Earlier this year I posted about the University of New Mexico's decision to publish its consultant's report that, I thought, bent over backwards to reach the conclusion that cutting sports is necessary for Title IX compliance. Interestingly, however, the university's announcement today that it will cut two men's and two women's teams does not put the university into compliance.
The university will eliminate men's soccer and skiing, a total of 38 opportunities. This will bring the total number of men's opportunities from 319 to 280. On the women's side, the university will eliminate beach volleyball and skiing, a total of 25 opportunities. This will leave women with 218 opportunities, compared to the 243 they have now. Women will therefore receive 43.8% of the athletic opportunities, but because women make up 54.9% of the undergraduate student body, the university is still a long ways off from proportionality. In addition, by cutting two existing women's teams, the university has likely disqualified itself from compliance under either of the alternative tests. Cutting women's teams is the opposite of expanding opportunities for the underrepresented sex, the second compliance test. And it creates unmet interest and ability among the underrepresented sex, which demonstrates lack of compliance with the third test.
The university's plan also calls for phasing out diving from the women’s swimming and
diving program, significantly reducing men’s track and field
participation slots, and increasing participation opportunities in some
women’s programs. However, there is no way that these modest changes will close the proportionality gap. There are 5 divers on the swimming and diving team. And most of UNM's other female sport rosters already exceed the NCAA Division I average squad size. (One sport, women's soccer, has 40 players despite an NCAA average of 28!) The only two teams that don't exceed the average would reach the average by adding only 1 player to the roster. Thus, the university's roster management plan --- unless it plans to inflate rosters with opportunities that it won't legally be able to count under Title IX --- will probably involve a net loss of female athlete opportunities, rather than a gain. That means, the university would have to make up the proportionality gap by cutting over 100 men's opportunities, according to my math. Yet, the men's track team doesn't even have that many on the roster.
By cutting women's teams, UNM is making its compliance challenges worse, not better. This result is not consistent with its pointing at Title IX as a key factor in the decision to downsize its athletic programs in the first place.
Showing posts with label soccer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label soccer. Show all posts
Saturday, July 21, 2018
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
Title IX Prompts SIU to Add Women's Soccer
Recently Southern Illinois University announced that it would add a women's soccer team in order to resolve questions about its Title IX compliance. Last year, the university's cost-cutting move to eliminate its men's and women's tennis teams along with several scholarships in men's swimming, prompted the filing of a Title IX complaint with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. Cutting viable women's teams, even when a men's team is cut simultaneously, often violates Title IX because the school can no longer claim that is continuing to expand opportunities for the underrepresented sex (the second of the three-part test), or that is fully and effectively satisfying the interests of the underrepresented sex (the third of the three-part test). A school that cannot comply with either of those tests must therefore show compliance with the proportionality standard (the first part of the three-part test), or risk enforcement action by the OCR. Most schools offer disproportionately higher percentage of opportunities
to male than female students, and therefore have difficulty meeting this test. Indeed, publically available data about SIU's participation and enrollment suggests it does not satisfy the proportionality standard, since women constitute 46% of the student body but receive only 39.6% of the athletic opportunities.
This disparity existed before the tennis cuts as well, but at least then SIU could more plausibly claim that women's interests were fully satisfied, and thus that it demonstrated compliance under part three. Now, there is clearly an unmet interest in tennis, which some might suppose should be remedied by restoring the women's tennis team. But a university can decide which part of three-part test it demonstrates compliance -- any one of them will satisfy OCR. So adding women's soccer is a viable compliance strategy if in the end the percentage of female athletic opportunities rises to to 46%. In this spirit, SIU has pledged to OCR that it will add a women's soccer team that will have its inaugural season in 2019-20.
Yet, adding soccer alone probably isn't going to be enough to bring the university into compliance. Even if the roster provided 30 opportunities, which is probably too many, that would only raise women's share of athletic opportunities to 43%. This explains why the university has also committed to expanding opportunities on its existing teams, "to the maximum extent feasible... while still ensuring meaningful intercollegiate athletic opportunities are being provided for all team members." Done right, this will mean investing more resources to ensure the existing level of quality offered by current programs are not diluted as more players are added. If the university is seen to be padding its rosters on women's teams, it runs the risk of not being able to count those surplus opportunities in its proportionality calculation. The reporting requirements the university has agreed to will help OCR oversee this and the other aspects of the compliance agreement.
This disparity existed before the tennis cuts as well, but at least then SIU could more plausibly claim that women's interests were fully satisfied, and thus that it demonstrated compliance under part three. Now, there is clearly an unmet interest in tennis, which some might suppose should be remedied by restoring the women's tennis team. But a university can decide which part of three-part test it demonstrates compliance -- any one of them will satisfy OCR. So adding women's soccer is a viable compliance strategy if in the end the percentage of female athletic opportunities rises to to 46%. In this spirit, SIU has pledged to OCR that it will add a women's soccer team that will have its inaugural season in 2019-20.
Yet, adding soccer alone probably isn't going to be enough to bring the university into compliance. Even if the roster provided 30 opportunities, which is probably too many, that would only raise women's share of athletic opportunities to 43%. This explains why the university has also committed to expanding opportunities on its existing teams, "to the maximum extent feasible... while still ensuring meaningful intercollegiate athletic opportunities are being provided for all team members." Done right, this will mean investing more resources to ensure the existing level of quality offered by current programs are not diluted as more players are added. If the university is seen to be padding its rosters on women's teams, it runs the risk of not being able to count those surplus opportunities in its proportionality calculation. The reporting requirements the university has agreed to will help OCR oversee this and the other aspects of the compliance agreement.
Wednesday, August 09, 2017
Gender policing in youth sports
In early June, the story of Mili Hernandez, an 8-year old soccer player from Nebraska, made national headlines.
her team, playing in a youth tournament, was disqualified right as they
were about to play in the finals because organizers thought Mili was a
boy. Rather an anonymous person told officials that a boy was playing on
a girls' team. And the team had to go home. {I have a breakdown of this
situation below.}
There was outrage and support from current and former professional soccer players. It was not a Title IX issue because it was a youth sports league run independently from interscholastic sports governance. So, though outraged it did not make it onto the blog. But now another story of questioning gender in youth soccer has arisen, and it seems like a good time to bring Title IX into the discussion.
A girls' club soccer team in Madison, Wisconsin has several short-haired players (some of whom model their style on favorite players like Abby Wambach and Megan Rapinoe) who experience what Hernandez did but on a regular basis. They have not been disqualified from games or tourneys but other teams ask questions of their parents, coaches, officials, and of them. They try to "catch" the girls by asking them their names. The team is accused of cheating. This persists even though the club system in which the team plays requires birth certificates from each child before she can be rostered on a team. The certificates are used to check for age and for sex. Cheating, in other words, would require forging birth certificates.
In some ways it is very simple. Some people have short hair and some people have long hair. And some people style their hair after people they want to emulate (remember the Rachel?). And kids play soccer.
The thing about gender is that everyone knows what it "should" look like--even if one cannot or chooses not to conform to the norms or expectations. This means that if a girls' team was to engage in cheating by including boys on the roster, the boys would be feminized in some way so as to avoid getting caught.
I can't believe I had to write that sentence. I do not want to live in a world where people are convinced that short-haired female soccer players are not boys because boys trying to pretend they are girls would know how to look like girls. That is the logic of the deeply gendered culture in which we live.
But there must be something else going on if people cannot stop and use that logic. And that is why gender is complicated. Because it is imbued with power. It is about access. It is about boundaries. In sports, those boundaries remain very tightly monitored.
What was interesting about the Madison situation is that the coach was initially skeptical about what her players' parents were saying about how the team was treated. This is likely because the team is based in Madison--a liberal college town. But one, a town that is sports obsessed and two, is in a a conservative state. In other words, how a region or town interprets or polices gender norms differs. For example, a look at the map at TransAthlete shows state interscholastic associations' gender identity policies.
The policy in Nebraska, where Hernandez plays, is the same as the old IOC policy. It requires gender reassignment surgery (we are talking about children remember) and a waiting period after the start of hormone treatment. The policy in Wisconsin is that each case is assessed as it arises. These policies reflect the cultural beliefs and can be used to predict how, for example, people might respond to short-haired soccer players on girls' teams.
Again, the interscholastic associations make their own policies, club teams and leagues make their own policies and Title IX has nothing to do with them. But it can influence thinking. Unfortunately the current administration's application of the law makes policies like the one in Nebraska--which is now more regressive than the IOC's--look more reasonable. It tightens the boundaries and it impedes logic.
There was outrage and support from current and former professional soccer players. It was not a Title IX issue because it was a youth sports league run independently from interscholastic sports governance. So, though outraged it did not make it onto the blog. But now another story of questioning gender in youth soccer has arisen, and it seems like a good time to bring Title IX into the discussion.
A girls' club soccer team in Madison, Wisconsin has several short-haired players (some of whom model their style on favorite players like Abby Wambach and Megan Rapinoe) who experience what Hernandez did but on a regular basis. They have not been disqualified from games or tourneys but other teams ask questions of their parents, coaches, officials, and of them. They try to "catch" the girls by asking them their names. The team is accused of cheating. This persists even though the club system in which the team plays requires birth certificates from each child before she can be rostered on a team. The certificates are used to check for age and for sex. Cheating, in other words, would require forging birth certificates.
