Settlement Ends Harassment Investigation Against Minnesota School District

This week, the Departments of Education and Justice announced that the Anoka-Hennepin school district in Minnesota will agree to a settlement resolving the Departments' joint investigation of claims that the district's failure to investigate claims of gender-based harassment violates Title IX. The settlement also terminates litigation entered into on behalf of six student plaintiffs who have suffered harassment at the hands of their peers because they were gay, perceived gay, or have gay parents. In recent years, four students at Anoka-Hennepin have committed suicide in response to bullying.

Justice officials are calling the settlement "the most comprehensive and detailed school harassment agreement in the history of the Department of Justice." It requires the school district to identify and quickly address "hot spots" from which multiple complaints of harassment originate. Other provisions of the agreement require the school district to:

• Retain an expert consultant in the area of sex-based harassment to review the district’s policies and procedures concerning harassment;
• Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for preventing and addressing student-on-student sex-based harassment at the middle and high schools;
• Enhance and improve its training of faculty, staff and students on sex-based harassment;
• Hire or appoint a Title IX coordinator to ensure proper implementation of the district’s sex-based harassment policies and procedures and district compliance with Title IX;
• Retain an expert consultant in the area of mental health to address the needs of students who are victims of harassment;
• Provide other opportunities for student involvement and input into the district’s ongoing anti-harassment efforts;
• Improve its system for maintaining records of investigations and responding to allegations of harassment;
• Conduct ongoing monitoring and evaluations of its anti-harassment efforts; and
• Submit annual compliance reports to the departments.

The consent decree will remain in place for five years.

Court Dismisses Claims in Bully-Suicide Case

Last week, a federal court dismissed claims filed by the estate of Jon Carmichael, a thirteen-year-old from Texas who committed suicide in March of 2010, after enduring years of bullying by his peers. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's complaint contained insufficient allegations that the bullying targeted Carmichael "because of sex," as required to sustain a Title IX claim. The complaint did allege that bullies had called Carmichael "fag, queer, homo and douche," which the plaintiffs argued suggested that he was bullied because he did not conform to gender stereotypes, and thus "because of sex." But the court dismissed that allegation of significant of a sexual or gender-based motive, pointing out that the statements accompanied a particular act of bullying in which Carmichael had been stripped nude, tied up, and put in in a trash can. According to the court,

Experience and common sense teach that bullies and harassers of this age are not particular about what they say when bullying and harassing their victims. While their words might reveal an animus based on the victim's male gender, they may also simply represent more generally a characteristic of the perpetrator's sociopathic behavior, regardless of the victim's gender.

In a way, the judge is right that what the bullies are saying as bully is not particularly meaningful or probative of motivation or intent. But the social context of male-on-male bullying makes clear that it's entirely about sex and gender. Whether its because the victim is short, not good at sports, or perceived to be gay, the point of bullying is to sustain a power imbalance between men and women by ascribing power to those who are most traditionally masculine (big, strong, straight, good at sports) and devaluing those who do not conform to that stereotype. Relatedly, many bullies bully in order to prevent themselves from being at the bottom of the pecking order within male groups and thus closer to the group (girls) constructed as inferior. While the court might rightly distinguish this motive from picking on the victim because of his perceived gender nonconformity, it is still bullying that is, at its core, about sex, because it is about the imbalance of power between (and thus, within) the sexes.

Decision is: Estate of Carmichael v. Galbraith, 2012 WL 13568 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2012).

School District with Sexual Orientation "Neutrality" Policy Targeted by Lawsuit and Investigation

The Anoka-Hennepin School District is the only district in Minnesota with a curriculum policy that requires teachers and staff to remain "neutral" on sexual orientation issues, deferring instead to students' "family homes, churches, and community organizations" to disseminate attitudes and information about homosexuality.

Two major civil rights organization, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Southern Poverty Law Center, have sued the district on behalf of LGBT student plaintiffs who experienced harassment and discrimination at Anoka-Hennepin schools. They argue that the neutrality policy amounts to gag-order that contributes to a hostile environment for LGBT students by rendering teachers ineffective at dealing with LGBT harassment when it occurs and at laying a foundation of inclusion and appreciation for diverse sexual orientations that could prevent harassment of LGBT students in the first place. They argue that the policy singles out LGBT students for exclusion in violation of the federal Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, Title IX, and the Minnesota Human Rights Statute.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department and the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights are investigating allegations that Anoka-Hennepin School District is responsible for bullying and harassment motivated by students' failure to conform to gender stereotypes in violation of Title IX. Four students have committed suicide in recent years in apparent reaction to such harassment, though reports suggest it is not clear whether suicides or the district's sexual orientation "neutrality" policy are part of the investigation.

