The UConn Finger: Noriana Radwan Fights Back

Remember all that speech is violence stuff? Turns out that it’s a double-edged sword for University of Connecticut soccer player Noriana Radwan, who “flipped the bird” after a win that ended up costing her a scholarship.

Giving the middle finger after winning a soccer game was all it took for Noriana Radwan to lose her full athletic scholarship at the University of Connecticut.

Now she is suing the university for violating Title IX by punishing her more severely than a male athlete would have been.

The lawsuit, filed in the District of Connecticut, raises far more than just an allegation of discrimination on the basis of sex, that guys who did something “wrong” weren’t punished as harshly as Radwan. The indictment of UConn’s treatment of Radwan raises the full panoply of due process failures that have become the hallmark of college treatment of students.

The coach issued a press release soon after, apologizing for Radwan’s “obscene gesture” in the context of celebrating.

After meeting with UConn’s then-athletic director, defendant Warde Manuel, Radwan was assured she would not have her scholarship revoked, according to the suit.

A month after the incident, however, she was notified by Tsantiris that her scholarship was being revoked for “serious misconduct.”

And what does “serious misconduct” mean? Apparently, anything they want it to.

There is no definition of “serious misconduct” in the UConn 2013-2014 Student-Athlete Handbook, which the suit says also applied to the following academic year.

It does state:

If the student-athlete does not correct the behavior, the head coach will notify the sport administrator of intent to recommend a student-athlete for non-renewal of athletics grant-in-aid and present supporting documentation. It is the Division of Athletics policy and philosophy to continue grant-in-aid unless a severe case would warrant recommendation of nonrenewal.

That falls a bit short of clear guidance, notice of what conduct might put a scholarship at risk. And what does the NCAA have to say about it?

In 2015 the NCAA Southeastern Conference defined “serious misconduct” as “sexual assault, domestic violence or other forms of sexual violence,” and in 2016 expanded it to cover felonies and conduct that raises “serious concerns about safety to others,” according to the suit.

One might suspect that this gesture would be a matter of free speech, vulgar though it may be, but that’s before speech became violence, and as it appears, “sexual violence” is serious misconduct. Remember the good old days when words had definitions? But it gets worse.

According to the 2013-2014 handbook: “Each coach has his/her own very specific team rules covering everything from conduct to dress code.”

It was this “pact” that [Soccer Coach] Tsantiris made his players sign in order to play in the 2014-2015 year, but he never provided a copy to Radwan or any other known players, the suit claims.

It’s not that a coach shouldn’t be able to exercise some control over his team, as there have always been parochial rules, like wearing a tie and jacket on the bus to games to show that you’re a serious, disciplined team. Or something. But was there something in this pact that informed Radwan that giving the finger would cost her a scholarship? Who knows?

The coach violated the state’s Freedom of Information Act by refusing to turn over the pact to Radwan’s lawyer, if that document indeed was enforced as “team rules” against Radwan, according to the filing.

Yet, according to the suit, this wasn’t just about a female soccer player performing a common gesture that some might find offensive (is there any gesture that doesn’t offend someone?). Rather, Radwan claims there was nefarious purpose to her coach’s pulling her scholarship:

The suit claims that Radwan’s revoked scholarship money was used by Tsantiris to entice a potential recruit at the University of Notre Dame on a “fall semester break” scouting trip.

It was “an opportunity he could not resist at any cost,” it says: That recruit declined to transfer to UConn, though, and it’s not clear what happened to the money.

For those unaware, the NCAA only permits a certain number of scholarships per team per sport, and if they’re used up, they’re gone. If you need another sports scholarship to nab a hot prospect, it has to come from somewhere.

So what happened to Radwan’s in-house challenge to her treatment? That’s where due process comes in.

Radwan claims UConn violate NCAA due process rules by ruling that she had not submitted an appeal within the required “fourteen business days” of the issuance of the cancellation letter by defendant Mona Lucas, director of student financial aid services.

