Kansas in compliance

But there is still no men's swimming and diving team, much to the disappointment of Ron Neugent, an alum who filed a Title IX complaint in 2009 stating that male student-athletes were underrepresented based on the percentages of male and female undergraduates at the school.
Neugent argued that men were being discriminated against because they had proportionally fewer opportunities in athletics.
His goal was to get the university to add sports for men. But the university--agreeing that it would work on the situation but not admitting non-compliance--opted to achieve proportionality by looking more closely at team rosters and adding and subtracting roster spots.
And having done so, administrators recently filed paperwork stating that the school was in compliance.
Neugent, though, wanted Kansas to add, as mentioned, men's swimming and diving as well as men's tennis. But that seems like a lot of roster spots and KU was not grossly out of proportion. In 2007, two years before the complaint was filed, the university was told it had achieved substantial proportionality when it had a 1.8 percent gap. It seems that adding two men's teams would have required the addition of at least one women's team, which is always great--but expensive.
It also seems that Neugent was concerned not just with equity, but with his alma mater's position in a competition called the Director's Cup. The competition rewards a school for its success across 10 different men's and women's sports. Adding those two men's sports would help KU's standing in that competition.
But, as of now, KU has opted to closely monitor the numbers.

Article Proposes Scrutiny for Schools' Prong One Compliance by Contraction

In a new article in the DePaul Journal of Sports Law and Contemporary Problems, three authors propose that OCR should strictly scrutinize schools' decisions to comply with prong one by cutting men's teams. As the authors explain:

The first prong of the Title IX compliance test is currently abused and should not serve as a safe harbor for institutions unwilling to fund additional female participation opportunities. Strict scrutiny review of all Title IX compliance grievances would better protect educational student-athlete experiences. A “2011 Clarification” implementing this standard would hold financially capable schools responsible for meeting the viable athletics interests of all students rather than cutting educational opportunities to divert funds for football and basketball. The option of reaching Title IX compliance through reduction of men's non-revenue generating athletic programs should be used only as a last resort by athletic departments that truly cannot afford them. Under this standard, if male student-athletes' opportunities are cut, they can file a Title IX grievance requiring the university to prove the action furthers the compelling interest of increasing female opportunities and that no less restrictive means exist. The use of strict scrutiny in a Title IX setting would not always prove fatal to compliance measures because legitimate cuts would survive the standard. Instead, the use of a strict scrutiny standard for Title IX would provide much needed protection against the use of illegitimate and unnecessary means under the guise of remedying past discrimination.

My understanding is that under the authors' proposed standard, a university's decision to cut an inexpensive men's sport like track would not survive "strict scrutiny," because it doesn't free up any money to re-allocate to address existing disparities in women's sports. That would leave universities seeking to comply with the proportionality prong with the choice of either adding women's teams, or cutting back on the doesn't-generate-as-much-revenue-as-you-probably-think sports of football and basketball. Option A would be good for women's sports. Option B would still be bad for the men's teams that would be targeted instead, but the scrutiny on those sports could help curb rampant commercialism and arms-race spending in big-time college sports. It's an interesting thought.

Article is: Jesse M. Rappole, Thomas A. Baker III, and Kevin K. Byon, Exposing the Shell Game: The Need for a Narrowly Tailored Approach to Title IX, 8 DePaul Journal of Sports Law and Social Problems 1 (2011).

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.

Why Title IX should (and already does) apply to high schools

As we noted yesterday, a lawsuit against the Department of Education has been filed claiming that the application of the three-prong test to high schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Here's a little more on that. And we are sure there is much more to come.
A significant amount of attention has been paid of late to the spate of complaints filed against school districts alleging disparities in the sport opportunities high school provide to their male and female pupils. Recap: NWLC's 12 complaints last fall, and the more recent ones targeting a majority of districts in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.

Vocal opponents of such attempts to give more girls the opportunity to play sports--under the guise of "personal choice" and "reverse discrimination"--the College Sports Council, and others, have spoken out against what they believe is the misapplication of the three-prong test to high school athletics. The lawsuit they filed yesterday in federal court attempting to get the judiciary on their side was a long time in the works, I would imagine, but comes now at a time when these issues are very much in the spotlight. An additional reveal was, as we mentioned in yesterday's post, the group's new name: American Sports Council. This allows the former CSC to, I guess, legitimately turn its attention to high schools. And fighting discrimination against boys does reflect the American way.

