Alma College wrestling reborn

We've largely gotten away from correcting all the little mistakes, misinterpretations, and misrepresentations of Title IX that occur in the media.
But sometimes one of them just strikes that nerve and...
A story about the rebirth of intercollegiate wrestling at Alma College in Michigan says that the program was cut in 1984 "in large part because of Title IX." This bothers me for two--related--reasons. One, a majority of the wrestling community blames the enforcement of Title IX for its demise in the 80s. And two, Title IX was not being applied to athletic departments in 1984. The Grove City decision came down in 1984. No school is going to cut a program for Title IX reasons while a Supreme Court decision over whether it will have to or not is pending.
Wrestling advocates argue that wrestling is growing in popularity. And the numbers support this. But that does not mean it has retained a consistent level of popularity or support over the past 40 years. That some wrestling programs are being (re)introduced is indicative of the ways in which athletic programs change with the times. And this is a good thing.
The president and trustees of Alma College say that the time was right to reintroduce wrestling because of the benefits it will bring to the athletic department and the school as a whole.
They did a feasibility study. Which means they must have run the numbers I just did.
So Alma has a 105-member football team. (These are the latest numbers reported to the Department of Education.) This presents a certain amount of challenges especially when the student body is 58 percent female. They added 26 opportunities for men with wrestling. Fortunately they added 28 for women when bowling and lacrosse got put in place this year as well. So these new numbers added to the old numbers (in other words, this is approximate) look like this:
Fifty-nine percent of athletic opportunities at Alma go to male students. Prior to the addition of wrestling and women's lax and bowling this year men had 60 percent of the opportunities.
In other words, not much changed.
Alma remains in compliance under prong two. Still the implication that the wrong/discrimination men experienced when wrestling was cut in the 80s seems a little misplaced given that women then and now have fewer opportunities at Alma College.

OCR Drops All Idaho Complaints But One

The Office for Civil Rights will reportedly drop the complaints against 77 of the 78 Idaho school districts cited in the mass-complaint filed over the summer. Only the Meridian School District, the largest in the state, remains subject to OCR investigation for claims that it violated Title IX by failing to provide an equitable number of athletic opportunities for boys and girls.

There does not seem to be a legal distinction for singling out Meridian. The allegations against that district are supported by evidence of the same type and quality as the allegations against the other school districts. Specifically, the complaint against Meridian alleges that the district does not comply with any prong of the three-part test: First, its participation data reflects a 6.3 percentage point disparity between the percentage of athletic opportunities for girls and percentage of girls in the student body, a disparity that translates to 42 athletic opportunities. Also related to prong one, the complaint alleges that Meridian's participation numbers are "padded" because they include cheerleading and dance numbers, despite the fact that cheer and dance teams in Idaho do not have the same kind of competitive schedule as other varsity athletics and therefore should not be counted according to OCR's published standard for determining what counts as a sport for Title IX purposes.

Second, the complaint cites the trend of increasing or continued participation gap as evidence of the absence of "history and continuing practice" of expanding athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. And regarding the third prong, the complaint cites the fact that there are girls' sports sanction by the state high school athletic association that are not offered at Meridian--specifically, bowling, golf, gymnastics, water polo, crew, and lacrosse -- as evidence of "unmet interest" among the underrepresented sex.

As I said, the claims against Meridian are not substantially different from those against the other Idaho districts, or, for that matter, those against the Washington or Oregon schools that were named in mass complaints that OCR declined to pursue. To me, this suggests that OCR does not really have a problem with the type of evidence used to support the allegations of Title IX violations, it just doesn't like dealing with a massive, 78 district complaint all at once. And while maybe the agency has reasonable basis for not wishing to devote scare agency resources to 78 simultaneous investigations, I wish the agency would communicate better that that's what's going on. When the press reports that 77 school district were "cleared" of any Title IX violations when (if) the complaints were not dismissed for reasons related to the merits of the complaints, it sends the false message that things are fine when they are not necessary so.

