...in Portland, Maine where an investigation by OCR found that girls received fewer opportunities for participation in interscholastic sports than their male peers. The investigation also revealed some disparities in facilities. Under the agreement, the district will add girls' volleyball for the 2014-15 season and ensure equitable locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities. Administrators will also begin a process of assessing whether the district meets either prong one (proportionality) or prong three (interest) in determining the sport opportunities girls in Portland's schools receive.
...in the Union County (South Carolina) School District. Interestingly chairperson of the school board BJ McMorris announced at a meeting last week that OCR found no merit to a complaint filed in December 2012. Curious announcement given that a voluntary resolution agreement would not seem necessary for a complaint with no merit. Sure, some things will be improved, the public was told at last week's meeting, but nothing was ever really wrong was the message (along with a little passing of the buck--see below).
One of the issues with the resolution agreement process is the "no fault" aspect. Whatever semantic dance administrators--at all levels--are doing, an agreement means something was wrong that needs to be fixed.
What happened in South Carolina was that one part of the complaint in which the complainant argued that there were gender-based differences in punishments meted out to student-athletes was found to have no merit. Other aspects of the complaint and the OCR investigation did not, however, find Union County to be in tip-top Title IX shape.
Superintendent Kristi Woodall said she felt bad for the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for the work the district had to do compiling documents and otherwise accomodating OCR during the investigation. It was a throw-OCR-under-the-bus move. There have been plenty of times that OCR does not invesitgate a complaint because it does not seem to have merit.
Woodall is blaming OCR for doing its job and not taking any responsibility for its own non-compliance.
But OCR fired back seemingly immediately after the above-linked article was published in the local newspaper. A letter to the paper (which also bears some responsibility for not questioning a resolution to an proclaimed non-situation) included this statement:
“...OCR’s investigation determined that the district failed to
provide female athletes equal opportunities with respect to: equitable
facilities, including practice and competitive softball fields; strength
training facilities and locker rooms; laundering of uniforms; pregame
meals; scheduling and number of games; and maintenance of uniforms.
On
Sept. 24, 2013, the district signed a Resolution Agreement to address
these Title IX compliance concerns. OCR expects to issue a letter of
findings, with accompanying Resolution Agreement, by the end of this
week.”
...in Gloversville, New York after a January 2011 complaint triggered an OCR investigation. This is another case of spinning the situation with the superintendent of the Gloversville Enlarged School District saying that OCR found nothing wrong but that the district would be making some improvements. A project in which many of the district's fields and facilities were renovated dealt with some of the issues raised in the complaint, but the district will still be required to: schedule some girls' softball games on the lighted fields, fix the drainage on the softball fields, and make sure that a shared field is properly prepared for each respective sport that uses it.
Showing posts with label volleyball. Show all posts
Showing posts with label volleyball. Show all posts
Monday, September 30, 2013
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Quinnipiac settlement approved
Erin wrote in April about the settlement reached in the Quinnipiac class-action lawsuit. As she noted then, the settlement was subject to court approval. That approval came last week. We've already noted some of the terms of the settlement, one of the biggest being the guarantee that the volleyball team would not be cut and that female student-athletes would be receiving more scholarship dollars.
Here is a list (taken from the above link) of some of less discussed but very important settlement terms:
A list like this highlights the importance of equal treatment and what equal treatment looks like. Sometime we think that equal treatment is more ambiguous or abstract than equal opportunities which have three methods for assessment. The QU case provides a good example of how equal treatment--or lack thereof--can be remedied.
Here is a list (taken from the above link) of some of less discussed but very important settlement terms:
- Quinnipiac will treat two more of its women's teams as "sports of emphasis," which will lead to more scholarships, more coaches, and better facilities.
- It will increase its commitment to the new varsity sport of women's rugby by increasing scholarships, raising the level of competition, adding coaches, and substantially improving its field.
- It will increase its commitment to women's track by increasing the number of scholarships, coaches, and competitions, as well as building an indoor track & field facility that meets NCAA competition standards.
- It will authorize the maximum number of competitions for all of its teams.
- It will spend at least $5 million improving the facilities used by women's varsity teams, including locker rooms.
- It will spend about $450,000 annually improving its women's athletics program by, among other things, increasing coaching salaries, hiring more coaches and academic support staff, and providing greater access to athletic training and conditioning services.
- It will allocate up to $175,000 during each of the next 3 years for additional improvements for women's sports.
- It will hire a "Referee," mutually agreed upon by the parties and confirmed by the Court, to monitor its progress.
A list like this highlights the importance of equal treatment and what equal treatment looks like. Sometime we think that equal treatment is more ambiguous or abstract than equal opportunities which have three methods for assessment. The QU case provides a good example of how equal treatment--or lack thereof--can be remedied.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Settlement Ends Ongoing Title IX Litigation Against Quinnipiac
A settlement announced today will, pending court approval, end the litigation against Quinnipiac University that's been ongoing since 2006, when the university announced plans to terminate its women's volleyball team. Under the terms of the settlement, Quinnipiac will not to terminate women's volleyball for the three-year term of the agreement. It further agrees that if it terminates any other women's team during that time, it will replace that team with an NCAA-championship sport. This provision of the agreement reflects the influence of decisions of the federal district court (see here and here) which had refused to count towards Title IX proportionality two sports -- competitive cheer and rugby -- that had not yet attained NCAA championship status. Quinnipiac also agrees that it will not create additional men's teams without also simultaneously adding women's teams while the agreement is in effect.
