Amy Potter: The straw that breaks the AD's back

This summer, the Penn Athletic Department finally lost a case that has been going on since 1997. The decision was appealed, but to no avail -- the original court's ruling was upheld.

Penn was found guilty of sexual discrimination -- but perhaps not in a situation that you might be expecting.

The Athletic Department was found guilty of passing over a qualified male candidate for the head coaching job of the women's crew team.

Andrew Medcalf -- a former assistant on the Penn men's heavyweight crew team from 1991-1997 -- applied for the position in 1997 but was never granted an interview. There were 26 applicants for the position -- 13 of which were women, the other 13 men. Four applicants were interviewed -- all of whom were women.

It's not necessarily the merits of this case, however, that are the greatest problem. This is not to say that reverse discrimination should go unnoticed or that it isn't a problem in its own right. But the greater question is how Andrew Medcalf's case evolved into what it did.

In Medcalf's original complaint against the University, he said that then-Senior Associate Athletic Director Carolyn Femovich told him that Penn wanted to hire a coach who could "serve as a strong female role model," and that they sought a woman that could be "at least as good as, if not better," than Medcalf would be.

The Penn lawyers, according to The Legal Intelligencer, attempted to defend their case by saying that Bilsky was indeed the sole decision maker when it came to the hiring, and therefore any statements made by Femovich could not be used.

That's where Penn's cute defense ran into a dead end as a circuit judge noted in the appeals ruling that Bilsky in fact testified that "he gave Femovich the authority to conduct the search process for a head coach 'as she saw fit.'" She publicized the position, she conducted interviews and, finally, gave her recommendations to Bilsky.

Maybe Bilsky isn't to blame for the reverse discrimination lawsuit. Maybe it wasn't his idea to solely look at the female applicants. Maybe he truly wasn't involved in this process.

But therein lies the problem. Bilsky should be making the big decisions when it comes to athletics at Penn. All that this situation has done is highlight that Penn's athletic director may not be the best man for the job.

If you're unfamiliar with Bilsky's history and how he ended up as Penn's athletic director, here's a quick synopsis -- he went to Penn as an undergraduate and made his mark as a very good shooting guard on the Quakers' basketball team.

Bilsky played an integral part in two of the Quakers' best men's basketball teams in the program's history. In the 1970-71 season, the three-time All-Ivy guard led Penn to a 28-1 record, as the team advanced to the East regional final in the NCAA tournament and earned a No. 3 national ranking.

His career path, conveniently for him and the University, brought him back to the Red and Blue, but this time to be in charge of athletics. And that's fine. He knows the traditions, he understands what it's like to be a student athlete and he's been in the limelight before.

The problem is, he doesn't function well as an athletic director. His inadequacy to lead stems from his inaccessibility -- something that coaches, athletes, reporters and Penn students have all complained about.

While I was a sports editor at the DP, I found that it was much more difficult to gain access to Steve Bilsky's office than it was to the office of University President Judith Rodin.

Last year, the Ivy League amended and fully changed some of its athletic policies. Bilsky denied an interview and then sent us a blanket statement that was, no doubt, not even written by him. When the president of the University was asked to comment, she not only granted us an interview, she fully explained the situation and even candidly expressed her personal remarks.

But I represent the media, and Bilsky ignoring that sector of Penn's campus is excusable. What's not is his ambivalence toward the broad range of athletics at Penn. Sure, he attends nearly every basketball game and can be seen strolling along the sidelines during fall football matchups.

According to one former rower on the men's varsity team, he is sure that Bilsky never came out to see any of their races or even introduce himself to the squad. That sentiment runs through the Athletic Department. Bilsky loves his basketball, and the rest he can tolerate, or so it seems.

Clearly this most recent situation will force Bilsky to take a look at those sports that don't necessarily garner the most attention and never make it to the Big Dance. When you are athletic director, your responsibility is to give equal and dedicated attention to a university's wide range of sports -- something Bilsky has routinely failed to do.

With this court case now in the past, it's time for the Penn administration to make some real decisions about how things should be run in the Athletic Department. And if the school is hoping for more than just a good basketball team, it may be time for Bilsky to go.

Amy Potter is a senior World History major from Albuquerque, N.M. and executive editor of The Daily Pennsylvanian.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.