How Anoka-Hennpin's policy fares in court and in this government investigation could affect other states with restrictions on teaching about homosexuality. Reportedly, these states include Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah, while Tennessee considered such legislation earlier this year.

First transgender prom queen

This is not directly a Title IX issue, but it's good news during prom season when we seem to only hear stories about how students who are gender non-conforming have their proms marred by administrators, parents, and other students who are apparently very concerned with who gets to wear tuxes and who gets to wear dresses.
This week the first transgender student (MTF) in an American public school was crowned Prom Queen. Andii Viveros was voted Prom Queen at McFatter High School in Florida after beating out 14 other young women for the title. There was a movement to remove Viveros from the ballot, but Viveros, president of the school's GSA, wrote a speech to explain her* position.



* The article refers to Viveros with male pronouns, I chose to use female pronouns because the article mentioned that Viveros has been living as a woman for two years.

It's prom season! Bring on the gender conformity

Prom season causes a certain amount of consternation for administrators worried about, largely, the alcohol consumption and sexual behaviors of prom goers. In recent years we have seen some school officials, though, battle another alleged social ill: girls who want to wear tuxes (and some boys who want to wear gowns). A little over a year ago Erin wrote a post with a very similar title as my own here. And this year is no exception. In Houma, Louisiana senior Monique Verdin is planning on wearing a tux to her prom. Last year she wore a men's suit to a dance--without incident. But school officials have caught wind of her plan--which isn't really a plan; she just wants to wear what she's comfortable in--and said she will not be allowed in if she wears a tuxedo. According to school policy, prom attire must be formal wear which specifically notes gowns for girls and tuxedos for boys (we should also note how this policy is not just gendered but has class implications as well). But other similar cases (and note Verdin has not filed a lawsuit; she seems to be just hoping for the best) have privileged legally protected civil rights over "tradition" (the response from a parish official). The prom is this weekend. And right now it seems school officials are adamant.* In good news, Verdin's family and friends are sticking by her. Her father has contacted a lawyer. And her friends have said they will not go into the prom until they are assured that Verdin can get in too. * Interestingly this story was published this morning and despite my repeated refreshings it seems not to have been updated. But the title of the story that appears on my internet banner in is conflict with the article title and reads: High school relents on prom tux for girl. Not sure if this is wishful thinking or if there is some internet glitch. I certainly hope it's true and that the school does not have something sneaky planned like an alternate prom.

More Title IX Scholarship

Here is a roundup of articles and chapters about Title IX that have been published recently:

Attorney Kristen Galles -- known for her victories against Quinnipiac and the Michigan HS Athletic Association-- published Title IX and the Importance of Reinvigorated OCR in the journal Human Rights. In this brief essay, she explains the role that OCR plays not only in enforcement, but in educating schools and universities about their obligations under Title IX. She argues that OCR has the potential make an even greater difference combating sex discrimination in school, and is hopefully optimistic that the newly-recommitted agency can one day work her, a Title IX litigator, out of a job. Citation: Kristen Galles, Title IX and the Importance of Reinvigorated OCR, Human Rights, at 37 (Summer 2010).

Michelle Gaugh published an article about Title IX's application to discrimination against parenting and pregnant students in the Michigan Journal of Gender and Law. In it, she points out that such discrimination persists despite a clear regulatory prohibition against treating pregnant students any differently from others who may have a temporary medical condition that requires accommodation. She also explains that there have been relatively few efforts to address this discrimination in court, primarily because victims lack awareness of their rights and socially and legally marginalized. She argues that increasing awareness about Title IX's application to pregnant and parenting students, including educating teachers and other advocates, as well as increased enforcement and oversight from OCR, can help curb this variety of sex discrimination. Citation: Michelle Gaugh, Parenting and Pregnant Students: An Evaluation of the Implementation of the "Other" Title IX, 17 Michigan J. Gender L. 211 (2010).

Professor Deborah Brake has posted to SSRN a chapter called Sport and Masculinity: The Promise and Limits of Title IX, which will appear in the book Masculinities and Law: A Multidimensional Approach (Frank Rudy Cooper and Ann C. McGinley eds. 2011). Brake points out that, "[w]hile Title IX has greatly expanded the range of culturally valued femininities for women, and broadened the social category of "woman" in the process, it has not broadened the masculinities that sport constructs for male athletes, nor has it made significant inroads into the hyper-masculine ethos that pervades the most-valued men’s sports." Title IX reinforces the hegemonic masculinity replicated through in several ways, "including Title IX’s default rules approving of sex-segregated teams and its limited integration rights, and an equal treatment standard that accepts as a baseline the hierarchies within men’s sports that privilege the most masculine sports, football and basketball." Then she addresses how Title IX might nevertheless be used to "intervene in the production of masculinity," in light of a trend of "recent cases in which Title IX has held educational institutions accountable for the harms caused by extreme performances of hyper-masculinity, including sexual assaults by male athletes of women and of other male athletes."

