The local and the global: Anti-trans policies are all connected

The impetus for this post was a radio segment I heard on my local NPR station about a school district in Lancaster, PA. The school board of the Hempfield School District created a policy requiring that students participate in interscholastic sports based on their sex assigned at birth. As horrible as this legislation is in intent and effect, it is nothing new--sadly. It is interesting though that the school district took this action after Pennsylvania's Democratic governor vetoed anti-trans legislation that had passed the PA house and senate and specifically said, in doing so, "leave trans kids alone."

Nevertheless, Hempfield folks have chosen not to listen to Governor Wolf and passed the policy by a 6-2 margin, unmoved by tearful pleadings from at least one parent of a trans child. It continues to baffle and sadden me that people go into education/education policy and have zero empathy for the children who need it most. 

That is point 1: utter lack of empathy and failing to uphold basic education philosophies. This leads to...

Point 2: the goal of interscholastic sports is education through participation. Sports are already fraught because...America and capitalism and patriarchy. To be fair sports were never not fraught. But can we at least try to make sports for little kids something worthwhile and not a place where severe mental and physical harm occurs? 

Point 3: As noted in the article linked above, this policy likely violates Title IX (the new regulations protecting trans students are likely to be challenged in court so everything remains frighteningly unknown). But I was struck by those who opposed the policy relying heavily on the "we're going to be sued" argument. Do the right thing because it is the right thing--morally. Yes, laws are part of our system of ethics and considering the law is part of moral reasoning. But if we rely only on the law to guide our moral reasoning, we will not be serving the most vulnerable. 

Outside of the above points, I continue to find the claims of "girls are losing opportunities" because of trans inclusion both wrong and ironic. Girls lack opportunities because school districts have already failed to comply with Title IX's mandate for equitable opportunities. Also--this is not college sports; if there are super strict roster numbers then we are back to point 2--failure to live up to the philosophy of interscholastic sports. Additionally--and this is the irony--the more money a district spends on fighting a legal battle to keep a few kids from participating in sports in a healthier way, the less money there will be to spend on those sports and other educational necessities. That's a pretty difficult cost-benefit decision to justify. 

The same week all this is happening in PA, World Athletics (formerly IAAF), the governing body of track and field, hinted that it would follow the lead of Fina--the international governing body of swimming--and ban trans women who have gone through male puberty regardless of testosterone levels. This is not a Title IX issue and there seems little to be done about Fina's rule or any similar ones by other governing bodies. The Court of Arbitration of Sport, based on how they handled the Caster Semenya/DSD athletes case, does not seem to be a viable option for stopping these heinous policies. 

So why the comparison? Once again we have the straw dog argument: protect women's sports/protect women. The paternalism from organizations that have ENABLED the abuse of women athletes is astounding. Trans women are not a threat. Predatory coaches are a threat. Abusive coaching is a threat. Self-harm from a toxic sports culture is a threat. Where is the perspective?

Also, a huge thumbs down to The Guardian, a publication I usually trust, for including this paragraph: 

Under World Athletics rules transgender women can compete in the female category provided they suppress their testosterone to below 5nmol/L for 12 months. That rule was also followed by Fina until Sunday, when it changed its regulations after scientific evidence showed trans women retain an advantage even after reducing testosterone.

It is irresponsible to off-handedly mention "scientific evidence" and not talk about what that evidence is and how (un)reliable it is. If the entire argument anti-trans people are making is "scientific," there has to be a discussion of this evidence. 

Conclusion: everyone needs to do better. I am currently at a loss over how or if this can happen. 

Happy Birthday, Title IX!

 Title IX turned 50 this week. I had a more elaborate plan for a post/piece that I still may enact when I find the time. This post, however, is a version of a talk I gave to Title IX coordinators with the State University of New York (SUNY) system a couple of weeks ago. I chose to highlight a recent story out of New York in which Title IX was NOT invoked but could have been. I also--because it was requested--talked about strategies for addressing the needs of trans/gender queer students on our college campuses. I am going to save that part for a later time and incorporate some of the new, horrifying changes/movements we have seen. 

I want to thank Dr. Jaime Schultz of Penn State for sending me some of the sources I cited in my presentation, which I heard about in her talk in April about the 50th anniversary of Title IX. 

