing contemporary racism: From aversive racism to the
common ingroup identity model. Journal of
Social Issues, 61, 615–639.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990).
Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance,
evaluations, and career outcomes.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 64–86.
Hill, F. (2004). Shattering the glass ceiling: Blacks in coaching.
Black Issues in Higher Education, 21(4), 36–37.
Hodson, G., Dividio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Processes
in racial discrimination: Differential weighting of conflicting
information. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 460–471.

Hodson, G., Hooper, H., Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L.
(2005). Aversive racism in Britain: Legal decisions and the use
of inadmissible evidence. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 35, 437–448.
Ilgen, D. R., & Youtz, M. A. (1986). Factors affecting the
evaluation and development of minorities in organizations. In
K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in
personnel and human resource management: A research annual
(pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kamphoff, C., & Gill, D. (2008). Collegiate athletes’
perceptions of the coaching profession. International Journal of
Sports Science & Coaching, 3, 55–71.
Kikulis, L. M. (2000). Continuity and change in governance and
decision making in national sport organizations: Institutional
explanations. Journal of Sport
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel
approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual,
temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein
& S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and
methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new
directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F., IV. (1995). Toward a
critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record,
97(1), 47–68.
Lapchick, R. (2009, February 19). The 2008 racial and gender
report card: College sport. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from
http://www.tidesport.org/RGRC/2008/
2008CollegRGRC.pdf.

Lawrence, S. M. (2004). African American athletes’ experiences
of race in sport. International Review for the Sociology of
Sport, 40, 99–110.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a
unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest,
choice, and performance. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.
Long, J., Robinson, P., & Spracklen, K. (2005). Promoting
racial equality within sports organizations. Journal of Sport &
Social Issues, 29, 41–59.
Lord, R., & Maher, K. (1991). Leadership and information
processing. New York: Unwin Hyman.
Marshall, A. M. (2005). Confronting sexual harassment: The
law and politics of everyday life. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
McDowell, J., & Cunningham, G. B. (2007). The prevalence of
occupational segregation in athletic administrative positions.
International Journal of Sport
McIntosh, P. (1990). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible
knapsack. Independent School, 49, 31–36.
McLeod, P. L., Lobel, S. A., & Cox, T. H., Jr. (1996). Ethnic
diversity and creativity in small groups. Small Group Research,
27, 248–264.
Ogmundson, R. (2005). Does it matter if women, minorities and
gays govern? New data concerning an old question. Canadian
Journal of Sociology, 30, 315–324.
Phillips, K., Mannix, E., Neale, M., & Gruenfeld, D. (2004).
Diverse groups and information sharing: The effect of congruent
ties. Journal of Experimental Social
Powell, S. (2008). Souled out? How Blacks are winning and
losing in sports Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Prasad, P., Pringle, J. K., & Konrad, A. M. (2006). Examining

the contours of workplace diversity: Concepts, contexts, and
challenges. In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K.
Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 1–22).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rader, B. G. (1999). American sports: From the age of folk
games to the age of televised sport (4th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Robinson, J. (2009, January 8). Yale hires new coach and racial
issue fades for the Ivys. New York Times. Retrieved June 2,
2009, from http://www.nytimes.com.
Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case
for diversity. Academy of Management Executive, 11(3), 21–31.
Rosenberg, M. (2004). Two few: Of 117 football coaches, two
are black; it’s called institutional racism. Detroit Free Press.
Accessed November 14, 2005, from http://
www.freep.com/cgi-bin/forms/printerfriendly.pl.
Rosette, A. S., Leonardelli, G. J., & Phillips, K. W. (2008). The
White standard: Racial bias in leader categorization. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 758–777.
Sack, A. L., Singh, P., & Thiel, R. (2005). Occupational
segregation on the playing field: The case of Major League
Baseball. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 300–318.
Sagas, M., & Cunningham, G. B. (2005). Racial differences in
the career success of assistant football coaches: The role of
discrimination, human capital, and social
capital. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 773–797.
Saguy, A. C. (2002). International crossways: Traffic in sexual
harassment policy. The European Journal of Women’s Studies,
9, 249–267.
Sailes, G. A. (2000). The African American athlete: Social
myths and stereotypes. In D. Brooks & R. Althouse (Eds.),
Racism in college athletics: The African American

