Not too long ago I wrote about the push to add women's wrestling at a community college in Washington where the men's team was on the chopping block because of skewed proportionality numbers. I suspected that the motives were not exactly pure; that the idea came from a desire to save the men's team and that the benefits to women were secondary, which had the potential to actually hurt the women who got involved.
Well there must be something in the water in Washington. And that water is trickling down over the heads of high school coaches. One coach in the state told the writer of this article that girls were going to save the sport. Not save the sport by keeping it in the (somewhat dim) spotlight because of the decline in male wrestlers, but save the sport by saving men's teams when women's teams are established. Adding women's oportunities takes men's wrestling out of the cutting danger zone, so the theory goes.
Let me just reiterate that I think women's wrestling is a good thing. I hope the sport continues to grow. But I want it to grow for its own sake. It should not be the ugly stepsister of men's wrestling that is tolerated because it serves a purpose that benefits male wrestlers. Perhaps I am being too sensitive. Maybe this is an ends justify the means kind of situation.
But I cannot get over some major worries (some of which I wrote about the other day). But additionally I wonder if this plan that the Washington wrestling community has come up with is really going to work. Women's sports cost money. Women's wrestling costs money. It may help with a school's proportionality score but it may strain an already strapped budget; because who doesn't have budget issues these days? And why women's wrestling? A school could add any women's sport and better its proportionality. Women's tennis? Soccer? How about increasing the number of swimmers on the current women's team?
Again, I am not disparaging women's wrestling. And it's more cost-effective for a school to add a team if the facilities are already in place. But it seems like some of these coaches are thinking about men's and women's wrestling as a package deal. Adding a women's team is not guarantee that the men's team will remain. Budgets get tight and if a viable women's team is already in place and your school is not meeting Title IX's requirement for equitable participation opportunities then men's wrestling could go. There are schools all over the country where there is a women's soccer team but no men's; women's swimming, no men's; women's cross-country, no men's. And I know of at least one college where there's a women's wrestling team but no men's team. Just because there are men's and women's "versions" of the sport does not mean they must both exist at the same institution.
I hope the people in Washington who want to save men's wrestling 1) really have the best interests of women in mind, and 2) have thought through all the potential consequences of this plan.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
End of the Road for Cincinnati Rowing?
It seems that the final shoe has fallen on the University of Cincinnati rowers' efforts to reinstate their team. As readers know, Cincinnati cut the rowing team (and replaced it with lacrosse) in the fall of 2006, coincidentally (or not?) after the rowers filed a complaint against the University for failing to provide adequate equipment and facilities. The rowers then challenged the University's decision to cut rowing, arguing that it was unlawful because the reduction in opportunities for women athletes would bring the University out of compliance with Title IX, and because of the seemingly retaliatory nature of the decision.
In September, the rowers lost their effort to obtain a preliminary injunction against the cut when they failed to convince a judge that they were likely to win on the merits (a necessary showing for an injunction). The rowers attempted to show that the University would be out of compliance with all three prongs, including proportionality, using a proportionality score that was based on the "duplicated" athlete head count (where athletes who participate in more than one team count once). But relying on the unduplicated count (number of actual athletic opportunities), that OCR says is correct, Cincinnati's athletic opportunities are proportional even after cutting rowing. So the judge denied the preliminary injunction, predicting that the rowers would not win on the merits.
This turned out to be the right call. Last week, the court granted the University's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the rowers' claims. The court affirmed that using unduplicated head count, the university complied with prong one and thus could lawfully cut a women's team. And even though the rowers seemed to no longer be pressing their argument that the University cut rowing in retaliation for their efforts to secure better equipment and facilities, the court noted "the absence of any evidence that the University's actions were motivated by exercise of Title IX rights."
I think it's unlikely the rowers would appeal this decision. An appellate court is unlikely to reverse the lower court's decision to follow OCR's instructions on how to measure proportionality. And even if the rowers could convince the district court that the retaliation claim was still active, the judge has sent a pretty clear signal that he doesn't think that argument has merit.
It must be terribly disappointing for these rowers, or any student athlete, to lose their team in the middle of their college career. I hope they are able to stick with the sport as a club or by transferring to other programs. Perhaps Cincinnati, and all universities that cut active sports, could have done a better job at long term planning to avoid the situation of having to downsize. But on the legal question, however, this case reaches the right result. Title IX protects women's sports from cuts when (and only when) women get less than their fair share of athletic opportunities. It does not afford this protection when the university is in compliance. Nor should it -- out of fairness to all teams, and because the autonomy that comes with compliance helps motivate universities to comply.
Decision is: Miller v. University of Cincinnati, 2008 WL 203025 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 22, 2008).
In September, the rowers lost their effort to obtain a preliminary injunction against the cut when they failed to convince a judge that they were likely to win on the merits (a necessary showing for an injunction). The rowers attempted to show that the University would be out of compliance with all three prongs, including proportionality, using a proportionality score that was based on the "duplicated" athlete head count (where athletes who participate in more than one team count once). But relying on the unduplicated count (number of actual athletic opportunities), that OCR says is correct, Cincinnati's athletic opportunities are proportional even after cutting rowing. So the judge denied the preliminary injunction, predicting that the rowers would not win on the merits.