In some ways it is very simple. Some people have short hair and some people have long hair. And some people style their hair after people they want to emulate (remember the Rachel?). And kids play soccer.
The thing about gender is that everyone knows what it "should" look like--even if one cannot or chooses not to conform to the norms or expectations. This means that if a girls' team was to engage in cheating by including boys on the roster, the boys would be feminized in some way so as to avoid getting caught.
I can't believe I had to write that sentence. I do not want to live in a world where people are convinced that short-haired female soccer players are not boys because boys trying to pretend they are girls would know how to look like girls. That is the logic of the deeply gendered culture in which we live.
But there must be something else going on if people cannot stop and use that logic. And that is why gender is complicated. Because it is imbued with power. It is about access. It is about boundaries. In sports, those boundaries remain very tightly monitored.
What was interesting about the Madison situation is that the coach was initially skeptical about what her players' parents were saying about how the team was treated. This is likely because the team is based in Madison--a liberal college town. But one, a town that is sports obsessed and two, is in a a conservative state. In other words, how a region or town interprets or polices gender norms differs. For example, a look at the map at TransAthlete shows state interscholastic associations' gender identity policies.
The policy in Nebraska, where Hernandez plays, is the same as the old IOC policy. It requires gender reassignment surgery (we are talking about children remember) and a waiting period after the start of hormone treatment. The policy in Wisconsin is that each case is assessed as it arises. These policies reflect the cultural beliefs and can be used to predict how, for example, people might respond to short-haired soccer players on girls' teams.
Again, the interscholastic associations make their own policies, club teams and leagues make their own policies and Title IX has nothing to do with them. But it can influence thinking. Unfortunately the current administration's application of the law makes policies like the one in Nebraska--which is now more regressive than the IOC's--look more reasonable. It tightens the boundaries and it impedes logic.
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
Inequities in scheduling and facilities
Last week's episode of Only a Game included a story on inequities in scheduling and facilities on the three stories you should know segment of the show.
It was Boston Globe writer Shira Springer's story and was born out of Victoria Azarenka's complaints during the first week of (the recently concluded) Wimbledon that women were not getting the good courts and the good times. Nothing much came of Azarenka's public calling out of the All England Club--shocking. But Springer did a good job of turning the moment into a conversation about how female athletes are treated.
My initial response was something in the realm of "no kidding" and "is this really what we should be talking about?". I mean the Women's US Open was held at one of 45's golf courses last weekend because the USGA would not move the event way back in October when news of his sexual assaults was revealed to the world. And then USGA officials would not/could not publicly answer a question about the organization's position on sexual assault!
But then I remembered that I am a feminist scholar of sports and that ranking all the ills is not really in keeping with my philosophy and desired intentions. I also opened up my email to find a Google alert about facilities inequities in Oregon (high school softball/baseball fields). Also, inequities in scheduling and facilities do not exist in a vacuum; they are an indicator of the culture of the sport's governing body.
Springer's segment focuses on professional and Olympic female athletes and it is an important conversation given that, as she herself notes, much of the conversation about inequality at this level has been directed at pay inequities. And as much as I appreciate Springer's segment and the potential attention it will generate, this is not new. Just two years ago, we were watching a premier international soccer tournament played on artificial turf. The 2015 Women's World Cup participants and their supporters protested the
Host Bill Curtis made a side comment about Boston University when Springer mentioned the very inequitable scheduling of women's hockey in Sochi in the last Olympics. He noted that BU has the same issue. It was almost a under-his-breath comment but it's important to note. BU established a women's hockey team in 2005. The team has been successful fairly quickly. They play Walter Brown Arena, built in 1971, which seats approximately 3,800 fans. The men play in Agganis Arena, which opened in 2005 (such a coincidence!), and seats about 6,100 fans. I have not been to either arena so I cannot comment on the level of upkeep or general comfort and accommodations. But on its face, this does not look like a good situation. It reminds me of the montage in Love and Basketball that compares the experiences at USC of Q and Monica.
Because Walter Brown is a facility that the women do not have to share unlike most of their DI counterparts, maybe they think this is a good deal. But maybe they look at the treatment that men receive and think that having their own arena is not nearly enough. The point is that the women of US National Team are used to be being put in substandard arenas and in non-primetime slots. So even if they know it is unfair and even if they hate it, it was likely not a surprise when they encountered the same situation in Sochi.
Female athletes who come up through the American intercollegiate system are accustomed to differential treatment. Professionals like Victoria Azarenka who came up through a non-scholastic junior sports system do not have the same experience. This is not to say that athletes who come up in club systems around the world are treated equitably (in another sport movie reference: Bend It Like Beckham). I am sure almost every professional female athlete can share stories about gender inequality. But in a sport like tennis--or basically just tennis--where pay equity is less and less of an issue, players might be a little surprised that there are other gender issues to tackle.
And heading back to where Title IX is a factor: interscholastic and intercollegiate sports are still failing miserably in their obligations for equal treatment. We wrote an article about this five years ago. We could easily write another today with just examples from the past few years.Trickle down or trickle up change--it does not matter in what direction or who is doing the influencing, but remedies to these inequities will only come with changes to attitudes about women's sports and female athletes.
It was Boston Globe writer Shira Springer's story and was born out of Victoria Azarenka's complaints during the first week of (the recently concluded) Wimbledon that women were not getting the good courts and the good times. Nothing much came of Azarenka's public calling out of the All England Club--shocking. But Springer did a good job of turning the moment into a conversation about how female athletes are treated.
My initial response was something in the realm of "no kidding" and "is this really what we should be talking about?". I mean the Women's US Open was held at one of 45's golf courses last weekend because the USGA would not move the event way back in October when news of his sexual assaults was revealed to the world. And then USGA officials would not/could not publicly answer a question about the organization's position on sexual assault!
But then I remembered that I am a feminist scholar of sports and that ranking all the ills is not really in keeping with my philosophy and desired intentions. I also opened up my email to find a Google alert about facilities inequities in Oregon (high school softball/baseball fields). Also, inequities in scheduling and facilities do not exist in a vacuum; they are an indicator of the culture of the sport's governing body.
Springer's segment focuses on professional and Olympic female athletes and it is an important conversation given that, as she herself notes, much of the conversation about inequality at this level has been directed at pay inequities. And as much as I appreciate Springer's segment and the potential attention it will generate, this is not new. Just two years ago, we were watching a premier international soccer tournament played on artificial turf. The 2015 Women's World Cup participants and their supporters protested the
Host Bill Curtis made a side comment about Boston University when Springer mentioned the very inequitable scheduling of women's hockey in Sochi in the last Olympics. He noted that BU has the same issue. It was almost a under-his-breath comment but it's important to note. BU established a women's hockey team in 2005. The team has been successful fairly quickly. They play Walter Brown Arena, built in 1971, which seats approximately 3,800 fans. The men play in Agganis Arena, which opened in 2005 (such a coincidence!), and seats about 6,100 fans. I have not been to either arena so I cannot comment on the level of upkeep or general comfort and accommodations. But on its face, this does not look like a good situation. It reminds me of the montage in Love and Basketball that compares the experiences at USC of Q and Monica.
Because Walter Brown is a facility that the women do not have to share unlike most of their DI counterparts, maybe they think this is a good deal. But maybe they look at the treatment that men receive and think that having their own arena is not nearly enough. The point is that the women of US National Team are used to be being put in substandard arenas and in non-primetime slots. So even if they know it is unfair and even if they hate it, it was likely not a surprise when they encountered the same situation in Sochi.
Female athletes who come up through the American intercollegiate system are accustomed to differential treatment. Professionals like Victoria Azarenka who came up through a non-scholastic junior sports system do not have the same experience. This is not to say that athletes who come up in club systems around the world are treated equitably (in another sport movie reference: Bend It Like Beckham). I am sure almost every professional female athlete can share stories about gender inequality. But in a sport like tennis--or basically just tennis--where pay equity is less and less of an issue, players might be a little surprised that there are other gender issues to tackle.
And heading back to where Title IX is a factor: interscholastic and intercollegiate sports are still failing miserably in their obligations for equal treatment. We wrote an article about this five years ago. We could easily write another today with just examples from the past few years.Trickle down or trickle up change--it does not matter in what direction or who is doing the influencing, but remedies to these inequities will only come with changes to attitudes about women's sports and female athletes.
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
On suspending seasons
Yesterday, Amherst College suspended all team activities for the men's cross country team after a student publication revealed social media messages and emails to incoming team members that included racist. misogynist, and homophobic comments.
Last month, Harvard suspended the men's soccer season in the wake of revelations that the team has continued its practice of ranking first-year members of the Harvard women's soccer team in sexually explicit ways.
In a few weeks, the Baylor football team will play in the Motel 6 Cactus Bowl against Boise State despite accusations of sexual assault by 17 women against current and former football players and a clear evidence of cover-ups.
One of these things is not like the others.