Additionally, Quinnipiac agreed to numerous provisions to enhance its outdoor track team, ensuring that despite overlapping participation by members of the cross-country team, the sport is truly a separate and distinct sport rather than merely a glorified off-season for distance runners. Quinnipiac will secure access to an off-campus facility for the purpose of training and hosting an outdoor track meet, it will devote scholarship dollars to track athletes who do not specialize in distance, and will seek to expand the number of events in which Quinnipiac track and field athletes compete. Quinnipiac will also add resources to women's rugby by improving their playing facilities, opportunities for NCAA-level competition and increasing scholarship dollars devoted to that sport.
In general, the agreement ensures that Quinnipiac's women's sports teams will award at least 50% of the scholarships authorized by the NCAA, and that some women's teams -- field hockey and one other designated a "tier one" team -- will receive the full number of scholarships authorized by the NCAA. Women's volleyball will receive two additional scholarships over the next two years. And Quinnipiac will devote $5 million to facilities for its women's teams, as well as additional hundreds of thousands of dollars for other upgrades to their uniforms, equipment, supplies, and the compensation of women's coaches.
Earlier today, the Women's Sports Foundation posted a summary of the settlement terms, along with a list of the all of the positive Title IX precedent to emerge from this litigation. Summing it up rather well, the Foundation also expressed gratitude for the volleyball plaintiffs and their coach, lawyers and experts for enduring many years of litigation to eventually "obtain broad relief for all Quinnipiac University athletes" and establishing "a powerful precedent for all future female athletes."
Additionally, Quinnipiac agreed to numerous provisions to enhance its outdoor track team, ensuring that despite overlapping participation by members of the cross-country team, the sport is truly a separate and distinct sport rather than merely a glorified off-season for distance runners. Quinnipiac will secure access to an off-campus facility for the purpose of training and hosting an outdoor track meet, it will devote scholarship dollars to track athletes who do not specialize in distance, and will seek to expand the number of events in which Quinnipiac track and field athletes compete. Quinnipiac will also add resources to women's rugby by improving their playing facilities, opportunities for NCAA-level competition and increasing scholarship dollars devoted to that sport.
In general, the agreement ensures that Quinnipiac's women's sports teams will award at least 50% of the scholarships authorized by the NCAA, and that some women's teams -- field hockey and one other designated a "tier one" team -- will receive the full number of scholarships authorized by the NCAA. Women's volleyball will receive two additional scholarships over the next two years. And Quinnipiac will devote $5 million to facilities for its women's teams, as well as additional hundreds of thousands of dollars for other upgrades to their uniforms, equipment, supplies, and the compensation of women's coaches.
Earlier today, the Women's Sports Foundation posted a summary of the settlement terms, along with a list of the all of the positive Title IX precedent to emerge from this litigation. Summing it up rather well, the Foundation also expressed gratitude for the volleyball plaintiffs and their coach, lawyers and experts for enduring many years of litigation to eventually "obtain broad relief for all Quinnipiac University athletes" and establishing "a powerful precedent for all future female athletes."
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
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:
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."
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."
Wednesday, April 04, 2012
New volleyball coach at Quinnipiac
Apparently hedging some bets about whether the court will lift the injunction against the school cutting women's volleyball, Quinnipiac has hired an interim head coach for the program. As you might recall, coach Robin Lamott Sparks was fired and escorted off campus a couple of months ago for reasons that remain unspoken. Yes, there was the bad record--but bad records don't generally warrant security escorts.
Meanwhile, QU has been trying to cut the team, but has been prevented by an injunction that stemmed from the case that became famous for addressing the "is cheerleading a sport" question. QU has requested the injunction be lifted; that issue will be determined later this spring.
Meanwhile, the university has brought on board Kristopher Czaplinski who had been serving as an assistant coach at Post University. He has also been involved in Junior Olympic program.
Not quite sure how the university convinced him to give up an actual job for one that might be gone by the summer. It's possible he will get a shot even if the injunction is lifted. We shall see...
Meanwhile, QU has been trying to cut the team, but has been prevented by an injunction that stemmed from the case that became famous for addressing the "is cheerleading a sport" question. QU has requested the injunction be lifted; that issue will be determined later this spring.
Meanwhile, the university has brought on board Kristopher Czaplinski who had been serving as an assistant coach at Post University. He has also been involved in Junior Olympic program.
Not quite sure how the university convinced him to give up an actual job for one that might be gone by the summer. It's possible he will get a shot even if the injunction is lifted. We shall see...
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Quinnipiac seeks to lift volleyball injunction
When Quinnipiac University tried to cut its women's volleyball team several years ago, it lead to the now famous and controversial case about cheerleading. (If you're not quite sure how that happened, click on the Quinnipiac tag.)
