Can white man be discriminated against on 70% white male Missouri sports board? | Opinion
A whistleblower says the Missouri State High School Activities Association, the governing body for high school sports in the state, discriminated against him because of his race and gender, according to Missouri State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick.
In a letter sent last month to state Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, Fitzpatrick wrote: “The whistleblower was told they were not eligible for an at-large position on MSHSAA’s board because of their gender and race.”
He added: “This discrimination is extremely troubling in any setting, but is of even greater concern in this case because MSHSAA derives much of its funding from public sources and plays an important role in the extracurricular life of Missouri’s children.”
A statement from Hanaway’s office read: “According to Auditor Fitzpatrick, a review conducted by his office uncovered that a whistleblower, who is both white and male, was informed he was not eligible for an at-large board position specifically because of his race and gender.
The claims of discrimination being made here were somewhat puzzling — 70% percent of directors were white men, according to MSHSAA. And its own bylaws allow two at-large seats to be filled by underrepresented groups — mainly minorities and women up until this point.
The candidate in question is the superintendent of a small school district in southwest Missouri, according to a copy of an email he was sent from MSHSAA Executive Director Jennifer Rukstad. The man’s complaint could reverberate throughout the state if MSHSAA is forced to change bylaws that govern at-large seats on its 10-member board of directors.
The email correspondence, along with a series of letters between Fitzpatrick’s office and attorneys representing MSHSAA, is available on the Missouri auditor’s website. The superintendent’s name appears in an email on the website clearly identifying him.
Although I don’t agree with the discrimination claim being made, the man is considered a whistleblower, so I don’t feel comfortable using his name for this column.
I called the man’s office and emailed him seeking comment, but those messages weren’t returned.
If you were to believe Fitzpatrick and Hanaway, the man was denied the seat simply because he is a white male. Let’s not ignore the fact that seven members of MSHSAA’s current board of directors were white men.
Two white women and an African American man held the other seats, according to demographic information I confirmed with MSHSAA officials.
In this case, race matters because an overwhelming number of MSHSAA board seats are already held by a specific group.
If you ask me, the board needs more diversity, not less — and that is not a slight against any director. But representation matters. A diverse set of board members with different lived experiences, expertise, education and ethnic backgrounds could only strengthen an organization not weaken it.
20-year-old bylaw ‘expands access’
In an email Rukstad sent to the superintendent in southwest Missouri, she informed him that he did not qualify for the Region 2 At-Large seat he was nominated for because he was male.
“The current board of directors, after taking out members whose terms are up, has a majority of males,” Rukstad wrote in March. “Since you are a male, you do not meet this requirement.”
What I found most interesting in MSHSAA’s rejection letter is the man’s refusal to identify his race or ethnicity. The board is made up of a majority of white, non-Hispanic members, Rukstad told him. Nothing in the documents I read on the auditor’s website indicates the man ever divulged that particular information to MSHSAA.
“Without knowing your ethnicity or race, we ask for you to respond with the minority ethnicity or race group in which you identify,” Rukstad wrote.
If Fitzpatrick had his way — Hanaway’s recent legal posturing on the issue shouldn’t be ignored either — it seems MSHSAA’s board would be dominated by one particular group. A board devoid of true representation would be a disservice to all students that participate in extracurricular activities sanctioned by MSHSSA.
“Missouri does not tolerate race-based or sex-based discrimination, period,” Hanaway said in a statement “No organization that governs our public schools and our children’s activities can operate under an immoral system that tells someone they are the wrong race or the wrong sex for leadership.”
A policy put in place to ensure fairness is not discriminatory.. Besides, the administrative body’s at-large bylaw has been in place more than two decades, according to MSHSAA. The organization denied its policy is racist or sexist.
“The constitutional provision at issue has been in place for more than 20 years and has always been fully transparent,” the organization wrote in a statement on its website.
To qualify as a director, all candidates must be active as a school superintendent, principal or activities director from a member school in good standing with their respective districts, according to MSHSAA bylaws. At-large members are held to the same standards as in-district directors, so any argument that less qualified candidates are on the board may be moot in this instance.
“Each of two at-large positions shall be filled by a candidate representing the underrepresented gender of the current Board, or an underrepresented ethnicity,” MSHSAA’s handbook reads. “At-large members of the Board of Directors shall meet the same qualifications as” in-district directors.
In their statement, MSHSAA officials said the provision ensures that directors bring different perspectives to the board.
“The provision expands access rather than restricts it,” the statement read.
‘Never had a minority or female board member initially’
By its own admission, MSHSAA discovered more than 20 years ago that its board was populated by white men, according to a letter from its attorney Natalie Hoernschemeyer to Fitzpatrick. A review of MSHSAA’s nearly 100-year history revealed a striking pattern, Hoernschemeyer wrote.
“The Association, with the possible exception of one individual, had never had a minority or female board member initially join the Board through the standard nomination and election process prior to the addition of the at-large provision,” she wrote.
Back then, the group’s members instituted a policy that leaves the two at-large positions open for qualified candidates from underrepresented groups.
“The constitutional language related to at-large board positions is deliberately designed to promote inclusivity while avoiding any form of exclusion or rigid identity-based quotas. It expands access, rather than restricts it,” Hoernschemeyer wrote.
The unnamed superintendent was told he qualified to run for an in-district seat just not the at-large one he sought according to MSHSAA. Apparently, a two-decades-old rule aimed at improving access for underrepresented groups prompted a needless investigation from Hanaway’s office.
I haven’t always agreed with some of MSHSAA’s policies — the group’s transfer rules regarding student athletes needs an overhaul. Although I’d like to see its board even more diverse, I am a supporter of this bylaw. MSHSAA must not cave to political pressure amid the state’s ongoing purge of diversity-related initiatives.
It’s no secret that white men already make up the overwhelming majority of MSHSAA’s decision-making body. Fitzpatrick and Hanaway should stay away from MSHSAA’s attempt to level the playing field for its board seats.