ASC, when it was CSC, attempted this same move--to get rid of the three prong test--except with college sports. It didn't work. Courts have consistently held that all of Title IX's provisions apply to high schools (and other entities) as well. And, as Erin noted yesterday, we predict the outcome will be the same.

As well it should be. In fact, I argue that the three-prong test is even more applicable--or easily and equally--applicable in the high school context. Here's why.

First, let's address some misconceptions. Opponents of the three-prong test--specifically the proportionality test--say that applying the test to high schools is going to result in a million boys being denied sporting opportunities. They say that budget-strapped schools will, of course, have to cut sports for boys. But proportionality is NOT required. ASC keeps invoking the "safe harbor" rationale saying that this phrase--which came in a 1996 clarification letter from the Department of Education--means that schools will, of course, attempt compliance with that prong in order to avoid lawsuits. (You can see a You Tube video from the group about the filing.)
Let's clear some things up. Proportionality is a safe harbor because it is numbers based. Numbers don't lie. Except when they do. Like when schools manipulate rosters in order to make it seem like they are offering opportunities to girls and women--when they are not. I don't think this is the Department of Ed's problem. This is laziness and utter disregard for a gender equity law--passed almost 40 years ago--that we still cannot seem to adequately enforce.
Second, if these opponents truly believed that girls were less interested in playing sports then, I believe, they would be making greater efforts to prove it. Develop the methods to sufficiently measure interest and let's see. Opponents say that this opens up schools to lawsuits. Well, schools aren't doing a great job avoiding lawsuits right now as they manipulate rosters and continue to deny female athletes equitable treatment. A good faith effort goes a long way with me--and others like me. But we don't see it happening. We see avoidance of the issues--at all costs--even millions of dollars (as a result of jury awards and settlements).
So why are high schools arguably even better suited to the three-prong test?
Well, the gender division in most high schools (and I am speaking largely about public schools here) is close to 50/50. In other words--it shouldn't be that hard to offer equal opportunities. High school sports are often just a progression of student-athletes' careers from youth sports in a way that the transition from high school to college is not as natural or expected. It's hard to believe that the numbers aren't there given the growth in youth sports.
Second, the valuing of participation is somewhat more emphasized in high school sports. Because high school sports are not expected to be big revenue generators in the way intercollegiate sports are, the philosophy of sport as an educational and growth experience is more at the forefront and less easily disregarded and lost amid large and complicated athletic department budgets. And so, of course, opportunities should be equitably distributed when we're talking about an educational endeavor.
They don't have to worry about expenditures such as recruiting and scholarships, either.
I have read several pieces that complain that we feminists are lawsuit happy and attempting to dismantle boys' sports with these recent filings. First, these are complaints--not lawsuits.
There is no desire to kick boys out of sports. But again, Title IX has been around for four decades. What have schools been doing? Advocates for women's sports get villainized because we expect that schools and the government actually follow and enforce this law. These complaints serve to both put high schools on notice that they cannot continue to be ignorant of Title IX. And they're a wake-up call to OCR which has been somewhat complacent in its enforcement at the high school level.
Is there ever going to be a good time for us to request that girls be given what they deserve? The economy was pretty decent in 1996, as I recall. If schools had truly believed that proportionality was the safe harbor of Title IX, they would have had the means to implement it then. And prior to 1972? Well there were boon periods then too. Yet there was no widespread movement to add sports for women. Hard to argue that we don't need Title IX.
Progress is neither innate nor organic. Equality does not just manifest itself because years pass.

Lawsuit Challenges Title IX's Application to High Schools

The American Sports Council (formerly the College Sports Council) has sued the Department of Education in federal court, arguing that the enforcement of Title IX's three-prong test against high schools violations the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. College Sports Council and other anti-Title IX organizations have challenged Title IX's constitutionality in the past, though never successfully. I predict that the court deciding this case will apply the same interpretation as those earlier decisions holding it was not unconstitutional for Title IX to offer a proportionality test as one of three options for compliance . Though those earlier decisions were all in the context of disputes about college sports, there is nothing about applying those arguments to the high school context that warrants a different result.

For more coverage, see this thorough post on Education Week's Schooled in Sports blog.

