When the Quinnipiac litigation last year exposed certain instances of roster manipulation -- adding male players and cutting female player after the reporting deadline -- I kept hearing people ask "how common is this?" My gut was that Quinnipiac was not the only school to engage in roster shenanigans that make their women's teams appear larger and their men's teams smaller, in efforts to create the illusion of compliance with the proportionality prong of Title IX. But I didn't know which other schools were doing it nor the extent of the problem.
After reading today's groundbreaking story in the New York Times, I now know, cheating is far more prevalent and even more egregious than the Quinnipiac example. The University of South Florida, for example, included many athletes from other sports on its 71-member women's cross-country team roster-- athletes who never competed in meets, practiced, or some case even knew that they were listed as members of the team. Other schools invite walk-on women to "join" the team, but tell them not to bother showing up to games and practices even though they are listed on the roster. Still others -- including the national champions Texas A&M women's basketball team -- count the women's team's male practice players as opportunities in women's sports. All of these examples are meant to create the illusion, on paper, of gender equity.
Title IX requires that universities offer a balance of athletic opportunities that reflects the percentage of men and women in the student body, or alternatively, to at least offer enough athletic opportunities to meet the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex. Title IX will also give credit for trying, as another compliance option is to show continuing progress of expanding opportunities for the underrepresented sex. But rather than putting in the real effort to show continuing progress, or to ensure that there is no unmet interest, universities are manipulating the data to give the appearance of compliance under the first prong. And lest anyone be concerned that these are "innocent" universities "forced" into this situation because they can't afford to add real opportunities for women, let's consider whether this same ostensible financial hardship applies when it comes to adding men's sports. Apparently, it does not. According to the article, South Florida's egregious roster manipulation was a response to its decision in 1997 to add 100 new opportunities for men, in the sport of football. Rather than investing in a leveling-up approach, South Florida took an existing imbalance and made it worse by adding opportunities -- expensive ones -- for the overrepresented sex. So of course there's less money now to add opportunities for women. But that's never a justification cheating, and it rings particular hollow when the university's own decisions to create or exacerbate the disparity is at the root of its compliance problem.
In sum, the NYT is the bearer of bad news when it exposes the extent and scope of universities' false reports of gender equity. I wish that we could believe universities who report gender equity in athletics. But at least the good news is that after this public exposure, investigators, complainants, plaintiffs, bloggers, and other watchdogs are less likely to be duped by false numbers going forward. We'll dig below the surface of universities' reported data and demand stronger evidence in support of universities' claims to gender equity. When they realize that their false numbers will not protect them, maybe they'll start reporting the real ones.
Showing posts with label EADA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EADA. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Sunday, April 25, 2010
NCAA Gender Equity Issues Forum: Part I
Greetings from Oak Brook, Illinois, where the NCAA is holding its annual Gender Equity Issues Forum. Tomorrow, I will co-present with Barbara Osborne of UNC about institutional liability for athlete abuse, sexual and nonsexual. But today I had the pleasure of attending very informative plenary sessions.
One of the topics that has been addressed so far is Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) reporting. Today's presentation highlighted some very important differences between gender equity disclosures that colleges and universities make to the government under the EADA and gender equity disclosures they make to the NCAA. Because EADA data is public (NCAA's is not), I rely on EADA data all the time as the starting point of an analysis of an institution's compliance with Title IX. However, as today's session highlighted, there are many reasons why EADA may not be providing as clear a picture on maters of compliance as we sometimes like to think. Here are some things that I learned today that will cause me to take EADA data with extra grains of salt from now on.
More posts from Oak Brook to follow!
One of the topics that has been addressed so far is Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) reporting. Today's presentation highlighted some very important differences between gender equity disclosures that colleges and universities make to the government under the EADA and gender equity disclosures they make to the NCAA. Because EADA data is public (NCAA's is not), I rely on EADA data all the time as the starting point of an analysis of an institution's compliance with Title IX. However, as today's session highlighted, there are many reasons why EADA may not be providing as clear a picture on maters of compliance as we sometimes like to think. Here are some things that I learned today that will cause me to take EADA data with extra grains of salt from now on.
