Last year when a jury ruled in favor of Shannon Miller in her lawsuit against University of Minnesota-Duluth, it awarded her nearly $3.75 million in compensation for past damages after it concluded that the university terminated her with unlawful retaliatory and discriminatory motives in violation of Title IX and Title VII.
Left unresolved at the time was how the university should remedy her present and future injury of present and future remedy, which Miller argued should be addressed by an order requiring the university to reinstate her to her former position. In the alternative, she argued for a a front pay award of $3 million. A federal court judge ruled on her motion this week. He determined that reinstatement was not an appropriate remedy due to the position having already been filled. The current coach is now in her fourth season and most of the current players have been recruited by her. Accordingly, it would be unduly disruptive to reinstate Miller to her former position. Instead, the court agreed to a monetary alternative in the form of front pay.
Front pay is an award of damages that in unlawful termination cases that requires the factfinder to determine what the plaintiff would earn from the date of the verdict going forward if they had not been fired (back pay, in contrast, compensates the plaintiff through the date of the verdict). It then takes into account what the plaintiff is earning in whatever new job they may have, and if that is less, awards the plaintiff the difference. The court did not agree with Miller's speculation that she would have worked at UMD for 12-15 more years from the date of verdict; pointing out that 30-year tenure for any Division I head coach is rare. But nor did the court accept UMD's position that Miller was fully compensated by the back pay award Miller had already been awarded. Instead, the judge found sufficient evidence that Miller would have worked at UMD for another five years from when she was terminated. Her front pay award was therefore calculated at her UMD salary from the date of the verdict through June 2020. Then it was offset by the $30,000 Miller earns annually as the head coach of the Calgary Inferno professional women's hockey team. The total, $461,278, brings UMD's total liability to around $4.2 million.
One thing that I found noteworthy about this opinion is the particular role that Title IX played, relative to Title VII, in driving the damages award in this case. The judge's opinion on front pay noted that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages or reinstatement on her Title VII claim, even though the jury found that sex discrimination had been a motivating factor in her termination, because the jury had found evidence that UMD would have fired Miller anyway. Under Title VII, a so-called "mixed motive" finding like this limits the plaintiff to only declaratory relief and attorneys' fees. Title IX, however, is not governed by the mixed-motive provision of Title VII, so damages are allowed even when university defendants demonstrate that a non-discriminatory or non-retaliatory reason would have led them to make the same adverse employment action.
Decision: Miller v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota, 2019 WL 586674 (D. Minn. Feb. 13, 2019).
Showing posts with label ice hockey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ice hockey. Show all posts
Friday, February 15, 2019
Thursday, March 15, 2018
Jury Awards Coach Shannon Miller $3.74 Million
A federal court jury in Minnesota determined today that the University of Minnesota-Duluth was motivated by sex discrimination and retaliation when it decided not to renew the contract of former women's hockey coach Shannon Miller. As a result, the university violated Title IX and is liable for $3.74 million in damages. This figure includes $744,000 to cover Miller's past lost wages and $3 million to compensate for her emotional distress.
Though the university argued that Miller was not renewed for performance reasons, Miller's presented evidence that convinced the jury that she was actually let go because she was a strong advocate for her team and that that athletic department employed double standards when making employment decisions about male and female coaches.
Some of our past blog posts about this case are here, here, and here.
Though the university argued that Miller was not renewed for performance reasons, Miller's presented evidence that convinced the jury that she was actually let go because she was a strong advocate for her team and that that athletic department employed double standards when making employment decisions about male and female coaches.
Some of our past blog posts about this case are here, here, and here.
Tuesday, February 06, 2018
University of Minnesota-Duluth to Face Trial on Coach's Sex Discrimination and Retaliation Claims
Last week the federal district court in Minnesota ruled on the University of Minnesota's motion for summary judgment in a multi-count lawsuit filed against it by three female former coaches at the Duluth campus, who had alleged a variety of discrimination claims arising from their employment. Though the court granted summary judgment on several of the plaintiffs' claims, it refused to dismiss Coach Shannon Miller's claim that sex discrimination motivated the university's decision not to renew her contract, and her claim that the university retaliated against her for raising Title IX concerns. Those issues are now heading for trial scheduled in March.
Sex discrimination. UMD defended its decision not to renew Miller's contract on two grounds: the poor performance of the women's hockey team, which Miller coached, and the lack of "return on investment" for continuing to pay Miller's relatively high salary. Yet the court acknowledged, there is sufficient evidence that jury could conclude that these explanations were in fact pretext for sex discrimination. Specifically, the court identified: (1) evidence that the men's hockey coach was retained comparable or worse performance of his team; (2) evidence that the department used different criteria to evaluate Miller's renewal than the renewal of the men's team's coach; (3) the fact that the department gave inconsistent explanations for Miller's nonrenewal (saying first it was because of finances, then later arguing it was based on performance); evidence that the university's financial situation "was not as dire as it claimed"; and (5) the fact that the department did not pursue alternatives to nonrenewal that would have been consistent its ostensible concern about finances, such as asking Miller to take a pay cut or seeking donors to fund her salary.
Retaliation. The court also concluded there was sufficient evidence on which a jury could conclude that the university had retaliatory motives, in addition or instead of a desire to get rid of Miller because of her sex. Miller engaged in protected conduct by complaining to athletic department administrators about Title IX violations that affected her team. These complaints "continued until shortly before" the athletic director decided not to renew her contract. This timing, along with other evidence, could convince the jury that UMD terminated Miller to punish her for advocating for Title IX.
Hostile Environment Based on Sexual Orientation. The court dismissed the claims of all three plaintiffs that the athletic department cultivated and tolerated a hostile environment on the grounds that they are lesbians. After acknowledging that these claims were "strong" the court nevertheless dismissed them on the grounds that federal law does not expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (While Minnesota law does prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, the court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over these state law claims.) This seems like an appealable issue to me. The nearby Seventh Circuit has reasoned that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, and other circuit courts may be on the verge. An appeal here could give the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals an opportunity to get on board with this emerging and civil-rights expanding interpretation of sex discrimination under Title VII and Title IX.
Equal Pay. The court also dismissed Coach Miller's Equal Pay Act claim. Even though she was paid less than her men's team counterpart, a male, the court nevertheless determined that his job was not comparable to hers because the men's hockey team draws a bigger audience, more revenue, and as a result puts more pressure on him to win. This outcome is disappointing but not surprising as other female coaches' equal pay act claims have failed due to judges' unwillingness to see equivalence between coaching women and coaching men. Unfortunately, the rationale permits sex discrimination in the marketplace to justify lower salaries for female coaches who work just as hard and have no control over the public's bias.
Decision is: Miller v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 2018 WL 659851 (D. Minn. Feb. 1, 2018).
Sex discrimination. UMD defended its decision not to renew Miller's contract on two grounds: the poor performance of the women's hockey team, which Miller coached, and the lack of "return on investment" for continuing to pay Miller's relatively high salary. Yet the court acknowledged, there is sufficient evidence that jury could conclude that these explanations were in fact pretext for sex discrimination. Specifically, the court identified: (1) evidence that the men's hockey coach was retained comparable or worse performance of his team; (2) evidence that the department used different criteria to evaluate Miller's renewal than the renewal of the men's team's coach; (3) the fact that the department gave inconsistent explanations for Miller's nonrenewal (saying first it was because of finances, then later arguing it was based on performance); evidence that the university's financial situation "was not as dire as it claimed"; and (5) the fact that the department did not pursue alternatives to nonrenewal that would have been consistent its ostensible concern about finances, such as asking Miller to take a pay cut or seeking donors to fund her salary.
Retaliation. The court also concluded there was sufficient evidence on which a jury could conclude that the university had retaliatory motives, in addition or instead of a desire to get rid of Miller because of her sex. Miller engaged in protected conduct by complaining to athletic department administrators about Title IX violations that affected her team. These complaints "continued until shortly before" the athletic director decided not to renew her contract. This timing, along with other evidence, could convince the jury that UMD terminated Miller to punish her for advocating for Title IX.
Hostile Environment Based on Sexual Orientation. The court dismissed the claims of all three plaintiffs that the athletic department cultivated and tolerated a hostile environment on the grounds that they are lesbians. After acknowledging that these claims were "strong" the court nevertheless dismissed them on the grounds that federal law does not expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (While Minnesota law does prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, the court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over these state law claims.) This seems like an appealable issue to me. The nearby Seventh Circuit has reasoned that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, and other circuit courts may be on the verge. An appeal here could give the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals an opportunity to get on board with this emerging and civil-rights expanding interpretation of sex discrimination under Title VII and Title IX.
