Another federal court has ruled that transgender students have a right to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity (for others, see here). The case involved Dallas High School, in Dallas, Oregon, which created an inclusive bathroom policy after one of its transgender students request permission to use the boys' facilities, consistent with his gender identity. But parents of other male students at the school sued, alleging their boys suffered "embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, intimidation, fear, apprehension
and stress produced by using the restroom with students of the opposite
sex."
The court rejected the parents' claim that permitting transgender students in the locker room compromised their children's privacy. In addition to lack of precedent to support the idea that the constitution protects a fundamental right not to share restrooms or locker rooms with transgender students, the court noted that such a right, if it existed, is not infringed. Students are not compelled to use multi-user facilities; anyone with a privacy concern is permitted to a private single-user facility. The court also rejected the parent's claim that the school's inclusive policy violated Title IX by creating a hostile environment for their children. Finally, it concluded that the parent's requested relief -- revoking the policy and excluding the transgender boy from the boys' restrooms and locker rooms -- would itself violate Title IX, since this would "punish transgender students for their gender nonconformity and constitute a form of sex stereotyping."
The parents also included the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Justice Department as defendants in the case. They alleged that the agencies' joint 2016 guidance document, that interpreted Title IX to require trans-inclusive bathrooms, was improperly promulgated. That guidance has been subsequently revoked, however, so it was easy for the court to dismiss this claim for lack of standing: there is no apparent connection between the procedural violation they allege and the school's decision to implement an inclusive policy.
Decision: Parents for Privacy v. Dallas Sch. Dist. No. 2., 2018 WL 3550267 (D. Or. July 24, 2018). News of the decision was also reported here.
And in related news, the Third Circuit released its decision affirming a lower court's decision in a similar case in Pennsylvania. The lower court had refused to grant a preliminary injunction that would have prevented the school from accommodating transgender students' use of facilities that match their gender identities, and the appellate court agreed with the court's "well-reasoned" opinion. That decision is: Doe v Boyertown Area Sch. Dist., 2018 WL 3581456 (3d Cir. July 26, 2018),
Showing posts with label Oregon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oregon. Show all posts
Saturday, July 28, 2018
Friday, February 23, 2018
In Oregon School District, Girls Must Pay More to Play
Here's an interesting article that Oregon Public Broadcasting ran this week about the Beaverton school district charging girls more than boys for opportunities to participate in sports and other activities. A local woman first noticed gender disparities in utility charges, of all things, after she inquired about the school district's practice of billing her nonprofit, which runs after school programs on school grounds, for water and electricity. When she started looking into what other organizations the school district charges, she noticed a gender pattern: activities like cheer and dance, which primarily attract girls, were also being billed.
The utilities issue prompted her and other parents to ask questions about sports as well. The school district charges athletes $225 to participate on a high school team, but the parents discovered that this fee is waived more often for boys than for girls. The parents also started looking into supplemental athletic activities like off-season camps, that are not part of the school's program but are offered by separate business run by the coaches. These also charge for participation. When the cost of these optional-but-not-really-if-you-want-to-make-the-team programs are added in, another disparity appears: Girls playing soccer at one of the district high schools were charged $450 total; boys paid $265, and an even greater difference exists between boys and girls playing basketball at the other high school.
The parents' advocacy has prompted the school district to pay closer attention to how coaches are running private, off-season camps. But the article did not indicate that school district officials were planning to regulate what coaches could charge in order to ensure equity between boys and girls participation costs or if they would offset the higher cost to girls in some other way. The parents advocating for equality liken the role of coach-run businesses to other third parties, like booster clubs, which Title IX does not recognize as an excuse for more favorable treatment granted to boys' teams. The article notes that this position is unpopular with parents in boys-team booster clubs, but it at least quotes a school district official acknowledging this is how Title IX works. OPB has promised more reporting on this issue, so we will see what changes it leads to. The parents seem dogged and resourceful and unlikely to give up. It also helps that the law is on their side.
The utilities issue prompted her and other parents to ask questions about sports as well. The school district charges athletes $225 to participate on a high school team, but the parents discovered that this fee is waived more often for boys than for girls. The parents also started looking into supplemental athletic activities like off-season camps, that are not part of the school's program but are offered by separate business run by the coaches. These also charge for participation. When the cost of these optional-but-not-really-if-you-want-to-make-the-team programs are added in, another disparity appears: Girls playing soccer at one of the district high schools were charged $450 total; boys paid $265, and an even greater difference exists between boys and girls playing basketball at the other high school.
The parents' advocacy has prompted the school district to pay closer attention to how coaches are running private, off-season camps. But the article did not indicate that school district officials were planning to regulate what coaches could charge in order to ensure equity between boys and girls participation costs or if they would offset the higher cost to girls in some other way. The parents advocating for equality liken the role of coach-run businesses to other third parties, like booster clubs, which Title IX does not recognize as an excuse for more favorable treatment granted to boys' teams. The article notes that this position is unpopular with parents in boys-team booster clubs, but it at least quotes a school district official acknowledging this is how Title IX works. OPB has promised more reporting on this issue, so we will see what changes it leads to. The parents seem dogged and resourceful and unlikely to give up. It also helps that the law is on their side.
Saturday, April 09, 2016
Oregon High School Softball Team Sues District Over Unequal Facilities
School officials in Lake Oswego, Oregon, allegedly told the high school girls' softball team that they would have to win a state championship before the school would upgrade their facilities to match the level of quality that the boys' baseball team receives. In a lawsuit challenging this disparity in treatment under Title IX, the softball player-plaintiffs strike back, pointing out the unfairness of holding them to such a high standard while refusing to improve the level of support for the team.
In the lawsuit, the softball players allege that their facilities at a nearby junior high school consist of a dirt field with poor drainage that often requires them to cancel games due to poor conditions. They also lack designated locker room and basic amenities like water fountains. Meanwhile the boys' baseball team plays in a stadium at the high school that is decked out with artificial turf, locker rooms, pitching machines, an enclosed batting area, a press box, sound systems, water fountains, and well-maintained bathrooms.
The school district claims that improvements to the softball field are being made, though if this is their only defense, that would not be enough to dismiss a Title IX challenge. Title IX requires that schools provide equal treatment to their boys' and girls' athletics programs overall. It is not necessary to treat all sports equally or provide similar treatment to the boys and girls teams in the same (or similar) sport. Theoretically, a school court argue that (for example) a world-class swimming facility for the girls, if it had one, swim team offsets the similar level of luxury that the boys' baseball team enjoys. However, intra-sport or similar-sport comparisons usually end up being good indicators of overall disparity in support for the boys and girls programs in the aggregate.
In the lawsuit, the softball players allege that their facilities at a nearby junior high school consist of a dirt field with poor drainage that often requires them to cancel games due to poor conditions. They also lack designated locker room and basic amenities like water fountains. Meanwhile the boys' baseball team plays in a stadium at the high school that is decked out with artificial turf, locker rooms, pitching machines, an enclosed batting area, a press box, sound systems, water fountains, and well-maintained bathrooms.
