A short but somewhat informative article about the issues surrounding competitive cheerleading and its potential to resolve some schools' Title IX issues around opportunities. Appropriate given the recent attempt by Quinnipiac to earn compliance by cutting a more traditional sport (volleyball) and add cheerleading.
This article focuses on high schools, though it does mention Maryland, which became the first college or university to elevate competitive cheer to varsity status a few years ago.
Across the country 15 states (or rather their high school athletics/activities associations) have sanctioned competitive cheerleading as a varsity sport. Pennsylvania is considering adding the sport and currently doing research into how it would affect equity issues and how other states have implemented it.
The addition of cheerleading has been called "a quick fix" and this is part of the problem. Why schools/states/administrators think that it is so easy to implement cheerleading over some other sport is curious to me. It needs, like every other sport, a coach, practice facility, travel, per diem, uniforms, trainers and doctors, etc. Quick fix makes me wonder whether competitive cheerleading, once elevated to varsity status, will truly receive equitable treatment.
One of the other issues, as brought up by Title IX expert Peg Pennypacker, is whether cheerleading, even competitive cheerleading, is truly achieving the equity Title IX mandates. Or as she asks, is it really in the spirit of Title IX which sought to provide opportunities to activities from which women have historically been denied or given limited access. Only in the very early days of cheerleading were women banned and even then cheerleading was what it said it was: leading cheers on the sidelines.
Also those who are competitive cheerleaders cannot be sidelines cheerleaders. That means there may be a whole lot of cheerleaders around a school. Or there will be an elimination of sidelines cheerleading. Which kind of makes me wonder what exactly is the role and purpose of cheerleading these days?
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Volleyball Reinstated at QU, Men's Track Eliminated
After being temporarily enjoined from cutting the women's volleyball program, Quinnipiac University has decided to permanently reinstate the team. This move will likely result in a settlement of the Title IX lawsuit against the university, according to the volleyball team's lawyers from the ACLU of Connecticut.
However, ACLU is criticizing the decision to simultaneously cut the men's outdoor track team as a "false choice that unnecessarily pits men athletes against women athletes," since they had presented evidence that the athletic department could meet their budget targets without cutting any teams. Indoor track had already been eliminated, at the same time the volleyball cut was announced.
Quinnipiac has also announced plans to review for accuracy the participation figures that the athletic department reports to the Department of Education. This decision responds to the court's finding that some men's teams actually carried more players than were reported, while some women's teams were forced to carry "extra" players without the corresponding support and resources to provide them with genuine opportunities. Quinnipiac wisely chose an official from outside the athletic department (specifically, the VP of Academic Affairs) to lead this review effort.
However, ACLU is criticizing the decision to simultaneously cut the men's outdoor track team as a "false choice that unnecessarily pits men athletes against women athletes," since they had presented evidence that the athletic department could meet their budget targets without cutting any teams. Indoor track had already been eliminated, at the same time the volleyball cut was announced.
Quinnipiac has also announced plans to review for accuracy the participation figures that the athletic department reports to the Department of Education. This decision responds to the court's finding that some men's teams actually carried more players than were reported, while some women's teams were forced to carry "extra" players without the corresponding support and resources to provide them with genuine opportunities. Quinnipiac wisely chose an official from outside the athletic department (specifically, the VP of Academic Affairs) to lead this review effort.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Stolen Bases: Why American Girls Don't Play Baseball
The topic of women and baseball is one frequently mentioned on this blog; just recently we posted about the Indiana teenager whose lawsuit integrated high school baseball in her state. There's also been much buzz lately about the International Baseball Federation's campaign to make women's baseball an Olympic sport (see, e.g., here, here, and here). It seems like the perfect time to plug Jennifer Ring's Stolen Baseball: Why American Girls Don't Play Baseball (University of Illinois Press, 2009).
From Stolen Bases, I learned that contrary to popular mythology, baseball was not invented in Cooperstown by Civil War hero Abner Doubleday. Rather, it evolved from the British sport of rounders, which was played by males and females alike. But in the early 1900s, the efforts of Albert Spalding -- of sporting goods fame -- to promote baseball as the "national passtime" positioned the sport as a means of masculinization and colonialism. ("He articulated a mission for American baseball men: use the sport to teach men from nonwhite races and non-European cultures to become civilized and rational on a while American middle-class model.") In fact, Spalding himself promoted the Doubleday myth to make the sport more uniquely American and exclusively masculine.
Meanwhile, men invented softball as a way to play baseball indoors during the winter. But the indoor version was so obviously a "pale imitation" of the real thing that it could be inclusive of women without tainting the association of baseball and manhood. Early physical educators endorsed also softball as a sport for appropriate for girls, which, Ring explains, "solved the problem of how to get exercise to the average, nonathletic girl without running the risk of supporting 'games of strife' that make America's girls too competitive, brave, strong, and passionate about something not in the service of men and family. And it was played indoors, discretely out of the view of spectators." Moreover, promoting softball for girls had the effect of redirecting women's documented interest and enthusiasm for baseball into a different sport, insidiously marginalizing them from the "national" passtime. Softball has come a long way since its early days as a safe, indoor game; women can now play the sport for college glory and on the Olympic stage (until 2012, anyway). But as a sport it clearly doesn't rival baseball in terms of its cultural significance. Baseball is the sport that receives media attention, that provides the backdrop for family bonding and business meetings, that serves its players as role models for boys and girls, and that offers salaried employment to thousands of athletes.
