Submitted by Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
One hundred twelve pound Cassie Herkelman is a historic figure in Iowa high school sports. Though Iowa has allowed girls to compete against boys in wrestling for two decades, Cassie is the first to win a match in Iowa’s legendary state wrestling tourney. The problem, for some, is that she won by forfeit.
Her opponent Joel Northrup, a home schooler who wrestles for Linn-Mar High School, cited his religious faith as the reason for the decision not to answer the referee’s call to “wrestle.” In a curiously polished statement for a 16-year-old, Northrup said: “As a matter of conscience and faith, I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner. It is unfortunate that I have been placed in a situation not seen in most other high school sports in Iowa.”
Northrup prefaced his remarks by saying, “‘I have a tremendous amount of respect for Cassy and Megan [another female wrestler who qualified] and their accomplishments. However, wrestling is a combat sport and it can get violent at times.”
Northrup may continue in the double elimination tourney through consolation round matches but can finish no higher than third. Henkleman advances.
According to the National Federation of State High School Associations, slightly over 6,000 girls competed in wrestling in 2009-10 – compared with nearly 275,000 boys. California, Texas and Hawaii have girls-only wrestling while most other states allow combined competition.
The incident raises several issues: Would it have been fair to ban Northrup from future matches under notions of sportsmanship for forfeiting with no medical reason? Should home-schoolers have the benefit of participating in public school sporting events? Is Northrup a prisoner of conscience or a vestige of Victorian attitudes of chivarly that women are somehow physically and emotionally unworthy of competing against men in physical sports? Should girls and women’s sports be “separate but equal”?
The episode calls to mind the poignant and fact-based film, Chariots of Fire, set during the 1924 Olympics when UK runner Eric Liddell refused a scheduled heat because it fell on Sunday. The strictly religious Liddell was portrayed as heroic in the movie. What are your feelings about Northrup?
Source: Mail Online
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
I strongly object to boys being matched against girls in wrestling at the high school or college level. My objections have nothing to do with boy-girl contact, gay vs. straight, religious idiocy, or discrimination against women. The problem is simple. Matching a boy against a girl puts the boy in an untenable position. He is put in a situation where he can only lose.
Consider the three possible outcomes:
1. The boy wins the match. He will get no credit for winning because “he only beat a girl” and he will look like a jerk for beating “that poor girl”, especially if she is injured.
2. The boy loses the match. From that day forward, maybe for the rest of his life, he will be “that guy who lost to a girl”. He will forever be considered a wimp. Imagine what that would do to the fragile ego of a high school kid.
3. The boy refuses to wrestle the girl. What is the word that immediately pops into your mind? Would it be “gentleman”? Of course not. It would be “coward” or “chicken” or “pussy”. Again, an ego destroying outcome.
What is the solution to too few girls participating in wrestling? I don’t know, but boy-girl wrestling isn’t the answer.
raff:
I think this says it all:
“”For someone to leave us at age 50, very young, active and in great shape, good health, that’s tragic. It’s way too early for someone to pass,”
“The wrestlers I knew in high school would have a girl for dinner and have her on her back in about 20 seconds.”
Kid,
Did you really mean a girl for dinner, or perhaps it would be likely to be a guy?
eniobob,
I saw the news about Dave Duerson in the Trib this morning. It looks like the beating his body took during his NFL days caught up to him and he couldn’t take it any longer.
Kid Curry
1, February 20, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Blouise:
“Perhaps mental superiority evens it all out ….”
I wont argue that point, as near as I can tell my daughter is very smart but she isnt as strong as the little guy down the street. Which is all I am saying.
=================================================
… I just like to play with words 🙂
Sports related for you Bear fans,very sad.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/The-family-of-former-Bears-safety-Dave-Duerson-has-agreed-to-donate-his-brain-for-research-022011
Blouise:
“Perhaps mental superiority evens it all out ….”
I wont argue that point, as near as I can tell my daughter is very smart but she isnt as strong as the little guy down the street. Which is all I am saying.
Kid Curry
1, February 20, 2011 at 2:39 pm
James M:
…..
Women for the most part are physically inferior to men.
===============================================
Perhaps mental superiority evens it all out ….
James M:
Why? To promote the equivalency of the sexes? This is the equivalent of having to let a person with low test scores and grades into medical school.
Did she earn her spot? was this a final round or a first round?
Women cannot typically compete with men, they are not naturally strong enough. Why do we have women’s and men’s tees? Or male and female tennis matches? Or the Olympic segregation?
Women for the most part are physically inferior to men. I didn’t make the rules, nature did. Call mother nature/God a sexist.
Kid Sexist,
Everyone at the state competition had to earn their spot. It’s true that there aren’t as many women as men who can compete at that level, but those who can should be given the opportunity to do so.
At first reading I did not find this article interesting but then I read all the comments and realized the social complexities involved.
Social norms change. Forty years ago this would not have been a problem because this situation would never have occurred in the high school setting. Today it is a problem that even finds its way to a legal blog. No wonder we have so many scared folk out there desperately trying to go back to the old days …
For whatever reason, the young man refused to wrestle and whatever rules were in place at the time of his refusal, those are the rules to be followed. The time to change the rules is after this tournament is over and before the next one begins.
