A federal district court in Michigan has issued an injunction against Eastern Michigan University that will prevent it from going forward with its plans to cut women's softball and tennis teams. The university had announced plans last year to cut those teams, along with two men's teams, wresting and swimming and diving. However, as the court correctly determined, cutting the same number of men's and women's teams is not gender equity when men have disproportionately more athletic opportunities to begin with, and continue to have a greater share of opportunities once the cuts have taken place.
The undergraduate population at EMU is about 60% female, yet the distribution of athletic opportunities favors men, 56:44 percent. Accordingly, EMU did not try to claim compliance under the proportionality prong. Nor did it argue that it complied under the third test that calls for the absence of unmet interests and abilities among members of the underrepresented sex -- a decision the court validated by pointing out that EMU's elimination of women's programs creates the very unmet interest the third compliance prong requires to have been satisfied.
Instead, EMU argued that the average number of athletic opportunities over the last five years was greater than the average number over the five year period before that, thus satisfying compliance under the second compliance prong, which calls for "history and continuing practice" of program expansion for the underrepresented sex. Of course, the court saw through the this arbitrary comparison of averaged data, which only served to mask the fluctuation up and down of the number of female athletic opportunities. This compliance prong calls for steady growth, which EMU's numbers did not show. In addition, EMU's most recent addition of a women's team was rowing in 2000 - hardly evidence of continuing practice. Though EMU also tried to claim credit for increases to female athletic opportunities under its roster management plan -- i.e, expanding the rosters of its existing women's teams -- the court rejected this as well because EMU could not show that such increases were "responsive to the developing interests of the underrepresented sex" as this compliance prong requires. Upon concluding that the plaintiffs had demonstrated likely success on the merits as well as the other factors consider when deciding on a preliminary injunction, the court ordered that the university must reinstate the eliminated teams.
EMU's argument about compliance under the second prong was so astonishingly weak in my opinion, that the outcome here was hardly surprising. The court's thorough analysis, however, is helpful to addressing misconceptions about the second compliance prong. In addition, the court's order to reinstate eliminated teams should provide a cautionary tale for any college athletic program that thinks cutting an equal number of men's and women's teams is equitable when women are already seriously underrepresented.
Decision: Mayerova v. Eastern Michigan Univ., No. 2:18-cv-11909 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 27, 2018).
Showing posts with label tennis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tennis. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Challenging SUNY Albany's Termination of Women's Tennis
After SUNY Albany cut its women's tennis team in 2016, several former players, along with the team's coach, Gordon Graham, sued the university alleging discrimination in violation of Title IX. Last week, a federal court in New York denied the university's motion to dismiss Graham's claims that the decision amounted to sex discrimination against him, while also denying the former players' motion for summary judgment in their favor.
In its motion to dismiss Graham's claim, the university argued that terminating the women's tennis team could not in any way be considered sex discrimination against Graham, a male coach. But the court disagreed. While it's true that the university's decision to cut the women's tennis team was not motivated by Graham's sex, it may have been motivated by the sex of the athletes on the team. This act of alleged sex discrimination injured Graham as well, by costing him his job, making it actionable injury under Title IX, the court reasoned. Graham adequately alleged an act of sex discrimination, and he alleged that the act in question caused him harm.
As for the players' motion, they argued that because in 2017 OCR found SUNY Albany's decision to eliminate women's tennis violated Title IX, there was no issue of fact requiring litigation, permitting the court to rule in their favor early in the litigation process prior to trial or even the taking of discovery. The court disagreed with this argument as well, concluding that the agency's findings could not make the university automatically liable as a matter of law. The university did not challenge the agency's findings, but instead, agreed to resolve in them without the benefit of adjudication, and in an agreement that specifically disclaimed any admission of liability. Thus, the court ruled, the university should at least have the chance to enter evidence that could potentially demonstrate that a disproportionate balance of athletic opportunities nevertheless complies with Title IX. I believe that the former players still have a very strong case, since cutting a viable team is usually strong evidence of unmet interest of the underrepresented sex. But also, it made sense for the court to insist that they make their case based on a record produced during litigation, rather than automatically import the findings of OCR.
Pejovic, v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Albany, 2018 WL 3614169 (N.D.N.Y. July 26, 2018).
In its motion to dismiss Graham's claim, the university argued that terminating the women's tennis team could not in any way be considered sex discrimination against Graham, a male coach. But the court disagreed. While it's true that the university's decision to cut the women's tennis team was not motivated by Graham's sex, it may have been motivated by the sex of the athletes on the team. This act of alleged sex discrimination injured Graham as well, by costing him his job, making it actionable injury under Title IX, the court reasoned. Graham adequately alleged an act of sex discrimination, and he alleged that the act in question caused him harm.
As for the players' motion, they argued that because in 2017 OCR found SUNY Albany's decision to eliminate women's tennis violated Title IX, there was no issue of fact requiring litigation, permitting the court to rule in their favor early in the litigation process prior to trial or even the taking of discovery. The court disagreed with this argument as well, concluding that the agency's findings could not make the university automatically liable as a matter of law. The university did not challenge the agency's findings, but instead, agreed to resolve in them without the benefit of adjudication, and in an agreement that specifically disclaimed any admission of liability. Thus, the court ruled, the university should at least have the chance to enter evidence that could potentially demonstrate that a disproportionate balance of athletic opportunities nevertheless complies with Title IX. I believe that the former players still have a very strong case, since cutting a viable team is usually strong evidence of unmet interest of the underrepresented sex. But also, it made sense for the court to insist that they make their case based on a record produced during litigation, rather than automatically import the findings of OCR.
Pejovic, v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Albany, 2018 WL 3614169 (N.D.N.Y. July 26, 2018).
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
Title IX Prompts SIU to Add Women's Soccer
Recently Southern Illinois University announced that it would add a women's soccer team in order to resolve questions about its Title IX compliance. Last year, the university's cost-cutting move to eliminate its men's and women's tennis teams along with several scholarships in men's swimming, prompted the filing of a Title IX complaint with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. Cutting viable women's teams, even when a men's team is cut simultaneously, often violates Title IX because the school can no longer claim that is continuing to expand opportunities for the underrepresented sex (the second of the three-part test), or that is fully and effectively satisfying the interests of the underrepresented sex (the third of the three-part test). A school that cannot comply with either of those tests must therefore show compliance with the proportionality standard (the first part of the three-part test), or risk enforcement action by the OCR. Most schools offer disproportionately higher percentage of opportunities
to male than female students, and therefore have difficulty meeting this test. Indeed, publically available data about SIU's participation and enrollment suggests it does not satisfy the proportionality standard, since women constitute 46% of the student body but receive only 39.6% of the athletic opportunities.