athlete’s experience (pp. 53–63). Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Sartore, M. L., & Cunningham, G. B. (2006). Stereotypes, race,
and coaching. Journal of African American Studies, 10(2), 69–
83.
Schein, E. (1990). Organizational culture. American
Psychologist, 45, 109–119.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Singer, J. N. (2005a). Addressing epistemological racism in
sport management research. Journal of Sport Management, 19,
464–479.
Singer, J. N. (2005b). Understanding racism through the eyes of
African American male student-athletes. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 8, 365–386.
Smart, J. C. (2003). Organizational effectiveness of 2-year
colleges: The centrality of culture and leadership complexity.
Research in Higher Education, 44, 673–703.
Smart, D., & Wolfe, R. (2000). Examining sustainable
competitive advantage in intercollegiate athletics: A resource-
based view. Journal of Sport Management, 14,
133–153.
406 405
http://www.tidesport.org/RGRC/2008/2008CollegRGRC.pdf
http://www.tidesport.org/RGRC/2008/2008CollegRGRC.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/
http://www.freep.com/cgi-bin/forms/printerfriendly.pl
http://www.freep.com/cgi-bin/forms/printerfriendly.pl

Son Hing, L. S., Chung-Yan, G. A., Hamilton, L. K., & Zanna,
M. P. (2008). A two-dimensional model that employs explicit
and implicit attitudes to characterize
prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94,
971–987.
Sperber, M. (2000). Beer and circus: How big-time college
sports is crippling undergraduate education. New York: Henry
Holt & Co.
Staurowsky, E. J. (2007). ‘‘You know, we are all Indian’’:
Exploring White power and privilege in reactions to the NCAA
Native American mascot policy. Journal of
Sport & Social Issues, 31, 61–76.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of
intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The
social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–
47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tate, W. F. (1997). Critical race theory and education: History,
theory, and implications. In M. Apple (Ed.), Review in research
education 2 (pp. 191–243).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Taylor, T., Doherty, A., & McGraw, P. (2008). Managing
people in sport organizations: A strategic human resource
management perspective. New York: Elsevier.
Thomas, D. R., & Dyall, L. (1999). Culture, ethnicity, and sport
management: A New Zealand perspective. Sport Management
Review, 2, 115–132.
Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in
organizations: Current research and future directions. New
York: Lexington Books.
van Vianen, A. E. M. (1999). Managerial self-efficacy, outcome
expectancies, and work-role salience as determinants of
ambition for a managerial position. Journal

of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 639–665.
Weese, W. J. (1995). Leadership and organizational culture: An
investigation of Big Ten and Mid-American Conference campus
recreation administrations. Journal
West, A., & Currie, P. (2008). School diversity and social
justice: Policy and politics. Educational Studies, 34, 241–250.
Whitlock, J. (2005, November 1). Why Weis, but not
Willingham? ESPN.com. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=2210060&ty-
pe=story.
Williams, J. (2004). 50 facts that should change the world. New
York: The Disinformation Company Ltd.
Williams, B. (2005a, May). Charlotte Westerhaus named NCAA
vice-president for diversity and inclusion [press release].
Retrieved January 11, 2008, from http://
www.ncaa.org.
Williams, B. (2005b, August). NCAA executive committee
issues guidelines for use of Native American mascots at
championship events [press release]. Retrieved July 7,
2006, from http://www.ncaa.org.
Wixon, M. (2006, May 17). Black coaches see dearth of
opportunity in suburbs: High schools diverse, but few land top
football jobs. Dallas Morning News. Retrieved
May 17, 2006, from http://www.dallasnews.com/cgi-
bin/bi/gold_print.cgi.
Wojciechowski, G. (2008, November 11). Number of African
American coaches remains unconscionable. ESPN.com.
Retrieved June 2, 2009, from http://sports.-