Equal Pay. The court also dismissed Coach Miller's Equal Pay Act claim. Even though she was paid less than her men's team counterpart, a male, the court nevertheless determined that his job was not comparable to hers because the men's hockey team draws a bigger audience, more revenue, and as a result puts more pressure on him to win. This outcome is disappointing but not surprising as other female coaches' equal pay act claims have failed due to judges' unwillingness to see equivalence between coaching women and coaching men. Unfortunately, the rationale permits sex discrimination in the marketplace to justify lower salaries for female coaches who work just as hard and have no control over the public's bias.
Decision is: Miller v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 2018 WL 659851 (D. Minn. Feb. 1, 2018).
Wednesday, April 05, 2017
UND and USA Hockey
The US Women's National Hockey Team is currently playing in the World Championships in Michigan. (And the team has made it through to the semi-finals.) Prepared to boycott this tournament over gross inequities in pay and treatment between them and the men's team, there was a (nearly) 11th hour resolution to the situation. (The financial terms have not been confirmed by either the team or USA Hockey but they include monthly stipends--year-round--instead of just during the Olympic year; that previous agreement amounted to a total of $6,000 over the course of four years from USA Hockey to national team members.)
It was a moment of triumph for women's sports. It was a highlight of my week--and others I know felt similarly. It was a show of solidarity and steadfastness. USA Hockey, with whom the national team had been in negotiations for over a year, initially poo-pooed the threat of the boycott and sought out other athletes--first from Division I schools, then II, III and then on to high school and rec league teams. And they never found enough players to field a team-- a team that would have been (no offense to my rec league friends) quite substandard.
The men's team also backed the women, suggesting that if USA Hockey did not prevent the boycott, they too would boycott their upcoming world championships.
In addition, the women effectively utilized social media platforms and the mainstream media took notice. The story was widely covered, including on ESPN!
Sadly, with the ink on the contracts barely dried*, other news came out from the world of women's hockey. The University of North Dakota is cutting its DI women's team. This is a team that feeds the national teams of the US and other countries.A team that produced two of the US national team's current stars--sisters Monique and Jocelyne Lamoureux (who transferred from Minnesota).
This does not appear to be a Title IX issue though this very confusing article said Title IX was considered and something about funneling the budget from women's hockey to both men's and women's sports. Running the numbers--last year's reported figures--and taking into account that two teams were cut last year and, along with women's ice hockey, men's and women's swimming will be cut at the end of the year, they appear to be in compliance with participation opportunities.
In other words, there is little to be done. Because, unlike the US women's national team, they do not--like most intercollegiate women's hockey teams--have widespread support. And part of the reason support for the team might be low is because of institutional priorities. The money saved from the five sports cut in two years will be going to the school's football program--no matter what UND says. Yes, state budget cuts are likely coming and the cuts are a response. But cutting these teams to address those budgets are a choice--an institutional choice--that allows the university to maintain the financial support to football-- a program that recently (2012) joined the "big time" Big Sky Conference--a move that requires a lot of capital.
I think USA Hockey was genuinely surprised by the support the national team rallied. They pushed back hard against a team that represents them and represents them well (despite the lack of support these women receive from the organization). In other words, USA Hockey was forced to bow to the pressure of popular opinion and a culture of community within the world of hockey.
I don't know if UND can garner that support. The Lamoureux twins have made public statements about the cut and sent a letter to the university president asking for the team to be reinstated. They have said will use similar tactics employed by the national team in its campaign. And maybe it will work.
But I had hoped that the "mere" fact that this is a highly successful team that sends its players on to the Olympics would have been enough for the administration to put it in the keep column. That they would see being the only intercollegiate women's hockey program in the state as a responsibility. That these accomplishments and status would be a source of pride and perhaps even marketing for the school.
But maybe I should not be too surprised that a university which put its own athletic teams--including football--in jeopardy by continually defying and fighting the NCAA's ban on Native American mascots, does not know how to act in its own best interests, let alone ethically.
* it seems as good a time as any to trot out this cliche.
It was a moment of triumph for women's sports. It was a highlight of my week--and others I know felt similarly. It was a show of solidarity and steadfastness. USA Hockey, with whom the national team had been in negotiations for over a year, initially poo-pooed the threat of the boycott and sought out other athletes--first from Division I schools, then II, III and then on to high school and rec league teams. And they never found enough players to field a team-- a team that would have been (no offense to my rec league friends) quite substandard.
The men's team also backed the women, suggesting that if USA Hockey did not prevent the boycott, they too would boycott their upcoming world championships.
In addition, the women effectively utilized social media platforms and the mainstream media took notice. The story was widely covered, including on ESPN!
Sadly, with the ink on the contracts barely dried*, other news came out from the world of women's hockey. The University of North Dakota is cutting its DI women's team. This is a team that feeds the national teams of the US and other countries.A team that produced two of the US national team's current stars--sisters Monique and Jocelyne Lamoureux (who transferred from Minnesota).
This does not appear to be a Title IX issue though this very confusing article said Title IX was considered and something about funneling the budget from women's hockey to both men's and women's sports. Running the numbers--last year's reported figures--and taking into account that two teams were cut last year and, along with women's ice hockey, men's and women's swimming will be cut at the end of the year, they appear to be in compliance with participation opportunities.
In other words, there is little to be done. Because, unlike the US women's national team, they do not--like most intercollegiate women's hockey teams--have widespread support. And part of the reason support for the team might be low is because of institutional priorities. The money saved from the five sports cut in two years will be going to the school's football program--no matter what UND says. Yes, state budget cuts are likely coming and the cuts are a response. But cutting these teams to address those budgets are a choice--an institutional choice--that allows the university to maintain the financial support to football-- a program that recently (2012) joined the "big time" Big Sky Conference--a move that requires a lot of capital.
I think USA Hockey was genuinely surprised by the support the national team rallied. They pushed back hard against a team that represents them and represents them well (despite the lack of support these women receive from the organization). In other words, USA Hockey was forced to bow to the pressure of popular opinion and a culture of community within the world of hockey.
I don't know if UND can garner that support. The Lamoureux twins have made public statements about the cut and sent a letter to the university president asking for the team to be reinstated. They have said will use similar tactics employed by the national team in its campaign. And maybe it will work.
But I had hoped that the "mere" fact that this is a highly successful team that sends its players on to the Olympics would have been enough for the administration to put it in the keep column. That they would see being the only intercollegiate women's hockey program in the state as a responsibility. That these accomplishments and status would be a source of pride and perhaps even marketing for the school.
But maybe I should not be too surprised that a university which put its own athletic teams--including football--in jeopardy by continually defying and fighting the NCAA's ban on Native American mascots, does not know how to act in its own best interests, let alone ethically.
* it seems as good a time as any to trot out this cliche.
Saturday, December 05, 2015
Duluth Coaches and Students File Title IX Complaint
A group of four former student athletes, one current student athlete, and three former coaches have filed a complaint with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights challenging widespread sex discrimination within the athletic department at the University of Minnesota-Duluth. The former coaches -- Shannon Miller, Jen Banford, and Annette Wiles -- are also plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the university challenging sex- and sexual orientation- discrimination that resulted in the termination or forced resignation of their jobs. But the OCR complaint alleges even more widespread sex discrimination that affects students and coaches alike.
Allegations in the complaint include the following:
Allegations in the complaint include the following:
- women's ice hockey team has a smaller operating budget (by over $270K) than its male counterpart
- women's softball team was forced to have tryouts in order to pad the number of female athletes reported for gender equity purposes, then the department made the coach cut those extra players for budgetary reasons
- some female athletes were fraudulently reported as participants in multiple sports
- men's basketball team is allowed to carry redshirt players, while the women's team is not
- the department has terminated female coaches, depriving female athletes the opportunity to receive coaching of high quality
- the department provides men's teams coach with resources like vehicles, a restaurant expense account, and support staff, that are not provided to the women's coaches on equal terms.
- the men's basketball team has a locker room five times larger and of superior quality than the locker room for women's team
- the men's hockey team is provided with resources like snacks, meals, travel funds to tournaments that were not provided in equal measure to the women's team.