This disparity existed before the tennis cuts as well, but at least then SIU could more plausibly claim that women's interests were fully satisfied, and thus that it demonstrated compliance under part three. Now, there is clearly an unmet interest in tennis, which some might suppose should be remedied by restoring the women's tennis team. But a university can decide which part of three-part test it demonstrates compliance -- any one of them will satisfy OCR. So adding women's soccer is a viable compliance strategy if in the end the percentage of female athletic opportunities rises to to 46%. In this spirit, SIU has pledged to OCR that it will add a women's soccer team that will have its inaugural season in 2019-20.
Yet, adding soccer alone probably isn't going to be enough to bring the university into compliance. Even if the roster provided 30 opportunities, which is probably too many, that would only raise women's share of athletic opportunities to 43%. This explains why the university has also committed to expanding opportunities on its existing teams, "to the maximum extent feasible... while still ensuring meaningful intercollegiate athletic opportunities are being provided for all team members." Done right, this will mean investing more resources to ensure the existing level of quality offered by current programs are not diluted as more players are added. If the university is seen to be padding its rosters on women's teams, it runs the risk of not being able to count those surplus opportunities in its proportionality calculation. The reporting requirements the university has agreed to will help OCR oversee this and the other aspects of the compliance agreement.
This disparity existed before the tennis cuts as well, but at least then SIU could more plausibly claim that women's interests were fully satisfied, and thus that it demonstrated compliance under part three. Now, there is clearly an unmet interest in tennis, which some might suppose should be remedied by restoring the women's tennis team. But a university can decide which part of three-part test it demonstrates compliance -- any one of them will satisfy OCR. So adding women's soccer is a viable compliance strategy if in the end the percentage of female athletic opportunities rises to to 46%. In this spirit, SIU has pledged to OCR that it will add a women's soccer team that will have its inaugural season in 2019-20.
Yet, adding soccer alone probably isn't going to be enough to bring the university into compliance. Even if the roster provided 30 opportunities, which is probably too many, that would only raise women's share of athletic opportunities to 43%. This explains why the university has also committed to expanding opportunities on its existing teams, "to the maximum extent feasible... while still ensuring meaningful intercollegiate athletic opportunities are being provided for all team members." Done right, this will mean investing more resources to ensure the existing level of quality offered by current programs are not diluted as more players are added. If the university is seen to be padding its rosters on women's teams, it runs the risk of not being able to count those surplus opportunities in its proportionality calculation. The reporting requirements the university has agreed to will help OCR oversee this and the other aspects of the compliance agreement.
Saturday, November 11, 2017
SUNY Albany lawsuit
This past spring SUNY Albany's athletics director made the decision to cut the women's tennis team. The problem with the cut, in terms of Title IX compliance, was that Albany does not meet the proportionality prong. When a university cuts a women's team it must, by default, provide opportunities proportional to the gender breakdown in the undergraduate student population because it is neither expanding opportunities for women nor is it accommodating the needs and interests of students (because there is a viable team of interested women--the team that just got cut).
The decision was contentious because AD Mark Benson told head coach Gordon Graham, who is part of the lawsuit, last spring that the team was being cut and Graham told his players, most of whom were international students who had to negotiate visa and recruitment issues, about the cuts which was supposed to stay a secret until the end of the season. Graham also filed a complaint with OCR. According to this article, Albany would have to add 97 opportunities for women in order to meet prong two.
OCR investigated this fall and found that the university was not providing equitable opportunities. Albany entered into a voluntary resolution agreement that included a three-year plan to increase athletics opportunities for women. However this statement from Benson makes me wonder exactly how they plan on achieving equity: "We have no plans to add any teams or bring teams back and no plans to cut any programs. We're not in a position from a budgetary standpoint to do that."
The university needs to recover money, allegedly, from the loss of revenue from the New York Giants who held summer training sessions on the campus.
Does Benson plan on adding 97 spots to current women's teams?
This response may be why four athletes and Graham filed the lawsuit. The athletes are seeking reinstatement of the team. Gordon is also alleging age discrimination (he is 65) saying that he was pressured to retire before being told his contract would not be renewed. No report on when the lawsuit will be addressed in the courts.
The decision was contentious because AD Mark Benson told head coach Gordon Graham, who is part of the lawsuit, last spring that the team was being cut and Graham told his players, most of whom were international students who had to negotiate visa and recruitment issues, about the cuts which was supposed to stay a secret until the end of the season. Graham also filed a complaint with OCR. According to this article, Albany would have to add 97 opportunities for women in order to meet prong two.
OCR investigated this fall and found that the university was not providing equitable opportunities. Albany entered into a voluntary resolution agreement that included a three-year plan to increase athletics opportunities for women. However this statement from Benson makes me wonder exactly how they plan on achieving equity: "We have no plans to add any teams or bring teams back and no plans to cut any programs. We're not in a position from a budgetary standpoint to do that."
The university needs to recover money, allegedly, from the loss of revenue from the New York Giants who held summer training sessions on the campus.
Does Benson plan on adding 97 spots to current women's teams?
This response may be why four athletes and Graham filed the lawsuit. The athletes are seeking reinstatement of the team. Gordon is also alleging age discrimination (he is 65) saying that he was pressured to retire before being told his contract would not be renewed. No report on when the lawsuit will be addressed in the courts.
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
Inequities in scheduling and facilities
Last week's episode of Only a Game included a story on inequities in scheduling and facilities on the three stories you should know segment of the show.
It was Boston Globe writer Shira Springer's story and was born out of Victoria Azarenka's complaints during the first week of (the recently concluded) Wimbledon that women were not getting the good courts and the good times. Nothing much came of Azarenka's public calling out of the All England Club--shocking. But Springer did a good job of turning the moment into a conversation about how female athletes are treated.
My initial response was something in the realm of "no kidding" and "is this really what we should be talking about?". I mean the Women's US Open was held at one of 45's golf courses last weekend because the USGA would not move the event way back in October when news of his sexual assaults was revealed to the world. And then USGA officials would not/could not publicly answer a question about the organization's position on sexual assault!
