Activists argue NCAA's North Carolina decision sets precedent for other states

The NCAA's decision to "reluctantly" allow the state of North Carolina to host championship events from 2018-2022 — effectively removing a ban that cost the state millions of dollars in 2017 — will have ripple effects in other states, LGBT and human rights advocates contended on Tuesday. North Carolina had 133 bids sent to the NCAA from its cities, colleges and universities for that five year span that would've cost the state $250 million in economic impact, according to the North Carolina Sports Association.

The governing body for college sports determined that the changes North Carolina lawmakers made to the state's controversial "bathroom bill" were sufficient enough after the state passed a new bill, House Bill 142, last week. The new bill's authors deemed it a "compromise" from the previous House Bill 2, which the NCAA said went against its inclusive initiative because it did not protect its LGBT members.

Opponents of the new bill include the NAACP, which called it "anti-LGBT" and "an insult to civil rights." House Bill 2 required transgender people to use the restroom based on their birth certificate and not based on the gender in which they identify. House Bill 142 exempts schools from state bathroom regulations but keeps in place the ban for anti-discrimination laws until December 2020 — meaning there is no law in place for businesses to determine bathroom guidelines.

"The NCAA set the bar extremely low," said Hudson Taylor, executive director of the LGBT group Athlete Ally. "They set a negative bar."

MORE ON BATHROOM BILLS

North Carolina may again host college championships after NCAA ruling

Women’s Final Four in Texas illuminates another potential bathroom bill quandary for NCAA

Taylor said states like Texas, which is on the precipice of passing a similarly criticized bill, were surely watching and that the NCAA's decision provides a "road map" for how to skirt around losing millions of dollars.

Texas’ bathroom bill requires bathroom usage according to an individual’s “biological sex.” Senate Bill 6 is different than North Carolina's bathroom bill in the sense that it is singularly focused on bathrooms and not ordinances, and it features a workaround clause that would allow organizations like the NCAA — the men's basketball Final Four is in San Antonio next year — to lease stadiums and enforce their own inclusive bathroom rules. SB6 was passed by the Senate and has reached the House. Texas House speaker Joe Straus has spoken out against the bill before the NCAA's decision on North Carolina. No decision has been made yet on the bill.

"The speaker of the house in Texas has opined he doesn't think this is a good bill, so we'll wait," NCAA president Mark Emmert said last week at the men's Final Four in Phoenix. "One of the things we’re trying hard not to do is try to second-guess states and where they’re going to go and not go (legislatively). I don’t know that we should presuppose where Texas is going."

The NCAA's board of governors made the decision on North Carolina with the logic that the new bill, while "far from perfect," restored the state to its "legal landscape," which was defined as "a landscape similar to other jurisdictions presently hosting NCAA championships."

Emmert said last week the board of governors' decision would be heavily based on how North Carolina's law lines up with other states where the NCAA has championships.

But to that rationale LGBT activists argue that the NCAA is being incredibly inconsistent given the fact that the board of governors set out four specific conditions when it removed seven championship events from the state in September because of HB2 — most of which HB142 does not satisfy.

"The NCAA has yet to clarify their standards they expect for an inclusive environment," said Taylor. "What I can't wrap my head around is the NCAA for (14) years didn't allow South Carolina to host championships because the confederate flag flew on the capital grounds (the ban was removed in 2015). It was a symbol of hate. And now there is a state that passes a law that makes it impossible for an entire group of people to be protected. Their message is contradictory and doesn't make sense."

However, the original four guidelines contained some form of language that singled North Carolina out as the "only" state with such policies. That language essentially safeguards the NCAA's current decision because it's likely North Carolina soon will not stand on its own. State legislators in 16 states this year have introduced legislation that would restrict access to multiuser restrooms, locker rooms, and other sex-segregated facilities on the basis of gender consistent with a birth certificate. Legislation in 13 of those states is still pending, while legislation in South Dakota, Virginia and Wyoming failed to pass.

“The NCAA will soon run out of states to hold sporting events” if it removes championships from states such as North Carolina and Texas, said Jonathan Alexandre, director of public policy for Liberty Counsel — a conservative non-profit dedicated to advancing religious freedom — back in January.

Emmert said last week the NCAA "doesn’t consider itself an entity that has any business telling a state what their laws should be." And Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, the author of SB6, said she was in contact with Emmert and believed the NCAA and professional sports organizations shouldn't be "dictating policies" to states.

That's where some members of the sports community disagree.

"People say 'keep politics out of sports,' but policies impact people, and some of those people watch and play sports," Seattle Storm forward and former UConn superstar Breanna Stewart told USA TODAY Sports ahead of the women's Final Four in Dallas this past weekend. Stewart was one of 50 athletes who signed an open letter to the NCAA criticizing SB6. "At the end of the day, I don't think you can separate one from the other.

"I think the NCAA has a responsibility to their championship participants and attendees to ensure that everyone has a safe and enjoyable experience, and that includes the LGBT community. While states have the right to propose whatever legislation they want, that doesn't mean they automatically should be rewarded with hosting a major sporting event. If legislation like HB2 and SB6 prevents LGBT fans, athletes and officials from being treated equally, then the NCAA has every right to not send championships to those states."

Shane Windmeyer, executive director for the LGBT rights group Campus Pride, said the crux of the problem ultimately is the "NCAA doesn't really know what the NCAA wants."

"The NCAA has always been conflicted on this issue. Does it want to be follower or the leader?" Windmeyer said. "The NCAA has an office of diversity and inclusion and does all these think tanks and different things, but it's clear its central office staff  — the people who make the decisions — do not reflect the same values. The NCAA's (North Carolina) decision shows it does not understand discrimination. They can't believe that LGBT members are protected if just a stadium has (inclusive and protective) policies. Their athletes and fans go to hotels and restaurants and businesses when they visit a state."

Chris Mosier, the first openly trans athlete to make a U.S. National Team, competed in North Carolina when HB2 was in place and felt uncomfortable this past summer based on the state's discriminatory law.

Mosier, also a vice president for the You Can Play organization, said the NCAA's decision on HB142 "makes a statement to other places in the country thinking about legislation similar to HB2 and HB142. This tells them they can still have even the most minimal level of anti-discrimination protection and that’d be OK in the eyes of the NCAA. That’s discouraging for the members of the LGBTQ community and our allies. We are going continue to work hard to create a safe, inclusive and respectful space for everyone.”

***

Contributing: A.J. Perez