Montana HS assocation debating transgender policy

In Montana, we have shades of Minnesota.

The controversy last fall over the transgender policy in Minnesota has moved westward. The Montana High School Association has written a policy to address the participation of transgender student athletes in sports.

The association will vote later this month on the policy. A difference between the Montana and Minnesota situations is the voting. In Minnesota a board of 20 voted on the policy. In Montana all the member schools--179 of them--will vote. Passage of the proposal, which is considered a change in policy, requires a 2/3 majority.

This is my first concern. That's a lot of people in a fairly conservative state, and the conservative religious groups--as they did in Minnesota--have mobilized. The rhetoric and misinterpretations are similar. There are the "privacy concerns"--again, not those of transgender children, but of cisgender children. There are the outrageous statements based on complete ignorance, arguably willful, regarding transgender lives; including this one from a recent podcast by the Montana Family Foundation: “Will your high school be forced to put boys and girls together in a hotel room overnight? What about sharing a locker room? And what about putting a 6-foot-5, 220-pound guy on the girls’ basketball team? They may have to if the Montana High School Association gets its way.”

This does not sound like the libertarianism that Montana conservatism trends towards. 


The policy does not address locker rooms or accommodations. What it does say is that transgender students seeking to compete on a team consistent with their gender identity must "apply for eligibility" which will be determined by a panel consisting of "medical experts," members of MHSA, and a student advocate (unclear exactly who gets to fill this position). This group makes a recommendation to the association's executive board which makes the final decision.

Concerns about the policy itself:
There is nothing in the policy that sets clear guidelines on locker rooms or shared hotel rooms during travel. So, as in Minnesota, we have a lot that can go wrong in terms of outing transgender children as well as ostracizing and isolating them from teammates. 

Also, the policy does not have guidelines that state what this committee will be looking at. What are the criteria? I fear this is more of the "case-by-case basis" trend that I discussed in the New Jersey bathroom case. This means that in addition to a committee sitting in judgement about a child's gender identity, there is nothing guiding that decision, meaning that children who come to the committee are putting themselves at risk of rejection on terms they have not been made aware of. Perhaps this will change if the policy does indeed get passed; but right now everything seems too vague for comfort.

Montana HS Football Program Mishandled Funds to Avoid Title IX

The Manhattan (Montana) School District is reportedly under fire from the state's interscholastic athletic association after officials there received a tip that the high school football coach was hiding the proceeds of a team fundraiser to avoid having to comply with Title IX. 

Over the last three years, head coach Dale McQueary has withheld $8400 from a team fundraiser (selling gift cards) in order to spend that money without authorization.  His subterfuge included getting students to falsify the number of cards they had ostensibly sold.  This financial mismanagement violates state athletic association rules that requires fundraising proceeds to be reported, so that the school district can ensure that athletic spending overall is equitable on the basis of gender. The coach purchased equipment and meals for his team from this secret stash, ensuring that his team received benefits that necessarily would have been on top of whatever the school had determined was football's fair share. 

Now that the coach's action has been exposed, the state athletic association has asked the school superintendent to present a "corrective plan" for the association's approval.  The association could also impose any number of penalties ranging from a public reprimand to suspension and forfeiture of games.  Meanwhile, however, the school district's reaction to McQueary has come under fire.  Parents successfully challenged the school's decision to suspend McQueary from his coaching position for the remainder of the season, so that he would be available to coach the team's final game.  (Really parents!?)  And McQueary is reportedly challenging the school's decision not to reinstate him as coach next year. 

Resolution in Butte?

The issue of inequitable facilities has been resolved according the Butte (Montana) school district and the Office of Civil Rights. The district has a provided OCR a report that states facilities are now equitable or close to it with efforts in progress or on the schedule to ensure that equity is forthcoming. But community members, including the original complainant, are contesting some of the "facts" of the report. It seems the district might have exaggerated just how close to finished it was with renovations to the softball field. Also the changing room at the softballs is in disrepair and lacks electricity and running water. Bleachers are allegedly not up to code and there is no storage facility--as was promised.
Sid deBarthy, one of the former softball coaches who filed the complaint, said he has contacted OCR about these discrepancies. He is also concerned that the committee created to ensure ongoing Title IX compliance is a little too insular, comprised entirely of school or district officials.