But then I remembered that I am a feminist scholar of sports and that ranking all the ills is not really in keeping with my philosophy and desired intentions. I also opened up my email to find a Google alert about facilities inequities in Oregon (high school softball/baseball fields). Also, inequities in scheduling and facilities do not exist in a vacuum; they are an indicator of the culture of the sport's governing body.
Springer's segment focuses on professional and Olympic female athletes and it is an important conversation given that, as she herself notes, much of the conversation about inequality at this level has been directed at pay inequities. And as much as I appreciate Springer's segment and the potential attention it will generate, this is not new. Just two years ago, we were watching a premier international soccer tournament played on artificial turf. The 2015 Women's World Cup participants and their supporters protested the
Host Bill Curtis made a side comment about Boston University when Springer mentioned the very inequitable scheduling of women's hockey in Sochi in the last Olympics. He noted that BU has the same issue. It was almost a under-his-breath comment but it's important to note. BU established a women's hockey team in 2005. The team has been successful fairly quickly. They play Walter Brown Arena, built in 1971, which seats approximately 3,800 fans. The men play in Agganis Arena, which opened in 2005 (such a coincidence!), and seats about 6,100 fans. I have not been to either arena so I cannot comment on the level of upkeep or general comfort and accommodations. But on its face, this does not look like a good situation. It reminds me of the montage in Love and Basketball that compares the experiences at USC of Q and Monica.
Because Walter Brown is a facility that the women do not have to share unlike most of their DI counterparts, maybe they think this is a good deal. But maybe they look at the treatment that men receive and think that having their own arena is not nearly enough. The point is that the women of US National Team are used to be being put in substandard arenas and in non-primetime slots. So even if they know it is unfair and even if they hate it, it was likely not a surprise when they encountered the same situation in Sochi.
Female athletes who come up through the American intercollegiate system are accustomed to differential treatment. Professionals like Victoria Azarenka who came up through a non-scholastic junior sports system do not have the same experience. This is not to say that athletes who come up in club systems around the world are treated equitably (in another sport movie reference: Bend It Like Beckham). I am sure almost every professional female athlete can share stories about gender inequality. But in a sport like tennis--or basically just tennis--where pay equity is less and less of an issue, players might be a little surprised that there are other gender issues to tackle.
And heading back to where Title IX is a factor: interscholastic and intercollegiate sports are still failing miserably in their obligations for equal treatment. We wrote an article about this five years ago. We could easily write another today with just examples from the past few years.Trickle down or trickle up change--it does not matter in what direction or who is doing the influencing, but remedies to these inequities will only come with changes to attitudes about women's sports and female athletes.
It was Boston Globe writer Shira Springer's story and was born out of Victoria Azarenka's complaints during the first week of (the recently concluded) Wimbledon that women were not getting the good courts and the good times. Nothing much came of Azarenka's public calling out of the All England Club--shocking. But Springer did a good job of turning the moment into a conversation about how female athletes are treated.
My initial response was something in the realm of "no kidding" and "is this really what we should be talking about?". I mean the Women's US Open was held at one of 45's golf courses last weekend because the USGA would not move the event way back in October when news of his sexual assaults was revealed to the world. And then USGA officials would not/could not publicly answer a question about the organization's position on sexual assault!
But then I remembered that I am a feminist scholar of sports and that ranking all the ills is not really in keeping with my philosophy and desired intentions. I also opened up my email to find a Google alert about facilities inequities in Oregon (high school softball/baseball fields). Also, inequities in scheduling and facilities do not exist in a vacuum; they are an indicator of the culture of the sport's governing body.
Springer's segment focuses on professional and Olympic female athletes and it is an important conversation given that, as she herself notes, much of the conversation about inequality at this level has been directed at pay inequities. And as much as I appreciate Springer's segment and the potential attention it will generate, this is not new. Just two years ago, we were watching a premier international soccer tournament played on artificial turf. The 2015 Women's World Cup participants and their supporters protested the
Host Bill Curtis made a side comment about Boston University when Springer mentioned the very inequitable scheduling of women's hockey in Sochi in the last Olympics. He noted that BU has the same issue. It was almost a under-his-breath comment but it's important to note. BU established a women's hockey team in 2005. The team has been successful fairly quickly. They play Walter Brown Arena, built in 1971, which seats approximately 3,800 fans. The men play in Agganis Arena, which opened in 2005 (such a coincidence!), and seats about 6,100 fans. I have not been to either arena so I cannot comment on the level of upkeep or general comfort and accommodations. But on its face, this does not look like a good situation. It reminds me of the montage in Love and Basketball that compares the experiences at USC of Q and Monica.
Because Walter Brown is a facility that the women do not have to share unlike most of their DI counterparts, maybe they think this is a good deal. But maybe they look at the treatment that men receive and think that having their own arena is not nearly enough. The point is that the women of US National Team are used to be being put in substandard arenas and in non-primetime slots. So even if they know it is unfair and even if they hate it, it was likely not a surprise when they encountered the same situation in Sochi.
Female athletes who come up through the American intercollegiate system are accustomed to differential treatment. Professionals like Victoria Azarenka who came up through a non-scholastic junior sports system do not have the same experience. This is not to say that athletes who come up in club systems around the world are treated equitably (in another sport movie reference: Bend It Like Beckham). I am sure almost every professional female athlete can share stories about gender inequality. But in a sport like tennis--or basically just tennis--where pay equity is less and less of an issue, players might be a little surprised that there are other gender issues to tackle.
And heading back to where Title IX is a factor: interscholastic and intercollegiate sports are still failing miserably in their obligations for equal treatment. We wrote an article about this five years ago. We could easily write another today with just examples from the past few years.Trickle down or trickle up change--it does not matter in what direction or who is doing the influencing, but remedies to these inequities will only come with changes to attitudes about women's sports and female athletes.
Thursday, May 05, 2016
Throwback Thursday: Cutting women's teams
This is not really a throwback Thursday, but it feels oddly nostalgic to write about Title IX and the cutting of women's sports teams. Not in a good way, of course. Cutting teams is always a difficult process, but it has not been nearly as much of a Title IX issue recently. But as the recent announcement from St Cloud State University (Minnesota) shows us, cutting women's teams is not a thing of the past.
Five members of the women's tennis team at St. Cloud have filed a Title IX lawsuit against their university. The team is one of six that has been cut from the list of varsity intercollegiate sports in an effort to deal with budget shortfalls.
The university currently provides just under 120 more opportunities for men to play sports. The undergraduate student enrollment is nearly 50/50 men/women. This does not automatically mean they have been out of compliance; they could have been expanding opportunities for women or sufficiently meeting the interests and abilities of the female undergraduate population in terms of sports and opportunities provided.