- the women's basketball team had fewer games and travel opportunities than the men's team; the women's team had to fundraise for travel and the men were not
- men's teams had bigger budgets for recruiting, more equipment and uniforms, and medical equipment denied to women's teams
- female athletes have fewer opportunities for scholarships, such as funding to enroll in special May term, J-term, and summer semesters that male athletes receive
- the department does less promotion for female teams than its male counterparts, among other examples, it tweeted about men's hockey 309 times compared to 69 tweets about women's hockey
Monday, September 28, 2015
Lawsuit against Minnesota-Duluth
In a move that everyone knew was coming, three former coaches at the University of Minnesota-Duluth have filed a lawsuit against the university alleging discrimination on seven different counts including gender and sexual orientation. Shannon Miller (hockey), Jen Banford (softball, hockey relations), and Annette Wiles (basketball) have worked together on the lawsuit, which was precipitated by events that began almost a year ago when Miller's contract was not renewed because the university claimed it could no longer afford her. She was, at the time, the highest paid women's hockey coach, but notably paid less the UMD's men's coach.
All three women are gay and the lawsuit alleges that their openness about their sexuality was a key factor in the discrimination they faced. We have not heard about specific incidents of discrimination, rather the coverage has focused on contracts and the timeline of events that lead to the dismissal and/or resignation of each woman. But I suspect more stories that corroborate the women's claims will be made public as the legal challenges proceed. Miller, for example, recounted to the press today that she came to work one day and found that the name tag on her office door had been removed and replaced with the word dyke. She took it down and reported it. The name tag was never replaced and the incident never investigated. She also received anonymous hate mail on department letterhead.
The UMD chancellor has said that--although he has not yet looked over the lawsuit--he is sure that the claims of discrimination against the university will be proven false but that "we can always get better" on diversity issues. Miller's story certainly exemplifies the need to do better and also suggests that the chancellor's comments about no discrimination taking place may be a little overconfident at this point.
The lawsuit is against UMD but it cites athletic director Josh Berlo extensively. Berlo remains the athletic director and the university continues to support him. Miller cites his arrival at UMD in 2013 as a turning point in the culture of the department:
"It's language; it's how they treat you in meetings; it's how they don't meet with you; how they react when you take something forward to them, a complaint. So there was a shift, and it was a really strong shift, and it's the most abrupt and rude treatment I've ever received in my entire life as a professional."
I find this indictment of Berlo interesting in light of a recent article in the Harvard Business Review titled "Why do so many incompetent men become leaders?" It is certainly relevant to the issue of female coaches and female athletic department administrators, as noted by friend-of-the-blog and activist Pat Griffin.
According to one of the coaches' lawyers--Dan Siegel, who was counsel on the Fresno State cases in which dismissed female coaches won millions in their discrimination lawsuits--the university has not engaged in any conversation about settlement. Right now this appears to be a "digging their heels in" case. Though this case, according to Siegel, is less complicated than the Fresno cases in terms of evidence proving discrimination. It is also notable that both schools are state universities. This means that the burden of either a settlement or award in favor of the plaintiffs will be born by the taxpayers--in one way or another.
I had truly thought that Fresno State would serve as cautionary tale for other institutions. UMD though appears to be on the path to becoming the new (old) Fresno State.
All three women are gay and the lawsuit alleges that their openness about their sexuality was a key factor in the discrimination they faced. We have not heard about specific incidents of discrimination, rather the coverage has focused on contracts and the timeline of events that lead to the dismissal and/or resignation of each woman. But I suspect more stories that corroborate the women's claims will be made public as the legal challenges proceed. Miller, for example, recounted to the press today that she came to work one day and found that the name tag on her office door had been removed and replaced with the word dyke. She took it down and reported it. The name tag was never replaced and the incident never investigated. She also received anonymous hate mail on department letterhead.
The UMD chancellor has said that--although he has not yet looked over the lawsuit--he is sure that the claims of discrimination against the university will be proven false but that "we can always get better" on diversity issues. Miller's story certainly exemplifies the need to do better and also suggests that the chancellor's comments about no discrimination taking place may be a little overconfident at this point.
The lawsuit is against UMD but it cites athletic director Josh Berlo extensively. Berlo remains the athletic director and the university continues to support him. Miller cites his arrival at UMD in 2013 as a turning point in the culture of the department:
"It's language; it's how they treat you in meetings; it's how they don't meet with you; how they react when you take something forward to them, a complaint. So there was a shift, and it was a really strong shift, and it's the most abrupt and rude treatment I've ever received in my entire life as a professional."
I find this indictment of Berlo interesting in light of a recent article in the Harvard Business Review titled "Why do so many incompetent men become leaders?" It is certainly relevant to the issue of female coaches and female athletic department administrators, as noted by friend-of-the-blog and activist Pat Griffin.
According to one of the coaches' lawyers--Dan Siegel, who was counsel on the Fresno State cases in which dismissed female coaches won millions in their discrimination lawsuits--the university has not engaged in any conversation about settlement. Right now this appears to be a "digging their heels in" case. Though this case, according to Siegel, is less complicated than the Fresno cases in terms of evidence proving discrimination. It is also notable that both schools are state universities. This means that the burden of either a settlement or award in favor of the plaintiffs will be born by the taxpayers--in one way or another.
I had truly thought that Fresno State would serve as cautionary tale for other institutions. UMD though appears to be on the path to becoming the new (old) Fresno State.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Ohio State Hockey Coach Resigns Over Harassment Complaints
Ohio State's women's hockey coach has resigned in lieu of being fired for misconduct that included sexual harassment of his players. The university reportedly commenced investigating Nate Handrahan last November after receiving an anonymous complaint from a teacher or instructor that one of his players had shared in class the fact that he made sexually explicit comments to the team. In the course of investigating the complaint, the university received verifying testimony of other witnesses, who attested not only to his use of sexual language and innuendo (such as for example telling them in practice to "get horny for the puck") but also his verbally abusive and intimidating style. (The university's report also concluded that he had engaged in retaliation against his players as well, though the news account I read did not go into details on this.)
Earlier this year, Kris blogged about the dismissal of UNH's women's hockey coach over an incident in which he assaulted a player by pulling her to the bench by her shirt, causing her to fall. And I can't help but ask about this case the same question Kris asked then: would this have happened in men's sports? Notwithstanding prominent counterexamples, such as the dismissal of Rutgers men's basketball coach for abusive conduct towards his players, there is still a lot of tolerance for, and even expectation of, an aggressive style among coaches of men's teams. At the same time, cultural stereotypes about female athletes suggest that aggression is not appropriate for them. That puts coaches of women's teams -- men and women alike -- in something of a double bind as they receive mixed messages from society (and possibly from the culture of their athletic department): be aggressive, to prove yourself as a coach. But don't be aggressive towards female players, because women are different. The fact of this double-bind is not only dangerous for coaches, but for players as well. Not only because coaches may wrongly infer that abusive conduct is appropriate, but also because when the coach is dismissed for such misconduct, that in itself further diminishes the athletes' experience by depriving them of continuity in coaching.
By no means do I point out this double standard to condone the actions of Coach Handrahan here. Nor do I suggest that Ohio State in particular is practicing a double standard. (In fact, Ohio State's similar response to the band director situation last fall suggests that Ohio State is consistent when it comes to addressing sexual harassment in its programs.) But in a larger sense, this case helps illustrate the importance of being consistent across men's and women's programs when it comes to tolerating harassment, abuse, and bullying by coaches. Aggression that crosses the line into that territory should never be mistaken for a coach's job requirement, regardless of the sex of the athletes he or she is coaching.
Earlier this year, Kris blogged about the dismissal of UNH's women's hockey coach over an incident in which he assaulted a player by pulling her to the bench by her shirt, causing her to fall. And I can't help but ask about this case the same question Kris asked then: would this have happened in men's sports? Notwithstanding prominent counterexamples, such as the dismissal of Rutgers men's basketball coach for abusive conduct towards his players, there is still a lot of tolerance for, and even expectation of, an aggressive style among coaches of men's teams. At the same time, cultural stereotypes about female athletes suggest that aggression is not appropriate for them. That puts coaches of women's teams -- men and women alike -- in something of a double bind as they receive mixed messages from society (and possibly from the culture of their athletic department): be aggressive, to prove yourself as a coach. But don't be aggressive towards female players, because women are different. The fact of this double-bind is not only dangerous for coaches, but for players as well. Not only because coaches may wrongly infer that abusive conduct is appropriate, but also because when the coach is dismissed for such misconduct, that in itself further diminishes the athletes' experience by depriving them of continuity in coaching.