This turned out to be the right call. Last week, the court granted the University's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the rowers' claims. The court affirmed that using unduplicated head count, the university complied with prong one and thus could lawfully cut a women's team. And even though the rowers seemed to no longer be pressing their argument that the University cut rowing in retaliation for their efforts to secure better equipment and facilities, the court noted "the absence of any evidence that the University's actions were motivated by exercise of Title IX rights."
I think it's unlikely the rowers would appeal this decision. An appellate court is unlikely to reverse the lower court's decision to follow OCR's instructions on how to measure proportionality. And even if the rowers could convince the district court that the retaliation claim was still active, the judge has sent a pretty clear signal that he doesn't think that argument has merit.
It must be terribly disappointing for these rowers, or any student athlete, to lose their team in the middle of their college career. I hope they are able to stick with the sport as a club or by transferring to other programs. Perhaps Cincinnati, and all universities that cut active sports, could have done a better job at long term planning to avoid the situation of having to downsize. But on the legal question, however, this case reaches the right result. Title IX protects women's sports from cuts when (and only when) women get less than their fair share of athletic opportunities. It does not afford this protection when the university is in compliance. Nor should it -- out of fairness to all teams, and because the autonomy that comes with compliance helps motivate universities to comply.
Decision is: Miller v. University of Cincinnati, 2008 WL 203025 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 22, 2008).
Monday, January 28, 2008
Football Skews Numbers at Benicia High School
As OCR continues to investigate an anonymous complaint about gender inequities in the athletic offerings at Benicia Unified School District, the school has publically defended its high school athletic programs by relying on the old "football is special" argument. Professor Nancy Hogshead-Makar, interviewed by the local paper, points out that that argument is as old as Title IX and has never been accepted as a justification for programmatic inequalities.
Benicia High School has three football teams providing a total of 150 participation opportunties for boys. This skews the overall athletic participation rate in boys' favor: 390* to girls' 238. Moreover, the girls' figure counts sideline cheerleaders, which are unlikely to satisfy OCR's strict criteria for qualification as a sport, especially because cheerleading is not recognized as a competitive sport by California's interscholastic athletic association.
*This is a correction posted at 6:18 pm. I originally said the ratio was 328 to 238, but those are 06-07 numbers before the addition of the freshman football team created 62 more opportunities for boys. Thanks to the reader who pointed this out.
Benicia High School has three football teams providing a total of 150 participation opportunties for boys. This skews the overall athletic participation rate in boys' favor: 390* to girls' 238. Moreover, the girls' figure counts sideline cheerleaders, which are unlikely to satisfy OCR's strict criteria for qualification as a sport, especially because cheerleading is not recognized as a competitive sport by California's interscholastic athletic association.
*This is a correction posted at 6:18 pm. I originally said the ratio was 328 to 238, but those are 06-07 numbers before the addition of the freshman football team created 62 more opportunities for boys. Thanks to the reader who pointed this out.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Specifics of Adrian College complaint
A couple of weeks ago investigators from OCR showed up at Adrian College to look into the gender equity complaints that have been filed against the college's athletic program.
Since then more details about the complaint's allegations that there has been different treatment of women's and men's coaches, access to facilities and equipment and, in general, greater attention to men's athletics have come out.
But the college's executive vice president* Rick Creehan, who has been the spokesperson on this issue, has said that the complaints have been over exaggerated.
For example, the fact that the new Multisport Performance Stadium does not even have a women's locker room let alone one with lounge furniture and a plasma television as the men's does was simply an "oversight" according to Creehan. They must have just forgotten that women play sports for the entire time the project was being planned and executed. Forgetting to order a chair for the ticket booth is an oversight; forgetting to build a women's locker room is discrimination.
Creehan attempted to diffuse that particular complaint by noting that the Merillat Sport & Fitness Center right next door has a women's locker room. Such a rationale only makes the absence of one in the new building all the more egregious. That a university could build, in the past, a facility that women could use but forgets that women may want--actually are required to have--access to the new facility is not earning points for the administration.
Also at issue are: updates planned to the baseball stadium that are more extensive than those planned for the softball complex; male athletes' greater access to athletic trainers; more publicity for men's sports.
No word on when OCR will issue its report.
* I know the American university is becoming progressively corporatized but an executive VP!?
Friday, January 25, 2008
NCGWE Reports on "Title IX at 35"
The National Coalition for Girls and Women in Education has released a report on the status of gender equity in several aspects of education to which Title IX applies. The report, Title IX at 35: Beyond the Headlines, demonstrates that while progress toward gender equity has been made, many challenges still remain. Among its conclusions:
- Colleges and high schools have significantly increased the number of athletic opportunities offered to women and girls, but female athletes still receive proportionally fewer opportunities, resources, and scholarships than men. Women also are also significantly underrepresented among head coaches and athletic administrators.
- While the number of girls taking high school science and math courses has increased, women are much less likely to earn a bachelor's degree in many technical fields, including math, physics, and computer science, and engineering. The report attributes this trend to stigmas and stereotypes that female students internalize early on, as well as direct discrimination in which schools are complicit.