Sexual Harassment Roundup

A number of judicial decisions involving Title IX's application to sexual harassment have been issued in the last several weeks.

• The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing a lower district court, held that a plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment, and could pursue her claim that a municipal police academy is liable for the hostile environment she experienced as a cadet. This record included numerous instances of ostracism by her fellow cadets, sexualizing comments about women generally, and criticism and humiliation that negatively affected her education and performance on a handgun proficiency test, for which she was ultimately expelled. The record also contained references to numerous complaints that the plaintiffs and other academy instructors to the academy supervisor, which never resulted in any effort to protect the plaintiff or correct the offending cadets. This was actually a Title VII case, but is likely to be cited by Title IX plaintiffs as well, especially for the point that academic failures cannot be the basis for taking adverse action against a student when those failures were influenced by a hostile classroom environment. Mosby-Grant v. City of Hagerstown, 2010 WL 5151617 (4th Cir. Dec. 20, 2010).
  

• A federal district court in California granted the University of the Pacific's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed a student-athlete's claim that the university was liable under Title IX for an assault against her by three members of the men's basketball team. According to the court, the plaintiff did not present evidence that university officials had notice that the male athletes posted a threat to the plaintiff, as none knew that one of the assailants had been involved in a prior incident of assault, and another assailant's reputation as a "womanizer" was not enough to link him to prior incidents of assault. Nor did the University respond with deliberate indifference. Officials contacted the police immediately after the plaintiff's assault, conducted an investigation and convened judicial proceedings that expelled one of the students and suspended the other two. Doe v. University of the Pacific, 2010 WL 5135360 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2010).
  

• A school district in Washington is not liable for a female students' sexual abuse and harassment of her male peer, a fellow 10th grader who suffers from autism. The federal court dismissed the plaintiff's Title IX case after determining there was no evidence that school officials knew he was being abused. Even though one teacher apparently encountered the two students in a sexually suggestive position -- the female student sitting on top of the male student victim, "pretending to rape him" through their clothes -- the court determined that this could have appeared to the teacher as behavior that, while inappropriate for school grounds, was consensual rather than harassment or abuse. Though the court was careful to avoid gender stereotypes about boys' invulnerability to sexual abuse by girls, it did point out that because of the girl's small size made it more reasonable for the teacher to interpret what he saw as consensual. J.B. ex rel. Bell v. Mead School District No. 354, 2010 WL 5173164 (E.D. Wash., Dec. 10, 2010).

• A plaintiff's Title IX claim against a Pennsylvania school district survived a motion to dismiss; the court recognized that the plaintiffs' complaint sufficiently alleged that school officials had notice that a teacher and coach was sexually abusing or harassing their daughter, a student, yet took no steps to preclude Hetrick from having further contact with K.E., nor did it notify either the police or the plaintiffs about the allegations. Having survived the motion to dismiss, the case can now proceed to discovery, where the plaintiffs can gather evidence to prove their allegations. Douglass v. Brookville Area Sch. Dist., 2010 WL 5313448 (W.D. Pa., Dec. 20, 2010).

• A graduate student in social work sued both her university as well as her internship site, a municipal senior center, for sexual harassment by one of the center's clients. When the plaintiff informed the supervisor, she was advised to treat the client's behavior, which included physically, hugging her, touching her breasts and rear end, as a learning experience and an opportunity to demonstrate her commitment to social work. The federal court in Massachusetts sustained the plaintiff's constitutional claims against her on-site supervisor, as well as the Title IX claims against Boston University. The judge sustained the plaintiff's Title IX claim because she alleged that her faculty supervisors knew she was being harassed at her placement and failed to address it with the on-site supervisor or move her to a different internship site. Rinsky v. Boston Univ., 2010 WL 5437289 (D. Mass. Dec. 23, 2010).
  

• A "prank" in which a teacher and an aide pretended to cut a sixth-grade boy's long hair, and then teased the student by calling him a female name in front of both sixth grade classes, could result in the school district's liability under Title IX. A federal court in Ohio rejected the district's motion to dismiss because the plaintiff, the student's mother, alleged that her son reported the incident to school officials, who took no corrective action and forced him to return to the offending teachers' class. Anoai v. Mildford Exempted School District, 2011 WL 53164 (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 6, 2011).
  

Advice Column Takes on Title IX and Gender Stereotypes

Part of the "Ask Amy" column in today's Washington Post addressed the Title IX implications of a coach requiring a player to conform to gender stereotypes with respect to appearance:

DEAR AMY: I am a girl in my junior year of high school, and the volleyball coach won't let me compete until I shave my underarms and legs (our uniforms are sleeveless tops and shorts).