By no means do I point out this double standard to condone the actions of Coach Handrahan here. Nor do I suggest that Ohio State in particular is practicing a double standard. (In fact, Ohio State's similar response to the band director situation last fall suggests that Ohio State is consistent when it comes to addressing sexual harassment in its programs.) But in a larger sense, this case helps illustrate the importance of being consistent across men's and women's programs when it comes to tolerating harassment, abuse, and bullying by coaches. Aggression that crosses the line into that territory should never be mistaken for a coach's job requirement, regardless of the sex of the athletes he or she is coaching.
Monday, March 09, 2015
"Co-Champions" in Connecticut Raising Title IX Concerns
Champion. Noun. "A person who has defeated all opponents in a competition or series of competitions, so as to hold first place." Well -- usually. In Connecticut yesterday, two girls' ice hockey teams squared off to determine the state champion. After three periods of regulation play, the score between the team from Simsbury and the team from East Catholic/Glastonbury/South Windsor was tied 2-2. So they played a period of "sudden death" overtime, in which, if either team had scored, the game would have ended. But no one scored. So they played another overtime period. Still, no one scored. Then, as the teams geared up for a third overtime period, officials told the teams to line up on blue lines so they could be awarded co-champions.
As ESPN-W reports, the decision not to let the game continue until there was a winner caused confusion, surprise and disappointment. It not only departed from the expectations that athletes generally have about the ending of a championship game -- but apparently, from the rules for determining this particular championship that had been circulated to the teams ahead of time: "eight minute sudden death overtimes until the game is decided." In addition to disappointing the players involved, the situation has also raised Title IX concerns. For one thing, there is reportedly good reason to believe that the girls' state championship game ended without a winner so that the later-scheduled boys' game, a conference championship, could begin on time. And many believe that if the situation were reversed, a boys' state championships would never have been allowed to end without a winner.
Title IX requires that schools provide boys and girls with athletic opportunities of similar quality. One factor of quality, as specified in the regulations, is the scheduling of competitions. For example, courts have determined that the practice of depriving girls of the opportunity to play games during the "prime time" (usually, weekend and evening times) violates Title IX because it demotes girls' sports to a second-class status. The regulations also specify that girls and boys should have access to athletic facilities of equal quality. For example, some states hold high school championships at a large premier arena, such as a state university. If only boys' teams have access to this high level of quality (see, e.g.), that would violate Title IX.
What happened in Connecticut yesterday could arguably violate Title IX, either as an example of unequal scheduling or as an example of unequal access to facilities. If Connecticut schools schedule the boys state championship at a time of day, e.g., evening, when the game can be played to its conclusion, but the girls, scheduled during the day, have to stop early to accommodate the next game, then there is inequity in the scheduling of competitions. Similarly, if the boys' state championship is held at a rink that does allow adequate time for the game, but the girls' state championship is hosted at rink that is not able to provide adequate time, the latter rink is a facility of inferior quality.
Yesterday's championship could have either been held at a different location---one that could accommodate a complete game---or it could have been allocated a different time period--i.e., a sufficiently long enough one to allow the game to conclude. If it is not possible to make those kinds of accommodations to both boys' and girls' championship games in the same year, schools could agree to provide the better facility/schedule to the girls' championship one year and to the boys' the next. Alternatively, the schools could have imposed a rule that shortens the time it takes to play a championship game --boys' and girls' -- such as by ending it by penalty shots after a certain number of evenly-matched overtimes, so that they both fit in the time and place allotted to them. Title IX does not mandate how schools provide equal treatment to girls' and boys' athletic programs, only that they do.
Hopefully the schools in Connecticut that participate in girls' hockey learn from yesterday's mistake and ensure that future girls' championships receive the equal respect they deserve and the equal treatment the law requires.
As ESPN-W reports, the decision not to let the game continue until there was a winner caused confusion, surprise and disappointment. It not only departed from the expectations that athletes generally have about the ending of a championship game -- but apparently, from the rules for determining this particular championship that had been circulated to the teams ahead of time: "eight minute sudden death overtimes until the game is decided." In addition to disappointing the players involved, the situation has also raised Title IX concerns. For one thing, there is reportedly good reason to believe that the girls' state championship game ended without a winner so that the later-scheduled boys' game, a conference championship, could begin on time. And many believe that if the situation were reversed, a boys' state championships would never have been allowed to end without a winner.
Title IX requires that schools provide boys and girls with athletic opportunities of similar quality. One factor of quality, as specified in the regulations, is the scheduling of competitions. For example, courts have determined that the practice of depriving girls of the opportunity to play games during the "prime time" (usually, weekend and evening times) violates Title IX because it demotes girls' sports to a second-class status. The regulations also specify that girls and boys should have access to athletic facilities of equal quality. For example, some states hold high school championships at a large premier arena, such as a state university. If only boys' teams have access to this high level of quality (see, e.g.), that would violate Title IX.
What happened in Connecticut yesterday could arguably violate Title IX, either as an example of unequal scheduling or as an example of unequal access to facilities. If Connecticut schools schedule the boys state championship at a time of day, e.g., evening, when the game can be played to its conclusion, but the girls, scheduled during the day, have to stop early to accommodate the next game, then there is inequity in the scheduling of competitions. Similarly, if the boys' state championship is held at a rink that does allow adequate time for the game, but the girls' state championship is hosted at rink that is not able to provide adequate time, the latter rink is a facility of inferior quality.
Yesterday's championship could have either been held at a different location---one that could accommodate a complete game---or it could have been allocated a different time period--i.e., a sufficiently long enough one to allow the game to conclude. If it is not possible to make those kinds of accommodations to both boys' and girls' championship games in the same year, schools could agree to provide the better facility/schedule to the girls' championship one year and to the boys' the next. Alternatively, the schools could have imposed a rule that shortens the time it takes to play a championship game --boys' and girls' -- such as by ending it by penalty shots after a certain number of evenly-matched overtimes, so that they both fit in the time and place allotted to them. Title IX does not mandate how schools provide equal treatment to girls' and boys' athletic programs, only that they do.
Hopefully the schools in Connecticut that participate in girls' hockey learn from yesterday's mistake and ensure that future girls' championships receive the equal respect they deserve and the equal treatment the law requires.
Thursday, February 05, 2015
Iowa complaint & coaching behavior
Two pieces of news from two of my alma maters today. One, four field hockey players at the University of Iowa have filed a Title IX complaint with OCR in conjunction with the firing of field hockey coach Tracey Griesbaum. The second: University of New Hampshire fired women's ice hockey coach Brian McCloskey signed an admission of wrongdoing in a case of assault against a player during the course of a game.
Regarding Iowa, we were expecting something Title IX related to come out of this situation, but we presumed it would be a lawsuit from Griesbaum. (This still could happen, of course.) So it was a pleasant (in that unfortunate kind of way) surprise to hear about the four student-athletes taking the initiative and filing the complaint. The premise of the complaint is that the firing of Griesbaum, a highly successful coach, disadvantages female athletes, i.e, they are not receiving treatment equal to that of their male peers. They also contend that there is unequal treatment of female and male coaches within the department noting that the alleged abusive behavior committed by Griesbaum (based on student exit interviews) is tolerated when it is done by male coaches.
This relates to the case at UNH. The original story from McCloskey, who did have a lawsuit pending against the university for a while, was that he grabbed a player's shirt after she came off the ice and spoke back to him when he reprimanded her for her performance. He contended that this would have been tolerated if he were a female coach and/or coaching men. And he was probably right. This does not excuse his behavior or make it acceptable. It does point to the double standards that exist around gender and coaching styles--the same ones that the Iowa complaint points out.
McCloskey, as part of the admission--which includes more details (he pulled the player's shirt which caused her to fall and hit her head; he then grabbed her face mask)--will attend anger management classes.
I was about to suggest that all coaches take anger management classes or that there be better training programs for coaches, but I do not think the solution is that simple. We chastise coaches who engage in abusive behaviors, but the paradigm never shifts away from the idea that harsh disciplinarians and tough love and other such euphemisms are the key to creating a successful team. We justify these behaviors by pointing to athletes who say they are motivated by such tactics.
