The CWA Report, annotated:

The CWA first raised the issue in October 2004 when members said the practice was contrary to the committee’s mission of providing opportunities for women in college sports.

When we brought it up back then, everyone thought we were crazy. So we had to let the buzz die down for a couple years.

The matter has been surveyed and debated in each division…

You will note that our report includes no data from those surveys. We didn’t really listen anyway.

The most common argument in favor of using male practice players is that it improves the skills of female student-athletes and strengthens the team as a whole. While there is no way to measure the true validity of this argument…

Who can say if male practice players really help? It’s not like you can take two teams of identical players and use one as a control group. There’s no way to measure the issue. I suppose we could rely on the opinions of women’s basketball coaches — after all, they probably can judge pretty well what works and what doesn’t — but we won’t.

The message to female student-athletes seems to be "you are not good enough to make our starters better, so we need to use men instead."

We are concerned about inter-gender equity. We are also concerned about intra-gender equity. Currently, teams are divided into starters and nonstarters. The message to the nonstarters seems to be “you are not good enough to start, so we need to use other women instead.” Next year, we will issue a recommendation addressing this issue.

This approach implies an archaic notion of male preeminence that continues to impede progress toward gender equity and inclusion.

Men aren’t really better at basketball. Conceptions of merit are socially constructed, and they are socially constructed in a way that furthers the interests of the patriarchy. In truth, there is no objective, non-gendered way to measure the skill of a basketball player or basketball team.

Without the use of male practice players, does women’s athletics not inherently retain its own unique quality of competition and skill?

Maybe women’s basketball won’t be as good. But it will be “unique.”

The increasing use of male practice players is a threat to the growth in female participation at all levels.

Of course, there’s no evidence that the use of male practice players has done anything at all to impede the growth, but what we lack in evidence, we make up in self-righteousness.

To have talented, capable female student-athletes stand on the sidelines during official practice while the team’s starters practice against “more talented men” is a lost opportunity. Many of these female student-athletes are on full scholarship and were recruited to participate in intercollegiate athletics at many other institutions.

Perhaps when athletes are being recruited, they should ask about the use of male practice players, and then they can make up their own minds. No, no, that won’t do… these young women are too stupid.

To have them sitting out of practice while a full “scout team” of men come to practices is costing them the opportunity for growth and betterment that they were promised during recruitment.

We weren’t sure whether “betterment” is really a word. Some guy named Fowler once quipped that the English word for "betterment" is "improvement." But prescriptivist notions of grammar are also a tool of the patriarchy.

Professional teams do not have the ability to find “practice squads” better than those on their roster and this holds true for most men’s college programs; yet somehow, this is not viewed as an obstruction to the betterment and growth of the game.

Of course, if NBA teams could construct practice teams of better players, they probably would… but I’m losing my train of thought here.

What does seem probable is that each week hours of practice/scrimmage time usually given to female non-starters in game preparation will now be assumed by male, non-student-athletes.

Those same non-starters often end up as starters later in their career. So even if hurt by the practice now, they might end up better off in a couple years. But we aren’t willing to wait.

The suggestion that since males are often bigger, stronger and faster, they should be used in drills in order to improve female-student athletes.

When we discuss this issue at our committee meetings, we always use our fingers to make air quotes around the words “bigger, stronger and faster.” See socially constructed gender categories, supra.

There has been tremendous growth and betterment in women’s intercollegiate athletics without the use of male practice players…

And in the last few years, there has also been tremendous growth and betterment with the widespread use of male practice players… wait, did I just use “betterment” again? I’m losing my train of thought again.

Since Title IX was enacted, the coaching and administrative opportunities for females have been diminished greatly.

None of this has anything to do with male practice players. We’re just angry about some big problems, but we can’t do anything about those big problems, so we’re going to attack the very small one within reach.

A decision should not always be based solely on the positives of an action, but must also weigh the negative impact it may have.

You must weight the costs and benefits. No one denies that the practice has some costs. No one denies that the practice has some benefits. (Ok, we do, but we know you didn’t take that part seriously.)

The question is: Who should do the weighing? Who makes the decision?

Some people suggest that actual women’s basketball coaches and administrators should make the decision. But their notions of equity and merit have been shaped by the patriarchy. Their decisions simply reflect false consciousness.

Some people suggest that the “market” should work it out: If male practice players don’t work, coaches will stop using them, and if nonstarters don’t like sitting on the sidelines, they will go elsewhere. But in this instance, the market fails due to the stupidity of its participants.

Therefore, we have come to a conclusion about who should make this decision: We should. The rest of y’all misogynist idiots like Pat Summitt can fuck off.