Bell played on a youth national team in South Africa before relocating to Amherst. Bell has a love for the game as well as the talent to succeed in the sport and should be considered a jewel in the crown of any high school field hockey program.
But Bell's first name is Bradley. And Brad Bell is the only male member listed on the traditionally all-female field hockey roster.
This changes things. A 5'10", 220-pound male competing in a very physical sport against females? Females who are often six inches shorter and, at times, almost 100 pounds lighter than he is? Now that-as critics of Bell's actions stated in published opinion pieces, editorials and on the chalk sidelines of the ARHS field-is unfair.
Unfair for two main reasons. First, the critics state, the presence of males in a sport dominated by females gives the co-ed team an irreducible physical advantage. They point out that the last two Division I champions, Southwick High School and West Springfield High School, carried males on their rosters. They say that, out of the 8,000 high school field hockey players in Massachusetts, the dozen or so boys on six teams have had a disproportionate impact on the physical aspects of the game.
Second, the critics of Bell's place on the ARHS roster cite Title IX legislation. As Julia Hunter, the senior co-captain of the Amherst Regional varsity team said to Mike Wise, a reporter for The New York Times, "In some ways, it feels like Title IX has been used against us."
Meanwhile, Amy Bottke, the former varsity coach at Amherst Regional, predicted, "He'll be playing varsity soon. That means a girl will have to sit down."
Both arguments have their selling points. I don't need to look any farther than the differences in the amount of weight piled onto the bench press by males and females in the downstairs room of our own fitness center to know that, as much as it pains me to admit it, the average male is much stronger than the average female.
The Times article, published on Oct. 18, cites the horror story of an all-female field hockey game earlier this season in which a player from East Longmeadow High School suffered many injuries, including a broken jaw, a lacerated lip and the loss of three teeth after being hit in the mouth on an errant follow-through off a Longmeadow High School stick. A female player's stick. Putting two and two together, it isn't hard to realize that the injection of a male into a physical competition of all females will change both the physicality and the safety level of the game.
To give Bell credit, he does not consciously use his physical prowess to overpower opposing defenses. In fact, the Times article emphasizes that Bell is acutely aware of his capability to cause physical harm to his teammates, as well as opponents, and tries to avoid it at all costs. Similarly, the article states that Bell does not score 20 goals a game-although he probably could.
But the possibility that someday he could get carried away on a follow-through lingers in my mind, as does the feeling that, because Bell might not be playing to his fullest physical ability, he is selling himself short and, in a way, missing the essence of sport in the first place.
Overshadowing the compelling argument of more physical dominance is the critic's response that by using Title IX to allow males to play on teams that are traditionally female the underlying motives of Title IX are being ignored, if not contradicted.
On the surface, the issue seems rather cut and dried: Title IX, the 1972 legislation that prohibits discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funds, gives Bell the explicit right to play field hockey for Amherst Regional's junior varsity team. There is no male team for him to play on, just as there is no female football team for his female classmates to play on. A female, as a result, is free to try out for the traditionally all-male football team. Bell is free to try out for the field hockey team.
But in an ironic twist, Bell's inclusion on the field hockey team through Title IX seems to undermine the mission that the legislation was meant to carry out. When Bell took a place on the squad's roster, he excluded one more female from being able to play high school field hockey. Title IX, as far as I understand it, was designed with the motive of giving women an equal chance to participate in the athletics programs of federally-funded institutions. By denying a place on the roster to a female, Bell's actions go directly against the meaning of Title IX.
Rather than go down the slippery slope of extending this argument to the hypothetical situation of an Amherst College field hockey roster sporting names like Adam and Martin instead of Abby and Mairin, I'd rather focus on the individual consequences of the present. A discussion of the meaning and semantics of Title IX aside, not allowing Brad Bell to play field hockey at all is also unfair. Not allowing a male to play a sport simply because he is male is just as egregious an act as not allowing a female to play a sport simply because she is female.
The head field hockey coaches at East Longmeadow and Longmeadow High Schools have been very vocal about their reservations in allowing males to play on female teams. The two coaches have proposed a realignment with two leagues: one for all-female teams and one for mixed-sex teams.
This would allow males to play field hockey without the constant added pressure of being a magnet for criticism. It would also balance the level of competition, since a male on a team would be assured of having to play against at least one other male.
Either way, the idealist in me believes that Bell should still be allowed to play. I would rather see equality run its course to an unprecedented level than watch the notion of equality be bound to gender-segregated terms.
The realist in me, however, supports a different notion. Despite the sympathy I would feel for Bell if he were not allowed to play, I feel more sympathetic to the female whose chance to participate in sports never materializes as a result of Bell's being on the team. Title IX was developed to give females the opportunity to participate in sports on a level equal to that of their male counterparts. Using Title IX to give males spots on female teams just seems to me a bit off.
I am not criticizing Bell. In fact, I give him a lot of credit for demonstrating a love of his sport and the determination to play it in the face of negative criticism. What I am criticizing is the fact that Bell has to be in this obviously uncomfortable position at all.
In my mind, the irony of the situation is that, in order to have equal opportunity in sports, males and females must be locked into a double standard that is obviously unfair. To promote equality, it seems we are forced to treat males and females differently, at least in the realm of athletic eligibility.
I always considered myself somewhat of a feminist, and this realization is not an easy one for me to swallow. I support the idea of mixed-sex teams in separate leagues. I support females trying out for the football team. However, I cannot support the idea of a male taking over a roster spot that should go to a female.
Title IX was monumental legislation, and it is as necessary and warranted now as it was when it was drafted almost 30 years ago. But we must have a clearer method of dealing with what has become the backlash of pure equality.