The paradigm of baseball/boys: softball/girls is so ingrained as to be rarely questioned or challenged. There are no legal restrictions to women's participation in baseball, as Ring explains. Lawsuits invoking the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause lead to the integration of Little League in the 1970s, and Title IX's regulations do not allow schools to exclude girls from trying out for baseball as they do for some contact sports. It is simply a matter of "preference" that keeps girls and women interested in softball instead of baseball. Of course, after reading the history of both sports as presented by Ring, it is clear that this "preference" has been, and continues to be, constructed by social forces that operate with the interests of men, not women, in mind. The few girls who defy the gendered convention and play baseball in Little League and even into high school likely "choose" to switch to softball in order to play at the college level. Women could, collectively, assert their right to participate visibly in baseball, and for college and Olympic opportunities to do so. But because there is no critical mass of women in the sport, individual women have little incentive to sacrifice the opportunity to participate in the established sport of sotball in order to do so.
Ring's final point is that, despite channelling effect of softball, women do play baseball -- "you just have to look hard to find them." There are regional leagues playing in obscurity (Ring calls it an "underground") and a women's national team that plays under the aegis of USA Baseball, the sport's national governing body, in a biennial women's world cup (a literal "world series"). It won't be easy to create -- or even envision -- a world where girls and boys can make a free and legitimate choice between two different sports, but after reading Ring's Stolen Bases, I believe that support and exposure to the girls who already do or want to play the game is a necessary first step.
From Stolen Bases, I learned that contrary to popular mythology, baseball was not invented in Cooperstown by Civil War hero Abner Doubleday. Rather, it evolved from the British sport of rounders, which was played by males and females alike. But in the early 1900s, the efforts of Albert Spalding -- of sporting goods fame -- to promote baseball as the "national passtime" positioned the sport as a means of masculinization and colonialism. ("He articulated a mission for American baseball men: use the sport to teach men from nonwhite races and non-European cultures to become civilized and rational on a while American middle-class model.") In fact, Spalding himself promoted the Doubleday myth to make the sport more uniquely American and exclusively masculine.
Meanwhile, men invented softball as a way to play baseball indoors during the winter. But the indoor version was so obviously a "pale imitation" of the real thing that it could be inclusive of women without tainting the association of baseball and manhood. Early physical educators endorsed also softball as a sport for appropriate for girls, which, Ring explains, "solved the problem of how to get exercise to the average, nonathletic girl without running the risk of supporting 'games of strife' that make America's girls too competitive, brave, strong, and passionate about something not in the service of men and family. And it was played indoors, discretely out of the view of spectators." Moreover, promoting softball for girls had the effect of redirecting women's documented interest and enthusiasm for baseball into a different sport, insidiously marginalizing them from the "national" passtime. Softball has come a long way since its early days as a safe, indoor game; women can now play the sport for college glory and on the Olympic stage (until 2012, anyway). But as a sport it clearly doesn't rival baseball in terms of its cultural significance. Baseball is the sport that receives media attention, that provides the backdrop for family bonding and business meetings, that serves its players as role models for boys and girls, and that offers salaried employment to thousands of athletes.
The paradigm of baseball/boys: softball/girls is so ingrained as to be rarely questioned or challenged. There are no legal restrictions to women's participation in baseball, as Ring explains. Lawsuits invoking the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause lead to the integration of Little League in the 1970s, and Title IX's regulations do not allow schools to exclude girls from trying out for baseball as they do for some contact sports. It is simply a matter of "preference" that keeps girls and women interested in softball instead of baseball. Of course, after reading the history of both sports as presented by Ring, it is clear that this "preference" has been, and continues to be, constructed by social forces that operate with the interests of men, not women, in mind. The few girls who defy the gendered convention and play baseball in Little League and even into high school likely "choose" to switch to softball in order to play at the college level. Women could, collectively, assert their right to participate visibly in baseball, and for college and Olympic opportunities to do so. But because there is no critical mass of women in the sport, individual women have little incentive to sacrifice the opportunity to participate in the established sport of sotball in order to do so.
Ring's final point is that, despite channelling effect of softball, women do play baseball -- "you just have to look hard to find them." There are regional leagues playing in obscurity (Ring calls it an "underground") and a women's national team that plays under the aegis of USA Baseball, the sport's national governing body, in a biennial women's world cup (a literal "world series"). It won't be easy to create -- or even envision -- a world where girls and boys can make a free and legitimate choice between two different sports, but after reading Ring's Stolen Bases, I believe that support and exposure to the girls who already do or want to play the game is a necessary first step.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Low priority setting for gymnastics?