District Court Reaches Decision in UC Davis Title IX Case

U.S. District Court judge Frank Damrell issued a 147-page opinion yesterday in the near-decade-long litigation between the University of California at Davis and three female wrestlers who were cut from the men's wrestling team when the coach instituted a try-out policy in 2001. So far I've seen headlines calling it a "split decision," a "dismissal" of the lawsuit against Davis officials, a ruling that Davis "did not discriminate" and a "Title IX victory" against U.C. Davis. As these seemingly-conflicting sentiments suggest, the decision is nuanced and defies reduction to a clear and simple headline. I think "split decision" is the most accurate characterization.

What made the decision, at least in part, a "Title IX victory"? Ultimately, the judge decided that while the plaintiffs were students at U.C. Davis, the university did not comply with the three-prong test used to measure equity in the athletic opportunities provided to each sex. Davis stipulated that during the time the plaintiffs were students, the university did not offer opportunities proportionate to the percentage of women in undergraduate population (prong one) and that there was unmet interest and ability among the underrepresented sex (prong three). But, Davis argued, it satisfied prong two's requirement of a "history and continuing practice" of expanding opportunities for the underrepresented sex, which is prong two of the three-part test. In large part, the university's prong two defense rested on the fact that it had added three women's sports in 1996. Typically, adding a women's team gets a university two-to three years of credit for "continuing" program expansion, and the court seemed inclined to agree that adding three teams at once should count for a longer safe harbor. However, the court reasoned that even if Davis got extra credit for adding multiple teams in 1996, it still eliminated over 30 athletic opportunities for women during the relevant time frame disqualified them for compliance with "continuous" program expansion. In particular, the university eliminated J.V. teams in women's water polo and lacrosse in 2000, and while the court noted that this decision was not discriminatory or itself a violation -- even the coaches of those sports supported the decision to turn the J.V. teams into club teams -- the court determined that the "failure to replace" those opportunities at the same time put prong two compliance out of reach.

Yet despite ruling that U.C. Davis did not comply with Title IX at the time it eliminated opportunities for female wrestlers, much of the court's decision is as pro-Davis as some of the headlines suggest. For one thing, even in its Title IX analysis, the court is careful to commend Davis for its history of program expansion, which included a rigorous self-analysis of compliance that resulted in the university's decision to add women's teams during a period of time in the 1980s when Title IX enforcement was lax and many other universities ignored the law. Additionally, the court emphasized that cutting the women from the wrestling team did not count against the university for purposes of prong two, since they were not cut because of sex but for "normal fluctuations" based on talent and skill.

Moreover, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' other Title IX arguments, such as that the university was required to provide a female wrestling team to satisfy the unmet interest and ability, after determining that at the time there was not a reasonable expectation for competition for such a team. And it dismissed all of the plaintiffs' Equal Protection claims which were directed at individual university officials. According to the court, the female wrestlers had no constitutional right to be members of the men's wrestling team, only, at most to an equal opportunity to try out for the team. A decision by the head coach that the women had to qualify based on talent is not discrimination on the basis of sex, nor is it a decision that can be attributed to the athletic director, associate athletic director, or other individual defendants.

Even the last section of the opinion, in which the judge acknowledged that plaintiffs are entitled to damages, reads rather pro-defendant to me. The court acknowledged that plaintiffs should receive damages to compensate them for whatever "actual harm" they experienced as students at UC Davis who were interested in athletics. The court does not assign a number to this, due to the fact that the parties have not yet briefed the issue of damages, but it's a number that could theoretically be zero. The court did not hold that U.C. Davis was not liable for reasons having to do with the wrestling team's decision to cut the plaintiffs. The basis for liability is only that it did not add enough opportunities for women in general. Thus, the wrestlers will not be compensated for their lost opportunity to wrestle (whatever dollar amount could be attached to that) but the generalized disappointment they experienced as undifferentiated members of the female student body because the university did not have enough opportunities to satisfy Title IX. This seems like a much harder type of damage to monetize.