The school district claims that improvements to the softball field are being made, though if this is their only defense, that would not be enough to dismiss a Title IX challenge. Title IX requires that schools provide equal treatment to their boys' and girls' athletics programs overall. It is not necessary to treat all sports equally or provide similar treatment to the boys and girls teams in the same (or similar) sport. Theoretically, a school court argue that (for example) a world-class swimming facility for the girls, if it had one, swim team offsets the similar level of luxury that the boys' baseball team enjoys. However, intra-sport or similar-sport comparisons usually end up being good indicators of overall disparity in support for the boys and girls programs in the aggregate.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Recent transgender policy cases
[I have been putting this post together for a few weeks now so some of the information is not that new, but still important to consider in the overall landscape of trans rights in education. I will post again soon about additional stories that are more recent.]
I am stealing this line from Ed Mazza's HuffPo piece about genital inspections as a prerequisite for public bathroom use. (see end of post for more on this):
"It may be a New Year, but the same old battle over bathrooms is starting all over again."
So here we go:
South Dakota considered legislation that would prevent transgender students from using bathrooms and locker rooms in accordance with their gender. This is despite the fact that the government has already made clear its stance on this issue when it recently intervened in the case of young girl in Illinois who was prevented from using the girls' locker room.The state's House of Representatives approved the bill by a wide margin (58-10). The bill's author specifically discussed the so-called incursion of the federal government into schools: "The federal government is now telling our schools that these students must have full, unrestricted access to restrooms, locker rooms and shower rooms," Deutsch said. "This means our schools must allow biologic boys and girls to use the same facilities together regardless of biologic sex." Another proponent of the bill said the "movement of transgenderism" is "endorsing confusion in the lives of little kids for whom we're responsible." The bill moves to the senate and then, if passed, to the governor's desk. Though he has not read it, he said it seems like a good idea. If it gets that far, I see lawsuits.
Another issue in Oregon. It was in Oregon, at George Fox University, where the issue of religious colleges receiving Title IX exemptions first drew media attention (though the requests had begun before that). This time a high school is debating whether a transgender student can use the boys' bathroom. Like in South Dakota, everyone knows about what happened in Illinois, and opponents do not seem to care. At a school board meeting in December, in which this issue was not on the agenda but had gained enough local attention that parents flocked to the meeting, many people had things to say. Earlier in the fall, a letter had been sent home explaining that a trans student would begin to use the boys' locker room for gym class.
We have not been writing about every case of transgender discrimination in K-12, and this one has--seemingly--only just begun. I give it attention here because it was one of the saddest stories I had read in quite a while. Other cases such as that of Nicole Maines or Gavin Grimm or Jayce (the George Fox student) included testimony from their parents, who all stood/are standing behind their children. The paths to this place were different among the parents, but they all got there. The child at the center of this latest controversy does not have that support. Elliot Yoder's mother has not quite gotten there. This is not to say that she will not, but this fight is happening now. And Yoder walked to the front of that meeting hall by himself after standing in the back of the room listening to people talk about him. They invoked the usual: religious freedom (it's a public school) and fears about sexual assault and spying by students pretending to be something they are not. They added some threats of violence. And then Yoder walked to the front of the meeting hall, after hearing members of his own family and some of his friends support his exclusion from the boys' bathroom, and explained his situation.
This is why we need education and legislation about transgender student rights. Because I imagine there are many more students in Yoder's situation--ones who do not have family or local support--who cannot bring themselves to speak out in front of a crowd of people who are, for all intents and purposes, against them. When clear laws and policies are in place and supported vehemently by the administration, then these students can begin to exercise their rights even if they do not have a lot of people in their corner.
In Texas, school superintendents have voted that student athletes must compete according to the sex listed on their birth certificates. The University Interscholastic League, which governs school sports in Texas, had this policy informally but punted a final decision to the superintendents' association. The overwhelming vote in favor a birth certificate policy puts the state in line with only six others.
On a happier note for transgender athletes, but one that has nothing to do with Title IX, the International Olympic Committee has changed its policy regarding the conditions under which transgender athletes can participate. The major change from the previous policy is that participants do not have to undergo sex reassignment surgery. As many critics of former iterations of the policy have noted, surgery is not a performance enhancer and often recovery from surgery can impede an athlete's training. MTF individuals will have to be able to prove they have sustained a specified testosterone level for at least a year. FTM athletes can compete without restriction. This means, I presume, that there will be an exception made for exogenous testosterone. I find this curious given how concerned the IOC has been about testosterone levels.
Though the IOC will apply these rules to Olympic participants, the new policy serves only as a recommendation to other international federations. In other words, governing bodies in any sport can implement their own rules.
And to end on a smh moment: a Virginia state delegate in the House of Representatives has proposed genital inspections before people go into public bathrooms, including students going into school bathrooms. It may be wrong to even mention this, but genital inspections do not reveal sex. Ask the International Olympic Committee circa 1960. This is, of course, beside the point. What the senator is trying to do is to prevent transpeople from using the bathrooms in accordance with their lived gender. The measure calls for a $50 fine for anyone using a bathroom not in accordance with anatomical sex. The fine can be issued by any law enforcement officer. So in an age where fears of pedophilia abound, there is a proposal calling for adults to inspect children's genitals. Again, pointing out all the problems with this proposal is an exercise in futility. The point is that it is being proposed to shame and out transpeople.
[Don't forget: Virginia is the state where Gavin Grimm is fighting for his right to use the boys' bathroom at Gloucester High School. He has received the support of the Obama administration in his case. The Federal Court of Appeals heard Grimm's case last week. ]
I would like to think that Mark Cole's proposal is a publicity stunt--an attempt at media attention. But I doubt it. It is a response to a perceived threat that people like Cole find so outrageous and it inspires outrageous responses. My fear is that measures that are perceived as slightly less outrageous, such as the bill in Houston will be seen as legitimate in comparison.
I am stealing this line from Ed Mazza's HuffPo piece about genital inspections as a prerequisite for public bathroom use. (see end of post for more on this):
"It may be a New Year, but the same old battle over bathrooms is starting all over again."
So here we go:
South Dakota considered legislation that would prevent transgender students from using bathrooms and locker rooms in accordance with their gender. This is despite the fact that the government has already made clear its stance on this issue when it recently intervened in the case of young girl in Illinois who was prevented from using the girls' locker room.The state's House of Representatives approved the bill by a wide margin (58-10). The bill's author specifically discussed the so-called incursion of the federal government into schools: "The federal government is now telling our schools that these students must have full, unrestricted access to restrooms, locker rooms and shower rooms," Deutsch said. "This means our schools must allow biologic boys and girls to use the same facilities together regardless of biologic sex." Another proponent of the bill said the "movement of transgenderism" is "endorsing confusion in the lives of little kids for whom we're responsible." The bill moves to the senate and then, if passed, to the governor's desk. Though he has not read it, he said it seems like a good idea. If it gets that far, I see lawsuits.