78 Idaho School Districts Named in Title IX Complaint

First Washington, then Oregon, now Idaho. The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights recently received a complaint (pdf here -- it's 600 pages) citing 100 high schools in 78 of the 115 school districts in the state, charging them with violating Title IX for failing to provide equitable athletic opportunities to female students. This is the third northwestern state in recent months in which OCR has been asked to look into Title IX violations at dozens of school districts statewide. Like the others, the complaint is based on data mined from OCR's most recent Civil Rights Data Collection report, which provides evidence of disparities in participation rates as well as evidence of school districts "padding" their participation rates by including activities (namely, sideline cheerleading and dance) that are not comparable to varsity athletics in terms of their competitive schedule. From these data, the complaint alleges violations of prong one's proportionality standard. It then uses OCR data over time to cite school districts with declining opportunities for girls, suggesting violations of prong two's requirement of program expansion for the underrepresented sex. Finally, the complaint sites examples of school districts failing to offer sports that are sanctioned by the state athletic association as evidence of unmet interest, which would violate prong three.

The press has not reported on the person filing the complaint, as government regulations protect anonymity of complainants. However, unlike lawsuits filed in federal court, complaints to OCR may be raised by anyone.

Is Montana next?

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.

NCAA Gender Equity Issues Forum

Greetings from Bethesda, where I'm attending the NCAA's Gender Equity Issues Conference. This is a great annual event that brings together gender equity experts and athletic department staff from colleges around the country to talk about Title IX and gender equity issues. Yesterday I had the pleasure of participating on a panel about how to count participation opportunities for the purposes of demonstrating proportionality. My co-presenter Tim O'Brien and I used the court's decision in the Quinnipiac case as the starting point for a discussion about the importance about looking past the numbers and assessing whether those numbers reflect actual, meaningful athletic opportunities. We also talked about some of the egregious examples of reporting violations and roster manipulation that the New York Times wrote about last week. We definitely addressed those issues as well. David Moltz covered the presentation for Inside Higher Education, so even if you couldn't attend, you can read all about it!

Other panels have addressed such hot topics as pay equity, prongs two and three compliance, diversity and inclusion, retaliation, and emerging sports. We also had a brilliant keynote address by Mariah Burton Nelson on the importance of implementing and enforcing policies against sexual abuse by coaches. And I had the pleasure of learning about the Athlete Ally initiative to eliminate the use of sexist and homophobic language in sport, and meeting its founder, a former student-athlete and All-American wrestler, Hudson Taylor. All in all it's been a great conference!

Universities Cheat to Show Title IX Compliance, NYT Reports

When the Quinnipiac litigation last year exposed certain instances of roster manipulation -- adding male players and cutting female player after the reporting deadline -- I kept hearing people ask "how common is this?" My gut was that Quinnipiac was not the only school to engage in roster shenanigans that make their women's teams appear larger and their men's teams smaller, in efforts to create the illusion of compliance with the proportionality prong of Title IX. But I didn't know which other schools were doing it nor the extent of the problem.

After reading today's groundbreaking story in the New York Times, I now know, cheating is far more prevalent and even more egregious than the Quinnipiac example. The University of South Florida, for example, included many athletes from other sports on its 71-member women's cross-country team roster-- athletes who never competed in meets, practiced, or some case even knew that they were listed as members of the team. Other schools invite walk-on women to "join" the team, but tell them not to bother showing up to games and practices even though they are listed on the roster. Still others -- including the national champions Texas A&M women's basketball team -- count the women's team's male practice players as opportunities in women's sports. All of these examples are meant to create the illusion, on paper, of gender equity.

Title IX requires that universities offer a balance of athletic opportunities that reflects the percentage of men and women in the student body, or alternatively, to at least offer enough athletic opportunities to meet the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex. Title IX will also give credit for trying, as another compliance option is to show continuing progress of expanding opportunities for the underrepresented sex. But rather than putting in the real effort to show continuing progress, or to ensure that there is no unmet interest, universities are manipulating the data to give the appearance of compliance under the first prong. And lest anyone be concerned that these are "innocent" universities "forced" into this situation because they can't afford to add real opportunities for women, let's consider whether this same ostensible financial hardship applies when it comes to adding men's sports. Apparently, it does not. According to the article, South Florida's egregious roster manipulation was a response to its decision in 1997 to add 100 new opportunities for men, in the sport of football. Rather than investing in a leveling-up approach, South Florida took an existing imbalance and made it worse by adding opportunities -- expensive ones -- for the overrepresented sex. So of course there's less money now to add opportunities for women. But that's never a justification cheating, and it rings particular hollow when the university's own decisions to create or exacerbate the disparity is at the root of its compliance problem.

