Two Sexual Assault/Harassment Cases Withstand Motions to Dismiss

In two separate cases, courts recently rejected universities' efforts to dismiss Title IX lawsuits early in the litigation:

First, a federal court in Virginia refused to dismiss a Title IX lawsuit (which we earlier blogged about here) against James Madison University to challenge the university's response to reports by the plaintiff that she had been sexually assaulted by fellow students on a spring break trip to Florida, who then posted a video of the incident. The court agreed that the plaintiff's allegation that the university's response was deliberately indifferent because it refused to address the video unless the plaintiff filed a formal complaint was a sufficient basis for liability.  Waiting for a student to file formal complaint to take any action might be an appropriate response in circumstances where the allegations are vague or uncertain, but here, there was no such uncertainty due to the video evidence. Additionally, the plaintiff's harassment was ongoing as long as the video was still being disseminated.  For these reasons, a jury could view the university's failure to take action about the video without a formal complaint as deliberate indifference.  Having so determined, the court did not need to consider whether the university's decision to punish the assailants with "expulsion upon graduation" was also an example of deliberate indifference. But I suspect this issue will be relevant as the litigation in this case continues. Of note, OCR is also investigating possible Title IX violations arising out of this same matter.  Butters v. James Madison University, 2015 WL 6825420 (W.D. Va. Nov. 6 2015).

In the second case, UCLA failed to convince a federal court to dismiss a case filed by a female graduate student who alleged the university failed to adequately respond to reports of sexual harassment by a male professor.  UCLA argued that the student was not subject to any further harassment after she had complained about the professor (the plaintiff disputed this).  However, court noted, the plaintiff is not required to show further harassment as a way of demonstrating the university's deliberate indifference. "The Court agrees with plaintiffs that placing undue emphasis on whether further harassment actually occurred to gauge the responsiveness of an educational institution would penalize a sexual harassment victim who takes steps to avoid the offending environment in which she may again encounter the harasser." Takla v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 2015 WL 6755190 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2015).

Sexual Assault Litigation Update

Numerous Title IX lawsuits have been filed recently, with claims stemming from incidents alleged to involve sexual harassment and sexual assault:

• A female student has sued James Madison University for failing to adequately discipline three fellow students who sexually assaulted her during a spring break trip and then circulated a video of the incident among the student body.  She alleges that the university violated Title IX by delaying the disciplinary process for over a year before finally handing down suspensions that will not kick in until the offending students have graduated.  JMU is facing an investigation by the Department of Education into this same matter, as we have earlier noted. 

• A male graduate of Boston College has sued his alma mater for disciplining him for sexual assault while he was a student.  He alleges that the institution did not provide a fair hearing before finding him responsible for sexual assault and suspending him for three semesters.  The student eventually graduated and unsuccessfully prevailed upon the Boston College to reexamine his case.  The lawsuit seeks $3 million in damages.  

• Parents of a fifth-grade student in Grand Rapids, Michigan, have sued the school district for suspending the boy for ten days for sexual harassing comments and gestures that he allegedly made, and for expelling him after he allegedly touched a female student inappropriately.  The lawsuit alleges that school officials violated the boys' right to due process by not determining in either incident whether the accusations were accurate before taking disciplinary measures against him.  

• A Harvard University professor has sued the institution, alleging that she was denied tenure in retaliation for criticizing its handing of sexual assaults. The plaintiff, anthropology professor Kimberly Theidon, alleges that she was warned that speaking out would hurt her during tenure review; she also claims that she quickly turned from someone who was assured tenure into someone being denied tenure once she began advocating for sexual assault victims. 

• A male student alleged to have sexually assaulted a female graduate student at Stony Brook University, has sued his accuser for defamation and seeks damages of $10 million.  We have already blogged about the accuser's suit against Stony Brook, in which she alleges that the university mishandled her case before finding him not responsible.  She has also sued him directly.

Investigation Opened at James Madison University

The Department of Education recently opened an investigation into allegations that James Madison University violated Title IX by failing to adequately punish three male students found responsible for sexual assault. The university has reportedly subjected the three to a ban from campus that kicks in after their graduation, raising serious questions about with it has satisfied its obligation under Title IX to take reasonable steps aimed at preventing the reoccurence of sexual assault.