- Schools are also complicit in gender-stereotyping students in vocational programs, resulting in near absolute sex segregation in programs such as, for example, welding (95% male) and cosmetology (98% female).
- The report made several findings about employment discrimination in education, including the absence of women in positions of leadership (such as principals, only 44% female despite women making up 79% of public school teachers), a greater percentage of women holding part-time/adjunct than full time positions, and persistent wage discrimination against female teachers, instructors, and professors.
- Sexual harassment targets girls and boys, and is prevalent at all levels of education. 62% of female college students and 61% of male college students report having been harassed at their universities. Among K-12 students, 4 out of 5 report they had experienced some type of harassment.
- That public schools are increasingly segregating classrooms (and in some cases, entire schools) on the basis of sex, even though gender is not an accurate or consistent determinant of a student's learning style. Sex-segregation perpetuates the educational stereotypes at the root of many of the educational inequities already described, and its careless implementation could undue many of the progress that has already been made.
Another Retaliation Case of Note
Last September, the federal district court in Montana denied Montana State University's motion for summary judgment on a Title IX retaliation suit filed by former head women's basketball coach, Robin Potera-Haskins. Her case is now heading for trial, but is unscheduled as of now.
Potera-Haskins headed the women's basketball program in Bozeman from 2001 until 2004, when the University president gave her the choice between resignation and termination. In her complaint, Potera-Haskins maintains that she was retaliated against in this manner for complaining about the inequitable conditions for the women's program relative to the men's in areas including coaching salaries and benefits, access to facilities, and the university's efforts to secure corporate sponsors and otherwise promote the team. She also alleges that she was singled out for this treatment because she resisted pressure from Athletic Director Peter Fields to offer a spot on the team to a friend of his who lacked the talent required of Division I program.
Potera-Haskins turned a losing MSU program around, posting three winning seasons and two conference championships during her tenure as head coach. Neverthess, MSU defends Potera-Haskins was terminated because of poor performance as a coach and "mistreatment and abuse suffered by the student athletes under her leadership." However, the judge acknowledged that this is a factual dispute properly decided by a jury rather than on summary judgment.
Though this post is belated (the judge's decision's recent publication in the F. Supp. 2d finally brought it to my attention), I am eager to mention it because it helps illustrate the trend of Title IX retaliation cases we have seen in the wake of Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, the 2005 Supreme Court decision affirming that Title IX also protects coaches (and others) who complain about inequitable treatment of women's sports. Potera-Haskins is another member of the "team" of female coaches and athletic department administrators who have brought retaliation cases against their colleges or universities -- a list that includes Eve Atkinson, Lindy Vivas, Karen Moe Humphreys, Diane Milutinovich, Stacy Johnson-Klein, Laurel Wartluft, Deena Deardurff Schmidt, and Jaye Flood.
Decision is: Potera-Haskins v. Gamble, 519 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (D. Mont. 2007).
Potera-Haskins headed the women's basketball program in Bozeman from 2001 until 2004, when the University president gave her the choice between resignation and termination. In her complaint, Potera-Haskins maintains that she was retaliated against in this manner for complaining about the inequitable conditions for the women's program relative to the men's in areas including coaching salaries and benefits, access to facilities, and the university's efforts to secure corporate sponsors and otherwise promote the team. She also alleges that she was singled out for this treatment because she resisted pressure from Athletic Director Peter Fields to offer a spot on the team to a friend of his who lacked the talent required of Division I program.
Potera-Haskins turned a losing MSU program around, posting three winning seasons and two conference championships during her tenure as head coach. Neverthess, MSU defends Potera-Haskins was terminated because of poor performance as a coach and "mistreatment and abuse suffered by the student athletes under her leadership." However, the judge acknowledged that this is a factual dispute properly decided by a jury rather than on summary judgment.
Though this post is belated (the judge's decision's recent publication in the F. Supp. 2d finally brought it to my attention), I am eager to mention it because it helps illustrate the trend of Title IX retaliation cases we have seen in the wake of Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, the 2005 Supreme Court decision affirming that Title IX also protects coaches (and others) who complain about inequitable treatment of women's sports. Potera-Haskins is another member of the "team" of female coaches and athletic department administrators who have brought retaliation cases against their colleges or universities -- a list that includes Eve Atkinson, Lindy Vivas, Karen Moe Humphreys, Diane Milutinovich, Stacy Johnson-Klein, Laurel Wartluft, Deena Deardurff Schmidt, and Jaye Flood.
Decision is: Potera-Haskins v. Gamble, 519 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (D. Mont. 2007).
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Using women to "save" the men
In Washington state some members of the Yakima Valley Community College athletic department are proposing the addition of women's wrestling--in order to save men's wrestling from being cut. Though this is not how those supporting the proposal would likely phrase it, it seems to me that this is the ultimate purpose behind a potential women's team.
Proportionality is currently a problem at YVCC (64 percent of the student population are women but just 47 percent of the athletic opportunities go to women). Other 2-year institutions in the area have similar problems with providing opportunities according to one school official--a lousy excuse for not being out of compliance if you ask me--but YVCC is under more scrutiny because of a Title IX complaint in 2002 that has yet to be resolved.