Lucas’s initial letter, though, says the clock starts upon “receipt” of the letter, the suit says: UConn should have simply given Radwan a “true deadline.”

By giving Radwan a “confusing hearing timeline and ‘deadline’ date” for the appeal, and depriving her of a hearing entirely, UConn violated NCAA bylaws, its own handbook and the “student code” that governs all university students.

It’s not that the process doesn’t appear on paper, but that it just didn’t work out nearly as well as the “true deadline” might appear. Of course, given the confusion, UConn could have accepted responsibility for the problem it created, but it chose not to, making it their screw-up but Radwan’s problem.

But in order to make a claim under Title IX, there needs to be sex discrimination, and so Radwan makes her case:

UConn’s list of disciplined athletes in the 2014-2015 year, obtained under FOIA by Radwan’s lawyer, does not mention her discipline at all – showing that Tsantiris apparently didn’t record his cancellation of her scholarship, the suit says.

The university not only severely punished Radwan for run-of-the-mill “unsportsmanlike” conduct, but Tsantiris personally benefited from the decision – which puts him “far closer” to “serious misconduct” under NCAA rules, according to the suit.

Male UConn players have not suffered such punishment for similar or worse behavior, it says, citing a football player who “booted the dead ball into the stands” and others who were arrested on serious charges but allowed to return to the team.

That the coach wasn’t thrilled with one of his soccer players giving the finger on camera is not, in itself, any surprise. Sportsmanship matters, and the lack of grace after a win reflects poorly on the player, the team, the coach and the school. So give Radwan a stern talking-to. Suspend her for a game.

But taking away a scholarship is a huge punishment, a fiscal disaster for many students, and may well put an end to their education. Even more, when Radwan was recruited at UConn, she may well have turned down other schools where she would have been treated differently.

The question raised isn’t whether giving the finger is protected speech. It is. Or whether a coach might be pissed that one of his players behaved poorly. Of course. The question is whether vulgar speech can be turned into “sexual violence” so that UConn can pretend it’s “serious” enough misconduct to pull a scholarship. The question is whether Radwan can lose her scholarship in the absence of due process. The question is whether this is all a sham to achieve an outcome the coach wants, so that he can free up scholarship money to spend elsewhere.

And the point is that all the nonsense being sold on campus will, of course, come back to bite every student in the butt eventually, because once we forfeit principle for transitory feelz, there is no stopping the slide to the bottom of the slippery slope.

10 thoughts on “The UConn Finger: Noriana Radwan Fights Back

  1. delurking

    You know what words the middle finger stands for, right? It is clearly a threat of sexual violence. This athlete clearly used her position of privilege and power to deliver a threat of sexual violence. Who knows what damage she might wreak in the future if she is allowed to remain on campus. She should be expelled immediately after a thorough and fair Title IX investigation.

    1. SHG Post author

      Your sensibilities are fascinating, as they allow you to see “principle” so clearly in one instance and be blind to the same thing in another. Go figure.

      1. Hal

        I think, and I very much hope, that “delurking” post was intended to be ironic.

        While Ms. Radwan’s unsportsmanlike (unsportspersonlike?) gesture warranted “a good talking to”, anything more than that is an overreaction.

        And when I become king…

        1. SHG Post author

          I’m sure Delurking’s comment here was intended to be ironic. And that, too, is ironic in light of his usual intellectual struggles (which is why I replied as I did).

            1. SHG Post author

              I’m not mad at you. I’m not happy with you. I don’t give a damn beyond your wasting my time with nonsense. If you never commented again, I wouldn’t care. I will not, however, give you as much of my attention as you think you’re entitled to.

  2. John Kelley

    I seriously doubt the woman in that photograph meant any sexual aggression towards the photographer. Her body language suggests she is celebrating with a teammate and maybe her private space was invaded. Any other behavior deduced by onlookers would seem to be pure conjecture. Since this is a woman’s future hanging in the balance maybe we all should keep our pathetic opinions to ourselves.

Comments are closed.