Joel Kirsch, Ph.D.
American Sports Institute

OVERVIEW

Language both reflects and informs a culture. Language mirrors the perspective of the people who speak it and, at the same time, helps shape their perceptions and actions.

In this context, the American Sports Institute considers the terms jock and student-athlete discriminatory and in bad taste (see Jock and Student-Athlete below) in that they contribute to: 1) a biased and erroneous perception that athletes are not as intelligent and cultured as the general public; and 2) a biased and erroneous perspective that sport is merely an extracurricular, leisure, and entertainment endeavor that lacks serious academic and cultural standing.

ASI believes these two terms and resulting perceptions have a profound affect on how athletes at all levels—from young children, to high school, to collegiate, to professional athletes—view themselves and sport, and, in turn, how the general public views athletes and sport.

Given the accepted yet discriminatory and bad-taste nature of the terms jock and student-athlete, it is no wonder that athletes too often view themselves as lacking in intelligence and culture, and act accordingly. The public then ends up having this same perspective due to the actions of the athletes, which, in turn, fuels the perception of the athletes’ seeing themselves as lacking in intelligence and culture. It is a vicious cycle, with the nature of the terms jock and student-athlete as a profound driving force.

By changing the ways in which we refer to athletes, we change the perception of what it means to be an athlete as well as how athletes view themselves. Thus, their behavior changes. In turn, the public’s image of athletes and sport changes, which, again, fuels the self-image of the athletes.

Because ASI believes that the terms jock and student-athlete are discriminatory and in bad taste, and fuel a biased and erroneous perception of athletes as lacking in intelligence and culture, it is respectfully calling upon organizations across the country to adopt a policy that has their personnel refrain from using the terms jock and student-athlete. In their place, all references to those who participate in sports would simply be termed athlete(s).

Those organizations that adopt this policy will be asked to send a representative(s) to The Call of Sport: A Model for Educational Reform conference, Spring, 2001, in the San Francisco area with the authority to sign a proclamation on behalf of their organization that they have adopted this policy.

After the conference, ASI will continue this public awareness campaign, with a goal of having this policy adopted by all organizations and institutions in the United States.

JOCK

Derived from the word jockstrap, jock is a slang term that commonly refers to being an athlete. In addition, there are other assumptions or labels that go along with the term.

For example, a jock is considered to be someone who plays sports but is probably not very intelligent. In this context, there is the term dumb jock. However, there is no such term for those who participate in other extracurricular activities. There are no terms such as dumb musician, dumb singer, dumb thespian, or dumb dancer for those students at the high school and collegiate levels who play music, sing, act, or dance. In addition, there are no such terms as dumb mathematician, dumb linguist, dumb historian, dumb scientist, etc. etc. The disciplines of math, language arts, history, science are considered cultured, with participants who are fairly intelligent. But this is obviously not true for athletes. In America, we do not equate a jock with being intelligent. The term dumb goes well with jock. It even sounds like an oxymoron to hear the term smart jock.

Jockstraps support a man’s genitals during athletic activity. In fact, according to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, the term jockstrap is derived from the English slang term meaning penis. By referring to athletes as jocks, we reduce an individual’s athletic efforts to athletic underwear and a man’s genitals. This is callous and in poor taste, and has obviously contributed to a positioning of athletes and sports in America as lacking in intelligence and culture.

In this context, the term jock is especially condescending toward female athletes since they obviously do not wear jockstraps. Yet many female athletes, and women in general, accept the term. Imagine this in a reversed context. Suppose women had been playing sports all these years and men had been left out, with Title IX finally giving men equal access to sports. Then, instead of jocks, women were called bras, short for brassiere, the athletic underwear to support their breasts during athletic activity. Can you imagine men allowing themselves to be called bras?

While the term jock is considered slang with a context of a jock being someone who is good at sports but probably lacking in intelligence and culture, currently the term is not considered in bad taste. In fact, people have gotten used to the term. It is accepted in our language. There hasn’t been any debate about its appropriateness.

This is similar to terms for African-Americans and women that were once considered non-offensive. There used to be terms for African-Americans that were derogatory yet accepted in parts of America, especially the South. Today, because of the awareness that has been raised regarding these terms, it is considered offensive to use the terms as well as to use terms that were once accepted by everyone in the country—terms such as Negroes or colored people. But we wouldn’t dare use these terms today because we have become more conscious of their implications. Yet, we refer to athletes as jocks.

The same could be said for the slang terms babes, studs, etc. These terms are considered inappropriate when referring to women and men in media sources and in the public arena. They reflect and inform a condescending value toward individuals of the respective genders. The same is true for the term jock.

STUDENT-ATHLETE

The term student-athlete is unique to high school and collegiate athletes. Given that athletics are not considered part of the core curriculum—they are considered extracurricular—that students take, the student- is placed in front of the term athlete to justify athletics being a part of the high school and collegiate experience.

However, while well-intentioned, the term student-athlete is discriminatory and furthers a misperception that athletes lack intelligence. There are no corresponding terms for students who study math, language arts, history, science, etc., because these disciplines are considered to require intellectual skills. For this reason, in our high schools and colleges, we don’t have the terms student-mathematician, student-linguist, student-historian, or student-scientist.

Even the other extracurricular activities of music, choir, theater, and dance do not have the student- label in front of their respective disciplines. There is no student-musician, student-singer, student-thespian, or student-dancer.

To use the term student-athlete is to label those who participate in sports as somehow less intelligent or less cultured than participants in the other high school and collegiate disciplines, be they co- or extracurricular. By its very nature, the term student-athlete is condescending and separates the athletes from the same educational experience as all the other students. The term student-athlete positions athletes as being apart from the complete educational experience rather than being a part of it.

Citing the example above regarding the use of the word jock as it related to terms such as Negroes or colored people that were accepted in the past when referring to African-Americans, can anyone imagine putting the term student- in front of African Americans? It would obviously be racist by implying that African Americans somehow lack the intelligence of other races. In the same way, the student- in front of the term athlete is discriminatory and fuels an erroneous perception that athletes are less intelligent and less cultured than other students.

While this erroneous perception prevails throughout the country, it is not based upon statistical data. In fact, statistics show that at the high school level, athletes perform as well academically as the general student body. Furthermore, at the collegiate level, overall, the athletes perform at a higher level than the general student body.

According to a study conducted several years ago by the Chronicle of High Education in which it surveyed all Division I NCAA schools, 56% of all the athletes graduated in five years compared to only 48% of the general student body. The problem is that only 42% of the football players and 39% of the basketball players graduated within five years. And with high school and collegiate football and basketball being the two sports that get most of the public’s attention through the media, people end up with a false perception of the academic ability of all athletes.

CONCLUSION

The terms jock and student-athlete are discriminatory and in bad taste. They have unfairly contributed to a positioning of athletes and sports in America as lacking in intelligence and culture.

With language both reflecting and informing a cultural perspective, the individuals and institutions that choose to use the terms jock and student-athlete, however unwittingly, contribute to a perception that is discriminatory, that denigrates athletes, that demeans sport.

For these reasons, the terms jock and student-athlete need to become unacceptable in the public arena. In their place, individuals and institutions can simply use the term athlete. By doing so, they will contribute to the intellectual and cultural development of sport’s participants and, ultimately, to us all.