Another issue in Oregon. It was in Oregon, at George Fox University, where the issue of religious colleges receiving Title IX exemptions first drew media attention (though the requests had begun before that). This time a high school is debating whether a transgender student can use the boys' bathroom. Like in South Dakota, everyone knows about what happened in Illinois, and opponents do not seem to care. At a school board meeting in December, in which this issue was not on the agenda but had gained enough local attention that parents flocked to the meeting, many people had things to say. Earlier in the fall, a letter had been sent home explaining that a trans student would begin to use the boys' locker room for gym class.
We have not been writing about every case of transgender discrimination in K-12, and this one has--seemingly--only just begun. I give it attention here because it was one of the saddest stories I had read in quite a while. Other cases such as that of Nicole Maines or Gavin Grimm or Jayce (the George Fox student) included testimony from their parents, who all stood/are standing behind their children. The paths to this place were different among the parents, but they all got there. The child at the center of this latest controversy does not have that support. Elliot Yoder's mother has not quite gotten there. This is not to say that she will not, but this fight is happening now. And Yoder walked to the front of that meeting hall by himself after standing in the back of the room listening to people talk about him. They invoked the usual: religious freedom (it's a public school) and fears about sexual assault and spying by students pretending to be something they are not. They added some threats of violence. And then Yoder walked to the front of the meeting hall, after hearing members of his own family and some of his friends support his exclusion from the boys' bathroom, and explained his situation.
This is why we need education and legislation about transgender student rights. Because I imagine there are many more students in Yoder's situation--ones who do not have family or local support--who cannot bring themselves to speak out in front of a crowd of people who are, for all intents and purposes, against them. When clear laws and policies are in place and supported vehemently by the administration, then these students can begin to exercise their rights even if they do not have a lot of people in their corner.
In Texas, school superintendents have voted that student athletes must compete according to the sex listed on their birth certificates. The University Interscholastic League, which governs school sports in Texas, had this policy informally but punted a final decision to the superintendents' association. The overwhelming vote in favor a birth certificate policy puts the state in line with only six others.
On a happier note for transgender athletes, but one that has nothing to do with Title IX, the International Olympic Committee has changed its policy regarding the conditions under which transgender athletes can participate. The major change from the previous policy is that participants do not have to undergo sex reassignment surgery. As many critics of former iterations of the policy have noted, surgery is not a performance enhancer and often recovery from surgery can impede an athlete's training. MTF individuals will have to be able to prove they have sustained a specified testosterone level for at least a year. FTM athletes can compete without restriction. This means, I presume, that there will be an exception made for exogenous testosterone. I find this curious given how concerned the IOC has been about testosterone levels.
Though the IOC will apply these rules to Olympic participants, the new policy serves only as a recommendation to other international federations. In other words, governing bodies in any sport can implement their own rules.
And to end on a smh moment: a Virginia state delegate in the House of Representatives has proposed genital inspections before people go into public bathrooms, including students going into school bathrooms. It may be wrong to even mention this, but genital inspections do not reveal sex. Ask the International Olympic Committee circa 1960. This is, of course, beside the point. What the senator is trying to do is to prevent transpeople from using the bathrooms in accordance with their lived gender. The measure calls for a $50 fine for anyone using a bathroom not in accordance with anatomical sex. The fine can be issued by any law enforcement officer. So in an age where fears of pedophilia abound, there is a proposal calling for adults to inspect children's genitals. Again, pointing out all the problems with this proposal is an exercise in futility. The point is that it is being proposed to shame and out transpeople.
[Don't forget: Virginia is the state where Gavin Grimm is fighting for his right to use the boys' bathroom at Gloucester High School. He has received the support of the Obama administration in his case. The Federal Court of Appeals heard Grimm's case last week. ]
I would like to think that Mark Cole's proposal is a publicity stunt--an attempt at media attention. But I doubt it. It is a response to a perceived threat that people like Cole find so outrageous and it inspires outrageous responses. My fear is that measures that are perceived as slightly less outrageous, such as the bill in Houston will be seen as legitimate in comparison.
Saturday, April 05, 2014
Oregon university denying transgender student housing
In a decision that looks like it will not stand based on both state and federal discrimination laws, George Fox University has said it will not provide housing to "Jayce M.", a transgender man who would like to live with his male friends in on-campus in his junior year.
The Christian school does not currently have a policy addressing gender, but this situation has inspired them to write one that will say that students will be housed based on their biological sex.
And though the school has met with Jayce, his mother, and other advocates for his cause, school administrators have not changed their position about on-campus housing.
Additionally, in order to receive special permission to live off-campus (presumably all undergraduates are required to live on-campus with special exemptions offered), the school is requiring documentation that Jayce legally change his name, his driver's license, his birth certificate, and tell all his potential roommates and their parents that he is transgender.
The school eventually backed off of the birth certificate issue (Jayce was born in Tennessee which does not allow changes to birth certificates for transgender people,) and the obligation to tell roommates and their parents (privacy rights).
Because none of these options are viable, fair, or legal, Jayce and his lawyer have initiated a Title IX lawsuit against the school. The university's stance also appears to violate Oregon's anti-discrimination statutes. Neither the latter nor Title IX provide exemptions for religiously affiliated schools when it comes to issues of housing.
The Christian school does not currently have a policy addressing gender, but this situation has inspired them to write one that will say that students will be housed based on their biological sex.
And though the school has met with Jayce, his mother, and other advocates for his cause, school administrators have not changed their position about on-campus housing.
Additionally, in order to receive special permission to live off-campus (presumably all undergraduates are required to live on-campus with special exemptions offered), the school is requiring documentation that Jayce legally change his name, his driver's license, his birth certificate, and tell all his potential roommates and their parents that he is transgender.
The school eventually backed off of the birth certificate issue (Jayce was born in Tennessee which does not allow changes to birth certificates for transgender people,) and the obligation to tell roommates and their parents (privacy rights).
Because none of these options are viable, fair, or legal, Jayce and his lawyer have initiated a Title IX lawsuit against the school. The university's stance also appears to violate Oregon's anti-discrimination statutes. Neither the latter nor Title IX provide exemptions for religiously affiliated schools when it comes to issues of housing.
Tuesday, April 01, 2014
Title IX Complaint Filed Against Beaverton, Oregon School District
The Beaverton (Oregon) School District has been named in an anonymous Title IX complaint challenging gender inequality in the number of athletic opportunities at the district's five high schools. According to the complaint, none of the schools offer athletic opportunities proportionate to enrollment, nor can show a history of improving opportunities for underrepresented girls, nor are they offering all of the sports sanctioned by state's athletic association (suggesting probable unmet interest). It is now up to the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights to decide whether these allegations are sufficient to warrant investigation. OCR has been inconsistent about whether to open an investigation based on similarly-structured allegations in other complaints. Sometimes, particularly in the context of "mass complaints" that OCR sometimes receives, it requires a more specific allegation of unmet interest As I've said before, I believe that standard puts too much burden on complainants, and I hope that OCR declines to use it in the context of a complaint targeting a single school district.