A federal complaint has been filed alleging that the Rapid City School District in Iowa is violating Title IX by treating the gymnastics team as a low priority. The complaint cites the lower salaries received by gymnastics coaches as well as the lack of adequate locker rooms and practice space.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Judge Grants Injunction to Save Qunnipiac Volleyball
Quinnipiac University women's volleyball will remain a varsity sport, for another season anyway, after federal district court judge Stephan Underhill granted the preliminary injunction the team was seeking to stave off the university's effort to terminate the sport for budgetary reasons.
The judge determined that the volleyball plaintiffs satisfied their burden of showing a likely success on the merits of their claim that QU cannot cut women's volleyball and still comply with Title IX, which for QU meant demonstrating proportionality in the number of athletic opportunities afforded to women and men. Though the judge was not persuaded by the plaintiffs' challenge to QU's plans to count newly-added competitive cheerleading squad as athletic opportunities (he stated that they "do not appear likely to prevail" in that argument) he did agree that QU likely would not satisfy the proportionality test because of its roster management policy. "The plaintiffs in this case offered credible testimony that the athletic department’s roster management numbers did not accurately reflect the actual number of genuine participation opportunities available to both genders at Quinnipiac," the judge wrote in the ruling. The practice of setting minimum "floors" for women's teams, in particular, did not create "genuine opportunities to participate." In the case of women's softball, for example, those extra players added for proportionality purposes were cut from the team after the first day of the season, when numbers are reported. On the other side, QU instituted caps the size of on some of their men's teams, which also proved meaningless because players were added above the cap after the numbers were reported on the first day of the season. Thus, said, the judge, he had "no confidence" that the numbers QU reported to the Department of Education under the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, which provided the basis for QU's proportionality calculations, were accurate reflection of athletic opportuntities at QU.
Litigation is not over, as the court will now proceed to evaluate the merits of the plaintiffs' case for a permanent injunction. I haven't seen a timetable, but I expect the court will issue one relatively soon.
The judge determined that the volleyball plaintiffs satisfied their burden of showing a likely success on the merits of their claim that QU cannot cut women's volleyball and still comply with Title IX, which for QU meant demonstrating proportionality in the number of athletic opportunities afforded to women and men. Though the judge was not persuaded by the plaintiffs' challenge to QU's plans to count newly-added competitive cheerleading squad as athletic opportunities (he stated that they "do not appear likely to prevail" in that argument) he did agree that QU likely would not satisfy the proportionality test because of its roster management policy. "The plaintiffs in this case offered credible testimony that the athletic department’s roster management numbers did not accurately reflect the actual number of genuine participation opportunities available to both genders at Quinnipiac," the judge wrote in the ruling. The practice of setting minimum "floors" for women's teams, in particular, did not create "genuine opportunities to participate." In the case of women's softball, for example, those extra players added for proportionality purposes were cut from the team after the first day of the season, when numbers are reported. On the other side, QU instituted caps the size of on some of their men's teams, which also proved meaningless because players were added above the cap after the numbers were reported on the first day of the season. Thus, said, the judge, he had "no confidence" that the numbers QU reported to the Department of Education under the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, which provided the basis for QU's proportionality calculations, were accurate reflection of athletic opportuntities at QU.
Litigation is not over, as the court will now proceed to evaluate the merits of the plaintiffs' case for a permanent injunction. I haven't seen a timetable, but I expect the court will issue one relatively soon.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Texas School District Under Investigation
The Grapevine-Colleyville Independent School District in Texas is currently being investigated by the Office for Civil Rights, which received allegations that that district has discriminated against female athletes by offering fewer opportunities and by providing girls teams with inferior facilities, specifically with regards to softball. According to this article, more girls' teams than boys' temas have mandatory cuts, and a recently survey revealed that among female nonathletes in the district, 65% cited lack of opportunity as the reason why they did not participate in sports. If the GCISD relies on prong three to demonstrate compliance (as most schools do), this evidence of unmet interest would certainly call that compliance into question.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
School District Settles Lesbian Harassment Case
The Vallejo City Unified School District in California will pay a former student, Rochelle Hamilton, $25,000 in a settlement to keep her from filing a lawsuit over anti-gay harassment she alleges to have experienced at the hands of faculty and staff during her sophomore year at Jesse Bethel High School. Hamilton says that teachers forced her to attend a counseling session for gay students where the counselor pressured her to disavow her lesbian sexual orientation. She also says that teachers verbally harassed her, calling her "ungodly" and telling her that she is "going to hell" and that she "can get HIV/AIDS from being gay and messing with female." She was also barred from the girls' locker room because she was not wearing stereotypically feminine attire.
The school district engaged an external investigation into Hamilton's claims; and while the investigation report is confidential, it reportedly concluded that some of the claims had merit and some did not. Apparently, however, the findings were sufficiently negative to motivate the school district to preempt the lawsuit with a settlement. In addition to the $25,000 it will pay Hamilton, the district has also agreed to revamp its harassment policies.
The school district engaged an external investigation into Hamilton's claims; and while the investigation report is confidential, it reportedly concluded that some of the claims had merit and some did not. Apparently, however, the findings were sufficiently negative to motivate the school district to preempt the lawsuit with a settlement. In addition to the $25,000 it will pay Hamilton, the district has also agreed to revamp its harassment policies.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Indiana State suspends tennis
Cut has become the latest dirty word in intercollegiate athletics. Perhaps that is why Indiana State University has "indefinitely suspended" men's and women's tennis. Budgetary issues was the reason behind the suspension of the two teams which were chosen because they would have the minimum amount of impact on student-athletes and coaches.