Early on in those proceedings volleyball asked for and received an injunction which prevented the university from cutting the team. That injunction is still in place while QU gets its proverbial house in order--i.e. they achieve compliance. Believing that are so, the university filed with the court in December of 2011. A hearing is scheduled for June 11.
But those watching QU closely say the university has not changed its ways. Sandra Staub of the Connecticut ACLU does not believe the university has made any "meaningful improvement in the allotment of athletic opportunities for women at Quinnipiac." Additionally, QU is facing more legal proceedings regarding equal treatment. Staub argues that the school has some issues in the areas of facilities and coaching, among other unnamed items.
Clearly the university wants to replace the volleyball team. It has already fired the head coach. But whether they will have to seek out a new head coach remains to be seen.
Early on in those proceedings volleyball asked for and received an injunction which prevented the university from cutting the team. That injunction is still in place while QU gets its proverbial house in order--i.e. they achieve compliance. Believing that are so, the university filed with the court in December of 2011. A hearing is scheduled for June 11.
But those watching QU closely say the university has not changed its ways. Sandra Staub of the Connecticut ACLU does not believe the university has made any "meaningful improvement in the allotment of athletic opportunities for women at Quinnipiac." Additionally, QU is facing more legal proceedings regarding equal treatment. Staub argues that the school has some issues in the areas of facilities and coaching, among other unnamed items.
Clearly the university wants to replace the volleyball team. It has already fired the head coach. But whether they will have to seek out a new head coach remains to be seen.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Qunnipiac Adds Rugby and Golf
The AP is reporting that Quinnipiac University filed its court-mandated Title IX compliance plan in federal court, in which it announced its decision to keep women's volleyball through 2011-12, s well as to add golf and rugby in order to balance women's athletic opportunities with men's. Quinnipiac will also retain its competitive cheer team -- renamed "stunts and tumbling" -- even though these opportunities do not (yet) count towards the university's Title IX compliance under the district court's recent ruling.
Qunnipiac's choice to add rugby is an interesting one. The NCAA designated rugby an "emerging sport" in 2002, as part of its initiative to support colleges' efforts to add athletic opportunities for women. The emerging sport designation means that sport will obtain national championship if 40 schools (across all three divisions) add the sport by 2012. In the meanwhile, opportunities added in that sport count toward NCAA requirements, as well as enjoy the presumption of counting as a varsity opportunity for Title IX purposes. Emerging sport status has successfully launched women's championships in sports like ice hockey and rowing, but rugby may not be following the same path. Though there is a widespread interest in rugby among female students, there is less interest from within the sport, which has a strong tradition of independence, to submit to institutional control. As a result, rugby has made slow progress towards the "4o by 2012" benchmark. By my count, Quinnipiac is only the sixth school overall, and the second in Division I, to add rugby as a varsity sport. If rugby loses its emerging sport status in 2012, Quinnipiac could potentially have two women's teams (stunts & tumbling and rugby) that do not count for Title IX purposes. We can only guess what effect this would have on the university's overall compliance strategy.
Qunnipiac's choice to add rugby is an interesting one. The NCAA designated rugby an "emerging sport" in 2002, as part of its initiative to support colleges' efforts to add athletic opportunities for women. The emerging sport designation means that sport will obtain national championship if 40 schools (across all three divisions) add the sport by 2012. In the meanwhile, opportunities added in that sport count toward NCAA requirements, as well as enjoy the presumption of counting as a varsity opportunity for Title IX purposes. Emerging sport status has successfully launched women's championships in sports like ice hockey and rowing, but rugby may not be following the same path. Though there is a widespread interest in rugby among female students, there is less interest from within the sport, which has a strong tradition of independence, to submit to institutional control. As a result, rugby has made slow progress towards the "4o by 2012" benchmark. By my count, Quinnipiac is only the sixth school overall, and the second in Division I, to add rugby as a varsity sport. If rugby loses its emerging sport status in 2012, Quinnipiac could potentially have two women's teams (stunts & tumbling and rugby) that do not count for Title IX purposes. We can only guess what effect this would have on the university's overall compliance strategy.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Cheerleading on Trial
As Kris mentioned, we were both in the courtroom yesterday for all of Jeff Webb's fascinating testimony about the nature of competitive cheer. Webb is a national expert on college cheerleading, by virtue of his position as CEO of Varsity Brands, which owns and operates all of the major cheer competitions and camps, and his leadership in other governing bodies and associations related to cheerleading. Webb was a witness for the plaintiffs, the members and coach of the Quinnipiac University volleyball team, who are arguing that the university's decision to cut their team violated Title IX because of the resulting imbalance of athletic opportunities. Part of QU's defense is that the newly-added opportunities in competitive cheer help make up for some of that disparity. Which raises the question, is competitive cheer a sport for Title IX purposes?
