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

Thanks for our new gym, Title IX!

I came across this article about the debut of a new gym at Lake Shore High School in Michigan. The new gym was added, according to the article, "because a Title IX legislation ruling that stated boys and girls seasons must be at the same time."
This made me pause. I didn't remember anything about Lake Shore High School.
But I went on to read about the great new gym that includes a commons area for concessions, where the game inside the gym can be simulcast, an NBA-sized court (which will make the school a prime site for post-season and tournament play), and a more secure entrance to the school. Sounds like some great improvements.
And no one has to practice at 10pm.
Then I remembered which "Title IX legislation ruling" the article was referring to: the very contentious--and very expensive--lawsuit against the Michigan State High School Athletic Association. So many people just refused to give any ground about--among other things--ensuring that girls played their sports in the traditional seasons. Costs, logistics, tradition, etc., etc.
Lake Shore High School clearly was one of the schools affected by the mandate to move girls sports to their traditional seasons. And now they have a new facility.
So in case no one else says it: Thank you, Title IX, for the sparkly new gym in Michigan with its indoor track, student store, and concession stand. We wouldn't have done it without you!

Court Approves MHSAA's Agreement for Payment of Damages Award

The Michigan High School Athletic Association is on the hook for $6 million dollars after federal courts determined that its scheduling of girls' sports in the nontraditional seasons violated Title IX and the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. MHSAA's various appeals kept the litigation going for over a decade, but the final chapter in this case closed last week when the district court approved the parties agreement over the details of MHSSA's payment of the damages and attorneys' fees to parents and their attorneys who filed the successful suit.

Here are the details of that agreement, as reported in the local press:

The MHSAA must pay $2.5 million immediately, and $550,000 before May 1 from this year to 2014. The final installment of $200,000 is due May 1, 2015. The association can pay off the balance early and receive a discount of up to 10 percent, or defer up to $250,000 over the first three years at an interest rate of 10 percent.

As part of the agreement, National City Bank has a first priority lien and Communities for Equity has a judicial lien on the MHSAA’s headquarters. The association is allowed to receive a loan of up to $750,000 from National City.

The MHSAA can’t sell any of its assets without Communities for Equity’s written consent, and the association can’t get out of paying by filing for bankruptcy.

This payment schedule, which gives MHSSA flexibility and time to pay off its debt and which also reflects a total liability that is reduced from the initial $7.4 million dollar attorneys fee award, likely reflects concern on all sides (see this prior post) that the damages award against MHSSA not bankrupt the organization to the detriment of the student-athletes and schools who benefit from its continued existence.

Tis the Season

On the heels of news about the New York City girls' soccer season moving to fall comes another story about girls' sports in nontraditional season. In Hazleton, Pennsylvania, an unnamed coach approached the school board of directors about the lack of winter sports for seventh and eight grade girls could violate Title IX. Middle school boys can chose between basketball and wrestling, but girls have no winter sports at all. Most of the school directors seemed receptive to the coaches concerns, and are now considering whether to move girls basketball from spring to winter. The Hazleton schools would have to coordinate with other schools in their conference to ensure that there will be competition for the team.

But not all school officials were as concerned. When pressed about the apparently inequity of this schedule (which offers the same number of sports for boys and girls, but concentrates girls sports in the fall and spring), one of the school directors, Jack Shema, apparently got a little defensive, and inexplicably responded: "let them [girls] try out for football." What? Unless football is a winter sport in Hazleton (which I doubt) this is a total nonsequitur. Or, this response is just another incarnation of the familiar pattern, "Hegemonic masculinity of sport challenged. Man invoke football."

NYC Schools Will Move Girls' Soccer to Fall

In response to threats of litigation by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the New York City Department of Education has agreed to moved the girls' soccer season to the fall. As we noted last spring, NYCLU was challenging the Department's adherence to a 28 year old tradition of girls' soccer in the spring on the grounds that scheduling a girls' sport in the nontraditional season violated Title IX. (We predicted the Department of Education would give in, because it's clear the NYCLU is right -- especially after a similar case in Michigan was resolved in the plaintiffs' favor.) The spring season was disadvantageous for NYC girls because it conflicted with premier, nonscholastic club teams, which provide developmental opportunities in what is for girls outside NYC the "off" season. NYC boys, whose scholastic season was in the fall, could comfortably access such programs.

Tenth-grader Alyssa Ward, one of the NYCLU's clients, was pleased with the victory, according to the NYCLU's press release: “This change means that we no longer have to feel like second-class citizens and that our hard work and dedication to the game is being appreciated.”

Southern Nevada girls start soccer season

As we noted not too long ago, the Title IX lawsuit brought by the parent of a high school soccer player in southern Nevada was "settled" in that both sides agreed that the girls could play in the winter for another year. The school district has tried repeatedly to move girls' soccer to its traditional season--fall. This would allow a statewide championship instead of post-season play that is more sectional in nature.

I'm not going to rehash the argument as to why Title IX is not applicable in this case, as we see it.

But this article about the upcoming season has me shaking my head--again--about what people are thinking in southern Nevada. The Clark County School District will spend the year looking at Title IX compliance and the finances; as in, do they have money to add a girls' winter sport. The sport they are considering is lacrosse. But girls' lacrosse is played in the spring, you might say. Right. So to remedy a situation in which a girls' sport is being played in its non-traditional season, the district is considering adding a different sport which would be played in a non-traditional season.

We could be talking about southern Nevada for a long, long time.