It does mean, however, that with the cuts they must--post cuts--be adhering to prong one, in which the athletic opportunities provided reflects the male/female ratio in the undergraduate population. In other words, next fall there should be equal athletic opportunities for men and women at St. Cloud.
The numbers will surely be in dispute at pre-trial hearings and a trial, if it gets there. Here is what my basic math revealed:
Men are losing, based on the cuts alone, 92 spots (tennis and all track programs), bringing the total opportunities to 226. Women are losing 24 spots (tennis and skiing) bringing their opportunities to 178.
The asterisks on these numbers include the following:
1. As in any of these calculations, the numbers can change. The number of undergraduates enrolled, especially.
2. Specific to this case, the university, when making the announcement two months ago, said it was going to reduce the number of roster spots on 7 teams and increase spots on 6 others. I do not know exactly where these additions and subtractions will occur or if it will be a zero sum game.
The university has said it will increase the roster for women's track to 90 from 60. The data I was using, though, said women's track was at 73 members, not 60. But if we add 30 to the reduced opportunities, it brings the number for women to 208. Lawyers for the tennis players (one of whom is also representing former Duluth hockey coach Shannon Miller) do not like this solution. They feel the university is using this to count the same athlete as many as three times (cross country, indoor track, outdoor track) and not really increasing opportunities.
Even if this is not legally wrong, I expect the university will have to respond to questions about this plan, and reveal their other plans sooner rather than later, i.e., when they go to court next month to deal with the request for an injunction.
Because, yes, the women have asked for a temporary injunction against the cuts that affect the opportunities for female athletes until the legal issues are resolved. That request will be heard on June 3. They are also seeking class action status.
It is possible that the university's intention to reduce spots on the football and baseball team along with increasing the numbers on the track team will bring them into proportion.The question remains though whether they can so drastically increase the women's track team. We have seen some sketchy roster management around women's track. Even if the lawsuit is not successful because the university has a plan for proportionality, they will certainly be on notice that they have to effectively and legally execute that plan.
One final thought: as I read the articles about the lawsuit I got the impression that these cuts were the proverbial final straw for many female athletes who feel the athletic department has not been treating them equitably. The cuts may have felt like such a tangible and actionable move, and some women are using the opportunity to illustrate the inequities. But even if the university brings itself into compliance with the quantity of opportunities, they may not be providing a similar quality to women. I sense quality is also an issue at St. Cloud. If it is, a complaint filed with OCR might be worth it to address the inequities other female athletes may be experiencing.
Five members of the women's tennis team at St. Cloud have filed a Title IX lawsuit against their university. The team is one of six that has been cut from the list of varsity intercollegiate sports in an effort to deal with budget shortfalls.
The university currently provides just under 120 more opportunities for men to play sports. The undergraduate student enrollment is nearly 50/50 men/women. This does not automatically mean they have been out of compliance; they could have been expanding opportunities for women or sufficiently meeting the interests and abilities of the female undergraduate population in terms of sports and opportunities provided.
It does mean, however, that with the cuts they must--post cuts--be adhering to prong one, in which the athletic opportunities provided reflects the male/female ratio in the undergraduate population. In other words, next fall there should be equal athletic opportunities for men and women at St. Cloud.
The numbers will surely be in dispute at pre-trial hearings and a trial, if it gets there. Here is what my basic math revealed:
Men are losing, based on the cuts alone, 92 spots (tennis and all track programs), bringing the total opportunities to 226. Women are losing 24 spots (tennis and skiing) bringing their opportunities to 178.
The asterisks on these numbers include the following:
1. As in any of these calculations, the numbers can change. The number of undergraduates enrolled, especially.
2. Specific to this case, the university, when making the announcement two months ago, said it was going to reduce the number of roster spots on 7 teams and increase spots on 6 others. I do not know exactly where these additions and subtractions will occur or if it will be a zero sum game.
The university has said it will increase the roster for women's track to 90 from 60. The data I was using, though, said women's track was at 73 members, not 60. But if we add 30 to the reduced opportunities, it brings the number for women to 208. Lawyers for the tennis players (one of whom is also representing former Duluth hockey coach Shannon Miller) do not like this solution. They feel the university is using this to count the same athlete as many as three times (cross country, indoor track, outdoor track) and not really increasing opportunities.
Even if this is not legally wrong, I expect the university will have to respond to questions about this plan, and reveal their other plans sooner rather than later, i.e., when they go to court next month to deal with the request for an injunction.
Because, yes, the women have asked for a temporary injunction against the cuts that affect the opportunities for female athletes until the legal issues are resolved. That request will be heard on June 3. They are also seeking class action status.
It is possible that the university's intention to reduce spots on the football and baseball team along with increasing the numbers on the track team will bring them into proportion.The question remains though whether they can so drastically increase the women's track team. We have seen some sketchy roster management around women's track. Even if the lawsuit is not successful because the university has a plan for proportionality, they will certainly be on notice that they have to effectively and legally execute that plan.
One final thought: as I read the articles about the lawsuit I got the impression that these cuts were the proverbial final straw for many female athletes who feel the athletic department has not been treating them equitably. The cuts may have felt like such a tangible and actionable move, and some women are using the opportunity to illustrate the inequities. But even if the university brings itself into compliance with the quantity of opportunities, they may not be providing a similar quality to women. I sense quality is also an issue at St. Cloud. If it is, a complaint filed with OCR might be worth it to address the inequities other female athletes may be experiencing.
Friday, February 06, 2015
Fired Tufts Coach Files Complaint
Though it's no longer truly "news," I recently learned that former men's tennis coach Jamie Kenney filed a Title IX complaint with the Department of Education back in December alleging that her termination from the position was illegally motivated by gender stereotypes and double standards. According to the complaint (which I have read but do not have a link for) Coach Kenney suspended two team captains for violating the team's drinking policy. As part of their suspension, a decision Kenney had cleared with the Athletic Director, the players were banned from attending the conference championship in any capacity. The players attended anyway in defiance of their coach, so Coach Kenney confronted them, as well as a (male) assistant coach who had been in on their plan, to insist that they leave. In response, the rest of the team rallied around the suspended players by enlisting their parents to complain to the university president. The Athletic Director then withdrew his support for the coach's decision, and a representative from human resources confronted Coach Kenney with the parents' complaints, which had been forwarded by the President, as well as the negative evaluations that the students had filled out in the wake of (and in obvious reaction to) her unpopular disciplinary decision. Eventually, after raising gender equity concerns about the way she was being treated, Coach Kenney received notice on July 1 that she was terminated from her position.
