Gender Politics in US College Athletic

Departments: The Case of the

University of Minnesota Merger 1st
Edition Lisa A. Kihl
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/gender-politics-in-us-college-athletic-departments-the
-case-of-the-university-of-minnesota-merger-1st-edition-lisa-a-kihl/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Becoming a World Class University The case of King

Abdulaziz University 1st Edition Osama Tayeb

https://textbookfull.com/product/becoming-a-world-class-
university-the-case-of-king-abdulaziz-university-1st-edition-
osama-tayeb/

There But for Fortune The Life of Phil Ochs First

University Of Minnesota Press Edition Ochs

https://textbookfull.com/product/there-but-for-fortune-the-life-
of-phil-ochs-first-university-of-minnesota-press-edition-ochs/

Experiences of Hunger and Food Insecurity in College

Lisa Henry

https://textbookfull.com/product/experiences-of-hunger-and-food-
insecurity-in-college-lisa-henry/

The Imperial Politics of Architectural Conservation The

Case of Waqf in Cyprus Reyhan Sabri

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-imperial-politics-of-
architectural-conservation-the-case-of-waqf-in-cyprus-reyhan-
sabri/
Divided Loyalties? Pushing the Boundaries of Gender and
Lay Roles in the Catholic Church, 1534-1829 Lisa
Mcclain

https://textbookfull.com/product/divided-loyalties-pushing-the-
boundaries-of-gender-and-lay-roles-in-the-catholic-
church-1534-1829-lisa-mcclain/

Architecture and the Politics of Gender in Early Modern

Europe 1st Edition Helen Hills (Editor)

https://textbookfull.com/product/architecture-and-the-politics-
of-gender-in-early-modern-europe-1st-edition-helen-hills-editor/

The Judicialization of Politics in Pakistan A

Comparative Study of Judicial Restraint and its
Development in India the US and Pakistan 1st Edition
Waris Husain
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-judicialization-of-politics-
in-pakistan-a-comparative-study-of-judicial-restraint-and-its-
development-in-india-the-us-and-pakistan-1st-edition-waris-
husain/

Classical Hollywood Cinema Sexuality and the Politics

of the Face Interdisciplinary Research in Gender 1st
Edition Morrison

https://textbookfull.com/product/classical-hollywood-cinema-
sexuality-and-the-politics-of-the-face-interdisciplinary-
research-in-gender-1st-edition-morrison/

Bodies in Resistance: Gender and Sexual Politics in the

Age of Neoliberalism 1st Edition Wendy Harcourt (Eds.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/bodies-in-resistance-gender-and-
sexual-politics-in-the-age-of-neoliberalism-1st-edition-wendy-
harcourt-eds/
GENDER POLITICS
IN US COLLEGE
ATHLETIC
DEPARTMENTS
The Case of the University
of Minnesota Merger

Lisa A. Kihl,
Vicki D. Schull and Sally Shaw
Gender Politics in US College Athletic
Departments
 Lisa A. Kihl • Vicki D. Schull • Sally Shaw

Gender Politics in US
College Athletic
Departments
The Case of the University of Minnesota Merger
Lisa A. Kihl Sally Shaw
University of Minnesota University of Otago
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA Dunedin, New Zealand

Vicki D. Schull
Minnesota State University
Mankato, MN, USA

ISBN 978-1-137-48508-3 ISBN 978-1-137-48509-0 (eBook)

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-48509-0

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016942627

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Cover illustration: Pattern adapted from an Indian cotton print produced in the 19th century

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Nature America Inc. New York
 PREFACE

LISA
In 2004, when this research project first started the main interest was
to examine the management and leadership challenges of the premerger
and merger stages of Minnesota’s two athletic departments. I was rela-
tively new to the University of Minnesota and I held an assistant professor
of sport management position in the School of Kinesiology. I thought
researching this unique case study about radical organizational change in
the context of intercollegiate athletics would provide a contribution to
the literature. The corporate organizational merger literature indicated
66% of mergers were unsuccessful because of incompatible cultures, poor
communication, and poor management and leadership practices (Marks
& Mirvis, 2010; Schweiger, 2002). In contrast, from the outside look-
ing in, Minnesota’s merger appeared to be working. Or perhaps in real-
ity, the athletic department merger had no other option but to function
and be successful. Dissolving a Division I athletic department was not a
realistic option in this context and thus the merger had to work. To gain
access to the organization, I met with the newly hired athletic director
(AD), Joel Maturi (who was two years into his term). I shared my research
plan, the reason why I wanted to conduct the study, as well as requesting
access to complete the research. Joel was gracious enough to grant access.
Interviews with different athletic department stakeholders (i.e., University
administrators, athletic department administrators, coaches, staff, student
athletes, and faculty) were subsequently scheduled and conducted over a
one-year period. Joel Maturi also assisted in the recruitment of Boosters

v
vi PREFACE

by sending an email outlining the study and explaining that individuals

who wanted to participate in a one-on-one interview should contact me.
After several interviews with participants, where they were asked
questions about the history leading up to the merger, why the merger
occurred, and what were some of the challenges people observed
and/or experienced in the pre-merger and merger process (see the
Methodological Appendix), it became quite clear that this story was
about gender politics and organizational change. The social processes
(e.g., formal and informal practices, interactions, and narratives)
involved in this merger were typical of most corporate mergers, however,
the gender politics motivated through gendered organizational relation-
ships was atypical. In comparison with corporate combinations, merging
organizations in sport we argue provides a unique opportunity to engage
in a detailed analysis of the gender politics involved in the various social
processes when gender affiliated organizations merge. The histories of
the two departments and their relationships had created very separate
and distinct cultures that were valued by their respective stakeholders
and supporters. However, the distinct cultures, organizational actors,
and histories had produced for some an “us vs them” mentality, much
distrust, and gender politically charged organizational change processes
during the merger. Of note, one example of the distrust was displayed
toward me during an interview when I was asked by one of the par-
ticipants if I was working for the athletic department/University. Some
athletic department stakeholders believed I was working for administra-
tion and therefore suspicious of my activities. Ha! I laughed to myself
because I was thinking how this rumor was so far from the truth. I was
focused on learning about managing and leading through organizational
change. At that time, I had no idea of the gendered political nature of
this case.

VICKI
My involvement with this project began in 2008 as doctoral student at the
University of Minnesota when Lisa first presented the merger project to
me. At that time, she was examining leadership in the context of a merger,
and she invited me to be a co-author on two manuscripts that were even-
tually published in European Sport Management Quarterly (with co-
author, Sarah Leberman) and Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics.
Shortly after that it became clear that there was much more to the story
 PREFACE vii

of the Minnesota merger, and Lisa began discussing the gender politics of
the case and how Sally was interested in working with us on the project.
My research interests were in leadership and gendered social processes in
sport, so it was an obvious decision as I found myself in the right place at
the right time.
Once we began working on the two articles focusing on the gendered
social processes in the merger, it became clear that there was a lot of mate-
rial to cover—too much for two manuscripts. We were brainstorming ways
we could include more when we were presented with the opportunity to
work on the book with Palgrave.

SALLY
My involvement in the project started when Lisa contacted me in 2009.
She told me that she was undertaking the merger project and had begun
to realize that there was a lot more than just the mechanics of a merger
playing out. She asked if I could help with the gendered context of the
merger as she recognized that understanding it would help us gain a
better understanding of how history and events leading up to a merger,
stakeholders’ reactions, identifying what political processes can occur
during and after the merging of gender-affiliated sport organizations,
and how these political processes can be gendered. I was delighted to be
asked given my research interest in gender relations in sport organiza-
tions that goes back to the late 1990s. Lisa also told me that she would
be asking Vicki to become involved, given that her PhD also focused on
gendered organizational processes. At first, we focused on writing two
articles: one for the Journal of Sport Management and the second for
Gender & Society,1 both of which are referenced in this book. Subsequent
to the publication of the Gender & Society article we received an invi-
tation from Palgrave (publishers of Gender & Society) to write a book
about the merger.
Consequently, we realized that the focus of the study needed expand-
ing from investigating the premerger and merger stages of the two ath-
letic departments to include an in-depth examination of the history and
culture of the two departments and a ten-year reflection post-merger.
Post-merger reflections are rare in the literature and this book provides
important insights into understanding the long-term implications of gen-
der political organizational change. Slowly, and with some trepidation, we
moved along the path to creating this book.
viii PREFACE

PARTICIPANTS
The participants were 62 athletic department stakeholders (see Table 1)
who had first-hand experience with the merger process, which included
the following informants: athletic department administrators (n=12),
athletic unit directors (n=2), coaches (n=10), athletic department staff
(n=10), student athletes (n=3), faculty (n=3), athletic boosters (n=20),
and central university administrators (n=3). The richness of the data we
collected would not have existed without the willingness of these individu-
als who participated in this study.2