- Male Practice Players Included in Counts for Women's Teams: EADA instructions on what counts as a participation opportunity encourage institutions to include male practice players in their total count of how many athletes are on a given team. There is the expectation that an institution will explain in the "comments" section of the disclosure form whether and how many athletes that are included in the count are male practice players, but universities don't always (a) include the practice players and (b) address it in the comments. So, we don't always know if the total number of opportunities in women's athletics programs includes some men.
- Competitive Cheer Can Be Counted: OCR has told institutions that competitive cheer can be counted in the total count for women's opportunities, as long as the institution has a letter of approval from OCR. The approval requirement is a good idea -- as long as institutions are complying with it -- because OCR can make sure that institutions aren't trying to count sideline cheer or competitive programs that are not being treated like other athletic teams.
- Allocated and Generated Revenue: Here's one we already knew, but I'm happy to have the opportunity to grouse about it again. OCR lets institutions report allocated revenue, i.e., money received from the institution itself, in addition to revenue generated from gate receipts, camps, and other sources. In fact, OCR requires the reported expenses and revenues to match. This is problematic because it allows institutions to send the misleading impression that athletic departments or certain programs are self-funding. It also normalizes the expectation that they are. In fact, colleges and universities ought to subsidize athletic opportunities, which, after all, are supposed to be educational opportunities. But there ought to be transparency about it.
- Start-up Costs Excluded. OCR does not require institutions to report expenditures made for a given team prior to actually adding the team. This could allow universities to hide or underreport the true cost of a program.
- Harmony with NCAA Reporting. Reporting would likely be more accurate if institutions did not have to prepare one set of numbers for the NCAA and another for the EADA purposes. It would be favorable for OCR to harmonize its requirements with the NCAA's for that reason as well.
More posts from Oak Brook to follow!
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Student Note Criticizes EADA
In 1994, Congress passed the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, which requires colleges and universities subject to Title IX to report information about the number of athletic opportunities it provides to both sexes as well as certain information about athletic department expenditures (and revenues) for men's and women's programs. In a note in the Journal of College and University Law, student Kathryn Keen criticizes the EADA and argues for its repeal.
First, Keen argues that the EADA is failing in its purpose of helping prospective student-athletes decide on a college, since student-athletes are not aware of the information it makes available and don't factor it into their decisionmaking. Personally, I have never heard that helping prospective student-athletes was the purpose of the EADA and the only support for this idea is a buried statement on the Department of Ed's website. The real value of disclosing gender equity data is much broader -- it is to help the public ensure that federal dollars are not funding discrimination. The EADA makes private enforcement of Title IX possible by exposing schools with gender equity problems and by giving individuals with grievances the information they need to decide whether a violation has occurred. When similar reporting requirements don't apply, violations are more easily concealed because compliance information is so difficult to acquire. This is why legislation is pending to expand these reporting requirements to high schools, which are not subject to the EADA.
Keen's more persuasive critique of the EADA is that the data schools submit is inaccurate and/or fails to conform to a uniform standard that allows for meaningful comparison. Because the statute does not require schools to employ standard accounting practices, schools have some flexibility to generate a more favorable fiscal picture. For example, they may distinguish, and thus exclude, capital expenditures, which makes capital-intensive sports (like football) appear more profitable. Even when schools aren't deliberately manipulating financial data, by innocently assigning a particular expenditure to a different budget category than other schools, they make it difficult to make comparisons and spot trends. (Compare, for example, a school that accounts for utilities as a department expense and a school that apportions the bill to its men's and women's athletics programs based on their relative use.) Moreover, there is also no audit process or other mechanism for the Department of Education to catch and correct even obvious, plain errors, such as a $34 million data entry mistake in a report filed by the University of Texas. And, though Keen looked at the reporting of financial information, not the reporting of number athletic opportunities, we've had opportunity to note, there are even reporting discrepancies there as well.