Things have been brewing, arguably boiling over, at Baylor for some time, which is why Paul Finebaum, ESPN commentator, expressed outrage last month that the team had not been suspended. Finebaum said on-air that Baylor's football season should have been suspended in light of its many misdeeds (chronicled here--and everywhere). Finebaum was calling for the Big 12 to issue the suspension because neither the NCAA nor the university itself will do so. The NCAA is not planning anything in response to the cover-up of the sexual assaults and to an institution that does not have control over its athletics program. Baylor hired a law firm to do an external investigation and then failed to make changes and refuses to acknowledge a culture of sexual hostility and athlete privilege.
The two events at Amherst and Harvard have commonalities: introduction of the first-year class into team culture using offensive discourse; elite, private schools; men's "minor sports"; both schools will conduct investigations into the matters.
At Harvard the offense was directed at the women's soccer team; a betrayal of what many of the women felt was a familial (non-sexual) relationship. Since the soccer scandal was revealed, it has come out that similar practices have occurred within the men's cross country team. The initial response was meh. The athletic director said Harvard would handle it internally and by trying to make it less of a media thing--he made it more of a media thing. The additional findings that 1) players were not being "forthcoming" about what was happening and 2) it was still happening forced the AD as well as the university president to make stronger public statements and ultimately cancel the season. Investigations are ongoing.
At Amherst, it does not appear--at the moment--that the commentary was directed at a female team. A June 2015 list of female students has surfaced that includes pictures and comments about their sexual pasts, including guesses about STD infections. The incidents in question are from 2013-15. Of course, as we saw at Harvard, these things often do not just disappear on their own, even when there is new leadership--as there was at Harvard when they hired a new soccer coach a few years ago.
Also, the cross country season is over. "Team activities" would likely include team banquets or coach-led practices, but it's finals week at Amherst, and I assume there is not much on the docket for the team. So now Amherst must decide how to proceed. Will athletes involved be individually punished? Will the be prevented from running next season? Many cross country runners will also run indoor and outdoor track. Will team members be allowed to compete for their other teams? To its credit, Amherst, under its (not so new anymore) president, has taken issues of sexual assault and harassment more seriously than in the past. The school's response was immediate and the AD and president are seemingly on the same page. I hope this one does just fade away. Investigations are ongoing.
What have we learned? Well male privilege and sexual misconduct are not just the province of football players. This is obvious when taking a broad look at the cases of harassment and assault involving athletes. Baylor gets the most attention because it is a big-time football program. (There is also the issue of adherence to "Christian values" that are the alleged bedrock of the institutional mission; this has received less attention.) So what it looks like is that there is more at stake at Baylor--for the athletes, for the coaches, for the school. I do not agree with this view because what I know for sure is that the stakes are the same for the women who are the victims of these athletes and for potential victims. They are on campuses where sexual violence is a known reality (as it is on most campuses). The crimes and misdemeanors may be different and, at the individual level, the effects on victims may be different (in part because of school response). But all these schools have a climate of sexual hostility and it is manifesting in their athletic departments, among their male-student athletes (and probably at higher levels as well). And this means that students do not feel safe at their schools.
PS. More on Baylor:
The university received word this week from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, an accrediting body, that it would be monitoring Baylor's ability to 1) maintain institutional control over intercollegiate athletics, 2) create a safe and healthy environment for students, and 3) provide adequate student support services.
In other words, while there are a lot of external pressures on Baylor, it continues to do very little. Baylor fans might say that ditching Art Briles was enough. Finebaum, and many others, do not think so. Firing Briles (who is suing the school for libel) was cleaning house. It is was not shoring up the structure of the house. In fact (to continue to metaphor) Baylor brought in a temporary coach, Jim Grobe, who seemed to be predisposed to making things dirty again and further weakening the structure. (Based on comments during his early press conferences and interviews.) The new coaching staff has been named. We shall see what those press conferences bring.
Investigations are over.
PPS. Columbia wrestling
I knew I forgot something! Columbia University (also elite, private) suspended its men's wrestling team ("minor sport") after some members' racist and misogynist texts were discovered. Columbia completed its investigation last month. While the investigation was pending, members were not allowed to compete. The team was still practicing.
The messages were sent in a group message format. Those not participating in the group message were allowed to resume competition. Some members were suspended for the rest of the season. Others were suspended until the start of spring semester.
Notable in this case: former assistant coach Hudson Taylor who founded Athlete Ally, a group that supports LGBT athletes, took some responsibility for the culture that engendered these messages:
"[The actions] are a reflection of our culture and my coaching. I apologize to the Columbia campus, to the alumni, and to my former wrestlers for not doing more to develop them into young men of better character.”
Last month, Harvard suspended the men's soccer season in the wake of revelations that the team has continued its practice of ranking first-year members of the Harvard women's soccer team in sexually explicit ways.
In a few weeks, the Baylor football team will play in the Motel 6 Cactus Bowl against Boise State despite accusations of sexual assault by 17 women against current and former football players and a clear evidence of cover-ups.
One of these things is not like the others.
Things have been brewing, arguably boiling over, at Baylor for some time, which is why Paul Finebaum, ESPN commentator, expressed outrage last month that the team had not been suspended. Finebaum said on-air that Baylor's football season should have been suspended in light of its many misdeeds (chronicled here--and everywhere). Finebaum was calling for the Big 12 to issue the suspension because neither the NCAA nor the university itself will do so. The NCAA is not planning anything in response to the cover-up of the sexual assaults and to an institution that does not have control over its athletics program. Baylor hired a law firm to do an external investigation and then failed to make changes and refuses to acknowledge a culture of sexual hostility and athlete privilege.
The two events at Amherst and Harvard have commonalities: introduction of the first-year class into team culture using offensive discourse; elite, private schools; men's "minor sports"; both schools will conduct investigations into the matters.
At Harvard the offense was directed at the women's soccer team; a betrayal of what many of the women felt was a familial (non-sexual) relationship. Since the soccer scandal was revealed, it has come out that similar practices have occurred within the men's cross country team. The initial response was meh. The athletic director said Harvard would handle it internally and by trying to make it less of a media thing--he made it more of a media thing. The additional findings that 1) players were not being "forthcoming" about what was happening and 2) it was still happening forced the AD as well as the university president to make stronger public statements and ultimately cancel the season. Investigations are ongoing.
At Amherst, it does not appear--at the moment--that the commentary was directed at a female team. A June 2015 list of female students has surfaced that includes pictures and comments about their sexual pasts, including guesses about STD infections. The incidents in question are from 2013-15. Of course, as we saw at Harvard, these things often do not just disappear on their own, even when there is new leadership--as there was at Harvard when they hired a new soccer coach a few years ago.
Also, the cross country season is over. "Team activities" would likely include team banquets or coach-led practices, but it's finals week at Amherst, and I assume there is not much on the docket for the team. So now Amherst must decide how to proceed. Will athletes involved be individually punished? Will the be prevented from running next season? Many cross country runners will also run indoor and outdoor track. Will team members be allowed to compete for their other teams? To its credit, Amherst, under its (not so new anymore) president, has taken issues of sexual assault and harassment more seriously than in the past. The school's response was immediate and the AD and president are seemingly on the same page. I hope this one does just fade away. Investigations are ongoing.
What have we learned? Well male privilege and sexual misconduct are not just the province of football players. This is obvious when taking a broad look at the cases of harassment and assault involving athletes. Baylor gets the most attention because it is a big-time football program. (There is also the issue of adherence to "Christian values" that are the alleged bedrock of the institutional mission; this has received less attention.) So what it looks like is that there is more at stake at Baylor--for the athletes, for the coaches, for the school. I do not agree with this view because what I know for sure is that the stakes are the same for the women who are the victims of these athletes and for potential victims. They are on campuses where sexual violence is a known reality (as it is on most campuses). The crimes and misdemeanors may be different and, at the individual level, the effects on victims may be different (in part because of school response). But all these schools have a climate of sexual hostility and it is manifesting in their athletic departments, among their male-student athletes (and probably at higher levels as well). And this means that students do not feel safe at their schools.
PS. More on Baylor:
The university received word this week from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, an accrediting body, that it would be monitoring Baylor's ability to 1) maintain institutional control over intercollegiate athletics, 2) create a safe and healthy environment for students, and 3) provide adequate student support services.
In other words, while there are a lot of external pressures on Baylor, it continues to do very little. Baylor fans might say that ditching Art Briles was enough. Finebaum, and many others, do not think so. Firing Briles (who is suing the school for libel) was cleaning house. It is was not shoring up the structure of the house. In fact (to continue to metaphor) Baylor brought in a temporary coach, Jim Grobe, who seemed to be predisposed to making things dirty again and further weakening the structure. (Based on comments during his early press conferences and interviews.) The new coaching staff has been named. We shall see what those press conferences bring.
Investigations are over.
PPS. Columbia wrestling
I knew I forgot something! Columbia University (also elite, private) suspended its men's wrestling team ("minor sport") after some members' racist and misogynist texts were discovered. Columbia completed its investigation last month. While the investigation was pending, members were not allowed to compete. The team was still practicing.
The messages were sent in a group message format. Those not participating in the group message were allowed to resume competition. Some members were suspended for the rest of the season. Others were suspended until the start of spring semester.