Assuming this decision is either upheld or not appealed, I predict that it will be influential on the general question of how to measure prong two compliance when a university eliminates opportunities for the underrepresented sex. It has always been clear that a university that eliminates athletic opportunities for women will have a difficult-to-impossible claim of prong two compliance. After this decision, it is clear that eliminating viable opportunities without replacing them will never qualify for prong two. The rest of the decision, rooted in a rather unique controversy about female adjuncts to a men's wrestling team, will likely have less influence.

Female Wrestlers' Case Against UC Davis Goes to Trial

On Wednesday, a federal district court judge in California heard closing arguments in the trial to determine whether the University of California at Davis violated Title IX when it denied opportunities to female wrestlers in 2001. The case has been in litigation for a many years, and we have blogged about it several times (see here, here, here, and here.)

The plaintiffs in this case are three female, former student athletes who wrestled on the U.C. Davis team until they were cut in 2001. According to this article about the trial, there is conflicting testimony about whether then-athletic director told the then-wrestling coach Michael Burch to cut the women, or whether the coach decided to cut the women, who did not contribute points in wrestling meets, after being told by the AD that he had to reduce the size of the team. In response to protest, the athletic director granted them the right to try out for the team. Two of the women tried out but did not make the team, and a third did not try out.

What about this scenario could violate Title IX? On the one hand, the law does not require schools to have coed teams in contact sports like wrestling. And where the contact sport exception does not apply, female athletes athletes are limited to a right to try out for the men's team when it's the only team in that sport. But at the same time, universities have the obligation under Title IX to provide an equitable number of athletic opportunities to female athletes. Thus, UC Davis could have lawfully excluded women from the wrestling team, if it otherwise provided equitable opportunities to women. But because it did not, the plaintiffs argue, eliminating their opportunities to participate in wrestling violated the law.

Thus, what the judge will really be deciding is whether UC Davis's overall distribution of athletic opportunities complied with Title IX. Davis contends that it complied with prong two, which requires it to show a history and continuous practice of expanding opportunities for women. Plaintiffs' witnesses, including women's sports expert Donna Lopiano, testified that UC Davis's history of women's sports, which included going twenty years without adding any women's teams, then adding three at once in 1996, followed by outdoor track in 1998 and indoor track in 1999, does not qualify. According to the same article, however, another women's sports expert, Christine Grant, testified for UC Davis that the university deserved credit for adding three teams at once.

Other issues also bear on the question of UC Davis's proffered prong two compliance. Namely, the judge will also have to figure out whether the university had good reasons in the 1990s to cut two other women's teams and to reject petitions by women's club teams seeking elevation to varsity status. And the judge will have to figure out how much prong two credit to give to the university's decision to add indoor track as a women's sport in 1999. An appellate court has already ruled that a sport does not necessarily have to raise the number of actual athletes in order to count as new athletic opportunity for existing athletes to compete in another sport. But adding indoor track could still be questionable evidence of prong two compliance if it appears that the decision was motivated by the universities interest in efficiency (in that indoor track doubles as an off-season for other running sports) rather than in response to genuine student interest.

The judge's decision is expected in July.

The three-prong breakdown

At the NCAA Gender Equity Forum, which Erin attended earlier this week, there was a discussion about compliance in the area of equitable opportunities. This area is--arguably--the most well-known and, perhaps ironically, the most misunderstood.
Schools can measure their compliance using one of three tests--hence the three-prong test. Often the three-prong test is presumed to be the only measure of Title IX compliance. It is not, as is exemplified in our many posts about facilities, access to coaches, provision of quality competitive opportunities and equipment, etc.
A session at the conference addressed the three-prong test and the ability and difficulties in complying. The happenings at the panel were reported by Inside Higher Ed. It seemed like a good discussion about whether the prongs are viable any more--and if so, which ones and how schools can demonstrate compliance. There was certainly frustration among various audience members who were athletics administrators about the challenges each pring presents. The session was lead by Jacqueline Michaels of OCR who seemed to do a very good job with questions from the audience and in explaining the intricacies of each prong--especially the confusion over prong three given the changes and clarifications this specific test has seen over the last 6 years.
I highly recommend reading this short piece to get a better understanding of the three prongs and how they are enforced.