Table 1 Breakdown of participant interviewees’ role, gender, and sport

Role Interviews Gender Sport Interviews Gender Sport
2004–2005 2013–2014

Central Male (n=0)

university Female
administrators 3 (n=3)
Athletic 10 Males (n=6) 5 Male
department Females (n=3)
administrators (n=4) Female
(n=2)
Athletic unit 2 Male (n=1)
directors3 Female
(n=1)
Athletic 9 Male (n=5) 1 Female
department Female (n=1)
staff (n=4)
Coaches 9 Male (n=4) Revenue 4 Male Non-
Female (n=1) (n=3) revenue
(n=5) Non- Female (n=4)
revenue (n=1)
(n=8)
Student 3 Male (n=1) Non-
athletes Female revenue
(n=2) (n=3)
Boosters 18 Male (n=9) 6 Male
Female (n=2)
(n=9) Female
(n=4)
Faculty 3 Male (n=2)
Female
(n=1)
Total 57 16
 PREFACE ix

DATA COLLECTION
Data were collected in two stages. First, from 2004 to 2005, to gain an
understanding of the transition and integration stages, and second from
2013 to 2014 to learn about stakeholders’ perceptions post-merger.4
Multiple sources of data were sought, and the primary data source was
in-depth audio recorded interviews. In the 2004–2005 interviews partici-
pants were asked general demographic questions (i.e., role and respon-
sibilities during the transition and integration stages and years worked
in separate and combined departments), to describe the series of events
that occurred during the transition and integration stages of the merger,
people’s reaction to the merger, the culture of the two athletic depart-
ments pre-merger and post-merger, how their position/role had changed
or evolved, how various stakeholders’ interests and values were taken into
consideration during organization restructuring, and to identify the chal-
lenges experienced and/or observed during the two merger stages. In the
2013–2014 interviews participants were asked to reflect over the past ten
years and describe what the merger meant to them, to describe the current
culture of the athletics department, to what extent they thought earlier
fears of the merger played out, whether there were any positive and/or
negative outcomes from the merger that people did not foresee, and what
they had learned from the experience. The interviews ranged from 60 to
120 minutes.
Secondary data in the form of over 200 archival documents (e.g.,
institutional meeting minutes, institutional reports, institutional internal
memos, electronic correspondence, and athletic department promotional
materials) and news media were collected to gain background information
about the history of Minnesota intercollegiate athletics, understanding
institutional culture, relationships, rationale for the merger, stakeholder
reactions to the merger, the merger process, and cultural changes.
Secondary data were also collected through participant observation by the
lead and second author.

DATA ANALYSIS
Data analysis followed a multiple-step process. Interview data were first
transcribed verbatim and all data were read and re-read and key events and
experiences identified. The data from the first data collection period were
analyzed by Lisa and Vicki. Sally took the lead on analyzing the second
x PREFACE

data set in 2014. Data were next openly coded (Corbin & Strauss, 2008)
to identify the various events in terms of the premerger history and during
the merger process, and to examine the nature of the gender politics in the
social processes of the transition, integration, and post-merger stages. The
open coding processes led to category development where their respec-
tive properties and dimensions were delineated (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
Category development involved comparing incidents and accounts with
both the interview transcripts and the archival documents until a point of
saturation was reached and no new properties, dimensions, consequences,
conditions or actions were evident in the data. Axial coding (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008) was next performed to examine relationships between cat-
egories and subcategories, and to identify themes. For example, the cat-
egory integration stage and the relevant subcategories reorganization of
work and structural changes were assessed to ascertain the link to gender
politics. Respondents’ perceptions of the gender politics in relation to the
merger stages were also compared and contrasted, along with compar-
ing archival document accounts of the gender politics with the interview
transcripts.

BOOK OUTLINE
The chapters of this book provide an in-depth analysis of the nuanced
gendered political processes within this radical change event. Chapter
1, “Introduction and Conceptual Framework,” outlines the historical
context for the book. Drawing on historical documents, interviews, and
media, we illustrate the history of gender segregated athletic departments
in the United States and sport organizations internationally. The social
and political pressures that led to their amalgamation (Title IX in the USA
and neoliberal forces internationally) are outlined. Second, we provide an
overview of the conceptual framework, which draws together the gender,
organizational politics, and merger literature.
Chapter 2, “Ms and M,” describes the case of the Minnesota athletic
department merger. We present the pre-merger conditions, specifically,
the two athletic department cultures and their gendered characteristics.
We also describe relationships between key actors and key organizational
structures and processes.
Chapter 3, “To Merge or Not to Merge: That Is the Question!,”
presents the transaction stage of the merger and outlines the background
 PREFACE xi

regarding the University’s decision to merge. We also present and ana-

lyze the deliberations regarding the strengths and limitations of merging
the two departments. In these discussions, we highlight the politick-
ing of organizational stakeholders who either supported or opposed the
merger.
Chapter 4, “Minnesota’s Merger Syndrome,” examines the transition
stage and discusses stakeholders’ emotional reactions to the merger. These
emotional reactions are outlined in terms of a fear of loss (a loss of equity,
a loss of identity, a loss of status, and a loss of autonomy). The political
maneuvering by both men’s and women’s stakeholders to secure their sta-
tus post-merger is also explored. The last section examines the gendered
political processes involved in the search for a new athletic director who
was assigned the task of leading the merger.
Chapter 5, “The Rubber Hits the Road!,” describes the newly hired
athletic director’s efforts to combine the two departments. During the
integration process he sought to assess trust and loyalties, restructure the
department, and re-engineer the organization’s culture. His efforts were
hindered, in part by the merger politics. The chapter concludes with a dis-
cussion of these challenges in the context of the merger and the broader
organizational change, gender processes, and organizational politics
literature.
Chapter 6, “We are Minnesota!,” includes a reflection of the last ten
years post-merger. The chapter is organized into three sections. First, we
discuss stakeholders’ reflections post-merger. In particular, this discus-
sion will consider what challenges they feared and which fears actually
occurred. We explain and discuss why certain expected challenges did
not manifest. Second, stakeholders’ reflections about the current merged
department and what it represents are presented. Last, we present con-
cluding remarks about the organizational change as a gendered political
process.

INTENDED AUDIENCE
The intended audience for this book include researchers and practitioners
seeking to reflect on gendered, political organizational change processes
by using an integrated framework of gendered social processes (Acker,
1990; Britton & Logan, 2008; Ely & Meyerson, 2000), gendered orga-
nizational politics (Davey, 2008), and merger stages (Schweiger, 2002).
xii PREFACE

In particular, the target audience includes upper-level undergraduate and

post graduate students, interested academic and independent research-
ers, and individuals interested in the University of Minnesota athletic
department and its history. Our intention is to provide broader practi-
cal implications and theoretical contributions relating to the nuances of
organizational change as a highly complex, political, gendered relational
process.

NOTES
1. Schull, V., Shaw, S., & Kihl, L. A. (2013). If a woman came in … She would
have been eaten up alive: Analyzing gendered political processes in the
search for an athletic director. Gender & Society, 27(1), 56–81. Currently,
Gender & Society is a highly ranked journal in women studies and
sociology.
2. See Methodological Appendix explaining the procedures for maintaining
the confidentiality and anonymity of the research participants.
3. Unit directors were those individuals that oversaw departments that reported
to the University provost office and had an indirect reporting line to
athletics.
4. Ten of the interviews conducted in 2013–14 were from individuals that
participated in 2004–2005. Six interviews conducted in 2013–14 were from
individuals that did not participate in 2004–2005.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Palgrave Publishers for making this book possible.
We are very grateful of your invitation and opportunity to write this book.
We also would like to thank several people who helped us in completing
the book. The University of Minnesota library archival staff, in particu-
lar, Erin George, who was extremely obliging in assisting us in data col-
lection by providing much needed guidance in navigating the University
archives and aiding in tracking down references. Chris Howell, University
of Minnesota Gopher athletics, who provided guidance in exploring the
athletic department archives. Lisa Nordeen, Hamline University, thank
you for reviewing an early draft manuscript. We appreciate the time you
took to provide thoughtful and meaningful feedback that helped us com-
plete the book. We would have never had the opportunity to write this
book and share the history, stories, and experiences of Minnesota men’s
and women’s athletics without the involvement of the participants. We are
extremely grateful that each of you gave your time and openly shared your
perspectives and experiences.
Finally, we would like to thank Joel Maturi for allowing us to conduct
this amazing case study. We truly appreciate your honesty, integrity, and
support of this project.

xiii
 CONTENTS

1 Introduction and Theoretical Framework 1

2 Ms. and M 17

3 To Merge or Not to Merge: That Is the Question! 37

4 Minnesota’s Merger Syndrome 59

5 The Rubber Hits the Road! 95

6 We Are Minnesota! 119

Postscript 135

Methodological Appendix 137

Ethical Considerations 141

xv
xvi CONTENTS

Bibliography 143

Index 145
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Minnesota Men’s Block M logo 18

Figure 2.2 Women’s intercollegiate athletics logo 19
Figure 3.1 Keep them in the game 47
Figure 3.2 The presence of a distinctive Women’s Intercollegiate
Athletics Department 48
Figure 6.1 We are Minnesota 120

xvii
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction and Theoretical Framework

Abstract Drawing on historical documents, interviews, and media, we

illustrate the history of gender segregated athletic departments in the USA
and sport organizations internationally. The social and political pressures
that led to their amalgamation (i.e., Title IX in the USA and neoliberal
forces internationally) are discussed. Subsequently, an overview of the
conceptual framework, tying together the gender, organizational politics,
and merger literature is also delineated.