Notable in this case: former assistant coach Hudson Taylor who founded Athlete Ally, a group that supports LGBT athletes, took some responsibility for the culture that engendered these messages:
"[The actions] are a reflection of our culture and my coaching. I apologize to the Columbia campus, to the alumni, and to my former wrestlers for not doing more to develop them into young men of better character.”
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Madison Area Technical College Agrees to Enhance Women's Athletics
Madison Area Technical College in Wisconsin has agreed to add opportunities and resources for women's sports, as part of a voluntary resolution agreement with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights to ensure compliance with Title IX. We noted last December that the school was under investigation by OCR after receiving a complaint about inequities in MATC athletics. The college, with a 53 male student body, presently offers 62 athletic opportunities (and a near identical percentage) for men in a total of four sports, with the support of 16 coaches. Female students, who make up 47% of the student body, have 37 opportunities in three sports, with 3 coaches. No female students receive athletic scholarships, while members of the men's baseball team do.
To remedy these imbalances, the college has committed to adding women's soccer, a step it had already announced while the OCR investigation was underway. The college is planning to hire a coach later this year and field a team in 2014. In addition, it will elevate its softball team to Division II of the National Junior College Athletic Association, so that it may provide scholarships to its members. OCR will monitor MATC's compliance with this agreement for the next three years.
To remedy these imbalances, the college has committed to adding women's soccer, a step it had already announced while the OCR investigation was underway. The college is planning to hire a coach later this year and field a team in 2014. In addition, it will elevate its softball team to Division II of the National Junior College Athletic Association, so that it may provide scholarships to its members. OCR will monitor MATC's compliance with this agreement for the next three years.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Towson goes through with athletic team cuts
Last fall Towson University announced plans to cut men's soccer and baseball. This past week they followed through with these plans after a process that--from all reports--was mired in confusion and perhaps deception.
Athletic Director Mike Waddell drew criticism in the fall when he said the cuts were due to Title IX: the university needed to achieve parity in the athletic opportunities it provides students. At that time, Erin (among others) questioned this rationale when it came out that Waddell didn't do the numbers right. That, in fact, Towson had already achieved proportionality.
But this week the university president made a formal announcement to the student-athletes involved--a process that also has drawn intense criticism from players, coaches, parents, and community members. And though the reality of the athletic department's financial situation has been brought to light alongside the lack of a Title IX problem (at least in providing opportunities), the president's statement include an immediate mention of Title IX:
For the past several months our campus has been dealing with a proposed recommendation from our athletics leadership to reconfigure the intercollegiate athletics program to address three issues facing the university: long-term financial stability and affordability; compliance with Federal Title IX requirements; and the ability to be competitive in NCAA Division I athletics.
It is possible the her statement about Title IX--sandwiched in the middle of the other less nebulous reasons--is true. She could be speaking of providing equitable treatment to its women's teams, which also is connected to financial issues. But the number-shifting the cuts have caused are not Title IX related. The university is actually reinstating its men's tennis team.
And many of those involved in this situation know that Title IX was not the motivator behind this decision. Several parents of Towson baseball players, including one who works for the Department of Education, noted that all the information about the department's financials and Title IX data is available to the public and does not support the Title IX claim but rather reflects some fiscal mismanagement or shifting of priorities.
We shall see what the next big project out of Towson athletics is; it should be an indicator of how it intends to remain "competitive in NCAA Division I athletics."
Athletic Director Mike Waddell drew criticism in the fall when he said the cuts were due to Title IX: the university needed to achieve parity in the athletic opportunities it provides students. At that time, Erin (among others) questioned this rationale when it came out that Waddell didn't do the numbers right. That, in fact, Towson had already achieved proportionality.
But this week the university president made a formal announcement to the student-athletes involved--a process that also has drawn intense criticism from players, coaches, parents, and community members. And though the reality of the athletic department's financial situation has been brought to light alongside the lack of a Title IX problem (at least in providing opportunities), the president's statement include an immediate mention of Title IX:
For the past several months our campus has been dealing with a proposed recommendation from our athletics leadership to reconfigure the intercollegiate athletics program to address three issues facing the university: long-term financial stability and affordability; compliance with Federal Title IX requirements; and the ability to be competitive in NCAA Division I athletics.
It is possible the her statement about Title IX--sandwiched in the middle of the other less nebulous reasons--is true. She could be speaking of providing equitable treatment to its women's teams, which also is connected to financial issues. But the number-shifting the cuts have caused are not Title IX related. The university is actually reinstating its men's tennis team.
And many of those involved in this situation know that Title IX was not the motivator behind this decision. Several parents of Towson baseball players, including one who works for the Department of Education, noted that all the information about the department's financials and Title IX data is available to the public and does not support the Title IX claim but rather reflects some fiscal mismanagement or shifting of priorities.
We shall see what the next big project out of Towson athletics is; it should be an indicator of how it intends to remain "competitive in NCAA Division I athletics."
Friday, February 08, 2013
Court dismisses case challenging harassment, retaliation, and homophobia in the college athletics environment
A recent judicial opinion
sheds light on the interrelationship of sexual harassment, retaliation
and homophobia in the college sports environment, as well as the limits
of law to address each. The plaintiff in this case is a former
student-athlete named Idana DeCecco. She sued the University of South Carolina
over a set of incidents involving the head soccer coach, Shelley Smith
and the assistant soccer coach, Jamie Smith, who are married to each
other. DeCecco's case stems from an incident in 2008, in which assistant coach Jamie Smith arranged a "private talk" with DeCecco in an empty locker room behind closed doors. DeCecco
claims that, at one point during the talk, Jamie Smith touched her
knee, at which point she "freaked out" and immediately sought to leave
the room. Upon opening the door, however, she was confronted by an
angry and accusing Shelley Smith. DeCecco alleges that from that point
on, Shelley Smith retaliated her by limiting her playing time and
reducing her scholarship. Including in that retaliation, DeCecco claims, is an inquiry Shelley Smith made into whether DeCecco was dating another player on the team. Eventually, DeCecco transferred to another school to get away from what she called a "toxic environment" at USC.
DeCecco filed a lawsuit against the university, relying on Title IX and other law to seek damages stemming from Jamie Smith's sexual harassment and Shelley Smith's retaliation against her, but last month, the federal district court in South Carolina dismissed her case in full. First, the court reasoned that USC did not know that Jamie Smith posed a risk of sexual hostility to student-athletes, even though other players had complained about his having made inappropriate comments, including about players' appearance. The court also reasoned that USC lacked notice of the locker room incident itself, given that DeCecco failed to report it as sexual harassment to anyone with supervisory authority over him.
DeCecco's failure to report the locker room incident as one of sexual harassment also prevented her from being able to pursue a retaliation claim as well. To challenge retaliation under Title IX, the plaintiff must engage in protected activity, such as blowing the whistle on sex discrimination or harassment, and suffer some materially adverse consequence because of it. If Shelley Smith indeed retaliated against DeCecco, the court reasoned, it was not because DeCecco had protested or reported Jamie Smith's behavior, it was due to Shelley Smith's ostensible jealousy over what she apparently perceived to have occurred in the locker room -- a motivation that does not qualify as either retaliation or sex discrimination under Title IX.
As for Shelley Smith's inquiry into DeCecco's dating status, the court interpreted this as a benign application of the team's neutral policy prohibiting relationships among teammates, and concluded that it therefore did not constitute sex discrimination against DeCecco.
In all, the court's reasoning reflects a high burden on student-athletes to protect themselves from harassment and retaliation by coaches. In order to be on notice of Jamie Smith's capacity to sexually harass DeCecco, other players would have had to complain much more specifically about what his "inappropriate" comments entailed, as the university was not faulted for failing to have followed up for these details. In order for Shelley Smith's reaction to the locker room incident to count as retaliation, DeCecco would have had to actively complain to her about Jamie Smith's conduct, even though the retaliation was motivated by her perception of what had occurred. Meanwhile, things that the coaches can use as leverage over players, playing time, scholarships, and, I'd argue, enforcement of the intra-team dating policy, are unexamined as weapons that create and sustain a power imbalance that keep athletes like DeCecco from speaking up about coaches' bad behavior. Even if the court is right that the dating policy is neutral because it pertains to teammate relationships, not same-sex relationships, if the policy is being deployed in such a way to scare or suppress a player from complaining about harassment or retaliation, it's discriminatory.
Regardless of its legal liability, USC failed to ensure the safety and well-being of one of its student athletes. In that sense, the case should serve as a reminder to college and universities to carefully monitor the climate within athletics, not only for evidence of harassment, retaliation, and homophobia, but to ensure that players are encouraged and supported to report discrimination when it occurs.
The decision is: DeCecco v. University of South Carolina, 2013 WL 168221 (D.S.C. Jan. 16, 2013).
Cross-posted at LGBT Issues in Sport Blog.
DeCecco filed a lawsuit against the university, relying on Title IX and other law to seek damages stemming from Jamie Smith's sexual harassment and Shelley Smith's retaliation against her, but last month, the federal district court in South Carolina dismissed her case in full. First, the court reasoned that USC did not know that Jamie Smith posed a risk of sexual hostility to student-athletes, even though other players had complained about his having made inappropriate comments, including about players' appearance. The court also reasoned that USC lacked notice of the locker room incident itself, given that DeCecco failed to report it as sexual harassment to anyone with supervisory authority over him.