In sum, the NYT is the bearer of bad news when it exposes the extent and scope of universities' false reports of gender equity. I wish that we could believe universities who report gender equity in athletics. But at least the good news is that after this public exposure, investigators, complainants, plaintiffs, bloggers, and other watchdogs are less likely to be duped by false numbers going forward. We'll dig below the surface of universities' reported data and demand stronger evidence in support of universities' claims to gender equity. When they realize that their false numbers will not protect them, maybe they'll start reporting the real ones.

Washington School District Enters Voluntary Agreement to Comply with Title IX

The Office for Civil Rights accepted a voluntary agreement from Federal Way School District, one of the 26 school districts in Washington State named in Title IX complaint recently accepted by the agency. The complaint alleged that a participation gap of -12.1 percentage points exists between the percent of Federal Way high school students who are female and the percent of athletic opportunities they receive -- the equivalent of 76 actual opportunities -- and that this disparity has been widening, not shrinking, in recent years. A somewhat smaller 8 percentage point gap is reported in the press.

Federal Way has agreed to conduct immediately a detailed analysis of its compliance with the athletics' regulation under each of its three prongs. It also agreed to add new athletic opportunities for girls in the coming year, if the results of its analysis reveal compliance with neither.

On the one hand, it is frustrating to see a school district enter into a formal agreement to do exactly what the law already requires it to do, comply with Title IX under one of the three prongs. But on the other hand, the complaint process has effectively put Federal Way's feet to the fire (along with a couple dozen other districts in the state) to come into compliance in the coming year and under the monitoring of OCR, which will review the districts' analysis and decisionmaking at multiple steps in the process. While the voluntary agreement does not produce a finding of noncompliance or related penalties, it is the mechanism that will most swiftly and fully end the disparity in opportunities that exists for girls in Washington state.

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).

Fourth Circuit Affirms JMU Cuts

Equity in Athletics has been battling in court James Madison University's decision to cut 10 teams since the cuts were announced in 2006. On behalf of the affected athletes and other interested parties, the organizations sued the University and the Department of Education, challenging both the cuts and the Department of Education's policy interpretation that provides the three part test for measuring equity in athletic opportunities. After failing to attain a preliminary injunction against the cuts, EIA continued to pursue permanent relief. Last year, a federal court in Virginia rejected EIA's claims, and yesterday, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Though the appellate court agreed that EIA had standing to bring its case, the rest of the decision rejected EIA's arguments in their entirety. In particular, the court rejected EIA's argument that the three-part test is an unauthorized use a disparate impact standard of discrimination. For one thing, the court cited specific language in Title IX that allows regulators to consider statistics when defining and measuring equity. ("Provided, That this subsection shall not be construed to prevent the consideration in any hearing or proceeding under this chapter of statistical evidence tending to show that such an imbalance exists with respect to the participation in, or receipt of the benefits of, any such program or activity by the members of one sex." 20 U.S.C. § 1681(b).) For another, the court said EIA "misconstrues" the three-part test as a mandatory disparate impact standard. Consistent with every other court that has considered this question, the court recognized that the three-part test does not mandate proportionality. Rather, it allows evidence of proportionality create a presumption of compliance. Institutions with disproportional athletic opportunities can still show compliance under either of the alternative prongs.

The court then went on to affirm the district court's rejection of EIA's other claims, affirming the constitutionality and procedural validity of the three-part test as well as the constitutionality of JMU's decision to cut more men's teams than women's teams -- a decision that affected more male athletes, but produced a result that "ensure[d] that the student body as a whole was “substantially equally” represented in the availability of opportunities for athletic participation." Relatedly, the court "unhesitatingly [made] clear " its rejection of the idea that athletic opportunities should be distributed in proportion to percentages of male and female students who are interested in athletics, citing the First Circuit's oft-quoted language that "[i]nterest and ability rarely develop in a vacuum; they evolve as a function of opportunity and experience."

According to a press release, EIA plans to appeal, either to the entire Fourth Circuit en banc (which can, in rare cases, reverse a three-judge panel) or to the Supreme Court. So we are not yet done blogging about this case!

Decision is: Equity In Athletics, Inc. v. Department Of Educ., 2011 WL 790055 (4th Cir.(Va.) Mar 08, 2011).

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).