In January of this year, the victim reported that the three male students took advantage of her intoxication while they were all away together for spring break the year before.  They videoed themselves groping her and trying to take off her bathing suit and then later circulated the video -- which reportedly shows the victim saying "this isn't okay; this isn't a good idea" -- around campus. A judicial officer found the men responsible and, as punishment, prohibited them from taking part in commencement or returning to campus as alums.  Yet, they were able to obtain their degrees.   The victim, meanwhile, has withdrawn from the university.

Delaware athletes filed OCR complaint

There has been a lot of press about the cutting of men's outdoor track and cross country at University of Delaware since the announcement was made in January.
We haven't commented on it because it has been the usual blame game: blame on Title IX mostly, but also blame on administrators, and blame on the economy. None of it very productive.
But the news out today about the filing of an OCR complaint is quite interesting. The student athletes who were affected by the cuts have filed the complaint asking OCR to investigate whether there was gender discrimination involved in the decision to make the cuts. The athletes, and others, believe this is an instance of reverse discrimination.
We're a little surprised and concerned that OCR has said that it will indeed investigate the complaint--unless there's something more to the complaint that we don't know about. But Title IX protects the historically underrepresented sex. Men at UD have not been underrepresented in athletics.
Yes, it is lousy that such a storied program is being cut, and the manner in which it was done doesn't reflect too well on the university. But it isn't reverse discrimination. Equity in Athletics tried to make that argument (in the courts) in the JMU case and it didn't work there. We suspect it won't work here either.

Fourth Circuit Affirms JMU Cuts

Equity in Athletics has been battling in court James Madison University's decision to cut 10 teams since the cuts were announced in 2006. On behalf of the affected athletes and other interested parties, the organizations sued the University and the Department of Education, challenging both the cuts and the Department of Education's policy interpretation that provides the three part test for measuring equity in athletic opportunities. After failing to attain a preliminary injunction against the cuts, EIA continued to pursue permanent relief. Last year, a federal court in Virginia rejected EIA's claims, and yesterday, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Though the appellate court agreed that EIA had standing to bring its case, the rest of the decision rejected EIA's arguments in their entirety. In particular, the court rejected EIA's argument that the three-part test is an unauthorized use a disparate impact standard of discrimination. For one thing, the court cited specific language in Title IX that allows regulators to consider statistics when defining and measuring equity. ("Provided, That this subsection shall not be construed to prevent the consideration in any hearing or proceeding under this chapter of statistical evidence tending to show that such an imbalance exists with respect to the participation in, or receipt of the benefits of, any such program or activity by the members of one sex." 20 U.S.C. § 1681(b).) For another, the court said EIA "misconstrues" the three-part test as a mandatory disparate impact standard. Consistent with every other court that has considered this question, the court recognized that the three-part test does not mandate proportionality. Rather, it allows evidence of proportionality create a presumption of compliance. Institutions with disproportional athletic opportunities can still show compliance under either of the alternative prongs.

The court then went on to affirm the district court's rejection of EIA's other claims, affirming the constitutionality and procedural validity of the three-part test as well as the constitutionality of JMU's decision to cut more men's teams than women's teams -- a decision that affected more male athletes, but produced a result that "ensure[d] that the student body as a whole was “substantially equally” represented in the availability of opportunities for athletic participation." Relatedly, the court "unhesitatingly [made] clear " its rejection of the idea that athletic opportunities should be distributed in proportion to percentages of male and female students who are interested in athletics, citing the First Circuit's oft-quoted language that "[i]nterest and ability rarely develop in a vacuum; they evolve as a function of opportunity and experience."

According to a press release, EIA plans to appeal, either to the entire Fourth Circuit en banc (which can, in rare cases, reverse a three-judge panel) or to the Supreme Court. So we are not yet done blogging about this case!

Decision is: Equity In Athletics, Inc. v. Department Of Educ., 2011 WL 790055 (4th Cir.(Va.) Mar 08, 2011).

JMU case not quite stagnant

Equity in Athletics presented its case to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this week. EIA is attempting to overturn the decision (made in 2006 and carried out in 2007) by James Madison University to cut 10 intercollegiate sports. EIA is trying to get its lawsuit against JMU restored. EIA's attempt to force JMU to reinstate the teams has already failed at the district and appellate court level and the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case. JMU's lawyer is confident that the case, according to one writer, "will remain stagnant."

