Some members of the Darien, Connecticut school board are reportedly expressing concern over the board's decision to accept a $1600 gift from the unified booster club to purchase scouting cameras for the football team. Apparently, the boosters asked all coaches what equipment they needed, and honored the two requests received: the football team's request for cameras, and the basketball cheerleaders smaller request for competition music.
I commend the board for scrutinizing the Title IX implications of accepting any gift. Especially in Darien, which has had plenty of Title IX compliance problems in the past. It's worth noting, however, that accepting a larger gift for a boys team doesn't necessarily create a Title IX problem. Nor is it safe to assume that just because the boosters didn't turn down any gift requests that all is equal between the girls' and boys' teams. If I were the concerned members of the school board, I would want to know why the coaches of girls' teams did not request any new equipment. If the football players benefit from more proactive coaches who are more aggressive about capitalizing on available resources, then that is an inequity in the quality of coaching available to each sex. Relatedly, I would also want to if the girls' teams are foregoing scouting, or do they already have the equipment they need? If the fact that only a boys' team requested cameras is a sign that only boys have access to a program that is operating at the level of sophistication where such equipment is required, then that is clearly a Title IX violation that the school board should rectify.
Showing posts with label boosters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label boosters. Show all posts
Friday, May 25, 2012
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Boosters pay extra for coaches
The football boosters at Mercer Island High School in Washington want to offer the football coach a little extra money for his off-season duties. Realizing last spring though that they could not do so without violating Title IX, they got together with the parents' club of the gymnastics team to offer a similar deal to the gymnastics coach. The amount of the extra pay will be different; a discrepancy explained by the difference in the size of the respective programs. A seemingly good explanation.
Kudos to the people at MIHS for recognizing the potential booster-induced disparity.
It could be, as one administrator noted, a slippery slope given that most coaches do work in the so-called off-season.
Also a possible issue (not mentioned in the article) is that the outside salary will benefit more boys than girls because the football team is bigger. Also it looks like the gymnastic coach's off-season duties include helping the cheerleaders--which seems like a separate job--especially since he is not allowed to work with his own team members in the off-season, per the state association's rules. (Not sure exactly how the football coach is getting around this. One of the boosters said that there is no "select season" in football, which I'm pretty sure is wrong. Why would every other sport have a season and not football?)
The issue of booster clubs in high schools, and what they are and are not allowed to do, is gaining visibility. And schools are likely to have to continue to juggle the desires of boosters to support the most popular sports and the equitable distribution of amenities, facilities, equipment, and perks. The case at MIHS, though, seems far less contentious than others we have read about.
Kudos to the people at MIHS for recognizing the potential booster-induced disparity.
It could be, as one administrator noted, a slippery slope given that most coaches do work in the so-called off-season.
Also a possible issue (not mentioned in the article) is that the outside salary will benefit more boys than girls because the football team is bigger. Also it looks like the gymnastic coach's off-season duties include helping the cheerleaders--which seems like a separate job--especially since he is not allowed to work with his own team members in the off-season, per the state association's rules. (Not sure exactly how the football coach is getting around this. One of the boosters said that there is no "select season" in football, which I'm pretty sure is wrong. Why would every other sport have a season and not football?)
The issue of booster clubs in high schools, and what they are and are not allowed to do, is gaining visibility. And schools are likely to have to continue to juggle the desires of boosters to support the most popular sports and the equitable distribution of amenities, facilities, equipment, and perks. The case at MIHS, though, seems far less contentious than others we have read about.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Merged booster clubs in Maine
The Portland (ME) school board has proposed that all athletic booster clubs be merged. So now, at the city's two public high schools, there will no longer be booster clubs for individual sports. Each school will have one booster organization and an administrator who supervises the organization, according to the proposal.
The proposed change is due to some questionable accounting practices within booster clubs as well as Title IX concerns over the equitable distribution of funds and treatment of athletes.
Apparently there is already some sharing of booster funds among teams, so the concept is not completely foreign.
But based on the article's public comments section, there is much criticism of this plan. People are basing these critiques on the belief that fundraised monies should not affect Title IX compliance and that the amount of money raised is a direct correlation to the amount of effort put in by parents.