Liberty explains

The good news is that Liberty University, which dropped its men's wrestling program from the varsity roster this week, is aware that they currently meet the criteria for compliance with prong two. But they believe that in three to five years this will not be enough. This is despite their plan to continue to decrease roster spots in men's sports and increase spots in women's sports. Compliance with prong two remains somewhat subjective. How many and how frequently a school has to add opportunities is not neatly outlined. And while I applaud Liberty's forward-thinking--many schools get caught having to make lesser-of-the-evil type decisions because they have not thought ahead--it still seems somewhat curious that Liberty would make this cut now. Liberty officials argue that wrestling was the sport to go because it had a large roster (38) and because it was the only sport not in the Big South Conference--it actually had no conference affiliation. I still have not run the numbers myself, in part because the most recent women's sport addition will not be present in the latest set of data. But according to Liberty, their undergrad population is 52/48 women to men. And even with the addition of the three sports they are still not achieving proportionality! Makes me wonder what things looked like when wrestling was added in 2006 (and earlier).

Liberty reclassifies wrestling

Liberty University reinstituted its DI men's wrestling program in 2006. This was a move that bucked the trend of dropping men's intercollegiate wrestling. And they produced a successful program in that time. But the university announced this week that it would be dropping the team from the roster of intercollegiate sports and reclassifying men's wrestling as a club sport. In order to comply with Title IX. Or so they say. Liberty has added three women's sports since 2009 but says that even those additions are not enough to achieve proportionality. True, perhaps. But we don't even need to go look at their Department of Education Equity in Athletics data--because they are already in compliance. They don't have to achieve proportionality right now because they are adhering to prong two. Adding three sports in three years demonstrates a history of expanding opportunities for women. The only reason they might be seeking proportionality is if they intend on dropping a women's program. Once a women's sport is cut, then proportionality becomes the only option. Or they might want to add a different men's sport in the future. The wrestling community and the Title IX community are often seen as adversaries, and Liberty saying that they cut wrestling because of Title IX is not helping things. Liberty already is in compliance (regarding participation). So if I was a wrestler, I would start questioning Liberty's rationale.

DU decision backlash

There have been a lot of articles and editorials and articles that editorialize in the wake of DU's decision to end its men's running program.
I thought this one was especially good, from a female alum and current track coach. She raises the point I neglected to make in my initial post which is if DU is adding women's golf in the fall why it it so worried about achieving proportionality now. Ms. Ambrogi appears to be right. By adding women's golf it would seem that DU is complying (temporarily anyway) with prong two by expanding opportunities. Not sure what their previous history has been, but the addition of golf would seem to do for now...unless DU has plans to cut a women's team some time soon. In that case they would have to have their proportionality ducks (or hens in this case) in a row.
This is just a very curious case, and I have a feeling we are not hearing the whole truth(s).

Some Say Delaware State Equestrian Is Safer After Cheerleading Ruling

This article in Delaware Online suggests that the recent Quinnipiac ruling about the Title IX status of competitive cheer will make it harder for Delaware State to prove that its decision to terminate equestrian did not violate the law.

Actually, I don't think the ruling will have much legal effect at all. Unlike at Quinnipiac, Delaware State's proposed opportunities in cheerleading do not even come close to closing the proportionality gap. Its argument that adding cheer demonstrated prong 2 compliance was never a viable argument, in my opinion. No court has interpreted "history and continuing practice of expanding opportunities for the underrepresented sex" to be satisfied by a school that cuts a viable women's team.

But either way, some are now predicting that Delaware State is now more likely to cancel its plans to end its equestrian program.

Interestingly, the article provided a little insight into why Delaware State, an HBCU, has an equestrian team in the first place:

Many see the equestrian legal troubles as an unfortunate legacy of former president Allen Sessoms' administration. In 2005, a faculty steering committee, chaired by Hoff, recommended field as a better way to expand sports for females, but Sessoms later sold the group on equestrian.

The sport has proven to be more expensive than expected, costing close to $600,000 per year.

"Of greatest concern to DSU is the fact that so little of this money goes to student welfare," DSU lawyers said in court documents. "On the contrary, most of the expenses are for the housing and care of the horses."