There has been some discussion about eliminating men's wrestling after next year's season. Those wishing to save it have suggested that adding a women's team might be a better fix. I am glad women's wrestling is growing and that those supporting the addition have cited such growth and seem to believe that a women's wrestling program would draw some of the many girls now wrestling in high school.
But I am a little worried about the motives. Also, there has been no discussion of finances. Can the school adequately support another team? Or will the women, as the newest addition and one that is seemingly meant to be a stop gap measure of sorts, be short shrifted.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
FGCU Announces Conclusion of External Investigation
Yesterday Florida Gulf Coast University President Wilson Bradshaw announced conclusions from the University's external investigation into charges of sex discrimination within the athletic department. As part of the announcement, Bradshaw said that the one of investigation's findings, that head volleyball coach Jaye Flood, had an inappropriate relationship with a student intern, was resulting in her termination. Flood, who filed a lawsuit against the university last week, issued a statement calling the claim "completely baseless" and further evidence of the university's retaliation against her for advocating gender equity.
The external investigation, conducted by law firm Littler Mendelson, issued its report yesterday on an array matters involving gender equity. Among its conclusions:
The external investigation, conducted by law firm Littler Mendelson, issued its report yesterday on an array matters involving gender equity. Among its conclusions:
- The FGCU athletic department is in compliance with the Title IX regulations. The athletic department satisfies the requirement for equitable participation opportunities under prong two, because it has continued to add women's teams since its inception in 2000. It also complies with the other requirements that mandate equitable treatment of men's and women's programs, including access to facilities, coaching, publicity, etc. The report also concluded that the lack of female head coaches (only 2) was not the result of discrimination by the athletic director, as charged by former interim AD Merrily Dean Baker. However, the report does not address a major theme in Merrily Dean Baker's complaint, which was about the hostile, intimidating atmosphere for female coaches.
- That there is no evidence that volleyball coach Jaye Flood and golf coach Holly Vaughn received a negative performance review in retaliation for their advocacy for gender equity within the department. However, the report also found that there was no evidence support either coach's negative performance review in the first place. The negative reviews will be voided, the athletic director and senior women's administrator who signed them will be reprimanded, and Flood will receive the bonus and retroactive pay increase she would have received had her review been positive.
- There was insufficient evidence to substantiate a complaint of an inappropriate physical altercation between Coach Flood and a student-athlete (the "shirt tugging incident"). There was also insufficient evidence to substantiate allegation of inappropriate sexual contact by Coach Flood and a person not associated with the University while on a volleyball road trip.
- However, as noted above, there was sufficient evidence to support claims that Flood had an "inappropriate relationship" with a student manager of the volleyball team, more specifically, that Flood used her position of the authority over this student to pursue an "amorous" relationship with her, which, as we've also noted, Flood has denied. But I don't think we've read the last word on this issue. Because Flood cooperated with the investigation, she and her lawyers must have known that these allegations were coming. I doubt she would have gone on the offensive and filed a lawsuit against the university if she didn't have a basis for challenging them.
California Judge Holds Christian High School Exempt from State Civil Rights Law
The principal of California Luthern High School did not violate civil rights of two female students when he expelled them on suspicion of their lesbian relationship, said a California judge earlier this week. Specifically, Judge Gloria Trask held that the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which governs private entities who are employers or provide public accommodations, does not cover private, religious schools.
According to this report in the North County Times, Judge Trask reasoned that the First Amendment protects a school's right to educate students on the basis of Christian beliefs and that their freedom of association trumps civil rights law. The paper also reports that the students' lawyer plans to argue on appeal that the Unruh Act applies because the school is in the business of providing education for a fee.
It will be interesting to see what happens to this case on appeal, especially if it the dispute really is about freedom of association. The conflict between a private organization's freedom of association and the public's interest in civil rights is controversial area of law. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Boy Scouts' associational right to promote among its members its beliefs about homosexuality trumps a scoutmaster's right not to be fired on the basis of his sexual orientation. But courts generally approach these conflicts in a very case-specific way, asking how strong is the particular associational interest in question and how intrusive it would be for the association to comply with the antidiscrimination law in question (the Second Circuit's decision in the Chi Iota case is illustrative). A private Christian school can likely make a persuasive case that it has a strong interest in promoting Christian values among its members. But it's not so clear that it is necessary to expel suspected lesbian students -- who, unlike a scoutmaster, are not in a "role model" position -- in order to promote that belief.
According to this report in the North County Times, Judge Trask reasoned that the First Amendment protects a school's right to educate students on the basis of Christian beliefs and that their freedom of association trumps civil rights law. The paper also reports that the students' lawyer plans to argue on appeal that the Unruh Act applies because the school is in the business of providing education for a fee.
