Plain Language for US Center for SafeSport?
The Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics (CSUSOP) public hearing occurred on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, Sept. 6, 2023.
After “listening” to U.S. Center for SafeSport CEO Ju'Riese Colón’s testimony, I decided to tell her about my experience with SafeSport when the Commission called for a lunch break.
Read the Associated Press article to learn more about SafeSport in this hearing.
After introducing myself to Colon, I told her I had to take at least one SafeSport abuse awareness and prevention course because I was the Team Leader of the USA Deaf Tennis Team in the 2022 Deaflympics in Brazil.
Despite my intelligence, I skipped three courses before finding a more accessible one. At that time, I took a few paragraphs from one course and put them in Grammarly’s readability score on the Flesch reading ease test. The result was likely to be understood by a reader with at least some college education. Still, it may not be easy to read.
Suddenly, Colon interrupted my explanation and agreed entirely with me that these courses should follow the federal Plain Writing Act of 2010, which requires federal agencies to write “clear government communication that the public can understand and use.”
Since the Empowering Olympic, Paralympic, and Amateur Athletes Act requires the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee to contribute $20 million yearly to SafeSport, Colon explained that the legal team reviewed the original courses. Still, she demands that these courses be revised to enable thousands of sports volunteers who need a college education to understand.
I thanked her and realized I had delivered my request to her in person instead of emailing or mailing it.
Watch the video "A Conversation on Amplifying Athlete Voices for a Safer Sport Culture."
How did I know about the Plain Writing Act of 2010?
Question 5 on the 2012 Maryland statewide election ballot read, “Establishes the boundaries for the State’s eight United States Congressional Districts based on recent census figures, as required by the United States Constitution.”
Surprisingly, the controversy over ballot Question 5 was heard during the 2018 hearing on the Maryland redistricting case, Benisek v. Lamone, before the United States Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Glover Roberts Jr. questioned whether the wording of the ballot question was “opaque.”
Justice Stephen Breyer quoted the actual question:
“Are you for or are you against the following text: Establishes the boundaries for the State’s eight United States congressional districts based on recent Census figures, as required by the United States Constitution?”
He argued, “It doesn’t even tell you there what establishes it.”
Two years later, in 2020, I wrote a commentary, “Supporting Plain Language Requirement for Petitions and Ballot Questions.”
Last year, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan signed the bill “requiring State and local agencies to use plain language in public communications about health, safety, and social services benefits.”