Ann Arbor No Longer Plans to Exempt Football from Cuts

This post follows up on a story we blogged about in June, about a budget reduction plan by the Ann Arbor School District to cut all the freshman teams at its three high schools, with the exception of the freshman football teams. As we explained back then, there was in our minds no way a school district could make such a move, especially coupled with some other cuts that affected more girls' teams than boys', and still comply with Title IX.

I recently learned via personal correspondence from someone connected to the matter, that someone filed complaint with OCR to challenge the cuts, and that OCR commenced an investigation. I further learned that the complaint was eventually withdrawn upon assurances from the school district that it would not put that particular reduction plan in place. I don't know what Ann Arbor decided to instead to balance its budget, but hopefully its interaction with OCR resulted in cuts that were equitable between girls and boys.

Delaware athletes filed OCR complaint

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

Is Cal cutting?

Maybe, according to a San Francisco Chronicle article based largely on a report produced by the Chancellor's Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics at Berkeley. Cal athletics has been incurring a $10 million deficit (i.e. they spend $10 million more than they make) and that deficit has been covered by the Chancellor's discretionary fund. But given the dire economic straits the state of California has found itself in, such a deficit just isn't acceptable. One of the suggestions for dealing with it? Cutting 5-7 sports. Cal carries 27 varsity sports (second in the PAC-10, to Stanford; and second in all US public institutions). Still 5-7 sports all at once is fairly shocking. Football, men's and women's basketball, and women's volleyball are all sports required for membership in the Pac-10 so they are safe. According to the report, the decision on which sports will be eliminated is going to be based on both competitive and academic success.
And, of course, Title IX will be considered as well, as the article notes towards the end.
My initial, quick glance at the EADA data told me that Cal does not use proportionality to demonstrate compliance with accommodation of interests and abilities. That I could discern this from such a quick glance is not good. I don't know if Cal is adhering to prong two or three at this point, but when/if they cut sports, proportionality will be their only option.
Here is the way things break down right now (the EADA data is from the 2008-09 academic year): women comprise 53 percent of the undergraduate study body; they receive 385 of the 948 total opportunities in athletics. That is just under 41 percent.
I don't envy Cal administrators the task in front of them.

Sure it'd be nice to keep all the sports...

In a recent hearing in California, a state senator strongly questioned the folks at UC Davis over their recent decision to cut four intercollegiate athletic teams. Senator Dean Florez, who serves on the senate's Select Committee on Gender Discrimination and Title IX Implementation (out of curiously, do other states have such a committee?), feared that the cuts were not bringing Davis any closer to proportionality. Davis, prior to these cuts, faced a lawsuit brought by several female students who played club sports. They argued that Davis was not providing enough opportunities in athletics for female students. The settlement in that case binds Davis to achieving proportionality within +/- 1.5 percentage points within ten years.*
This could be part of Senator's Florez's concern. And I am glad that state legislators are paying attention to achieving equity (though not surprised given how much money Title IX lawsuits have cost the state of California in the past few years). But if I was a state senator in California (and hadn't already resigned in utter frustration), I wouldn't be giving UC Davis a hard time over cuts that they--given the current economic reality--had to make. The athletic department had to cut over $2 million from its budget. You cannot do that by simply reducing athlete per diems or limiting travel budgets.
It's a very...nuanced situation. Because according to the math Erin and I just did based on EADA data, Davis is indeed moving closer to proportionality. Taking into account the opportunities lost from these recent cuts, the percentage of women's opportunities is at 52. The undergraduate population is 56 percent women. The 4 percent difference represents 14 opportunities--if we were shooting for exact proportionality (we didn't calculate the 1.5). This is better than the 22 opportunity disparity that existed prior to the cuts.
But what exactly was Senator Florez getting at? That no cuts should have been made? That seems like an impossible situation at this point. Given that programs, faculty, administrative support at California schools are being and have been cut it would seem kind of...well wrong...to exempt athletics. The Title IX Blog has many friends and colleagues in California who are taking furloughs left and right. And though they are sport-minded people, it's not fair to ask some to sacrifice a lot and exempt others.
So then is Senator Florez saying that Davis should have cut only men's sports? Maybe. It is still possible for the crew team to bring a lawsuit against the school because they have not complied, at this point, with any of the three prongs. Would Davis itself be in a "safe harbor" (a term usually used by anti-IXers to discuss proportionality, in a negative way) because they have ten years to reach 1.5 percent proportionality? I don't know. It would be interesting to see how a court interpreted the previous settlement in light of the current situation. I am skeptical that such a move will occur given that Davis is so close to proportionality even with the cuts--something I assume they carefully calculated themselves--and that they are indeed bound by an existing settlement to make progress. It is unfortunate--as it always is--that "progress" has come in the form of cutting teams.