In addition to dealing with the OCR, Beaverton School District also has to respond to parents' advocating for equal treatment of girls' teams. Some mothers of middle school softball players complained recently to the school board about inferior playing facilities available to girls at Beaverton's Westview High School. The softball field at Westview lacks electricity, which limits the fundraising potential of the concession stand and makes it difficult to plug in a pitching machine. Coaches must bring in a generator to run batting practice. Additionally the softball team's batting cages are not enclosed by walls and the field does not have a working scoreboard. In contrast, the boys' baseball field is wired for electricity, and has fully enclosed batting cages and a new scoreboard. The mothers have asked the district to move quickly on the matter of electricity, and to put in place a plan for resolving the other issues.
In addition to dealing with the OCR, Beaverton School District also has to respond to parents' advocating for equal treatment of girls' teams. Some mothers of middle school softball players complained recently to the school board about inferior playing facilities available to girls at Beaverton's Westview High School. The softball field at Westview lacks electricity, which limits the fundraising potential of the concession stand and makes it difficult to plug in a pitching machine. Coaches must bring in a generator to run batting practice. Additionally the softball team's batting cages are not enclosed by walls and the field does not have a working scoreboard. In contrast, the boys' baseball field is wired for electricity, and has fully enclosed batting cages and a new scoreboard. The mothers have asked the district to move quickly on the matter of electricity, and to put in place a plan for resolving the other issues.
Thursday, September 06, 2012
Oregon parent pursues lawsuit
In July we wrote about Randy Anderson, a parent of a softball player in the Seaside School District in Oregon. He was challenging the lack of access the girls' softball team had to the city's new premier athletic facility. The school district later announced that they would indeed allow the softball team to use the field--along with the football, baseball, and soccer teams. But Anderson says access to the field is not the only issue and so he is pursuing the lawsuit against the district.
Anderson's lawyer wrote in a statement that there are issues "regarding practice and competitive facilities, locker rooms, training facilities, equipment and supplies, travel and transportation, coaches and coaching facilities, scheduling of games and practice times publicity, funding and equal athletic participation opportunities."
In other words--pretty much everything.
I am not sure how effective a lawsuit will be unless others in addition to Anderson (whose daughter will eventually graduate) join in. It might be helpful to file an OCR complaint. It would trigger an investigation, which can have the effect of making schools a little more (re)active.
Anderson's lawyer wrote in a statement that there are issues "regarding practice and competitive facilities, locker rooms, training facilities, equipment and supplies, travel and transportation, coaches and coaching facilities, scheduling of games and practice times publicity, funding and equal athletic participation opportunities."
In other words--pretty much everything.
I am not sure how effective a lawsuit will be unless others in addition to Anderson (whose daughter will eventually graduate) join in. It might be helpful to file an OCR complaint. It would trigger an investigation, which can have the effect of making schools a little more (re)active.
Monday, August 06, 2012
Oregon father proceeds with lawsuit
We noted last month that Randy Anderson, the father of a softball player at Oregon's Seaside High School, was planning on filing a lawsuit because no girls' team was slated to play at the new sports complex, which seems to have been designed around the needs/parameters of boys' sports, i.e. baseball.
Well it appears that Anderson's almost actions inspired a reconsideration of how the field was to be used. A recent announcement about the events the field would host included girls' varsity softball.
But Anderson still plans of pursuing action against the school for gender discrimination that violates Title IX. Though the article cited above refers to Anderson's intended action as lawsuit-based, it would make more sense if it was a complaint filed with OCR since the gender inequities Anderson wants remedied (coaching, facilities, transportation, equipment) seem to affect girls' athletics generally and not specifically the softball team on which Anderson's daughter plays (thus giving him standing in a lawsuit). But we shall see what course of action(s) are taken by both Anderson and the school district in the coming weeks and months.
Well it appears that Anderson's almost actions inspired a reconsideration of how the field was to be used. A recent announcement about the events the field would host included girls' varsity softball.
But Anderson still plans of pursuing action against the school for gender discrimination that violates Title IX. Though the article cited above refers to Anderson's intended action as lawsuit-based, it would make more sense if it was a complaint filed with OCR since the gender inequities Anderson wants remedied (coaching, facilities, transportation, equipment) seem to affect girls' athletics generally and not specifically the softball team on which Anderson's daughter plays (thus giving him standing in a lawsuit). But we shall see what course of action(s) are taken by both Anderson and the school district in the coming weeks and months.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Premier Field in Seaside Will Include Girls' Softball
Last week we blogged about the lawsuit threatened by a father in Seaside, Oregon, challenging the school district's omission of girls' softball from its arrangement to use the premier municipal athletic complex for high school football and baseball.
This week, school officials announced that Broadway Field would be available to a broader number of high school teams, including the girls softball team, in upcoming seasons. However, Randy Anderson has vowed to press his lawsuit anyway. According to this article, he believes there are other Title IX inequities that still have not been addressed.
This week, school officials announced that Broadway Field would be available to a broader number of high school teams, including the girls softball team, in upcoming seasons. However, Randy Anderson has vowed to press his lawsuit anyway. According to this article, he believes there are other Title IX inequities that still have not been addressed.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Oregon Dad Challenges Softball Team's Exclusion from Premier Field
The Oregonian reports that parent Randy Anderson has filed an intent to sue the Seaside School District to challenge a disparity in athletic fields. The city recently constructed a state-of-the-art athletic complex, which includes an astroturf football field and baseball field for the high school boys' teams to play on. In contrast, the Seaside High School girls' softball team, on which Anderson's daughter plays, uses an 11-year-old former baseball field that was constructed on a wetland and prone to flooding. Anderson says about the new "million dollar field" that "everyone and their brother can play on it -- except the girls." Moreover, the remedy he is seeking is very modest -- he says the city could install a portable pitching mound and move the bases to allow the field to be used for both baseball and softball. Hopefully, the school district and the city will agree that that's a much easier solution than litigating what appears to be a strong case.
The case against Seaside isn't the only softball-related dispute in the news these days. Here's a similar story about a former coach challenging disparities between softball and baseball facilities used by the Homewood-Flossmoor School District in Illinois. The article makes the point that while this disparity is the only one mentioned in the complaint, other schools in the area have similar problems resulting from what appears to be a trend in constructing stadium-like facilities for baseball provide far more amenities to the boys who play there than are available at even the very good softball fields that exist for girls.
The case against Seaside isn't the only softball-related dispute in the news these days. Here's a similar story about a former coach challenging disparities between softball and baseball facilities used by the Homewood-Flossmoor School District in Illinois. The article makes the point that while this disparity is the only one mentioned in the complaint, other schools in the area have similar problems resulting from what appears to be a trend in constructing stadium-like facilities for baseball provide far more amenities to the boys who play there than are available at even the very good softball fields that exist for girls.
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
No Investigations into Oregon Complaints
The Department of Education has announced that it will not conduct investigations into the complaints filed against 60 school districts in June.
No reasons for this decision appear in any news report available at this time. My understanding, however, is that OCR dropped the complaints because they did not contain evidence to support allegations that the districts were violating all three prongs of the three-part test, as is required for a Title IX violation to occur. Specifically, OCR required more evidence to support allegations that the districts were in violation of the third prong, which measures whether school districts have satisfied all unmet interest of the underrepresented sex. Generally, the complaint based allegations of unmet interest on the fact that districts offered fewer girls' sports than are sanctioned by the Oregon State Activities Association.