I don't want to be forced into something that I feel is completely unnecessary. Leg and underarm hair is a completely natural part of becoming a woman.

Is this discrimination? Is there anything I can do (besides shave)?

I really want to play volleyball! -- Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow

DEAR GONE: If your coach also insisted that the male volleyball or basketball players must shave their underarms and legs, then perhaps this wouldn't qualify as discrimination.

I'm going to assume that your coach does not make the male players at your school adhere to the same shaving practices.

I shared your letter with Lenore Lapidus, director of the Women's Rights Project for the American Civil Liberties Union, who responded, "This is clearly gender discrimination, based on stereotypes of how girls and women should look." Lapidus would like to remind your coach that Title IX prohibits discrimination in any institution receiving federal funds.

Title IX is the federal statute that pushed open the door for girls to compete in sports on an equal footing with boys.

Lapidus suggests that you start by talking to the coach. "Try to work it out at school. It seems like something they should come around about because this is fairly clear-cut." If your coach continues to insist on this shaving rule, take your concern to the principal. I hope you will stand up for your right not to be forced to shave any part of your body that you don't wish to shave.

Good advice, Amy!

Can Colleges Improve Gender Balance in Engineering?

I work at a college where male undergraduates are in the majority because they are in the majority of one of the college's biggest majors, engineering. I have participated in discussions about how to improve the gender balance, and it bothers me that the best suggestion is to add more female-dominated majors, like education and allied health. In my mind, this "solution" just buries an important social problem for the sake of improving a college-wide statistic. As I recently blogged, systemic biases, stereotypes, entrenched cultural expectations, as well as outright discrimination in such matters as compensation and the structuring of job requirements operate to segregate men and women into highly polarized fields of study. Though colleges are not necessarily to blame for these forces, it is wrong, I think, to affirm that polarity by inviting it as a solution to the problem of overall gender imbalance. But at the same time, I recognize that it is difficult for colleges to address the problem of gender disparities within majors. By the time students reach college, many already have some sense of what they want to study, and if they're not already interested in STEM subjects, college is not usually the place where that happens.

So I read with interest this article about efforts Notre Dame is making to improve the gender balance among its engineering undergraduates. Specifically, it has implemented a dual-degree program with a nearby St. Mary's, a private women's college. St. Mary's students majoring in math or science may also take pre-engineering classes at Notre Dame. After graduating from St. Mary's in whatever they majored at there, they may enroll at Notre Dame for a fifth year, and complete a second degree in engineering in that time. Seven students have made that choice. These women improved the gender balance in Notre Dame's engineering college not just by being there, but by making it easier to recruit female first-year students who see value in a more gender-integrated program. This has contributed to Notre Dame's increase in the percentage of female first-year students in engineering -- from 22 to 30% over the last eight years. Other efforts are also credited. For instance, Notre Dame carefully assigns first-year female engineering students to pre-selected dorms where they live in proximity with each other and upperclass mentors.

Even colleges that don't have an affiliated all-women's college in the picture can make similar changes that might help improve gender balance in engineering. First, targeting women for inclusion sends the right message that the university believes they can become engineers if they want to. Second, the careful dorm assignments help create a community of support. Third, and most importantly, recognizing that it might take longer for women to warm up to the idea of becoming engineers compensates for the fact that women in engineering have fewer role models, might have received less support for that choice in their earlier education, and might need some time to deprogram from the cultural messages like "math is hard" Barbie. The extra year/joint degree options could make it easier for any student to try out engineering and see if it's a fit. Tuition assistance and scholarships for that extra fifth year could make the dual degree in engineering even more appealing. These options should be directed at undecided students, as well as students who have already chosen some other major, like, say the female-dominated programs in allied health. Imagine someone pitching to them the value of a second degree in, say, biomedical engineering, and then offering the academic, social, and financial support to make that happen.

There is one thing, though, that colleges should not copy from Notre Dame. Two university officials quoted in the article referred to female engineering students as "girls." No one referred to their counterparts as "boys," and it would have stood out if they had. I agree that to overcome cultural biases and stereotypes, colleges and universities need to pay special attention to female students in STEM fields. But that is not a license to infantilize those students or think of them as less capable or mature than their male counterparts. Hopefully those quotes are an isolated occurrence. Otherwise, the message it sends will undercut the positive steps toward dismantling the gender imbalance in engineering.

Women Earned More Doctoral Degrees

According to a recent report by the National Council on Graduate Schools, women received more doctoral degrees than men for the first time ever. In 2008-09, women earned 50.4% of doctoral degrees awarded in all disciplines, compared to 44% eight years prior. This is good news, as it shows that the parity reached first in undergraduate degrees and then masters degrees, has finally trickled up to the doctoral degrees. Some credit for this must go to Title IX, which prohibited gender caps and quotas that limited women's admissions in higher education, and helped prepare these future Ph.D.s by strengthening their educational opportunities in early education as well.