Keywords Neoliberalism • Gender relations • Merger stages

The merger of the men’s and women’s athletic departments at the

University of Minnesota changed the sporting landscape of that institu-
tion forever. Minnesota’s merger was not an isolated incident as, since
the 1980s, mergers of sport organizations based on gender have been
a common feature of the sport landscape. Many of these combinations
were the result of organizations’ attempts to eliminate redundancies in
operations and services while capitalizing on the synergistic potential
between similar organizations (e.g., the English Hockey Association
merger in 1997, the University of Arkansas athletic department merger
in 2007, and the New Zealand Golf merger in 2005). The analysis of
merging gendered sport organizations provides a rich context in which to

© The Author(s) 2016 1

L.A. Kihl et al., Gender Politics in US College Athletic Departments,
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-48509-0_1
2 L.A. KIHL ET AL.

understand not only the occurrence of a radical organizational change but

also the politics involved during organizational change processes which
can be gendered. In this book, we draw from the gender, organizational
politics, and merger literature to create a framework to help us understand
this merger in terms of the gendered political nature of organizational
change.

RATIONALE FOR MERGERS

One of the ripple effects of the passing of the Title IX,1 legislation was
the national trend of merging women’s athletic departments into pre-
established men’s departments (Hult, 1989; Santomier, 1979). Prior
to Title IX, men’s athletics were administered by separate departments
and conversely women’s athletics were typically administered by physi-
cal education departments. Title IX spurred increased women’s com-
petitive opportunities that posed financial and governance challenges for
institutions, and contested men’s power and traditions (Uhlir, 1982).
Legitimating and supporting separate women’s intercollegiate athletic
departments assumedly created competition for resources and constrained
men’s athletics, so that most higher education “administrators chose to
create (generally without negotiation or comprise) monolithic administra-
tive sub-units” (Santomier, 1979, p. 27).
Women’s sports had their own governance and rules structures, confer-
ences, and administrators that were separate, even in sports played by both
genders, such as tennis. These structures differed greatly from men’s sports.
For example, the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW)
was formed in 1971 to govern women’s college sports, while the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) governed men’s college sports
(Staurowsky, 2003; Wu, 1997). The separate structure, teamed with the
well-established philosophical educational model of “for women by women,”
resulted in a high number of female athletic administrators and educators
within women’s college sport programs (Willey, 1996; Wu 1997). Women’s
athletic departments were governed much according to the AIAW gover-
nance ideals and the men’s athletic departments were governed mirroring the
NCAA’s ideals of capitalism, commercialism, competition, classification of
revenue and non-revenue sports, and a judicial system of compliance (Hult,
1980). The governance of Minnesota’s men’s and women’s athletic depart-
ments were representative of these two types of governance philosophies.
 INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 3

Despite the NCAA’s efforts to lobby against Title IX regulations,

including attempts to exempt men’s revenue sports from its application
(Spitz, 1997), in 1974 the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
declared that universities and college athletic programs must comply with
the law, which provided protection and safeguarded equal opportunities
for female athletes on their campuses. Title IX enforcement, therefore,
required men’s and women’s athletics to share resources (i.e., money,
facilities, personnel, and authority) (Hult, 1989). Advocates of men’s
programs and/or “old boys” networks pressured university administra-
tors to merge departments, and many believed that equal opportunity
could occur only through consolidation. Consolidation would allow for
the amalgamation of athletic conferences and unified governance rules
for men’s and women’s sports. The presence of two athletic departments
presented overlaps between men’s and women’s organizational structures,
redundancies in services, and budget inefficiencies, so, in line with many
other American universities, the University of Minnesota administration
put in place a proposal to merge the two departments, which we describe
in Chapter 3. Mergers are a product of neo-liberal philosophies and poli-
cies and we turn briefly to this subject in order to provide a context for
the merger.

NEOLIBERALISM, MERGERS AND TITLE IX

Neoliberal political thought privileges market forces in all areas of society,
including public service provision. Valuing entrepreneurialism, the free
market, and free trade (Harvey, 2005), neoliberalism seems to be a simple,
clear ideology. Valuing personal freedom and dignity were at the core of
its development (Harvey, 2005). Personal freedom in this context is usu-
ally understood as the ‘freedom’ to act as an individual and compete with
others for resources. For organizations such as the athletic departments at
the University of Minnesota, this meant a focus on budgetary efficiencies
and effectiveness over community awareness and development (Misener
& Mason, 2009). In neo-liberal dominated Western societies, key stake-
holders might argue that mergers are rational and based on the best inter-
ests of the organizations involved. However, within that same neo-liberal
environment, mergers often result in job losses, uncertainty, politicking,
and fear.
4 L.A. KIHL ET AL.

Gender and Neoliberalism

Neo-liberalism’s ideology of competition promotes the individualiza-
tion of the workforce. Under the banner of ‘freedom’ to change jobs
and be flexible in working opportunities, such individualization can in
fact promote uncertainty within organizations as workers have little or
no job security. Compounding this, mergers also promote de-unionized
and non-contracted work for women (Tienari, 2000). In such an environ-
ment, women are less likely to form a collective voice, thus dampening
calls for diversity within organizations (Blackmore & Sachs, 2003). The
reduction of a collective voice can provide well-defined arenas for indi-
vidual politicking, organizational politics, and power struggles between
previously separate groups attempting to control and influence organiza-
tional decision-making (Nguyen & Kleiner, 2003; Tienari, 2000).
We know from extensive organizational research that power and poli-
tics are far from symmetrical, particularly when power is considered from
a gender perspective (Fletcher, 1999; Fraser, 1988). It is therefore often
women who fear they have more to lose than their male counterparts
in organizational politics. While Harvey (2005) does not address gen-
der in his analysis of neoliberalism, others have (Teghtsoonian, 2005).
Researchers in this area argue that applying the ‘free market’ to equality
removes responsibility for gender from communal groups and makes it
the responsibility of none (Bacchi & Eveline, 2003). With the associated
competitive pressures of neo-liberalism, gender equity takes a back seat in
organizational priorities.
Alongside this move toward the free market is the development of
commercial enterprise. In US intercollegiate sport, neoliberal-influenced
market forces have been explicitly utilized to capitalize on commercial
enterprise, turning sport from a competitive, educational, and participa-
tory activity into a commercially driven business (Hult, 1989). Arguably,
it was this philosophy that led to the push for mergers in the 1980s as
the powerful NCAA took over women’s intercollegiate sport from the
AIAW. As the implications of Title IX began to bite in the form of reduced
spending on some men’s intercollegiate sport programs, powerful indi-
viduals in the NCAA promoted the idea that the only way to recoup those
losses was to take over women’s sport (Uhlir, 1987). Lobbying hard,
and undermining the AIAW, the NCAA established alternative women’s
competitions and championships. Unsurprisingly, with its greater access
to television rights and funding, the NCAA’s competitions were more
 INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 5

attractive to the larger universities’ women’s programs (Uhlir, 1987). In

1982, the AIAW folded and, along with it, the demise of an educationally
focused women’s sport program in intercollegiate sport was underway.
There are multiple consequences from this period in intercollegiate
sport. Most importantly for us is the dramatic decrease in the numbers
of women in leadership positions since the 1970s. As early as 1984, Seha
stated:

The plight of female professionals in athletic administration and coach-

ing contrasts sharply with the growth of opportunities for female athletes.
These professional women have been systematically eliminated from posi-
tions of control in women’s athletic programs. Departmental mergers and
the demise of the AIAW were the principle reasons for this loss. (p. 124)

In 1987, Uhlir noted 90% of women’s programs were headed by men.

This trend has continued well into the 2000s, and the latest report indi-
cated 89.4% of NCAA Division I athletic departments are led by men
(Acosta & Carpenter, 2014).
The embrace of neoliberalism has created an anomaly that may be
unique to sport. In the wider organizational research, some have critiqued
the short-term contract environment of neoliberalism for undermin-
ing women’s ability to climb the leadership ladder (Blackmore & Sachs,
2003). In sport organizations, however, mergers actually represent situa-
tions in which women were in leadership positions, from which they were
removed post-merger. Research from Europe and Australasia supports the
American experience. In England, Wales, Australia, and New Zealand,
women successfully led women’s golf, hockey, squash, cricket, and other
sports (Velija, Ratna, & Flintoff, 2012). As those organizations merged,
more men than women were appointed to leadership roles, as men were
most often considered to be ‘the best person for the job’ or were better at
putting themselves forward for powerful positions (Shaw, 2006). The one
area in sport where women were in significant leadership roles has been
undermined by the mergers influenced by neoliberal social policies.

GENDERING ORGANIZATIONS
The merger process was not as simple as ‘the men’ taking on ‘the women’
in a battle for resources. Gender relations are a powerful, insidious part
of organizational life. Worts, Fox, and McDonough (2007) described the
6 L.A. KIHL ET AL.

ubiquity of gender within organizational contexts as “embedded in work-

place organization, culture, and practices” (p. 4). Gendering is understood
to occur when organizational practices, images, cultures, interactions, and
gender-appropriate behaviors are linked to socially constructed mascu-
line or feminine ideals (Acker, 1990, 1992; Britton & Logan, 2008). In
order to analyze the merger from a gender relations perspective, we need
a framework that outlines how gender operates within organizations at all
levels, and for this we turn to an adapted form of Acker’s (1990, 1999)
influential work on gender in organizations.