In May, members of the boys and girls track team at Albany High School were practicing without their shirts on over the course of several high temperature days. According to the students involved, this was a norm. But it was also apparently in violation of the school dress code. On a Wednesday the athletics director saw athletes practicing without shirts and told members of the girls track team that they would not be allowed to do so going forward. The students report that she said it was because they have male coaches around and it is a distraction. The next day, both the girls and boys again practiced without shirts. Some of the female athletes say this was a form of protest. The athletics director asked the boys to put their shirts back on—they did. But she removed some of the girls from practice; they left the track without incident; they tried to take a picture of themselves in their sports bras on the track but were barred from doing so. They took the picture inside and immediately started a change.org petition which included the photo.

Some of the same girls attempted to attend a lacrosse game later that day where they were stopped by the AD and three security guards who prevented them from attending. An argument ensued and the girls were suspended from practice and competition for disrespectful conduct to an administrator. The team competed on Friday with only two members and the suspension cost many of the girls an opportunity to qualify for post-season competition. On Saturday a letter was sent to the homes of all the girls—from the AD—who wrote that each girl:  "poses a continuing danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disruption to the academic and athletic process." On Monday all the girls were called into a meeting from which parents were banned. There are different versions of the story with some administrators saying the girls were suspended for their conduct at the lacrosse game and others saying they were suspended for wearing sport bras.

What do we learn from this story and how does it reflect on where we are at 50 years into Title IX’s existence?

1.      Even though Title IX can be applied here, it was not. I have a Title IX Google alert and I did not see this story come through my email. This speaks to the cultural knowledge about Title IX. 

A 2022 study by The Shirley Povich Center for Sports Journalism and the Howard Center for Investigative Journalism at the University of Maryland found that 71% children aged 12-17 did not know what Title IX is along with 58% of their parents. A 2017 survey led by Dr. Ellen Staurowsky found that half of college athletes surveyed knew nothing about the law and the other half had "large gaps in foundational understandings of what Title IX requires and how it works.” 

This is a trend. I heard as early as the late aughts that college aged women athletes did not know that there was a law that guaranteed them equity in the context of school-sponsored sports. Young people—college-aged people—do not know Title IX applies to athletics but also to things like dress codes. Why? There is so much attention on prevention of and justice for sexual assault and harassment, which is necessary, and sometimes probably feels all-consuming because of the seemingly never-ending changes in enforcement, regulations, best practices, etc. 

BBut we have to remember that everything is connected. The discourse of “what you wear is distracting or titillating so you can’t wear it” is part of rape culture that in a college setting manifests into the rape myth that what she was wearing is a factor in why she was assaulted. A woman who sees she is not being treated the same as her male athlete peers gets the message that the school cares less about her experiences—maybe as a softball players but also maybe as a victim of domestic violence—maybe at the hands of a male student athlete. 

There is something happening when athletics/sports attempts to address issues of sexual and domestic violence. At my institution, SUNY Cortland, we hold an annual event called Yards for Yeardley to raise money for the foundation started in the name of University of Virginia lacrosse player Yeardley Love who was murdered by her also lacrosse playing boyfriend after a known history of domestic abuse. Many of my students who are athletes—club and varsity—are “encouraged” to participate in this event as a form of community service/giving back. They do not know what it is. They do not know Yeardley Love and the circumstances of her death or the foundation created in her name.   

We need to consider how we might widen our educational efforts to cover some of the gaps and to demonstrate the interconnectedness of seemingly different inequities.

2.      The second thing to take from the Albany story, and an issue that has been getting a good amount of attention on this 50th birthday celebration: race matters. There was no mention in any of the articles I read about the racial identity of the members (that’s a media issue I won’t even attempt to address here) but some stories included the photo from the change.org petition. There are many non-white athletes in this photo. 

      We know that Title IX has disproportionately benefited white women in terms of athletic opportunities. It is an anti-discrimination law based on sex alone and does not address how discrimination is intersectional and affected by race, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic class, etc.    

While not specifically a Title IX issue, the suspension as punishment should not be overlooked. Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated  that suspensions of non-white students are both more frequent and have more negative impacts.  