It will be interesting to see what happens to this case on appeal, especially if it the dispute really is about freedom of association. The conflict between a private organization's freedom of association and the public's interest in civil rights is controversial area of law. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Boy Scouts' associational right to promote among its members its beliefs about homosexuality trumps a scoutmaster's right not to be fired on the basis of his sexual orientation. But courts generally approach these conflicts in a very case-specific way, asking how strong is the particular associational interest in question and how intrusive it would be for the association to comply with the antidiscrimination law in question (the Second Circuit's decision in the Chi Iota case is illustrative). A private Christian school can likely make a persuasive case that it has a strong interest in promoting Christian values among its members. But it's not so clear that it is necessary to expel suspected lesbian students -- who, unlike a scoutmaster, are not in a "role model" position -- in order to promote that belief.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Going down "Hypothetical Lane"
As a follow-up to yesterday's post about Slippery Rock University I decided to crunch some numbers. SRU's student newspaper is citing Judge Donetta Ambrose's decision not to re-open the case "a clear-cut victory" for the university. Ambrose, earlier this month, said that because SRU remained within 2 percentage points of proportionality--a number agreed upon in the April 2007 settlement with female student-athletes who filed a lawsuit after teams were cut--she could not re-open the case brought by some of these initial plaintiffs who were, apparently, trying to prevent the university from cutting swimming and water polo at the end of this season.
Ambrose said she would not go down "Hypothetical Lane." In other words, she could not re-open the case based on numbers that do not exist right now.
Fair enough, I suppose. But I decided to take my own stroll down Hypothetical Lane using numbers SRU has reported to the Department of Education. We don't know what enrollment numbers for academic year 2008-2009 will be, but I am going off the assumption that SRU is planning on keeping a comparable class size and that the proportion of male/female students won't be drastically different in the incoming class. (This assumption is probably a little more tenuous given that I hear rumblings about schools instituting an informal and somewhat covert form of affirmative action for male applicants in order to not totally skew the proportions. But I have to work with what I have right now).
So there are currently 230 opportunities for female student-athletes. Cutting swimming and water polo drops that number to 196. If no men's teams are cut this means that women will be receiving only 48 percent of the opportunities. And if enrollment numbers remain similar, women will comprise just under 55 percent of the undergraduate student body thus creating nearly a 7 percent difference--not even close to the 2 percent difference mandated by the settlement.
But I suspect that administrators at SRU know this already. I can't imagine they haven't bothered to crunch the numbers. It's obvious there are concerned students who are following their decisions and are ready to jump back into action should the need arise.
Ambrose said she would not go down "Hypothetical Lane." In other words, she could not re-open the case based on numbers that do not exist right now.
Fair enough, I suppose. But I decided to take my own stroll down Hypothetical Lane using numbers SRU has reported to the Department of Education. We don't know what enrollment numbers for academic year 2008-2009 will be, but I am going off the assumption that SRU is planning on keeping a comparable class size and that the proportion of male/female students won't be drastically different in the incoming class. (This assumption is probably a little more tenuous given that I hear rumblings about schools instituting an informal and somewhat covert form of affirmative action for male applicants in order to not totally skew the proportions. But I have to work with what I have right now).
So there are currently 230 opportunities for female student-athletes. Cutting swimming and water polo drops that number to 196. If no men's teams are cut this means that women will be receiving only 48 percent of the opportunities. And if enrollment numbers remain similar, women will comprise just under 55 percent of the undergraduate student body thus creating nearly a 7 percent difference--not even close to the 2 percent difference mandated by the settlement.
But I suspect that administrators at SRU know this already. I can't imagine they haven't bothered to crunch the numbers. It's obvious there are concerned students who are following their decisions and are ready to jump back into action should the need arise.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Case still closed at Slippery Rock
Federal District Court Judge Donetta Ambrose will not re-open the Title IX case against Slippery Rock University even if they do decide, at the end of this season, to cut women's swimming and water polo. The ruling by Ambrose states that because SRU has achieved substantial proportionality it can cut the two women's squads. SRU has not made a final decision about the teams which it attempted to cut several years ago but was forced to reinstate because of the initial lawsuit.
Though SRU is currently in compliance, I would imagine that cutting two women's teams, when your proportionality score is currently just under -2 percent, might throw the numbers a little out of whack. No word in the story about how SRU would remain in compliance should the cuts be enacted.
Though SRU is currently in compliance, I would imagine that cutting two women's teams, when your proportionality score is currently just under -2 percent, might throw the numbers a little out of whack. No word in the story about how SRU would remain in compliance should the cuts be enacted.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Lawsuit filed against FGCU
We knew it was coming; at least we hoped it was coming. Florida Gulf Coast University is being sued for retaliation and gender discrimination. I suspect that more lawsuits will follow but this first one has been filed by volleyball coach Jaye Flood who, and note that we don't even know everything that has been happening behind the scenes,* has experienced a great deal of hostility at FGCU.
Flood is still on administrative leave pending the findings of an investigation--scheduled to be completed next week--into student welfare issues that stem from an alleged shirt-grabbing incident last fall.
The lawsuit follows a complaint Flood filed with FGCU's employment office. Flood is alleging that she has been retaliated against for her participation in the Title IX complaint that the university received and investigated internally last summer. In addition to her suspension she has been told her contract will not be renewed when it expires this summer. This is despite the fact that she is FGCU's winningest coach, that she built the volleyball program from scratch, and that she was named Atlantic Sun coach of the year this past season.