Under normal circumstances, I think that basing a prong three allegation on evidence that schools don't offer girls' sports that are popular in the state, as evidenced by their recognition by the state athletic association, is a viable one. Remember, the complainant isn't required to prove that a violation exists -- that's OCR's job -- just give the agency a reasonable basis for conducting an investigation. Moreover, the Oregon complainant isn't the first to rely on state athletic association's list of sanctioned sports to support allegations of prong three violations; the National Women's Law Center did so when it filed 12 complaints against schools across the country earlier this year, and those complaints have not been dismissed. Perhaps when faced with the prospect of a single regional office having to investigate 100 schools at once, OCR is requiring more of complainants than it ordinary would?
No reasons for this decision appear in any news report available at this time. My understanding, however, is that OCR dropped the complaints because they did not contain evidence to support allegations that the districts were violating all three prongs of the three-part test, as is required for a Title IX violation to occur. Specifically, OCR required more evidence to support allegations that the districts were in violation of the third prong, which measures whether school districts have satisfied all unmet interest of the underrepresented sex. Generally, the complaint based allegations of unmet interest on the fact that districts offered fewer girls' sports than are sanctioned by the Oregon State Activities Association.
Under normal circumstances, I think that basing a prong three allegation on evidence that schools don't offer girls' sports that are popular in the state, as evidenced by their recognition by the state athletic association, is a viable one. Remember, the complainant isn't required to prove that a violation exists -- that's OCR's job -- just give the agency a reasonable basis for conducting an investigation. Moreover, the Oregon complainant isn't the first to rely on state athletic association's list of sanctioned sports to support allegations of prong three violations; the National Women's Law Center did so when it filed 12 complaints against schools across the country earlier this year, and those complaints have not been dismissed. Perhaps when faced with the prospect of a single regional office having to investigate 100 schools at once, OCR is requiring more of complainants than it ordinary would?
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
100 Oregon high schools cited
Sixty school districts in Oregon were named in a recent complaint filed with the Office of Civil Rights. Over 100 high schools have been cited as not providing an equitable number of sport opportunities for girls.
This is a huge complaint--in both senses of the word! In what appears to be a significant amount of research and data collection, the complaint (just under 600 pages) lists the proportionality numbers for the 100 schools and ranks them accordingly. I was actually surprised at the numbers available. High schools are not required, by federal law, to report such data. But it seems that Oregon's high school activities association keeps track of such things. Makes it much easier than visiting every school asking for their records! Though it should be noted that the most recent data available was from 2006. I still think that OCR will at least look at the schools that seems to have the most egregious disparities.
It seems that opportunities is the only program area the complaint is focusing on. But if the complaint triggers an investigation (or many, many investigations), other areas will also be investigated.
Currently unknown is who is reponsible for this mssive undertaking, which was filed in April. Kudos to that person(s)--I certainly hope it is indeed persons. They appear to have done a lot of OCR's work for them already with the seemingly comprehensive report. I hope that OCR does indeed investigate these schools. I worry about their ability to do so. It seems as if so many complaints are emerging--large-scale complaints. I wonder if they are equipped (staff, budgets, etc.) to deal with it all.
The usual "surprise" being expressed by various school administrators who will certainly cooperate but are sure they are in compliance.
What has interested me about these large-scale complaints (I am thinking also about the 12 complaints filed by NWLC last fall) is that they focus on expanding opportunities for high school girls. This mirrors the push by women's sports advocates in the 70s, after the passage of Title IX, to focus on the expansion of intercollegiate opportunities. More and more attention is being paid to disparities in other programs areas (like facilities and uniforms for example). But the focus on high school opportunities is almost like a (near) 40-year trickle down effect. I hope that it both continues and creates a more widespread awareness of the need for mandatory nationwide data collection at the high school level.
This is a huge complaint--in both senses of the word! In what appears to be a significant amount of research and data collection, the complaint (just under 600 pages) lists the proportionality numbers for the 100 schools and ranks them accordingly. I was actually surprised at the numbers available. High schools are not required, by federal law, to report such data. But it seems that Oregon's high school activities association keeps track of such things. Makes it much easier than visiting every school asking for their records! Though it should be noted that the most recent data available was from 2006. I still think that OCR will at least look at the schools that seems to have the most egregious disparities.
It seems that opportunities is the only program area the complaint is focusing on. But if the complaint triggers an investigation (or many, many investigations), other areas will also be investigated.
Currently unknown is who is reponsible for this mssive undertaking, which was filed in April. Kudos to that person(s)--I certainly hope it is indeed persons. They appear to have done a lot of OCR's work for them already with the seemingly comprehensive report. I hope that OCR does indeed investigate these schools. I worry about their ability to do so. It seems as if so many complaints are emerging--large-scale complaints. I wonder if they are equipped (staff, budgets, etc.) to deal with it all.
The usual "surprise" being expressed by various school administrators who will certainly cooperate but are sure they are in compliance.
What has interested me about these large-scale complaints (I am thinking also about the 12 complaints filed by NWLC last fall) is that they focus on expanding opportunities for high school girls. This mirrors the push by women's sports advocates in the 70s, after the passage of Title IX, to focus on the expansion of intercollegiate opportunities. More and more attention is being paid to disparities in other programs areas (like facilities and uniforms for example). But the focus on high school opportunities is almost like a (near) 40-year trickle down effect. I hope that it both continues and creates a more widespread awareness of the need for mandatory nationwide data collection at the high school level.
Friday, January 08, 2010
Complaint against Lebanon temporarily suspended
A complaint brought anonymously against Lebanon High School in Oregon has been suspended for now while the school collects data on gender equity in its athletics department.
At issue in the original complaint filed in November 2009 was the facilities and benefits received by the baseball team versus the softball team. Part of the disparity is allegedly due to fundraising that occurs on behalf of the baseball team which, as many of us know, does not absolve a school from providing an equitable experience.
A self-assessment, though, will look at more than just baseball versus softball. It will be--hopefully--a comprehensive examination of the school's athletic department and the experiences and opportunities it provides to its student athletes.
1/11 Update: Here is a link to an article that gives the timeline and steps OCR is requiring of Lebanon in order to drop the complaint.
At issue in the original complaint filed in November 2009 was the facilities and benefits received by the baseball team versus the softball team. Part of the disparity is allegedly due to fundraising that occurs on behalf of the baseball team which, as many of us know, does not absolve a school from providing an equitable experience.
A self-assessment, though, will look at more than just baseball versus softball. It will be--hopefully--a comprehensive examination of the school's athletic department and the experiences and opportunities it provides to its student athletes.