      In our respective positions as educators, coaches, community leaders, parents, we may not be able to fix these discrepancies and disparities that occur before students reach us (though we should definitely lobby people who can!) but we can and should be aware of what their effects are on the students with whom we interact. If non-white, non-middle and upper girls have fewer athletics opportunities how does that affect their overall health and well-being? What are they bringing into our offices and institutions? How do their past behavioral records, when present, affect their understandings of themselves, speak to lost/taken opportunities, trigger our own implicit biases?

3.      My final point regarding the Albany Girls track team, which I have just hinted at, is that these are the students coming into institutions of higher education. They may not know about Title IX specifically, but they know injustice; many are already activists or engaged in social justice endeavors; they know language and terms that I only learned in grad school. They have expectations that their institutions treat them fairly. We have to anticipate a more engaged student population that will expect us to know about how race and gender and sexuality and class intersect to create and impede opportunities and experiences. They give me hope and we have to do better by them. 

Field hockey coach files lawsuit & other Iowa updates

The long awaited lawsuit against the University of Iowa was filed today by former field hockey coach Tracy Griesbaum. As expected, the complaint alleges a department culture of discrimination against women and points places responsibility on current Athletics Director Gary Barta who has been in the position since 2006. (Barta's contract was just extended--see below.) Griesbaum is asking for her job back and that measures be taken to change the culture of the department.

Regarding the latter, the complaint cites the retaliation against female coaches who asked for improvements in conditions for female student-athletes, the firing of female coaches and replacement with male coaches, and different standards for male and female coaches in regards to behavior with athletes and win-loss records. The University released a statement supporting Barta in response to the filing.

Iowa settled a lawsuit brought by a former assistant track and field coach earlier this year. Mike Scott was a volunteer in the program and applied for a paid position with the program multiple times (there were several failed searches). He had a temporary contract, but ultimately lost the position to a woman. In his lawsuit Scott stated that the was told that the department wanted a woman to fill the position. The final search did indeed yield a female coach. It seems like this insistence on a female coach was an attempt to counter the ongoing allegations against female coaches that existed before Griesbaum's lawsuit. Scott received $200,000.

In other somewhat related Iowa news:
The faculty expressed their concern with the ways things are operating within Iowa's administration. The controversial process and selection of the new president, J. Bruce Herrald, a businessman with no experience in academic administration, already had faculty and other Iowa community members concerned. So recent moves by the administration, including the reappointment of Barta draw criticism all around and a public letter from the university's chapter of the AAUP.

Regarding Barta's reappointment, they noted that--according to AAUP philosophies of university governance--faculty are responsible for the welfare of students, including student athletes, Regarding the latter, there is a committee comprised of faculty members who look at and address issues in the athletics department and make recommendations. The Presidential Committee on Athletics also participate in job searches for staff members who work with student athletes.The PCA was not part of the decision to extend Barta's contract. From the letter:

Despite these directives that faculty be involved in important decisions involving student athletes, early this year your office extended the contract of Athletics Director Barta for an additional five years. There was no consultation with the PCA. This happened in a year in which — though there was impressive success on the playing fields — significant concerns were raised regarding gender equity in athletics. The university now faces investigation by the U.S. Department of Education in response to student athletes’ complaints.

Carolina Coastal cuts track

Carolina Coastal University announced this week that it was discontinuing its men's track and cross-country program after next year.The Board of Trustees has determined budget cuts are necessary across the university and rumors had been stirring that the athletic department might have to cut a team.
The press release stated the following about why the choice was made to cut the the men's track program:
The Coastal Carolina Administration and the Board of Trustees authorized this step in order to reach the optimal combination of sport offerings that would provide quality opportunities to CCU student-athletes while remaining in compliance with Title IX and exercising fiscal responsibility.

Court Denies Quinnipiac's Motion to Lift Injunction

Over two years ago, a federal district court in Connecticut concluded that Quinnipiac University's decision to cut its women's volleyball team violated Title IX by leaving too few opportunities for women in its student body.  As a remedy, the court issued an injunction requiring Quinnipiac to retain the team until it could show that it could cut the team in a manner that complied with Title IX.  Yesterday, that same court ruled that Quinnipiac had not yet demonstrated such compliance, and denied the university's motion to lift the injunction.