DeCecco's failure to report the locker room incident as one of sexual harassment also prevented her from being able to pursue a retaliation claim as well. To challenge retaliation under Title IX, the plaintiff must engage in protected activity, such as blowing the whistle on sex discrimination or harassment, and suffer some materially adverse consequence because of it. If Shelley Smith indeed retaliated against DeCecco, the court reasoned, it was not because DeCecco had protested or reported Jamie Smith's behavior, it was due to Shelley Smith's ostensible jealousy over what she apparently perceived to have occurred in the locker room -- a motivation that does not qualify as either retaliation or sex discrimination under Title IX.
As for Shelley Smith's inquiry into DeCecco's dating status, the court interpreted this as a benign application of the team's neutral policy prohibiting relationships among teammates, and concluded that it therefore did not constitute sex discrimination against DeCecco.
In all, the court's reasoning reflects a high burden on student-athletes to protect themselves from harassment and retaliation by coaches. In order to be on notice of Jamie Smith's capacity to sexually harass DeCecco, other players would have had to complain much more specifically about what his "inappropriate" comments entailed, as the university was not faulted for failing to have followed up for these details. In order for Shelley Smith's reaction to the locker room incident to count as retaliation, DeCecco would have had to actively complain to her about Jamie Smith's conduct, even though the retaliation was motivated by her perception of what had occurred. Meanwhile, things that the coaches can use as leverage over players, playing time, scholarships, and, I'd argue, enforcement of the intra-team dating policy, are unexamined as weapons that create and sustain a power imbalance that keep athletes like DeCecco from speaking up about coaches' bad behavior. Even if the court is right that the dating policy is neutral because it pertains to teammate relationships, not same-sex relationships, if the policy is being deployed in such a way to scare or suppress a player from complaining about harassment or retaliation, it's discriminatory.
Regardless of its legal liability, USC failed to ensure the safety and well-being of one of its student athletes. In that sense, the case should serve as a reminder to college and universities to carefully monitor the climate within athletics, not only for evidence of harassment, retaliation, and homophobia, but to ensure that players are encouraged and supported to report discrimination when it occurs.
The decision is: DeCecco v. University of South Carolina, 2013 WL 168221 (D.S.C. Jan. 16, 2013).
Cross-posted at LGBT Issues in Sport Blog.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
College, HS League Take Steps Toward Compliance
Two stories about how Title IX is still improving athletic opportunities for female students were in the news this weekend:
Madison Area Technical College will reportedly add a women's soccer team to help balance out athletic opportunities, which presently favor men despite women making up more than half of the student body. The college is under investigation by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, in response to anonymous complaint filed last year.
And here in Massachusetts, the high school athletics conference in Middlesex County has rescheduled its basketball games to ensure equity in the number of prime times girls and boys receive. The Middlesex League was reportedly motivated by a Lexington supporter, who explained that the League's former system of scheduling girls' games first in all double-headers constituted sex discrimination under Title IX. Under the new schedule, girls and boys will play on different nights, with JV leading off, followed by the varsity.
Madison Area Technical College will reportedly add a women's soccer team to help balance out athletic opportunities, which presently favor men despite women making up more than half of the student body. The college is under investigation by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, in response to anonymous complaint filed last year.
And here in Massachusetts, the high school athletics conference in Middlesex County has rescheduled its basketball games to ensure equity in the number of prime times girls and boys receive. The Middlesex League was reportedly motivated by a Lexington supporter, who explained that the League's former system of scheduling girls' games first in all double-headers constituted sex discrimination under Title IX. Under the new schedule, girls and boys will play on different nights, with JV leading off, followed by the varsity.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
"Title IX" Cuts at Towson Reconsidered
Often we read about colleges and universities cutting men's teams, ostensibly to comply with Title IX. I usually object to this framing, which makes it sounds like the law requires universities to equalize athletic opportunities in this manner and doesn't take into account compliance by other means than statistical proportionality. But of course, this is a convenient narrative for colleges and universities to employ, as it positions them as innocent victims of the law, rather than free agents making economic and political decisions about how many and which sports to offer. It's easier to say to disappointed baseball players and wrestlers, "sorry, blame the women," than it is to admit, "sorry, we just value football players' opportunities more than we value opportunities in your sport."
Because I am sensitive to the "Title IX made me do it" defense to cutting teams, I was interested in this article about the Towson University Athletic Director's proposal to cut baseball and men's soccer. But when AD Mike Waddell claimed that these cuts were needed for Title IX compliance, that rationale raised questions. Specifically, the university's Board of Visitors looked into the numbers, the determined that athletic opportunities were actually proportionate to the percentage of students of each sex, so Title IX compliance has already been achieved. Apparently, Waddell based his proportionality calculation on an unduplicated headcount, which counts the number of student athletes, without taking into account separate athletic opportunities that are enjoyed by multi-sport athletes. However, as long as athletic opportunities are truly separate, meaningful athletic opportunities in their own right, universities may count them that way for Title IX purposes. The so-called "duplicated" head count measures opportunities, not participants. In Towson's case, many female athletes participate in both indoor and outdoor track, so proportionality does not appear satisfied when you use the unduplicated head count, but it does when you use the duplicated one.
In my mind, there are three possible interpretations of this discrepancy.
1. Waddell, despite being an AD at a Division I institution, does not know that it is acceptable to use the duplicated head count. This is possible, as we frequency encounter gaps in Title IX literacy, even at the AD level. On the other hand, athletic directors *love* the duplicated headcount because it works in their favor. In fact, we usually complain about its over-use, such as at Quinnipiac, where certain female runners were triple-counted notwithstanding the apparent fact that winter and spring sports were really not functioning as separate sports but a glorified off-season for the cross-country team. But it's possible that Waddell didn't get the memo.
2. Waddell knows that's acceptable to use duplicated head count, but has doubts about whether winter track is a genuine, meaningful athletic opportunity in its own right. Maybe he is using the unduplicated count on principle because he feels that using the duplicated one would amount to taking advantage of a loophole. This too is possible, though it is certainly at odds with the decision to create a winter track team. If you object to the integrity of double-counting, why do you have those opportunities in the first place?
3. Waddell wants to cut men's soccer and baseball for reasons that have nothing to do with Title IX, but proffered the unduplicated headcount to provide a convenient excuse. If this is correct, I think we will soon find out, based on what happens at Towson now that the duplicate calculation is in the spotlight. If the athletic department goes ahead with the cuts anyway, we'll know they were not in fact motivated by Title IX compliance. And we'll have one more reason to be skeptical of such a claim in future cases involving cuts to men's teams.
Because I am sensitive to the "Title IX made me do it" defense to cutting teams, I was interested in this article about the Towson University Athletic Director's proposal to cut baseball and men's soccer. But when AD Mike Waddell claimed that these cuts were needed for Title IX compliance, that rationale raised questions. Specifically, the university's Board of Visitors looked into the numbers, the determined that athletic opportunities were actually proportionate to the percentage of students of each sex, so Title IX compliance has already been achieved. Apparently, Waddell based his proportionality calculation on an unduplicated headcount, which counts the number of student athletes, without taking into account separate athletic opportunities that are enjoyed by multi-sport athletes. However, as long as athletic opportunities are truly separate, meaningful athletic opportunities in their own right, universities may count them that way for Title IX purposes. The so-called "duplicated" head count measures opportunities, not participants. In Towson's case, many female athletes participate in both indoor and outdoor track, so proportionality does not appear satisfied when you use the unduplicated head count, but it does when you use the duplicated one.
In my mind, there are three possible interpretations of this discrepancy.
1. Waddell, despite being an AD at a Division I institution, does not know that it is acceptable to use the duplicated head count. This is possible, as we frequency encounter gaps in Title IX literacy, even at the AD level. On the other hand, athletic directors *love* the duplicated headcount because it works in their favor. In fact, we usually complain about its over-use, such as at Quinnipiac, where certain female runners were triple-counted notwithstanding the apparent fact that winter and spring sports were really not functioning as separate sports but a glorified off-season for the cross-country team. But it's possible that Waddell didn't get the memo.
2. Waddell knows that's acceptable to use duplicated head count, but has doubts about whether winter track is a genuine, meaningful athletic opportunity in its own right. Maybe he is using the unduplicated count on principle because he feels that using the duplicated one would amount to taking advantage of a loophole. This too is possible, though it is certainly at odds with the decision to create a winter track team. If you object to the integrity of double-counting, why do you have those opportunities in the first place?
3. Waddell wants to cut men's soccer and baseball for reasons that have nothing to do with Title IX, but proffered the unduplicated headcount to provide a convenient excuse. If this is correct, I think we will soon find out, based on what happens at Towson now that the duplicate calculation is in the spotlight. If the athletic department goes ahead with the cuts anyway, we'll know they were not in fact motivated by Title IX compliance. And we'll have one more reason to be skeptical of such a claim in future cases involving cuts to men's teams.