This site contains an audio clip of a statement Flood made to the media.
Stay tuned for more details of the lawsuit and, of course, the investigation findings.
*But we do know a little more because the complaint filed the other day that contains more details can be found here.
Flood is still on administrative leave pending the findings of an investigation--scheduled to be completed next week--into student welfare issues that stem from an alleged shirt-grabbing incident last fall.
The lawsuit follows a complaint Flood filed with FGCU's employment office. Flood is alleging that she has been retaliated against for her participation in the Title IX complaint that the university received and investigated internally last summer. In addition to her suspension she has been told her contract will not be renewed when it expires this summer. This is despite the fact that she is FGCU's winningest coach, that she built the volleyball program from scratch, and that she was named Atlantic Sun coach of the year this past season.
This site contains an audio clip of a statement Flood made to the media.
Stay tuned for more details of the lawsuit and, of course, the investigation findings.
*But we do know a little more because the complaint filed the other day that contains more details can be found here.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Will cutting swimming create compliance problems?
John Brown University in Arkansas has announced that it will cut women's swimming (the university does not field a men's team) at the end of this season. According to the article linked above, the university has been contemplating this move for a while now because of the demise of swimming programs in the NAIA (JBU does not belong to the NCAA) and in the Sooner Athletic Conference (there are no other swim programs in that conference).
This certainly seems to be a reasonable explanation and the university will, of course, honor the scholarships currently provided to the swimmers for the remainder of their time at JBU.
But there has been nary a mention of what the elimination of the team will mean for Title IX compliance. After some number crunching (thanks, EBuz) it means that JBU may--possibly-- have some compliance problems.
The current percentage of female undergrads is 53.4 percent. With swimming intact the percentage of female athletes is 53.3 percent. When swimming is eliminated that percentage drops to 48.9 giving JBU a proportionality score of -4.5 percent. Given that there is no legal precedent for a school being out of compliance when their proportionality score is under 5 percent, the swimmers may not have much ground for a fight to retain their sport. Unless of course the university has been claiming compliance under prong three in which case the university cannot cut a viable women's team unless they all consent to the fact that they really have no interest any longer in being intercollegiate swimmers. But it's hard to believe a university that meets the proportionality standard would be opting for prong three compliance.
This certainly seems to be a reasonable explanation and the university will, of course, honor the scholarships currently provided to the swimmers for the remainder of their time at JBU.
But there has been nary a mention of what the elimination of the team will mean for Title IX compliance. After some number crunching (thanks, EBuz) it means that JBU may--possibly-- have some compliance problems.
The current percentage of female undergrads is 53.4 percent. With swimming intact the percentage of female athletes is 53.3 percent. When swimming is eliminated that percentage drops to 48.9 giving JBU a proportionality score of -4.5 percent. Given that there is no legal precedent for a school being out of compliance when their proportionality score is under 5 percent, the swimmers may not have much ground for a fight to retain their sport. Unless of course the university has been claiming compliance under prong three in which case the university cannot cut a viable women's team unless they all consent to the fact that they really have no interest any longer in being intercollegiate swimmers. But it's hard to believe a university that meets the proportionality standard would be opting for prong three compliance.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
FGCU concluding investigations
It has been a while since we heard anything about the situation(s) down in Florida at FGCU. But according to this article, that may be changing. The three internal investigations are scheduled to conclude next week and the findings must be released to the public immediately thereafter.
Just a reminder: the three investigations center on two complaints by two coaches, former golf coach Holly Vaughn and volleyball coach Jaye Flood that they have been retaliated against (in the form of below average performance evaluations) for complaining about gender discrimination in the athletic department. The third investigation concerns "student welfare issues" and seems, from what we have heard, to stem from an incident during one of Flood's practices where she grabbed a player's shirt. She was suspended for the remainder of the season pending this investigation.
[The article also notes that the complaint issued by former assistant softball coach Gina Ramacci is ongoing but has experienced some delays. Ramacci was let go from her position in the fall after allegations of an inappropriate relationship with one of her student-athletes. The allegations were never proven and Ramacci is alleging discrimination based on her sexual orientation.]
Many eyes are on FGCU--perhaps even more than when they undertook their previous internal investigation into the complaints, culled from female coaches and compiled by former AD Merrily Dean Baker, about gender inequities. Though FGCU is using an outside law firm for the investigations, it remains to be seen just how effective an internal investigation really is when all of the problems come from within.
Just a reminder: the three investigations center on two complaints by two coaches, former golf coach Holly Vaughn and volleyball coach Jaye Flood that they have been retaliated against (in the form of below average performance evaluations) for complaining about gender discrimination in the athletic department. The third investigation concerns "student welfare issues" and seems, from what we have heard, to stem from an incident during one of Flood's practices where she grabbed a player's shirt. She was suspended for the remainder of the season pending this investigation.
[The article also notes that the complaint issued by former assistant softball coach Gina Ramacci is ongoing but has experienced some delays. Ramacci was let go from her position in the fall after allegations of an inappropriate relationship with one of her student-athletes. The allegations were never proven and Ramacci is alleging discrimination based on her sexual orientation.]