Daniel, the Title IX consultant, said he would have advised against a school like DSU starting equestrian. Charlie Wilson, president of DSU's faculty senate, said he and other faculty found the creation of the team "curious" and regarded it as a "pet thing" of Sessoms' administration.

Ninth Circuit Revises UC Davis Decision

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a revision to its decision, issued in February, that reinstated female wrestlers' case against the University of California at Davis. The revision does not change the outcome or the court's analysis of the main issue on appeal, which was district court's erroneous determination that the plaintiffs had to provide actual notice to the university before proceeding with their claim that its decision to eliminate women's wrestling opportunities violated Title IX.

Rather, the revision clarified that the various Title IX compliance prongs -- including, prong two, which was UC Davis's professed means of compliance -- measure athletic opportunities, not number of athletes. Thus, UC Davis may count opportunities added in sports like indoor track in its argument that it has historically and continuously added opportunities for the underrepresented sex (as prong 2 requires), even if some of the participants who benefited from the new team already participated in outdoor track. However, even counting the indoor track opportunities, UC Davis still did not meet the prong 2 standard, since it only added opportunities for women between 1996 and 2000. Thus, UC Davis could not satisfy any of the three prongs after it eliminated opportunities for women in wrestling.

Revised decision is: Mansourian v. Regents of the Univ. of Ca., 2010 WL 1542502 (9th Cir, Apr. 20, 2010).

Delaware State Invokes Prong 2, Cheerleading in Defense

Delaware State University is reportedly defending its decision to cut the women's equestrian team by claiming it nevertheless complies with prong two: the compliance test that requires a university to show a history and continuing practice of expanding women's athletics. The problem with DSU's prong two argument is that all courts that have considered whether cuts to women's teams violate Title IX have recognized that cutting a viable women's team necessarily violates prong two: reducing opportunities

This is the tradeoff for the flexibility prong two provides in the first place: schools don't have to achieve proportionality (prong 1) or full accommodation of interests (prong 3) overnight; they will not violate the law if they are working towards those goals by program expansion. But this flexibility is not boundless: it does not allow a university to stall (hence, "continuing" practice) and it does not allow a university to backslide by cutting a viable women's program. Rather, as the First Circuit said in Cohen v. Brown, it requires a university to "march uninterruptedly in the direction of equal athletic opportunity." More recently, the district court in Connecticut articulated an identical interpretation of prong two when it held that Quinnipiac University necessarily did not show a history and continuing practice of program expansion after it cut its viable women's volleyball team: "That is because, by eliminating a women’s team while there is sufficient interest to field one, the University will have failed to demonstrate that it is committed to expanding opportunities for the underrepresented gender – women."

Coincidentally, it looks like the court's prong two interpretation is not the only reason to compare DSU's case to Quinnipiac's. DSU's second defense of its decision to cut equestrian is the announcement of plans to add a competitive cheer team. However, this does not change a court's likely outcome on the prong 2 question. As long as one sex (here, women) are underrepresented in athletics, prong 2 compliance means the University has to keep its viable programs AND add new ones. Cutting-and-adding does not count.

A second issue is whether adding cheer put the university in compliance with prong 1. If so the prong 2 argument is not necessary. But putting aside the obvious argument that DSU should not be able to count cheer opportunities that don't yet exist, there is no way DSU will satisfy prong 1 by adding cheer. The disparity between the percentage of women students and women's athletic opportunities is so severe that by my calculation, DSU would have to add 156 cheer athletes-- more than doubling the current number of women's athletic opportunities -- to comply with prong 1. Surely this is not what DSU is planning. If it is, it's got other problems, as courts have started to crack down on universities that manipulate prong 1 calculation by padding the rosters of women's teams.

In sum, I continue to predict that this case will resolve quickly and in favor of the present and recruited equestrians who have filed suit against DSU.

Adding lacrosse because they can?

Pleased as we are to see schools that have the ability to add sports at this particular moment in our economic climate, the addition of men's lacrosse at Aurora University in Illinois is a little curious. Seems that they have an underused and quite expensive turf field and they need a team to run all over it. At least facilities won't be an issue.