Quinnipiac had asked the court to evaluate its compliance in light of several changes to its athletics program since the 2010 case.  The university added a women's golf team and a women's rugby team.  It also continued to support its fledgling acrobatics and tumbling ("acro") team, which the court had earlier determined should not be counted, since the sport was too new to provide athletic opportunities comparable to those afforded by other varsity sports. Finally, Quinnipiac instituted a policy prohibiting coaches from requiring student athletes to join additional teams.  This change addressed the court's finding that indoor and outdoor track opportunities should not count separately for certain cross-country athletes who were forced to practice with those teams as "simply an alternative form of off season training" but who did not compete with those teams due to injury or red-shirt status. 

The court easily concluded that the opportunities Quinnipiac added in women's golf, an NCAA recognized sport, should court towards its proportionality qualification.  However, it determined that acro and rugby, which both lack NCAA recognition at this point, should not count:

True, recognition by the NCAA is not, in itself, a requirement of Title IX. But where, as here, a school chooses to sponsor an athletics program at the highest level of competition (NCAA Division I), and offers all of its male athletes the opportunity to participate in NCAA-championship sports, the lack of NCAA recognition for a single women’s sport within that program raises a significant gender equity issue if the school hopes to count that unrecognized sport toward compliance with Title IX. So long as Quinnipiac chooses to hold itself out as a Division I institution, providing a full slate of NCAA-recognized sports for men, equity demands that it do the same for women.

Acro, the court pointed out, hasn't even made it onto the NCAA's list of emerging sports for women, the usual pathway toward becoming a championship sport.  And the court seemed skeptical of this recognition occurring in the near future, in light of the competing proposal from USA Cheer for a different version of competitive cheer called STUNT.  Only a handful of universities sponsor acro teams, which limits the opportunities for competition and denies participants the opportunity for a progressive play-off, which is a hallmark characteristic of varsity programs.

Rugby, on the other hand, is recognized as an emerging sport for women by the NCAA.  That status usually means that the sport will have an NCAA championship if a sufficient number of schools add teams within a ten year period. Rugby became an emerging sport in 2002, and has been added by only five universities (including Quinnipiac) within that time.  The court's concern, therefore, is that rugby's status on the emerging sports list is on borrowed time.  Quinnipiac's rugby team has limited opportunities for varsity-level competition, and as a result played most of its competitive schedule against other club-level teams.  It also had no opportunity for post-season competition.

Based on the court's decision not to count acro and rugby (as well as its decision not to count three injured cross-country runners who quit the indoor track team part-way through the season, but prior to any competition), the court removed 67 athletic opportunities from Quinnipiac's proffered tally, bringing the total number of athletic opportunities for women down to 254. There are 168 athletic opportunities for men, so the opportunities for women amount to 60.2%. By comparison, Quinnipiac's student body is 62.4% female, so Quinnipiac's disparity is 2.2%.  As tiny as this is expressed as a percent, 2.2 percent corresponds to an additional 25 athletic opportunities that would have to be added in order to hit 62.4. Since that is more than enough to sustain a new varsity team, Quinnipiac's proportionality is not just not close enough -- and would be even farther off if, without the injunction, Quinnipiac went ahead with plans to reduce women's opportunities by an additional 14 -- the number of participants in women's volleyball.

For these reasons, the court denied Quinnipiac's motion to lift the injunction.  Acknowledging the university's progress, the court nevertheless expressed some skepticism of the university's choices:  "Rather than simply recommit to women’s volleyball or bring other NCAA-championship sports to campus, the University doubled down on its plan to eliminate volleyball, and staked its compliance with Title IX on an as-yet unrecognized sport as well as an emerging sport in imminent danger of losing that recognition."  In sum, "by relying today on sports that do not yet provide genuine varsity participation opportunities, Quinnipiac has taken a prong-two approach to solving a prong-one problem."

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. 

Coach Files Retaliation Suit Against Central Connecticut State

A former track and cross-country coach at Central Connecticut State University has filed a lawsuit claiming that the university decided not to renew her contract in retaliation for her efforts to secure equal treatment for her team. The plaintiff was hired by the university in 2006 on a one-year contract, which was renewed annually until it was terminated in 2010. According to her complaint, she successfully coached the women's track and cross-country team during that time, improving the team's record and engaging in successful recruiting efforts. Yet despite being promised equal treatment compared to the men's track team, her team allegedly received a much lower budget than the men's team, less access to facilities, and had problems securing transportation to away meets. The plaintiff also noted inequitable support from a "shared" assistant coach who spent his time helping the men's team and not the women's.