The complaint alleges that the university's response to the complaints about Coach Kenney's decision to discipline her players was discriminatory on the basis of gender, in that male coaches are afforded greater freedom to engage in coaching methods that female coaches are scrutinized for. Additionally, she alleges that Tufts tends to ignore complaints made against male coaches and to support male coaches' decisions to discipline their players.
I am hopeful that OCR will investigate this complaint and expose some of the under-examined obstacles facing female coaches in general (see also Kris's post from yesterday about the Iowa complaint), and female coaches of male athletes in particular. As the complaint points out, gender stereotypes create the expectation that women, including female coaches, embody a "caretaker" role. When they step out of that role and into a stereotypically male"leadership" role, they are often penalized for it in overt and subtle ways. This puts female coaches in a double bind, because the leadership model is generally more valued that the caretaker model, and may be particularly so when the athletes in question are male. It is no wonder that women constitute a mere 2-3% of the head coaches of men's teams, while men, in contrast, are the majority of coaches of men's teams. This matter, therefore, provides OCR with a rare opportunity to address a concrete, individualized example of conduct that contributes to a widespread problem.
The complaint alleges that the university's response to the complaints about Coach Kenney's decision to discipline her players was discriminatory on the basis of gender, in that male coaches are afforded greater freedom to engage in coaching methods that female coaches are scrutinized for. Additionally, she alleges that Tufts tends to ignore complaints made against male coaches and to support male coaches' decisions to discipline their players.
I am hopeful that OCR will investigate this complaint and expose some of the under-examined obstacles facing female coaches in general (see also Kris's post from yesterday about the Iowa complaint), and female coaches of male athletes in particular. As the complaint points out, gender stereotypes create the expectation that women, including female coaches, embody a "caretaker" role. When they step out of that role and into a stereotypically male"leadership" role, they are often penalized for it in overt and subtle ways. This puts female coaches in a double bind, because the leadership model is generally more valued that the caretaker model, and may be particularly so when the athletes in question are male. It is no wonder that women constitute a mere 2-3% of the head coaches of men's teams, while men, in contrast, are the majority of coaches of men's teams. This matter, therefore, provides OCR with a rare opportunity to address a concrete, individualized example of conduct that contributes to a widespread problem.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Nine for IX Series, Part I
This week marks the third release* in ESPN's original documentary series Nine for IX.The series celebrates the 40th anniversary of Title IX and features stories about women in sports produced and directed by women.
So my two little qualms before I get into the movies themselves. One, the fact that they began the series on the 41st anniversary of Title IX makes me a little twitchy. Was this in the works last year and it just didn't happen? Robin Roberts is a producer of the whole series. It is possible that her health issues over the past year delayed the project. Still, I think it is perfectly fine to just say that this series is a celebration of Title IX.
Except (qualm 2) it's not really a celebration of only Title IX, it's a celebration of women in sports. I find it problematic when all the celebratory moments and activism in women's sports are automatically associated with Title IX. They are not. American women began gaining momentum in the Olympics, for example, decades before Title IX was passed. Attributing the moments or lines of progress we have seen in women's sports solely to Title IX erases a lot of the activism and activists that happened prior to and since Title IX that was not related to school-sponsored sports.
In short, the the greater visibility of and access to women's sports is not just about Title IX, and this is evident in the documentaries in the series.
For example the first one, Venus Vs, is about Venus Williams's rise to the top of women's tennis and the activism she engaged in for equal pay for female tennis players at the Grand Slams, primarily Wimbledon. Though I knew about this activism, hearing about the details of the campaign, which she basically led, was one of the highlights of the film. I was worried that this would be a "colorblind" film, but the film makers actually discussed the situation Venus and Serena, and their family, found themselves in when the emerged on the professional scene as teenagers, not having played the junior circuit. Their treatment, including their neglect, by the media is one of the more subtle messages of the film. Though I realize they are a deeply private family, when their sister was killed in 2003, the lack of sympathy was remarkable. I remember watching the sisters that year and wondering why they weren't talking more about how this violent death of an immediate family member was affecting them on the court. I mean when Steffi Graf's father was being tried for tax evasion in Germany we heard all about it!
I was disappointed though that that film basically talked about race and then gender. In the first half it was about "Venus as Black." In the second, the theme was "Venus as woman." The fact that she is always a Black woman and that this affects everything she does, especially as a public figure in the tennis world, remained unexamined. A Black female Wimbledon champion is demanding that the All-England Lawn and Tennis Club pay women equally. That's a big deal. She was not just a woman with power in the tennis world in this moment. Because we all know that AELTC is not colorblind.
I think this film would work well in the classroom.
Pat XO was the second film in the series and was basically a tribute to head coach emeritus Pat Summitt of the University of Tennessee. This is fine. But don't expect a lot of nuance. There was nothing about the struggles of female coaches in the professions--especially ones with children. It showcased the relationships she has formed throughout her years focusing especially on the one with her son, Tyler. I found the prevailing discourse about how tough and persevering she was and how she never let anyone see what was going on her personal life a little troubling. I thought it presented a male model of sport and coaching in which women had to be that way in order to both succeed and be seen as legitimate. And that aspect was not questioned at all. Summitt did bring her son with her everywhere but her ability to do so and the work-life balance issue was never raised. I don't think a film about Pat Summitt, at this point, could be anything but what Pat XO was. But it doesn't go much further than a feel-good story.
Next up, Let Them Wear Towels, about female reporters in the locker rooms of professional men's teams.
* the third full-length release. There was a short film, Coach, about C. Vivian Stringer that is available at the EPSNW website.
So my two little qualms before I get into the movies themselves. One, the fact that they began the series on the 41st anniversary of Title IX makes me a little twitchy. Was this in the works last year and it just didn't happen? Robin Roberts is a producer of the whole series. It is possible that her health issues over the past year delayed the project. Still, I think it is perfectly fine to just say that this series is a celebration of Title IX.
Except (qualm 2) it's not really a celebration of only Title IX, it's a celebration of women in sports. I find it problematic when all the celebratory moments and activism in women's sports are automatically associated with Title IX. They are not. American women began gaining momentum in the Olympics, for example, decades before Title IX was passed. Attributing the moments or lines of progress we have seen in women's sports solely to Title IX erases a lot of the activism and activists that happened prior to and since Title IX that was not related to school-sponsored sports.