While the latter may be partially true (the former is not, by the way), these arguments fail to consider the different values parents, students, administrators and the general public have regarding different sports. Football boosters raise more money, in part, because high school football in many, many cities and towns is the highest profile sport. If both the football team boosters and the girls soccer team boosters sell concessions at their respective games, who is going to raise more money?
Such an argument just perpetuates the inequities and punishes those student-athletes, and their parents, who may feel just as passionately about their sports as football players and their parents but cannot get others to feel similarly.
The proposed change is due to some questionable accounting practices within booster clubs as well as Title IX concerns over the equitable distribution of funds and treatment of athletes.
Apparently there is already some sharing of booster funds among teams, so the concept is not completely foreign.
But based on the article's public comments section, there is much criticism of this plan. People are basing these critiques on the belief that fundraised monies should not affect Title IX compliance and that the amount of money raised is a direct correlation to the amount of effort put in by parents.
While the latter may be partially true (the former is not, by the way), these arguments fail to consider the different values parents, students, administrators and the general public have regarding different sports. Football boosters raise more money, in part, because high school football in many, many cities and towns is the highest profile sport. If both the football team boosters and the girls soccer team boosters sell concessions at their respective games, who is going to raise more money?
Such an argument just perpetuates the inequities and punishes those student-athletes, and their parents, who may feel just as passionately about their sports as football players and their parents but cannot get others to feel similarly.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Booster Club Can't Pay Football Athletes' User Fees
School and city officials in Haverhill, Massachusetts understand Title IX. That is why they denied the request of the Touchdown Club, the booster club for the Haverhill High School football team, to use its fundraising proceeds to defray the cost of participating in football. This would violate Title IX, because boys would have the opportunity to play a sport for free (football) while girls would have no such option -- Haverhill charges $275 for all varsity and $175 for all freshman teams. Title IX does not consider the source of funds in determining whether it is equitably spent. If a school accepts money -- whether it be from private funds or public money, it may not use that money to fund disparate treatment for male and female students.
Touchdown Club officials were reportedly disappointed -- though not surprised -- that their request was denied. Hopefully there is a way they can use their money -- a donation of $15,000 was planned -- in a way that benefits athletics as a whole, and could maybe bring down the user fees for all students. I wonder if the boosters considered a "scholarship fund" that would cover the costs' of athletes' user fees based on their financial need, regardless of their sex and regardless of their sport. While it would be illegal to designate this fund just for football players, I don't think it would be illegal to designate the fund for "needy students," even if that criteria happened to help more football players than other athletes. As long as the boosters use sex-neutral criteria as the basis for making the awards, and boys and girls have equal opportunity to apply and be considered based on need, it would not be required that an equal number of awards be made to girls and boys. This solution would seem to be in line with the football boosters' goal of gaining back athletes who have had to drop out since the fees were implemented (the team has gone from 70 to 40 players in the last ten years). So it actually may be that there are more football players eligible the scholarship than players in other sports.
Pay-to-play is controversial in a lot of schools, as user fees operate to limit athletic participation to students who are already financially privileged. Certainly, class-based discrimination in athletics is a troubling as sex-based discrimination; but the solution to the former must not implicate the latter. I think that booster clubs have tremendous potential to help reduce financial barriers to participation, and there are opportunities to do so in a sex-neutral way.
Touchdown Club officials were reportedly disappointed -- though not surprised -- that their request was denied. Hopefully there is a way they can use their money -- a donation of $15,000 was planned -- in a way that benefits athletics as a whole, and could maybe bring down the user fees for all students. I wonder if the boosters considered a "scholarship fund" that would cover the costs' of athletes' user fees based on their financial need, regardless of their sex and regardless of their sport. While it would be illegal to designate this fund just for football players, I don't think it would be illegal to designate the fund for "needy students," even if that criteria happened to help more football players than other athletes. As long as the boosters use sex-neutral criteria as the basis for making the awards, and boys and girls have equal opportunity to apply and be considered based on need, it would not be required that an equal number of awards be made to girls and boys. This solution would seem to be in line with the football boosters' goal of gaining back athletes who have had to drop out since the fees were implemented (the team has gone from 70 to 40 players in the last ten years). So it actually may be that there are more football players eligible the scholarship than players in other sports.