UC Berkeley Cuts Five Teams

As Kris noted recently, the University of California, Berkeley athletic department has been considering eliminating sports as a cost-reduction measure. So it is sadly no surprise that the Chancellor has announced that baseball, men's and women's gymnastics, women's lacrosse, and men's rugby will be no longer be varsity sports. Men's rugby will occupy a new "varsity club" status.

I have a couple of questions about whether this decision complies with Title IX. First, what is varsity club status? It seems like the rugby team will continue to receive some university support -- more than the club teams receive but not as much as varsity teams receive. Title IX does not preclude Cal from making up new status labels for its sports, but those labels must be equitably applied. If a women's sport asks for "varsity club" status, I cannot see the grounds on which Cal would deny them.

Second, I have concerns that the resulting distribution of athletic opportunities complies with Title IX. Before the cuts, Cal could have claimed compliance with prong two or prong three, but eliminating women's teams forecloses that option. This leaves prong one: substantial proportionality. As Kris noted in her earlier post, Cal's women received about 41% of the total athletic opportunities (385/948), despite constituting about 53% of the student body. After the cuts, they still receive about 41% (385-45/948-102*). There is no way a 12 percentage points qualifies as substantial proportionality, so my question is, on what basis is Cal making that claim?

* This denominator figure is adjusted by the loss of both gymnastics teams, baseball, and lacrosse. I did not subtract the 60 terminated opportunities in rugby from the denominator because Cal's EADA report did not include men's rugby when calculating the total number of athletic opportunities.

Professor George on "Opportunity, Choice, and Discrimination Theory Under Title IX"

In the current issue of the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, Professor B. Glenn George from the University of North Carolina School of Law proposes that/how Title IX proponents should reshift their focus from proportionality compliance to more holistic reform. Her article, "Forfeit: Opportunity, Choice and Discrimination Theory Under Title IX" takes as a starting point that proportionality test for measuring equity in the distribution of athletic opportunity, has been ineffective and even counterproductive in generating true equality, as evidenced by the "leveling off"of women's participation in college sports. Though she does not call outright for regulatory reform that would eliminate the proportionality interpretation, I read her to be suggesting a policy and advocacy agenda that moves away from proportionality as a goal.

For one thing, she points out that the proportionality standard does nothing to prevent colleges from adopting the "JMU model" of compliance, and leveling down women's and men's athletics to the bare minimum that Title IX and NCAA requirements allow. Such response does nothing to support the ostensible goal of promoting and enhancing opportunities in women's sports.

For another, creating opportunities at the college level, without more, won't necessarily increase participation. Female college students report lower interest in athletic participation than their male counterparts, and Professor George warns against writing this data off as the product of lack of opportunity that can be solved by pursuing a proportionality objective. Female college students' lack of interest in athletics must be examined for related context, which may include their higher rates of involvement in community and extracurricular activities, more time devoted to academic pursuits, lower financial security upon entering college and greater likelihood of seeking a part time job, and lower likelihood to self-identify as "competitive."

Finally, pursuing proportionality in college sports draws the focus away from other things that might be just as valuable, or even more so, to the project of dismantling inequality. For example, a goal of attaining proportionality doesn't encourage anyone to promote younger girls' athletic participation in popular and established sports. (Colleges aren't going to add a second women's basketball team, for example, just because interest in that sport has doubled.) Proportionality also draws resources and focus to the most elite level of sport, away from other contexts, like club and intramural sports, which are more accessible to a wider range of abilities, and capable of generating new interest in athletics.

Professor George offers a couple of ideas of how, instead of pursuing proportionality, we should seek to restructure sports more generally in ways that promote equality. For example, rather than eradicate the statistical disparity in athletic participation, we could try to neutralize the disparity in privilege that results from the disparity in athletic participation, for example, by taking athletic scholarships off the table. For another, we could change the nature of participation in ways that allowed athletes to simultaneously hold a job if they needed one, to devote time to their school work or community service or otherwise have a more well-rounded life. In addition to other benefits, such reform would change the definition of "athletics" to fit women's interests, rather than the other way around.

In sum, I found Professor George's article to be compelling. Though I believe it is necessary to retain the proportionality standard in order to protect women's athletic opportunities, it is good to be reminded of its shortcomings and the tradeoffs that such a standard requires. There's no easy way to balance the pros and the cons of incorporating proportionality into our measure of equality, but for starters, this Article makes clear that we can't let Title IX and the goal of women's sports advocates be reduced to just that.

Citation: B. Glenn George, Forfeit: Opportunity, Choice, and Discrimination Theory Under Title IX, 22 Yale J. of Law & Feminism 1 (2010).