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
Richmond Drops Men's Soccer and Track In Order To Add Men's Lacrosse
The University of Richmond recently announced plans to eliminate men's soccer and track, in order that it may elevate men's lacrosse to varsity status. This article reports on a "contentious" forum last weekend, at which the University explained the decision and confirmed it as "final."
While the University of Richmond seems to deserve much of the criticism it has received for this move -- in particularly, the fact that it had earlier announced that men's soccer and track were safe and later reneged on this -- it does appear, at least from the above-mentioned article, that the role Title IX played in the decision has been accurately conveyed. This is refreshing, as universities frequently use Title IX as a scapegoat to take the blame for unpopular decisions to eliminate teams, even though noting in the law requires it and the agency that enforces Title IX calls it a "disfavored practice."
In Richmond's case, the message seems to be that Title IX requires that the university maintain equitable number of opportunities for men and women, but that it was Richmond's choice to elevate lacrosse (a sport with some generous donors, apparently) at the expense of other men's sports. Richmond considered the possibility of adding lacrosse and another women's sports, but ruled this out based not only on financial considerations, but a desire to keep the varsity student-athlete population at its current level -- which, the President noted, is high for schools with student demographics similar to Richmond's. The President was also open about its decision to elevate lacrosse in the first place, noting that the relatively number of Division I teams who compete in lacrosse gives Richmond a good chance to be a competitive.
In 2006 James Madison University sacrificed 10 athletic teams in order to devote more resources to football. It didn't say this, however. Instead, it said it was eliminating 10 teams in order to comply with Title IX. This engendered anger, protests, and even litigation -- not directed at the university for playing favorites with one sport at the expense of so many others, but at Title IX, and women's sports. Say what you want about Richmond -- as I said, it certainly seems to deserve some of the criticism its getting for how it rolled out this decision -- but to the extent it's avoiding the Title IX blame-game and taking responsibility for its own role in deciding what and how many sports to field, this is a refreshing change.
While the University of Richmond seems to deserve much of the criticism it has received for this move -- in particularly, the fact that it had earlier announced that men's soccer and track were safe and later reneged on this -- it does appear, at least from the above-mentioned article, that the role Title IX played in the decision has been accurately conveyed. This is refreshing, as universities frequently use Title IX as a scapegoat to take the blame for unpopular decisions to eliminate teams, even though noting in the law requires it and the agency that enforces Title IX calls it a "disfavored practice."
In Richmond's case, the message seems to be that Title IX requires that the university maintain equitable number of opportunities for men and women, but that it was Richmond's choice to elevate lacrosse (a sport with some generous donors, apparently) at the expense of other men's sports. Richmond considered the possibility of adding lacrosse and another women's sports, but ruled this out based not only on financial considerations, but a desire to keep the varsity student-athlete population at its current level -- which, the President noted, is high for schools with student demographics similar to Richmond's. The President was also open about its decision to elevate lacrosse in the first place, noting that the relatively number of Division I teams who compete in lacrosse gives Richmond a good chance to be a competitive.
In 2006 James Madison University sacrificed 10 athletic teams in order to devote more resources to football. It didn't say this, however. Instead, it said it was eliminating 10 teams in order to comply with Title IX. This engendered anger, protests, and even litigation -- not directed at the university for playing favorites with one sport at the expense of so many others, but at Title IX, and women's sports. Say what you want about Richmond -- as I said, it certainly seems to deserve some of the criticism its getting for how it rolled out this decision -- but to the extent it's avoiding the Title IX blame-game and taking responsibility for its own role in deciding what and how many sports to field, this is a refreshing change.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Florida School District Pays $250,000 to Settle Harassment/Retaliation Case
The Citrus County (Florida) School Board will pay $250,000 to settle sexual harassment and retaliation claims by former students. This high dollar figure will probably not surprise readers who recall this case from earlier posts, such as this one describing the egregious sexual harassment and abuse student-athletes alleged against three male coaches of the girls' JV soccer team at Citrus High School, and this one describing school officials' absurd retaliatory acts of trying to kick one of the complainants and her sister out of school on false claims that she lived outside the district.
The school district also agreed to write a letter of regret and provide Title IX training to district employees. Yes, please, this district definitely needs some Title IX training.
The school district also agreed to write a letter of regret and provide Title IX training to district employees. Yes, please, this district definitely needs some Title IX training.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Brandi Chastain witnesses backlash
Erin has been doing a great job noting all the 40th anniversary coverage that has been going on nationally. They haven't all been happy, happy, rah-rah events, however.
Former USWNT player, Brandi Chastain, was participating in one such event last week. The California Assembly was marking the anniversary by honoring Chastain and others. The event was conducted in the form of a resolution (my guess was that it was simply a resolution to honor Title IX). An assemblyman, Chris Norby, used the opportunity to decry the ways Title IX has been interpreted. (One of my all-time favorite excuses: we like the law, we just don't like the way it has been put into effect.) It was his right, of course, as a member of a legislative body passing a resolution. Takes a fair amount of...something...to speak out in front of one of the most celebrated female athletes of the modern era, who is also a noted advocate for girls and women in sports.
Chastain wanted to offer a rebuttal of some sort. Alas it was not her right to do so because the event was not a public hearing.
Fortunately other legislators defended the legislation and offered examples of the why they provide their support and of continuing inequities.
Former USWNT player, Brandi Chastain, was participating in one such event last week. The California Assembly was marking the anniversary by honoring Chastain and others. The event was conducted in the form of a resolution (my guess was that it was simply a resolution to honor Title IX). An assemblyman, Chris Norby, used the opportunity to decry the ways Title IX has been interpreted. (One of my all-time favorite excuses: we like the law, we just don't like the way it has been put into effect.) It was his right, of course, as a member of a legislative body passing a resolution. Takes a fair amount of...something...to speak out in front of one of the most celebrated female athletes of the modern era, who is also a noted advocate for girls and women in sports.
Chastain wanted to offer a rebuttal of some sort. Alas it was not her right to do so because the event was not a public hearing.
Fortunately other legislators defended the legislation and offered examples of the why they provide their support and of continuing inequities.
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Castle Rock Update
We've been following the situation in Castle Rock, Washington (see prior posts here and here), where parents have been advocating for equal rights for girls teams to use the high school's lighted stadium,which has so far been reserved for the priority use by the football team. After initial complaints to the school board failed, one parent filed a complaint with OCR, alleging that it violates Title IX to exclude girls soccer from the stadium.
A recent letter from the school board appears to resolve the controversy by stating that future seasons' soccer games "may be played in the stadium." While this language is somewhat ambiguous ("may" meaning "might"? or "may" meaning "it is now permitted"?) both the complainant and the press seem to understand this as permission for girls soccer to play at least some of their games in the stadium next fall (as well as boys' soccer, which is a spring sport in Washington).
The letter also promises more Title IX training for school district employees. Hopefully those newly-trained employees will keep their eyes on the stadium situation. If girls are not given equal access to the favored facility, the complaint should be renewed.
A recent letter from the school board appears to resolve the controversy by stating that future seasons' soccer games "may be played in the stadium." While this language is somewhat ambiguous ("may" meaning "might"? or "may" meaning "it is now permitted"?) both the complainant and the press seem to understand this as permission for girls soccer to play at least some of their games in the stadium next fall (as well as boys' soccer, which is a spring sport in Washington).
The letter also promises more Title IX training for school district employees. Hopefully those newly-trained employees will keep their eyes on the stadium situation. If girls are not given equal access to the favored facility, the complaint should be renewed.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Castle Rock issues in front of school board
After some delays, the concerns of parents of Castle Rock High School student-athletes in Washington will be addressed by the school board in the next week and a half.
As we have written about before, parents of girls on the soccer team asked for and were denied access to the football field (which has lights) for games that were being cut short due to darkness. The superintendent attempted to address the concerns, but parents were not entirely pleased with her recommendations, including additional training in gender equity issues for the school's athletic director. Some involved believe that training would not work for AD Neil Williamson because he knew that his decision was discriminatory. Some also feel that the recommendation for an athletic advisory committee would just add an additional level of bureaucracy they would have to negotiate.
Additionally, in a non-Title IX issue, parents requested that the original unlit field be made handicapped accessible. But apparently the accommodations are less than ideal. A portable accessible bathroom is in a grassy area that those in wheelchairs would find difficult, if not impossible, to traverse.
While the school board has implied that some girls' soccer games will be scheduled in the football field, it seems that the discord created over the way the situation has been handled may have longer-lasting effects.
If, when the board issues its decision on the matter(s), parents are displeased with the resolution, the district will likely find itself a party in a lawsuit which, if previous cases are any indication, will likely reveal additional inequities.
As we have written about before, parents of girls on the soccer team asked for and were denied access to the football field (which has lights) for games that were being cut short due to darkness. The superintendent attempted to address the concerns, but parents were not entirely pleased with her recommendations, including additional training in gender equity issues for the school's athletic director. Some involved believe that training would not work for AD Neil Williamson because he knew that his decision was discriminatory. Some also feel that the recommendation for an athletic advisory committee would just add an additional level of bureaucracy they would have to negotiate.