The athletic director has said the cuts will not affect the university's Title IX compliance. We shall see. The student population is nearly 50/50 women and men but women receive only 41 percent of athletic opportunities, at least according to data from 2007-08.
The athletic director has said the cuts will not affect the university's Title IX compliance. We shall see. The student population is nearly 50/50 women and men but women receive only 41 percent of athletic opportunities, at least according to data from 2007-08.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Indiana Girls May Try Out for Baseball
Earlier this month, the Indiana High School Athletic Association voted unanimously to make permanent its executive board's emergency ruling (see also here) issued in February that would allow girls to try out for baseball, even if they attend schools that offer opportunities in softball. As we've noted in prior posts, the decision was reached after a 14-year-old girl named Logan Young filed suit in federal court after she was barred by IHSAA's prior rules from trying out for her school's baseball team. Young, represented by Public Justice* and Philadelphia law firm Hangley, Aronchick, Segal & Pudlin** argued that baseball and softball are not "comparable sports" as they require different fields, different equipment, and have different rules and strategies. Now that the IHSAA has changed the baseball rule, however, Young has dropped her lawsuit.
But according to Young's lawyers, the IHSAA's remaining restrictions on girls' participation on boys teams continue to violate Title IX. Specifically, Title IX regulations require schools to allow girls to try out for boys teams in non-contact sports -- such as cross country, golf, swimming and diving, tennis, and track and field -- when there is no girls' team offered in that sport. Yet, this is prohibited under IHSAA rules as they currently stand. It will take another Logan Young to come along and pave the way for crossover participation in those sports.
* represented FGCU coaches
** represented Jennifer Harris against Penn State
But according to Young's lawyers, the IHSAA's remaining restrictions on girls' participation on boys teams continue to violate Title IX. Specifically, Title IX regulations require schools to allow girls to try out for boys teams in non-contact sports -- such as cross country, golf, swimming and diving, tennis, and track and field -- when there is no girls' team offered in that sport. Yet, this is prohibited under IHSAA rules as they currently stand. It will take another Logan Young to come along and pave the way for crossover participation in those sports.
* represented FGCU coaches
** represented Jennifer Harris against Penn State
Monday, May 18, 2009
Ruling expected this week
According to this snippet from USA Today, Judge Stefan Underhill will rule some time this week in the Quinnipiac University volleyball case. Underhill will decide whether to grant an injunction that would prevent the school from cutting the team until the Title IX issues have been resolved in court.
Regardless of his decision this week, it appears the team will go forth with its suit against the school.
Regardless of his decision this week, it appears the team will go forth with its suit against the school.
Nicholls State cuts women's golf
Down in Louisiana where state budget issues are forcing cuts in state institutions (familiar story by now) Nicholls State has dropped its women's golf team. The school is now down to 14 teams, the minimum number it can field and still be eligible for DI status.
No word on why women's golf was the team to get the ax and it is especially curious given the numbers Nicholls has reported to the Department of Education. (Remember, when an institution drops a team, it automatically disqualifies itself from compliance with prongs two and three.) But Nicholls is nowhere near proportionality. It's undergraduate student body is comprised of 60 percent women but female student-athletes only are afforded 40 percent of the athletic opportunities
No word on why women's golf was the team to get the ax and it is especially curious given the numbers Nicholls has reported to the Department of Education. (Remember, when an institution drops a team, it automatically disqualifies itself from compliance with prongs two and three.) But Nicholls is nowhere near proportionality. It's undergraduate student body is comprised of 60 percent women but female student-athletes only are afforded 40 percent of the athletic opportunities
Friday, May 15, 2009
Waiting game for QU volleyball
Arguments ended yesterday in the case against Quinnipiac University. The volleyball players will wait now to see if Judge Stefan Underhill will grant the injunction that would keep their team alive while litigation over Title IX compliance goes forward.
In closing arguments, QU's lawyer stated that Title IX does not mean schools can be told how to manage their budgets or which programs to keep or institute. A lawyer for the ACLU countered, in his closing arguments, that the judge must grant the injunction if it finds QU not in compliance with Title IX. He also noted that cheerleading is not an NCAA-sanctioned sport and thus cannot be counted toward Title IX compliance. (It's like they're reading my mind! Or at least my blog posts.)
Underhill did not offer a timetable for his decision.
In closing arguments, QU's lawyer stated that Title IX does not mean schools can be told how to manage their budgets or which programs to keep or institute. A lawyer for the ACLU countered, in his closing arguments, that the judge must grant the injunction if it finds QU not in compliance with Title IX. He also noted that cheerleading is not an NCAA-sanctioned sport and thus cannot be counted toward Title IX compliance. (It's like they're reading my mind! Or at least my blog posts.)
Underhill did not offer a timetable for his decision.
More Litigation in Sight For FGCU
Former Florida Gulf Coast University provost Bonnie Yegidis plans to file a lawsuit against the University, which would put FGCU back in the role of Title IX defendant with which it has become quite familiar.
