I, too, read the news that Orange County, North Carolina schools had been given a clean Title IX bill of health. This article from the Chapel Hill News goes so far as to say that any statistical disparities favored girls--but not the detriment of boys.
Notes the writer: "[girls'] coaches were paid more than coaches of boys' teams when compared to the proportion of students participating in athletics by sex (excluding football)." (emphasis added)
So this is a little confusing. Orange County clearly met one of the three prongs regarding equitable opportunities. But it was not necessarily proportionality. How does this affect our understanding of the above statement? (And as Erin noted, just because it seems that salaries are equitable, does not mean there was not discrimination against the one fired coach--the catalyst for this investigation.) And more importantly, why was football excluded from these calculations? And how many other statistics do not include football?
I haven't been able to find any answers yet, but would love to be enlightened.
An interdisciplinary resource for news, legal developments, commentary, and scholarship about Title IX, the federal statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded schools.
Bad investigations
The more I learn about the ins and outs of Title IX (and Title VI) investigations, the more pessimistic I become about the ability of these...
-
Three former employees of Feather River College (Quincy, California) pressed their Title IX retaliation claims at a two-week hearing before...
-
The NCAA has come out with a very clear position on sexual relationships between coaches and student-athletes. They are wrong. They are a ...
-
In one of the more curious things I have seen in regard to Title IX rule-making, the Department of Energy is attempting to issue a change t...