Pay-to-play is controversial in a lot of schools, as user fees operate to limit athletic participation to students who are already financially privileged. Certainly, class-based discrimination in athletics is a troubling as sex-based discrimination; but the solution to the former must not implicate the latter. I think that booster clubs have tremendous potential to help reduce financial barriers to participation, and there are opportunities to do so in a sex-neutral way.
Friday, February 04, 2011
Report ready for digestion in PA
Title IX consultant Peg Pennepacker finished her report on the gender disparities within Hazleton School District in Pennsylvania. We wrote about this situation just over a year ago. Interestingly, the reporting of the complaint about the lack (i.e. none) of middle school girls' sports in the winter seemed to be more focused on whether girls' basketball should be moved out of the spring season to its traditional winter season.
But the raising of the concern clearly triggered an investigation and brought Pennepacker into the situation. Her report goes a lot further than just winter sports, too. (Sometimes educational administrators are not very smart.) A large concern highlighted in the report seems to be the use of booster donations. Or at least that is what people are talking about. And it seems the ad-hoc committee, created in order to "digest" the report, is getting on the booster club issue immediately, suggesting that there be a district-wide booster club policy and that financial audits of booster clubs be conducted.
And I can see why a special digestion committee is necessary. Here are the rest of the items that "warrant action" in order to achieve Title IX compliance.
Increase number of participation opportunities.
- Improve equality in supply and condition of athletic equipment and supplies.
- Improve scheduling use of athletic facilities including locker rooms, practice and competition facilities.
- Re-evaluate team transportation and meal allocations.
- Recruit best-qualified coaches and offer coach training.
- Make publicity and promotional activities available to all groups.
- Improve game and practice scheduling.
- Re-evaluate access to training facilities and medical services
But the raising of the concern clearly triggered an investigation and brought Pennepacker into the situation. Her report goes a lot further than just winter sports, too. (Sometimes educational administrators are not very smart.) A large concern highlighted in the report seems to be the use of booster donations. Or at least that is what people are talking about. And it seems the ad-hoc committee, created in order to "digest" the report, is getting on the booster club issue immediately, suggesting that there be a district-wide booster club policy and that financial audits of booster clubs be conducted.
And I can see why a special digestion committee is necessary. Here are the rest of the items that "warrant action" in order to achieve Title IX compliance.
Increase number of participation opportunities.
- Improve equality in supply and condition of athletic equipment and supplies.
- Improve scheduling use of athletic facilities including locker rooms, practice and competition facilities.
- Re-evaluate team transportation and meal allocations.
- Recruit best-qualified coaches and offer coach training.
- Make publicity and promotional activities available to all groups.
- Improve game and practice scheduling.
- Re-evaluate access to training facilities and medical services
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Alaskan softball players cite inequities
Can't believe Sarah Palin who, during her vice-presidential campaign, espoused the benefits of Title IX, let her home town get away with inequitable treatment of female student-athletes.
But the Mat-Su School District, which includes the town of Wasilla, is facing a lawsuit brought by two softball players (and their parents). The facts, at this early stage, remain somewhat ambiguous but apparently some of the issues brought up in the filing are ones school officials have heard before. The issue of fields does not appear to the prominent one, or at least as prominent in most of the other cases about softball. Wasilla High School's field underwent renovations this past summer. There is some dispute over whether softball has access to an on-campus practice field like the baseball team does.
It seems that funding is the major issue here with the complainants saying that boys' teams receive greater funding than girls' teams. This is not an automatic violation, of course, but it goes on to say that softball has to pay for its own equipment and supplies. If boys' teams are provided these things by the school there is the potential for some trouble. But my guess after reading about economic woes and booster clubs stepping up, is that boys' team may also have to find their own equipment and supplies but that they have booster clubs that raise the money for them. But as we know by now, successful boys' booster clubs do not negate a school's Title IX responsibilities.
But the Mat-Su School District, which includes the town of Wasilla, is facing a lawsuit brought by two softball players (and their parents). The facts, at this early stage, remain somewhat ambiguous but apparently some of the issues brought up in the filing are ones school officials have heard before. The issue of fields does not appear to the prominent one, or at least as prominent in most of the other cases about softball. Wasilla High School's field underwent renovations this past summer. There is some dispute over whether softball has access to an on-campus practice field like the baseball team does.