*Note that I was wrong--yes, I was wrong!--in an earlier post dated April 17 about UC Davis having to maintain 5 percent proportionality as a result of a lawsuit from the 1980s. Only institutions in the California State System (i.e. Cal State Riverside, Cal State Fresno) are bound by that ruling.

Community saves sports at Bakersfield

In February we noted that CSU Bakersfield was, due to budget shortfalls, being forced to cut four sports: golf (MW), tennis (W), and wrestling (M).
But community members and donors have rallied in what appears to be two separate campaigns to raise money to keep the sports going for at least another year, maybe even two. The preexisting Roadrunners' Club has raised $500,000 and a new organization simply called Save the Sports has raised $700,000. The combined total gets the university every close to the $1.4 million that is estimated to be needed to keep all four programs supported for two years. But if fundraising stalls or the numbers change, CSU-B president Horace Mitchell reminds us that the state funding is just not available. These sports must remain self-supporting. At least in the near future. But Mitchell is certainly pleased to keep these four sports for a little while longer.

UC Davis announces cuts

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

Cuts forthcoming at Davis

Due to a major budget shortfall this year, the UC Davis athletic department has been asked to cut $1.79 million from the department budget next year. The school has given the department control over how to cut its budget, but it's a nearly foregone conclusion that some sports will have to be cut. Davis, a DI institution, fields 27 varsity sports right now. While it will be an unfortunate situation for the cut teams and the affected student-athletes, Davis's 27-team department is far larger than its peer institutions in the Big West, which average just over 18 teams. Being forced to pare down athletic offerings because the bad economy, which has hit California schools particularly hard, is never a good situation. But even the athletic director is calling the potential cuts "right-sizing" and not downsizing. Cuts now will hopefully lead to a stronger, more fiscally responsible, department down the road.

Student fees funding athletic departments

A while ago we mentioned that San Diego State University raised its student athletic fee by a fairly large percent in order to, among other things, add two women's sports.
This article notes that the raising of student fees, sometimes with student support, sometimes unilaterally, has become a trend as many college athletic departments struggle to balance their budgets.
It lists the schools that have employed the tactic and touches on the somewhat touchy subject of putting the burden of funding athletics on students.

Cutting track, adding golf at Seton Hall

Seton Hall has decided to cut men's and women's track and field due to budget shortfalls. This academic year will be the last for the teams--four in total because of the indoor and outdoor seasons. When making the announcement last week, the school also announced that it will be adding women's golf. They need to do so in order to maintain the 14-team minimum required of all Division I schools. It was also mentioned that the addition of women's golf will make the school Title IX compliant.

Delaware State sued over equestion cut

As Erin subtly foreshadowed last month in her post about Delaware State cutting men's tennis and women's equestrian because of budget issues, a lawsuit has been filed. It is not by a current member of the equestrian team but by a Canadian who signed a letter of intent to ride for DSU next year. She found out the program had been cut via Facebook. More to follow, I am sure.

Cuts at Duquesne

Duquesne University in Pittsburgh announced the other day that it will cut men's swimming and diving, men's wrestling, men's golf, and baseball. The combined cuts will result in a $1 million savings. One report claims that the athletic director has said this money will be spread out among the 16 remaining sports. Inside Higher Ed writes that the savings are going to "offset previous budget deficiencies." University officials say that the decision was based on finances, facilities, conference affiliations and support, gender equity, potential success, and overall student-athlete experience.
The people at Collegeswimming.com seem a little miffed that although only men's sports were dropped Title IX was not mentioned in an university press release. Well, one, they did mention gender equity. And two, Title IX is not a reason for dropping sports, it is a factor in which sports are eligible to be dropped--legally. And Duquesne is a small DI-AA school with just over 5,000 undergraduates. Women outnumber men and there is a 93-person football roster. These are some of the realities that schools have to consider. For such a small school to carry 20 varsity teams was, as we see, not sustainable in these economic times.
Duquesne also maintains that the decision will strengthen the overall athletics program.