District Court Upholds Title IX and JMU Sports Cuts

Recently a federal district court in Virginia upheld both Title IX and James Madison University's 2006 decision to eliminate ten athletic teams -- a move that impacted more men's teams (7) than women's (3), but which corrected the underrepresentation of women in athletics relative to their percentage of the student body. The plaintiff, Equity in Athletics Inc., sued the University and the Department of Education seeking reinstatement of the teams and a ruling of Title IX's invalidity. This is the fourth litigation loss for EIA, which already failed to convince a district, appellate, and the Supreme Court to grant a preliminary injunction that would have temporarily reinstated the teams.

Now, the federal district court in Virginia has examined EIA's case "on the merits" (rather than under the "likelihood of success on the merits" standard that applies to preliminary injunctions) and has determined that the case should be dismissed. The court rejected EIA's arguments that the regulatory interpretation of Title IX that contains the proportionality standard (the "Policy Interpretation") is unconstitutional and procedurally invalid. Like all courts that have considered this argument in the past, the court emphasized that the proportionality is not a mandate, but rather, one of three compliance options, and affirmed that both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause allow schools to take sex into account in order to correct existing discrimination. The court also refused to read Supreme Court's recent decision that curtailed certain race-conscious remedies in schools to suggest that it is unlawful to take sex into account when making a decision to eliminate teams. It reasoned athletic opportunities are different from other educational opportunities because they are traditionally and lawfully sex-segregated, which makes it impossible to measure equality without taking gender into consideration.

Some other arguments that the court rejected:

• that "reciprocal teams" (men's and women's swimming, for example) have a First Amendment right to be associated together, which is violated by Title IX policy because it allows schools to terminate only one (teams are neither intimate nor expressive organizations, to which such rights apply).

• that the only measure of equality should be whether opportunities are proportional to expressed interest of each sex (such a standard would not remediate discrimination against the underrepresented sex).
  

• that the Department of Education did not receive authority to implement Title IX when it was created to partially replace the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (it did).
  

• that the Policy Interpretation is invalid because it was not promulgated after a period of public notice and comment, and was not signed by the President (those procedural requirements only apply to "regulations," not policies that simply fill in the details of more broadly-worded regulatory standard).

• that JMU violated the Equal Protection Clause when it considered sex in making a decision to cut athletic teams (same reasons why the Policy Interpretation is constitutional).
  

• that JMU violated athletes' constitutional right to due process (no recognized property interest in athletic participation).
  

• that JMU's athletic opportunities after the cuts violate the Policy Interpretation, because men are now the underrepresented sex by 2% (the standard is "substantial" proportionality, not exact proportionality, and other courts have upheld a similar small disparity).

• that JMU shortchanged female athletes by ~12% in the distribution of scholarship dollars (EIA did not purport to have current female athletes among its members, so it did not have standing to raise this claim).
  

EIA appears to have plans to appeal this decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has already determined EIA was not likely to succeed on the merits.

Decision is: Equity in Athletics, Inc., v. Dep't of Educ., 2009 WL 5149869 (W.D. Va. Dec. 30, 2009)

SCOTUS won't stop JMU

Equity in Athletics's attempts to stop James Madison University's elimination of 10 varsity sports has experienced an additional setback. The Supreme Court will not hear the group's request for temporary injunction that would mandate JMU reinstatement the teams until the issue is settled once and for all in court.
But, according to this article, EIA presses on. The group will continue to fight, in district court, for the permanent reinstatement of the teams.

Voice of reason at VCU

Because I spend so much time berating various media outlets and their misinformed employees when they proffer false information about Title IX, I figure it's my responsibility to offer some praise as well.
Looks like we are not the only ones a little worried about the possible addition of football at Virginia Commonwealth University. A local columnist in Virginia wrote this about the rumors of a new football team under a new administration.
Paul Woody, in his dissent, provides some more specific details that go beyond just the usual pitfalls we hear of when adding football is considered (i.e. the money and compliance issues). Woody tells us that the baseball team, a regular NCAA tournament participant, doesn't have a practice field and that men's soccer--which has also had success in the post-season--may lose its stadium. In other words, the athletic department has plenty to worry about without adding a football team.
Kudos also go to Woody for seeing what so many others failed to see regarding the JMU situation:
Faced with a similar dilemma [regarding allocation of resources] in 2006, James Madison University opted to protect its football program. The Dukes dropped seven men's and three women's sports.
JMU's football program is ranked No.1 in the country in its subdivision. JMU also has just six men's sports.