Webb testified that as it currently exists, cheer is not a sport in the same vein as other, typical college varsity sports. I've heard many times people offer a knee-jerk reaction to competitive cheer by referring to the athleticism apparent in National Cheer Association and Universal Cheer Association competitions, which are often televised on ESPN. But Webb, whose company owns these competitions, pointed out they provide cheer squads one annual opportunity (because you can't enter both) to perform a single, two-minute routine in competition. There are virtually no other competitive venues for competitive cheer. This made me think of the following analogy: imagine that QU formed a volleyball team whose only competition for the entire year was just two minutes long. Should this be considered a sport, comparable to men's hockey, track, and other sports, for purposes of Title IX? I think it would be clear to people that even though the act of playing volleyball in a competitive setting is athletic, to be a "sport" there has to be something more. Specifically, there has to be more of a season.
On this issue, we also heard lots of testimony, some from Webb, and also by the QU Athletic Director Jack McDonald, about the efforts of a handful of colleges and universities to come up with a competitive meet format for cheer, so that squads could compete throughout a season. This testimony largely showed that the sport of competitive cheer, while one of apparent potential, does not currently offer enough competitive opportunities to warrant substituting cheer for volleyball. There are only seven varsity competitive cheer squads in the country. The closest one one geographically to Quinnipiac is at the University of Maryland. This lack of similarly-situated programs makes it difficult to compare competitive cheer to other college sports that have regional conferences and regular competition. Moreover, unlike other sports offered by Quinnipiac, competitive cheer does not have a championship run by the NCAA, nor does competitive cheer bear the NCAA's designation of an official "emerging sport for women" (indicating that schools are adding the sport in sufficient numbers that it will be an NCAA sport after a trial period of several years.) The NCAA has indicated that before it will even consider cheer as an emerging sport, there must be an official determination by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights that the sport would count for Title IX purposes. No such determination has been issued, and from McDonald's testimony it was not even clear on whether one had been requested. (FYI, contrary to the New Haven Register's account, "emerging sport" it is the NCAA's designation, not OCR's.)
Sometimes the testimony got confusing because there are many different types of cheerleading, and the lawyers and witnesses always had to carefully explain what type was being referred to in any given context. Varsity competitive cheer programs are those administered by college athletic departments as a sport like any other. They exist only for the purpose of competition and do not perform on the sidelines of other sports. This what Webb was referring to when he said "they do not cheer and they do not lead." (quoted here.) To avoid confusion, Webb said this would ideally be called by another name, one that doesn't use either word. For example, Oregon calls their varsity competitive cheer program "tumble and stunt" and the college administrators who are working to design a competitive program formed the National Competitive Stunt and Tumble Association (NCSTA) earlier this year. Varsity competitive cheer teams are not the same as college-affiliated competitive cheer clubs, which are more numerous than the 7 varsity programs referenced above. Like club sports teams, which are not run by athletic departments, competitive cheer clubs are not properly compared to varsity athletic opportunities for purposes of determining whether the school is equitably distributing athletic opportunities. It's also important to distinguish competitive cheer from traditional sideline cheerleading, which is not a sport because its primary purpose is entertainment and spirit raising.
In sum, I thought the plaintiffs' counsel and their witness, Webb, presented a compelling case that competitive cheer opportunities as they exist right now are too different both in scale and scope from other sports to warrant a fair comparison between opportunities provided to women in cheer and opportunities provided by Quinnipiac's men's sports. This does not foreclose the possibility that competitive cheer could "emerge" into a bona fide sport. But until that happens, a university' decision to substitute it for an existing sport will raise Title IX concerns.
We will of course follow the rest of the trial as it unfolds (no more field trips to Connecticut, I'm afraid, so we'll be reading about it in the Connecticut press) to see how the defendants address this and other issues raised in the plaintiff's case. The trial is scheduled to conclude tomorrow an the judge's decision on the issue will likely take several months.
Webb testified that as it currently exists, cheer is not a sport in the same vein as other, typical college varsity sports. I've heard many times people offer a knee-jerk reaction to competitive cheer by referring to the athleticism apparent in National Cheer Association and Universal Cheer Association competitions, which are often televised on ESPN. But Webb, whose company owns these competitions, pointed out they provide cheer squads one annual opportunity (because you can't enter both) to perform a single, two-minute routine in competition. There are virtually no other competitive venues for competitive cheer. This made me think of the following analogy: imagine that QU formed a volleyball team whose only competition for the entire year was just two minutes long. Should this be considered a sport, comparable to men's hockey, track, and other sports, for purposes of Title IX? I think it would be clear to people that even though the act of playing volleyball in a competitive setting is athletic, to be a "sport" there has to be something more. Specifically, there has to be more of a season.
On this issue, we also heard lots of testimony, some from Webb, and also by the QU Athletic Director Jack McDonald, about the efforts of a handful of colleges and universities to come up with a competitive meet format for cheer, so that squads could compete throughout a season. This testimony largely showed that the sport of competitive cheer, while one of apparent potential, does not currently offer enough competitive opportunities to warrant substituting cheer for volleyball. There are only seven varsity competitive cheer squads in the country. The closest one one geographically to Quinnipiac is at the University of Maryland. This lack of similarly-situated programs makes it difficult to compare competitive cheer to other college sports that have regional conferences and regular competition. Moreover, unlike other sports offered by Quinnipiac, competitive cheer does not have a championship run by the NCAA, nor does competitive cheer bear the NCAA's designation of an official "emerging sport for women" (indicating that schools are adding the sport in sufficient numbers that it will be an NCAA sport after a trial period of several years.) The NCAA has indicated that before it will even consider cheer as an emerging sport, there must be an official determination by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights that the sport would count for Title IX purposes. No such determination has been issued, and from McDonald's testimony it was not even clear on whether one had been requested. (FYI, contrary to the New Haven Register's account, "emerging sport" it is the NCAA's designation, not OCR's.)
