Another female coach terminated: University of Delaware

In the wake of similar stories out of Duluth, Iowa, and Tufts, we note that another female coach has been terminated this year, this time by the University of Delaware. 

Softball coach Jaime Wohlbach was reportedly fired abruptly on Monday afternoon, in the middle of her season.  According to Wolhbach,  she was told at the time that she "ran a hostile environment" for her players, which she disputes and points out that she had not received any indication from her supervisor that players had complained or were unhappy.

Considering public comments Wohlbach has since made, it appears that an alternative possible explanation for her termination is that it is the culmination of an ongoing conflict with her supervisor, associate athletic director Joe Shirley, whom Wolhbach accuses of micromanaging her team and giving her an unwarranted poor performance evaluation. Given that Wohlbach apparently reported him to human resources for "bullying," it seems possible that her termination is retaliation for her complaint.  


It remains to be seen whether Wohlbach will take any legal action invoking Title IX. It is certainly possible that the "bullying" she complained of targeted her because she is a woman and/or because she coaches a woman's team.  Additionally, if the university had actually received complaints about the coach's "hostility" towards her players, the fact that its response to those complaints was to immediately terminate the coach could reflect a sexist double standard, if it is the case that Delaware would have permit male coaches with more leeway in that situation, such as an opportunity to address or explain the complaints.

The Title IX angle is speculation on my part.  But since we have seen other examples of similar bias against women coaches, including the very recent examples noted above, it is not far fetched to consider the possibility of sexism underlying this case as well. 

Five More Universities Under Investigation

The Department of Education announced today that it has opened five additional investigations into  campuses policies and practices surrounding sexual violence, bringing to 60 the previous tally of 55 that had been announced by the Department earlier this month.  The five institutions are: University of Akron, the University of Alaska system, University of Delaware, Elmira College in New York, and Cisco Junior College in Texas.

Huffington Post had earlier reported about a complaint filed about Akron, which contained allegations that that its sexual assault policies were copied from another school's and, as a result, contained references to offices that did not even exist at the university. That complaint also charged the university with delay and careless investigation practices. Otherwise, we know little about the specific nature of these investigations, such as whether they were initiated by a complaint or were undertaken by the agency's own initiative. 

HuffPo is keeping track of all of the sexual assault-related Title IX investigations and pending complaints on a handy Google map. 

Mediation in UD track complaint

News out of Delaware: the University has agreed to mediation in an attempt to obtain an Early Complaint Resolution. If mediation is unsuccessful (supporters of the men's track team have said the only satisfactory resolution is reinstatement) OCR will go forward with its investigation.
I have to say, I'm pretty surprised. While I agree that university officials should have been communicating more openly and more honestly about the situation, I don't know why they felt pressured into mediation, when it appears they have not violated Title IX. Again, if there are other civil rights issues present that could have triggered an investigation, we don't know about them.
And it seems the secrecy theme continues. Because both sides have signed a confidentiality agreement. So while many have been seeking greater candor, it does not seem that this will be forthcoming. It's unfortunate because it means those seeking explanations (and yes, we're curious too!) won't actually get them.

More on the Delaware track team complaint

The complaint filed with OCR by those trying to save the Delaware men's track team remains in the news this week. And Erin was asked to comment on the situation for The News Journal in an article in which we learned more about the complaint and motivations.
Erin's comments further or better clarify my own from the other day about the complaint and forthcoming investigation. It remains unclear what OCR will be investigating. People associated with the team and the complaint have said that they are seeking publicity and answers and accountability. And I understand all these motivations but remain unconvinced that filing an OCR complaint suggesting that the way in which Delaware chose to enact Title IX, specifically the component requiring the provision of equitable opportunities for participation.
The concept of reverse discrimination is part of the backlash rhetoric. And while many who support the Delaware men's track athletes say they are not upset with or opposed to Title IX, the filing of this complaint using this language contributes to the problem. And I was surprised to see that the lawyer who represented the equestrian team recruit at Delaware State is now affiliated with this complaint.
Again, I support those affected by the cuts in their efforts to get answers and hold the administration accountable. But I don't really think there is some secret, nefarious agenda that is going to be revealed by the investigation of this complaint. It seems that Delaware has prioritized other things in the athletic department. It seems most athletic departments operate rather unapologetically under a corporate model that measures success in revenue dollars and publicity rather than the personal experiences of individual student-athletes. It is this system that should be questioned.
There are likely many different "truths" here. I wonder which one will come out on top.

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.

DU decision backlash

There have been a lot of articles and editorials and articles that editorialize in the wake of DU's decision to end its men's running program.
I thought this one was especially good, from a female alum and current track coach. She raises the point I neglected to make in my initial post which is if DU is adding women's golf in the fall why it it so worried about achieving proportionality now. Ms. Ambrogi appears to be right. By adding women's golf it would seem that DU is complying (temporarily anyway) with prong two by expanding opportunities. Not sure what their previous history has been, but the addition of golf would seem to do for now...unless DU has plans to cut a women's team some time soon. In that case they would have to have their proportionality ducks (or hens in this case) in a row.
This is just a very curious case, and I have a feeling we are not hearing the whole truth(s).

Delaware to drop two sports

The University of Delaware announced this week that they will be dropping men's cross country and men's indoor track from its list of varsity sports in order to comply with Title IX. The two sports will have club status after this year.
The option to add more women's sports was not possible because of budgetary reasons, according to officials. Women's golf, however, will be added in the fall, as planned. (We wrote about that when UD cut men's indoor track.) With the reduction, DU will carry 21 teams, the most in its conference.
According to this editorial, DU cited Title IX 12 times in its announcement of the cuts. The past cuts (linked in the second paragraph) were blamed exclusively on Title IX, but this time DU is also citing economics. But editorialist Jeff Pearlman, an alum and whom we have also written about in the past, isn't buying that or fiscal responsibility given the low costs of maintaining the program and the plethora of football players on that team's 103-person roster.
With these cuts there is no longer any varsity running program for men at DU.