espn.go.com/espn/print?id=3695007&type=Columnist&imagesP
rint=off.
Wolfe, R. A., & Putler, D. S. (2002). How tight are the ties that
bind stakeholder groups? Organization Science, 13, 64–80.
Wong, E. (2002). The mystery of the missing minority coaches.
New York Times Online. Retrieved January 15, 2002, from
https://www.patrick.af.mil/deomi/
Library/EOReadFile/Affirmative%20Action/Spring02/The%20M
ystery%20of%20the%20Missing%20Minority%20Coaches.pdf
151.
Woodward, J. R. (2004). Professional football scouts: An
investigation of racial stacking. Sociology of Sport Journal, 21,
356–375.
Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organizations.
Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443–464.
406406
http://www.ncaa.org/
http://www.dallasnews.com/cgi-
bin/bi/gold_print.cgiUnderstanding the under-representation of
African American coaches: A multilevel perspectiveAfrican
Americans in coaching positionsA multilevel model to explain
the under-representation of African American coachesMacro-
level factorsInstitutionalized practicesPolitical
climateStakeholder expectationsMeso-level
factorsPrejudiceDiscriminationLeadership
stereotypesOrganizational cultureMicro-level factorsHead
coaching expectations and intentionsTurnover
intentionsRelationships among multilevel
factorsConclusionsReferences

All’s Fair in Love and Sport: Black
Masculinity and Domestic Violence in
the News
Suzanne Marie Enck-Wanzer
This essay examines how tensions between race and gender are
negotiated when these two
identifications intersect in news stories about black male
athletes accused of domestic
violence. Specifically, by analyzing news coverage of abusive
black athletes from 1990 to
2005, I demonstrate how these accounts employ narratives that
pathologize black men as
naturally aggressive due to their sporting background and black
rage. These rhetorical
strategies, I argue, reflect broader social efforts to negotiate a
tension between performing
sensitivity to both the harms of domestic violence and of
perpetuating racism against
African Americans. Ultimately, I conclude, by using sport as
the venue for talking about
domestic violence and black male bodies as the site of criminal
rage, gendered violence is
allowed to flourish and hegemonic (white) masculinity is both
exonerated and

(re)secured.
Keywords: Domestic Violence; Race; Gender; Sport; News
Media
In American culture, the black athlete, powerful and seemingly
of superhuman
strength, has always been a double-sided social/political figure,
both celebrated and
feared because of his remarkable skills.
1
For many, US fears of black athletes were confirmed in 1994
when the murder of
Nicole Brown Simpson cast suspicion on the football hero, O. J.
Simpson. While most
commentators point to the morality tales of race embedded in
the ‘‘Trial of the
Century,’’ George Lipsitz insists that we also understand this
event as revolving
‘‘around narratives of family closure and rupture.’’
2
The murder of his white wife,
Suzanne Enck-Wanzer is an Assistant Professor of
Communication Studies and Women’s Studies at Eastern
Illinois University. An earlier version of this essay was

presented at the 2007 meeting of the National
Communication Association. The author wishes to thank
Phaedra Pezzullo, Darrel Enck-Wanzer, Jeff Bennett,
Joan Hawkins, Jonathan Nichols-Pethick, Shane Miller, and
Angela Aguayo, as well as John Sloop and two
anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments,
engagement, and feedback on this project.
Correspondence to: Suzanne Enck-Wanzer, Communication
Studies, 600 Lincoln Avenue, Charleston, IL
61920, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
ISSN 1479-1420 (print)/ISSN 1479-4233 (online) # 2009
National Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/14791420802632087
Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies
Vol. 6, No. 1, March 2009, pp. 1�18
Nicole Brown Simpson, was a tragedy in its own right; however,
it was not simply the
death of a woman purportedly at the hands of an intimate
partner that elicited such
public outcry. The involvement of a heroic
superstar*importantly, a racially marked
athlete, yet one who had achieved ‘‘honorary whiteness’’*set
this case apart from

other (read: normal) slain and abused women.
3
Amidst the subsequent firestorm of social unrest in the wake of
O. J.’s arrest, news
articles flooded the media, highlighting the lethality of partner
abuse and urging
women to escape violent partners before meeting a fate similar
to Nicole Brown
Simpson’s. In 1995, for example, 21 of the 38 magazine articles
about intimate
violence were either entirely about O. J. Simpson’s abuse of his
wife or an extension of
this case to examine the prevalence of partner abuse in America.
4
In addition to
increased news coverage, publicity of this case influenced
Congress during the final
stages of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) with
VAWA testimony citing
frequently the death of Brown Simpson as a likely outcome of
intimate abuse gone
unchecked.
5