Sometimes the testimony got confusing because there are many different types of cheerleading, and the lawyers and witnesses always had to carefully explain what type was being referred to in any given context. Varsity competitive cheer programs are those administered by college athletic departments as a sport like any other. They exist only for the purpose of competition and do not perform on the sidelines of other sports. This what Webb was referring to when he said "they do not cheer and they do not lead." (quoted here.) To avoid confusion, Webb said this would ideally be called by another name, one that doesn't use either word. For example, Oregon calls their varsity competitive cheer program "tumble and stunt" and the college administrators who are working to design a competitive program formed the National Competitive Stunt and Tumble Association (NCSTA) earlier this year. Varsity competitive cheer teams are not the same as college-affiliated competitive cheer clubs, which are more numerous than the 7 varsity programs referenced above. Like club sports teams, which are not run by athletic departments, competitive cheer clubs are not properly compared to varsity athletic opportunities for purposes of determining whether the school is equitably distributing athletic opportunities. It's also important to distinguish competitive cheer from traditional sideline cheerleading, which is not a sport because its primary purpose is entertainment and spirit raising.
In sum, I thought the plaintiffs' counsel and their witness, Webb, presented a compelling case that competitive cheer opportunities as they exist right now are too different both in scale and scope from other sports to warrant a fair comparison between opportunities provided to women in cheer and opportunities provided by Quinnipiac's men's sports. This does not foreclose the possibility that competitive cheer could "emerge" into a bona fide sport. But until that happens, a university' decision to substitute it for an existing sport will raise Title IX concerns.
We will of course follow the rest of the trial as it unfolds (no more field trips to Connecticut, I'm afraid, so we'll be reading about it in the Connecticut press) to see how the defendants address this and other issues raised in the plaintiff's case. The trial is scheduled to conclude tomorrow an the judge's decision on the issue will likely take several months.
QU trial: Lopiano testifies
So the Title IX Blog did indeed take a field trip to Connecticut yesterday to watch some of the Quinnipiac University trial. Erin will be posting about what we saw (because she took notes and I just sat there amazed at some of the things people say and the amount of paper involved in these things--binders and binders full of emails and letters and other evidence).
And while we enjoyed being there live and listening to the testimony of three different witnesses we were a little disappointed to find out that we had missed Donna Lopiano's testimony--especially when we found out she was on the stand for six hours!
The New Haven Register covered the story (and has actually been the only coverage I have seen of Lopiano's testimony thus far*). Lopiano covered a lot of ground including addressing the suspect roster management that some QU coaches/administrators engaged in as well as one of the most interesting aspects of this case: whether cheerleading is a sport--even when the word "competitive" appears in front of the historically sideline, supporting role activity. Lopiano does not believe that cheerleading, in its current manifestation, is a sport:
"The NCAA does not classify competitive cheerleading as an emerging sport. It’s clear the NCAA does not support it. It doesn’t fulfill the criteria set forth by the Office of Civil Rights. I do not believe any school can count it as a sport. It hasn’t evolved enough. In the future it could, but not as it exists today. It’s not a sport. It’s not even close.”
[Jeff Webb's testimony from yesterday elaborates (a lot!) on this assertion.]
She also testified that QU would have to keep both competitive cheer, which will have a roster of 36 as well as the volleyball team in order to remain compliant with prong one (which is the only option for QU right now).
Lopiano is an assertive woman. I've seen her speak. She has a presence about her. And apparently she didn't mince words (she was testifying for the plaintiffs, by the way) and I guess the defense (and I am not sure which lawyer questioned her though I would be interested to know whether it was the defense team's one male lawyer or one of the women) kind of got into it with Lopiano. So much so that Judge Stephan Underhill had to warn both parties about getting into "one-on-one" arguments.
No video allowed inside the courtroom so it's not as if this one is showing up on You Tube any time soon. But I would be really interested in seeing the transcripts of Lopiano's testimony since I can't get a whole lot more from the limited coverage of it.
* But I have already heard/seen about cheerleading expert Jeff Webb's testimony from three different media outlets all before 8am! Again, Erin will be posting about this aspect of the trial.
And while we enjoyed being there live and listening to the testimony of three different witnesses we were a little disappointed to find out that we had missed Donna Lopiano's testimony--especially when we found out she was on the stand for six hours!
The New Haven Register covered the story (and has actually been the only coverage I have seen of Lopiano's testimony thus far*). Lopiano covered a lot of ground including addressing the suspect roster management that some QU coaches/administrators engaged in as well as one of the most interesting aspects of this case: whether cheerleading is a sport--even when the word "competitive" appears in front of the historically sideline, supporting role activity. Lopiano does not believe that cheerleading, in its current manifestation, is a sport:
"The NCAA does not classify competitive cheerleading as an emerging sport. It’s clear the NCAA does not support it. It doesn’t fulfill the criteria set forth by the Office of Civil Rights. I do not believe any school can count it as a sport. It hasn’t evolved enough. In the future it could, but not as it exists today. It’s not a sport. It’s not even close.”