The plaintiff claims that when she raised these concerns to a university official with oversight responsibility over athletics, her complaints were mocked and not taken seriously. Rather than investigate her complaints, the compliance officer investigated the coach herself, while one athletic department official allegedly pressured an athlete to file complaints against her. She was also threatened with "disciplinary action" if she did not "ignore everything that was happening" and continue to press her complaints. Meanwhile, the plaintiff also noted ways in which she was afforded less respect than the male coaches, such as being left off the athletic department website (when newly-hired male coaches were added immediately) and misreporting the men's head coach's title as "Head Coach for Track" (instead of "Head Coach for Men's Track"). The plaintiff claims she was also singled out for budget reductions and the cancellation of one of her athlete's scholarships. She attributes to this hostility to the fact that the athletic department had supported the assistant track coach for her position and was disappointed that the university president had required them to hire a woman instead.

In 2010, an athletic department evaluation committee recommended the plaintiff for another contract renewal, noting the athletic and academic success of her team. But the athletic director did not renew her contract and instead combined the men's and women's track teams back together, as they had been before Webb was hired. The assistant coach who had sought the plaintiff's job was hired as the head coach of the unified team, notwithstanding the plaintiff's longer experience in coaching and coaching in Division I, as well as other superior coaching credentials.

On these facts, the plaintiff's complaint satisfies the elements to establish a prima facie case for retaliation under Title IX. She alleges that she complained about gender equity, and that she experienced adverse employment consequences including being terminated from her position. She also alleges facts that support the inference that those two things are causally connected, including that she was threatened with "discipline" if she did not drop her complaints. The university will likely defend this lawsuit by proffering "legitimate" reasons for terminating the plaintiff, perhaps by arguing that she did not meet performance expectations. She will then have to prove that the university's proffered reason is actually a pretext for retaliation. For example, if the university claims she was fired because her team was not competitive, the plaintiff could demonstrate this is a pretext by proving the allegations in her complaint that the university did not terminate the coaches of other men's teams that were not as successful as hers.

The plaintiff's complaint also includes counts of direct discrimination under Title IX, as well as comparable claims under state law. She seeks compensatory and other damages exceeding $2 million dollars, a number that is not out of bounds after verdicts and settlements in similar retaliation cases against Fresno State and Florida Gulf Coast University.

Franklin Pierce adds sports

Knowing the state of the economy, the fiscal state of higher education, and--having attended school in New Hampshire--the fiscal issues faced by NH schools, we were a little surprised to read that Franklin Pierce University has announced it is adding several sports.
No word on how these sports will be financed but it appears that the university has every intention of adding women's ice hockey (it already has a men's ice hockey team), men's and women's track and field, sprint football. It will also reinstate men's cross country (previously cut in 2003 for unstated reasons).
Interesting. Especially interesting is sprint football--which I had never heard of. Turns out it's the same as regular intercollegiate football. But all players have to weigh less than 172 pounds.
Reading further though it appears that the differences go beyond body weight. There is no pre-season. There will be no athletic scholarships. And the roster will be kept at 65 players. Also, FPU will not be investing right away in a stadium. Administrators are making arrangements with local schools over use of their facilities. In its inaugural season--scheduled for 2012--they will play a reduced schedule.
I really can't think of a more responsible plan to add football (regardless of how much the players weigh!).
Again, no word on where the funds for these additions will come from. FPU is a private school, but still...

Mediation in UD track complaint

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

Delaware athletes filed OCR complaint

There has been a lot of press about the cutting of men's outdoor track and cross country at University of Delaware since the announcement was made in January.
We haven't commented on it because it has been the usual blame game: blame on Title IX mostly, but also blame on administrators, and blame on the economy. None of it very productive.
But the news out today about the filing of an OCR complaint is quite interesting. The student athletes who were affected by the cuts have filed the complaint asking OCR to investigate whether there was gender discrimination involved in the decision to make the cuts. The athletes, and others, believe this is an instance of reverse discrimination.
We're a little surprised and concerned that OCR has said that it will indeed investigate the complaint--unless there's something more to the complaint that we don't know about. But Title IX protects the historically underrepresented sex. Men at UD have not been underrepresented in athletics.
Yes, it is lousy that such a storied program is being cut, and the manner in which it was done doesn't reflect too well on the university. But it isn't reverse discrimination. Equity in Athletics tried to make that argument (in the courts) in the JMU case and it didn't work there. We suspect it won't work here either.