Additionally, in a non-Title IX issue, parents requested that the original unlit field be made handicapped accessible. But apparently the accommodations are less than ideal. A portable accessible bathroom is in a grassy area that those in wheelchairs would find difficult, if not impossible, to traverse.
While the school board has implied that some girls' soccer games will be scheduled in the football field, it seems that the discord created over the way the situation has been handled may have longer-lasting effects.
If, when the board issues its decision on the matter(s), parents are displeased with the resolution, the district will likely find itself a party in a lawsuit which, if previous cases are any indication, will likely reveal additional inequities.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Retaliation Case Against Florida School District Survives Motion to Dismiss
In Florida, a federal district court judge has denied the Citrus County School Board's motion to dismiss claims filed by students who allege they were retaliated against after one of them reported that she was "offended and uncomfortable" by sexual behavior of their soccer coaches. As we noted in an earlier post, the case began when a female high school soccer player named Stacey Bigge and her teammate known in the complaint as A.M. reported to their parents that they were uncomfortable with their coaches' tendencies to make sexual comments, which included remakes about players' physicality and genitalia, and that on one occasion, a coach pulled down a player's pants. After their parents reported this conduct to school district officials, the coaches became threatening and intimidating to Stacey and A.M., interrogating them in front of their teammates and threatening to disband the team because of what they did. Eventually, the players quit to avoid this hostility. Later, Stacey and her sister Kathryn Bigge were ordered to be transferred to another high school after the coaches then told the school officials that the Bigges lived outside the district. This transfer order was rescinded after the Bigges' father supplied proof of residency.
Both Bigge sisters sued Citrus County School Board, alleging that the threat to transfer them to another high school was retaliation for Stacey's complaints about the coaches' harassing conduct. The school board argued that Kathryn Bigge's claim for damages on this retaliation theory should be dismissed because she was not the person who engaged in the requisite "protected conduct" by complaining about the coaches' behavior, her sister was. But the court rejected this argument, applying the Supreme Court's recent decision in an employment law case that a whistleblower's fiance could challenge the retaliation directed at him in response to the whistleblower's complaint about sex discrimination on the job. The judge concluded that the threats against Kathryn were actionable on a theory of retaliation because it was "reasonable to infer that the School Board’s threat to transfer Kathryn Bigge to another school district (a threat that was allegedly made in direct response to the Plaintiffs’ complaints) would dissuade her father and sister from making any further charges of discrimination and/or retaliation."
The case is scheduled for a jury trial in February 2013.
Both Bigge sisters sued Citrus County School Board, alleging that the threat to transfer them to another high school was retaliation for Stacey's complaints about the coaches' harassing conduct. The school board argued that Kathryn Bigge's claim for damages on this retaliation theory should be dismissed because she was not the person who engaged in the requisite "protected conduct" by complaining about the coaches' behavior, her sister was. But the court rejected this argument, applying the Supreme Court's recent decision in an employment law case that a whistleblower's fiance could challenge the retaliation directed at him in response to the whistleblower's complaint about sex discrimination on the job. The judge concluded that the threats against Kathryn were actionable on a theory of retaliation because it was "reasonable to infer that the School Board’s threat to transfer Kathryn Bigge to another school district (a threat that was allegedly made in direct response to the Plaintiffs’ complaints) would dissuade her father and sister from making any further charges of discrimination and/or retaliation."
The case is scheduled for a jury trial in February 2013.
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Washington High School Receives Complaint About Fields
A group of parents have reportedly complained to the administration of Castle Rock High School, in Washington, about the unequal treatment received by the girls soccer team, which plays on a field without lights while the football team plays in a comfortable, lighted stadium that it does not share with other teams. As a result, girls' games are sometimes called early due to darkness, which reduces their playing time in a way that football players never experience -- sometimes J.V. games have been shorted to as little is 32 minutes, instead of the usual 80. (The boys' soccer team does not use the stadium either, but their season is in the spring so they don't have the darkness problem.) Adding insult to injury, they claim, is the fact that while their games are called for darkness, the football stadium is sitting unused, because their game schedule does not conflict with high school football practice and game times.
To me it sounds like the parents have a reasonable request and a good case that a Title IX violation is occurring. The law requires equal treatment of male and female athletes. If there is a privilege bestowed to some athletes of one sex, it should be shared among a comparable number of athletes of the other sex.
Moreover, none of the school district's apparent reasons for barring the girls from the stadium are recognized exceptions to the to the requirement of equal treatment. If it really is too costly to let both teams play in the lighted stadium, as one quoted official suggested, equality would require a fair distribution of those funds so that girls and boys can both play there sometimes. School officials also seem to be reluctant to let the soccer team share the stadium because that would mean bumping the middle school football team to another location, and those parents would complain. But not only is it perfectly fair and reasonable to prioritize high school athletes over middle school athletes, it is still a gender equity problem when the middles school and high school boys get better treatment than high school boys.
Finally, officials might also be laboring under the misbelief that as long as other school districts in the area doing the same thing, everything is fine, as the Superintendent quoted in story says she's "looked at a lot of the facilities in our league in our area, and I don't find us to be the only school district with a soccer field that doesn't have lights. Nor do I find us to be the only district that doesn't play on the football field." In fact, Title IX does not recognize an "everyone's doing it" defense. These kinds of violations are common, to be sure. It certainly seems like a lot of school officials are misinformed about the equal treatment requirements under Title IX. But what we've noticed on here at the Title IX Blog is that usually when people complaint about them, they eventually prevail. Castle Rock might not be the only school in Washington that isn't giving its girls' soccer team an equal shake, but that doesn't mean its immune from enforcement.
To me it sounds like the parents have a reasonable request and a good case that a Title IX violation is occurring. The law requires equal treatment of male and female athletes. If there is a privilege bestowed to some athletes of one sex, it should be shared among a comparable number of athletes of the other sex.
Moreover, none of the school district's apparent reasons for barring the girls from the stadium are recognized exceptions to the to the requirement of equal treatment. If it really is too costly to let both teams play in the lighted stadium, as one quoted official suggested, equality would require a fair distribution of those funds so that girls and boys can both play there sometimes. School officials also seem to be reluctant to let the soccer team share the stadium because that would mean bumping the middle school football team to another location, and those parents would complain. But not only is it perfectly fair and reasonable to prioritize high school athletes over middle school athletes, it is still a gender equity problem when the middles school and high school boys get better treatment than high school boys.
Finally, officials might also be laboring under the misbelief that as long as other school districts in the area doing the same thing, everything is fine, as the Superintendent quoted in story says she's "looked at a lot of the facilities in our league in our area, and I don't find us to be the only school district with a soccer field that doesn't have lights. Nor do I find us to be the only district that doesn't play on the football field." In fact, Title IX does not recognize an "everyone's doing it" defense. These kinds of violations are common, to be sure. It certainly seems like a lot of school officials are misinformed about the equal treatment requirements under Title IX. But what we've noticed on here at the Title IX Blog is that usually when people complaint about them, they eventually prevail. Castle Rock might not be the only school in Washington that isn't giving its girls' soccer team an equal shake, but that doesn't mean its immune from enforcement.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Alleged abuses by Florida high school soccer coaches
When I started reading this story about alleged abuses perpetuated by three coaches of a girls' soccer team in Florida, I thought it was an Onion-like piece. Then I realized that in Florida it is not so unusual, perhaps, to have a high school named Citrus High School. But the allegations agains these coaches certainly seem so over the top that I wondered still.
But the complaint is legitimate. (As in the complaint has been filed, not that the allegations have been proven true at this point.) But the details are a little confusing. Here is what I have garnered thus far:
1. Some parents and players were concerned over the behavior of three male coaches who worked with the girls' JV soccer team at Citrus High School. This behavior included one coach who liked to watch the girls shower and who pulled down the pants of a varsity player, and another coach who made comments about his genitalia as well as that of his players.
2. Said parents and students made a complaint to the coaching staff and the District School Board of Citrus County. The district suspended without pay the coach who made the inappropriate comments during its investigation. They also reprimanded him.
3. After the invesitgation was complete, the girls who had complained feel they were retaliated against. They say they were made to feel unwelcome. Their families were threatened with lawsuits by the coaches' lawyers. And they allege the coaches asked the district to expel two of them because they allegedly live outside the Citrus County School District.
4. This has led to the current lawsuit against the district school board. The family is asking for an injunction (against the expulsion I would assume) and costs and damages for Title IX violations.
I suspect some of the details got muddled in the reporting of this story and in my re-reporting of it. As we find out more, we will certainly add/correct.
But the complaint is legitimate. (As in the complaint has been filed, not that the allegations have been proven true at this point.) But the details are a little confusing. Here is what I have garnered thus far:
1. Some parents and players were concerned over the behavior of three male coaches who worked with the girls' JV soccer team at Citrus High School. This behavior included one coach who liked to watch the girls shower and who pulled down the pants of a varsity player, and another coach who made comments about his genitalia as well as that of his players.
2. Said parents and students made a complaint to the coaching staff and the District School Board of Citrus County. The district suspended without pay the coach who made the inappropriate comments during its investigation. They also reprimanded him.