Gender Framework
Acker (1990, 1999) defines gender as a complex set of social relations
embedded in a variety of organizational processes. While masculinities, or
behaviors, assumptions, and actions most often associated with men, and
femininities, or behaviors, assumptions, and actions most often associated
with women, are socially constructed with multiple meanings, masculini-
ties are most often perceived as superior to femininities (Ely & Meyerson,
2000). Organizational processes that privilege certain gender-related
actions, behaviors, and processes over others are considered gendered,
and Acker (1990, 1999) identifies at least four categories of gendered
processes that are inherently connected aspects within organizations.
First, organizational structures in the form of formal hiring practices,
policies, and job descriptions create gender divisions and place certain
men in more powerful positions (Acker, 1999; Britton, 2003), such as
the AD in intercollegiate athletic departments (Acosta & Carpenter,
2014; Hoffman, 2011). Consequently, men largely control hiring and are
able to maintain male dominance via work practices such as homologous
reproduction, tokenism, and marginalization (Hoffman, 2011; Kane &
Stangl, 1991; Stangl & Kane, 1991). In her study of Norwegian sport
organizations, Hovden (2000) found that language associated with lead-
ership selection normalized masculine competencies and placed female
candidates at a disadvantage. Organizational members, however, con-
sidered formal selection criteria to be gender neutral. Hovden’s findings
illustrate the insidious nature of certain gendered processes and demon-
strate how gendered discourses can lead to the marginalization of groups
of people who do not fit the mold, including women. Such leadership
decisions have impacts for the wider organization, whenever, as is often
the case, women and men act in the interests of their own gender. When
 INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 7

tough decisions regarding resources, staffing, promotional activities have

to be taken, it is likely, or at least perceived by organizational members to
be likely, that men will promote the interests of male athletes over women.
Whether this is perception or reality does not matter: it fuels the gendered
politics of sport organizations.
Second, gender relations are reinforced in organizational culture, lan-
guage, and ideology (Acker, 1999; Britton, 2003). Job assignations in
sport are influenced by socially constructed ideologies of masculine and
feminine, and operate to reproduce gender relations (Hovden, 2000;
Knoppers & Anthonissen, 2008; Shaw & Hoeber, 2003). For example,
images and discourses associated with management and leadership in sport
are infused with masculine traits and characteristics such as toughness,
sport playing experience, and instrumentality (Knoppers & Anthonissen,
2008). As Hovden (2000) found, sport leadership selection can be highly
gendered. She reported that leadership discourses in Norwegian sport
organizations were tightly linked to images of corporate action oriented
leadership, heroic leaders, and associated masculine skills including pos-
sessing unrestricted time resources and an extensive social network.
Third, gender relations, structures, and cultures are maintained via
everyday social interactions, creating dominance and submission (Acker,
1990, 1999). These interactions are political and concern the everyday
social microprocesses through which power is maintained and resisted
(Davey, 2008; Knights & McCabe, 1998; Mumby, 2001). Politics are
often justified and accepted in organizational settings through social
interactions and a “that’s just the way it is” logic that goes unchallenged,
serving the interests of the individuals and groups who are active in cre-
ating them. Critical theorists (e.g., Alvesson & Deetz, 2000; Knights &
McCabe, 1998; Mumby, 2001) contend that organizational politics is
concerned with power structures, relational struggles, and the social pro-
cesses and ideological constructions through which power is maintained
and resisted. For example, informal networks in sport operate as gendered
political processes based on the power inherent in such networks and the
lack of access afforded to women (Hoffman, 2011; Hovden, 2000; Shaw,
2006).
Finally, gendering in organizations may occur in the ways in which orga-
nizational members create gender-appropriate personas, behaviors, and
identities (Acker, 1990, 1999; Britton, 2003). Knoppers and Anthonissen
(2008) examined discourses that male sport managers used to describe
their work and make representations of themselves as sport managers. They
8 L.A. KIHL ET AL.

found that discourses of instrumentality, passion for sport, and homo-

geneity “preserve, legitimize, and naturalize the power and privileges of
those already holding senior positions” (Knoppers & Anthonissen, 2008,
p. 101) while reinforcing a culture that excludes women and individuals
who do not match those discourses. Hovden (2000) found that gendered
personas in sport leadership selection included candidates with “heavy-
weight” leadership skills and competencies (e.g., experience in elected
positions, experience with budget and strategic planning, and extensive
contacts) and were more likely to be found in male candidates. Involvement
in organizational politics also implicates gender appropriate behaviors and
identities. For example, Davey (2008) found that female employees in
male-dominated organizations constructed politics as masculine in nature
(e.g., competitive, aggressive, and individualist) and counter to what she
identified as feminine identity and interactional styles.
It would be very easy to turn this debate into a ‘men’ versus ‘women’
scenario in which the women’s administration was hopelessly over-
whelmed by the greater influence and resources of the men’s department.
This would be disingenuous because we know that there are strong bonds
across sport organizations between women and men, and often both sexes
support each other. Davey (2008) identified gendered assumptions within
organizational politics but she also cautioned against absolute statements
regarding women’s and men’s positions in organizational politics. This
is because gender is fluid and acknowledging it as such “implicate[s]
structure, culture, interpersonal interaction, and identity… [and also]
concern[s] informal influences that are largely unacknowledged and thrive
on ambiguity” (Davey, 2008, p. 653). Supporting this argument, she
found that in some situations, stereotypical notions of masculine rational-
ity and feminine emotion were undermined in organizational politics. In
other words, men’s political behaviors were perceived as irrational and
emotional compared with those of women, who behaved more rationally
by demonstrating resistance to engage in politics. Alongside researchers
such as Britton (2003) and Irvine and Vermilya (2010), Davey (2008)
highlighted the complexity of gender, extending Acker’s (1990, 1999)
framework, and this is important to develop gender research.
The University of Minnesota merger was certainly not a simple one, as
men from the non-revenue sports felt threatened as did their counterparts
in women’s sports such as basketball. Ashcraft’s (2009) research reinforces
this claim, in which she notes “remarkable diversity within gender groups
(which) shatters any neat dualism” (p. 315). It is, therefore, an over-
 INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 9

simplification to approach gender relations by assuming that the influ-

ence of masculinity is seen to be greater than that of femininity. We agree
with Ashcraft’s suggestion that “actual cases are far more complicated and
contingent, hinging on local pressures and the interactive identity work
through which people respond” (p. 315).
So far, we have linked the considerations of neoliberalism and the jus-
tifications for mergers with the gendered structures, processes, and poli-
tics of organizations. In order to complete our framework, we weave in
our final element. That is, how does the merger process itself reflect the
neoliberal environment and the gendered merging organizations? How
do these considerations inform our understanding of the merger at the
University of Minnesota? By tying gender into Schweiger’s (2002) five
part merger model we are able to provide a conceptual framework that
helps us to explain the story behind the University of Minnesota merger.
Schweiger also provides a useful model for understanding organizational
politics during mergers.

SCHWEIGER’S FIVE-PART MERGER MODEL

Schweiger (2002) proposed a five-stage merger model: strategic and
financial objectives stage, transaction stage, transition stage, integration
phase, and evaluation stage. Throughout the merger stages, a variety of
organizational activities take place such as assessments, negotiations, and
strategic planning (Marks & Mirvis, 1998, 2010; Schweiger, 2002), which
are riddled with politicking that can be gendered. For example, the strate-
gic and financial objective stage is described as an exploration phase where
sufficient information is collected to identify potential opportunities and
problems requiring attention in the event of a merger. In an athletic
department merger, such opportunities could include addressing dys-
functional administrative relationships and struggles in sharing resources.
While this sounds like a very rational, straightforward stage, remember
that the decision to merge will be set within the neo-liberal framework
of competition and market forces, along with the influences of various
stakeholder groups’ political agendas. Those involved in the merger will
realize that the financial implications of change could lead to budget cuts
and resource sharing.
Women are more likely to be adversely affected by mergers. As Harvey
(2005) noted, information is required to ensure that people can make the
best decisions for themselves in a neo-liberal environment. Research sug-
10 L.A. KIHL ET AL.