It seems that funding is the major issue here with the complainants saying that boys' teams receive greater funding than girls' teams. This is not an automatic violation, of course, but it goes on to say that softball has to pay for its own equipment and supplies. If boys' teams are provided these things by the school there is the potential for some trouble. But my guess after reading about economic woes and booster clubs stepping up, is that boys' team may also have to find their own equipment and supplies but that they have booster clubs that raise the money for them. But as we know by now, successful boys' booster clubs do not negate a school's Title IX responsibilities.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Tenn county has to answer to disparities
A county in Tennessee has received a complaint regarding the treatment of its girls' soccer team. OCR is set to investigate as soon as the school turns in its own report. The school had already been undertaking a Title IX assessment.
But the complaint targets the perks some parents see the football team receiving and the lack of access the girls' soccer team, which has the season in the fall as well, receives.
The complaint about funding will likely go nowhere. Simply saying that football receives more money, as the complaint does, is not a violation. It is to be expected that a team with a much larger roster and more expensive equipment/uniform needs would receive more funding. There would be issue, however, if football was receiving funds to buy the highest quality equipment while soccer was getting only average equipment. But the exact nature of the funding disparities has not been explained.
The access to facilities complaint could be more salient in this case. Soccer players apparently are not receiving consistent access to locker rooms and practice facilities. Also at issue are practice times, booster club monies, and scheduling of games.
But the complaint targets the perks some parents see the football team receiving and the lack of access the girls' soccer team, which has the season in the fall as well, receives.
The complaint about funding will likely go nowhere. Simply saying that football receives more money, as the complaint does, is not a violation. It is to be expected that a team with a much larger roster and more expensive equipment/uniform needs would receive more funding. There would be issue, however, if football was receiving funds to buy the highest quality equipment while soccer was getting only average equipment. But the exact nature of the funding disparities has not been explained.
The access to facilities complaint could be more salient in this case. Soccer players apparently are not receiving consistent access to locker rooms and practice facilities. Also at issue are practice times, booster club monies, and scheduling of games.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
More good booster news
Taking off of Erin's recent post about the Benicia High School booster club, I just thought I would mention this little piece of news about the Elk Lake (PA) school board. (Especially since there seems to be a lot happening lately in PA high schools regarding Title IX.) A proposal by a member of the boys' basketball booster club to charge admission to games was turned down by the school board. The booster club wanted the money from ticket sales to offset the cost of sending members of the team to basketball camp over the summer. But the school district was concerned about the Title IX ramifications. Board member and superintendent William Bush said this: "The proposal is only for boys' basketball, and with Title IX there may be some legal ramifications if we didn't do the same for the girls' team." As I said, it's not huge news. Rather I bring it up here because it seems to suggest that there's a widening awareness not just of Title IX by non-sports administrators, but about the specific issues of gender equity including booster clubs. We certainly hope this is a trend!
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Private Donors Give to Softball Field Project
Too often in our posts about booster clubs we bemoan that parents and community members create or contribute to discrimination in scholastic sports by supporting boys' teams more than girls'. So, it's nice to see that the Panther Foundation, a group of parents supporting athletics at Benicia High School, has pledged $50,000 to the school district to support the construction of two softball fields on the high school campus.
The gift is well timed. Earlier this week, OCR identified Benicia High's lack of a softball field as contributing to Title IX violations it discovered after investigating anonymous complaint.
The gift is well timed. Earlier this week, OCR identified Benicia High's lack of a softball field as contributing to Title IX violations it discovered after investigating anonymous complaint.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
School District Proposes Unified Booster Club
After a Title IX compliance report prepared for Mercer Island (Washington) School District revealed funding disparities between boys and girls athletics programs, the district's athletic director is proposing a partial solution in the form of a unified booster club.
As we've noted before, schools must provide athletic opportunities of comparable quality to boys and girls, regardless of donations to the school made by booster clubs of individual teams. Disparities can result when popular sports (often football) receive a great deal of parental and community support compared to other less popular sports. When these disparities track gender lines, a school district risks violating Title IX.