But despite this good news, it is too early to declare that discrimination in education is dead and buried. First, there is still a wage disparity. NPR coverage of the NCGS study noted that male professors with PhDs earn $87,200 on average -- $16,600 more than their female counterparts. Moreover, even though there is overall parity in doctoral degrees awarded, there are extreme disparities within disciplines. Men earned the vast majority of doctoral degrees in engineering, math and hard science, while women dominated fields like education, health sciences, and public administration. The belief that such polarization can be explained by innately different brains is rapidly losing scientific credibility, which requires us to examine those fields for the presence of bias, double-standards, or a structure that somehow tends to favor or support graduate students personal lives and obligations that are often gendered (i.e., pregnancy and childcare). Other possibilities: are men are deterred from helping professions by stigma or low earning potential? Are they able to climb the ladder in those fields without a ph.D.? While cheering the overall degree parity in doctoral degrees, the fact that many fields remain highly gendered should still be cause for concern.

"To Lynch a Child"

Via Feminist Law Profs, I learned that Professor Michael Higdon of Tennessee has posted a working paper called "To Lynch a Child: Bullying and Gender Nonconformity in Our Nation's Schools." Below is the abstract, and here is a link to the full article.

In January 2010, a 9-year old boy named Montana Lance hung himself in a bathroom at the Texas elementary school he attended. Although certainly shocking, such acts are unfortunately becoming less and less unusual. In fact, the suicide of Montana Lance is very reminiscent of what happened in April 2009 when two 11-year-old boys, one in Massachusetts and one in Georgia, likewise committed suicide just days apart. What would cause these children to end their lives? The answer in each case is the same: all three suffered extreme levels of victimization at the hands of school bullies—bullying that others have described as involving “relentless homophobic taunts.” And, as we can see from the fate of these three little boys, this form of harassment was obviously very traumatic.

In this article, I look at the growing problem of school bullying in America today. Now, almost all children are teased and most will even face at least some form of bullying during their childhood. However, studies reveal that some children will unfortunately become chronic victims of school bullying. Chief among that group are those children whose gender expression is at odds with what society considers “appropriate.” As my article explores, the gender stereotypes that exist within our society are frequently to blame for the more extreme levels of bullying currently being carried out in our nation’s schools. And the impact this bullying has on its victims is staggering. Earlier I mentioned three children who took their own lives as a result of bullying. These are but three examples of those who have lost their lives to gender-based bullying. However, there are countless other victims who, although not paying with their lives, are nonetheless paying dearly in other ways. Specifically, the psychological literature on the emotional impacts that befall these chronic victims of bullying reveals a whole host of resulting problems—debilitating consequences that can last a lifetime.

As a result, my article argues that bullying on the basis of gender non-conformity is, in essence, a form of lynching. First, both are driven by unwritten social codes—in one instance, white supremacy; in the other, gender stereotypes. Second, both are carried out by perpetrators who do not act in isolation but with the support and sometimes involvement of the larger community. As I explain, one of the reasons gender-based bullying is so frequent is the degree to which peers and school administrators ignore such behavior and, in some instances, even become active participants. Third, both result in extreme harm—lynching, in its most basic form, resulted in dead bodies; however, a lynching need not be defined so narrowly. In the case of segregation, for example, we had living children with “lynched” spirits. As one commentator describes, “these children . . . were truly lynched spiritually, emotionally, and mentally.” As noted above, and as discussed quite extensively in my article, chronic bullying on the basis of gender stereotypes carries similar results. Finally, both lynching and gender-based bullying achieve maximum effectiveness by the way in which they generate fear in others. The clear message of both is the same: obey the “code” or become the next victim.

Although other scholars have addressed the topic of bullying, none have taken the approach that it is 1) heavily based on gender stereotypes and 2) as such, is in essence a form of lynching given the extreme harms it can cause. As a result, many articles propose remedies that focus more on the need for greater legal intervention. I argue that, first, only by recognizing this form of bullying for what it is—a form of lynching—can we even attempt to craft a solution to the problem. Second, given the degree to which social norms relating to gender animate this form of bullying, legal solutions alone will be inadequate absent some means of changing society’s adherence to these rigid and unforgiving stereotypes. Accordingly, I conclude by discussing ways in which litigation, legislation and education can work together to help try and effectuate some form of social change.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to Look at Admissions, Athletics

InsideHigherEd.com reports today that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has commenced an "inquiry" into admissions standards that may be favoring male applicants who are increasingly underrepresented in the student bodies of many liberal arts colleges. The article suggests that the Commission (which does not have enforcement authority, only the power to make recommendations) may be using concern for female students as cover its real target, Title IX's application to men's sports. Colleges would not need to rely on discriminatory admissions standards if they could only attract more male applicants; they could do this by offering more athletic opportunities for them, but they are, sadly, hamstrung by Title IX.