gests that women are often in positions that have less control, and have
fewer support networks than their male counterparts, which may also be
less influential (Collins, 2005; Meyerson & Scully, 2003; Shaw, 2006). A
woman whose job is under threat in a merger will therefore have the most
to lose because she may have less access to information than her male coun-
terparts, in part because of informal networks such as the infamous and
powerful old boys’ networks that still dominate sport organizations inter-
nationally (Shaw, 2006). Women are also likely to feel that they have the
most to lose as their budgets were more protected in separate departments
pre-merger. After the merger, they know that they will be in competition
with men’s departments who have better access to publicity and influence.
The transaction stage represents a commitment to making the deal hap-
pen. In Chapter 3, we provide an analysis of the history of the Minnesota
athletic department neoliberal tensions and gender political relations that
led up to the merger decision. During this transaction stage, University
administrators collected information; this was analyzed and a strategy
was developed that sought fiscal responsibility, with a reduction in inter-
organizational conflict, where the athletic departments would be reorga-
nized into one department under the directive of a single chief executive
officer (CEO).
An official announcement of the impending merger represents the tran-
sition stage. This can be something of an aspirational stage, as goals are
set for the new organization, efforts are made to engender public support,
and planning is undertaken to ensure the financial and strategic develop-
ment of the new organization. Initial relationships are also developed at
this stage, which can set the tone for the merger process (Kihl & Schull,
2011). On the other hand, mergers often result in job losses, and this stage
may be characterized by fear of the unknown with regard to staffing and
structure. We know that women are likely to be worse off in the transition
stage (Tienari, 2000) as they are often in short-term contracts, have less
negotiating influence, and can access fewer networks. While the female
athletic administrators at the University of Minnesota were certainly in
influential positions, they were well aware of the history of mergers in the
USA and possibly overseas, knowing that women have consistently lost
influence over the last 40 years (Acosta & Carpenter, 2014).
While planning begins during the transition stage to allay and offset
fears, the women’s fears are based on recent history, and are very real.
Furthermore, merger contexts in which a new CEO is hired to manage a
merger and oversee the new organization generally display political strate-
 INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 11

gizing in terms of organizational stakeholders seeking to control the exec-

utive officer search (Schull, Shaw, & Kihl, 2013). Stakeholders from prior
departments display much interest in the hiring process, and also concern
about who is to be assigned the role of leading the new department. Schull
et al. (2013) posit that organizational politics inundate the search process
as stakeholders attempt to influence and control the search, leaving central
administration the task of managing a politically charged process.
The integration stage commences once a transaction is officially closed.
At this time, critical decisions regarding organizational structure, staff-
ing, job allocation, and policies and procedures are decided, and begin to
be played out. During this restructuring process, organizational decisions
regarding the integration of departments are inevitably influenced by poli-
tics and power (Kihl, Shaw, & Schull, 2013). Gendered politics is a key
factor when merging gender-based departments and has to be accounted
for in every decision such as organizational restructuring, reassigning roles
and responsibilities, and creating a new culture (Kihl et al., 2013). Fears
expressed in the integration phase may also be realized or abate during
this period. Official changes are made and a new organizational identity
is created.
Throughout these pre-merger and merger stages stakeholders expe-
rience various emotional reactions commonly referred to as the merger
syndrome (Marks & Mirvis, 1998). Emotions expressed can be both posi-
tive and negative, experienced by different stakeholder groups (in this
case athletes, coaches, staff, administrators, and boosters), and possess
a political tone. The merger syndrome is caused by various issues that
can occur throughout the merger process. Employees generally experi-
ence uncertainty and insecurity, and fear the likelihood of change, which
is compounded through poor communication, rumor-mongering, and an
“us versus them” relationship (Appelbaum, Gandell, Shapiro, Belisle, &
Hoeven, 2000; Marks & Mirvis, 1998). Combining two gendered organi-
zations with strong identities and histories triggers emotions and thus the
emotional aftermath can last years into the post-merger stage.
Finally, the evaluation stage is characterized by continual assessments
and improvements to the implemented merger. Much of the research
into mergers does not have the luxury of exploring evaluation. In this
research, however, we were able to return to the merger site in 2014
to explore some of the reactions and reflection on the merger. We were
very fortunate to be able to do this, and our findings are presented in
Chapter 6.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 CHAPTER II
The full flood of the sun, now low in the heavens, poured through the
western windows upon the figure of the boy standing in the doorway.
The room was beginning to darken, and the ruddy firelight, too, fell
glowingly upon him.
The earl was instantly roused, and could scarcely persuade himself
that the boy before him was only fifteen; seventeen, or even
eighteen, would have seemed nearer the mark, so tall and well-
developed was he. Like all creatures of the highest breeding, George
looked handsomer the handsomer his dress; and although his
costume was really simple enough, he had the splendid air that
made him always appear to be in the highest fashion. His coat and
knee-breeches were of dark-blue cloth, spun, woven, and dyed at
home. His waistcoat, however, was of white brocade, and was made
of his mother’s wedding-gown, Madam Washington having indulged
her pride so far as to lay this treasured garment aside for waistcoats
for her sons, while Mistress Betty was to inherit the lace veil and the
string of pearls which had gone with the gown.
George’s shoebuckles and kneebuckles were much finer than the
earl’s, being of paste, and having been once worn by his father. His
blond hair was made into a club, and tied with a black ribbon, while
under his arm he carried a smart three-cornered hat, for the hat
made a great figure in the ceremonious bows of the period. His dog,
a beautiful creature, stood beside him.
Never in all his life had the Earl of Fairfax seen so noble a boy. The
sight of him smote the older man’s heart; it flashed through him how
easy it would be to exchange all his honors and titles for such a son.
He rose and saluted him, as Madam Washington said, in a tone that
had pride in every accent:
“My lord, this is my son, Mr. Washington.” George responded with
one of those graceful inclinations which, years after, made the
entrance of Colonel Washington at the Earl of Dunmore’s levee at
Williamsburg a lesson in grace and good-breeding. Being “Mr.
Washington” and the head of the house, it became his duty to speak
first.
“I am most happy to welcome you, my lord, to our home.”

“‘THIS IS MY SON, MR. WASHINGTON’”