Settlement in Nevada

I really hope someone in this Nevada soccer seasons case gets a Title IX expert on board soon. Because I was shocked to read that the Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association (NIAA) has settled with parent Eric Johnson of southern Nevada who claimed that moving girls' soccer (his daughter Emma plays) from the winter to the fall (when she plays volleyball, but when the rest of the state plays soccer) is a Title IX violation. Johnson said such a move would limit the number of opportunities girls have to play winter sports and give boys more winter sport opportunities. But as we have said before, it's about the aggregate number of opportunities, not how they break down by season. And the season issue should really be about whether the girls experience adverse effects from the placement of the season. Johnson argues that girls who play winter soccer are denied the opportunity for a state championship. The settlement has NIAA agreeing to, for another year, hold a championship for the southern part of the state. But one could argue that this could have a negative effect. The majority of high school state soccer championships are in the fall. This is also when recruiting is done. Do the girls in southern Nevada lose out because their championship is not viewed as legitimate or as competitive? (Granted this all relies on a dominant version of sport that fails to disrupt notions of what competition is and should be or question the value and goals of interscholastic high school sports, but since the court isn't doing this, I am not going to either--for now.)
It could be that NIAA is just biding its time until Emma Johnson graduates. The article linked above does note that there will be a continuing exploration of the Title IX ramifications including the possibility of adding a girls' winter sport.

Nevada soccer dad update

On Monday soccer dad and assistant US attorney Eric Johnson brought his Title IX complaint before a federal judge who will rule today (this article says next week, though) on whether to issue a temporary restraining order against the Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association to keep girls' soccer in the southern part of the state a sanctioned winter sport.
The argument Johnson made in court yesterday is based on his belief that moving girls' soccer to the fall (which schools could choose to do or they could keep it in the winter as an unsanctioned or club sport) would permanently remove a girls' sport from the winter slate of sports and thus create an unequal number of opportunities. But, as I have said before, Title IX does not require an equal amount of sports in any given season--it doesn't even require an equal number of girls' and boys' sports overall.
I am quite befuddled as to how this case actually made it to court. If anyone involved, Johnson, the judge, the NIAA knew anything about Title IX they would know Johnson's claims are bogus. A real Title IX suit would contend that the school is not providing equitable opportunities. But such a claim would not help Johnson--or rather his daughter who plays both soccer and volleyball, which are traditionally played in the fall. Removing soccer entirely could indeed be a Title IX violation, but moving it to another season, while preserving the number of opportunities provided to girls, is not.
The NIAA is worried about how much money it is spending on this case. They are liable for plaintiffs' legal costs if the temporary restraining order and injunction are put into place. If anyone knew what was what, Johnson would have to pay NIAA's costs for bringing such a frivolous case.

Nevada soccer dad headed to court

In April we wrote about an odd argument using Title IX to prevent a girls' sport from being moved into its traditional season.
Seems that that soccer dad, who happens to be an assistant US attorney, has gotten his case to federal court this week. Eric Johnson filed suit against the Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association and the county school district where his daughter plays soccer because they wanted to move girls' soccer from the winter to the fall. He dropped Clark County from his suit because they voted to keep it in the winter. But the NIAA overruled them.
His Title IX argument this time around* is that should the girls in Clark County and elsewhere in southern Nevada, which has held its own championship, continue to play in the winter--unsanctioned by the NIAA--then any championship title they receive would not be recognized. This is a violation of Title IX, Johnson says, because the law guarantees girls should have equal recognition for their achievements.
Hmmm...well girls and women certainly do not get equitable recognition from the media or society in general. But if he is referring to recognition from governing bodies that's not quite right either. The NIAA can sanction whatever sports it wants. Schools/districts then choose which sports they want to offer. In theory these offerings should provide girls and boys with equitable opportunities, facilities, coaching, etc.
I am not quite sure what is happening here. Is this truly the argument Johnson, a US attorney, making? Is the media, perpetually confused about what Title IX entails, getting this story wrong?
Hard to tell. Either way it does not seem that any viable Title IX argument can be presented as to why girls' soccer in southern Nevada should remain a winter sport. And Johnson, who is reported to be the the only parent to ever raise this issue, doesn't seem to have much community support either.

* Last time the media coverage seemed to stress that he was arguing that there would not be an equal number of girls and boys sports in the winter season should the change be implemented.

Different fight for season change

In Nevada, a father of a high school soccer player has filed a suit attempting to prevent the Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association from moving girls' soccer from the winter to the fall. Only the southern half of the state has girls' soccer in this non-traditional season and the NIAA has wanted to change this for some time now in order to create a state championship in which all schools can compete.
But this father has alleged the move would be a violation of Title IX because it would mean reducing the number of sports available to girls in the winter season. And the school board seems to think this is a legitimate concern.
But if the districts in which soccer is played in the winter have not created an equitable number of opportunities for girls, switching seasons is not going to matter. It is number of opportunities--not how many exist in each season or whether the same girl can play more than one sport. The parent of the soccer player seems to be motivated by the latter. His daughter plays both soccer and volleyball--both traditional fall sports. She would have to choose if soccer moved. But the overall number of opportunities would not change assuming all teams were able to attract enough players to remain viable.
Furthermore, as we have seen in Michigan most infamously, but elsewhere, courts have viewed the scheduling of girls' sports in non-traditional seasons to be a violation of Title IX. The parents and other concerned folks in Nevada who see it the other way around will have trouble making their case should it become a legal battle.