This line of thinking is logically flawed, factually inaccurate, and steeped in stereotypes. First, no one is forcing colleges to lower their academic standards for male applicants. There is certainly no mandate that colleges admit men and women in equal numbers, just as there is no requirement that their student bodies are proportionate to the nation's racial demographics (imagine the uproar if that were so!) Colleges are afforded at least as much flexibility to consider sex in admissions as to consider race (the plus factor approach) and within constitutional limits, it is up to school how to incorporate academic standards and diversity into admissions decisions.

Second, Title IX is not the reason schools can't add men's sports -- the fact that men still have more athletic opportunities than women, both in absolute and relative terms, is the reason why schools can't add men's sports. Third, at least some colleges are adding men's sports -- we've blogged about it, see here, here, and here, e.g.! -- so even taking it out of the context of admissions, the suggestion that Title IX is preventing schools from expanding their men's athletic programs doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Fourth, the idea that colleges need to solve their admissions problem by adding sports for men operates from the annoyingly premise that it is more important to satisfy the athletic interests of men who are not, apparently, otherwise bound for college than it is to satisfy the women who are already there -- women are interested in sports too, and women have fewer athletic opportunities even though there are more of them in college!

Last, it sells men short; it suggests that they need to be tricked into applying to college by an admissions brochure with a lot of pictures of guys playing sports. To again use the race as an analogy, imagine the outrage if a government office expressed sympathy with colleges seeking to boost their racial diversity by adding athletic opportunities for minorities. Some would argue that such a plan exploits the minority student athletes and stigmatizes the minority student population in general by suggesting they otherwise would not be college bound. Some would argue that such a strategy provides clear evidence of the school's intent to promote athletics above academics. Others would argue that it's unfair to the white kids to limit their opportunities. All would be a little bit right.

It will be interesting to see what the Commission's inquiry reveals. Hopefully, it will steer clear of the misinformation and stereotypes discussed here.

UPDATE 11/3/09: More from today's Inside Higher Ed here; and Women's Sports Blog has a good take on it here.

New Book Examines Challenges Facing Women Coaches

In her new (2009) book, Gender Games: Why Women Coaches Are Losing the Field, author Christina Cruz examines gendered dynamic of college athletic departments and the tensions that it creates for female coaches. These tensions, which Cruz labels "micro-competitions" likely explain why the percentage of coaches who are female has diminished from over 90% to 43% in the last thirty years. In presenting the narratives of five successful female coaches, Cruz uncovers numerous examples of micro-competitions, many of which the coach is powerless to win, that affect coaches' self-efficacy in aspects of the job outside of the role of coaching itself. The narratives provide examples of coaches negotiating between on-court and off-court personas, their efforts to satisfy athletic department and cultural expectations that are often in conflict, and the toll of working with and for unsupportive or hostile male colleagues. An overall finding is that "male-centered environments cause the coaches to pit themselves against patriarchal forces that promote male power over women and perpetuate preexisting gender regimes. This atmosphere leaves these female coaches vulnerable to self deprecation."

I really appreciate that Cruz then translates her findings into advice for both coaches, on the one hand, and athletic administrators and other "gatekeepers of power" on the other. She encourages female coaches to work together to help reposition those who are "at the margins" closer to the center of power. She encourages them to be aware of and to challenge men's "status
seeking games" and to stand up and challenge those who bully and harass women. Then she implores administrators to guard against inappropriate and oppressive behavior by staff, to create space for all to give input without being dominated by some, to assist coaches in achieving their goals, and to facilitate mentoring and professional development. It is hard to write a prescription to address entrenched cultural stereotypes and biases, many of which are subtle and easy to overlook ("micro") on an individual basis. Cruz's book does a good job not only shedding light on the nuances of the problem, but in addressing the problem in a coordinated and comprehensive way.

Study Finds Correllation Between Sexist Team Names and Women's Athletic Opportunities

A recent article (well, 2008, but it only just now came across my radar) in the journal Sociology of Education examines team nicknames in college and university athletics and suggests that schools that use sexist nomenclature to distinguish their women's teams are also likely to offer disproportionately fewer athletic opportunities to women.