I believe there is more (there always is!) to both the Iowa and UNH situations that resulted in the dismissal of these two coaches. Even if it was the only reason, there are gendered implications to the bad behavior rationale.
Still, there is a huge positive to take out of, at least, the Iowa complaint. The four student-athletes are challenging their department, a pretty bold move given that three of the four will be returning athletes next season. I suspect there may be a Title IX whisperer somewhere in Iowa City. Regardless, I hope the activism is contagious. Maybe it will head north towards Duluth??
Regarding Iowa, we were expecting something Title IX related to come out of this situation, but we presumed it would be a lawsuit from Griesbaum. (This still could happen, of course.) So it was a pleasant (in that unfortunate kind of way) surprise to hear about the four student-athletes taking the initiative and filing the complaint. The premise of the complaint is that the firing of Griesbaum, a highly successful coach, disadvantages female athletes, i.e, they are not receiving treatment equal to that of their male peers. They also contend that there is unequal treatment of female and male coaches within the department noting that the alleged abusive behavior committed by Griesbaum (based on student exit interviews) is tolerated when it is done by male coaches.
This relates to the case at UNH. The original story from McCloskey, who did have a lawsuit pending against the university for a while, was that he grabbed a player's shirt after she came off the ice and spoke back to him when he reprimanded her for her performance. He contended that this would have been tolerated if he were a female coach and/or coaching men. And he was probably right. This does not excuse his behavior or make it acceptable. It does point to the double standards that exist around gender and coaching styles--the same ones that the Iowa complaint points out.
McCloskey, as part of the admission--which includes more details (he pulled the player's shirt which caused her to fall and hit her head; he then grabbed her face mask)--will attend anger management classes.
I was about to suggest that all coaches take anger management classes or that there be better training programs for coaches, but I do not think the solution is that simple. We chastise coaches who engage in abusive behaviors, but the paradigm never shifts away from the idea that harsh disciplinarians and tough love and other such euphemisms are the key to creating a successful team. We justify these behaviors by pointing to athletes who say they are motivated by such tactics.
I believe there is more (there always is!) to both the Iowa and UNH situations that resulted in the dismissal of these two coaches. Even if it was the only reason, there are gendered implications to the bad behavior rationale.
Still, there is a huge positive to take out of, at least, the Iowa complaint. The four student-athletes are challenging their department, a pretty bold move given that three of the four will be returning athletes next season. I suspect there may be a Title IX whisperer somewhere in Iowa City. Regardless, I hope the activism is contagious. Maybe it will head north towards Duluth??
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Minnesota-Duluth digs hole deeper
When I give my sport management students scenarios about sport organizations and their responses to or creation of various controversial situations, I do so for several reasons. One is to present examples of non-compliance with laws or policies and ask them to think critically about what went wrong, why, and how. Another is to demonstrate lack of leadership and the consequences of ignorance and/or ego. I ask them (as an example) "do you want to be the athletic director under whose watch multimillion settlements had to be made with victims of retaliation/abuse/discrimination?" Hopefully they get it.
Of course the real test is what they do when they gets jobs in athletics. This is a test that University of Minnesota Duluth Athletic Director Josh Berlo is failing. Last month, as we noted, he announced that women's ice hockey coach, Shannon Miller, would not have her contract renewed because, as the highest paid coach in women's ice hockey (at just over $200,000) the cash-strapped university could not afford her anymore. After considerable outcry--which is ongoing--the chancellor issued a vague statement suggesting that there are other issues:
"The decision to not renew Coach Miller's contract was difficult, but was made thoughtfully after a full review of a number of factors. It's the right decision for the program and I support it. While the decision is sound, we did not communicate it publicly as clearly as I would have liked. We could have communicated this in a less narrow way, and more clearly explained our desire to see the program go in a new direction."
I have already noted how the money rationale was not so much "narrow" as discriminatory. But I am curious about the always-vague but at least equally applied "new direction." The team has won 12 of their 13 games this season. Miller has produced over 20 Olympians and was the national team coach for Canada in the first Olympics that offered women's ice hockey. What direction is UMD looking to take their program? Down?
I have, as I am wont to do, buried the lead. The latest news out of UMD is that a second female coach has been told her contract will not be renewed. Softball coach Jen Banford, who is also very successful and has been at the university for a decade, will no longer be the softball coach.
There seems to be confusion over Banford's dismissal, though. Berlo told ESPNW that the coach would remain the softball coach; it was her position as Director of Operations for women's hockey (i.e., part of Miller's staff) that was being terminated. But a copy of the letter Banford received (which can be found via the above link to Kate Fagan's ESPNW article) very explicitly states that it is both positions. Banford herself confirmed this with Human Resources.
Banford believes she is being retaliated against for her support of Miller and the women's ice hockey program. She too has retained lawyers. The he said/she said is playing out in the media--not in the athletic department offices. Berlo said this is a paperwork issue and that he plans to retain Banford as the softball coach and is merely restructuring her position. Banford told ESPNW: "Josh has not spoken with me in six weeks. To me, it's obvious why he's saying he's in the process of writing a renewal, but if he wanted to give me a renewal, he would have given me that on Dec. 11."
I could never have devised a scenario like this for my students. Two female coaches' contracts not renewed within weeks of one another and with specious rationales for the dismissals; it just would not have been believable. But here we are.
Of course the real test is what they do when they gets jobs in athletics. This is a test that University of Minnesota Duluth Athletic Director Josh Berlo is failing. Last month, as we noted, he announced that women's ice hockey coach, Shannon Miller, would not have her contract renewed because, as the highest paid coach in women's ice hockey (at just over $200,000) the cash-strapped university could not afford her anymore. After considerable outcry--which is ongoing--the chancellor issued a vague statement suggesting that there are other issues:
"The decision to not renew Coach Miller's contract was difficult, but was made thoughtfully after a full review of a number of factors. It's the right decision for the program and I support it. While the decision is sound, we did not communicate it publicly as clearly as I would have liked. We could have communicated this in a less narrow way, and more clearly explained our desire to see the program go in a new direction."
I have already noted how the money rationale was not so much "narrow" as discriminatory. But I am curious about the always-vague but at least equally applied "new direction." The team has won 12 of their 13 games this season. Miller has produced over 20 Olympians and was the national team coach for Canada in the first Olympics that offered women's ice hockey. What direction is UMD looking to take their program? Down?
I have, as I am wont to do, buried the lead. The latest news out of UMD is that a second female coach has been told her contract will not be renewed. Softball coach Jen Banford, who is also very successful and has been at the university for a decade, will no longer be the softball coach.
There seems to be confusion over Banford's dismissal, though. Berlo told ESPNW that the coach would remain the softball coach; it was her position as Director of Operations for women's hockey (i.e., part of Miller's staff) that was being terminated. But a copy of the letter Banford received (which can be found via the above link to Kate Fagan's ESPNW article) very explicitly states that it is both positions. Banford herself confirmed this with Human Resources.
Banford believes she is being retaliated against for her support of Miller and the women's ice hockey program. She too has retained lawyers. The he said/she said is playing out in the media--not in the athletic department offices. Berlo said this is a paperwork issue and that he plans to retain Banford as the softball coach and is merely restructuring her position. Banford told ESPNW: "Josh has not spoken with me in six weeks. To me, it's obvious why he's saying he's in the process of writing a renewal, but if he wanted to give me a renewal, he would have given me that on Dec. 11."
I could never have devised a scenario like this for my students. Two female coaches' contracts not renewed within weeks of one another and with specious rationales for the dismissals; it just would not have been believable. But here we are.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
What should we take from Miller's firing?
This post will start cynical (it has not been a great week for discrimination against women in sports) but I will try to end on an up(ish) note.
So we can now add to the list of things that will get female coaches fired/dismissed/forced into retirement: having too high of a salary. This joins such explanations (which range in legitimacy--I'm not commenting on whether or not they are true, just that they have been offered in some suspect dismissals): having a family, not having a family, pulling a player's shirt, banning white bread, reporting gender inequity, yelling at players, being too feminine, not being feminine enough, too successful, not successful enough.