While much scholarly and popular ink has been devoted to the
O. J. case, no
attention has been afforded to the similarities between this case
and other news
accounts of abusive black athletes. This essay explores some of
the themes that the
O. J. case shares with other coverage of black athletes accused
of domestic violence. In
so doing, it becomes apparent that this landmark case is
indicative of a larger national
discourse about domestic violence. Though violence against
women is all too
commonplace in US public culture, news reports of domestic
offenders rely
frequently on familiar narratives of who engages in abuse.
Specifically, news accounts
of offenders focus largely on instances of black male sports
figures who physically
abuse their female (and often white) partners.
Rachel Hall, echoing the calls of various men’s movement
groups, insists that part
of the answer to ending violence against women is to shift our
optic from analyzing
woman-as-victim to questioning the cultural factors at work that

make violence
against women ‘‘thinkable and doable by some men.’’
6
In short, Hall asks us to focus
our attention on abusers rather than victims. Marian Meyers
adds to this call to
action a critique of how news journalism typically frames
violence against women.
Identifying journalistic quests for ‘‘balance’’ and use of the
passive voice as two
powerful strategies for reinforcing victim blame, Meyers states,
‘‘The news codes
of . . . ‘getting both sides of the story’ . . . negate the
seriousness of the crime and
represent [the victim] as at least partly at fault.’’
7
Such news accounting ought to be
challenged in such a way so as to place blame for violence
squarely on perpetrators of
violence.
Both Hall and Meyers point to the problematic ways in which
narratives of
domestic abuse circulate so as to exonerate men and find women
as both culpable for

their own abuse and responsible for redress. To be sure, I am in
full agreement with
demands for holding accountable men who are abusive. We need
to be ever vigilant,
though, in questioning the stakes involved in spotlighting
violent men, especially
when representations of offenders are so often condensed to
palatable caricatures
such as the black male athlete. If, as Sut Jhally and others have
suggested, sport plays
2 S. M. Enck-Wanzer
a significant role in the construction and maintenance of
American cultural values,
then the cultural values supported and challenged by
representations of domestic
violence vis-à-vis black athletes warrants closer attention.
8
Specifically, when black
men and male athletes are cast repeatedly in the media as
naturally more aggressive,
a particular cultural production of knowledge about domestic
violence is generated at

the nexus of racism and sport as they are circumscribed onto the
convenient villain of
the black male athlete. This troubling intersection of race and
gender is certainly not
new to critical/cultural scholarship.
This essay examines how tensions between race and gender are
negotiated when
these identifications intersect by critiquing the rhetorical
strategies of mainstream
news coverage of abusive black male athletes. Echoing the
conclusions of Greg
Dickinson and Karrin Vasby Anderson, I acknowledge that the
figure of the fallen
black male athlete/aggressor functions to ‘‘re-center white
patriarchy at a time when
whiteness and masculinity supposedly are ‘in crisis.’’’
9
Making this point
more explicit, Ronald L. Jackson, II, describing corporeal
inscriptions as ‘‘the
impositional writings of others on bodies that are not their
own,’’ insists that ‘‘black
corporeal inscriptions are infused iterations of whiteness

ideology embodied as black
corporeal objects.’’
10
Specific to the concerns of this essay are the ways in which
corporeal inscriptions on black male athletes as domestic
abusers function to
pathologize abusers more generally and naturalize domestic
violence within the realm
of black masculinity. These rhetorical strategies, I argue, reflect
broader social efforts
to negotiate a tension between attempts at performing
sensitivity to the victims of
domestic violence and protecting hegemonic (white)
masculinity. Shifting blame
from masculinity writ large to black athletes more specifically
functions to distance
the accountability for domestic violence away from (white)
masculinity and, thus,
maintains broader investments in masculinity and whiteness as
interlocking systems
of control. These systems, in turn, hurt both women and black
men.
Ultimately, news accounts of abusive black athletes tend to
employ narratives that

naturalize black masculinity as aggressive and efface deeper
cultural connections (e.g.,
patriarchy, hegemonic white masculinity) that make possible
rampant gendered
violence. To identify these narrative trends, I begin by situating
this analysis in a
growing body of communication scholarship that examines
critically news repre-
sentations of gendered violence. Second, I demonstrate how
news accounts of abusive
athletes naturalize black male aggressiveness both within the
arena of sport broadly
and within US public culture generally. Next, I think through
the connections
between domestic violence and a particular US history of
associating ‘‘rage’’ with
black masculinity. By way of conclusion, I argue that the pitting
of race against
gender, so common to the US sociopolitical culture, works
doubly to make invisible
the prevalence of domestic violence generally, while
pathologizing black male athletes
as the likely culprits of abuse; this sleight of hand, in turn,
functions to (re)secure the