Fourth Circuit Won't Enjoin JMU from Cutting Teams

Yesterday, a federal appeals court sided with James Madison University in its litigation with Equity in Athletics, Inc., the group challenging JMU's decision to cut 7 men's and 3 women's athletic teams in 2006. A federal district court in Virginia had already rejected EIA's efforts to obtain a preliminary injunction against the cuts, which EIA argues violated Title IX and discriminated against men, and yesterday's decision 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling.

Specifically, the 4th Circuit evaluated the district's weighing of the balance of harms, part of the test for whether a preliminary injunction should issue. The court concluded that the district court judge was reasonable in deciding that the harm to athletes in not being able to continue to in their chosen sports was important, but somewhat mitigated by the fact that they could retain their scholarships or choose to transfer. On the other hand, the harm to JMU in granting the injunction, which would essentially force the university to reinstate 10 teams that it determined it could not afford, was great. Moreover, EIA could not make a clear showing of a likely success on the merits, given that all federal appellate courts who have considered the question have upheld universities' decisions to let cuts fall disproportionately more on the sex that had proportionately more athletic opportunities to begin with, as was the case with JMU.

EIA has not said publically whether it plans to continue to pursue its litigation against JMU (its motion for a permanent injunction against the cuts is still pending, but looks rather futile now) or its litigation against the Department of Education, in which it challenges the legality and constitutionality of the regulatory interpretation of Title IX, on which JMU purportedly relied. However, since the Title IX standard does not require any school to make cuts -- it only protects women's opportunities from cuts when women are underrepresented in athletics in the first place -- EIA will likely have difficulty establishing standing to challenge to sustain this claim. But given that EIA seems to exist for the primary purpose of challenging Title IX's regulatory interpretation, I don't think this weakness will stop them from trying.

Decision (.pdf) is: Equity in Athletics v. Dep't of Educ., No. 07-1914 (4th Cir. Aug. 20, 2008) (unpublished).

Some at JMU see benefits

We hesitated to post on this story because it falsely implicates Title IX in the cuts that occurred at JMU. But, in the end, it actually supports the contentions made by many of us who know this was all about budget and priorities.
The article in JMU's student paper, The Breeze, describes the better situation the women's swim team finds itself in now that more funds have been devoted to the team. The number of scholarships has increased which has lead to a strong freshman class of recruits and potential for better recruiting going forward. And both athletes and coaches are noting the improvements.
The writer is clearly wrong when he notes that because of the "Title IX based decision" the team is "fully funded" this year. The swim team benefited from JMU scaling back its very large athletics program and providing the remaining sports with better funding.

Plaintiffs Appeal Decisions in Cut Sports Cases

In two separate cases, plaintiffs challenging university decisions to cut athletic teams have appealed from initial rulings upholding the cuts.

The student who filed the complaint with OCR is challenging Ohio University's decision to cut four teams is filing an administrative appeal. OCR dismissed the complaint earlier this month, finding "insufficient evidence to support a decision of noncompliance." Department of Education procedure allows disappointed complainants to appeal such decisions to the director of OCR and again, if necessary, to the Secretary of Education. However, the complainant's burden is to explain precisely why the initial decision was wrongly decided, such as that it did not rely on all the evidence or that it misapplied the legal standard. Given my earlier assessment that OU's decision was unfortunate but clearly legal, and add to it the complainant's burden on appeal, I'll be very surprised if this appeal changes anything at OU.

In a separate matter, Equity in Athletics is appealing the recent district court decision denying its motion to preliminarily enjoin James Madison University from following through on its decision to cut ten teams last year. While EIA is seeking an expedited hearing from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, JMU has moved to stay all proceedings in the district court, where EIA's motion for a permanent injunction is pending. Here, too, I'll be surprised if the decision is reversed on appeal. The district court's analysis of EIA's likelihood of success on the merits was sound and consistent with existing caselaw. Also, the balancing of the harms was reasonable.

Judge Won't Enjoin JMU's Decision to Cut Teams

A federal district judge in Virginia has denied a motion for preliminary injunction filed by Equity in Athletics, Inc., which sought to postpone James Madison University's decision to cut 10 sports teams.