In her complaint, Yegidis maintains that she too experienced retaliation for challenging sex discrimination in the University and for advocating both to the interim President and to the chancellor that FGCU take seriously the complaint of female coaches about the gender inequities in athletics. Yegidis also stood up for Wendy Morris, the university counsel who was terminated for trying to look into the athletics issue. When Yegidis continued her advocacy to the new President, Wilson Bradshaw, he responded by revoked the privileges and benefits as a member of the senior administration and asked for her to submit a letter resigning her position as provost. Yegidis maintains that this demotion and was retaliation for her efforts to challenge sex discrimination directed against her, Morris, and women in the athletic department, and that the university is liable for back pay and benefits, as well as compensation for the distress and humiliation she experienced.
In addition, Yegidis alleges that despite holding the second highest position in the university's administration, she was passed over for the position of interim President nor was she consulted in the decision to install Richard Pegnetter in that role. Yegidis also claims that under former President William Merwin, she experienced "sexually inappropriate comments, sexual intimidation, embarrassment and humiliation" including hearing from Merwin that "she showed too much boob" (Merwin denies making the statement.)
Yegidis is now the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Student Success at the University of Tennessee. Her retaliation charges are consistent with those of coaches Jaye Flood and Holly Vaugh, who received $3.4 million in settlement, as well as those of Wendy Morris, whose case settled for $850,000. I expect that Yegidis's suit to reach a similar conclusion, the open questions being how much and how long it will take for that to happen.
In her complaint, Yegidis maintains that she too experienced retaliation for challenging sex discrimination in the University and for advocating both to the interim President and to the chancellor that FGCU take seriously the complaint of female coaches about the gender inequities in athletics. Yegidis also stood up for Wendy Morris, the university counsel who was terminated for trying to look into the athletics issue. When Yegidis continued her advocacy to the new President, Wilson Bradshaw, he responded by revoked the privileges and benefits as a member of the senior administration and asked for her to submit a letter resigning her position as provost. Yegidis maintains that this demotion and was retaliation for her efforts to challenge sex discrimination directed against her, Morris, and women in the athletic department, and that the university is liable for back pay and benefits, as well as compensation for the distress and humiliation she experienced.
In addition, Yegidis alleges that despite holding the second highest position in the university's administration, she was passed over for the position of interim President nor was she consulted in the decision to install Richard Pegnetter in that role. Yegidis also claims that under former President William Merwin, she experienced "sexually inappropriate comments, sexual intimidation, embarrassment and humiliation" including hearing from Merwin that "she showed too much boob" (Merwin denies making the statement.)
Yegidis is now the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Student Success at the University of Tennessee. Her retaliation charges are consistent with those of coaches Jaye Flood and Holly Vaugh, who received $3.4 million in settlement, as well as those of Wendy Morris, whose case settled for $850,000. I expect that Yegidis's suit to reach a similar conclusion, the open questions being how much and how long it will take for that to happen.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Roster doctoring confirmed at QU
Yesterday in a court in Connecticut where the coach and members of the Quinnipiac women's volleyball team are trying to get an injunction against the school that would prevent administration from cutting the team until all legal issues are resolved, the QU athletic director took the stand.
Jack McDonald said that in the 2007-08 school year that men were cut from team rosters before the start of the season in order to meet gender equity standards--and then added back. But he said this manipulation was not approved or encouraged by the athletic administration; no one was told on the DL to engage in this practice. He also said that next year, when the undergrad population is at 63 percent women, the percentage of female athletes will be 62.
Also testifying was the coach of the women's cheerleading team who said that the stereotype of cheerleaders does not reflect the current reality of their activity. A video of a competition was shown to indicate the high level of physicality, strength, and skill involved. This is true. But as coach Mary Ann Powers admitted, the multiple organizations that govern and run competitions and the fact that she did not know how cheerleading might affect Title IX compliance are big issues here.
In an interesting moment Powers said that she thought it was unfortunate that other women degrade cheerleaders. So many issues in this one statement. First, it is not just "other women" who are perpetuating the stereotypes of cheerleaders. Said degradation by these other women--and I assume she is talking about female athletes in this context--also may be an attempt by these athletes to express their concern over cheerleaders potentially degrading their participation in their respective sports. In other words, some may feel that the designation of cheerleader as a sport hurts the more non-traditional sports other women participate in. Cheerleading confers a femininity guarantee no matter how many muscles those women need to hoist and throw and flip around; at the end of the day it is seen as a feminine activity in ways that remain largely unquestioned. Other sports do not have that privilege and other athletes have to fight their own stereotypes about women playing sports.
And finally, I usually find that the accusation from women towards other women about women not supporting women often hides the culpability of some of other people (i.e. men) and assumes that everything that every woman does should be supported by every other woman.
Still waiting for a final decision regarding the injunction, which we expect will come soon.
Jack McDonald said that in the 2007-08 school year that men were cut from team rosters before the start of the season in order to meet gender equity standards--and then added back. But he said this manipulation was not approved or encouraged by the athletic administration; no one was told on the DL to engage in this practice. He also said that next year, when the undergrad population is at 63 percent women, the percentage of female athletes will be 62.