Ex-Coaches Allege Retaliation by Diablo Valley College

Two former coaches at Diablo Valley College in California, part of the Contra Costa Community College district, are reportedly suing in federal court to contest their allegation that they were retaliated against for challenging the college's decision to terminate two women's teams last year. As we have earlier reported on this blog, the coaches complained both internally with the district and externally with the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights that the cuts would violate Title IX due to the severe disparity in athletic opportunities for men and women. These complaints resulted in the reinstatement of all of the terminated teams, which include the men's and women's cross country, track, and tennis teams, but the coaches who had raised the Title IX issue were not rehired to their jobs.

As I told the reporter for this story, it is often challenging for retaliation plaintiffs to prove that the reason for the adverse employment consequences (here, not being rehired) was retaliation for complaining about discrimination, rather than for some other neutral purpose such as the financial or budgetary reasons DVC maintains. Therefore, it is significant that the coaches in this case allege that they were directly told by the athletic director that "there would be negative consequences for filing a complaint." If that evidence proves true, these coaches would prevail on what is usually the highest hurdle for plaintiffs in retaliation cases.


(N.B. In case the plaintiffs or their lawyers are reading this, please know that the aforementioned reporter had asked me about general background on the retaliation standard, not about the details of your case, which were not available to me at the time I spoke to him. Therefore, while I did tell him about the aspects of the retaliation doctrine that are generally most difficult to prove, it is entirely inaccurate to suggest, as he does, that I told him I thought you might have a "hard time" winning your case. I hope he honors my request for a correction.)

Bemidji State Cuts Men's Track

A brief note that officials at Bemidji State, a state university in Minnesota that is trying to execute a 10% budget cut institution-wide, announced that it is terminating its indoor and outdoor men's track teams. Officials acknowledged that the university is "well out of alignment, as far as Title IX" -- an explanation for why budget cuts focused on men's sports rather than women's sports or both. Track was also, apparently, expendable from a point of view of maintaining the requirements the Northern Sun Intercollegiate Conference and the NCAA Division II, to which Bemidji State belongs.

In case you're wondering what "well out of alignment" looks like, Bemidji's EADA data reveals 221 opportunities in men's athletics, 129 opportunities in women's, a 63% to 37% split at a school whose student body is 50% male and 50% female. Cutting the men's track teams brings the percentage of opportunities in men's athletics to 54%, which may not be considered close enough for proportionality, especially because it amounts to an absolute disparity of 24 women's opportunities, which is more that the size of many women's teams.

Delaware to drop two sports

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

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

Quinnipiac Volleyball Players Win Title IX Decision

Today Judge Stefan Underhill granted Quinnipiac University volleyball players an injunction that will allow the team to exist through the 2010-11 season. In reaching this decision, the judge determined that Quinnipiac's decision to terminate the volleyball team violated Title IX because it resulted in inequitable number of athletic opportunities for women. Quinnipiac argued in its defense that it satisfied the proportionality test (offering the same percentage of athletic opportunities to women as matches their representation in the student body) even after cutting volleyball, in part because of Quinnipiac's addition of 30 additional athletic opportunities in the sport of competitive cheer, brought the school into proportionality.

But today, Judge Underhill agreed with the plaintiffs that these opportunities should not have been counted, since competitive cheer is sufficiently different from other varsity athletic opportunities at Quinnipiac. The biggest difference is that the competitive cheer team does not have a schedule that "reflects varsity abilities" -- as demonstrated by comparison to other Quinnipiac teams. No other varsity team at Quinnipiac competes predominantly against other school's club teams and non-scholastic teams, as the competitive cheer team does. No other varsity team competed under different sets of rules, depending on the opponent. All other varsity teams had to qualify for a championship via a progressive playoff, while the national championship in which Quinnipiac cheer competed (NCA Nationals) was open to all squads -- including sideline squads whose only competition for the year was Nationals. No other varsity team was evaluated, in part, by a nonathletic factor such as the 45 second "spirit" segment at Nationals, in which teams are judged by crowd reaction and use of props.