University of Minnesota Duluth women's hockey head coach Shannon Miller, who coached her team to five NCAA championships, was told this week that her contract is not being renewed (she will finish out the season) because her salary--the highest of any head women's hockey coach at $215,000--is too high for the financially distressed UMD to sustain. Most of those reasons above are never applied to male coaches (yes, Tim Rice at Rutgers--who was caught on videotape--is an exception and lack of success is often a reason male coaches get bought out of their contracts)--but certainly "we're paying you too much, so we have to let you go" is something male coaches do not hear when they are sat down in the athletic director's office to be fired.
This incident cannot be looked at in isolation. Don't forget the story from just a few weeks ago out of Iowa and the apparent pattern of female coaches being fired, not renewed, or entering into early retirement.
Yes, UMD is a different school, this is a different rationale, but it is part of the pattern. We may not know exactly what the pattern is and, unfortunately, I suspect the number of smoking guns that exist to explain things are rare--because I don't believe there is one thing that makes an athletic department fire female coaches. It's about the power of male administrators, beliefs about female leadership, the value of women's sports, the value of female coaches, and so much more.
Though this story broke two days ago, I feel we are a little bit behind given the extensive news coverage. But--and here is the potential upside--doubts are being raised and questions are being asked. Dr. Nicole LaVoi of University of Minnesota has been speaking to the media and also posted on her blog, One Sport Voice, some revealing data about coaching, salaries, and discrimination.
UMD made a mistake not just in firing Miller but in providing a weak justification, which only serves to make people question the actual justification. They also made a mistake in doing it so close to the revelations about what is happening at Iowa. And they underestimated a general public that dislikes overt discrimination. It may be difficult to see and understand structures and systems of discrimination, but it is not hard to see that firing a female coach under the guise of being paid too much when there are other, less successful male coaches who are paid more...well that's gender discrimination.
So we can now add to the list of things that will get female coaches fired/dismissed/forced into retirement: having too high of a salary. This joins such explanations (which range in legitimacy--I'm not commenting on whether or not they are true, just that they have been offered in some suspect dismissals): having a family, not having a family, pulling a player's shirt, banning white bread, reporting gender inequity, yelling at players, being too feminine, not being feminine enough, too successful, not successful enough.
University of Minnesota Duluth women's hockey head coach Shannon Miller, who coached her team to five NCAA championships, was told this week that her contract is not being renewed (she will finish out the season) because her salary--the highest of any head women's hockey coach at $215,000--is too high for the financially distressed UMD to sustain. Most of those reasons above are never applied to male coaches (yes, Tim Rice at Rutgers--who was caught on videotape--is an exception and lack of success is often a reason male coaches get bought out of their contracts)--but certainly "we're paying you too much, so we have to let you go" is something male coaches do not hear when they are sat down in the athletic director's office to be fired.
This incident cannot be looked at in isolation. Don't forget the story from just a few weeks ago out of Iowa and the apparent pattern of female coaches being fired, not renewed, or entering into early retirement.
Yes, UMD is a different school, this is a different rationale, but it is part of the pattern. We may not know exactly what the pattern is and, unfortunately, I suspect the number of smoking guns that exist to explain things are rare--because I don't believe there is one thing that makes an athletic department fire female coaches. It's about the power of male administrators, beliefs about female leadership, the value of women's sports, the value of female coaches, and so much more.
Though this story broke two days ago, I feel we are a little bit behind given the extensive news coverage. But--and here is the potential upside--doubts are being raised and questions are being asked. Dr. Nicole LaVoi of University of Minnesota has been speaking to the media and also posted on her blog, One Sport Voice, some revealing data about coaching, salaries, and discrimination.
UMD made a mistake not just in firing Miller but in providing a weak justification, which only serves to make people question the actual justification. They also made a mistake in doing it so close to the revelations about what is happening at Iowa. And they underestimated a general public that dislikes overt discrimination. It may be difficult to see and understand structures and systems of discrimination, but it is not hard to see that firing a female coach under the guise of being paid too much when there are other, less successful male coaches who are paid more...well that's gender discrimination.
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Huntsville-Alabama Title IX case and how we understand violence and athletes
Erin has already written about the sexual assault case in Huntsville, but I want to put it in the larger context of what I have been seeing, thinking, and discussing.
We have been hearing a lot about sexual assault and intercollegiate football of late (Florida, FSU, Missouri) in addition to the domestic violence allegations against professional football players.
Also still in the news is the campus (and spreading) activism about sexual assault in colleges.
These are not separate issues, even though they sometimes are covered and discussed in different spaces and places--including different sections of the newspapers and different television stations. But these differences, in presentation, speak to the visibility of the issues.
In the movement to fight against and seek awareness of campus sexual assault, the voices and images have been dominated by young women. There has been a concerted effort on the part of activists, like those involved in Know Your IX, to ensure that these are not just white women, or even just women.
However, looking at the coverage of perpetrators in stories about sexual assault activism we see something much different. In the cases of sexual assault by male college students (who are not athletes) we don't see much at all. Their identities remain--in the media at least--largely invisible. This is somewhat unusual given that the media usually protects victim's identities. But in the stories of women who come forward to protest their treatment by and at their schools, the men remain unidentified and their race is presumed to be white. This is not a criticism of the media coverage, rather an observation--an observation that emerged out of the coverage of male student-athletes who commit sexual assault. The picture we see in these situations is of assailants and not victims. The assailants have been football or basketball players who are Black men.
The similarity--no discussion of race. We know that men of any race can be perpetrators, but the majority of perpetrators being named and seen are Black men, who are athletes. This perpetuates the stereotypes of Black men, especially Black male athletes, as inherently violent. This is not to say that these men are innocent or that the schools have handled these cases well; the latter is certainly not true--but that the picture skewed.
This is why the Huntsville case was an interesting interruption of sorts. Yes, a student athlete, but a hockey player. Again we know that hockey players can commit violence against women too (there are several current cases in the NHL), but we have not seen them in the coverage of sexual assault. And the athlete is white. (He is foreign-born, which of course does not negate his whiteness, but provides some complication of the good American white boy athlete image that runs in contrast to the violent Black athlete.)
This case, despite being just as egregious as the ones we have heard so much about, received much less media attention. One might argue that this is because college hockey is not as popular a sport as college basketball and football (though as UNH alum, Erin and I might disagree) or he is not a high-profile athlete. Besides Jameis Winston, though, none of the other accused student-athletes have been national names.
I am glad that the Huntsville case was resolved and wish the others were being better handled, but in addition to questioning how these cases are being handled, we need to question what we are seeing (and not seeing).
We have been hearing a lot about sexual assault and intercollegiate football of late (Florida, FSU, Missouri) in addition to the domestic violence allegations against professional football players.
Also still in the news is the campus (and spreading) activism about sexual assault in colleges.
These are not separate issues, even though they sometimes are covered and discussed in different spaces and places--including different sections of the newspapers and different television stations. But these differences, in presentation, speak to the visibility of the issues.
In the movement to fight against and seek awareness of campus sexual assault, the voices and images have been dominated by young women. There has been a concerted effort on the part of activists, like those involved in Know Your IX, to ensure that these are not just white women, or even just women.
However, looking at the coverage of perpetrators in stories about sexual assault activism we see something much different. In the cases of sexual assault by male college students (who are not athletes) we don't see much at all. Their identities remain--in the media at least--largely invisible. This is somewhat unusual given that the media usually protects victim's identities. But in the stories of women who come forward to protest their treatment by and at their schools, the men remain unidentified and their race is presumed to be white. This is not a criticism of the media coverage, rather an observation--an observation that emerged out of the coverage of male student-athletes who commit sexual assault. The picture we see in these situations is of assailants and not victims. The assailants have been football or basketball players who are Black men.
The similarity--no discussion of race. We know that men of any race can be perpetrators, but the majority of perpetrators being named and seen are Black men, who are athletes. This perpetuates the stereotypes of Black men, especially Black male athletes, as inherently violent. This is not to say that these men are innocent or that the schools have handled these cases well; the latter is certainly not true--but that the picture skewed.
This is why the Huntsville case was an interesting interruption of sorts. Yes, a student athlete, but a hockey player. Again we know that hockey players can commit violence against women too (there are several current cases in the NHL), but we have not seen them in the coverage of sexual assault. And the athlete is white. (He is foreign-born, which of course does not negate his whiteness, but provides some complication of the good American white boy athlete image that runs in contrast to the violent Black athlete.)
