I had two excellent opportunities to think about openness and change today.
First up, I received a link to Harold Jarche’s review post of David Price’s Open: How we’ll work live and learn in the future.
I appreciated Harold’s summary of David’s SOFT model in this graphic:
The second opportunity for the contemplation of openness came from colleagues in canoeing via Facebook. It was definitely illuminated by this box in Harold’s matrix (Trust/Business):
Like many others, I have been profoundly disappointed by the International Canoeing Federation’s (ICF) lack of movement on gender equity in the Olympic disciplines of flatwater and slalom.
This was my post from earlier this year about the ICF’s position.
I was interested, therefore, to read of Richard Fox’s latest contribution to the ICF’s consideration of equity. (Background: the International Canoe Federation (ICF) announced on Saturday it would push to have women’s C1 slalom and C1 200m sprint included in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.)
Richard wrote an open letter to the ICF. I have placed my own emphases within his letter.
Dear ICF Board of Directors
Thank you for distributing the press release “C1 Women’s Canoe Events Proposed for the Tokyo Olympics”.
It is positive to see a clear ICF position on the inclusion of more events for women in the Olympic Games. On face value, this can be taken as very good news and we can imagine this shift represents an exciting new opportunity for the Nanjing generation of juniors as well as some yet to start in the sport.
In contrast, high level female athletes continue to be significantly restricted in their access to canoeing events in the Olympic Games relative to men and will have to wait another seven years to see any change. Therefore, assumptions of a positive reaction regarding the potential inclusion of new women’s events in Tokyo should be balanced with a reality check.
We should not overlook Rio in promoting a Tokyo solution and the fact that the ICF has chosen to abandon the trend it started lightly in London 2012 where the men’s C2 500m was replaced with the women’s K1 200m. Instead, the ICF proposes to maintain the status quo of significant gender imbalance until 2020 which means that in Rio 2016, like in London 2012, only 5 out of a total of 16 Olympic gold medals will be available to women.
As it stands, only 1 female athlete per nation is able to compete in a canoe slalom event at the Olympic Games compared to up to 4 men per nation. The men have 3 events to choose from, as opposed to the women who can compete in just 1 event.
The exclusion of women from all canoe class events across both sprint and slalom disciplines at the Olympic Games is a remarkable situation for the ICF to maintain until Tokyo when other sports are clearly shining under the light of increased gender diversity.
The fact is there are 5 canoe class events offered for men across sprint and slalom and not a single women’s canoe event, which means our sport will remain firmly at the bottom of the league table when it comes to gender equity measures in Rio 2016.
What has changed in recent years, and this is acknowledged in the ICF article, is the rapid and highly significant growth in participation of C1 women’s event at all ICF world championship events. The numbers tell the story and there is clear evidence that women’s events are on the rise, particularly when measured against other existing Olympic events. If they are “ready for Rio” now, why wait seven years to do the obvious?
Unlike other sports, the ICF has not taken the opportunity to propose a quota neutral solution for Rio, i.e. include an additional women’s event while removing a men’s event, because it is too tough. But standing still is certainly not reflected in the ICF slogan, ” always moving forward”, either. It is a battle of conscious and unconscious bias, where neither side wins until gender balance is achieved.
Open to Change?
Harold opens his review of David Price’s open with a quotation that ends “The genuine democratisation of knowing is still being fought over”.
Equity in canoeing is a contested battleground. On reading Richard’s open letter, and identifying my own points of emphasis, I am hopeful that an observation I made earlier in the year resonates with the exhortation for the ICF to be much more pro-active in change:
I do think we have an important window of conscience available to us in canoeing. We should mind the gender gap as a moral imperative. ‘Mind’ in the sense of thinking deeply and ‘mind’ in terms of being concerned about decisions and their consequences.