Female Wrestlers' Case Against UC Davis Goes to Trial

On Wednesday, a federal district court judge in California heard closing arguments in the trial to determine whether the University of California at Davis violated Title IX when it denied opportunities to female wrestlers in 2001. The case has been in litigation for a many years, and we have blogged about it several times (see here, here, here, and here.)

The plaintiffs in this case are three female, former student athletes who wrestled on the U.C. Davis team until they were cut in 2001. According to this article about the trial, there is conflicting testimony about whether then-athletic director told the then-wrestling coach Michael Burch to cut the women, or whether the coach decided to cut the women, who did not contribute points in wrestling meets, after being told by the AD that he had to reduce the size of the team. In response to protest, the athletic director granted them the right to try out for the team. Two of the women tried out but did not make the team, and a third did not try out.

What about this scenario could violate Title IX? On the one hand, the law does not require schools to have coed teams in contact sports like wrestling. And where the contact sport exception does not apply, female athletes athletes are limited to a right to try out for the men's team when it's the only team in that sport. But at the same time, universities have the obligation under Title IX to provide an equitable number of athletic opportunities to female athletes. Thus, UC Davis could have lawfully excluded women from the wrestling team, if it otherwise provided equitable opportunities to women. But because it did not, the plaintiffs argue, eliminating their opportunities to participate in wrestling violated the law.

Thus, what the judge will really be deciding is whether UC Davis's overall distribution of athletic opportunities complied with Title IX. Davis contends that it complied with prong two, which requires it to show a history and continuous practice of expanding opportunities for women. Plaintiffs' witnesses, including women's sports expert Donna Lopiano, testified that UC Davis's history of women's sports, which included going twenty years without adding any women's teams, then adding three at once in 1996, followed by outdoor track in 1998 and indoor track in 1999, does not qualify. According to the same article, however, another women's sports expert, Christine Grant, testified for UC Davis that the university deserved credit for adding three teams at once.

Other issues also bear on the question of UC Davis's proffered prong two compliance. Namely, the judge will also have to figure out whether the university had good reasons in the 1990s to cut two other women's teams and to reject petitions by women's club teams seeking elevation to varsity status. And the judge will have to figure out how much prong two credit to give to the university's decision to add indoor track as a women's sport in 1999. An appellate court has already ruled that a sport does not necessarily have to raise the number of actual athletes in order to count as new athletic opportunity for existing athletes to compete in another sport. But adding indoor track could still be questionable evidence of prong two compliance if it appears that the decision was motivated by the universities interest in efficiency (in that indoor track doubles as an off-season for other running sports) rather than in response to genuine student interest.

The judge's decision is expected in July.

Is Title IX Hurting Men? (No)

On Jezebel, Anna North provides perspective from Donna Lopiano on recent headlines blaming Title IX for universities' decisions to eliminate men's teams (see, e.g.). Lopiano blames the arms race in spending on men's basketball and football, which at Division I institutions receive 78% of the funding for men's sports. It's this kind of favoritism that results in schools having to cut teams in the first place, and the existing disparities in opportunities that still favor men, that put men's sports like wrestling and tennis on the chopping block. North reported that Lopiano succinctly replied "oh god no" when she asked her if Title IX should be modified. She didn't need to say more. Though the disrespect that schools show to when they choose to favor the 120-worst football player over their best male wrestlers and tennis players is deplorable, it's not a Title IX violation. It's a collective-action problem that, as Donna Lopiano points out, can be solved when Congress, the NCAA, and its member institutions agree to get it done.

Honestly, though, as much as I like reading Donna Lopiano's perspective on this issue, my favorite part of this post was in the comments at the end, when readers put the Title IX-cutting-men's-teams issue into perspective not with statistics and policy arguments, but with pop culture.

One posted: What is this, a King of the Hill episode?

Another posted back:

Hank Hill: It's all well and good to talk about equal rights until some MAN loses his job! How's that equal?
Bobby Hill: Yeah! And it's worse when they take away our favors, 'cause we're USED to getting 'em!

QU trial: Lopiano testifies

So the Title IX Blog did indeed take a field trip to Connecticut yesterday to watch some of the Quinnipiac University trial. Erin will be posting about what we saw (because she took notes and I just sat there amazed at some of the things people say and the amount of paper involved in these things--binders and binders full of emails and letters and other evidence).
And while we enjoyed being there live and listening to the testimony of three different witnesses we were a little disappointed to find out that we had missed Donna Lopiano's testimony--especially when we found out she was on the stand for six hours!
The New Haven Register covered the story (and has actually been the only coverage I have seen of Lopiano's testimony thus far*). Lopiano covered a lot of ground including addressing the suspect roster management that some QU coaches/administrators engaged in as well as one of the most interesting aspects of this case: whether cheerleading is a sport--even when the word "competitive" appears in front of the historically sideline, supporting role activity. Lopiano does not believe that cheerleading, in its current manifestation, is a sport:
"The NCAA does not classify competitive cheerleading as an emerging sport. It’s clear the NCAA does not support it. It doesn’t fulfill the criteria set forth by the Office of Civil Rights. I do not believe any school can count it as a sport. It hasn’t evolved enough. In the future it could, but not as it exists today. It’s not a sport. It’s not even close.”
[Jeff Webb's testimony from yesterday elaborates (a lot!) on this assertion.]
She also testified that QU would have to keep both competitive cheer, which will have a roster of 36 as well as the volleyball team in order to remain compliant with prong one (which is the only option for QU right now).
Lopiano is an assertive woman. I've seen her speak. She has a presence about her. And apparently she didn't mince words (she was testifying for the plaintiffs, by the way) and I guess the defense (and I am not sure which lawyer questioned her though I would be interested to know whether it was the defense team's one male lawyer or one of the women) kind of got into it with Lopiano. So much so that Judge Stephan Underhill had to warn both parties about getting into "one-on-one" arguments.
No video allowed inside the courtroom so it's not as if this one is showing up on You Tube any time soon. But I would be really interested in seeing the transcripts of Lopiano's testimony since I can't get a whole lot more from the limited coverage of it.


* But I have already heard/seen about cheerleading expert Jeff Webb's testimony from three different media outlets all before 8am! Again, Erin will be posting about this aspect of the trial.

Donna Lopiano to speak at Western New England College

Donna Lopiano, former head of the Women's Sports Foundation and amazing advocate for Title IX, is coming to Western New England College on April 22 to talk about her work and reflect upon the successes and challenges of Title IX.

For more information about her talk, check out the website for the College's Center for International Sport Business: www.wnec.edu/cisb