Author Cynthia Fabrizio Pelak focused on colleges and universities in 9 southern states, and found that almost 70% of the employed what she coded as a sexist naming practice. Most of these consisted of the "Lady" prefix, which Pelak explains, is sexist because it connotes "propriety and correct behavior" and "'imparts a tone of frivolity and lightness to the strivings and accomplishments of women.'" In sum, nearly 60% of the 249-school sample used "Lady" to identify it's women's teams (Pelak focused on basketball), while another ~10% used other naming practices Pelak also coded as sexist (e.g., using a male nickname as a false generic -- as in "Bulls" and "Rams" -- or using a feminine suffix -- as in "Eaglette" or "Tigerette"). She then determined that schools with sexist naming practices were more likely to have offer disproportionately fewer athletic opportunities to female athletes. This finding demonstrates how "sexist language practices reflect and reconstruct unequal power relations between men and women." While not being directly causative of discrimination against female athletes, sexist naming "contributes to an institutional gender-equity climate that constructs women students as second-class athletes and treats men students as the rightful recipients of greater opportunities and resources in athletics."

Another component of Pelak's study was to identify characteristics of a school that are most predictive of whether they would employ sexist naming practices. The most predictive characteristic she found was whether the school was a historically black college or university (HBCU). The odds that an HBCU used sexist naming practices were 16.5 times that of a non-HBCU using a sexist name. Pelak proposes that the prevalence of "Lady" teams among HBCUs can be explained as an effort to "promote an image of black women as respectable, virtuous and sexually honorable" in resistance to negative stereotypes about black femininity. It is possible then, she suggests, that "marking black women athletes as ladies may be understood not as sexist, but rather, as part of a racial uplift project for African American women."

Citation: Cythia Fabrizio Pelak, The Relationship Between Sexist Naming Practices and Athletic Opportunities at Colleges and Universities in the Southern United States, 81 Sociology of Education 189 (2008).

Football Hazing Incident Prompts Lawsuit, Invokes Title IX

A former high school football player and his parents have sued the Fairhaven (Massachusetts) School Committee and other defendants to challenge incidents of hazing that occurred at the hands of his teammates at a school-endorsed football camp in the summer of 2006. Matthew Marujo alleges that his teammates forced him to strip naked so they could -- in a tragic example of life imitating art -- rub a "bengay-like substance" on his testicles. The next morning, they attempted to duct tape him to his bed and to duct tape his mouth shut and threw a cup of semen at him as he struggled free. Inexplicably, the team captain videotaped the incident and presented the tape to the football coach.

Among the numerous claims in the Marujos' federal complaint is that the school district violated Title IX by showing deliberate indifference to peer harassment about which they had knowledge due to incidents of "hazing in prior years" directed at Marujo.

I expect that the defendants will seek to dismiss this count on the grounds that the complaint does not expressly allege that the hazing was motivated by Marujo's sex or gender, a requirement for Title IX liability to attach. But any sport sociologist will tell you that hazing in boys' sport, and particularly football, is usually motivated by a desire to enforce the dominant version of masculinity. Chances are, this plaintiff was targeted for his failure to comply with the hegemonic masculinity in some way. The fact that the assaulters went after Marujo's testicles and threw semen at him could easily be read as symbolic affronts to Marujo's masculinity. Maybe he was weak or timid or sensitive. Maybe he didn't participate in the sexual objectification women or gave his teammates other reasons to presume him gay or sissy. I hope that the court sees the inherent relationship between gender and football and hazing, or at least give the plaintiffs a chance, if necessary, to spell it out the connection expressly in subsequent pleadings.

Source: Complaint, Marujo v. Baldwin et al., No. 1:09-cv-10066 (D. Mass. Jan. 16, 2009).

Court Won't Throw Out Transgender Student's Prom Dress Case

Recently a federal district court judge in Indiana refused to dismiss a lawsuit challenging a Gary, Indiana high school's decision to prohibit a male-to-female transgender student from attending the prom in a dress. We blogged about the case here, after it was filed last December. So you may recall that in his senior year at West Side High, the plaintiff, Kevin "K.K." Logan, began wearing women's clothing and accessories to school as a reflection of his gender identity. He maintains, and the school district does not deny, that his manner of dress did not cause disruption to the school and that he was largely accepted and supported by the faculty and peers. Until, that is, he was physically barred from entering the prom by the principal, Diana Rouse. She was apparently invoking School Board Policy #319, which prohibits "Clothing/accessories that advertise sexual orientation, sex, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, profanity, negative social or negative educational statements."

Logan sued the school district claiming that School Board Policy #319 is an invalid restriction on free speech protected by the First Amendment and that the application of the policy to him was discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX. The school district filed a motion to dismiss both claims, which the federal court denied. The nature of the defendant's motion did not require the court to address the legal merits of Logan's case decision, and the court did not do so. Rather, the court simply noted that the standard for dismissal for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)) is a high, and that it would be "premature" to dismiss them at this early stage of the litigation. Notably, however, regarding Logan's First Amendment claim, the court did cite language from appellate court decisions suggesting that courts should not interfere in a school's effort to enforce a disciplinary policy. However, even those cases recognize that the school's policy and its application must be tied in some way to actual discipline -- promoting order and preventing disruption. From the facts of this case, such a purpose is hard to see. After Logan's friends learned that he had been denied entry to the prom, they left the prom to sit with him in the parking lot. This suggests that the policy itself was more disruptive than the ostensible breech.