Such compliance concerns have prompted Mercer Island officials to propose that a single, school-wide booster club replace the 22 individual booster clubs for respective teams. Not surprisingly, this idea is reportedly unpopular, as some of the more well-organized and effective clubs are reluctant to sacrifice control and submit to profit sharing with other teams. But Mercer Island is right to insist that they do so. If parents and community members do not want to voluntarily support their daughters' teams in the same manner as their sons', the school district has to figure out a way to neutralize the inequality that results, either by matching funds raised by the effective clubs, or forgoing booster club donations altogether. Unified booster clubs are a responsible, fair alternative to both of these expensive and unfavorable extremes.
As we've noted before, schools must provide athletic opportunities of comparable quality to boys and girls, regardless of donations to the school made by booster clubs of individual teams. Disparities can result when popular sports (often football) receive a great deal of parental and community support compared to other less popular sports. When these disparities track gender lines, a school district risks violating Title IX.
Such compliance concerns have prompted Mercer Island officials to propose that a single, school-wide booster club replace the 22 individual booster clubs for respective teams. Not surprisingly, this idea is reportedly unpopular, as some of the more well-organized and effective clubs are reluctant to sacrifice control and submit to profit sharing with other teams. But Mercer Island is right to insist that they do so. If parents and community members do not want to voluntarily support their daughters' teams in the same manner as their sons', the school district has to figure out a way to neutralize the inequality that results, either by matching funds raised by the effective clubs, or forgoing booster club donations altogether. Unified booster clubs are a responsible, fair alternative to both of these expensive and unfavorable extremes.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Bristol, PA School District Investigated for Title IX Violations
Booster-raised funds are at the heart of a recent complaint to the Department of Education that the Bristol (Pennsylvania) Borough School District is discriminating against female athletes in the allocation of athletic department resources like facilities, equipment and supplies. The Department's Office for Civil Rights is investigating the charge. Not too many details are provided in this AP report other than that the claimed inequities are charged to result from the district's spending of funds raised by a "recently formed football booster club."
As we frequently point out (booster club cases are common), per OCR's policy, funds raised by booster clubs are considered revenue of the school, the spending of which does not provide a defense for inequities between boys' and girls' sports. If the football team is getting preferential treatment, the district is violating Title IX regardless of the source of funds.
As we frequently point out (booster club cases are common), per OCR's policy, funds raised by booster clubs are considered revenue of the school, the spending of which does not provide a defense for inequities between boys' and girls' sports. If the football team is getting preferential treatment, the district is violating Title IX regardless of the source of funds.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Confusion in Bucks County
The Superintendent of the Central Bucks County School District doesn't quite understand what exactly OCR is seeking in its investigation of the district's athletic departments*.
An anonymous complaint was filed and OCR is collecting information. A representative will be meeting with the superintendent next week in an effort to resolve the complaint which centers on publicity, equipment, and scheduling.
The superintendent, who only recently found out there was a complaint filed thinking instead that the district was undergoing a routine audit process, does not seem to have a great awareness of Title IX which is disappointing given he is a high-level administrator. His confusion over the process is understandable but this statement indicates that he does not even know what Title IX is all about:
“I got the sense that a lot of it had to do with gender equity, because a lot of the questions they asked us were related to how many girls sports, how many boys sports.”
It's also unfortunate that a superintendent does not know what is happening in his own district. Asked for the publicity material he said: "They wanted all our publicity of programs. We don’t even control (game day) programs. Our parent/booster clubs do all that. They asked me how much is spent on publicity, and I said zero. … This has been very strange.”
I find it a little strange as well but for very different reasons.
*Note that this article contains a large mistake about the three-prong test at the very end. The author--who has written extensively about the Title IX issues in Pennsylvania--writes that the third prong contains 11 components.
An anonymous complaint was filed and OCR is collecting information. A representative will be meeting with the superintendent next week in an effort to resolve the complaint which centers on publicity, equipment, and scheduling.
The superintendent, who only recently found out there was a complaint filed thinking instead that the district was undergoing a routine audit process, does not seem to have a great awareness of Title IX which is disappointing given he is a high-level administrator. His confusion over the process is understandable but this statement indicates that he does not even know what Title IX is all about:
“I got the sense that a lot of it had to do with gender equity, because a lot of the questions they asked us were related to how many girls sports, how many boys sports.”