The legal standard for granting an injunction required EIA to show that the harm of denying the injunction outweighs the harm in granting it. It also required EIA to convince the judge that it would likely succeed on the merits of its argument that the cuts were unlawful. The judge decided that EIA did not satisfy either test. While recognizing the harm to the athletes that would result to the athletes by JMU's decision, the judge also considered that EIA waited five months after the university announced its decision to file suit. During that time, the university and the athletes behaved in reliance on the decision to cut teams, thus making it more disruptive in the judge's view to reinstate the teams than to let JMU's decision stand.

The judge also found that EIA's legal argument against JMU was unlikely to succeed on the merits. He noted that every court that has considered similar challenges has determined that it is lawful for schools for seek proportionality compliance by reducing opportunities for the overrepresented gender. He also rejected EIA's attempt to use the Supreme Court's recent rejection of a race-based affirmative action program as the basis on which to reject any classification of students on the basis of sex, pointing out that race-based classifications are subject to higher scrutiny than sex-based classifications. Finally, he rejected EIA's arguments that the three-part test is itself unconstitutional, unworthy of deference, and promulgated by improper procedures.

The judge's order is technically confined to EIA's claims against JMU and does not resolve EIA's claims against the Department of Education that challenge the validity of the three-prong test under the U.S. Constitution, Title IX, and the Administrative Procedure Act. However, the judge addressed many of these same arguments in denying the injunction against JMU. Whether EIA will appeal the judge's order to the Fourth Circuit or continue to press the claims against the Department of Education remains to be seen, but EIA will have to factor into its decision that a judge -- one appointed by President Bush, no less -- has just told them their arguments are unlikely to succeed.

For previous posts on the JMU decision and the lawsuit, use the JMU label below.

JMU & Rutgers on ESPN's Outside the Lines

Outside the Lines (OTL) on Sunday aired a story about the decisions of JMU and Rutgers to cut sports. Previous posts have discussed the situation at JMU. I haven't watched the piece but an article in the Daily News Record highlights the OTL episode. Jeff Bourne, Athletic Director at JMU, was interviewed for the piece and defended the decision to cut 10 sports (7 men's and 3 women's sports) stating the school was not in compliance with Title IX. I won't delve into this as a previous post has already done that. Myles Brand, President of the NCAA was also interviewed and apparently kindly reminded the audience that "Title IX is a 'scapegoat' for schools that want to focus on revenue sports." It will be interesting to see if any hackles get raised on either side of this issue because of this OTL report.

Syracuse adding and subtracting

Last week Syracuse University announced it was adding women's ice hockey and cutting men's and women's swimming and diving. The primary reason it seems is the substandard condition of the natatorium which would cost $35 million to rebuild. But SU administrators also acknowledge that the addition and the cuts will result in greater opportunities for female student athletes and will, in the 2008-2009 season when the hockey program begins, bring SU to substantial proportionality. Currently the university cites compliance with prong two, history and practice of expansion. And though the university added three sports between 1996 and 2000, a seven-year gap starts to look suspicious and weaken claims about commitment to expansion of opportunities.
It is unfortunate that the swimming program is being cut. It has a long history at the university and is much beloved by anyone who was ever involved. The loss will bring down to ten the number of teams in the 16-school Big East conference that sponsor intercollegiate swimming and diving.
Swimming has taken a lot of hits recently. University of New Hampshire, Rutgers, and JMU all cut their programs. And there has been a lot of talk about the loss of intercollegiate programs in the swimming community. SwimmingWorldMagazine.com frequently reports on the cuts and the efforts to save programs and has started a forum for discussing the Syracuse decision. So far, no Title IX backlash.

EIA Threatens to Sue Ohio U

Equity in Athletics, the organization suing the Department of Education and James Madison University, has now set its sights on Ohio University. Like JMU, Ohio recently cut a number of athletic teams--both men's and women's. Last month, EIA tried to use the threat of litigation to get JMU to postpone its cuts, and now it is taking the same approach with Ohio U.

While I don't support Ohio's decision to cut athletic teams, I think Ohio's cuts are legally defensible and I think EIA will have a hard time prevailing. First, unlike JMU, which has tried to use Title IX as a shield to deflect the heat it should be facing for cutting 10 teams, Ohio expressly admitted that the cuts were about saving money. Thus, it is even clearer in this case that even a successful challenge to Title IX would not reinstate the teams.