In short, the the greater visibility of and access to women's sports is not just about Title IX, and this is evident in the documentaries in the series.
For example the first one, Venus Vs, is about Venus Williams's rise to the top of women's tennis and the activism she engaged in for equal pay for female tennis players at the Grand Slams, primarily Wimbledon. Though I knew about this activism, hearing about the details of the campaign, which she basically led, was one of the highlights of the film. I was worried that this would be a "colorblind" film, but the film makers actually discussed the situation Venus and Serena, and their family, found themselves in when the emerged on the professional scene as teenagers, not having played the junior circuit. Their treatment, including their neglect, by the media is one of the more subtle messages of the film. Though I realize they are a deeply private family, when their sister was killed in 2003, the lack of sympathy was remarkable. I remember watching the sisters that year and wondering why they weren't talking more about how this violent death of an immediate family member was affecting them on the court. I mean when Steffi Graf's father was being tried for tax evasion in Germany we heard all about it!
I was disappointed though that that film basically talked about race and then gender. In the first half it was about "Venus as Black." In the second, the theme was "Venus as woman." The fact that she is always a Black woman and that this affects everything she does, especially as a public figure in the tennis world, remained unexamined. A Black female Wimbledon champion is demanding that the All-England Lawn and Tennis Club pay women equally. That's a big deal. She was not just a woman with power in the tennis world in this moment. Because we all know that AELTC is not colorblind.
I think this film would work well in the classroom.
Pat XO was the second film in the series and was basically a tribute to head coach emeritus Pat Summitt of the University of Tennessee. This is fine. But don't expect a lot of nuance. There was nothing about the struggles of female coaches in the professions--especially ones with children. It showcased the relationships she has formed throughout her years focusing especially on the one with her son, Tyler. I found the prevailing discourse about how tough and persevering she was and how she never let anyone see what was going on her personal life a little troubling. I thought it presented a male model of sport and coaching in which women had to be that way in order to both succeed and be seen as legitimate. And that aspect was not questioned at all. Summitt did bring her son with her everywhere but her ability to do so and the work-life balance issue was never raised. I don't think a film about Pat Summitt, at this point, could be anything but what Pat XO was. But it doesn't go much further than a feel-good story.
Next up, Let Them Wear Towels, about female reporters in the locker rooms of professional men's teams.
* the third full-length release. There was a short film, Coach, about C. Vivian Stringer that is available at the EPSNW website.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Ball State Settles Retaliation Case for over $700,000
The last time we wrote about former tennis coach Kathy Bull's retaliation case against Ball State University, it was to report that her Title IX claim against the university had survived a motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed to trial. Often times, however, a victory on a preliminary ruling like that puts pressure on a defendant to settle instead, and that is what we're told happened yesterday in Bull's case. According to one of her attorneys, Bull will receive a package of cash plus health benefits for life, together worth over $710,000, in exchange for dropping her case.
Bull claimed that she was terminated in the middle of her 21st season as head women's tennis coach, on false charges of NCAA rules violations, in order to discredit and silence her criticism of Ball State's Title IX compliance in the context of an OCR investigation. Interestingly, Bull was one of 12 women's head coaches to leave the university under circumstances that suggest discrimination and retaliation during a five-year period.
Bull claimed that she was terminated in the middle of her 21st season as head women's tennis coach, on false charges of NCAA rules violations, in order to discredit and silence her criticism of Ball State's Title IX compliance in the context of an OCR investigation. Interestingly, Bull was one of 12 women's head coaches to leave the university under circumstances that suggest discrimination and retaliation during a five-year period.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Court Won’t Dismiss Retaliation Case Against Ball State
Kathleen Bull, former women’s tennis coach at Ball State,
sued the university under Title IX and other laws, alleging that her employment contract was terminated
because of her outspoken advocacy for gender equity. The university claimed that she was in fact
fired because she had asked students to lie to athletic department officials
about a practice that exceeded NCAA limit on weekly practice hours.
Last week, the court denied Ball State’s effort to have the
case dismissed without a trial, on summary judgment. (Earlier, the court dismissed similar claims against individual university officials, in contrast to claims against the institution itself at issue in this most recent ruling.) On the Title IX claim, the court determined that Bull’s raised sufficient evidence that the university's stated reason for firing her was actually a pretext for retaliation such that a jury should have the opportunity to ultimately decide whether retaliation occurred.
The trickiest requirement for retaliation plaintiffs is to show a causal connection between the adverse consequence (here, getting fired) and the protected conduct (here, advocating for gender equity, which Bull satisfied by filing a complaint with OCR). The court explained that plaintiffs can use three types of circumstantial evidence to establish that relationship:
(1) suspicious timing, ambiguous statements, and behavior toward other employees from which an inference of retaliatory intent may be drawn; (2) evidence that similarly situated employees received systematically better treatment; and (3) evidence that the plaintiff did not deserve the adverse employment action and that the employer's stated reason is a mere pretext for retaliation.
Bull's evidence goes to the third of these options. She argues that she did not deserve to be fired for asking students to help her cover up the NCAA rule violation, because other coaches engaging in similar conduct were treated with more leniency. Specifically, she points to the case of another coach at Ball State who lied to NCAA investigators. Though not an identical infraction, that coach's infraction was, in the court's determination, of "similar seriousness" to Bull's. Yet, that coach was given a letter of reprimand rather than fired. This creates a sufficient inference that Bull was not really fired for lying, but for retaliatory reasons instead. Barring settlement prior to trial, the jury will have a chance to decide whether that was indeed the case.
Decision is: Bull v. Bd. of Trustees of Ball State Univ., 2012 WL 1564061 (S.D. Ind. May 2, 2012).
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Preliminary Court Rulings Shape Ball State Retaliation Litigation
After Kathy Bull was terminated from her position as head coach of Ball State's women's tennis team (which we blogged about here), she filed a federal lawsuit contesting this decision as unlawful retaliation under Title IX and other laws. Last week, the federal judge in Indiana granted Ball State's motions to dismiss several of Bull's claims, resulting in a winnowing of Coach Bull's claims that could be headed for trial.