Butte Enters Voluntary Resolution Agreement

Butte (Montana) School  District No. 1. has entered into a voluntary resolution agreement with the Office for Civil Rights that will resolve a Title IX complaint filed against the district challenging inequities in the athletic facilities available for male and female students.  As we noted earlier this year, the complaint was filed by former softball coaches, who complained that their team had to play in a city park of inferior quality to the school's new stadium that was available for boys' football.  The resolution agreement requires the school district to investigate its locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities, by December 31.  It then has until January 14 to devise a plan to remediate any inequalities revealed by that investigation, which it must then execute.  If the district fails to adhere to the terms of the agreement, OCR will reopen its investigation into the complaint.

Note: this post was updated on Dec. 14 to correct that the school's stadium is for football, not baseball as earlier reported.  Baseball is not a high school sport in Montana. 

Butte to Seek Resolution Agreement Over Softball Field

Regarding the pending Title IX complaint over softball fields in Butte, which Kris first blogged about last March, the school board recently voted to pursue a voluntary resolution with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, in settlement of the matter.  The complaint was filed last year by two former assistant coaches, who alleged that the school district discriminated against girls by giving the softball team access to an inferior facility off the high school campus, while sinking over $1 million into a stadium renovation for use by boys' teams.   According to the press, the school district decided to seek a resolution agreement because it will provide officials with a "clear path" to compliance, without having to admit that any violation had occurred. 

Softball field issues in Butte

In an attempt to remedy an "inadequate" softball field used the by high school girls' softball team in Butte, Montana, two of the team's former assistant coaches. This story caught my attention because it was confusing and curious in multiple ways.
First, why are the two men filing the complaint former coaches. It is clear that they have raised this issue with the school district and are trying to work cooperatively toward a remedy. So it does not sound as if they were forced out of their positions.
Second, and this harkens back to my post about media coverage of Title IX, the article states that they filed a complaint with OCR but the remainder of the initial clearly bastardized taken from the AP version of the article that I saw refers to the complaint as a lawsuit. I am pretty sure, based on the information provided, that this is a complaint. One, OCR isn't involved in lawsuits (in this way) and two, I am not sure the two former coaches have standing in such a lawsuit.
Also, there is mention of some kind of statute of limitations that the men felt forced them to notify OCR in a timely manner (60 days) even as they continue to work for a solution to the problem. The coaches had filed a grievance noting that the fields, which are not owned by the school district (the coaches would like a district-owned field), lack proper bathroom facilities, are not well-maintained, have no scoreboard or storage along with other amenities. And, according to the article, OCR is expected to get back to them within 10 days.
The last interesting moment: apparently there was 1982 case regarding opportunities for girls in Butte. In the initial grievance, the complainants asked the Montana High School Association to evaluate the condition of the fields using the conditions of that settlement as a guideline. [But a 1982 lawsuit about opportunities for high school girls--that's intriguing.]
MHSA said the fields were indeed inadequate. The school district has been working on plans for new and improved fields. They have consulted architects and have plans both for improving the current fields as well as creating fields at the high school. So it remains unclear why the need for an OCR complaint at this point. The coaches and other supporters of softball do feel they have been left out of the plans for improvements. An OCR investigation (if it happens), of course, will look at more than just the softball fields. 
When more information/clarifications emerge, we'll be sure to post them.

Montana goes with prong three

A piece out of a local news outlet in Missoula, Montana focuses on how the University of Montana is choosing to comply with prong three of Title IX. Montana's Senior Associate Athletic Director Jean Gee said Montana has vowed not to cut sports, but must address Title IX issues (in terms of opportunities offered) in other ways at a school where male students comprise 48 percent of the undergraduate population and male student-athletes received 59 percent of the athletic opportunities. So Montana regularly surveys and interviews its female students about their interests and abilities in various sports. And it's not just CYA stuff. Montana administrators realize that the popularity of softball at the high school level and the lack of a DI program at a state school means Montana will have to add softball to its roster soon.
According to the associate director of the state's high school athletic association, JoAnne Austin, athletic administrators in the state are required to have a working knowledge of Title IX which appears to lead to an overtly pro-Title IX stance.
Said Austin:
"For a lot of schools, big time schools, football is king. Football is what makes them the money and I really think that Title IX keeps them in check to some extent. And I think that if Title IX were to go away, you'd start to see a slide back, and more and more money and funds being funneled into football...where you would literally probably have football only schools."
Not sure if there would be football-only schools, but I do think there would be some significant backsliding.