Decision is: Logan v. Gary Community Sch. Corp., 2008 WL 4411518 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 25, 2008).

College Class for Men Only

In Grant Lopez's speech class last year, he learned how to tie a double Windsor knot, had lunch with the college president and discussed what qualities to look for in a woman.

That is the lead from this article in the San Antonio News about a men-only speech class at Northeast Lakeview College, which has recently come under criticism for offering preferential treatment for male students in violation of Title IX. The professor, Archie Wortham, defends his the exclusion of women from his course saying that it allows men to "sit back and talk about men issues just among themselves." He continues, "It's kind of like, ‘What is said in Vegas stays in Vegas.' There is a measure of confidentiality.'"

As regular readers of this blog well know, I am very dubious of single-sex education for its tendency to reinforce gender stereotypes. And the article's description of Wortham's class proves my point. What stays in Vegas? Why does any issue that's suitable and appropriate for classroom discussion -- a standard that surely excludes the "what qualities to look for in a woman" discussion -- need a measure of confidentiality? This appears to me just another grown up version of the "girls keep out" clubhouse -- only these club members are adults, in a publically funded educational institution. This clubhouse, operating under the loose aegis of an educational purpose, conveys to the men and women of Northeast Lakeview College that men need their space because women will hold them back, oppress, nag, and silence them. Not to mention that female students aren't equally deserving of the networking opportunities afforded to this class, such as lunch with the college president. And last but not least, not to mention the heterosexist assumptions that all men and only men will want to talk about certain stuff like tying ties and what to look for in a woman (again, questioning the academic value of those two examples).

As Bernice Sandler and others quoted in the article explain, this class is on shaky legal grounds and I don't expect that the college can enforce an enrollment restriction on women over a legal challenge. In the meanwhile, it is good that folks are calling attention to this course, so that it can serve as a starting point for a discussion about the messages that it sends.

Gender Equity in Math Achievement

Science magazine's current issue reports on a study which shows that the achievement gap in math between boys and girls has disappeared (article here (subscription required); summary and discussion on NPR). The study was based on the standardized tests administered annually to all public school students in 10 states as part of the No Child Left Behind educational reforms, as well as testing by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. In all, over 7 million scores were included in the study.

This study is heartening: not only to show that the gender gap in math has closed, but to combat gender-based stereotypes that girls have a hard-wired math deficit or that they aren't interested in learning about math.

Slate on "The Sex Difference Evangelists"

Slate.com's Amanda Schaffer takes on scientists and commentators who believe that certain differences in personality traits in humans are hard-wired based on gender. For women, those traits are (perhaps unsurprisingly) emotion-based and related to empathy. Though proponents of the theory of gender based differences couch their conclusions in terms of an "empathy advantage" for women and girls, Schaffer points out that the science is faulty and the conclusions drawn by the scientists are based more on societal presuppositions than on hard data.

Even though it's being touted as an "advantage," claiming girls are inherently more empathetic than boys also perpetuates a stereotype of what types of behaviors boys and girls should exhibit--probably the same stereotype that fosters the belief that single-sex educational environments ought to be so different from one another.

WaPo on single-sex classrooms

The Washington Post ran a feature on the growing trend of single-sex classrooms in public schools. I am not going to go into all the reasons why we here at the Title IX blog think single-sex education is very problematic--you can click on the tag below to find that out.
I don't have to actually because, in part, the article itself illustrates--if you want to see it--some of the ridiculousness. Simply read the opening paragraphs about a classroom in which girls sit politely and read pretty poetry and another down the hall where boys are sprawled about the classroom reading poetry about being hunters. The language the writers themselves choose to describe the situations they witness says it all. The stereotypes are there--we create them and we reify them.
Why do the girls sit "politely"?--because that's what girls have been taught to do. Why do boys do backbends over their chairs?--because that's what they're allowed to do--because they're boys with allegedly uncontrollable desires to be moving all the time. I liked doing backbends over furniture when I was little too--except I did it at home. If it was acceptable school behavior, I would have done it there too.
These pieces are so frustrating because they spend so much time indulging the stereotypes and so little time engaging with the experts and the studies. And even when doing the former, they fail to acknowledge the inconsistencies. For example, the WaPo article mentions that the boys' classroom has desks that are scattered throughout the room, which gives the boys more room to move around. But the teacher said he moved the desks because they boys were engaging in a "female trait": chitchatting. So chitchatting is bad but crawling around the floor is just fine apparently because the former is something girls do and the latter is something boys. Never mind that both would seem to disturb the classroom, the teacher, and other students.