But while I agree with Keen that the EADA is flawed in this regard, I don't agree with her conclusion that the statute should be scrapped. I think that the transparency the statute provides is enormously valuable, not necessarily to prospective students (though this is probably somewhat and increasingly so), but to the public at large. Information is the foundation for private enforcement, which has been demonstrably more effective than agency enforcement at bringing about real improvements in gender equity. To that end, it is crucial for reported data to be accurate and standardized. Rather than calling for its repeal, we could seek to improve the EADA along these lines, by requiring standard accounting practices, imposing an audit system or one of peer review, by clarifying schools' obligations to include and apportion particular expenses. The NCAA, Keen points out, has already implemented a more stringent, meaningful, and accurate reporting obligation for its members (this is not a substitute for the EADA, though, since NCAA does not make its reports public). This could provide a model for the Department of Education to follow -- not to mention a retort to schools who might otherwise object that enhanced reporting requirements increase the the workload of their number-crunchers.
Citation: Kathryn Keen, The Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act: Does it Really Improve the Gender Equity Landscape?, 34 J. of College & Univ. L. 227 (2007).
First, Keen argues that the EADA is failing in its purpose of helping prospective student-athletes decide on a college, since student-athletes are not aware of the information it makes available and don't factor it into their decisionmaking. Personally, I have never heard that helping prospective student-athletes was the purpose of the EADA and the only support for this idea is a buried statement on the Department of Ed's website. The real value of disclosing gender equity data is much broader -- it is to help the public ensure that federal dollars are not funding discrimination. The EADA makes private enforcement of Title IX possible by exposing schools with gender equity problems and by giving individuals with grievances the information they need to decide whether a violation has occurred. When similar reporting requirements don't apply, violations are more easily concealed because compliance information is so difficult to acquire. This is why legislation is pending to expand these reporting requirements to high schools, which are not subject to the EADA.
Keen's more persuasive critique of the EADA is that the data schools submit is inaccurate and/or fails to conform to a uniform standard that allows for meaningful comparison. Because the statute does not require schools to employ standard accounting practices, schools have some flexibility to generate a more favorable fiscal picture. For example, they may distinguish, and thus exclude, capital expenditures, which makes capital-intensive sports (like football) appear more profitable. Even when schools aren't deliberately manipulating financial data, by innocently assigning a particular expenditure to a different budget category than other schools, they make it difficult to make comparisons and spot trends. (Compare, for example, a school that accounts for utilities as a department expense and a school that apportions the bill to its men's and women's athletics programs based on their relative use.) Moreover, there is also no audit process or other mechanism for the Department of Education to catch and correct even obvious, plain errors, such as a $34 million data entry mistake in a report filed by the University of Texas. And, though Keen looked at the reporting of financial information, not the reporting of number athletic opportunities, we've had opportunity to note, there are even reporting discrepancies there as well.
But while I agree with Keen that the EADA is flawed in this regard, I don't agree with her conclusion that the statute should be scrapped. I think that the transparency the statute provides is enormously valuable, not necessarily to prospective students (though this is probably somewhat and increasingly so), but to the public at large. Information is the foundation for private enforcement, which has been demonstrably more effective than agency enforcement at bringing about real improvements in gender equity. To that end, it is crucial for reported data to be accurate and standardized. Rather than calling for its repeal, we could seek to improve the EADA along these lines, by requiring standard accounting practices, imposing an audit system or one of peer review, by clarifying schools' obligations to include and apportion particular expenses. The NCAA, Keen points out, has already implemented a more stringent, meaningful, and accurate reporting obligation for its members (this is not a substitute for the EADA, though, since NCAA does not make its reports public). This could provide a model for the Department of Education to follow -- not to mention a retort to schools who might otherwise object that enhanced reporting requirements increase the the workload of their number-crunchers.
Citation: Kathryn Keen, The Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act: Does it Really Improve the Gender Equity Landscape?, 34 J. of College & Univ. L. 227 (2007).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
