Opinion: Female athletes deserve to be championed, not challenged, for their strength

Strength, dominance, leadership, physicality — traits long celebrated in men’s sports are often challenged in women’s sports.

For centuries, women in sports have battled not just their opponents on the field but deeply ingrained gender norms, perpetuated by a system of misogyny that views a strong woman as lesser. Traits essential to athletic success are often reframed as “unfeminine,” reinforcing the idea that their place in sports is conditional for women.

Nowhere is this a more apparent phenomenon than in women’s rugby.

Because women’s rugby challenges traditional views of femininity, athletes often face scrutiny, ridicule, and dismissal as serious and successful figures in the sports industry. This alienation extends beyond the field, affecting how women in rugby and other sports are misrepresented and underrepresented in the media. This proves that new and different representation in women’s sports is essential.

Furthermore, women’s rugby doesn’t just tolerate the differences among athletes — it thrives on fostering a culture where all athletes, especially those from marginalized communities, may find empowerment, camaraderie, and belonging.

Women’s rugby offers an environment accepting of typically undervalued body types — a stark contrast to mainstream beauty standards that don’t appreciate a muscular, bulky, or larger-bodied physique for female athletes. This inclusivity extends far beyond physicality, as women’s rugby has long been a refuge for athletes who feel alienated or unwelcomed in other sports. By emphasizing teamwork, resilience, and self-expression over rigid gender norms, rugby provides an atmosphere where athletes can fully embrace their identities without fear of judgment.

Participation in inclusive sports can reduce feelings of isolation, enhance self-esteem, and improve overall mental health, especially for individuals who identify as LGBTQ+ and experience higher rates of anxiety and depression due to marginalization in their communities, according to a 2008 paper by Dr. Drew D. Richards of the American Psychiatric Association. 

In challenging tradition, women’s rugby doesn’t just cultivate strong athletes — it cultivates strong, confident, and resilient individuals who carry that empowerment beyond the pitch and into their daily lives. A shocking 94% of women in C-Suite executive positions have a background in team sports, according to a survey of executives conducted by Ernst & Young in 2015, further proving the benefits that team sports provide to women of all ages.

To continue tackling traditions in the realm of women’s sports, we must take collective action to grow and develop our athletic programs, inspire adolescents, and hold others accountable. At a local level, you can help by supporting and engaging with young women’s rugby teams and other inclusive athletics programs by attending games, joining teams, and advocating for more visibility of women’s sports on school campuses.

On a broader level, push for institutional changes that ensure LGBTQ+ adolescents and young adults, and other female athletes receive the mental health support, funding, and respect they deserve — whether through student governments, voting in DEI initiatives, or donating to organizations like the You Can Play Project.

Keeping these programs up and running is imperative to the health and wellness of our youth.

Finally, on a systemic level, you can challenge outdated gender norms in sports by raising awareness, educating yourself and others, and supporting policies that promote equity for all athletes.

Beyond women’s rugby, this applies to any program aimed at supporting, without judgment, all female athletes, all LGBTQ+ adolescents and young adults, all body types, and all those ready to better our world. If we want to see a future where all athletes are championed — not challenged — for their strength, it starts with us.

Paige Perricone is the Colorado State University Women’s Rugby senior officer and peer education and social media manager.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Opinion: Americans should be outraged by the opportunities for waste, fraud and abuse being uncovered

It is simply appalling that our government has failed to use fundamental financial control practices in the administration of its responsibilities to pay out the trillions of dollars that our Congress has authorized every year for specific programs.

It was recently uncovered that for $4.7 trillion in payments, an important accounting code was optional and “was often left blank.” The Treasury Access Symbol (TAS) is used to identify which account the payment should be charged to. This is definitely not a small bookkeeping issue. It is a fundamental financial control practice.

Without that code, there is no way to assign the payment to a particular spending authorization or to track how much has been spent versus the amount authorized for each program. Even a small business has a budget and tracks expenditures against that budget. Without those codes, particularly for this many transactions, that is impossible.

And, the people who have been on-site and reviewed the current practices firsthand have identified this as a significant problem – codes have not been required and in most cases are missing. The absence and non-requirement of the appropriate code before processing a payment is tantamount to losing control of spending. Any bank in the United States that allowed this type of sloppiness to persist would be summarily closed down by our regulators, and rightfully so.

If we require strong financial control practices for our banks, why do we not require them of our government which processes many multiples of payments? Whether fraud, waste or incompetence, it needs to be fixed! We should be outraged that this was allowed to occur.

These lax financial controls result in questionable transactions like the one recently uncovered and reported by the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Zeldin. Although Congress approved the $20 billion (yes, with a “b”) program, the $20 billion was quietly moved to an “outside financial institution” in order to avoid scrutiny or control.