3. After the invesitgation was complete, the girls who had complained feel they were retaliated against. They say they were made to feel unwelcome. Their families were threatened with lawsuits by the coaches' lawyers. And they allege the coaches asked the district to expel two of them because they allegedly live outside the Citrus County School District.
4. This has led to the current lawsuit against the district school board. The family is asking for an injunction (against the expulsion I would assume) and costs and damages for Title IX violations.
I suspect some of the details got muddled in the reporting of this story and in my re-reporting of it. As we find out more, we will certainly add/correct.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
West of the Mississippi...
Teams are being added and dropped, and schools are conference hopping.
Not sure if it's the conference hopping that is encouraging institutions to the get their houses in order in terms of Title IX compliance, but it is certainly having that effect.
The University of Montana has slightly-more-than tentative plans to add women's softball to their roster of intercollegiate sports. The state of Montana has no DI softball, which isn't especially surprising given the limitations the weather puts on spring sports, but recent survey data show that softball is the sport undergraduate women would like to see added. Though Montana administrators maintain that they didn't think they "were close to being out of compliance" they knew that they couldn't keep administering the annual interest survey and not do anything. (Not sure why they held that belief in the first place. Simply collecting data does not make one compliant.) Not sure if the NCAA held similar beliefs about Montana's compliance. In the university's last reaccreditation administrators were apparently told that adding another women's sport would be "the right thing to do." Montana is able, it seems, to read between the lines. And its plans to move to the Big Sky Conference likely pushed forward the plan for softball. The Big Sky needs one more softball-playing school in order to hold a conference tournament. But softball is still a ways off, at least three years according to the athletic director. The program is estimated to cost about half a million dollars annually so funds need to be raised, a coach hired, and players recruited.
A different conference hop is forcing another school to do the drop/add shuffle. University of Nebraska-Omaha, a DII school (except for men's hockey), is making the move to DI. It has been invited to the Summit League and given the NCAA's lifting of the ban on division hopping that will happen in June, and that conferences hold the power to invite, UNO has decided to make the leap, something they apparently have been considering for a while now. Not knowing when another such opportunity will come along, the university is making sure everything is in order for the 2012 move.
But unfortunately football and wrestling will not be coming along. The university cited the immense costs of football and the inability to bring wrestling up to DI levels without a large amount of cash as the reason for the cuts. Good news though for a couple of the so-called men's minor sports: UNO will be adding men's golf and soccer.
Not sure if it's the conference hopping that is encouraging institutions to the get their houses in order in terms of Title IX compliance, but it is certainly having that effect.
The University of Montana has slightly-more-than tentative plans to add women's softball to their roster of intercollegiate sports. The state of Montana has no DI softball, which isn't especially surprising given the limitations the weather puts on spring sports, but recent survey data show that softball is the sport undergraduate women would like to see added. Though Montana administrators maintain that they didn't think they "were close to being out of compliance" they knew that they couldn't keep administering the annual interest survey and not do anything. (Not sure why they held that belief in the first place. Simply collecting data does not make one compliant.) Not sure if the NCAA held similar beliefs about Montana's compliance. In the university's last reaccreditation administrators were apparently told that adding another women's sport would be "the right thing to do." Montana is able, it seems, to read between the lines. And its plans to move to the Big Sky Conference likely pushed forward the plan for softball. The Big Sky needs one more softball-playing school in order to hold a conference tournament. But softball is still a ways off, at least three years according to the athletic director. The program is estimated to cost about half a million dollars annually so funds need to be raised, a coach hired, and players recruited.
A different conference hop is forcing another school to do the drop/add shuffle. University of Nebraska-Omaha, a DII school (except for men's hockey), is making the move to DI. It has been invited to the Summit League and given the NCAA's lifting of the ban on division hopping that will happen in June, and that conferences hold the power to invite, UNO has decided to make the leap, something they apparently have been considering for a while now. Not knowing when another such opportunity will come along, the university is making sure everything is in order for the 2012 move.
But unfortunately football and wrestling will not be coming along. The university cited the immense costs of football and the inability to bring wrestling up to DI levels without a large amount of cash as the reason for the cuts. Good news though for a couple of the so-called men's minor sports: UNO will be adding men's golf and soccer.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Title IX, World Cup, human rights, and the quote of the day
The College Sports Council, which advocates for Title IX "reform," has used the start of the men's World Cup to issue a report on the alleged lack of growth of men's soccer at the collegiate level in the United States. This is not a new argument as I have noted previously.
But CSC claims that Title IX has stymied the growth of men's intercollegiate soccer while women's soccer has been allowed to flourish.
One of our favorite Title IX and women's sports advocates, Professor Nancy Hogshead-Makar, expertly dismantles CSC's study and findings (in the above link), so I won't bother to do it here.
Obviously as one of the Title IX bloggers, I care about Title IX, but to tie the law to this event ignores a lot of other gender issues around the men's World Cup so I thought I would take the opportunity to go slightly beyond the usual purview of this blog. . First, the extreme nationalism is problematic and gendered. I know this is a battle of countries, but the extremism is frightening and it is certainly more intense around the men's World Cup than the women's. On a micro level and tying into CSC's concerns, for example, when the US Women's National Team loses there is not a whole lot of talk about trying to add teams and improve the quality and conditions of women's intercollegiate soccer.
Second, let's look at this event in the global context and think about some human rights issues. For example, the labor involved in the making of sports apparel. The issues around sweat shops (which employ, for the most part, women as laborers) making athletic clothing are fairly well-known. But the labor around the making of the actual soccer balls is also of concern. Soccer ball stitching and the conditions for children and adults who do this work has been the focus of international labor and human rights campaigns. The soccer balls in this tournament are not stitched. Stitching of soccer balls does still occur, however. This You Tube video shows the production of the current men's World Cup balls. It seems benign but it is also apparent that most of the workers--though you never see their faces--are women. It all looks clean and modern, but I think given the history of the sports apparel and equipment industry, it's important to remain vigilant on this front.
Another issue of (in)visibility when it comes to women and the men's World Cup is around sex work and the sex trade. There is concern that the large influx of people into South Africa will increase sex trafficking. Steps are, thankfully, being taken by national and international entities to monitor the situation. So not as invisible as the issue has been in the past; but certainly not something you're going to see as a special feature about South African culture.
So please keep these things in mind as the tournament starts. The above link on soccer ball stitching also has a list of actions you can take in response to unfair labor practices in this industry.
But I going to end with something that made me smile this morning: this great response to CSC's claims by NCAA director of gender initiatives, Karen Morrison.
"The CSC continues to bend the data like an errant soccer kick when describing trends in intercollegiate athletics and in particular college soccer. Soccer continues to grow in popularity around the world and on our campuses. It is one of the four fastest-growing men's sports in the NCAA. There is no evidence that the relatively minor differences overall in soccer participation are related to Title IX."
But CSC claims that Title IX has stymied the growth of men's intercollegiate soccer while women's soccer has been allowed to flourish.
One of our favorite Title IX and women's sports advocates, Professor Nancy Hogshead-Makar, expertly dismantles CSC's study and findings (in the above link), so I won't bother to do it here.
Obviously as one of the Title IX bloggers, I care about Title IX, but to tie the law to this event ignores a lot of other gender issues around the men's World Cup so I thought I would take the opportunity to go slightly beyond the usual purview of this blog. . First, the extreme nationalism is problematic and gendered. I know this is a battle of countries, but the extremism is frightening and it is certainly more intense around the men's World Cup than the women's. On a micro level and tying into CSC's concerns, for example, when the US Women's National Team loses there is not a whole lot of talk about trying to add teams and improve the quality and conditions of women's intercollegiate soccer.
Second, let's look at this event in the global context and think about some human rights issues. For example, the labor involved in the making of sports apparel. The issues around sweat shops (which employ, for the most part, women as laborers) making athletic clothing are fairly well-known. But the labor around the making of the actual soccer balls is also of concern. Soccer ball stitching and the conditions for children and adults who do this work has been the focus of international labor and human rights campaigns. The soccer balls in this tournament are not stitched. Stitching of soccer balls does still occur, however. This You Tube video shows the production of the current men's World Cup balls. It seems benign but it is also apparent that most of the workers--though you never see their faces--are women. It all looks clean and modern, but I think given the history of the sports apparel and equipment industry, it's important to remain vigilant on this front.
Another issue of (in)visibility when it comes to women and the men's World Cup is around sex work and the sex trade. There is concern that the large influx of people into South Africa will increase sex trafficking. Steps are, thankfully, being taken by national and international entities to monitor the situation. So not as invisible as the issue has been in the past; but certainly not something you're going to see as a special feature about South African culture.
So please keep these things in mind as the tournament starts. The above link on soccer ball stitching also has a list of actions you can take in response to unfair labor practices in this industry.
But I going to end with something that made me smile this morning: this great response to CSC's claims by NCAA director of gender initiatives, Karen Morrison.
"The CSC continues to bend the data like an errant soccer kick when describing trends in intercollegiate athletics and in particular college soccer. Soccer continues to grow in popularity around the world and on our campuses. It is one of the four fastest-growing men's sports in the NCAA. There is no evidence that the relatively minor differences overall in soccer participation are related to Title IX."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)