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 statutes to remedy disparate and discriminatory treatment employees (in educational institutions) face. 

I am speaking only of higher ed here (though I do not imagine it is better in K-12) where the list of employees I know, or complaints I hear about, just keeps growing. As a reminder, if an institution has a large number of complaints, there is, as they say, "something in the water." In other words, there is a culture in a department, a division/college, or the institution as a whole, in which discrimination is allowed to continue. 

Hostile environments seem to be flourishing which means the people in charge are not doing their jobs. The remedy to this is supposed to be the complaint process. But the investigations process just seems so fraught. Title IX offices, where it is possible that maybe those in that office are more equity-minded and committed to creating better environments and stymying discrimination, are not the ones doing a lot of crucial investigations, ie., the ones brought by employees. Those go to Human Resources who sometimes do the investigations in house, but will also contract them out to businesses that specialize in this work. (I am curious about the data on this but imagine it is hard to come by. it seems like maybe it is better this way, but who knows. Ultimately, HR makes a decision from whatever report emerges from the outside investigation so...)

As I tell the students in my classes when we talk about ethical behavior in the workplace, you should definitely report unethical--including discriminatory--behavior you experience or witness to HR (because documentation is important). But always remember HR is on the side of the institution. They are protecting the institution. So when investigations or reports from investigations get turned over to them, that is the approach they take. 

What has inspired this little soapbox post? This story of a graduate assistant coach suing her institution which failed in its duty to effectively investigate her Title IX claim. Graduate students have so little power and occupy line-blurring positions as employees and students. (I am just beginning some research on graduate athletic trainers and it is not a good situation for them, especially for women.) 

In this situation, the graduate student, a woman, was serving as an assistant coach for the football team at Ohio Dominican University. She alleges that she was physically attacked by a member of the team who made forceful physical contact with her (causing bruising on her neck which she documented) and grabbed her bag to search the contents. The event was witnessed by another graduate student. She reported it to the football coach and to the Title IX office which assigned the investigation to...the coach; the man who is the supervisor of the complainant and the educator of the student being accused. Huge conflicts of interest there PLUS that fact that (as far as I can tell) he has no investigation experience or training. 

Things went as expected. The coach did not think, based on his own personal definition of assault as resulting in blood or severe bruising, the attack rose to the level of, well an attack. Title IX office agreed it did not meet the criteria of a Title IX violation and turned it over to student conduct. Coach equated it to a sister/brother scuffle and asked the graduate assistant what SHE could have done differently in the situation. She was retaliated against by the school and coaching staff in particular. Her mother filed a retaliation claim on her behalf and then the coach called and said the grad student no longer had a job. 

So the grad assistant sued. 

My highbrow, academic take: schools are dumb. Too broad? This school's employees acted unwisely and illegally! (Like so many other institutions.) This woman likely just wanted the situation addressed; the player punished, maybe a no-contact order. She did not money as compensation. She wanted to keep her job and feel safe--like everyone does; like what all of us who are employees deserve and are guaranteed under various laws--including Title IX. 

And because this now a lawsuit, other issues are being raised,* like her inequitable compensation. And if there is any justice, the grad student will get heaps of money. Though, it will likely be in the form of a settlement in which the university does not admit guilt. Will it compensate for the treatment she received from the university? The damage this coach will do to her future employment chances? Probably not. And that brings me back to....

Institutions need to do a better job at eliminating hostile environments. Get rid of employees who perpetuate these environments. As a unionist who has seen so many bogus claims (often against the least powerful employees) know that I do not make that statement lightly. At my institution that coach would be a union member, but so would the grad student. They would both deserve and get due process and representation (yay unions!)

 But honestly, the worst problems exist higher up among the people who ignore or write off or spin complaints against management employees (i.e., their colleagues). Administrators who have power can use it in retaliatory ways; or they simply ignore problems. This is how hostile environments are created. These are the environments in which bad things happen to those who are the most vulnerable. 

* Dear institutions, 

When you do not address the bad behavior happening on your campuses and those issues get elevated to higher and more official levels, MORE of your bad behavior comes to light. 

The SCOTUS Ruling on Trans Girls/Women in Sports

 [cross posted on After Atalanta]

 Though the Supreme Court ruling allowing states to ban trans girls and women from school-sponsored sports was not surprising, it is disappointing. We can know something horrible and frightening and violent is coming and still be sad and angry and despondent when it arrives. (Remember those months between the 2024 election and the inauguration??)

As many have said in the lead up to this case and the intervening months since the arguments and now that the decision has been released, it is children who will suffer the most from this decision. I wonder if starkness of this discrimination is greater now that the ruling has been issued? Will anyone pause and say: wait, we allow every other kid to play sports regardless of ability and differences* in biology, but not these kids because we hold certain (unfounded) beliefs about what they can do? The complete obfuscation of the range of human abilities that are based on SO MANY factors that are impossible to disaggregate by the court is astounding. 

Many, many other people and organizations re writing about this so to keep it short, I end with two quick reminders:

1. This WILL affect all girls and so by that logic (as the lower courts pointed out) it does discriminate on the basis of sex because only girls will be subject to verification. But what that verification looks like is unknown and I assume will differ across states. But it will be invasive and a form of violence. The government sanctioned surveillance of women's and girls' bodies continues rather shamelessly.

2. This is the latest legal ruling that serves the longer conservative plan to eradicate trans people. By denying rights and legal status to trans people, by enshrining legal discrimination, it is clear that their goal is to take away personhood. 

Right now this ruling, because it included reference to Title IX, only applies to schools receiving federal funding. While, of course, school sports should be inclusive, in places which uphold or create bans on trans girls, pro-inclusion folks can make other options available--for free. It does not make the ruling--and the ideology behind it--ok, but creativity and action in the face of oppression can be empowering; it can create community; it can create change. 

* I know inclusive and adaptive sports vary in availability and successful implementation, but there is a law that says that people with disabilities must be accommodated. This is a great time for me to heartily (re?)recommend Crip Camp (available on Netflix) for a great history of the disability rights movement in the United States as well as how it takes just a smidge of creativity and an inclusive mindset to enact inclusion. 

Oh, Quinnipiac

 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.