Also testifying was the coach of the women's cheerleading team who said that the stereotype of cheerleaders does not reflect the current reality of their activity. A video of a competition was shown to indicate the high level of physicality, strength, and skill involved. This is true. But as coach Mary Ann Powers admitted, the multiple organizations that govern and run competitions and the fact that she did not know how cheerleading might affect Title IX compliance are big issues here.
In an interesting moment Powers said that she thought it was unfortunate that other women degrade cheerleaders. So many issues in this one statement. First, it is not just "other women" who are perpetuating the stereotypes of cheerleaders. Said degradation by these other women--and I assume she is talking about female athletes in this context--also may be an attempt by these athletes to express their concern over cheerleaders potentially degrading their participation in their respective sports. In other words, some may feel that the designation of cheerleader as a sport hurts the more non-traditional sports other women participate in. Cheerleading confers a femininity guarantee no matter how many muscles those women need to hoist and throw and flip around; at the end of the day it is seen as a feminine activity in ways that remain largely unquestioned. Other sports do not have that privilege and other athletes have to fight their own stereotypes about women playing sports.
And finally, I usually find that the accusation from women towards other women about women not supporting women often hides the culpability of some of other people (i.e. men) and assumes that everything that every woman does should be supported by every other woman.
Still waiting for a final decision regarding the injunction, which we expect will come soon.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
No irony at Fresno State
This editorial out of Fresno State wraps up the university's year in athletics noting the good, the bad, and the ugly.
After mentioning that he heard the word Title IX more times this year than ever in his life, and how it was blamed for the loss of sports and all the lawsuits, he writes that:
"ironically, the women’s sports brought most of the glory the school saw this year."
The success of women's sports at Fresno State is not ironic, it's poetic.
It's not women's sports that generated the controversy, it's the administration that refused to support them.
I guess a little support does go a long way.
After mentioning that he heard the word Title IX more times this year than ever in his life, and how it was blamed for the loss of sports and all the lawsuits, he writes that:
"ironically, the women’s sports brought most of the glory the school saw this year."
The success of women's sports at Fresno State is not ironic, it's poetic.
It's not women's sports that generated the controversy, it's the administration that refused to support them.
I guess a little support does go a long way.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Evidence in Quinnipiac case
A sort of PS to yesterday's post about the beginning of the women's volleyball team's attempt to get their sport reinstated at Quinnipiac University.
Coach Robin Sparks testified yesterday that the athletic department had engaged in some doctoring of team rosters in an attempt to make their participation numbers seem more equitable. She claims that some men's teams cut players days before the start of the season and then reinstates them a few days after the season has begun. First day numbers are the ones reported for public information.
She would not say which teams engaged in this practice and the athletic department would not comment on the allegations. If she is right, though, it should not be too difficult to prove: look at the numbers QU reports and then look at other things like game programs that list players, or how many student-athletes need hotel rooms for away games, or plane tickets, etc.
Coach Robin Sparks testified yesterday that the athletic department had engaged in some doctoring of team rosters in an attempt to make their participation numbers seem more equitable. She claims that some men's teams cut players days before the start of the season and then reinstates them a few days after the season has begun. First day numbers are the ones reported for public information.
She would not say which teams engaged in this practice and the athletic department would not comment on the allegations. If she is right, though, it should not be too difficult to prove: look at the numbers QU reports and then look at other things like game programs that list players, or how many student-athletes need hotel rooms for away games, or plane tickets, etc.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Quest for injunction began today
The ACLU began presenting its case for an injunction that would prevent Quinnipiac University from eliminating the women's volleyball team until the real issue, over Title IX compliance, is resolved. Testimony began today with at least one member of the volleyball team taking the stand. The case is expected to end by mid-week.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Three years, three complaints
I think repeat offender status can officially be placed on Darien High School in Connecticut which, this past week, was the subject of a third complaint (in as many years) to OCR regarding Title IX compliance. This complaint is being filed on behalf of all girls' varsity athletes at the high school. Previous complaints focused on the gymnastics, swimming, and softball teams. Complaint one in 2006 about the equitable treatment of the boys' and girls' swim team was found to have no merit. But the OCR, during its investigation did find that girls were not getting enough opportunities and this put Darien on OCR's radar screen. Not helping this visibility was complaint 2 that largely focused on facilities and practice times. This complaint has just been resolved though no one is talking about the details yet.
And now complaint three cites a hostile environment for all female athletes and female coaches at the high school but specifically softball, swimming, and gymnastics. A large part of the issue seems to be the lack of a pool or a dedicated gymnastics facility. This means these teams use outside facilities. Outside facilities have fees. And there has been talk of making the athletes bear the burden of these fees given the current economic realities. If more female athletes than male athletes are using outside facilities this results in female athletes bearing more of the financial burdens of the department.
And there seems to be general discontent with the way the Darien School District has handled the gender inequities over the past several years.