Many eyes are on FGCU--perhaps even more than when they undertook their previous internal investigation into the complaints, culled from female coaches and compiled by former AD Merrily Dean Baker, about gender inequities. Though FGCU is using an outside law firm for the investigations, it remains to be seen just how effective an internal investigation really is when all of the problems come from within.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
NCAA Division III Puts Some Limits on Coaches' Use of Male Practice Players
At the NCAA convention in Nashville earlier this week, the NCAA Division III Management Council enacted limits on the use of male practice players in women’s sports. Under the new regulation, Division III coaches are limited during their season to using male practice players at one practice per week and may not use more male practice players than half the number of the sport's starting squad. Male practice players continue to be unregulated in Divisions I and II.
The proposal, which narrowly passed, has been controversial since it was taken up by the NCAA's Committee on Women's Athletics over a year ago. Some argue that male practice players are good for women's sports because playing against men who are bigger, stronger, and faster can help female athletes improve their skills.* But others argue that using male practice players reduces practice time of non-starters, a consequence that is particularly inconsistent with the participatory spirit of Division III. (Initially, the CWA also objected to male practice players for their potential to reinforce generalizations about the inferiority of female athletes. But as the debate progressed, the "quality of athlete experience" seemed to emerge as the preferred argument of those desiring to limit the use of male practice players.)
Notably, the student voice on the Council -- the Student Athlete Advisory Committee -- supported the limits, which I think must have given a lot of credibility to arguments about the effect of male practice players on the student-athlete experience, on which students are the experts. The modest limits that passed seem to me a valid compromise -- on the one hand minimizing the potential reduction in participation of non-starters whose practice time is most likely displaced by the men, while on the other hand providing coaches with some opportunity (once a week in season, and whenever they want out of season) to use the tactic at their discretion. If it's true that, as many supporters of male practice players point out, most coaches use male practice players responsibly, then these limits are not likely to impinge coaches' discretion all that much.
*Another argument against the proposal to limit male practice players, which I heard from a D-III AD I admire, is that overregulation in general is contrary to the spirit of Division III. He thinks that the market provides better enforcement than bureaucracy, at least at schools where athletes pay their own way. Who's going to pay to play for a coach that gives your practice time to male mercenaries? Or, applied to other contexts of NCAA regulation: Who's going to pay tuition to a school with a dismall graduation rate for student athletes?
The proposal, which narrowly passed, has been controversial since it was taken up by the NCAA's Committee on Women's Athletics over a year ago. Some argue that male practice players are good for women's sports because playing against men who are bigger, stronger, and faster can help female athletes improve their skills.* But others argue that using male practice players reduces practice time of non-starters, a consequence that is particularly inconsistent with the participatory spirit of Division III. (Initially, the CWA also objected to male practice players for their potential to reinforce generalizations about the inferiority of female athletes. But as the debate progressed, the "quality of athlete experience" seemed to emerge as the preferred argument of those desiring to limit the use of male practice players.)
Notably, the student voice on the Council -- the Student Athlete Advisory Committee -- supported the limits, which I think must have given a lot of credibility to arguments about the effect of male practice players on the student-athlete experience, on which students are the experts. The modest limits that passed seem to me a valid compromise -- on the one hand minimizing the potential reduction in participation of non-starters whose practice time is most likely displaced by the men, while on the other hand providing coaches with some opportunity (once a week in season, and whenever they want out of season) to use the tactic at their discretion. If it's true that, as many supporters of male practice players point out, most coaches use male practice players responsibly, then these limits are not likely to impinge coaches' discretion all that much.
*Another argument against the proposal to limit male practice players, which I heard from a D-III AD I admire, is that overregulation in general is contrary to the spirit of Division III. He thinks that the market provides better enforcement than bureaucracy, at least at schools where athletes pay their own way. Who's going to pay to play for a coach that gives your practice time to male mercenaries? Or, applied to other contexts of NCAA regulation: Who's going to pay tuition to a school with a dismall graduation rate for student athletes?
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
California Christians' Referendum Effort Falls Short
As we've noted, several conservative Christian organizations are challenging new amendments to California's anti-discrimination law that clarify its coverage of GLBT students. But their efforts to force a referendum vote on the new law recently feel short, as the organization leading these efforts, Save our Children Kids, secured only 350,000 of the 433,000 necessary signatures. However, the group vows to keep trying to force a public voice to repeal the law and its allies continue to seek an injunction against its enforcement.
UNC Settles Sexual Harassment Case Involving Women's Soccer Coach
Melissa Jennings, former UNC soccer player, will receive $385,000 to drop her lawsuit against the university alleging sexual harassment by coach Anson Dorrance. A federal district court had initially dismissed her case saying the sexually-charged atmosphere Dorrance created for his players was not actionable under Title IX. But last year, the 4th Circuit acting en banc reversed the district court decision and reinstated the case, paving the way for trial that was later scheduled for this April. But, as Kris recently predicted, rather than appear in court, the parties agreed to a settlement. Under its terms, Jennings will receive the forementioned $385,000, Dorrance has apologized to Jennings and his former players for his admitted misconduct, and UNC will conduct a comprehensive review of all of its sexual harassment policies.