The judge's ruling does not foreclose that changes in cheer over time could lead to a different result in the future. However, the court's reasoning does call into question any school that is currently relying on competitive cheer to demonstrate compliance with Title IX. That is, the court's reasoning applies as well to other varsity cheerleading schools (Maryland, Oregon, Baylor, and a couple of others) as it does to Quinnipiac, should those schools' reject a women's club team's petition for varsity status, or, like Quinnipiac, decide to cut a viable women's team.

After adjusting Quinnipiac's proportionality calculation to exclude 30 opportunities in competitive cheer, as well as 11 opportunities in women's track (who the judge said should not have been counted because they were injured, and/or red-shirted), the judge calculated a 3.62 percentage difference between the percentage of athletic opportunities for women (58.25) and the percentage of women in the student body (61.87). The judge then determined that this difference was not "substantial proportionality" necessary for compliance with prong 1. This aspect of the decision is highly significant, as it is, to my knowledge, the lowest percentage that has been deemed outside the realm of substantial proportionality, and it dispels the myth-rumor that anything within 5 percentage points is OK. The judge reasoned that 3.62 percentage points actually amounts to 38 female athletes -- more than the size of any of Quinnipiac's existing women's teams. In that context, 3.62 is not substantial proportionality.

Overall, the 95-page decision was a win for the volleyball team (who gets to play another year) and a win for Title IX, because it protects against the possible manipulation of gender equity statistics by labeling as sport existing women's noncompetitive activities. The judge also expressed skepticism about Quinnipiac's triple counting of women's opportunities in cross country and and indoor and outdoor track, given the track team's status as a "mere adjunct" of cross country (though ultimately found insufficient evidence to discount Quinnipiac's figures any further on these grounds). But this aspect of the decision, like the decision overall, puts schools on notice that athletic opportunities for women must be actual and not illusory.

Diablo Valley College to Reinstate Teams

Diablo Valley College (Pleasant Hill, California) will reinstate the men's and women's cross country, track and tennis teams cut four months ago, in settlement of a threatened investigation and review by the Office of Civil Rights. The two-year college, which has 52% male enrollment that receives s 61% of athletic participation opportunities, cut an equal number of men's and women's teams, in order to "try to remove discussion of gender equality," according to an official of the Conta Costa Community College District, which operates DVC. After the coaches of the terminated teams filed a complaint with OCR, the government announced plans to investigate, which lead to DVC's decision to reinstate the teams.

I am kind of amazed that college administrators assumed that cutting an equal number of men's and women's teams would neutralize any Title IX concerns. They clearly did not look at the law, the regulations, or any court decision in a case involving cuts, or else they would know that is a violation of Title IX to cut a viable team of underrepresented sex. I guess that whole post from the other day about Title IX "illiteracy" applies to administrators as well.

I am also amazed that DVC decided not to rehire the coaches who filed the complaint with OCR to coach their reinstated teams. One told Inside Higher Ed that he thinks this decision is clearly retaliation, and is pursuing remedies through his union. On the surface it sure does look that way. We'll be watching to see if the coaches file suit.

UC Davis announces cuts

As expected, UC Davis will be cutting four sports due to the extreme budget shortfalls being experienced by California schools. Women's rowing, men's wrestling, men's track and field, and men's swimming and diving will not be on the slate of varsity sports next year. As we mentioned previously, Davis fields a much higher than average number of sports than its Big West Conference peers making it a difficult financial juggling act even in good economic times.
The expected savings is $5 million over five years. But the fiscal restructuring plan in the athletic department will eliminate its $1 million+ deficit and make it fiscally solvent in 3-5 years.
Of course Title IX was one factor in deciding which teams to cut. If you read the news that came directly from Davis you will see that the cuts affect 73 female student-athletes and 80 male student-athletes. If you read the news that came from the AP and was re-posted on ESPN, you will read that three men's sports got cut and one women's sport was cut. In other words, it looks like men are bearing the overwhelming brunt of the cuts, which is not the case.
Davis is required, as are all University of California system schools because of a previous Title IX settlement, to maintain proportional opportunities within 5 percentage points. It currently does so and thus cuts would not--and did not as we see--disproportionately one gender.