The court did not dismiss Bull's primary claim, that Ball State is institutionally liable under Title IX for firing her in retaliation for her advocacy for gender equity. But the judge did dismiss her claims against individual university officials, which she had filed both under Title IX as well as Section 1983, the statute that allows plaintiffs to seek judicial enforcement of constitutional violations. Title IX, of course, only provides for institutional, not individual liability. And while 1983 does allow a plaintiff to enforce constitutional claims against individuals who are state officials, it does not allow plaintiffs to sue individuals for money damages, as Coach Bull's complaint had apparently been framed. Further applying these protections for state officials -- known as sovereign immunity --the court dismissed individual claims against the members of the Board of Trustees, as well as state law claims against Ball State officials and trustees.
Decision is: Bull v. Bd. of Trustees of Ball State Univ., 2011 WL 6740549 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 22, 2011)
The court did not dismiss Bull's primary claim, that Ball State is institutionally liable under Title IX for firing her in retaliation for her advocacy for gender equity. But the judge did dismiss her claims against individual university officials, which she had filed both under Title IX as well as Section 1983, the statute that allows plaintiffs to seek judicial enforcement of constitutional violations. Title IX, of course, only provides for institutional, not individual liability. And while 1983 does allow a plaintiff to enforce constitutional claims against individuals who are state officials, it does not allow plaintiffs to sue individuals for money damages, as Coach Bull's complaint had apparently been framed. Further applying these protections for state officials -- known as sovereign immunity --the court dismissed individual claims against the members of the Board of Trustees, as well as state law claims against Ball State officials and trustees.
Decision is: Bull v. Bd. of Trustees of Ball State Univ., 2011 WL 6740549 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 22, 2011)
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Ex-Coaches Allege Retaliation by Diablo Valley College
Two former coaches at Diablo Valley College in California, part of the Contra Costa Community College district, are reportedly suing in federal court to contest their allegation that they were retaliated against for challenging the college's decision to terminate two women's teams last year. As we have earlier reported on this blog, the coaches complained both internally with the district and externally with the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights that the cuts would violate Title IX due to the severe disparity in athletic opportunities for men and women. These complaints resulted in the reinstatement of all of the terminated teams, which include the men's and women's cross country, track, and tennis teams, but the coaches who had raised the Title IX issue were not rehired to their jobs.
As I told the reporter for this story, it is often challenging for retaliation plaintiffs to prove that the reason for the adverse employment consequences (here, not being rehired) was retaliation for complaining about discrimination, rather than for some other neutral purpose such as the financial or budgetary reasons DVC maintains. Therefore, it is significant that the coaches in this case allege that they were directly told by the athletic director that "there would be negative consequences for filing a complaint." If that evidence proves true, these coaches would prevail on what is usually the highest hurdle for plaintiffs in retaliation cases.
(N.B. In case the plaintiffs or their lawyers are reading this, please know that the aforementioned reporter had asked me about general background on the retaliation standard, not about the details of your case, which were not available to me at the time I spoke to him. Therefore, while I did tell him about the aspects of the retaliation doctrine that are generally most difficult to prove, it is entirely inaccurate to suggest, as he does, that I told him I thought you might have a "hard time" winning your case. I hope he honors my request for a correction.)
As I told the reporter for this story, it is often challenging for retaliation plaintiffs to prove that the reason for the adverse employment consequences (here, not being rehired) was retaliation for complaining about discrimination, rather than for some other neutral purpose such as the financial or budgetary reasons DVC maintains. Therefore, it is significant that the coaches in this case allege that they were directly told by the athletic director that "there would be negative consequences for filing a complaint." If that evidence proves true, these coaches would prevail on what is usually the highest hurdle for plaintiffs in retaliation cases.
(N.B. In case the plaintiffs or their lawyers are reading this, please know that the aforementioned reporter had asked me about general background on the retaliation standard, not about the details of your case, which were not available to me at the time I spoke to him. Therefore, while I did tell him about the aspects of the retaliation doctrine that are generally most difficult to prove, it is entirely inaccurate to suggest, as he does, that I told him I thought you might have a "hard time" winning your case. I hope he honors my request for a correction.)
Friday, September 24, 2010
Ball State agrees to changes
Issues of gender inequity in Ball State University's Athletic Department have been actively discussed for almost five years now but the university, in an effort to end OCR's ongoing investigation of the department, has come out and said it will bring the equity to the department in 10 program areas, according to a Chronicle of Higher Education article this week. They have also agreed to investigate the departures of several coaches of women's teams. This is something we haven't really seen before. I don't know if we can truly consider this a voluntary move even if it was Ball State's idea. The cynic in me thinks it was a little CYA-ish; especially when I see that the athletic director has claimed publicly that there was no retaliatory coaching changes made during the past five years and that Ball State will not admit it was not in compliance with Title IX. Just about a year ago we reported that the firing of tennis coach Kathy Bull, who had served in the position for 22 years, was a little suspect. This all serves to fuel my healthy suspicion around internal investigations. But no doubt this case was a factor in Ball State's decision to put forward an image of transparency.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Diablo Valley College to Reinstate Teams
Diablo Valley College (Pleasant Hill, California) will reinstate the men's and women's cross country, track and tennis teams cut four months ago, in settlement of a threatened investigation and review by the Office of Civil Rights. The two-year college, which has 52% male enrollment that receives s 61% of athletic participation opportunities, cut an equal number of men's and women's teams, in order to "try to remove discussion of gender equality," according to an official of the Conta Costa Community College District, which operates DVC. After the coaches of the terminated teams filed a complaint with OCR, the government announced plans to investigate, which lead to DVC's decision to reinstate the teams.
I am kind of amazed that college administrators assumed that cutting an equal number of men's and women's teams would neutralize any Title IX concerns. They clearly did not look at the law, the regulations, or any court decision in a case involving cuts, or else they would know that is a violation of Title IX to cut a viable team of underrepresented sex. I guess that whole post from the other day about Title IX "illiteracy" applies to administrators as well.
I am also amazed that DVC decided not to rehire the coaches who filed the complaint with OCR to coach their reinstated teams. One told Inside Higher Ed that he thinks this decision is clearly retaliation, and is pursuing remedies through his union. On the surface it sure does look that way. We'll be watching to see if the coaches file suit.
I am kind of amazed that college administrators assumed that cutting an equal number of men's and women's teams would neutralize any Title IX concerns. They clearly did not look at the law, the regulations, or any court decision in a case involving cuts, or else they would know that is a violation of Title IX to cut a viable team of underrepresented sex. I guess that whole post from the other day about Title IX "illiteracy" applies to administrators as well.
