One washed up golfer hopes crossing gender lines will bring his sinking career out of the quicksand and restore it to its previous glory. Former Canadian Tour of Merit winner Brian Kontak told the Golf Channel last week he is exploring the possibility of playing in the U.S. Women's Open, arguably the biggest women's competition in the country. His decision is a lame publicity stunt that will trivialize the sport and the athletes who take it seriously, and the LPGA should not allow him to enter.
The LPGA bans male participation in its events. Earlier this month Annika Sorenstam, an LPGA golfer, was given a sponsor exemption to compete on the PGA tour in May. She will be the first woman to play with PGA men since 1945. Her case differs from Kontak in that the PGA does not have any rules against her involvement, where LPGA bylaws specifically do not allow men to compete. Sorenstam, who last year won 13 times worldwide, wants the challenge of playing against the men. Kontak is playing to jump start a shaky career -- he has gone from Canadian Tour of Merit winner to being a Nationwide Tour player with conditional status. Their motivations are not the same.
The PGA Tour's sponsor invited Sorenstam to play in the PGA Tour event. She is not taking the spot of anyone deserving to play in the field. Kontak was not invited and only wants to play for the publicity he likely will receive. In order to be allowed into the LPGA event, he will have to go to court and overturn U.S. Women's Open rules -- he will have to eliminate gender from athletic competition.
It would be detrimental to the game of golf if Kontak is allowed to tee up against the nation's best female golfers in the U.S. Women's Open. Celebrities and athletes often have trouble letting go of fame when their fifteen minutes comes to an end. Kontak should move on to a role better than publicity hound, and the LPGA should not allow him to play.
College must add partner benefits
Temple University's landmark decision to grant its employees domestic partner benefits should open the door for other institutions to make the same choice. Offering domestic partner benefits might bring fierce backlash from conservative state legislators, but university administrators across the country, especially at Ohio University, should offer employees these benefits.
University of Pittsburgh administrators, even in light of Temple's decision, still feel offering domestic partner benefits is unwise. Undoubtedly, they fear repercussions from state politicians, who might attempt to cut university funding should administrators push the envelope. In interviews with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week, two conservative legislators suggested their colleagues might be willing to punish Temple.
Legislators would be foolhardy to punish any institution for offering domestic partner benefits. Offering such opportunities help universities compete for quality educators and faculty. If a university wants to be a first-tier institution, it must recruit first-tier faculty and administrators. These individuals might opt for another college that does offer the benefit package they deserve.
Legislative repercussion should not stop university administrators from granting employees domestic partner benefits. Pitt administrators have said they plan watch Pennsylvania legislators' reaction to Temple's decision and move from there. No matter what the politicians decide, universities should include domestic partner benefits. If legislators cut funding, administrators should take them to court.
The longtime push toward domestic partner benefits has been marred with political undertones. By invoking Statehouse intimidation and partisan politics, legislators fail their elected position. When constituents send a representative to the capital -- whether it is Harrisburg or Columbus -- they expect the official to act in a mature way that advances the condition of education. If legislators cut funding in punishment for offering benefits, they hurt the already fragile education system and their state.-
17 Archives