“And I am most happy,” said the earl, “to meet once more my old
friend, Madam Washington, and the goodly sons and sweet daughter
with which she has been blessed.”
“My mother has often told us of you, sir, in speaking of her life during
the years she spent in England.”
“Ah, my lord,” said Madam Washington, “I perceive I am no longer
young, for I love to dwell upon those times, and to tell my children of
the great men I met in England, chiefly through your lordship’s
kindness.”
“It was my good-fortune,” said the earl, “to be an humble member of
the Spectator Club, and through the everlasting goodness of Mr.
Joseph Addison I had the advantage of knowing men so great of
soul and so luminous of mind that I think I can never forget them.”
“I had not the honor of knowing Mr. Addison. He died before I ever
saw England,” replied Madam Washington.
“Unfortunately, yes, madam. But of those you knew, Mr. Pope, poor
Captain Steele, and even Dean Swift, with all his ferocious wit, his
tremendous invective, his savage thirst for place and power,
respected Mr. Addison. He was a man of great dignity—not odd and
misshapen, like little Mr. Pope, nor frowzy like poor Dick Steele, nor
rude and overbearing like the fierce Dean—but ever gentle, mild,
and of a most manly bearing. For all Mr. Addison’s mildness, I think
there was no man that Dean Swift feared so much. When we would
all meet at the club, and the Dean would begin his railing at persons
of quality—for he always chose that subject when I was present—Mr.
Addison would listen with a smile to the Dean as he lolled over the
table in his huge periwig, and roared out in his great rich voice all the
sins of all the people, always beginning and ending with Sir Robert
Walpole, whom he hated most malignantly. Once, a pause coming in
the Dean’s talk, Mr. Addison, calmly taking out his snuffbox, and
helping himself to a pinch, remarked that he had always thought
Dean Swift’s chiefest weakness, until he had been assured to the
contrary, was his love for people of quality. We each held our breath.
Dick Steele quietly removed a pewter mug from the Dean’s elbow;
Mr. Pope, who sat next Mr. Addison, turned pale and slipped out of
his chair; the Dean turned red and breathed hard, glaring at Mr.
Addison, who only smiled a little; and then he—the great Dean Swift,
the man who could make governments tremble and parliaments
afraid; who made duchesses weep from his rude sneers, and great
ladies almost go down on their knees to him—sneaked out of the
room at this little thrust from Mr. Addison. For ’twas the man, madam
—the honest soul of him—that could cow that great swashbuckler of
a genius. Mr. Addison abused no one, and he was exactly what he
appeared to be.”
“That, indeed, is the highest praise, as it shows the highest wisdom,”
answered Madam Washington.
George listened with all his mind to this. He had read the Spectator,
and Mr. Addison’s tragedy of “Cato” had been read to him by Mr.
Hobby, the Scotch school-master who taught him, and he loved to
hear of these great men. The earl, although deep in talk with Madam
Washington, was by no means unmindful of the boy, but without
seeming to notice him watched every expression of his earnest face.
“I once saw Dean Swift,” continued Madam Washington. “It was at a
London rout, where I went with my brother’s wife, Madam Joseph
Ball, when we were visiting in London. He had great dark eyes, and
sat in a huge chair, and called ladies of quality ‘my dear,’ as if they
were dairy-maids. And the ladies seemed half to like it and half to
hate it. They told me that two ladies had died of broken hearts for
him.”
“I believe it to be true,” replied the earl. “That was the last time the
Dean ever saw England. He went to Ireland, and, as he said,
‘commenced Irishman in earnest,’ and died very miserably. He could
not be bought for money, but he could very easily be bribed with
power.”
“And that poor Captain Steele?”
The earl’s grave face was suddenly illuminated with a smile.
“Dear Dick Steele—the softest-hearted, bravest, gentlest fellow—
always drunk, and always repenting. There never was so great a
sermon preached on drunkenness as Dick Steele himself was. But
for drink he would have been one of the happiest, as he was by
nature one of the best and truest, gentlemen in the world; but he was
weak, and he was, in consequence, forever miserable. Drink brought
him to debts and duns and prison and rags and infamy. Ah, madam,
’twould have made your heart bleed, as it made mine, to see poor
Dick reeling along the street, dirty, unkempt, his sword bent, and he
scarce knowing what he was doing; and next day, at home, where
his wife and children were in hunger and cold and poverty, behold
him, lying in agony on his wretched bed, weeping, groaning,
reproaching himself, and suffering tortures for one hour’s wicked
indulgence! Then would he turn gentleman again, and for a long time
be our own dear Dick Steele—his wife smiling, his children happy. I
love to think on honest Dick at these times. It was then he wrote that
beautiful little book, which should be in every soldier’s hands, The
Christian Hero. We could always tell at the club whether Dick Steele
were drunk or sober by Mr. Addison’s face. When Steele was acting
the beast, Mr. Addison sighed often and looked melancholy all the
time, and spent his money in taking such care as he could of the
poor wife and children. Poor Dick! The end came at last in
drunkenness and beastliness; but before he died, for a little while, he
was the Dick Steele we loved, and shall ever love.”
“And Mr. Pope—the queer little gentleman—who lived at
Twickenham, and was so kind to his old mother?”
“Mr. Pope was a very great genius, madam, and had he not been
born crooked he would have been an admirable man; but the crook
in his body seemed to make a crook in his mind. He died but last
year, outliving many strong men who pitied his puny frame. But let
me not disparage Mr. Pope. My Lord Chesterfield, who was a very
good judge of men, as well as the first gentleman of his time,
entertained a high esteem for Mr. Pope.”
“I also had the honor of meeting the Earl of Chesterfield,” continued
Madam Washington, with animation, “and he well sustained the
reputation for politeness that I had heard of him, for he made as
much of me as if I had been a great lady instead of a young girl from
the colonies, whom chance and the kindness of a brother had
brought to England, and your lordship’s goodness had introduced to
many people of note. ’Tis true I saw them but for a glimpse or two,
but that was enough to make me remember them forever. I have
tried to teach my son Lord Chesterfield’s manner of saluting ladies,
in which he not only implied the deepest respect for the individual,
but the greatest reverence for all women.”
“That is true of my Lord Chesterfield,” replied the earl, who found it
enchanting to recall these friends of his youth with whom he had
lived in close intimacy, “and his manners revealed the man. He had
also a monstrous pretty wit. There is a great, lumbering fellow of
prodigious learning, one Samuel Johnson, with whom my Lord
Chesterfield has become most friendly. I never saw this Johnson
myself, for he is much younger than the men of whom we are
speaking; but I hear from London that he is a wonder of learning,
and although almost indigent will not accept aid from his friends, but
works manfully for the booksellers. He has described my Lord
Chesterfield as ‘a wit among lords, and a lord among wits.’ I heard
something of this Dr. Johnson, in a late letter from London, that I
think most praiseworthy, and affording a good example to the young.
His father, it seems, was a bookseller at Lichfield, where on market-
days he would hire a stall in the market for the sale of his wares.
One market-day, when Samuel was a youth, his father, being ill and
unable to go himself, directed him to fit up the book-stall in the
market and attend it during the day. The boy, who was otherwise a
dutiful son, refused to do this. Many years afterwards, his father
being dead, and Johnson, being as he is in great repute for learning,
was so preyed upon by remorse for his undutiful conduct that he
went to Lichfield and stood bareheaded in the market-place, before
his father’s old stall, for one whole market-day, as an evidence of his
sincere penitence. I hear that some of the thoughtless jeered at him,
but the better class of people respected his open acknowledgment of
his fault, the more so as he was in a higher worldly position than his
father had ever occupied, and it showed that he was not ashamed of
an honest parent because he was of a humble class. I cannot think,
madam, of that great scholar, standing all day with bare, bowed
head, bearing with silent dignity the remarks of the curious, the jeers
of the scoffers, without in spirit taking off my hat to him.”
During this story Madam Washington fixed her eyes on George, who
colored slightly, but remarked, as the earl paused:
“It was the act of a brave man and a gentleman. There are not many
of us who could do it.”
Just then the door opened, and Uncle Jasper, bearing a huge tray,
entered. He placed it on a round mahogany table, and Madam
Washington proceeded to make tea, and offered it to the earl with
her own hands.
The earl while drinking his tea glanced first at George and then at
pretty little Betty, who, feeling embarrassed at the notice she
received, produced her sampler from her pocket and began to work
demurely in cross-stitch on it. Presently Lord Fairfax noticed the
open harpsichord.
“I remember, madam,” he said to Madam Washington, as they
gravely sipped their tea together, “that you had a light hand on the
harpsichord.”
“I have never touched it since my husband’s death,” answered she,
“but my daughter Betty can perform with some skill.”
Mistress Betty, obeying a look from her mother, rose at once and
went to the harpsichord, never thinking of the ungraceful and
disobliging protest of more modern days. She seated herself, and
struck boldly into the “The Marquis of Huntley’s Rigadoon.” She had,
indeed, a skilful little hand, and as the touch of her small fingers filled
the room with quaint music the earl sat, tapping with his foot to mark
the time, and smiling at the little maid’s grave air while she played.
When her performance was over she rose, and, making a reverence
to her mother and her guest, returned to her sampler.
The earl had now spent nearly two hours with his old friend, and the
sun was near setting, but he could scarcely make up his mind to
leave. The interest he felt in her seemed transferred to her children,
especially the two eldest, and the resolve entered his mind that he
would see more of that splendid boy. He turned to George and said
to him:
“Will you be so good, Mr. Washington, as to order my people to put
to my horses, as I find that time has flown surprisingly fast?”
“Will you not stay the night, my lord?” asked Madam Washington.
“We can amply accommodate you and your servants.”
“Nothing would please me more, madam, but it is my duty to reach
Fredericksburg to-night, where I have business, and I am now
seeking a ferry where I can be moved across.”
“Then you have not to seek far, sir, for this place is called Ferry
Farm; and we have several small boats, and a large one that will
easily hold your coach; and, with the assistance of your servants, all
of them, as well as your horses, can be ferried over at once.”
The earl thanked her, and George left the room promptly to make the
necessary arrangements. In a few moments the horses were put to
the coach, as the ferry was half a mile from the house; and George,
ordering his saddle clapped on his horse, that was just then being
brought from the pasture, galloped down to the ferry to superintend
the undertaking—not a light one—of getting a coach, eight horses,
and eight persons across the river.
The coach being announced as ready, Madam Washington and the
earl rose and walked together to the front porch, accompanied by
little Mistress Betty, who hung fondly to her mother’s hand. Outside
stood the three younger boys, absorbed in contemplation of the
grandeur of the equipage. They came forward promptly to say good-
bye to their mother’s guest, and then slipped around into the
chimney corner that they might see the very last of the sight so new
to them. Little Betty also disappeared in the house after the earl had
gallantly kissed her hand and predicted that her bright eyes would
yet make many a heart ache. Left alone on the porch in the twilight
with Madam Washington, he said to her very earnestly:
“Madam, I do not speak the language of compliment when I say that
you may well be the envy of persons less fortunate than you when
they see your children. Of your eldest boy I can truly say I never saw
a nobler youth, and I hope you will place no obstacle in the way of
my seeing him again. Greenway Court is but a few days’ journey
from here, and if I could have him there it would be one of the
greatest pleasures I could possibly enjoy.”
“Thank you, my lord,” answered Madam Washington, simply. “My
son George has, so far, never caused me a moment’s uneasiness,
and I can very well trust him with persons less improving to him than
your lordship. It is my wish that he should have the advantage of the
society of learned and polished men, and your kind invitation shall
some day be accepted.”
“You could not pay me a greater compliment, madam, than to trust
your boy with me, and I shall claim the fulfilment of your promise,”
replied Lord Fairfax. “Farewell, madam; the sincere regard I have
cherished during nearly twenty years for you will be extended to your
children, and your son shall never want a friend while I live. I do not
know that I shall ever travel three days’ journey from Greenway
again, so this may be our last meeting.”
“Whether it be or not, my lord,” said Madam Washington, “I can only
assure you of my friendship and gratitude for your good-will towards
my son.”
The earl then respectfully kissed her hand, as he had done little
Betty’s, and stepped into the coach. With a great smacking of whips
and rattle and clatter and bang the equipage rolled down the road in
the dark towards the ferry.
A faint moon trembled in the heavens, and it was so dark that
torches were necessary on the river-bank. George had dismounted
from his horse, and with quiet command had got everything in
readiness to transport the cavalcade. The earl, sitting calmly back in
the chariot, watched the proceedings keenly. He knew that it
required good judgment in a boy of fifteen to take charge of the
ferriage of so many animals and men without haste or confusion. He
observed that in the short time George had preceded him everything
was exactly as it should be—the large boat drawn up ready for the
coach, and two smaller boats and six stalwart negro ferry-men to do
the work.
“I have arranged, my lord, with your permission,” he said, “to ferry
the coach and horses, with your own servants, over first, as it is not
worth while taking any risks in crowding the boats; then, when the
boats return, the outriders and their horses may return in the large
boat.”
“Quite right, Mr. Washington,” answered the earl, briskly; “your
dispositions do credit to you, and I believe you could transport a
regiment with equal ease and precision.”
George’s face colored with pleasure at this. “I shall go on with you
myself,” he said, “if you will allow me.”
The boat was drawn up, a rude but substantial raft was run from the
shore to the boat, the horses were taken from the coach, and it was
rolled on board by the strong arms of a dozen men. The horses were
disposed to balk at getting in the boat, but after a little coaxing trotted
quietly aboard; the ferry-men, reinforced by two of Lord Fairfax’s
servants, took the oars, and the boat, followed by two smaller ones,
was pulled rapidly across the river. After a few minutes, seeing that
everything was going right, George entered the coach, and sat by
the earl’s side. The earl lighted his travelling-lamp, and the two sat in
earnest conversation. Lord Fairfax wished to find out something
more about the boy who had made so strong an impression on him.
He found that George had been well taught, and although not
remarkable in general literature, he knew more mathematics than
most persons of twice his age and opportunities. He had been under
the care of the old Scotchman, Mr. Hobby, who was, in a way, a
mathematical genius, and George had profited by it.
“And what, may I ask, Mr. Washington, is your plan for the future?”
“I hope, sir,” answered George, modestly, “that I shall be able to get
a commission in his Majesty’s army or navy. As you know, although I
am my mother’s eldest son, my brother Laurence, of Mount Vernon,
is my father’s eldest son, and the head of our family. My younger
brothers and I have small fortunes, and I would like to see something
of the world and some service in arms before I set myself to
increasing my part.”
“Very creditable to you, and you may count upon whatever influence
I have towards getting you a commission in either branch of the
military service. I myself served in the Low Countries under the Duke
of Marlborough in my youth, and although I have long since given up
the profession of arms I can never lose my interest in it. Your
honored mother has promised me the pleasure of your company for
a visit at Greenway Court, when we may discuss the matter of your
commission at length. I am not far from an old man, Mr. Washington,
but I retain my interest in youth, and I like to see young faces about
me at Greenway.”
“Thank you, my lord,” answered George, with secret delight. “I shall
not let my mother forget her promise—but she never does that.”
“There is excellent sport at Greenway, and I have kept a choice
breed of deer-hounds as well as fox-hounds. I brought with me from
England a considerable library, and you can, I hope, amuse yourself
with a book; but if you cannot amuse yourself with a book, you will
always be dependent upon others for your entertainment.”
“I am fond of reading—on rainy days,” said George, at which candid
acknowledgment the earl smiled.
“My man, Lance, is an old soldier; he is an intelligent man for his
station and a capital fencer. You may learn something from him with
the foils. He was with me at the siege of Bouchain.”
What a delightful vista this opened before George, who was, like
other healthy minded boys, devoted to reading and hearing of
battles, and fencing and all manly sports! He glanced at Lance,
standing erect and soldierly, as the boat moved through the water.
He meant to hear all about the siege of Bouchain from Lance before
the year was out, and blushed when he was obliged to acknowledge
to himself that he had never heard of the siege of Bouchain.
 CHAPTER III
Next morning, as usual, George was up and on horseback by
sunrise. Until this year he had ridden five miles a day each way to
Mr. Hobby’s school; but now he was so far ahead of the school-
master’s classes that he only went a few times a week, to study
surveying and the higher mathematics, and to have the week’s study
at home marked out for him. Every morning, however, it was his duty
to ride over the whole plantation before breakfast, and to report the
condition of everything in it to his mother. Madam Washington was
one of the best farmers in the colony, and it was her custom, after
hearing George’s account at breakfast, to mount her horse and ride
over the place also, and give her orders for the day.
The first long lances of light were just tipping the woods and the river
when George came out and found his horse held by Billy Lee, a
negro lad of about his own age, who was his body-servant and
shadow.[A] Billy was a chocolate-colored youth, the son of Aunt
Sukey the cook and Uncle Jasper the butler. He had but one idea
and one ideal on earth, and that was “Marse George.” It was in vain
that Madam Washington, the strictest of disciplinarians, might lay her
commands on Billy. Until he had found out what “Marse George”
wanted him to do, Billy seemed unconscious of having got any
orders. Madam Washington, who could awe much older and wiser
persons than Billy, had often sent for the boy, when he was regularly
taken into the house, and after reasoning with him, kindly explaining
to him that both “Marse George” and himself were merely boys, and
under her authority, would give him a stern reproof, which Billy
always received in an abstracted silence, as if he had not heard a
word that was said to him. Finding that he acted throughout as if he
had not heard, Madam Washington turned him over to Aunt Sukey,
who, after the fashion of those days, with white boys as well as
black, gave him a smart birching. Billy’s roars were like the
trumpeting of an elephant; but within a week he went back to his old
way of forgetting there was anybody in the world except “Marse
George.” Then Madam Washington turned him over to Uncle Jasper,
who “lay” that he would “meck dat little triflin’ nigger min’ missis.” A
second and much more vigorous birching followed at the hands of
Uncle Jasper, who triumphed over Aunt Sukey when Billy for two
days actually seemed to realize that he had something else to do
besides following George about and never taking his eyes off of him.
Uncle Jasper’s victory was short-lived, though. Within a week Billy
was as good-for-nothing as ever, except to George. Madam
Washington then saw that it was not a case of discipline—that the
boy was simply dominated by his devotion to George, and could
neither be forced nor reasoned out of it. Therefore it was arranged
that the care of the young master’s horse and everything pertaining
to him should be confided to Billy, who would work all day with the
utmost willingness for “Marse George.” By this means Billy was
made of use. Nobody touched George’s clothes or books or
belongings except Billy. He scrubbed and then dry-rubbed the floor
of his young master’s room, scoured the windows, cut the wood and
made the fires, attended to his horse, and when George was there
personally to direct him, Billy would do whatever work he was
ordered. But the instant he was left to himself he returned to
idleness, or to some perfectly useless work for his young master—
polishing up windows that were already bright, dry-rubbing a floor
that shone like a mirror, or brushing George’s clothes which were
quite spotless. His young master loved him with the strong affection
that commonly existed between the masters and the body-servants
in those days. Like Madam Washington, George was a natural
disciplinarian, and, himself capable of great labor of mind and body,
he exacted work from everybody. But Billy was an exception to this
rule. It is not in the human heart to be altogether without
weaknesses, and Billy was George’s weakness. When his mother
would declare the boy to be the idlest servant about the place,
George could not deny it; but he always left the room when there
were any animadversions on his favorite, and could never be
brought to acknowledge that Billy was not a much-injured boy.
Serene in the consciousness that “Marse George” would stand by
him, Billy troubled himself not at all about Madam Washington’s
occasional cutting remarks as to his uselessness, nor his father’s
and mother’s more outspoken complaints that he “warn’t no good
’scusin’ ’twas to walk arter Marse George, proud as a peacock ef he
kin git a ole jacket or a p’yar o’ Marse George’s breeches fur ter go
struttin’ roun’ in.” Aunt Sukey was very pious, and Uncle Jasper was
a preacher, and held forth Sunday nights, in a disused corn-house
on the place, to a large congregation of negroes from the
neighboring places. But Billy showed no fondness whatever for these
meetings, preferring to go to the Established Church with his young
master every Sunday, sitting in a corner of the gallery, and going to
sleep with much comfort and regularity as soon as he got there.
Madam Washington always exacted of every one who went to
church from her house that he or she should repeat the clergyman’s
text on coming home, and Billy was no exception to the rule. On
Sunday, therefore, instead of joining the gay procession of youths
and young men, all handsomely mounted, who rode along the
highway after church, George devoted his time on his way home to
teaching Billy the text. The boy always repeated it very glibly when
Madam Washington demanded it of him, and thereby won her favor,
for a short time, once a week.
On this particular morning, as George took the reins from Billy and
jumped on the back of his sorrel colt, and galloped down the lane
towards the fodder-field, Billy, who was keen enough where his
young master was concerned, saw that he was preoccupied.
Contrary to custom, he would not take his dog Rattler with him, and
Billy, dragging the whining dog by the neck, hauled him back into the
house and up into George’s room, where the two proceeded to lay
themselves down before the fire and go to sleep. An hour later the
indignant Aunt Sukey found them, and but for George’s return just
then it would have gone hard with Billy, anyhow.
As George galloped briskly along in the crisp October morning, he