Paying it forward

I am usually pleased to see Title IX activism anywhere, and especially so when the activist(s) who files a complaints or makes known a potentially inequitable situation has no vested interest in the situation (besides a general interest in gender equity which everyone should have a vested interest in). But I was really, really pleased to read that Diane Milutinovich, one of the Fresno State plaintiffs, was getting involved in another gender equity case at another institution. Cuesta College in Can Luis Obispo, California dropped its women's tennis team this past summer (yes, we did miss that news) in an effort to cut costs. We know that California state schools are in tough shape but the rationale, that cutting the 8-member team, affected the least amount of students, is, of course, not quite legal if it turns out that the college is not offering equitable athletic opportunities for female students.
Milutinovich filed a complaint with OCR against the school this past weekend after feeling that she was not being heard by administrators at the school when she volunteered to help address the situation. Administrators are scheduled to address the issue at a February board meeting. But now that an OCR complaint has been filed I imagine any potential remedy (should one be necessary) would have to be negotiated with OCR.
Interestingly, when one visits the Cuesta College homepage there is a Title IX Notice link that is displayed fairly prominently. And it takes you here where you can find out how to reach the Title IX coordinator and that college's adherence federal antidiscrimination laws. Not sure if this is a new link, or a newly placed link, or if it is required of all California state schools given their previous issues with gender equity.

Settlement Ends Title IX Suit Against FHSAA

The controversy in Florida that resulted when the state's athletic association that proposed a cost-saving schedule reduction for every sport except football and cheer was largely resolved over the summer, when the FHSAA rescinded the proposal in response to a lawsuit. Parents had sued the FSHAA arguing that that the proposal violated Title IX because it disproportionately affected girls' athletic opportunities. Exempting cheerleading along with football did not ensure that the cuts would equally affect girls' and boys' athletic opportunities, they argued, because even putting aside the issue of whether cheerleading counts as an athletic opportunity, football offers far more more athletic opportunities to boys than cheerleading does for girls.

After the proposal was rescinded, the parents continued to press the court for an injunction that would prevent FHSAA from making a similar decision again in the future. Yesterday, however, the plaintiffs announced that they would drop that lawsuit as part of a settlement under which FHSAA agreed to give advance notice to the plaintiffs' attorney, Professor Nancy Hogshead-Makar of Florida Coastal School of Law, before attempting to reinstate any of the rescinded the policy. FHSAA also agreed to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys fees and to conduct Title IX training for its members.

Will Maryland be the next to cut sports?

Hopefully not, says athletic director Deborah Yow. But despite early predictions that the recession is over, the University of Maryland is exploring all scenarios that would enable to survive the current economic crisis.
A recent report has outlined possibilities for keeping the department financially stable enough while remaining successful throughout the coming years of potential hardship. The report includes suggestions for increasing revenues--always the first, through arguably most difficult, task. It is also one that includes reducing expenses. A second option is to scale back on select sports. And the final is the elimination of teams.
But with 27 teams--5 more than the ACC average--the "last resort" option is definitely a possibility if options one and two do not produce the intended results.
The report commented on Maryland's commitment to gender equity. No details on how that commitment might manifest in the above options. But we have to remember that, in Title IX circles, the Maryland athletic department is most (in)famous for making competitive cheerleading an intercollegiate sport despite the fact that it is not an NCAA-recognized sport. And despite the fact that there were other viable women's club teams that could have been elevated to varsity status.
We will have to wait to see how Maryland does both in managing its economic woes and meeting gender equity requirements.

Irvine forced to cut sports

The University of California Irvine is looking to cut $1 million from its budget by doing some reshuffling and, unfortunately, by cutting sports. Five programs will be discontinued next year: men's and women's swimming/diving, sailing, and women's and men's rowing. Given the current fiscal crisis in the country in general, but of course in California, the cuts are not surprising and likely not the last we will see out of CA schools.
No word on how this will affect UC Irvine's adherence to California state school's equity requirements.