hegemonic center of white masculinity.
All’s Fair in Love and Sport 3
Reading Representations of Gendered Violence
Kathleen B. Jones observes that in the 1970s, ‘‘the battered
women’s movement
inaugurated shifts of key in the register of how we define and
work against intimate
violence.’’
11
With the introduction of domestic violence shelters in pockets
throughout the US, social awareness of violence in the home
increased slowly. In
addition to the ardent labor of feminist and victims’ rights
activists, part of this shift
of social awareness can be attributed to the news media’s
‘‘discovery’’ of domestic
violence in 1973.
12
Since the 1970s, journalistic accounts of domestic violence have
surfaced in news sections spanning from ‘‘human interest’’ to
the ‘‘crime beat.’’ Most

often, such articles frame gendered violence so as to obfuscate
the embedded
institutional nature of abuse by focusing, instead, on individual
cases of physical
assaults (typically emphasizing a woman who triumphed over
abuse) and treating
these cases as discrete acts of one person against another.
13
Until 1994, news coverage
of domestic violence was still quite sporadic. The motivation
for the relative boom of
articles in the mid-1990s would rightly be attributed to a
combination of the 1993
sensationalized case of Lorena Bobbitt severing the penis of her
husband, revelations
of O. J.’s abuse of Nicole Brown Simpson, and news coverage
of the reanimated
VAWA.
In the past decade, while the numbers of articles have fluctuated
largely depending
upon high profile cases (e.g., Scott Peterson’s murder of his
pregnant wife and
subsequent Congressional passage of the Unborn Victims of

Violence Act), how the
news engages domestic violence has remained constant in two
ways: first, the
reporting reflects a broader social investment in sensational
instances of assaults
(usually gruesome murders and/or high-profile individuals);
14
and second, news
accounts typically minimize any focus on hegemonic masculine
entitlement and thus,
deny a demand of wider cultural urgency. Such juxtaposition
between high-profile
sensationalism and downplaying the commonality of domestic
violence is quite
informative in understanding the American experience of
interpreting violence and
justice.
15
In other words, what ‘‘counts’’ as abuse and is admonished
socially (e.g.,
physical assaults) and what does not ‘‘count’’ (e.g., emotional
control, use of male
privilege, financial control), who is held accountable (e.g.,
racially marked men and/

or men of lower economic standing), and who is not (e.g., white
upper-class men and
high-profile men more broadly) reflects continued efforts to
deflect attention away
from the influence of hegemonic centers of power and control.
Understood as a medium for negotiating conflicting cultural
values involved with
gendered, classed, and raced expectations, the news media is
equipped uniquely for
opportunities to both negotiate such tensions and, in many
cases, rigidify identity
divisions. Not surprisingly, the ways in which the news covers
abuse*what is
warranted as ‘‘worthy’’ of coverage, who is deemed a ‘‘good
victim,’’ and who
abuses*is embedded deeply within other cultural hierarchies.
Although most news
coverage of domestic violence focuses on exceptional physical
violence with little
mention of abusers, this rhetorical blueprint deviates where
celebrities are concerned.
The importance of studying news coverage of gendered violence
lies not in the details
4 S. M. Enck-Wanzer

of specific cases, but in recognizing how disparate news outlets
coalesce around
specific thematics and morality lessons, illuminating ‘‘how
much change and what
specific elements of change are acceptable at a given time and
on a particular issue.’’
16
Kieran McEvoy stresses the importance of studying crime news
in the US context
because it plays a major role in the ‘‘construction, articulation,
reassurance and
ultimately reassertion of a sense of public morality.’’
17
Following in the vein of the
Frankfurt School and more recent interrogations of the supposed
‘‘transparent
neutrality’’ of news journalism, the ideological potency of
domestic violence news
accounts upholds hegemonic power structures by placing blame
on women and
making culpable a select subset of men.
18
By offering the veneer of social critique by

simply acknowledging the problem of abuse, the constitutive
function of mainstream
news accounts offers particularly troublesome ways of
understanding what domestic
violence entails and what it does not.
19
Extending this argument, Wendy Kozol insists, ‘‘These realistic
forms and ideals of
objectivity legitimize media representations of domestic
violence as truthful in ways
that powerfully regulate public knowledge about this topic for
audience members
with limited access to alternative sources of information.’’
20
Creating not just what we
think about, but how we think, news representations wield great
power vis-à-vis this
otherwise ‘‘private’’ issue. As Lisa McLaughlin insists, we can
‘‘understand domestic
violence as a matter of both too much and not enough privacy,
as a problem at the
intersections of relationships between privacy and publicity.’’
21