1/11 Update: Here is a link to an article that gives the timeline and steps OCR is requiring of Lebanon in order to drop the complaint.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Fundraising at Issue in Complaint Against Oregon School District
The Office for Civil Rights is currently investigating an anonymous complaint against the Lebanon (Oregon) Community School District for sex discrimination in its athletics program. District officials told the local press that the complaint addresses the fact that the softball team does not have an all-weather batting facility like the baseball team, and that the boys' baseball team, but not the softball team, travels to Arizona for spring break. The district also stated that the baseball team "built its own batting cage" and "raised money on their own to take the trip" -- suggesting that it might be considering this a defense to Title IX liability. However, the source of funding will not likely absolve the district of obligations to provide equitable resources to girls and boys. Unless the trips or the facilities are entirely private and not part of the school athletics program (i.e., it just happens to be the case that the 2o guys on the same flight to Phoenix happen to also play for Lebanon High) then any funds raised by "the team" (read: the team's booster club) is considered a donation to the school. And while schools can accept donations and even use them for earmarked purposes, opportunities and resources still have to be equal. The school can either use other funds for equivalent perks for girls, or else decline the earmarked donation.
This seemingly harsh result is put in context by the fact that the baseball team can successfully raise funds because it is privileged to enjoy the support of parents and the community. Title IX does not require parents and communities to embrace girls' sports and help the softball team raise funds. But it does require that schools receiving federal funds do not reflect society's disparate preferences.
This seemingly harsh result is put in context by the fact that the baseball team can successfully raise funds because it is privileged to enjoy the support of parents and the community. Title IX does not require parents and communities to embrace girls' sports and help the softball team raise funds. But it does require that schools receiving federal funds do not reflect society's disparate preferences.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Lake Oswego HS Title IX Complaint Resolved
In response to a student complaint filed with OCR over the summer (which we blogged about here), Lake Oswego High School (Oregon) has agreed to make its deluxe video screening room accessible to girls' teams. Previously, the room -- outfitted with a flat screen TV and comfy couches -- was mainly used by the football team. School officials claim that they "have never said that one group can not access this room" but since the room could only be reached through the boys' locker room, such protests seem hollow.
Fortunately, a solution lies in architecture. The high school has agreed to make the deluxe viewing room accessible from outside the locker room. They have also agreed to upgrade a second, existing viewing room to make it comparable to the football team's.
While it's nice to see an OCR complaint effectively resolved, it still kind of blows my mind that female students had to actually file a complaint to get the school to respond to such an obvious inequity. Going forward perhaps LOHS and its peers will do a better job ensuring equal access to athletic facilities and in responding to students' valid complaints.
Fortunately, a solution lies in architecture. The high school has agreed to make the deluxe viewing room accessible from outside the locker room. They have also agreed to upgrade a second, existing viewing room to make it comparable to the football team's.
While it's nice to see an OCR complaint effectively resolved, it still kind of blows my mind that female students had to actually file a complaint to get the school to respond to such an obvious inequity. Going forward perhaps LOHS and its peers will do a better job ensuring equal access to athletic facilities and in responding to students' valid complaints.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
No reinstatement for Oregon wrestling
A judge in Marian County, Oregon denied the request by the University of Oregon men's wrestling team to reinstate the program until the team goes before a court in September to state its case (which is being presented by Equity in Athletics Oregon).
When the judge issued his ruling against an injunction to reinstate the program, he noted that it was largely due to the time between when the announcement of the cut was made and when the team filed its request: about a year. But, he also noted, the denial is not an indication of what will happen when the merits of the case are presented in the fall.
When the judge issued his ruling against an injunction to reinstate the program, he noted that it was largely due to the time between when the announcement of the cut was made and when the team filed its request: about a year. But, he also noted, the denial is not an indication of what will happen when the merits of the case are presented in the fall.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Oregon Wrestlers File Suit
On behalf of the disappointed wrestlers at the University of Oregon, Equity in Athletics has sued the University of Oregon over its decision to cut wrestling when it added baseball last year.
According to an EIA press release and SaveOregonWrestling.com, the state court complaint alleges that the University's decision to cut wrestling was procedurally flawed and that substantively, it violates the equal protection clause of Oregon's constitution as well as the state's antidiscrimination law, Section 659.850. University officials have acknowledged that Title IX did not require them to cut wrestling when they added baseball, and that they selected wrestling for elimination based on other criteria, including lack of a facility, lack of competition, and absence of fan support. EIA argues that the University should have applied this same criteria to both men’s and women’s teams in deciding what sports to cut, pointing out that women's lacrosse and competitive cheerleading also lack competition and support.
On the other hand, since women are already underrepresented in Oregon's athletic opportunities, cutting women's team would have a more discriminatory impact than cutting a men's team. It certainly would violate Title IX for the school to cut a viable women's team in light of the existing gender disparity in opportunities. For this reason, I'm not sure that EIA's argument that Oregon should have cut a women's team instead will carry much weight.
According to an EIA press release and SaveOregonWrestling.com, the state court complaint alleges that the University's decision to cut wrestling was procedurally flawed and that substantively, it violates the equal protection clause of Oregon's constitution as well as the state's antidiscrimination law, Section 659.850. University officials have acknowledged that Title IX did not require them to cut wrestling when they added baseball, and that they selected wrestling for elimination based on other criteria, including lack of a facility, lack of competition, and absence of fan support. EIA argues that the University should have applied this same criteria to both men’s and women’s teams in deciding what sports to cut, pointing out that women's lacrosse and competitive cheerleading also lack competition and support.
On the other hand, since women are already underrepresented in Oregon's athletic opportunities, cutting women's team would have a more discriminatory impact than cutting a men's team. It certainly would violate Title IX for the school to cut a viable women's team in light of the existing gender disparity in opportunities. For this reason, I'm not sure that EIA's argument that Oregon should have cut a women's team instead will carry much weight.
Monday, February 25, 2008
If you cheer louder...
...maybe you'll get a better grade.
The University of Oregon recently elevated competitive cheer to varsity status but that has not helped its grade on the recently released Gender Equity Scorecard. Oregon earned an F and has found itself 97th among 115 colleges and universities (and last in the Pac-10) for its gender equity efforts. The scorecard considers female participation rates (in terms of proportionality only) and funding.
Senior associate athletic director Renee Baumgartner says that if the scorecard was based on satisfying prong two, which Oregon cites compliance with, they would have received an A. But a look at the athletic department's finances suggest otherwise. For example, a significant, and arguably disproportionate, amount of money goes toward paying the coaches of football and men's baseball.
Oregon administrators are looking into their poor grade on the scorecard.
The University of Oregon recently elevated competitive cheer to varsity status but that has not helped its grade on the recently released Gender Equity Scorecard. Oregon earned an F and has found itself 97th among 115 colleges and universities (and last in the Pac-10) for its gender equity efforts. The scorecard considers female participation rates (in terms of proportionality only) and funding.
Senior associate athletic director Renee Baumgartner says that if the scorecard was based on satisfying prong two, which Oregon cites compliance with, they would have received an A. But a look at the athletic department's finances suggest otherwise. For example, a significant, and arguably disproportionate, amount of money goes toward paying the coaches of football and men's baseball.
Oregon administrators are looking into their poor grade on the scorecard.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Top ten of 2007
[This was promised two days ago but, well, it just didn't happen. Please don't hold it against it us. We promise it does not an indication of a pattern in the new year.]
Below are what we saw as the top ten Title IX stories of the year. As Ebuz noted to a reporter from Inside HigherEd not too long ago, it was a good year to be a Title IX plaintiff. You will see this reflected below, but other events were pivotal as well. The list is in no particular order--we could say it's because we here at the Title IX Blog don't like to hierarchize, but really it's impossible to figure out what was the most significant story of the year. There were so many times this year we just found ourselves saying to one another: "No way. Really?" And in a good way.