[Jeff Webb's testimony from yesterday elaborates (a lot!) on this assertion.]
She also testified that QU would have to keep both competitive cheer, which will have a roster of 36 as well as the volleyball team in order to remain compliant with prong one (which is the only option for QU right now).
Lopiano is an assertive woman. I've seen her speak. She has a presence about her. And apparently she didn't mince words (she was testifying for the plaintiffs, by the way) and I guess the defense (and I am not sure which lawyer questioned her though I would be interested to know whether it was the defense team's one male lawyer or one of the women) kind of got into it with Lopiano. So much so that Judge Stephan Underhill had to warn both parties about getting into "one-on-one" arguments.
No video allowed inside the courtroom so it's not as if this one is showing up on You Tube any time soon. But I would be really interested in seeing the transcripts of Lopiano's testimony since I can't get a whole lot more from the limited coverage of it.
* But I have already heard/seen about cheerleading expert Jeff Webb's testimony from three different media outlets all before 8am! Again, Erin will be posting about this aspect of the trial.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Quinnipiac trial begins tomorrow
The trial in the Quinnipiac University volleyball case begins tomorrow in federal court in Connecticut. There is nothing new to report since last month's decision to grant class-action status to the case being brought by five volleyball players.
As a reminder, at issue is Quinnipiac's "roster management" practices which seemed--in the past at least--to under report the number of men playing sports and overinflate the number of women doing so--so much so that some of these squad sizes were not in compliance with NCAA regulations.
Also at issue is the addition of competitive cheer as a varsity sport.
We will be doing our best to keep the details of the trial coming. (There might even be a Title IX Blog field trip to Connecticut!)
As a reminder, at issue is Quinnipiac's "roster management" practices which seemed--in the past at least--to under report the number of men playing sports and overinflate the number of women doing so--so much so that some of these squad sizes were not in compliance with NCAA regulations.
Also at issue is the addition of competitive cheer as a varsity sport.
We will be doing our best to keep the details of the trial coming. (There might even be a Title IX Blog field trip to Connecticut!)
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Quinnipiac Plaintiffs Certified as Class Action
A district court judge in Connecticut ruled last week granted class action status to a lawsuit filed by Quinnipiac volleyball players who are suing for a permanent injunction against Title IX violations that would result from the university's decision to terminate their team. The plaintiffs (the volleyball players) petitioned for a class action certification, which would allow them to represent:
Class actions are fairly common in Title IX cases. Cohen v. Brown was a class action, as was the female wrestlers' case against UC Davis and the female athletes' case against Slippery Rock (to name a couple). Class action posture helps ensure that the plaintiff's claims for prospective relief (such as a permanent injunction like the Quinnipiac players are seeking) doesn't become moot when the named plaintiffs graduate.
Next up in the Quinnipiac litigation is the bench trial, scheduled to begin on June 20.
The judge's order can be found at 2010 WL 2017773 (D. Conn. May 20, 2010)
a class of all present, prospective, and future female students who are harmed by and want to end [Quinnipiac University's] sex discrimination in: (1) the allocation of athletic participation opportunities; (2) the allocation of athletic financial assistance; and (3) the allocation of benefits provided to varsity athletes. They also file this action on behalf of females who are deterred from enrolling at [Quinnipiac] because of the sex discrimination in its athletic program, including its failure to offer the varsity sports in which they want to participate (despite [Quinnipiac's] failure to provide equal athletic participation opportunities to females).To grant the plaintiff's motion to certify a class, the judge had to find that the class members were ascertainable (which is not the same as ascertained), too numerous to file as individual plaintiffs, must be similarly affected by the legal questions raised in the case, and that class members interests will be adequately represented by the named plaintiffs. Not surprisingly, the judge found that the Quinnipiac plaintiffs satisfied this standard.
Class actions are fairly common in Title IX cases. Cohen v. Brown was a class action, as was the female wrestlers' case against UC Davis and the female athletes' case against Slippery Rock (to name a couple). Class action posture helps ensure that the plaintiff's claims for prospective relief (such as a permanent injunction like the Quinnipiac players are seeking) doesn't become moot when the named plaintiffs graduate.
Next up in the Quinnipiac litigation is the bench trial, scheduled to begin on June 20.
The judge's order can be found at 2010 WL 2017773 (D. Conn. May 20, 2010)
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Texas volleyball player's case closed
High school volleyball player Mackenzie McCollum's complaint against her Texas school district has been dismissed. The Office of Civil Rights did not find sufficient evidence to suggest that the Fort Worth school disctrict employees violated Title IX when they limited McCollum's playing time after officials found out she was pregnant.
McCollum actually ended her time at the school in December and was apparently in labor when the news of the OCR investigation was made public.