In other words, this is
not to suggest that increased news coverage of domestic
violence ought to be
avoided*certainly, a starting-point of recognition is, as always,
part of any attempt
to ameliorate the harms of abuse*however, we must question
broader social
investments by tracing how accounts of the problem intersect to
foreground
particular aspects while marginalizing others.
In approaching this analysis, I surveyed the Reader’s Guide to
Periodic Literature for
articles dealing with domestic violence from 1990 to 2005. I
started research of each
year with the term ‘‘domestic violence’’ and then followed the
Reader’s Guide indexes
to indicate other subject terms used in news articles during that
year (e.g., ‘‘family
abuse,’’ ‘‘wife battery,’’ ‘‘battered women,’’ ‘‘spousal abuse,’’
‘‘marital rape’’). Every
article listed in the Guide was collected and, with very few
exceptions, the articles that
focused on abusive men (rather than victims) concentrated on
sports figures, movie/
music stars, or military personnel. The preponderance of these

stories about abusers
was comprised of sports figures as accused and/or admitted
batterers. Once initial
magazine stories about abusive athletes were amassed, I
augmented the field of
analysis to include more articles detailing cases of abuse as
found in the LexisNexis
and InfoTrac databases.
Even a cursory examination of these news reports reveals a
common picture: the
black athlete out of control.
22
Some might question whether my focus on black
athletes allows news coverage of white athletes to escape
notice. The answer is quite
simple: images of (and stories about) abusive white male
athletes are, on the whole,
lacking in the mainstream press. The vast majority of articles
about abusers located in
this study offer stories of black male athletes as abusive. This is
certainly not to say

that white athletes are not equally abusive; but, if you follow
mainstream print media,
you will not locate significant coverage of this violence. Thus,
as I argue below, the
naturalization of black aggression works to efface connections
to broader structures
of patriarchal dominance by relying on well-rehearsed tropes of
black male aggression
while exonerating hegemonic (white) masculinity.
Sport Culture and Violence Against Women
After decades of ignoring intimate abuse in general and
‘‘overlooking’’ the crimes
committed by sports stars in particular, news accounts of
abusive athletes now surface
in a wide array of mediated outlets. Usually without critical
reflection on the wider
cycles of domestic violence that might include (among others)
economic and sexual
control, abuse of male privilege, and use of children, reports of
physical assaults at the
hands of professional athletes tend to conflate
(hyper)masculinity, stardom, black-
ness, and violence. As such, mass-mediated reports frequently

excuse intimate abuse
as an aberration of masculinity-under-pressure coupled with
predictable (although
fallen) black rage. In particular, I want to suggest that one way
that domestic violence
is effaced from connections to broader structures of patriarchal
dominance is by
naturalizing black male aggressiveness, especially as embedded
within sports culture,
and leaving virtually unquestioned the status of white
masculinity.
From the boxing ring to the schoolyard, masculine aggression is
accepted as the
norm and a cultural desire to purge violence through
‘‘controlled’’ environments is an
important starting-point for interpreting abusive athletes.
Performances of mascu-
linity predicated on patterns of domination and subordination
are thought to be
contained within the sporting arena; however, when such
domination ‘‘spills over’’
into the presumably distinct arena of the home, it is cast as an
excess of natural
violence, but not something fundamentally problematic and/or

reflective of broader
cultural mores and norms. Standing in for what is both curiously
significant and
notably beyond the scope of articulated meaning for fans, sport
provides an
environment wherein its spectacular nature allows for a
particular form of aggressive
masculinity that is at once celebrated and naturalized, yet
understood to be beyond
the realm of ‘‘average’’ men.
The high-profile sports figure is acknowledged widely as a
likely domestic abuser
due to his (often black) (hyper)masculinized form and
simultaneously exonerated
from complicated (and complicating) public scrutiny due to his
stardom and intense
cultural pressures to be aggressive. Performances of
(hyper)masculinity involve more
than athletes; spectators, coaches, and commentators alike are
prone to accept
misogynist comments and actions as natural aspects of sports.
For example, after
commenting to the press on losing a 1990 football game that he
was ‘‘‘going to go