This case, despite being just as egregious as the ones we have heard so much about, received much less media attention. One might argue that this is because college hockey is not as popular a sport as college basketball and football (though as UNH alum, Erin and I might disagree) or he is not a high-profile athlete. Besides Jameis Winston, though, none of the other accused student-athletes have been national names.
I am glad that the Huntsville case was resolved and wish the others were being better handled, but in addition to questioning how these cases are being handled, we need to question what we are seeing (and not seeing).
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Don't you dare complain!
We mumble and grumble--sometimes more loudly than at other times--when schools get praised by the community and media outlets for taking some action that appears to be making a situation better for female student-athletes (new softball field, addition of teams, renovated locker rooms) when what they're really doing is simply following the law and ending (some) discriminatory practices.
But when the media perpetuates backlash, well then you get a talking-to.
Mark Goodman, writer for HomeNewsHere.com out of Woburn, Massachusetts is not the only--just the latest--purveyor of Title IX backlash. Covering the Middlesex League, Goodman questions whether the hockey teams in the league will have to alter their practice of scheduling doubleheaders in which the girls' teams play first, followed by the boys' contest, the majority of the time. (Despite popular sentiment that everyone is fine with this arrangement, they do need to alter their scheduling practices.)
The question arose because the basketball teams in the league recently changed their game scheduling practices after a parent complained about the discrimination inherent in always putting the girls as the warm-up act in doubleheaders. Some people are not happy about this change citing damage to the school community. My guess is that the people who are happy are not so vocal in their support. Perhaps because people attack those advocating for equal rights, including reporters like Mark Goodman, who wrote: "all it takes is for one person to get bent out of shape and threaten legal action."
A parent is not getting "bent out of shape" when he or she asks for the school to provide equitable treatment to its female students. What that parent is asking is that the school comply with the law. A parent doesn't even need to "threaten legal action" because anyone can file a complaint with OCR. Anyone. An OCR complaint--even if it's just based on scheduling--can trigger a full investigation into all aspects of athletics in a district. All aspects: facilities, opportunities, equipment, coaching. And that will have administrators bent into all sorts of shapes.
But when the media perpetuates backlash, well then you get a talking-to.
Mark Goodman, writer for HomeNewsHere.com out of Woburn, Massachusetts is not the only--just the latest--purveyor of Title IX backlash. Covering the Middlesex League, Goodman questions whether the hockey teams in the league will have to alter their practice of scheduling doubleheaders in which the girls' teams play first, followed by the boys' contest, the majority of the time. (Despite popular sentiment that everyone is fine with this arrangement, they do need to alter their scheduling practices.)
The question arose because the basketball teams in the league recently changed their game scheduling practices after a parent complained about the discrimination inherent in always putting the girls as the warm-up act in doubleheaders. Some people are not happy about this change citing damage to the school community. My guess is that the people who are happy are not so vocal in their support. Perhaps because people attack those advocating for equal rights, including reporters like Mark Goodman, who wrote: "all it takes is for one person to get bent out of shape and threaten legal action."
A parent is not getting "bent out of shape" when he or she asks for the school to provide equitable treatment to its female students. What that parent is asking is that the school comply with the law. A parent doesn't even need to "threaten legal action" because anyone can file a complaint with OCR. Anyone. An OCR complaint--even if it's just based on scheduling--can trigger a full investigation into all aspects of athletics in a district. All aspects: facilities, opportunities, equipment, coaching. And that will have administrators bent into all sorts of shapes.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Amherst College responds
Students have been, it seems, emboldened by the national press their college has received over the climate on the Amherst College campus. They held a rally last Friday outside a Board of Trustees meeting. And the college is responding--publicly.
President Martin gave an interview to New England Public Radio yesterday morning. I was quite impressed by her statements. She gave a lot of credit to the students of Amherst College who have already been working on this issue. She referred to them as experts. She has hired an outside consultant to examine the policies around sexual assault and misconduct. She is bringing in outside counselors to the counseling center to specifically serve students who have been victims of sexual assault.
I was somewhat surprised by this. While I think it is a positive move, I am not quite sure why a college campus doesn't already have multiple staff members in their counseling center who are capable of working with students who experience sexual assault. This might be part of the issue around "climate," which the interviewer asked Martin about.
Policies can change, staff members can change--but how do you change a climate?
Friends and I had this discussion just last night in reference both to Amherst College and a recent article about the Boston University men's hockey team, which dismissed two players last season because of sexual assault allegations. An internal report found a "culture of entitlement" on the team which lead to the these assaults and was allowed to flourish because of lack of supervision or discipline by the coaching staff and university administration. BU has put several policies and practices in place in an attempt to change the culture.
But altering a culture, especially when it is so engrained, is difficult. According to the Globe article linked in the above paragraph, appealing to people's sense of right and wrong does not work. You have to tell them everyone else is doing it--whatever the it is. So in the case of a climate which fosters the sexual assault of women, do we tell people "hey, everyone else is NOT raping women--you shouldn't either"?
President Martin gave an interview to New England Public Radio yesterday morning. I was quite impressed by her statements. She gave a lot of credit to the students of Amherst College who have already been working on this issue. She referred to them as experts. She has hired an outside consultant to examine the policies around sexual assault and misconduct. She is bringing in outside counselors to the counseling center to specifically serve students who have been victims of sexual assault.
I was somewhat surprised by this. While I think it is a positive move, I am not quite sure why a college campus doesn't already have multiple staff members in their counseling center who are capable of working with students who experience sexual assault. This might be part of the issue around "climate," which the interviewer asked Martin about.
Policies can change, staff members can change--but how do you change a climate?
Friends and I had this discussion just last night in reference both to Amherst College and a recent article about the Boston University men's hockey team, which dismissed two players last season because of sexual assault allegations. An internal report found a "culture of entitlement" on the team which lead to the these assaults and was allowed to flourish because of lack of supervision or discipline by the coaching staff and university administration. BU has put several policies and practices in place in an attempt to change the culture.
But altering a culture, especially when it is so engrained, is difficult. According to the Globe article linked in the above paragraph, appealing to people's sense of right and wrong does not work. You have to tell them everyone else is doing it--whatever the it is. So in the case of a climate which fosters the sexual assault of women, do we tell people "hey, everyone else is NOT raping women--you shouldn't either"?
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
Merrimack College adding women's sports
We won't lie. We're pretty excited to see another women's hockey team at the DI level. What's also nice is that the team is being added along with five other women's sports at Merrimack College, for a total of 80 new opportunities. The additions are part of the college's resolution agreement with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, which settles a complaint about inequitable athletic opportunities for women.
Prompting this resolution agreement was OCR's finding that Merrimack was in violation of Title IX's requirement to maintain an equitable number of athletic opportunities, as measured by one of three prongs. First, Merrimack's male students make up 52% of the population, yet receive 64% of athletic opportunities, so it could not claim compliance under the proportionality prong. Second, prior to OCR's commencing its investigation, the last time Merrimack added a women's sport was in 1998, so it could not demonstrate a"history and continuing practice" of expanding opportunities for the underrepresented sex. Third, Merrimack could not demonstrate that it was satisfying the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex, especially in light of women's growing interest in club and intramural sports at Merrimack. The 80 new opportunities that will result from the new teams, some of which were added while OCR's investigation was pending, will bring Merrimack into compliance under the proportionality prong. The resolution agreement also details Merrimack's obligation to provide equal treatment in terms of scholarship dollars, facilities, and other resources.
Specifically Merrimack will add five women's teams to compete in Division II: swimming and diving, water polo, track and field (actually added in 2010-11, during OCR's period of review), crew, and golf. It will also add women's ice hockey, to which Merrimack will commit the resources for a team to be ready to join the premier, Division I Hockey East conference in five years. Merrimack otherwise competes in Division II, but has a men's hockey team that competes in Hockey East, so this will bring parity within Merrimack's top tier sports.
As fans of another Hockey East team, the Title IX Bloggers say: Welcome Merrimack. Bring it!
Prompting this resolution agreement was OCR's finding that Merrimack was in violation of Title IX's requirement to maintain an equitable number of athletic opportunities, as measured by one of three prongs. First, Merrimack's male students make up 52% of the population, yet receive 64% of athletic opportunities, so it could not claim compliance under the proportionality prong. Second, prior to OCR's commencing its investigation, the last time Merrimack added a women's sport was in 1998, so it could not demonstrate a"history and continuing practice" of expanding opportunities for the underrepresented sex. Third, Merrimack could not demonstrate that it was satisfying the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex, especially in light of women's growing interest in club and intramural sports at Merrimack. The 80 new opportunities that will result from the new teams, some of which were added while OCR's investigation was pending, will bring Merrimack into compliance under the proportionality prong. The resolution agreement also details Merrimack's obligation to provide equal treatment in terms of scholarship dollars, facilities, and other resources.