It's also unfortunate that a superintendent does not know what is happening in his own district. Asked for the publicity material he said: "They wanted all our publicity of programs. We don’t even control (game day) programs. Our parent/booster clubs do all that. They asked me how much is spent on publicity, and I said zero. … This has been very strange.”
I find it a little strange as well but for very different reasons.
*Note that this article contains a large mistake about the three-prong test at the very end. The author--who has written extensively about the Title IX issues in Pennsylvania--writes that the third prong contains 11 components.
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.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Reporter's Series Examines Title IX Compliance, Boosters
The Philadelphia Intelligencer's Ed Kracz has been running a series of articles about Title IX and its application to the school districts in his paper's readership area. One of his articles addressed Title IX's early history, including college football coach's efforts to repeal the law's application to athletics. But most of his articles have had a local bent, including this examination of disparities in opportunities and facilities in the paper's 12 school districts, andthis profile of a district superintendent's efforts to balance out the athletic opportunities in his district while addressing a proposal to add varsity football.
Yesterday's installment in this series examined fundraising by booster clubs. Kracz pointed out that misperception -- shared by school officials and boosters alike -- that booster-raised funds are private money, not subject to the law. Some school officials cited this belief as an explanation for why they had no idea how much their athletic team boosters were raising and spending. In fact, as Kracz reports, OCR considers a booster club's spending in support of athletic teams to be donation to the school district, which must factor in those funds when determining that girls' and boys' sports are equitably supported. Some school districts have booster clubs that raise money for the benefit of all sports, rather than a particular sport, a fundraising model that is less likely to result in gross inequities between boys and girls' sports. However, only one of the Intelligencer's 12 districts utilized this type of "all for one" booster club, which many schools resist for fear of losing parents' involvement.
I think that Kracz's article helps illustrate that schools and boosters need to work together to address fairness and equality in high school sports. Schools cannot ignore what its booster clubs are doing, just as parents cannot ignore the fact that individual-sport fundraising creates gender inequities in the aggregate.
Yesterday's installment in this series examined fundraising by booster clubs. Kracz pointed out that misperception -- shared by school officials and boosters alike -- that booster-raised funds are private money, not subject to the law. Some school officials cited this belief as an explanation for why they had no idea how much their athletic team boosters were raising and spending. In fact, as Kracz reports, OCR considers a booster club's spending in support of athletic teams to be donation to the school district, which must factor in those funds when determining that girls' and boys' sports are equitably supported. Some school districts have booster clubs that raise money for the benefit of all sports, rather than a particular sport, a fundraising model that is less likely to result in gross inequities between boys and girls' sports. However, only one of the Intelligencer's 12 districts utilized this type of "all for one" booster club, which many schools resist for fear of losing parents' involvement.
I think that Kracz's article helps illustrate that schools and boosters need to work together to address fairness and equality in high school sports. Schools cannot ignore what its booster clubs are doing, just as parents cannot ignore the fact that individual-sport fundraising creates gender inequities in the aggregate.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Funding Disparities Revealed at Benicia Unified School District
The local paper in Vallejo, California is reporting on disparities in funding between girls' and boys' athletics at Benicia High School, a situation brought to light by a Title IX complaint against the school district.
According to the article, booster club financial statements reveal that "More than $87,000 was spent last school year on boys' programs as compared to $6,900 on girls' teams. That includes $20,325 on boys baseball while nothing was given to girls' softball."
While Title IX regulations do not require schools to spend precisely equal amounts on girls' and boys' sports, this more-than-tenfold disparity is most likely indicative of inequality in any number of areas that are governed by Title IX, including facilities, coaches, publicity, travel, equipment, and number of opportunities.
Moreover, this extreme disparity is surprising in light of the comments of the booster association president, noted in this earlier article about OCR's ongoing investigation (which we blogged about here), insisting that booster-raised funds were equitably distributed between girls' and boys' teams.
Relatedly, OCR's investigation into the Benicia Unified School District has already revealed that the district had not appointed a school official to serve as the Title IX Coordinator, as required by law. Perhaps a Title IX Coordinator would have noticed these problems before OCR had to get involved.
