It both seems like yesterday and forever ago* that Quinnipiac University became the center of a quite consequential Title IX case. In 2010 the university cut its women's volleyball team and, to remain in compliance with Title IX (the opportunities part not the rest of the laundry list) turn cheerleading into an intercollegiate varsity sport. We blogged extensively about it at the time and even went to one day of the trial! (Use the Quinnipiac tag for a look back.) More recently(ish) both Erin and I talked to Reo Eveleth for the podcast Sports Explain the World for their episode Cheering For Themselves about the case and the rise of cheerleading (and its manifestations STUNT and acrobatics and tumbling). Sadly we did not make the final cut but we were credited for the information we shared, which is appreciated.
There were other issues raised in that case including roster management techniques (i.e., inflating roster number for compliance purposes). Ultimately the school was not allowed to eliminate the volleyball team or elevate cheerleading--in its then form--to varsity status for the purpose of Title IX. They did agree to put more resources into their women's sports which has certainly paid off (seemingly given that I have not seen the budget 😉) for the women's ice hockey team who has become a perennial contender for titles.
As a reminder, a school can choose which teams to sponsor. The issue with 2010 Quinnipiac was that it wanted to trade out a recognized sport for an activity that was not considered a sport.
The Quinnipiac of 2026 has announced that it is moving varsity women's rugby (added in...2011) to club status next year and creating an indoor/outdoor men's distance track program within its current offerings for track. The rugby team has started a Title IX lawsuit that includes a claim of retaliation because of the coach's complaints about inequities and of course, the actual inequities. It will be interesting to see how this proceeds. QU can cut any women's team it wants as long as it remains in compliance with proportionality and no one seems to be contesting that (that I have seen in the reporting; I have also not run the numbers which in itself would be complicated because it is unclear how many spots are being offered to men's track).
In short, it seems like they have to prove that the status change was retaliation. That is a high bar based on what we have seen over the many years of retaliation claims. They might have great evidence--we don't know yet. A recent settlement that the school made with the women's lacrosse coach, who also claimed retaliation, might have given the team confidence that they could succeed. But even if they do, I am unsure whether this would result in the team being reinstated (versus receiving compensation or some other remedy).
Of note is that the lawsuit names, among others, the current (newish) president of the university, Dr. Marie Hardin. I did not know that Dr. Hardin had taken an administrative turn (years ago apparently as a dean at Penn State). The last time I spoke with her was for her study on sports blogs. She is a sports communications scholar who has done a lot of work on women's sports and the role of gender in sports media coverage. It must be a little awkward for her to be on the other side of a Title IX lawsuit in her current position. Also, women's rugby is hot right now. Not a great look to decrease institutional support for it. No comment from President Hardin or the university because it is pending legislation.
I do not predict this case will be as big as the cheerleading case, but I am curious to see what is coming.
* kind of like my blogging history. Le sigh. I am trying to do better. I have a lot of draft posts. I am posting slightly more often (i.e. more than once a year) on After Atalanta.