1. University of Colorado settles sexual harassment case with two former students who accused the university--now with a new president and athletic director--of failing to do enough to remedy the situation with football recruit parties that lead to their sexual assaults. We expect to see a very positive ripple effect from this case in future sexual harassment cases.
2. All things Fresno State. Three cases of discrimination, three wins (we consider settlement a win in this situation). Great record for Title IX--not so good for Fresno State, California taxpayers, and university president John Welty who we predict (because it is the time of year for making predictions) will not make it through 2008 in his current position. We also predict that as exciting as Stacy Johnson-Klein's $19.1 million jury award was--it will not stand up. We expect a reduction in the amount and hope Fresno does not push for a new trial. And though the cases of Lindy Vivas, Diane Milutinovich and Johnson-Klein seem to have reached the denouement, don't expect 2008 to be a good time for Fresno State. An assistant in the athletic department filed a discrimination suit at the end of 2007. We will have to wait and see what Fresno learned this past year as they approach this new charge of discrimination.
3. The anniversary. 2007 marked the 35th anniversary of the legislation and it seemed every media outlet in the country (and beyond) covered it some way. It was all very celebratory and certainly we celebrated too, but much of this coverage failed to critically address the backlash against Title IX. Luckily there were plenty of opportunities this year to correct all the misinformation about the law that came from sports writers, non-sports writers, television commentators, bloggers, and people with all sorts of opinions. But the anniversary also provided a great opportunity for assessment and discourse about the future. We were excited to be a small part of this conversation not only on this blog but at events like the Girls and Women Rock Conference in Cleveland last April.
4. Jennifer Harris v. Rene Portland. The lawsuit got settled; the terms and gathered evidence were sealed, but we heard things here and there and read between the lines and generally were pleased. Then we were even more pleased when Portland resigned shortly after the season ended. Jennifer Harris deserves the utmost respect and many thanks for being the first person to stand up to Portland's racist, sexist, and homophobic behavior.
5. Florida Gulf Coast University. Pat Griffin has dubbed FGCU "Fresno east." Not a nickname you want to have hanging around your athletic department as it tries to become a more serious contender in DI athletics. What FGCU might learn from Fresno is hard to discern right now. The administration does not seem to think it is, in any way, in the wrong in its treatment of female coaches, very few of whom actually remain at the school. But just like their counterparts across the country, these women are fighting back. And they are making homophobia a more salient issue in the discussion of their treatment.
6. UNC's Anson Dorrance is going to stand trial for sexual harassment. This case has been ongoing for years, but in April, assuming no settlement is reached (which is a big assumption given the precedent that seems to have been set in 2007) head soccer coach Dorrance will finally have to answer for his treatment of his players and the sexualized atmosphere he created on the team.
7. Cheerleading. Yep. We wrote about cheerleading a fair amount this year given it is not even an NCAA-approved sport. This did not stop University of Oregon, though, from creating only the second varsity-level competitive cheer program in the country (after Maryland). The addition of a non-sanctioned sport alone would have created some controversy (as it has at UMD) but the decision to add competitive cheer just as Oregon was cutting wrestling (and simultaneously reinstating baseball) created quite a stir. Things may have settled a bit at Oregon but the issue of competitive cheer as sport that counts toward Title IX compliance is not likely to go away soon and, though it may not happen this year, I would not be surprised to see a lawsuit brought by a club sport player whose team did not get elevated to varsity status because cheerleading did.
The other big cheerleading news was at the high school level where most cheer teams are not considered sports but rather constitute support for sports teams. This means, under Title IX, if you provide such support to your boys' teams, you must do so for your girls' teams. This was the issue at hand in New York, when a mother of a female basketball player protested the lack of cheerleaders at the girls' games and their constant presence on the boys' sidelines. And despite our awareness of entrenched gender norms in this society, we were a little surprised at the backlash engendered by the mandate for equal amounts of cheering that seemed to stem largely from a general feeling that girls should not be cheering for other girls.
8. Softball fields. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that we found about a story almost every week about the condition of softball fields. Most came out of high schools, but a few were about college fields as well. Parents, players, concerned citizens have been filing complaints about how the inferior fields are a violation of Title IX. Why softball fields? They are a very tangible measure of compliance. Look at the baseball field; look at the softball field. Are there lights, concession stands, same level of maintenance, outright ownership, suitable dugouts, fences, bleachers, etc. on both fields? It is difficult to defend a softball field that is lacking in any of these things when the field used by the baseball team has them. And that is why so many softball fields across the country this year got some major face lifts.
9. Seasons of change in Michigan. It finally ended. The case against the Michigan High School Athletic Association ended last April when the Supreme Court denied the organization cert. This has meant that the lower court's decision that MHSAA was in violation of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause in its scheduling of girls' sports out of their traditional seasons has stood. Michigan high schools have had to change their schedules accordingly. The controversy this case created was enormous and the incivility of the discussions was disheartening. We hope that 2008 is the proverbial calm after the storm and that everyone is working more willingly than not toward dealing effectively with the scheduling changes.
10. Boosters. Almost as ubiquitous as the stories about softball fields were the stories about booster club funds. Yes, money raised by booster clubs must be considered in the quest for equitable support of girls' and boys' teams. High schools in Pennsylvania and California are addressing and accounting for booster club funds right now. More stories like this and the other ones we covered this year are likely to emerge in the coming year.
Below are what we saw as the top ten Title IX stories of the year. As Ebuz noted to a reporter from Inside HigherEd not too long ago, it was a good year to be a Title IX plaintiff. You will see this reflected below, but other events were pivotal as well. The list is in no particular order--we could say it's because we here at the Title IX Blog don't like to hierarchize, but really it's impossible to figure out what was the most significant story of the year. There were so many times this year we just found ourselves saying to one another: "No way. Really?" And in a good way.
1. University of Colorado settles sexual harassment case with two former students who accused the university--now with a new president and athletic director--of failing to do enough to remedy the situation with football recruit parties that lead to their sexual assaults. We expect to see a very positive ripple effect from this case in future sexual harassment cases.
2. All things Fresno State. Three cases of discrimination, three wins (we consider settlement a win in this situation). Great record for Title IX--not so good for Fresno State, California taxpayers, and university president John Welty who we predict (because it is the time of year for making predictions) will not make it through 2008 in his current position. We also predict that as exciting as Stacy Johnson-Klein's $19.1 million jury award was--it will not stand up. We expect a reduction in the amount and hope Fresno does not push for a new trial. And though the cases of Lindy Vivas, Diane Milutinovich and Johnson-Klein seem to have reached the denouement, don't expect 2008 to be a good time for Fresno State. An assistant in the athletic department filed a discrimination suit at the end of 2007. We will have to wait and see what Fresno learned this past year as they approach this new charge of discrimination.