This $20 billion was moved out of the Treasury into a slush fund where there was no oversight of the spending. Does that sound like it might have been an opportunity for corruption? Or waste? Or fraud?

That works out to a donation from each American resident of almost $59 apiece. Those are taxpayer dollars extracted from hardworking Americans. And that is just one transaction. How many others are there? For every 1% of that $4.7 trillion that is inappropriate, that’s $47 billion. Where’s the outrage?

The “good news” is that there is plenty of blame to go around for allowing this to persist.

Unfortunately, the bad news is that it has been ongoing so there is no way to determine how much of the $4.7 trillion spent is proper and how much is fraud or waste. Previous administrations and presidential hopefuls have campaigned on cleaning up our government and eliminating waste and fraud. Videos show Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden all promising to do just that. The even better news is that someone finally has the courage to actually do it. While a small step, the inclusion of the TAS code on all payments is no longer optional but is now required.

Our government has no money of its own – all of its money comes from taxpayers, including individuals. While the current approach to rooting out waste, inefficiency, and fraud throughout our government may not be very elegant, the objective is simply to reduce the cost of government for America and Americans.

Our deficits have ballooned, adding trillions to our national debt. With the recent increases in interest rates, the amount of money required to pay the interest on that debt continues to grow, now exceeds the amount spent on defense ($1.124 on debt service, $1.107 on defense last year), and will only continue to grow further until we decrease the debt. Those increases require even more government expenditures to cover the interest on the debt, and those additional funds have to come from taxpayers. It is an unsustainable spiral. Continuing to do the same things we’ve been doing will not give us a better outcome. Where’s the outrage that this was allowed to occur?

At the end of the day, the beneficiary of all these actions is America and Americans. A leaner, more efficient government is less expensive to operate and should result in improved processes and better service to our government’s customers – us. If my own personal experience of waiting over 16 months for a federal income tax refund – and still waiting, despite countless follow-ups – is any indication, we have a lot of upside opportunities.

Let’s get the facts on the table where we can see them. Where are our taxpayer dollars being spent? Are we getting what we’re paying for? Is there a better, faster, cheaper way to provide the services that our government should provide?

Armed with the facts, we can make informed decisions about how we want our taxpayer dollars spent, and how they are actually spent. Let’s get outraged at the current state of affairs and pursue a better future for America, and Americans.

John Griggs lives in Evergreen and has spent his entire career in financial services. He holds a B.S. in Accounting and an MBA and has been the Chief Financial Officer of subsidiaries of two international financial institutions. He has led large-scale business transformation and process redesign initiatives in multi-national financial services organizations resulting in a 56% reduction in unit costs while simultaneously improving customer service. He is currently a consultant to the industry, an executive coach, and has been retained as an expert witness in financial services litigation.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Opinion: Elon Musk’s threats to NOAA are a threat to Colorado’s future

For those of us living in a land-locked state like Colorado, it might be easy to assume that an agency called the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, wouldn’t have a lot to do with our everyday lives. But that misconception couldn’t be further from the truth. It has provided good-paying jobs – NOAA employs roughly 12,000 people nationwide, including more than 900 in Colorado – and built a safer, healthier future for our state.

Beyond the agency’s state-of-the-art ocean research, NOAA’s vital work on climate science, weather forecasting, and environmental monitoring is indispensable to Colorado, where we face the challenges of catastrophic wildfires and other extreme weather on a regular basis. Without NOAA’s emergency alert systems, Coloradans wouldn’t be able to prepare for and respond to these disasters — putting our homes, schools, local businesses, and lives at risk. As the effects of climate change continue to worsen each year, NOAA’s work to keep our communities safe is more important than ever.

But right now, NOAA’s very existence is in jeopardy. Under the direction of Elon Musk, the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has set its sights on dismantling NOAA or even eliminating it altogether. Concerning reports that DOGE staffers recently infiltrated NOAA’s headquarters and gained access to confidential information heighten concerns that major cuts or changes are imminent. The Associated Press reported that about 10% of the staff, or about 1,200 people, was laid off. Some NOAA employees have been told to expect staff to be cut by half and the agency’s budget to be cut by nearly a third.

If Elon Musk succeeds in his assault on NOAA, it will have especially devastating consequences for Colorado’s future. As Coloradans across the state and across our major industries — from agricultural and manufacturing to recreation — grapple with the impacts of climate change and how to adapt for the years ahead, NOAA’s climate monitoring and research is giving us the information we need about water availability and other major environmental changes. NOAA is invaluable to Colorado’s ability to plan and prepare for a changing reality.