But it seems that everything else will. For example there are not a whole lot of schools in the area playing lacrosse. Travel is not cheap these days. But the athletic director, who undertook a study of feasible additions, said lacrosse is a growing sport in the midwest and that by 2011, when the program is slated to start, there will likely be more schools fielding men's lacrosse.

Also, of course, at issue is gender equity. The writer of the above linked article does a very poor job explaining gender equity. His math isn't so hot either. He reports that there are 18 total teams, 8 for men and 8 for women and that adding men's lacrosse will, of course, throw off the balance. Once again I issue the reminder that number of teams does not equal equity. It's number of opportunities that are counted or whether the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex are being met or if the school has shown a history of expanding its women's program.

So adding men's lacrosse would not necessarily hurt Aurora University. But they're definitely going to have some explaining to do! Women comprise 67 percent of the undergraduate populating and currently receive 41 percent of the athletic opportunities. Adding men's lacrosse will skew these figures even more. There are plans to add women's lacrosse after the men's team is established. But this will not likely--unless they make the women's team really, really big--bring them closer to equity. It is possible, however, that upon adding women's lacrosse, Aurora will be able to claim compliance with prong 2: history of expansion. Still such a disparity should be raising a red flag somewhere.

If I were them, I would reconsider which program to implement first!

Adding sports?

Columbus State University in Georgia seems to be throwing caution to the wind and adding sports despite these troubled economic times. The DII institution does not have a football program which might mean the school has a little more budgetary freedom. If so, it's using it to add four more sports. FOUR! Men's and women's track/field (not sure if it's both indoor/outdoor; they already have cross-country), women's golf, and co-ed rifle are the lucky winners at CSU.

The school currently fields 8 sports, including a tennis team that has both men and women. I have never seen this particular situation before because usually the seasons are different for men and women, though often times teams will use the same coaching staffs.
No word on the size of the new teams but currently CSU has an undergrad population comprised of 61 percent women with women receiving 52 percent of athletic opportunities. Though with the addition of sports CSU can certainly argue continuing expansion of programs and might satisfy prong three as well; it is possible that some of these sports were club sports that had requested varsity status.


The school is, apparently, all about expansion. They are planning a new state-of-the-art recreation center and just announced that, by the way, the facility with have an aquatic (also state-of-the-art, of course!). Lest you think that administrators are just going wild with the plans and the spending, it was the student government association that approved the addition of the aquatic facility; many of the costs associated with the new facility are being funded by student fees.

Interestingly, the new facility will have a women's-only workout space. Wonder how that will play out...

What people are saying: Arizona State

Even as classes wind down and students head back from whence they came [unless you're on the softball team in which case you're headed back to campus to host a Super Regional (congratulations!)], the discussion at Arizona State over the recent athletic department cuts heats up.

The inevitable back and forth has begun. Unlike other institutions (ahem, JMU), ASU is not blaming Title IX for the cuts. As I said a week ago, school administrators have cited budget reasons for the cuts. And in keeping with federal law, ASU cut sports in a way that did not further disadvantage women. And some people see this (though this article cites equity as distribution of scholarships only). But others are talking vaguely about "interpretation." An interpretation that at least one guy thinks has become a "de facto quota system." Well no. ASU does is not in compliance with prong 1--which is what I assume he is referring to with the quota system comment. That means when a school chooses to comply with prong 2 or 3 (we're not sure which ASU cites) it cannot cut a viable women's team because it would result in (prong 2) not expanding the women's program or (prong 3) not meeting the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.
There is also evident a certain amount of fear about the future as the percentage of women attending college continues to grow. The "predicament of athletic directors...becomes ever more impossible" allegedly.
This sentiment and also this short piece, that initially seems to express support, indicates some problems in people's thinking. Erin's post yesterday about accounting practices addresses one of the issues briefly brought up: cost of adding women's teams. Athletic director Mark Brand noted to a reporter that the addition of women's soccer in 1996 and women's water polo in 2002 brought the department into compliance but "hurt the department economically" according to the article. Anyone want to guess the costs associated with recruiting and keeping an ASU football player versus a female soccer player? Or the costs of their respective facilities?
The commercial mindset (so intertwined with the patriarchal one) results in the idea that it's a "predicament" when women want to actually get their share of the resources of (some of which they pay for through tuition and fees) and benefits from an educational institution.
So when a male wrestler asks if not cutting a women's team is "a Title IX thing"? You can say, yes--it's also known as fairness. Isn't that one of things athletes are allegedly learning through sports--the concept of fair play?