The National Women's Law Center, which represented McCollum, was disappointed in the finding, believing that the school district did handle the situation poorly. But McCollum's lawyer, Lara Kauffman, was looking to the bright side of things by noting the attention this complaint received. It will make schools more aware of their legal (and ethical, I would add) obligations to pregnant students, she said.
McCollum could appeal OCR's ruling, but there is no indication that she will do so. Also, no lawsuit has been filed in this case.
McCollum actually ended her time at the school in December and was apparently in labor when the news of the OCR investigation was made public.
The National Women's Law Center, which represented McCollum, was disappointed in the finding, believing that the school district did handle the situation poorly. But McCollum's lawyer, Lara Kauffman, was looking to the bright side of things by noting the attention this complaint received. It will make schools more aware of their legal (and ethical, I would add) obligations to pregnant students, she said.
McCollum could appeal OCR's ruling, but there is no indication that she will do so. Also, no lawsuit has been filed in this case.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
ESPN Profiles Case of Pregnancy Discrimination in High School Sports
Via Womenstake (among other blogs) I learned that ESPN recently profiled a case of discrimination against a pregnant high school athlete in an episode of Outside the Lines. Mackenzie McCollum was a star setter on her high school volleyball team in Fort Worth, Texas, until. But when the school officials learned that Mackenzie is pregnant (from the parent of a teammate in whom Mackenzie had confided), they refused to let her play until she secured clearance from a doctor, citing a district policy. Her coach subsequently informed her team that she was pregnant, in violation of student privacy law. After Mackenzie produced a doctor's note clearing her to play, her coach was forced to let her back on the team, but he cut her playing time in half. Mackenzie and her mother believe that the district selectively applied the policy, and that the coach outed her reduced her playing time, in discrimination against her and in attempt to shame her because of her pregnancy.
Mackenzie's mother filed a complaint with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, charging the Fort Worth school district with violating Title IX. An investigation is now underway. Mackenzie is also represented by the National Center for Women's Rights, who via its Womenstake blog add to the story that Mackenzie's missed playing not only caused her emotional anguish, but reduced her opportunity to impress college recruiters and compete for scholarships. NWLC also points out that discrimination against pregnant students (not just athletes) is common, and few people realize that it is prohibited by Title IX. In fact, it seems to me that the only time there is public pressure to comply with this aspect of the law is when ESPN runs an OTL special on it!
Helpfully, the National Women's Law Center has a resource page with guidance for schools and students on how to accommodate, protect, and nurture students who are pregnant or parenting. The NCAA has also addressed the issue of pregnant student-athletes, and produced these additional resources found here.
Mackenzie's mother filed a complaint with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, charging the Fort Worth school district with violating Title IX. An investigation is now underway. Mackenzie is also represented by the National Center for Women's Rights, who via its Womenstake blog add to the story that Mackenzie's missed playing not only caused her emotional anguish, but reduced her opportunity to impress college recruiters and compete for scholarships. NWLC also points out that discrimination against pregnant students (not just athletes) is common, and few people realize that it is prohibited by Title IX. In fact, it seems to me that the only time there is public pressure to comply with this aspect of the law is when ESPN runs an OTL special on it!
Helpfully, the National Women's Law Center has a resource page with guidance for schools and students on how to accommodate, protect, and nurture students who are pregnant or parenting. The NCAA has also addressed the issue of pregnant student-athletes, and produced these additional resources found here.
Friday, October 02, 2009
Quinnipiac v-ball not a sure thing
During the midst of court proceedings last spring, Quinnipiac University in Connecticut reinstated women's volleyball under pressure about their Title IX compliance and some questions about doctored rosters.
But the university went ahead with its original plan of adding competitive cheerleading. And with the high turnout for that "team," the university is claiming they are well in compliance now--overcompliant in fact, says the president. This all means that volleyball is not safe from being re-cut. He is pitting sports against academics saying that the money from cutting teams can be used to find 5 full-time professors. There's nothing that says you cannot prioritize academics. But what happens is that sports get pitted against each other as they started to last spring when some of the arguments we heard in court pitted the cheerleaders against the volleyball players.
And despite the fact that we were happy that volleyball got reinstated (and a little miffed at the way men's sports were dropped in a miscontextualized zero-sum game explanation), we here at the Title IX Blog were eager to see how a court would treat competitive cheer in a Title IX case.
We still may get that opportunity. Litigation is technically still ongoing and if volleyball does get re-dropped, we may see another lawsuit about the validity of counting cheerleading toward Title IX compliance.
But the university went ahead with its original plan of adding competitive cheerleading. And with the high turnout for that "team," the university is claiming they are well in compliance now--overcompliant in fact, says the president. This all means that volleyball is not safe from being re-cut. He is pitting sports against academics saying that the money from cutting teams can be used to find 5 full-time professors. There's nothing that says you cannot prioritize academics. But what happens is that sports get pitted against each other as they started to last spring when some of the arguments we heard in court pitted the cheerleaders against the volleyball players.
And despite the fact that we were happy that volleyball got reinstated (and a little miffed at the way men's sports were dropped in a miscontextualized zero-sum game explanation), we here at the Title IX Blog were eager to see how a court would treat competitive cheer in a Title IX case.