I am also amazed that DVC decided not to rehire the coaches who filed the complaint with OCR to coach their reinstated teams. One told Inside Higher Ed that he thinks this decision is clearly retaliation, and is pursuing remedies through his union. On the surface it sure does look that way. We'll be watching to see if the coaches file suit.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Cal State Bakersfield cutting four sports
California State University Bakersfield announced yesterday that due to budget shortfalls it will cut four varsity sports: men's and women's golf, women's tennis, and men's wrestling. The decision was based on CSUB's desire to remain a DI institution (which means they have to maintain at least 6 men's sports and 9 women's sports) and to eventually enter the Big West Conference which requires member schools to have certain sports such as volleyball and softball and baseball. The school is also bound by a court settlement (that applies to all the Cal State system schools) to maintain proportional gender equity in its athletics program. Currently CSUB is 65 percent female undergrads and 35 percent male undergrads.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Paying it forward
I am usually pleased to see Title IX activism anywhere, and especially so when the activist(s) who files a complaints or makes known a potentially inequitable situation has no vested interest in the situation (besides a general interest in gender equity which everyone should have a vested interest in). But I was really, really pleased to read that Diane Milutinovich, one of the Fresno State plaintiffs, was getting involved in another gender equity case at another institution. Cuesta College in Can Luis Obispo, California dropped its women's tennis team this past summer (yes, we did miss that news) in an effort to cut costs. We know that California state schools are in tough shape but the rationale, that cutting the 8-member team, affected the least amount of students, is, of course, not quite legal if it turns out that the college is not offering equitable athletic opportunities for female students.
Milutinovich filed a complaint with OCR against the school this past weekend after feeling that she was not being heard by administrators at the school when she volunteered to help address the situation. Administrators are scheduled to address the issue at a February board meeting. But now that an OCR complaint has been filed I imagine any potential remedy (should one be necessary) would have to be negotiated with OCR.
Interestingly, when one visits the Cuesta College homepage there is a Title IX Notice link that is displayed fairly prominently. And it takes you here where you can find out how to reach the Title IX coordinator and that college's adherence federal antidiscrimination laws. Not sure if this is a new link, or a newly placed link, or if it is required of all California state schools given their previous issues with gender equity.
Milutinovich filed a complaint with OCR against the school this past weekend after feeling that she was not being heard by administrators at the school when she volunteered to help address the situation. Administrators are scheduled to address the issue at a February board meeting. But now that an OCR complaint has been filed I imagine any potential remedy (should one be necessary) would have to be negotiated with OCR.
Interestingly, when one visits the Cuesta College homepage there is a Title IX Notice link that is displayed fairly prominently. And it takes you here where you can find out how to reach the Title IX coordinator and that college's adherence federal antidiscrimination laws. Not sure if this is a new link, or a newly placed link, or if it is required of all California state schools given their previous issues with gender equity.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Early talk of retaliation in firing of tennis coach
Last week, Ball State University in Indiana fired its women's tennis coach. Kathy Bull was in her 22nd year as head coach of the team. The firing, according to the athletic department, is the result of NCAA violations. Ball State, until earlier this month, had been on NCAA probation due to a textbook scandal several years ago. In their two-year probation period they self-reported 27 secondary violations. Two of those concerned women's tennis. But if these are the violations in question, we do not know.
One would think that such an abrupt firing in mid-season would be the result of more than two secondary infractions. (By way of comparison, the football team had 5 secondary violations during the same probation period.)
The surprise announcement has a few people thinking retaliation.
Bull had told Ball State's student newspaper that the university was under investigation for gender equity violations.
And this editorial questions whether her firing has anything to do with her complaints about Title IX violations and gender equity within athletics.
The gender equity complaints are still under investigation and Bull has not commented on her firing let alone whether she will pursue a wrongful termination lawsuit.
One would think that such an abrupt firing in mid-season would be the result of more than two secondary infractions. (By way of comparison, the football team had 5 secondary violations during the same probation period.)
The surprise announcement has a few people thinking retaliation.
Bull had told Ball State's student newspaper that the university was under investigation for gender equity violations.
And this editorial questions whether her firing has anything to do with her complaints about Title IX violations and gender equity within athletics.
The gender equity complaints are still under investigation and Bull has not commented on her firing let alone whether she will pursue a wrongful termination lawsuit.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Re-shuffling the program in West Virginia
The athletic department at Salem International University in Salem, WV has had some problems with ineligible players and institutional control. So while they are on NCAA and conference probation (including no post-season eligibility), administrators are doing some reorganization. The university, which has stated that is currently in good standing with Title IX, will drop four sports: men's and women's golf, women's volleyball, and men's tennis. The athletic director has said these four squads are mostly made up of athletes from other sports--sports that said athletes consider to be their primary ones. In other words, the dropped sports have had to do some heavy recruiting from within the athletic department and not very successfully. And though winning isn't everything, it does not seem that many of the sports--dropped or saved--have had a lot of success. So the university is also using this time to beef up the program. Forthcoming is a discussion of bringing back football. The SIU considered it in 2003 but decided to focus on restructuring academics, but now it is back on the table with a potential on-campus stadium that would also serve soccer and softball--both of which currently use off-campus facilities. Costs to start up and maintain a football program will be central to discussions as well as how to increase the participation opportunities to female students.
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.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Serena praises Title IX
I don't get to write much about tennis here given that much of the tennis news comes from the professional ranks. So even though this isn't much of a story, I still wanted to mention that Serena Williams, who just won her 10th Grand Slam title down in Australia this past weekend (and in doing so become the highest-earning female athlete ever) gave a shout-out not only to Billie Jean King but also Title IX.
BJK and both of the Williams sisters are close and they definitely seem to have learned from her activism, but neither Serena nor Venus directly benefitted from Title IX in terms of getting an opportunity to play given the somewhat unique road elite junior tennis players take. Nevertheless, it was nice that Serena sees the larger picture: the growth in numbers of women playing sports and to credit BJK and Title IX for that.
It's certainly a switch from the response another American female tennis player gave in her phenom days. When Jennifer Capriati was asked about Title IX, she had to say she didn't know what it was.
BJK and both of the Williams sisters are close and they definitely seem to have learned from her activism, but neither Serena nor Venus directly benefitted from Title IX in terms of getting an opportunity to play given the somewhat unique road elite junior tennis players take. Nevertheless, it was nice that Serena sees the larger picture: the growth in numbers of women playing sports and to credit BJK and Title IX for that.
It's certainly a switch from the response another American female tennis player gave in her phenom days. When Jennifer Capriati was asked about Title IX, she had to say she didn't know what it was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)