Addendum: Here is another article on the cutting of the teams that discusses the impact on the student-athletes and includes interviews with team members. Some of the runners are none too happy with Title IX. Others are not pleased that the administration has asked them not to talk to the media without prior discussions with the appropriate officials.

"It was never a money issue. It was a Title IX issue."

This is the explanation University of Delaware athletic director gave for his decision to cut men's indoor track and add (eventually) women's golf. Ironically, this statement follows on the heels of UD's announcement of its long-term strategic plan to revamp its athletic facilities. The university's first priority is to add an athletic performance center so that the football coach can impress recruits (that's not me being snarky. That's in the article). Subsequent priorities include rebuilding the football stadium, a project that will require it to destroy and reconstruct two other athletic facilities -- the ice arena and the outdoor swimming pool.

Here's why I think the timing of the two announcements are ironic and ill-timed. Cuts are always about money (they are also always about Title IX, because Title IX reasonably and appropriately protects women's athletic opportunities from getting cut when --and only when -- women have proportionately fewer opportunities to start with). First of all, there's no requirement that universities comply with prong one. Adding women's sports often results in compliance with either the other two alternative prongs (continuous expansion of opportunities for women, and effectivement satisfying the interests and abilitis of the underrepresented sex). And let me emphasize this point with respect to UD's case: adding golf alone (i.e., without cutting men's indoor track) could have given them a strong basis to claim compliance with Title IX under prongs two or three. This casts doubt on the AD's claims that cutting men's indoor track was a Title IX issue.

Second of all, there's no requirement that a university comply with the first prong by cutting men's teams. If a university wants to achieve proportionality it can either (1) add more opportunities for women so that the percentage of opportunities matches the percentage of women in the student body; or (2) cut opportunities for men until the percentage of opportunities matches the percentage of men on campus; or (3) some of each. Why would any university chose door number 2 or door number 3, rather than door number 1? When asked, they always say it's because they don't have the finances to choose door number 1. Thus, in UD's case, the AD's "It's not a money issue" statement smacks of incredulity. His university has announced that it will undertake an aggressive fundraising campaign in acknowledged hard economic times to renovate facilities that largely benefit football. It is about money. It's also about priorities.

Saying "there's no money" is one thing. Saying "we'd rather spend money on football than on providing a diverse array of athletic opportunities for both men and women" is another thing altogether. Unfortunately, I'm not optimistic that those eager to blame Title IX for university's misdirected priorities will probe the AD's statement deeply enough to recognize the difference.

Mistakes versus flaws

University of Delaware alum and current ESPN Page 2 columnist Jeff Pearlman has a column about the rumors regarding the cuts to men's track at UD. It's entitled "It's a mistake if Delaware cuts men's track, cross country."
And it's a very well-written piece. It is very clear that Pearlman had a better-than-average student-athlete experience at UD on the cross country team. And that experience was engendered by an amazing coach and, I would argue, participation on a team that was fairly tight-knit, in part because it was marginalized. As Pearlman himself notes no one really cares about watching running or reporting on it. And the story he tells of his own time on the team reflects an experience based more on personal goals and motivations rather than public recognition and accolades. It is not fair to say this is a more "pure" form of sport or that these athletes are more devoted to their sport. But it does remind us that athlete experiences are diverse. Cutting teams diminishes the diversity of experiences.
None of us believe that cutting teams is the right thing to do. But given that UD's undergrad population is comprised of 58 percent women but female student-athletes are only 47 percent; and that UD has not added a women's team for about a decade, UD must do something.
But it does not mean, as Pearlman states, that Title IX is wacky or flawed. It means that even though UD will not be adding opportunities for women, for those young, dreaming girls Pearlman invokes, it will not be taking them away. Do I wish that schools would not take away any opportunities from anyone? Yes. Do I wish that most schools had a little more foresight? Yes. Do I wish that they had provided opportunities all along, even when Title IX was not being as well enforced? Yes. But it is not the law's fault that administrators chose to ignore it when no one was looking.

Rumors of Possible Cuts at University of Delaware

It's just a rumor, but there is apparently some concern that the University of Delaware may trim its sports offerings to exclude the men's cross country and track teams.

Title IX has, of course, entered into the discussion. Whenever one sex receive disproportionately more athletic opportunities than the other, Title IX effectively says you can't cut from the side with less (doing so brings you out of compliane with both of the alternative compliance prongs). So, since men make up 42% of the UD student body, but receive 53% of the athletic opportunities, UD can't cut a women's team without violating Title IX. But does it have to cut teams? There's no official word on whether or why this might be done. No one is challenging the UD's sports offerings under Title IX, though the UD may be feeling pressure to add another women's team -- golf has been mentioned -- in order to bolster compliance with either prong two or prong three. More likely, it is the economy and the high cost of running other sports programs that are putting financial pressure on UD's athletic department. UD is in the same D-IAA football conference with UNH and JMU, which both cut teams in 2006, as well as Towson State, which cut its cross country team in 2004. So it's possible that UD is enduring similar financial pressure due to the high cost of operating a football program that does not have the opportunity to occaisionally recoup costs at a bowl game. Probably due to the football team's strength -- it regularly competes in the D-IAA tournament and was the champion as recently as 2003 -- it is looking to maintain or even bolster its financial investment in the program. Whether this will come at the expense of 115 runners remains to be seen.