Point Loma Nazarene University Cuts Four Teams

Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego announced last week that this year would be the last for four of its sports teams: men's golf, men's track, men's cross country, and women's softball. PLNU reportedly explained the cuts as necessary to achieve compliance with Title IX.

This explanation seems to make softball the scapegoat for the cuts. For 29 years, the university had an arrangement with the city to use city land at Sunset Cliffs Natural Park for the team's former softball field. But the city voted in 2005 to return the land to its natural state as part of its master plan, causing the university to put its softball team off campus this year. No men's teams must play off campus, so an anonymous complaint filed with the Office for Civil Rights apparently alleged that this disparity constituted unequal treatment in violation of Title IX.

The complaint is believed to have triggered the university's decision to cut teams, as evidenced by students who believed that the complaint "backfired" on the women's softball team. "We’d rather play in unfair circumstances than have the team completely done away with," said one student quoted in the article linked above.

More likely, however, is that the university's decision was about more than just Title IX compliance questions regarding the softball field. I believe that PLNU could have gotten OCR to resolve the complaint by agreeing to make plans for a permanent softball facility in the future. OCR would have retained jurisdiction and followed up some years down the road to make sure that a facility was coming along. This kind of flexibility is typical of the softball field cases we follow on this blog. Moreover, OCR's public position is that cutting teams is a disfavored solution. I have never seen the agency encourage a university to cut teams as a way to achieve compliance.

Therefore, I don't think that PNLU's decision to cut teams was just about the softball complaint. I think it's more likely that the athletic department had overextended itself financially and needed to pare down athletic offerings to stay within its budget. Because the school's athletic offerings already disproportionately favored men (male students received 50% of the athletic opportunities while constituting 40% of the student body), Title IX necessarily factored into the decision of which teams to cut, as the law says cuts can't fall more heavily on whichever sex has fewer opportunities to start with. But this is not the same thing as saying Title IX caused the cuts in the first place.

We are used to seeing the Title IX blame-game when universities cut teams. But this time it seems particularly egregious as a particular team has become the scapegoat for the demise of four teams including its own. PLNU should take the responsibility for the cuts off of its softball players and offer a real explanation for why can't continue to fund all of its teams in an equitable and adequate manner.

Fresno State Settles With Former Assistant Track Coach

We blogged earlier this year about Ramona Pagel's case against Fresno State, in which she claimed that the athletic department failed to renew her contract and passed her over for promotion to head coach because she advocated for equal treatment for female athletes.

Last week, this litigation reportedly settled for $300,000. Fresno State admits no culpability but stated that it settled to avoid more lengthy and costly litigation. This statement refers, of course, to the five other lawsuits filed by former female coaches and employees of the athletic department, for which Fresno State has had to pay more than $16 million.

Dillard adding sports

Part of the Gulf Coast Athletic Conference, Dillard University in Louisiana is adding three sports in the coming academic year. No word on why, but the athletic director announced earlier this month that softball and men's and women's track and field and cross country will become part of the school's intercollegiate sport offerings. The additions will actually more than double what they have now. The only men's sport is basketball, which the women also play. There is also women's volleyball. Interestingly, the gender breakdown at Dillard is quite skewed toward women. They comprise 70 percent of the undergraduate population and currently receive 55 percent of the athletic opportunities.
The New Orleans university competes against other southern schools including Loyola and Xavier.

Volleyball Reinstated at QU, Men's Track Eliminated

After being temporarily enjoined from cutting the women's volleyball program, Quinnipiac University has decided to permanently reinstate the team. This move will likely result in a settlement of the Title IX lawsuit against the university, according to the volleyball team's lawyers from the ACLU of Connecticut.

However, ACLU is criticizing the decision to simultaneously cut the men's outdoor track team as a "false choice that unnecessarily pits men athletes against women athletes," since they had presented evidence that the athletic department could meet their budget targets without cutting any teams. Indoor track had already been eliminated, at the same time the volleyball cut was announced.

Quinnipiac has also announced plans to review for accuracy the participation figures that the athletic department reports to the Department of Education. This decision responds to the court's finding that some men's teams actually carried more players than were reported, while some women's teams were forced to carry "extra" players without the corresponding support and resources to provide them with genuine opportunities. Quinnipiac wisely chose an official from outside the athletic department (specifically, the VP of Academic Affairs) to lead this review effort.