According to the Charlotte Observer, by settling UNC avoids "a bruising public trial that could have further hurt its reputation" and that "some had predicted... would set important precedents about the relationship between coaches and players." But I think the important precedent-setting work was already accomplished by the 4th Circuit's decision, which confirms that it is illegal under Title IX for universities to ignore sexually hostile environments created by their coaches. I also think that Dorrance's admission that leading his players in group discussions about their sexual activities and relationships with men was "inappropriate and unacceptable" goes a long way to vindicating Jennings's claims. It is unfortunate, however, that a coach can admit such egregious conduct and still get paid to coach college athletes.
According to the Charlotte Observer, by settling UNC avoids "a bruising public trial that could have further hurt its reputation" and that "some had predicted... would set important precedents about the relationship between coaches and players." But I think the important precedent-setting work was already accomplished by the 4th Circuit's decision, which confirms that it is illegal under Title IX for universities to ignore sexually hostile environments created by their coaches. I also think that Dorrance's admission that leading his players in group discussions about their sexual activities and relationships with men was "inappropriate and unacceptable" goes a long way to vindicating Jennings's claims. It is unfortunate, however, that a coach can admit such egregious conduct and still get paid to coach college athletes.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Fresno Bee editorial
Check out this editorial in the Fresno Bee where writer Matt James chastises the university, in the wake of its recent decision to add back women's swimming and diving, for its lack of foresight, economic savvy and inattention to Title IX issues. Going through some of the school's recent history, he points out some of the inconsistencies in their decision-making processes.
Adrian College under investigation
Adrian College in Michigan is under investigation for two separate Title IX violations. Complaints received in May and September are being looked at by OCR and, according to the article, are based on facilities including locker rooms, access to coaching, publicity, support services, recruitment, and equipment and supplies. No word on when the investigation will be complete and no comments from school officials as of yet.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
What about a Rooney Rule for College Coaches?
I was pleased to read that NCAA President Myles Brand used the opportunity of his address to the annual NCAA convention yesterday to call attention to the lack of women and minorities in head coaching and athletic director positions.
This seems like the perfect invitation to (re)visit the issue of extending the idea behind the NFL's Rooney Rule to the NCAA, and to consider expanding its scope to address women as well as racial minorities. Under such a rule, the NCAA would forbid its member institutions from conducting closed, single-candidate searches for head coach and athletic director positions, and it would require them to interview at least one female and at least one minority candidate before filling any such position.
This rule would be subject to some kind of narrow exception for situations where there is genuinely no such applicant or potential applicant to be found, an exception that would probably be most frequently invoked as it applies to female applicants for football head coach positions, since there are not many women among the ranks of former football players, which universities often consider the to be the traditional applicant pool. However, in light of the facts that (1) some women do play football, both in college and in other contexts, and (2) not every head coach is a former player of that sport, this exception would apply only on a case-by-case basis and will require the university to conclusively prove that there's no qualified female applicants in order to avoid the requirement of interviewing one.
After remarking that Title IX and the integration of American universities have each created opportunities in sport for women and people of color, Brand continued:
There remain challenges to the full implementation of Title IX and from attempts to roll it back. African-American student-athletes compete well in college sports, making up 63 percent of the Division I basketball teams and 55 percent of the football teams. But there remain challenges for African-Americans in leadership positions, athletics directorships and head football coaches in particular.He then concluded on this topic by suggesting that "the NCAA national office and the over 1,000 universities it represents, must recognize the[se] challenges and commit ourselves to meet them."
There is work to be done to meet these challenges before we can claim that intercollegiate athletics genuinely demonstrates social justice. Among the challenges on which we must focus is the full implementation of Title IX. Women continue to be under-represented in terms of grants-in-aid for student-athletes, coaching opportunities for women’s sports, and leadership positions in terms of athletics director positions. Athletics scholarships, coaching positions and athletics directorships must, of course, be allocated on the bases of talent and hard work. But it is simply incredulous that the talent pool is so weighted toward men to produce this imbalance. The facts, as well as the history of past lack of female representation, point to a continuing problem of injustice.
This seems like the perfect invitation to (re)visit the issue of extending the idea behind the NFL's Rooney Rule to the NCAA, and to consider expanding its scope to address women as well as racial minorities. Under such a rule, the NCAA would forbid its member institutions from conducting closed, single-candidate searches for head coach and athletic director positions, and it would require them to interview at least one female and at least one minority candidate before filling any such position.
This rule would be subject to some kind of narrow exception for situations where there is genuinely no such applicant or potential applicant to be found, an exception that would probably be most frequently invoked as it applies to female applicants for football head coach positions, since there are not many women among the ranks of former football players, which universities often consider the to be the traditional applicant pool. However, in light of the facts that (1) some women do play football, both in college and in other contexts, and (2) not every head coach is a former player of that sport, this exception would apply only on a case-by-case basis and will require the university to conclusively prove that there's no qualified female applicants in order to avoid the requirement of interviewing one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)