A FHSAA P.S.

The piece the NYT ran about FHSAA's decision to reverse its earlier inequitable cuts was the most comprehensive one I read. In addition to reporting on the situation in Florida, it notes that other state high school athletics associations have enacted similar budget-saving measures--some equitable, some not so much. In Delaware varsity football was spared from cuts to contests that everyone else will experience in the coming season.
The situation in Florida should put every other high school athletic association on notice. Of course, as we saw in Florida, these associations are not just going to remedy these things of their own volition.
As Roger Dearing, executive director of FHSAA said, "The board was in no way acting in a discriminatory way against girls. We were reacting to a crisis in the state of Florida.”
Except that they were acting in a discriminatory way as they reacted to the economic crisis. How is it not discrimination when you are asking one group of (historically oppressed) people to bear the burden of that crisis?
The problem is that the decision makers have a problem with which they must deal and they the concept of equitable distribution of the pain is not even on their radar screens when they make the tough decisions.
I doubt this will be the last we hear of this kind of situation.

FHSAA takes it back

The cuts to the number of interscholastic competitions, passed by the Florida High School Athletic Association in April, were rescinded yesterday in an emergency meeting, as expected.
There will still be a hearing tomorrow to consider the injunction brought by Florida Parents for Athletic Equity against FHSAA, which would prevent the latter group from going through with the cuts at a later date. FHSAA also has a motion to dismiss FPAE's lawsuit.
Even though FHSAA itself will not be able to govern the schedules, individual schools or districts can, in their own attempt to cut costs, reduce competitive schedules. Of course, anyone who does will also be bound by Title IX regulations, and it's likely that everyone involved in high school athletics in Florida is on alert about the concept of equitable cuts.

Rescinding on the horizon

The Florida High School Athletic Association is meeting (I thought tomorrow but this article implies it is today) and is likely to overturn its own decision to cut varsity sport competitions--except in football and "competitive" cheerleading--by 20 percent.
FHSAA still has pending a motion for dismissal of the lawsuit that Florida Parents for Athletic Equity have filed. But that hearing is not schedule until later this week.
FPAE has said it will continue in its pursuit of an injunction against FHSAA whatever comes from this emergency meeting. Nancy Hogshead-Makar has said the injunction will prevent FHSAA from enacting the cuts in the future, a move she finds plausible given that FHSAA seemed to be motivated toward change only by the threat of litigation.
No word on the emergency meeting on FPAE's Facebook page. The latest update commented on FHSAA's attempt at deeming football and co-ed sport.

Under pressure, FHSAA calls emergency meeting

Realizing what many before them have not, the Florida High School Athletic Association has decided that doling out legal fees might run counter to efforts to save money--exactly what their plan to reduce the number of athletic contests was supposed to do. After failed talks between FHSAA and the Florida Parents for Athletic Equity and the latter's subsequent filing of a lawsuit and injunction to prevent the inequitable cutting of contests, FHSAA has decided to try to deal with the matter. The board will meet July 15 to discuss the situation. They should be hoping the judge grants the injunction that would prevent the cuts from being enacted this fall. That would at least buy them some time to come up with an equitable solution and work with FPAE--for real this time.

More coverage of Florida case

This site has an interview with Nancy Hogshead-Makar, several student-athletes, and a parent about the lawsuit and injunction Florida Parents for Athletic Equity have filed against the Florida High School Athletic Association which has a policy that will cut athletic contests for all students athletes except football players and cheerleaders. It also mentions the group's Facebook presence which seems to be growing every day.
Then there is this editorial in which the writer sees FHSAA caving. I happen to concur. I don't think it's much of a limb-climbing gesture to say that the chances of this case seeing a courtroom--past preliminary hearings--are pretty small. Unfortunately he calls Hogshead-Makar a pit bull lawyer being followed by pit bull parents carrying the Title IX banner. Not sure how I feel about this. Haven't we heard this pit bull rhetoric recently???
But is also provides some of the economic realities of the situation; as in how much money comes in during football games. Unfortunately FHSAA never really calculated how much the cuts to every other sport would save.