3. The anniversary. 2007 marked the 35th anniversary of the legislation and it seemed every media outlet in the country (and beyond) covered it some way. It was all very celebratory and certainly we celebrated too, but much of this coverage failed to critically address the backlash against Title IX. Luckily there were plenty of opportunities this year to correct all the misinformation about the law that came from sports writers, non-sports writers, television commentators, bloggers, and people with all sorts of opinions. But the anniversary also provided a great opportunity for assessment and discourse about the future. We were excited to be a small part of this conversation not only on this blog but at events like the Girls and Women Rock Conference in Cleveland last April.
4. Jennifer Harris v. Rene Portland. The lawsuit got settled; the terms and gathered evidence were sealed, but we heard things here and there and read between the lines and generally were pleased. Then we were even more pleased when Portland resigned shortly after the season ended. Jennifer Harris deserves the utmost respect and many thanks for being the first person to stand up to Portland's racist, sexist, and homophobic behavior.
5. Florida Gulf Coast University. Pat Griffin has dubbed FGCU "Fresno east." Not a nickname you want to have hanging around your athletic department as it tries to become a more serious contender in DI athletics. What FGCU might learn from Fresno is hard to discern right now. The administration does not seem to think it is, in any way, in the wrong in its treatment of female coaches, very few of whom actually remain at the school. But just like their counterparts across the country, these women are fighting back. And they are making homophobia a more salient issue in the discussion of their treatment.
6. UNC's Anson Dorrance is going to stand trial for sexual harassment. This case has been ongoing for years, but in April, assuming no settlement is reached (which is a big assumption given the precedent that seems to have been set in 2007) head soccer coach Dorrance will finally have to answer for his treatment of his players and the sexualized atmosphere he created on the team.
7. Cheerleading. Yep. We wrote about cheerleading a fair amount this year given it is not even an NCAA-approved sport. This did not stop University of Oregon, though, from creating only the second varsity-level competitive cheer program in the country (after Maryland). The addition of a non-sanctioned sport alone would have created some controversy (as it has at UMD) but the decision to add competitive cheer just as Oregon was cutting wrestling (and simultaneously reinstating baseball) created quite a stir. Things may have settled a bit at Oregon but the issue of competitive cheer as sport that counts toward Title IX compliance is not likely to go away soon and, though it may not happen this year, I would not be surprised to see a lawsuit brought by a club sport player whose team did not get elevated to varsity status because cheerleading did.
The other big cheerleading news was at the high school level where most cheer teams are not considered sports but rather constitute support for sports teams. This means, under Title IX, if you provide such support to your boys' teams, you must do so for your girls' teams. This was the issue at hand in New York, when a mother of a female basketball player protested the lack of cheerleaders at the girls' games and their constant presence on the boys' sidelines. And despite our awareness of entrenched gender norms in this society, we were a little surprised at the backlash engendered by the mandate for equal amounts of cheering that seemed to stem largely from a general feeling that girls should not be cheering for other girls.
8. Softball fields. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that we found about a story almost every week about the condition of softball fields. Most came out of high schools, but a few were about college fields as well. Parents, players, concerned citizens have been filing complaints about how the inferior fields are a violation of Title IX. Why softball fields? They are a very tangible measure of compliance. Look at the baseball field; look at the softball field. Are there lights, concession stands, same level of maintenance, outright ownership, suitable dugouts, fences, bleachers, etc. on both fields? It is difficult to defend a softball field that is lacking in any of these things when the field used by the baseball team has them. And that is why so many softball fields across the country this year got some major face lifts.
9. Seasons of change in Michigan. It finally ended. The case against the Michigan High School Athletic Association ended last April when the Supreme Court denied the organization cert. This has meant that the lower court's decision that MHSAA was in violation of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause in its scheduling of girls' sports out of their traditional seasons has stood. Michigan high schools have had to change their schedules accordingly. The controversy this case created was enormous and the incivility of the discussions was disheartening. We hope that 2008 is the proverbial calm after the storm and that everyone is working more willingly than not toward dealing effectively with the scheduling changes.
10. Boosters. Almost as ubiquitous as the stories about softball fields were the stories about booster club funds. Yes, money raised by booster clubs must be considered in the quest for equitable support of girls' and boys' teams. High schools in Pennsylvania and California are addressing and accounting for booster club funds right now. More stories like this and the other ones we covered this year are likely to emerge in the coming year.
Friday, October 19, 2007
"Served its purpose"?
A writer at the Corvallis Gazette-Times believes that Title IX "has served its purpose" and it's time to stop penalizing male athletes--especially football players--and find a better way of enforcing the law.
Speaking to the specifics in Oregon, primarily Oregon State and Oregon, writer Kevin Hampton suggests football get a waiver from Title IX because it requires so many players and there is no female equivalent. The waiver idea is not new, of course, it has been around just as long as Title IX itself and was wisely never implemented. Why? Because intercollegiate sports are not supposed to be a business. They are part of the larger educational experience. And selectively applying a law that is meant to ensure equity in education isn't really equity at all. (Also, by Hampton's rationale, we would have to exempt field hockey which, in the United States, has no male equivalent.)
Not surprisingly, we also get the "but football makes money" argument. The numbers support this claim as it applies to OSU. It appears that football brings in more money there than it costs. But of course this is not universally applicable--it does not even apply to a quarter of Div I football programs, a fact Hampton overlooks. Football is rarely "foot[ing] the bill" for other teams; most often it is taking more than its fair share.
We also have to remember that, as Professor Nancy Hogshead-Makar has said, the actual expenses numbers are not subject to the same general accounting practices as those in the business world because athletics has a tax-exempt status. So, for example, the costs of stadium operation are not factored into team expenses.
Hampton, thankfully, recognizes the cultural bias against women's sports and does not advocate for Title IX's elimination because it would result in decreased opportunities for women. But in his pitch to "reform" the law he perpetuates almost all of the myths we just cannot seem to shatter.
Speaking to the specifics in Oregon, primarily Oregon State and Oregon, writer Kevin Hampton suggests football get a waiver from Title IX because it requires so many players and there is no female equivalent. The waiver idea is not new, of course, it has been around just as long as Title IX itself and was wisely never implemented. Why? Because intercollegiate sports are not supposed to be a business. They are part of the larger educational experience. And selectively applying a law that is meant to ensure equity in education isn't really equity at all. (Also, by Hampton's rationale, we would have to exempt field hockey which, in the United States, has no male equivalent.)
Not surprisingly, we also get the "but football makes money" argument. The numbers support this claim as it applies to OSU. It appears that football brings in more money there than it costs. But of course this is not universally applicable--it does not even apply to a quarter of Div I football programs, a fact Hampton overlooks. Football is rarely "foot[ing] the bill" for other teams; most often it is taking more than its fair share.
We also have to remember that, as Professor Nancy Hogshead-Makar has said, the actual expenses numbers are not subject to the same general accounting practices as those in the business world because athletics has a tax-exempt status. So, for example, the costs of stadium operation are not factored into team expenses.
Hampton, thankfully, recognizes the cultural bias against women's sports and does not advocate for Title IX's elimination because it would result in decreased opportunities for women. But in his pitch to "reform" the law he perpetuates almost all of the myths we just cannot seem to shatter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)