I recently came across two student-written articles that critically examine Title IX's contact sports exception -- the regulatory provision that requires schools allow cross-over tryouts, (e.g., a girl trying out for a boys' team, when there is no girls' team in that sport) but only when the sport is not a contact sport.
Jessica Constance Caggiano's note in the University of Pittsburgh Law Review criticizes the exception as both the product of a contributor to stereotyped notions about girls' and women's physicality and athleticism. She calls for a policy change that would eliminate this limitation.
Marielle Elisabet Dirkx's comment in the Mississippi Law Journal addresses the unconstitutionality of the contact sports exception in light of courts' decisions that prohibiting cross-over participation violates the Equal Protection Clause when it is based on over-generalization and stereotypes.
These articles are:
Jessica Constance Caggiano, Girls Don't Just Wanna Have Fun: Moving Past Title IX's Contact Sports Exception, 72 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 119 (2010).
Marielle Elisabet Dirkx, Calling an Audible: The Equal Protection Clause, Cross-over Cases, and the Need to Change Title IX Regulations, 80 Miss. L.J. 411 (2010).
Showing posts with label contact sports exception. Show all posts
Showing posts with label contact sports exception. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Default was not "consequence" of Title IX
There were a lot of issues/controversies raised by last week's story about a male high school wrestler who defaulted his match rather than wrestle a girl. Religion, violence, gender roles. Title IX was not one of them. Why? Because of the contact sport exception.
So I was surprised to read a blog post on the Chicago Tribune website Chicago Now entitled "The Unforeseen Consequences of Title IX" by Kirk Mango. Note that the title is pretty ubiquitous. Opponents of Title IX use it all the time to talk about a myriad of issues. But the post colon blog title "Top Iowa High School Wrestler Defaults, Won't Face Girl" was a little surprising. Because, again, Title IX does not require integration of teams when the sport is a contact sport. And as Joel Northrup pointed out when he issued a statement about his default to Cassy Hekelman, wrestling is a contact sport.
Girls have gained access to wrestling either because they have just been allowed to participate or because they have sought legal remediation under either an individual state's equal rights amendment or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
But no one seems to be writing pieces titled The Unforeseen Consequences of Equal Protection.
For more on this I highly recommend Dr. Sarah Fields's book Female Gladiators: Gender, Law, and Contact Sport in America. She specifically addresses the legal and cultural controversies girls' wrestling has engendered.
So I hope Mr. Mango picks up Fields's book. As someone who in involved in promotion of youth sports (he has a website called Becoming a True Champion about empowering individual athletes) he--and all who work in youth through intercollegiate sports--should know what Title IX does and does not do.
2/24 UPDATE: Mr. Mango has changed his post to reflect the fact that Title IX was not a factor in the integration of wrestling. This is the new post.
So I was surprised to read a blog post on the Chicago Tribune website Chicago Now entitled "The Unforeseen Consequences of Title IX" by Kirk Mango. Note that the title is pretty ubiquitous. Opponents of Title IX use it all the time to talk about a myriad of issues. But the post colon blog title "Top Iowa High School Wrestler Defaults, Won't Face Girl" was a little surprising. Because, again, Title IX does not require integration of teams when the sport is a contact sport. And as Joel Northrup pointed out when he issued a statement about his default to Cassy Hekelman, wrestling is a contact sport.
Girls have gained access to wrestling either because they have just been allowed to participate or because they have sought legal remediation under either an individual state's equal rights amendment or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
But no one seems to be writing pieces titled The Unforeseen Consequences of Equal Protection.
For more on this I highly recommend Dr. Sarah Fields's book Female Gladiators: Gender, Law, and Contact Sport in America. She specifically addresses the legal and cultural controversies girls' wrestling has engendered.
So I hope Mr. Mango picks up Fields's book. As someone who in involved in promotion of youth sports (he has a website called Becoming a True Champion about empowering individual athletes) he--and all who work in youth through intercollegiate sports--should know what Title IX does and does not do.
2/24 UPDATE: Mr. Mango has changed his post to reflect the fact that Title IX was not a factor in the integration of wrestling. This is the new post.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Private School League Benches Female Kicker
Via New Moon Girls blog, I found this story from ESPN.com about Kacy Stuart, a female freshman at New Creation Center, a private high school near Atlanta, who was recently dismissed from her position as kicker for the school's football team, after a ruling by the private school conference to which New Creation belongs.
The article points out that Kacy had no trouble playing football when she attended public middle school, but it is wrong (sorry, NMG blog!) to credit Title IX for Kacy's public school football career. Since football is a contact sport, Title IX does not require schools to allow girls to try out. Rather, it is the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause that has in many cases required schools and other public entities to give girls equal access to football and other contact sports. But the trouble for Kacy is that the Equal Protection Clause does not govern private schools, so the Georgia Football League can discriminate all it wants.
This case is a good example of why Title IX's contact sports exemption is harmful and should be repealed. When it comes to private schools -- at least, those private schools that accept federal funds in some form, as many do -- Title IX is the only source of federal law that prohibits discrimination against students on the basis of sex. Thus, the statute should be comprehensive in its coverage of sports, and not exempt football due to some outdated, essentialist idea that it is categorically inappropriate for girls.
The article points out that Kacy had no trouble playing football when she attended public middle school, but it is wrong (sorry, NMG blog!) to credit Title IX for Kacy's public school football career. Since football is a contact sport, Title IX does not require schools to allow girls to try out. Rather, it is the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause that has in many cases required schools and other public entities to give girls equal access to football and other contact sports. But the trouble for Kacy is that the Equal Protection Clause does not govern private schools, so the Georgia Football League can discriminate all it wants.
This case is a good example of why Title IX's contact sports exemption is harmful and should be repealed. When it comes to private schools -- at least, those private schools that accept federal funds in some form, as many do -- Title IX is the only source of federal law that prohibits discrimination against students on the basis of sex. Thus, the statute should be comprehensive in its coverage of sports, and not exempt football due to some outdated, essentialist idea that it is categorically inappropriate for girls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