And now complaint three cites a hostile environment for all female athletes and female coaches at the high school but specifically softball, swimming, and gymnastics. A large part of the issue seems to be the lack of a pool or a dedicated gymnastics facility. This means these teams use outside facilities. Outside facilities have fees. And there has been talk of making the athletes bear the burden of these fees given the current economic realities. If more female athletes than male athletes are using outside facilities this results in female athletes bearing more of the financial burdens of the department.
And there seems to be general discontent with the way the Darien School District has handled the gender inequities over the past several years.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
No quality coach, program dropped
With the spate of recent teams being cut or dropped from school's varsity roster due to budget issues, this news out of Montana is an interesting change.
Miles Community College has dropped its women's volleyball program after unsuccessful three attempts at finding a qualified coach for the team. The program was restarted in 2005 but will again be dropped.
The school has said it is looking into possible sports to replace volleyball. On the list are soccer, cross-country, track & field, or even rodeo, which currently exists as a club sport. I don't believe rodeo is on the NCAA's list of approved or emerging sports for women. But then again, neither is competitive cheer!
Miles Community College has dropped its women's volleyball program after unsuccessful three attempts at finding a qualified coach for the team. The program was restarted in 2005 but will again be dropped.
The school has said it is looking into possible sports to replace volleyball. On the list are soccer, cross-country, track & field, or even rodeo, which currently exists as a club sport. I don't believe rodeo is on the NCAA's list of approved or emerging sports for women. But then again, neither is competitive cheer!
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Flip-flops III: Hawaii and Arizona looking at sand volleyball
The whole point of calling it sand volleyball, instead of beach volleyball, was to, according to the NCAA, make the newly named emerging sport a little more appealing to places not so sunny and ocean-y. But two schools actively considering adding the sport are sunny and warm: University of Hawaii and University of Arizona.
Both schools are seeking to add participation opportunities for women but the economic crisis has been an impediment, they say. And most are envisioning a cheap fix with sand volleyball. It is hard to blame them given the economy. But it is also coming off as a little, well, cheap. At times, the glee over how cheap it is going to be (in part because sand volleyball will likely draw repeat participants from indoor volleyball) reads a little bit like lack of commitment to women's sports. While I realize that cheap is good right now, and that cheaply adding a team to become compliant is better than cutting any team, in none of the articles I have read about adding men's teams (which is still happening) has there been any mention of how great it is to provide opportunities at bargain basement prices.
Such a mentality makes me worry about how sand volleyball teams will be treated once they get established. Remember all you schools seeking to add opportunities, participation is only one aspect of Title IX compliance. Quality of experience (measured in numerous ways like access to trainers, coaching, facilities) counts, too. And some of those things are not as cheap as they may seem right now.
Both schools are seeking to add participation opportunities for women but the economic crisis has been an impediment, they say. And most are envisioning a cheap fix with sand volleyball. It is hard to blame them given the economy. But it is also coming off as a little, well, cheap. At times, the glee over how cheap it is going to be (in part because sand volleyball will likely draw repeat participants from indoor volleyball) reads a little bit like lack of commitment to women's sports. While I realize that cheap is good right now, and that cheaply adding a team to become compliant is better than cutting any team, in none of the articles I have read about adding men's teams (which is still happening) has there been any mention of how great it is to provide opportunities at bargain basement prices.
Such a mentality makes me worry about how sand volleyball teams will be treated once they get established. Remember all you schools seeking to add opportunities, participation is only one aspect of Title IX compliance. Quality of experience (measured in numerous ways like access to trainers, coaching, facilities) counts, too. And some of those things are not as cheap as they may seem right now.
Monday, May 04, 2009
NYT addresses athletic department cuts
This weekend's NYT had an article on the spate of recent athletic department cuts including the many teams that have been lost to the economic recession.
But the effects go beyond the athletes and coaches of the cut teams. The article predicts that the cuts will "alter the college sports landscape" and further reveal and widen the gap between the haves and have-nots. Smaller programs risk losing any competitive edge.
NCAA President Myles Brand predicts that the net loss in teams will total 1 percent of all intercollegiate teams this year. (That's about 130 teams.) But we also have to remember the tremendous growth in the number of athletic teams and student-athletes. The article reveals some pretty startling statistics.
Some departments remain solvent, however, some so much so that they have been able to divert revenue back to the university. (Of course this idea of "back to the university" implies that athletic departments are separate entities; a problematic paradigm most of the time.)
But the effects go beyond the athletes and coaches of the cut teams. The article predicts that the cuts will "alter the college sports landscape" and further reveal and widen the gap between the haves and have-nots. Smaller programs risk losing any competitive edge.
NCAA President Myles Brand predicts that the net loss in teams will total 1 percent of all intercollegiate teams this year. (That's about 130 teams.) But we also have to remember the tremendous growth in the number of athletic teams and student-athletes. The article reveals some pretty startling statistics.
Some departments remain solvent, however, some so much so that they have been able to divert revenue back to the university. (Of course this idea of "back to the university" implies that athletic departments are separate entities; a problematic paradigm most of the time.)
UW cuts swimming
University of Washington, experiencing a budget shortfall similar to many--if not most--universities these days, has made the difficult decision to cut its men's and women's swim teams. The cuts were a surprise, especially given the recent growing success of the teams at the national level.