Specifically Merrimack will add five women's teams to compete in Division II: swimming and diving, water polo, track and field (actually added in 2010-11, during OCR's period of review), crew, and golf. It will also add women's ice hockey, to which Merrimack will commit the resources for a team to be ready to join the premier, Division I Hockey East conference in five years. Merrimack otherwise competes in Division II, but has a men's hockey team that competes in Hockey East, so this will bring parity within Merrimack's top tier sports.
As fans of another Hockey East team, the Title IX Bloggers say: Welcome Merrimack. Bring it!
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Niagara cuts women's ice hockey
Found out, via Twitter, yesterday that Niagara University is cutting its women's ice hockey team because it is too expensive--and apparently underperforming. Apparently, after a strong start (the team made the Frozen Four only four years after its establishment), the team has not done well.
The school, which has (according to the latest Department of Education data) a 59% female undergrad population, has 53% of its athletic opportunities going to women. That is with hockey. Without hockey that statistic goes to 45%. The school has announced it will add women's track and field. Right now it looks like NU has cross country for both men and women. The addition of track and field for women means that there will be "new" opportunities for female student athletes, but that some of those are likely to be filled by current cross country runners--which is fine and legal and all.
It's just a little disappointing that to save costs, the university has decided to draw support from it's women's ice hockey team, but keep the men's team, and add what will likely be fewer opportunities overall because of the duplicate athletes (of which NU currently has none).
The school, which has (according to the latest Department of Education data) a 59% female undergrad population, has 53% of its athletic opportunities going to women. That is with hockey. Without hockey that statistic goes to 45%. The school has announced it will add women's track and field. Right now it looks like NU has cross country for both men and women. The addition of track and field for women means that there will be "new" opportunities for female student athletes, but that some of those are likely to be filled by current cross country runners--which is fine and legal and all.
It's just a little disappointing that to save costs, the university has decided to draw support from it's women's ice hockey team, but keep the men's team, and add what will likely be fewer opportunities overall because of the duplicate athletes (of which NU currently has none).
Thursday, September 08, 2011
Franklin Pierce adds sports
Knowing the state of the economy, the fiscal state of higher education, and--having attended school in New Hampshire--the fiscal issues faced by NH schools, we were a little surprised to read that Franklin Pierce University has announced it is adding several sports.
No word on how these sports will be financed but it appears that the university has every intention of adding women's ice hockey (it already has a men's ice hockey team), men's and women's track and field, sprint football. It will also reinstate men's cross country (previously cut in 2003 for unstated reasons).
Interesting. Especially interesting is sprint football--which I had never heard of. Turns out it's the same as regular intercollegiate football. But all players have to weigh less than 172 pounds.
Reading further though it appears that the differences go beyond body weight. There is no pre-season. There will be no athletic scholarships. And the roster will be kept at 65 players. Also, FPU will not be investing right away in a stadium. Administrators are making arrangements with local schools over use of their facilities. In its inaugural season--scheduled for 2012--they will play a reduced schedule.
I really can't think of a more responsible plan to add football (regardless of how much the players weigh!).
Again, no word on where the funds for these additions will come from. FPU is a private school, but still...
No word on how these sports will be financed but it appears that the university has every intention of adding women's ice hockey (it already has a men's ice hockey team), men's and women's track and field, sprint football. It will also reinstate men's cross country (previously cut in 2003 for unstated reasons).
Interesting. Especially interesting is sprint football--which I had never heard of. Turns out it's the same as regular intercollegiate football. But all players have to weigh less than 172 pounds.
Reading further though it appears that the differences go beyond body weight. There is no pre-season. There will be no athletic scholarships. And the roster will be kept at 65 players. Also, FPU will not be investing right away in a stadium. Administrators are making arrangements with local schools over use of their facilities. In its inaugural season--scheduled for 2012--they will play a reduced schedule.
I really can't think of a more responsible plan to add football (regardless of how much the players weigh!).
Again, no word on where the funds for these additions will come from. FPU is a private school, but still...
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Girls' Hockey in NY State
We at the Title IX Blog are big fans of women's ice hockey. And so we never turn down an opportunity to praise the growth of the sport.
After much planning, negotiations, and struggles girls' varsity hockey is heading to western New York. And apparently it was a long time coming--five years. Some are incredulous that it took this long. There will be seven teams in the Western New York Girls Hockey Federation. It is not clear, though, that they are all being sponsored by schools. Three of the seven are being "privately funded." Given the presence of the sport in the rest of the state plus the success of the "local" university team at Niagara, many see the formation of the federation as a very good thing.
As a recent NPR piece on Morning Edition noted, ice hockey is one of the fastest growing women's sports in the country.
After much planning, negotiations, and struggles girls' varsity hockey is heading to western New York. And apparently it was a long time coming--five years. Some are incredulous that it took this long. There will be seven teams in the Western New York Girls Hockey Federation. It is not clear, though, that they are all being sponsored by schools. Three of the seven are being "privately funded." Given the presence of the sport in the rest of the state plus the success of the "local" university team at Niagara, many see the formation of the federation as a very good thing.
As a recent NPR piece on Morning Edition noted, ice hockey is one of the fastest growing women's sports in the country.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Penn State elevates hockey
Both the men's and women's club ice hockey teams at Penn State will be elevated to varsity status. The announcement, which will likely contain the time table for the move, will come later this morning.
The teams are the beneficiaries of very generous Penn State alum Terrence Pegula who is giving $90 million to the university in order to make things happen, including the construction of an arena.
No official word on which conference the men's team will play in. (Big Ten doesn't have a hockey league though some are speculating that this addition will push them to add one and perhaps expand men's ice hockey in the midwest.) And not even a mention that the women will also need to join a league. (Ahem, ESPN.)
The teams are the beneficiaries of very generous Penn State alum Terrence Pegula who is giving $90 million to the university in order to make things happen, including the construction of an arena.
No official word on which conference the men's team will play in. (Big Ten doesn't have a hockey league though some are speculating that this addition will push them to add one and perhaps expand men's ice hockey in the midwest.) And not even a mention that the women will also need to join a league. (Ahem, ESPN.)
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Wisconsin School District Will Offer Girls Hockey
Earlier this year, high school freshman Morgan Hollowell and her father sued the Elmbrook School District in Wisconsin, challenging the district's decision to exclude girls from the hockey cooperative it is joining with another school district. Elmbrook officials cited low interest among girls as its reason for leaving them out of the plan.
It was recently reported in Athletic Business that in response to the pressure from the lawsuit, the school district has reversed its plan and will now enter into a similar cooperative for girls hockey. Though I could find no details about existing athletic opportunities in Elmbrook, unless athletic opportunities are roughly proportionate to the gender breakdown of the student body, under Title IX's three prong test, the district can't ignore unmet interest and ability among the underrepresented sex. While this aspect of the law would not require a school district to form a team when only a small number of girls (the article said 3) is interested in the sport, a different standard arguably applies when the decision isn't to form a team, but to join a cooperatives with other districts. It seems to me that the very fact Elmbrook was joining a cooperative suggests that there were not enough male hockey players at either or both of Elmbrook's high schools to field a team either. If the school district is going to accommodate boys' interests in that manner, it should similarly accommodate girls'.
It was recently reported in Athletic Business that in response to the pressure from the lawsuit, the school district has reversed its plan and will now enter into a similar cooperative for girls hockey. Though I could find no details about existing athletic opportunities in Elmbrook, unless athletic opportunities are roughly proportionate to the gender breakdown of the student body, under Title IX's three prong test, the district can't ignore unmet interest and ability among the underrepresented sex. While this aspect of the law would not require a school district to form a team when only a small number of girls (the article said 3) is interested in the sport, a different standard arguably applies when the decision isn't to form a team, but to join a cooperatives with other districts. It seems to me that the very fact Elmbrook was joining a cooperative suggests that there were not enough male hockey players at either or both of Elmbrook's high schools to field a team either. If the school district is going to accommodate boys' interests in that manner, it should similarly accommodate girls'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)