NOAA is also critical to shaping Colorado’s next generation of leaders in research. As the first person in my family to go to college and pursue a career in research, I know firsthand that federal grants and funding are a lifeline for budding scholars who don’t have access to the same resources that others do. Thanks to federal investments in science, like NOAA’s research grants and programs, I have been fortunate to pour my passion into work that helps us all better understand our marine environments and how ocean conservation is driving a “blue economy” to deliver clean energy and sustainable food production across the globe.

NOAA grants and funding are particularly important for Colorado’s young scholars. Across all 50 states, Colorado lies at nearly rock bottom — number 49 — when it comes to state funding for colleges and universities. That means our students and professors rely on NOAA-funded research and other grant programs to provide the top-tier education and workforce training that Coloradans are proud to call our own.

Beyond its critical contribution to science and research funding, NOAA is also a major employer in Colorado; many of our top scientists work in research and service centers across the state, including weather forecasting offices in Denver, fire technology testing hubs in Boulder, and meteorology data centers in Fort Collins.

Coloradans are resilient — we don’t shy away from adversity or buckle under the weight of challenge. Our communities are standing on the frontlines of some of climate change’s most threatening impacts and we are prepared to face them with determination and strength. But as we face these challenges, Colorado must be able to count on NOAA as the trusted partner it has been for more than 50 years. Reliable climate monitoring data, scientifically sound research, and accurate weather forecasting will be absolutely essential to the decisions we make about our shared future.

Now is the time to invest in and strengthen NOAA — not diminish it or sacrifice it to this reckless agenda. Local Coloradans and our elected representatives, including Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper and every Coloradan in the House of Representatives, regardless of party, must stand up to protect NOAA, protect our safety and livelihoods, and protect our communities for many generations to come.

Karen Barton is a professor in the Department of Geography, GIS, & Sustainability at the University of Northern Colorado, a first-generation scholar, and a sustainability advocate based in Northern Colorado.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Opinion: Don’t tip the scales in Colorado to big unions or to big business in this labor fight

Newton’s third law of motion — for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction — applies as much to politics as it does physics. After the Colorado Senate voted to strip workers’ choice protections from the 82-year-old Labor Peace Act, the Independence Institute launched an initiative to bring them back.

Up until now, Colorado has straddled the fence between the right-to-bargain seaboard and factory belt states and the right-to-work states of the south, Midwest, and Rocky Mountains. In right-to-bargain states, once a majority vote to have union representation, all employees must pay union collective bargaining fees as a condition of employment whether or not they are union members. In right-to-work states, employees are free to join a union and pay collective bargaining fees, but they cannot be compelled to do so.

Colorado’s unique law allows employees to unionize after a simple majority vote. In order to collect collective bargaining fees from non-union members, there must be a second vote with 75% of employees agreeing. This two-vote system gives non-union members a voice. If a large minority of workers does not believe that collective bargaining is in their best interest, they can vote to prevent the union from extracting fees for that purpose.

Colorado’s law as written has protected both the majority’s choice to form a union and the minority’s choice to not pay the fees. The onus is on the union to make a strong case that its collective bargaining efforts will truly benefit employees and be worth the fees. Unions aren’t always persuasive. Analysis by the Colorado Sun of second votes taken in recent decades found the second vote fails nearly half of the time. In the past five years, 16 of the 25 union security votes have passed.

Senate Bill 5, which recently passed the Senate, would remove the second vote and the minority protection it provides. If it becomes law, a bare majority of employees who want union representation could force the remainder to contribute against their will. The bill is sure to pass in the more left-leaning House but could face the governor’s veto. Governor Polis has been skeptical of the bill, preferring the status quo.

In 2007, Governor Ritter vetoed similar legislation. A year later, business advocates placed a right-to-work initiative on the ballot but pulled it when union groups teed up two of their own initiatives.

The Independence Institute is less likely to back down. Initiative 12, which will make Colorado a right-to-work state, goes to their core value of freedom. They believe no one should be forced to pay a fee to an organization to which they do not belong to provide a service they don’t want as a condition of keeping of job.

The think tank has the resources to undertake the signature gathering necessary for a constitutional amendment. They will emphasize the fact that right-to-work states tend to have lower unemployment and higher economic growth. Companies are also keen to relocate to states where unions are less influential.

These benefits are not without costs. Right-to-work laws correlate with lower unionization rates. Fewer people opt to contribute to collective bargaining efforts. With diminished union power, wages and benefits tend to be lower than those in right-to-bargain states.

The debate comes down to two competing and compelling values: the right of individuals to choose not to contribute to an organization with which they disagree and the right of individuals to effectively bargain together for higher wages and benefits. It’s not an easy choice.

The Labor Peace Act was aptly named. It struck the right balance, a balance Senate Bill 5 and Initiative 12 threaten to tip.

Krista L. Kafer is a weekly Denver Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter: @kristakafer.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.