The elimination of swimming with save the department $1.2 million. It must cut, however, a total of $2.8 million.
On a side note, it's been interesting to see, as schools cut teams, how much they are allegedly saving. It just exemplifies the differences between DI schools and everyone else. Two teams, relatively low-cost teams, at the DI level cost $1.2 million. For some schools, that's their whole athletic department budget!
The elimination of swimming with save the department $1.2 million. It must cut, however, a total of $2.8 million.
On a side note, it's been interesting to see, as schools cut teams, how much they are allegedly saving. It just exemplifies the differences between DI schools and everyone else. Two teams, relatively low-cost teams, at the DI level cost $1.2 million. For some schools, that's their whole athletic department budget!
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Adding lacrosse because they can?
Pleased as we are to see schools that have the ability to add sports at this particular moment in our economic climate, the addition of men's lacrosse at Aurora University in Illinois is a little curious. Seems that they have an underused and quite expensive turf field and they need a team to run all over it. At least facilities won't be an issue.
But it seems that everything else will. For example there are not a whole lot of schools in the area playing lacrosse. Travel is not cheap these days. But the athletic director, who undertook a study of feasible additions, said lacrosse is a growing sport in the midwest and that by 2011, when the program is slated to start, there will likely be more schools fielding men's lacrosse.
Also, of course, at issue is gender equity. The writer of the above linked article does a very poor job explaining gender equity. His math isn't so hot either. He reports that there are 18 total teams, 8 for men and 8 for women and that adding men's lacrosse will, of course, throw off the balance. Once again I issue the reminder that number of teams does not equal equity. It's number of opportunities that are counted or whether the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex are being met or if the school has shown a history of expanding its women's program.
So adding men's lacrosse would not necessarily hurt Aurora University. But they're definitely going to have some explaining to do! Women comprise 67 percent of the undergraduate populating and currently receive 41 percent of the athletic opportunities. Adding men's lacrosse will skew these figures even more. There are plans to add women's lacrosse after the men's team is established. But this will not likely--unless they make the women's team really, really big--bring them closer to equity. It is possible, however, that upon adding women's lacrosse, Aurora will be able to claim compliance with prong 2: history of expansion. Still such a disparity should be raising a red flag somewhere.
If I were them, I would reconsider which program to implement first!
But it seems that everything else will. For example there are not a whole lot of schools in the area playing lacrosse. Travel is not cheap these days. But the athletic director, who undertook a study of feasible additions, said lacrosse is a growing sport in the midwest and that by 2011, when the program is slated to start, there will likely be more schools fielding men's lacrosse.
Also, of course, at issue is gender equity. The writer of the above linked article does a very poor job explaining gender equity. His math isn't so hot either. He reports that there are 18 total teams, 8 for men and 8 for women and that adding men's lacrosse will, of course, throw off the balance. Once again I issue the reminder that number of teams does not equal equity. It's number of opportunities that are counted or whether the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex are being met or if the school has shown a history of expanding its women's program.
So adding men's lacrosse would not necessarily hurt Aurora University. But they're definitely going to have some explaining to do! Women comprise 67 percent of the undergraduate populating and currently receive 41 percent of the athletic opportunities. Adding men's lacrosse will skew these figures even more. There are plans to add women's lacrosse after the men's team is established. But this will not likely--unless they make the women's team really, really big--bring them closer to equity. It is possible, however, that upon adding women's lacrosse, Aurora will be able to claim compliance with prong 2: history of expansion. Still such a disparity should be raising a red flag somewhere.
If I were them, I would reconsider which program to implement first!
Friday, May 01, 2009
Tenn county has to answer to disparities
A county in Tennessee has received a complaint regarding the treatment of its girls' soccer team. OCR is set to investigate as soon as the school turns in its own report. The school had already been undertaking a Title IX assessment.
But the complaint targets the perks some parents see the football team receiving and the lack of access the girls' soccer team, which has the season in the fall as well, receives.
The complaint about funding will likely go nowhere. Simply saying that football receives more money, as the complaint does, is not a violation. It is to be expected that a team with a much larger roster and more expensive equipment/uniform needs would receive more funding. There would be issue, however, if football was receiving funds to buy the highest quality equipment while soccer was getting only average equipment. But the exact nature of the funding disparities has not been explained.
The access to facilities complaint could be more salient in this case. Soccer players apparently are not receiving consistent access to locker rooms and practice facilities. Also at issue are practice times, booster club monies, and scheduling of games.
But the complaint targets the perks some parents see the football team receiving and the lack of access the girls' soccer team, which has the season in the fall as well, receives.
The complaint about funding will likely go nowhere. Simply saying that football receives more money, as the complaint does, is not a violation. It is to be expected that a team with a much larger roster and more expensive equipment/uniform needs would receive more funding. There would be issue, however, if football was receiving funds to buy the highest quality equipment while soccer was getting only average equipment. But the exact nature of the funding disparities has not been explained.
The access to facilities complaint could be more salient in this case. Soccer players apparently are not receiving consistent access to locker rooms and practice facilities. Also at issue are practice times, booster club monies, and scheduling of games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