According to the article, booster club financial statements reveal that "More than $87,000 was spent last school year on boys' programs as compared to $6,900 on girls' teams. That includes $20,325 on boys baseball while nothing was given to girls' softball."
While Title IX regulations do not require schools to spend precisely equal amounts on girls' and boys' sports, this more-than-tenfold disparity is most likely indicative of inequality in any number of areas that are governed by Title IX, including facilities, coaches, publicity, travel, equipment, and number of opportunities.
Moreover, this extreme disparity is surprising in light of the comments of the booster association president, noted in this earlier article about OCR's ongoing investigation (which we blogged about here), insisting that booster-raised funds were equitably distributed between girls' and boys' teams.
Relatedly, OCR's investigation into the Benicia Unified School District has already revealed that the district had not appointed a school official to serve as the Title IX Coordinator, as required by law. Perhaps a Title IX Coordinator would have noticed these problems before OCR had to get involved.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
OCR Investigates California School District
The Vallejo Times-Herald reports that the Benicia Unified School District is under investigation by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights for alleged violations of Title IX. The school district sounds a little bit tight lipped about what issues are exactly under investigation, but the reporter speculated that one possibility might be a disparity between baseball and softball facilities, since the baseball field, which the district shares with the city, recently benefited from a $500,000 renovation. Another possibility is disparity in opportunities, as there are more freshman sports for boys than for girls. The president of the Benicia High School Athletic Boosters, who was interviewed for the story, was doubtful that booster funds are at issue. He insisted that the funds the boosters raise from participation fees are allocated equally among girls' and boys' sports.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
OCR Investigates Softball Inequities at California High School
The Santa Cruz Sentinel recently reported that the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights is investigating claims that Scotts Valley Unified School District is violating Title IX for failing to provide softball facilities comparable to those for baseball. Baseball boosters used private funds to upgrade the boys' field three years ago; the softball field has not been similarly updated.
If this case sounds familiar, it's probably because it sounds like any one of the dozen of cases we've mentioned on this blog involving booster-funded inequities between high school baseball and softball teams (e.g., here, here, here, here, and here for our posts on this issue since September).
OCR's position on booster funds is clear (see, e.g., here). Treating athletes of one sex better than athletes of another sex is discrimination, regardless of where the money comes from. Boosters can raise whatever funds they want, but in the end, the school district is responsible for ensuring that all students receive equal treatment.
So there's no question that funding disparities caused by boosters is illegal under Title IX. But there is question raised by this trend in Title IX enforcement. Where are the boosters for girls' sports? Why is it that all across the country parents are only fundraising for their sons and not their daughters?
If this case sounds familiar, it's probably because it sounds like any one of the dozen of cases we've mentioned on this blog involving booster-funded inequities between high school baseball and softball teams (e.g., here, here, here, here, and here for our posts on this issue since September).
OCR's position on booster funds is clear (see, e.g., here). Treating athletes of one sex better than athletes of another sex is discrimination, regardless of where the money comes from. Boosters can raise whatever funds they want, but in the end, the school district is responsible for ensuring that all students receive equal treatment.
So there's no question that funding disparities caused by boosters is illegal under Title IX. But there is question raised by this trend in Title IX enforcement. Where are the boosters for girls' sports? Why is it that all across the country parents are only fundraising for their sons and not their daughters?
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Board Will Light Up Softball Fields
Earlier this week we mentioned that OCR had recently determined the Pitt County (North Carolina) Board of Education to be out of compliance with Title IX due to the absence of lights at its softball fields. The Daily Reflector reports that at a meeting Monday night, the Board approved a plan to install lights at the three high school softball fields, a total cost of $180,000, ensuring that girls and boys have equal opportunity to play evening games. Administrators also announced plans to develop a policy to ensure that booster club spending does not result in such disparities in the future.
Monday, August 06, 2007
University of Hawaii Fundraises for Women's Scholarships
The University of Hawaii has invited Jackie Joyner-Kersee to kickoff an upcoming fundraiser to raise $500,000 for endowed scholarships for female athletes.