home and beat [his] wife,’’’ football coach, Joe Paterno,
apologized publicly. In his
defense, he explained that it ‘‘‘was just part of sports culture,
locker room talk,
harmless, a joke that did not mean anything.’’’
23
Similarly, in a 1997 column in US
News and World Report, in responding to increased reports of
abusive athletes, the
frequently featured columnist, John Leo, starts by lamenting the
high tolerance of
6 S. M. Enck-Wanzer
sports fans for ‘‘awful behavior.’’ Leo’s admonishment is
quickly blunted by a
parenthetical statement at the end of the article’s first
paragraph: ‘‘The wife-beating
accusations brought a bitter joke: Darryl Strawberry’s wife must
be right-handed,
because Darryl can’t hit left-handers.’’
24
Both supposed ‘‘jokes’’ by Paterno and Leo,

they explained later, were part and parcel of a sports culture;
thus, these comments
offer a fitting conduit into thinking more fully about
connections between sport and
domestic violence more generally.
As Margaret Carlisle Duncan and Michael A. Messner affirm,
sport ‘‘provides
opportunities for men to assert their dominance at a time when
male hegemony is
continually challenged and opposed in everyday life.’’
25
Offering a place where ‘‘boys
will be boys,’’ sport offers both escape from social pressures of
inclusiveness and
reinforcement of dominant social orders; or, as Susan Faludi
concludes in her study
of football fans, for male spectators especially, ‘‘‘supporting’
[their] team was . . . a
way of fighting against marginalization, a way of clinging to the
idea that national
destiny was still something played out by common men on a
muddy field.’’
26
Messner, Michele Dunbar, and Darnell Hunt bolster this
assessment in an analysis of

televised sports shows (e.g., SportsCenter) where they find that
the episodes and
accompanying commercials are marked by ‘‘fights, near-fights,
threats of fights, or
other violent actions [which are] overemphasized in sports
coverage and often
verbally framed in sarcastic language that [suggest] that this
kind of action, though
reprehensible, is to be expected.’’
27
In an effort to contextualize domestic violence for
sports enthusiasts, a Sports Illustrated special report notes,
‘‘For years battering was
perceived not as a criminal matter, like mugging and armed
robbery, but as a
phenomenon that belonged in the intimate realm of the hearth,
like making love or
Christmas cookies.’’
28
Though this article indicates that readers should judge partner
abuse as unacceptable, it also implies that sports figures are
abusive because they work
in an atmosphere that rewards aggression, competition, and

(hyper)masculinity. The
Sports Illustrated article paints a ‘‘subworld of the American
athlete’’ where the
‘‘ancient virtues of manhood*of the brave, cool, tough,
dominating and aggressive
male*are celebrated.’’29
In this world, ‘‘to be a man is not to be a woman. Women are
not to be respected.
Women are despised.’’
30
In such a universe, according to Sports Illustrated, men are
abusive toward women because they are specially conditioned to
view women as
inferior and weak, as a threat.
31
Susan Bordo suggests that sport culture supports the
‘‘idea that men are passionate beasts by nature, that they cannot
be expected to
control themselves*particularly when provoked by a
woman*and that such lack of
control is in fact a sign of their masculinity.’’
32
This social expectation of aggression
links mass-mediated representations of violence against women

to eager consump-
tion by fans. The naturalized and excused realm of sport where
men expectedly
despise that which is feminine helps to explain the framing of
many news articles
about domestic violence. Glamorizing male athletes, aligned
with their on-field
prowess, many articles juxtapose their abusive actions off-field
with their successes in
the game. For example, Glenn Robinson was arrested in 2000
for domestic battery
and unlawful possession of a gun; Jet comforted readers by
noting that ‘‘Robinson
didn’t let this incident impede the opening of his eighth annual
summer basketball
camp days later.’’
33
In almost all of the articles examined, the many successes
(whether displayed in yards rushed, RBIs, baskets made, or
awards given) of sports
heroes couch discussions of the athlete’s abusive moments in

ReviewUnderstanding the under-representation of African Am.docx

ReviewUnderstanding the under-representation of African Am.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ReviewUnderstanding the under-representation of African Am.docx

Similar to ReviewUnderstanding the under-representation of African Am.docx (20)

More from malbert5

More from malbert5 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ReviewUnderstanding the under-representation of African Am.docx