I find Joel Northrup’s actions … snarky. The time to have made the decision that he would not wrestle a female was before the tournament began. The coach would then have had to inform the officials that his wrestler, Joel Northrup, would refuse to wrestle any female athlete based on his religious views. The officials could have then decided whether or not the tournament rules permitted Northrup to take part in the tournament and if so, what actions would they have to take if he was paired with a female.
In my opinion, Joel Northrup is just another run of the mill cad trying to wear the clothes of a religious gentleman … it’s a bad fit.
why should he have to wrestle a girl? This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on this blog.
The wrestlers I knew in high school would have a girl for dinner and have her on her back in about 20 seconds. They would not have wrestled her either but it would not have been on religious grounds. It would have been on the grounds that it wasn’t even going to be a contest, so why bother.
That young mans civil rights will be violated if he has to leave the team over this.
You want fair, have an all girls wrestling team in the state and let them compete where they have a chance at winning.
Just another dream of the equivalency of the sexes. What stupid fool would let/encourage a girl to wrestle with boys? Maybe up until 12 or 13 but beyond that no way. I wouldn’t want my daughter thinking she wasn’t as good as a boy.
Would Northrup have wrestled a transsexual?
Raff,
Since Mr. Northrup was home schooled, I think that comparing and contrasting his parent’s views and his views is likely to be a distinction without a difference. His parents have been such a large factor in the shaping of his viewpoint that it is probably indistinguishable from theirs. I will assume that this is the case until Mr. Northrup says differently or there is other evidence that your suspicions are correct – I’ll judge him based on his actions, in any case.
Regarding ‘Vision Quest’ – revenge is a dish best served cold – you’d better start stocking up on the brain bleach… BWA-ha-ha-ha-ha! 😉
Mespo,
Oh sure, ask a difficult question…
I think that principled stands that don’t conflict with societal norms are generally unnecessary – besides, it doesn’t take much courage to assert you have the right to do something that everyone else is doing already – while principled stands that conflict draw attention to issues that frequently should (need to) be considered. Since I think that confronting thorny questions involving the philosophical underpinnings of a society is both desirable and good for the society, I’d have to say that I’m leaning towards the ‘only because they do’ camp…
Carol,
I don’t think that anything should happen to this young man ‘immediately’ (if by ‘immediately’ you mean there should be some rule governing high school sports which makes him ineligible). His future participation in wrestling should only depend on the assent of Mr. Northrup, his teammates, his coaches, and the school. If all of these parties agree that he should continue to be a part of the team with the understanding that he will forfeit any match with a girl, then I don’t think anyone else should bar him from doing so. Personally, I would see the women who ‘won’ these matches as heroes for exposing a form of religious bigotry and intolerance – this is an opportunity to show that the logical conclusion of Mr. Northrup’s position is something akin to Sharia law.
Slarts,
Sorry about the Vision Quest memory!
I wasn’t denigrating the young man for his stand on his moral ethics, just making a comment that there was evidence that they weren’t really “his” ethics, but his parents. I can’t imagine any high school kid wanting to be home schooled, but I have know many parents who removed their kids for non-disciplinary reasons from school.
Mespo,
My answer to your question would be that it is good to take a principled stand, for the individual and society, if it really is his/her own stand and not one of a parent or guardian or religion pushes the person to a point that they would not have decided on their own.
Did this kid know when he joined the team he might have to wrestle a girl? If he knew it and joined anyway, shame on him. He should have chosen another sport.
As for the girl being a ‘winner’, in every-ones’ mind, there will always be an asterisk by her name. She didn’t ‘really’ win. That isn’t fair to her. He did her a great wrong by refusing to compete.
I suggest any state that has co-ed wrestling teams make it clear that forfeiting because of the opponent’s gender isn’t allowed. They should be immediately dismissed from the team
Slarti:
Good points all. The question seems to me to be: Can principled stands be a desirable social good when they directly conflict with generally accepted social norms, or only because they do?
Nice going Raff – now I’ve got some kind of parody of ‘Vision Quest’ where the love interest and the opponent are the same person running through my head…
Whether or not his parents are involved (and they are, if only because the kid was home schooled) this kid has every right to be as bigoted and closed-minded as he wants as long as he doesn’t violate other people’s rights. I don’t see a right of the young woman being violated nor do I see significant harm being done to her. The team should consider whether or not it is appropriate for the young man to continue to compete and he should be called out for his religious bigotry (although there is misguided integrity in his actions as well – I respect people who act on what they believe and accept the consequences even if I think the zealotry behind the act is wrong-headed and distasteful).
Nice topic Mespo. This kid has the right to refuse to wrestle, but in light of the language used to announce his refusal, as Mespo points out, I am guessing the parents are involved, maybe over-involved. Most of the home school students that I have experienced are at home due to religious reasons. I think Mike S. makes a good point about the touching issue. The only way to complete freedom is for all the barriers to interaction be torn down. For some stupid reason this story reminds me of “Vison Quest”.??