We still may get that opportunity. Litigation is technically still ongoing and if volleyball does get re-dropped, we may see another lawsuit about the validity of counting cheerleading toward Title IX compliance.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Re-shuffling the program in West Virginia
The athletic department at Salem International University in Salem, WV has had some problems with ineligible players and institutional control. So while they are on NCAA and conference probation (including no post-season eligibility), administrators are doing some reorganization. The university, which has stated that is currently in good standing with Title IX, will drop four sports: men's and women's golf, women's volleyball, and men's tennis. The athletic director has said these four squads are mostly made up of athletes from other sports--sports that said athletes consider to be their primary ones. In other words, the dropped sports have had to do some heavy recruiting from within the athletic department and not very successfully. And though winning isn't everything, it does not seem that many of the sports--dropped or saved--have had a lot of success. So the university is also using this time to beef up the program. Forthcoming is a discussion of bringing back football. The SIU considered it in 2003 but decided to focus on restructuring academics, but now it is back on the table with a potential on-campus stadium that would also serve soccer and softball--both of which currently use off-campus facilities. Costs to start up and maintain a football program will be central to discussions as well as how to increase the participation opportunities to female students.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Mediation in QU case
Judge Stefan Underhill, who ordered the injunction on the Quinnipiac Title IX/volleyball case recently, has sent the case to a magistrate judge for mediation talks. No word here on what next week's talks will address, but both sides made the request to the district court. My guess as to likely topics: how QU counts and reports its number of participants; cheerleading as a sport; equitable treatment of the men's and women's program(s).
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Judge Grants Injunction to Save Qunnipiac Volleyball
Quinnipiac University women's volleyball will remain a varsity sport, for another season anyway, after federal district court judge Stephan Underhill granted the preliminary injunction the team was seeking to stave off the university's effort to terminate the sport for budgetary reasons.
The judge determined that the volleyball plaintiffs satisfied their burden of showing a likely success on the merits of their claim that QU cannot cut women's volleyball and still comply with Title IX, which for QU meant demonstrating proportionality in the number of athletic opportunities afforded to women and men. Though the judge was not persuaded by the plaintiffs' challenge to QU's plans to count newly-added competitive cheerleading squad as athletic opportunities (he stated that they "do not appear likely to prevail" in that argument) he did agree that QU likely would not satisfy the proportionality test because of its roster management policy. "The plaintiffs in this case offered credible testimony that the athletic department’s roster management numbers did not accurately reflect the actual number of genuine participation opportunities available to both genders at Quinnipiac," the judge wrote in the ruling. The practice of setting minimum "floors" for women's teams, in particular, did not create "genuine opportunities to participate." In the case of women's softball, for example, those extra players added for proportionality purposes were cut from the team after the first day of the season, when numbers are reported. On the other side, QU instituted caps the size of on some of their men's teams, which also proved meaningless because players were added above the cap after the numbers were reported on the first day of the season. Thus, said, the judge, he had "no confidence" that the numbers QU reported to the Department of Education under the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, which provided the basis for QU's proportionality calculations, were accurate reflection of athletic opportuntities at QU.
Litigation is not over, as the court will now proceed to evaluate the merits of the plaintiffs' case for a permanent injunction. I haven't seen a timetable, but I expect the court will issue one relatively soon.
The judge determined that the volleyball plaintiffs satisfied their burden of showing a likely success on the merits of their claim that QU cannot cut women's volleyball and still comply with Title IX, which for QU meant demonstrating proportionality in the number of athletic opportunities afforded to women and men. Though the judge was not persuaded by the plaintiffs' challenge to QU's plans to count newly-added competitive cheerleading squad as athletic opportunities (he stated that they "do not appear likely to prevail" in that argument) he did agree that QU likely would not satisfy the proportionality test because of its roster management policy. "The plaintiffs in this case offered credible testimony that the athletic department’s roster management numbers did not accurately reflect the actual number of genuine participation opportunities available to both genders at Quinnipiac," the judge wrote in the ruling. The practice of setting minimum "floors" for women's teams, in particular, did not create "genuine opportunities to participate." In the case of women's softball, for example, those extra players added for proportionality purposes were cut from the team after the first day of the season, when numbers are reported. On the other side, QU instituted caps the size of on some of their men's teams, which also proved meaningless because players were added above the cap after the numbers were reported on the first day of the season. Thus, said, the judge, he had "no confidence" that the numbers QU reported to the Department of Education under the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, which provided the basis for QU's proportionality calculations, were accurate reflection of athletic opportuntities at QU.
Litigation is not over, as the court will now proceed to evaluate the merits of the plaintiffs' case for a permanent injunction. I haven't seen a timetable, but I expect the court will issue one relatively soon.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Ruling expected this week
According to this snippet from USA Today, Judge Stefan Underhill will rule some time this week in the Quinnipiac University volleyball case. Underhill will decide whether to grant an injunction that would prevent the school from cutting the team until the Title IX issues have been resolved in court.
Regardless of his decision this week, it appears the team will go forth with its suit against the school.
Regardless of his decision this week, it appears the team will go forth with its suit against the school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)