If you cheer louder...

...maybe you'll get a better grade.

The University of Oregon recently elevated competitive cheer to varsity status but that has not helped its grade on the recently released Gender Equity Scorecard. Oregon earned an F and has found itself 97th among 115 colleges and universities (and last in the Pac-10) for its gender equity efforts. The scorecard considers female participation rates (in terms of proportionality only) and funding.

Senior associate athletic director Renee Baumgartner says that if the scorecard was based on satisfying prong two, which Oregon cites compliance with, they would have received an A. But a look at the athletic department's finances suggest otherwise. For example, a significant, and arguably disproportionate, amount of money goes toward paying the coaches of football and men's baseball.

Oregon administrators are looking into their poor grade on the scorecard.

Survey says? No baseball

In Michigan, the Gladstone Area Schools will not be adding baseball any time soon. Though there is interest in the sport, starting a program would further exacerbate the Title IX problems the district is having. They have not achieved proportionality which would mean adding baseball would mandate adding a girls' sport which, officials say, is not in the budget. They cannot cite compliance with prong 2 because in the last decade gymnastics has been cut and only competitive cheer added.
But in the hopes of complying with prong 3, interests and abilities, the schools surveyed their high school students. The results showed that the boys definitely want to play baseball but that girls are interested in, among other things, gymnastics, bowling, swimming, and soccer.
So no baseball. But if I was a high school girl in the Gladstone Area Schools interested in playing one of those sports I would take that survey data and demand the creation of a new program. They aren't proportional, aren't expanding the program, aren't meeting interests and abilities and there is a survey* that says girls want to play sports. The district may have just surveyed themselves into a corner.

* I am not advocating the use of surveys in assessing compliance with prong three. I am aware of the many faults of such "evidence."

Editorial hits the mark

We come across a lot of editorials about Title IX written by students in their college papers, most of which cite "discrimination" against men when teams are cut or suggest that Title IX is good in theory but not in how it is applied.

But this column in Purdue's student paper, The Exponent, illustrates that some people really do get it; that the major points Title IX advocates are making about poor budget decisions and institutional priorities as the primary causes of cuts to men's teams are not falling on deaf ears. Writer Adam Poor makes these same points, noting that Purdue has not had to cut any sports because of "controlled growth" and keeping the number of varsity teams at 18. [It also should be noted, however, that Purdue's percentage of female undergrads is only 40 percent which makes it much easier to comply with the proportionality prong than schools where the percentage of male undergrads is around 40. Why a school that is known for its engineering and technology programs has such a low percentage of female undergrads is another Title IX discussion for another time.]

Additionally, Poor goes on to criticize OCR's 2005 clarification that allows email surveys to gauge student body interest saying that it is a poor measure of interest to ask the current student body what they want for varsity sports given that those interested in sports the university does not offer have likely gone elsewhere.

My only concern is his suggestion that more schools try to go with prong two, history and practice of expanding opportunities, and that OCR should offer a little wiggle room about just how long this actually takes saying that even if "progress is slow" a school should not be found noncompliant. Well, given that 2007 does mark the 35th anniversary of Title IX and finds so many schools not compliant I am not so ready to perpetuate this slow progress standard.

Even so, Poor has shown that he understands the spirit and correct application of Title IX. Many of us have heard, sometimes out of our own mouths, complaints about students--both men and women--who don't know what Title IX is, or don't think we need it anymore, or find it unfair to men. It's heartening to know some students are getting it. I'd give Adam Poor an A.