felt within him the full exhilaration of youth and health and hope. He
had not been able to sleep all night for thinking of that promised visit
to Greenway Court. He had heard of it—a strange combination of
hunting-lodge and country-seat in the mountains, where Lord Fairfax
lived, surrounded by dependants, like a feudal baron. George had
never in his life been a hundred miles away from home. He had been
over to Mount Vernon since his brother Laurence’s marriage, and the
visit had charmed him so that his ever prudent mother had feared
that the simpler and plainer life at Ferry Farm would be distasteful to
him; for Mount Vernon was a fine, roomy country-house, where
Laurence Washington and his handsome young wife, both rich,
dispensed a splendid hospitality. There was a great stable full of
saddle-horses and coach-horses, a retinue of servants, and a
continual round of entertaining going on. Laurence Washington had
only lately retired from the British army, and his house was the
favorite resort for the officers of the British war-ships that often came
up the Potomac, as well as the officers of the military post at
Alexandria. Although he enjoyed this gay and interesting life at
Mount Vernon, George had left it without having his head turned, and
came back quite willingly to the sober and industrious regularity of
the home at Ferry Farm. He was the favorite over all his brothers
with Laurence Washington and his wife, and it was a well-understood
fact that, if they died without children, George was to inherit the
splendid estate of Mount Vernon. Madam Washington had been a
kind step-mother to Laurence Washington, and he repaid it by his
affection for his half-brothers and young sister. In those days, when
the eldest son was the heir, it seemed quite natural that George, as
next eldest, should have preference, and should be the next person
of consequence in the family to his brother Laurence.
He spent an hour riding over the place, seeing that the fodder had
been properly stripped from the stalks in a field, looking after the
ferry-boats, giving an eye to the feeding of the stock, and a sharp
investigation of the stables, and returned to the house by seven
o’clock. Precisely at seven o’clock every morning all the children,
servants, and whatever guests there were in the house assembled in
the sitting-room, where prayers were read. In his father’s time the
master of the house had read these prayers, and after his death
Laurence, as the head of the family, had taken up this duty; but since
his marriage and removal to Mount Vernon it had fallen upon
George.
When he entered the room he found his mother waiting for him, as
usual, with little Mistress Betty and the three younger boys. The
servants, including Billy, who had already been reported by Aunt
Sukey, were standing around the wall. After an affectionate good-
morning to his mother, George, with dignity and reverence, read the
family prayers in the Book of Common Prayer. His mother was as
calm and as collected as usual, but in the small velvet bag she
carried over her arm lay an important letter, received between the
time that George left the house in the morning and his return.
Prayers over, breakfast was served, George sitting in his father’s
place at the head of the table, and Madam Washington talking
calmly over every-day matters.
“I do not know what we are to do with that boy Billy,” she said. “This
morning, when he ought to have been picking up chips for the
kitchen, he was lying in front of your fireplace with Rattler, both of
them sound asleep.”
George, instead of being scandalized at this, only smiled a little.
“I do not know which is the most useless,” exclaimed Madam
Washington, with energy, “the dog or that boy!”
George ceased smiling at this; he did not like to have Billy too
severely commented on, and deftly turned the conversation. “Lord
Fairfax again asked me, when we were crossing the river last night,
to visit him at Greenway Court. I should like very much to go, mother.
I believe I would rather go even than to spend Christmas at Mount
Vernon, for I have been to Mount Vernon, but I have never been to
Greenway, or to any place like it.”
“The earl sent me a letter this morning on the subject before he left
Fredericksburg,” replied Madam Washington, quietly.
The blood flew into George’s face, but he spoke no word. His mother
was a person who did not like to be questioned.
“You may read it,” she continued, handing it to him out of her bag.
It was sealed with the huge crest of the Fairfaxes, and was written in
the beautiful penmanship of the period. It began:
 “Honored Madam.—The promise you graciously made
me, that your eldest son, Mr. George Washington, might
visit me at Greenway Court, gave me both pride and
pleasure; and will you not add to that pride and pleasure
by permitting him to return with me when I pass through
Fredericksburg again on my way home two days hence?
Do not, honored madam, think that I am proposing that
your son spend his whole time with me in sport and
pleasure. While both have their place in the education of
the young, I conceive, honored madam, that your son has
more serious business in hand—namely, the improvement
of his mind, and the acquiring of those noble qualities and
graces which distinguish the gentleman from the lout.
“He would have at Greenway, at least, the advantage of
the best minds in England as far as they can be writ in
books, and for myself, honored madam, I will be as kind to
him as the tenderest father. If you can recall with any
pleasure the days so long ago, when we were both twenty
years younger, and when your friendship, honored
madam, was the chief pleasure, as it always will be the
chief honor, of my life, I beg that you will not refuse my
request. I am, madam, with sentiments of the highest
esteem,
“Your obedient, humble servant,
“Fairfax.”
“Have you thought it over, mother?”
“Yes, my son; but, as you know I am a person of deliberation, I will
think it over yet more.”
“I will give up Christmas at Mount Vernon, mother, if you will let me
go.”
“I have already promised your brother that you shall spend
Christmas with him, and I cannot recall my word.”
George said no more. He got up, and, bowing respectfully to his
mother, went out. He had that morning more than his usual number
of tasks to do; but all day long he was in a dream. For all his
steadiness and willingness to lead a quiet life with his mother and
the younger children at Ferry Farm, he was by nature adventurous,
and for more than a year he had chafed inwardly at the narrow and
uneventful existence which he led. He had early announced that he
wished to serve either in the army or the navy, but, like all people,
young or old, who have strong determination, he bided his time
quietly, doing meanwhile what came to hand. He had been every
whit as much fascinated with Lord Fairfax as the elder man had been
with him; and the prospect of a visit to Greenway—of listening to his
talk of the great men he had known, of seeing the mountains for the
first time in his life, and of hunting and sporting in their wilds, of
taking lessons in fencing from old Lance, of looking over Lord
Fairfax’s books—was altogether enchanting. He had a keen taste for
social life, and his Christmas at Mount Vernon, with all its gayety and
company, had been the happiest two weeks of his life. Suppose his
mother should agree to let him go to Greenway with the earl and
then come back by way of Mount Vernon? Such a prospect seemed
almost too dazzling. He brought his horse down to a walk along the
cart-road through the woods he was traversing while he
contemplated the delightful vision; and then, suddenly coming out of
his day-dream, he pulled himself together, and, striking into a sharp
gallop, tried to dismiss the subject from his mind. This he could not
do, but he could exert himself so that no one would guess what was
going on in his mind, and in this he was successful.
Two o’clock was the dinner-hour at Ferry Farm, and a few minutes
before that time George walked up from the stables to the house.
Little Betty was on the watch, and ran down to the gate to meet him.
Their mother, looking out of the window, saw them coming across
the lawn arm in arm, Betty chattering like a magpie and George
smiling as he listened. They were two of the handsomest and
healthiest and brightest-eyed young creatures that could be
imagined, and Madam Washington’s heart glowed with a pride which
she believed sinful and strove unavailingly to smother.
At dinner Madam Washington and George and Betty talked, the
three younger boys being made to observe silence, after the fashion
of the day. Neither Madam Washington nor George brought up the
subject of the earl’s visit, although it was a tremendous event in their
quiet lives. But little Betty, who was the talkative member of the
family, at once began on him. His coach and horses and outriders
were grand, she admitted; but why an earl, with bags of money,
should choose to wear a plain brown suit, no better than any other
gentleman, Mistress Betty vowed she could not understand. His
kneebuckles were not half so fine as George’s, and brother
Laurence had a dozen suits finer than the earl’s.
“His sword-hilt is worth more than this plantation,” remarked George,
by way of mitigating Betty’s scorn for the earl’s costume. Betty
acknowledged that she had never seen so fine a sword-hilt in her
life, and then innocently remarked that she wished she were going to
visit at Greenway Court with George. George’s face turned crimson,
but he remained silent. He was a proud boy, and had never in his life
begged for anything, but he wanted to go so badly that the
temptation was strong in him to mount his horse without asking
anybody’s leave, and, taking Billy and Rattler with him, start off alone
for the mountains.
Dinner was over presently, and as they rose Madam Washington
said, quietly:
“My son, I have determined to allow you to join Lord Fairfax, and I
have sent an inquiry to him, an hour ago, asking at what time to-
morrow you should meet him in Fredericksburg. You may remain
with him until December; but the first mild spell in December I wish
you to go down to Mount Vernon for Christmas, as I promised.”
George’s delight was so great that he grew pale with pleasure. He
would have liked to catch his mother in his arms and kiss her, but
mother and son were chary of showing emotion. Therefore he only
took her hand and kissed it, saying, breathlessly:
“Thank you, mother. I hardly hoped for so much pleasure.”
“But it is not for pleasure that I let you go,” replied his mother, who,
according to the spirit of the age, referred everything to duty. “’Tis
because I think my Lord Fairfax’s company will be of benefit to you;
and as there is but little prospect of a school here this winter, and I
have made no arrangements for a tutor, I must do something for your
education, but that I cannot do until after Christmas. So, as I think
you will be learning something of men as well as of books, I have
thought it best, after reflecting upon it as well as I can, to let you go.”
“I will promise you, mother, never to do or say anything while I am
away from you that I would be ashamed for you to know,” cried
George.
Madam Washington smiled at this.
“Your promise is too extensive,” she said. “Promise me only that you
will try not to do or say anything that will make me ashamed, and
that will be enough.”
George colored, as he answered:
“I dare say I promised too much, and so I will accept the change you
make.”
Here a wild howl burst upon the air. Billy, who had been standing
behind George’s chair, understood well enough what the
conversation meant, and that he was to be separated until after
Christmas from his beloved “Marse George.” Madam Washington,
who had little patience with such outbreaks of emotion, sharply
spoke to him. “Be quiet, Billy!”
Billy’s reply was a fresh burst of tears and wailing, which brought
home to little Betty that George was about to leave them, and
caused her to dissolve into tears and sobs, while Rattler, running
about the room, and looking from one to the other, began to bark
furiously.
Madam Washington, standing up, calm, but excessively annoyed at
this commotion in her quiet house, brought her foot down with a light
tap, which, however, meant volumes. Uncle Jasper too appeared,
and was about to haul Billy off to condign punishment when George
intervened.
“Hold your tongue, Billy,” he said; and Billy, digging his knuckles into
his eyes, subsided as quietly as he had broken forth.