Are there Title IX implications here? Under OCR's policy for booster clubs and private fundraising, universities can't use private funds to give either sex benefits or advantages that are denied to the other sex.
However, there is little risk of that happening in Hawaii. I checked out UH's athletic scholarship distribution, and women currently receive 43% of the $3.5 million athletic scholarship budget, though they receive 50% of athletic opportunities and make up 55% of the student body. Under Title IX's scholarship regulations, Hawaii's women should receive around 50% of the scholarship dollars, and a greater percentage if/when the school increases athletic opportunities for women to come into compliance with prong one.
Which means that regardless of how this fundraiser turns out, the university should be planning to increase women's athletic scholarships by $230,000 annually. UH's fundraiser and its coordination with Joyner-Kersee is a commendable plan for progress toward this goal, but since a $500,000 endowment can't possibly generate that kind of money every year, I think the university will still have to use athletic department funds to come into compliance.
Are there Title IX implications here? Under OCR's policy for booster clubs and private fundraising, universities can't use private funds to give either sex benefits or advantages that are denied to the other sex.
However, there is little risk of that happening in Hawaii. I checked out UH's athletic scholarship distribution, and women currently receive 43% of the $3.5 million athletic scholarship budget, though they receive 50% of athletic opportunities and make up 55% of the student body. Under Title IX's scholarship regulations, Hawaii's women should receive around 50% of the scholarship dollars, and a greater percentage if/when the school increases athletic opportunities for women to come into compliance with prong one.
Which means that regardless of how this fundraiser turns out, the university should be planning to increase women's athletic scholarships by $230,000 annually. UH's fundraiser and its coordination with Joyner-Kersee is a commendable plan for progress toward this goal, but since a $500,000 endowment can't possibly generate that kind of money every year, I think the university will still have to use athletic department funds to come into compliance.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
More booster club/Title IX conflicts
Another issue regarding booster clubs has arisen in regards to gender equity. Recently we reported on the situation in Pennsylvania with a booster club providing a number of perks to the football team. Now it appears charges of gender inequity have arisen in Minnesota over the treatment of girls' and boys' ice hockey.
The Minnesota situation though is a little complicated because it involves a booster club paying for improvements at a rink not owned by the school district. The article sums it up like this:
It involves a nonprofit booster club raising money to improve an arena owned by another nonprofit and a school district that rents ice there for about a third of the practices and home games for a co-op team that calls Bernick's Arena in Sartell its home arena.
The booster club raised money and contracted for the addition of many improvements to the boys' locker rooms creating this situation:
[T]he boys booster club had built additions to Arena East that created a locker room with permanent lockers for the varsity boys, a room for junior varsity boys and a space that had been set up as a lounge accessible only to the boys. The junior varsity and varsity girls changed in a third room that had no lockers and only hooks on the wall and some folding chairs to sit on.
OCR has already answered the complaint saying that the inequitable facilities at Arena East (which is actually only one of the two arenas the girls play at; the other's facilities are not in question) do not rise to the level of a Title IX violation. But the letter to the district did suggest some solutions. Which one(s) the district chooses to take remain up in the air. Whatever they do, however, the district should now know that it cannot wash its hands of booster club activities.
The Minnesota situation though is a little complicated because it involves a booster club paying for improvements at a rink not owned by the school district. The article sums it up like this:
It involves a nonprofit booster club raising money to improve an arena owned by another nonprofit and a school district that rents ice there for about a third of the practices and home games for a co-op team that calls Bernick's Arena in Sartell its home arena.
The booster club raised money and contracted for the addition of many improvements to the boys' locker rooms creating this situation:
[T]he boys booster club had built additions to Arena East that created a locker room with permanent lockers for the varsity boys, a room for junior varsity boys and a space that had been set up as a lounge accessible only to the boys. The junior varsity and varsity girls changed in a third room that had no lockers and only hooks on the wall and some folding chairs to sit on.
OCR has already answered the complaint saying that the inequitable facilities at Arena East (which is actually only one of the two arenas the girls play at; the other's facilities are not in question) do not rise to the level of a Title IX violation. But the letter to the district did suggest some solutions. Which one(s) the district chooses to take remain up in the air. Whatever they do, however, the district should now know that it cannot wash its hands of booster club activities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)