Second, EIA takes the position that the cuts violate Title IX and the Constitution because they don't take into account the relative interests of the student body. The relative interest test is legally and conceptually flawed. It (a) erroneously assumes that cuts disproportionately affect "interested" men, given that women also report high levels of interest in athletics (see, e.g.), and that women's teams are also being cut; and (b) ignores that currently existing disparities in opportunities will be reflected in any purported measure of interest. For these reasons, every federal appellate court that has considered the relative interest test has rejected it.

Education Sector Blog Criticizes Title IX Backlash

Education Sector is an independent, nonprofit think tank that analyzes education policy. The organization's blog, The Quick and the Ed, posted recently to criticize the Title IX backlash from organizations like CSC, IWF, and Equity in Athletics. Their point is familiar to readers of this blog but they put it so nicely, so here's an excerpt:

But scapegoating Title IX and letting the universities off the hook is inaccurate and certainly isn't going to help male or female "student athletes". The real problem? Faced with hard decisions about how to invest equitably in men's and women's athletics, institutions are simply not willing to touch the glory sports: football and men's basketball. ...No one's trying to cut men in favor of women (male collegiate athletes still outnumber female athletes)- they're cutting what doesn't matter to them in exchange for what does.

JMU = Defendant

Following up on earlier post here to note that, indeed, Equity in Athletics has added James Madison University as a defendant in its lawsuit challenging the school's decision to cut ten sports teams. EIA had given JMU an ultimatum: postpone the cuts or defend a lawsuit. I think JMU was wise to choose the latter, as it does not seem likely that EIA's lawsuit will restore the cut teams and a postponement would raise false hopes and keep the student athletes in limbo.

Waiting for JMU's Response to EIA's Ultimatum

Will JMU postpone the cuts, or will Equity in Athletics add them as a defendant? EIA gave them until Monday (yesterday) to decide, but there's been no word yet.

EIA seems to acknowledged that the remedy they are seeking will not redress their alleged injury, in a comment reported by InsideHigherEd.com:

“What we believe and what people I believe smarter than me believe is that institutions have taken this vehicle called Title IX and have taken liberties and interpretations of it to craft reasons to terminate programs,” Licata said in a Friday interview, acknowledging that even if the group wins the suit, JMU would still be at liberty to offer — and not offer — sports at will. “JMU has said, ‘Hey, we don’t want to do this; we have to do it.’ So if we take that reason out of it, if we’re successful with this, then we’ll find out what their true intentions are.”

In light of comments like this one, I'm rethinking my earlier assessment of EIA's standing to sue the Department of Ed. This seems like a classic lack of redressability, a la Allen v. Wright or Warth v. Seldin. In both of those cases, the Court held that even though the plaintiffs alleged a cognizable injury, they lacked standing because that injury stemmed from a third party, and thus was not necessarily redressable by the relief the court could order from the government defendants. Extending that principle here, it would seem that the loss of opportunity to compete in sports is a cognizable injury, but by EIA's own admission, it stems from a JMU, not the government. Thus, since throwing out the three-prong test (the relief EIA requests) is not necessarily going to redress that injury, EIA should not have standing.

Chronicle Reports on Title IX Conference

By way of addendum to Kris's roundup of coverage of the Title IX Conference in Cleveland, here's a link to an article in yesterday's Chronicle of Higher Education (account/password requried).

The article reports conferencees' opinions on a number of current events related to Title IX, including the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights upcoming hearing on the interest survey policy, the JMU lawsuit, and the CSC's recent report* on the decline in participation opportunities in men's sports.

On the last issue, the both Judith Sweet, a former AD and senior official at the NCAA , and professor/AD emerita Dr. Christine Grant (the reporter erroneously calls her Ms. Grant)** object to the CSC's report for underreporting the increase in opportunties in certain men's sports, which have outpaced declines in other men's sports.

*I'd link, but their website does not appear to be working.

**On further review, it appears to be the Chronicle's policy to forgo the use of the title "Dr." altogether. The paper instead refers to doctorate-holding professors of both sexes as Ms. and Mr. accordingly. I retract and regret my suggestion that this was an error or a dis.