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.

Quinnipiac Volleyball Players Win Title IX Decision

Today Judge Stefan Underhill granted Quinnipiac University volleyball players an injunction that will allow the team to exist through the 2010-11 season. In reaching this decision, the judge determined that Quinnipiac's decision to terminate the volleyball team violated Title IX because it resulted in inequitable number of athletic opportunities for women. Quinnipiac argued in its defense that it satisfied the proportionality test (offering the same percentage of athletic opportunities to women as matches their representation in the student body) even after cutting volleyball, in part because of Quinnipiac's addition of 30 additional athletic opportunities in the sport of competitive cheer, brought the school into proportionality.

But today, Judge Underhill agreed with the plaintiffs that these opportunities should not have been counted, since competitive cheer is sufficiently different from other varsity athletic opportunities at Quinnipiac. The biggest difference is that the competitive cheer team does not have a schedule that "reflects varsity abilities" -- as demonstrated by comparison to other Quinnipiac teams. No other varsity team at Quinnipiac competes predominantly against other school's club teams and non-scholastic teams, as the competitive cheer team does. No other varsity team competed under different sets of rules, depending on the opponent. All other varsity teams had to qualify for a championship via a progressive playoff, while the national championship in which Quinnipiac cheer competed (NCA Nationals) was open to all squads -- including sideline squads whose only competition for the year was Nationals. No other varsity team was evaluated, in part, by a nonathletic factor such as the 45 second "spirit" segment at Nationals, in which teams are judged by crowd reaction and use of props.

The judge's ruling does not foreclose that changes in cheer over time could lead to a different result in the future. However, the court's reasoning does call into question any school that is currently relying on competitive cheer to demonstrate compliance with Title IX. That is, the court's reasoning applies as well to other varsity cheerleading schools (Maryland, Oregon, Baylor, and a couple of others) as it does to Quinnipiac, should those schools' reject a women's club team's petition for varsity status, or, like Quinnipiac, decide to cut a viable women's team.

After adjusting Quinnipiac's proportionality calculation to exclude 30 opportunities in competitive cheer, as well as 11 opportunities in women's track (who the judge said should not have been counted because they were injured, and/or red-shirted), the judge calculated a 3.62 percentage difference between the percentage of athletic opportunities for women (58.25) and the percentage of women in the student body (61.87). The judge then determined that this difference was not "substantial proportionality" necessary for compliance with prong 1. This aspect of the decision is highly significant, as it is, to my knowledge, the lowest percentage that has been deemed outside the realm of substantial proportionality, and it dispels the myth-rumor that anything within 5 percentage points is OK. The judge reasoned that 3.62 percentage points actually amounts to 38 female athletes -- more than the size of any of Quinnipiac's existing women's teams. In that context, 3.62 is not substantial proportionality.

Overall, the 95-page decision was a win for the volleyball team (who gets to play another year) and a win for Title IX, because it protects against the possible manipulation of gender equity statistics by labeling as sport existing women's noncompetitive activities. The judge also expressed skepticism about Quinnipiac's triple counting of women's opportunities in cross country and and indoor and outdoor track, given the track team's status as a "mere adjunct" of cross country (though ultimately found insufficient evidence to discount Quinnipiac's figures any further on these grounds). But this aspect of the decision, like the decision overall, puts schools on notice that athletic opportunities for women must be actual and not illusory.

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

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



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

Mythbusting in Honor of Title IX's Anniversary

Sadly, it seems that every year, folks use Title IX's anniversary to trot out tired old arguments that it's time to "get beyond" Title IX. Because these people obviously don't read this blog, or they wouldn't be so misinformed, it seems like an act of futility, on par with spitting in the wind, to address these arguments. However, I shall do my best to correct with facts the myths that belie these claims.

Myth: "Title IX activists" started "pushing for" proportionality in the 1990s.

Fact: It was actually football lobby that proposed a proportionality standard to OCR when it was coming up with its regulatory interpretations in the 1970s. They thought it would be an easier than a 50/50 standard for colleges to meet, because at that time male college students outnumbered women. As Donna Lopiano says, now that women are the majority of college students, "the shoe now pinches."

Myth: Title IX's proportionality requirement causes schools to cut men's sports.

Fact: Title IX gives schools three ways to demonstrate requirement with the law's requirement for equity in the distribution of athletic opportunities, one of which is proportionality. Basically, the three prongs work to protect women's sports from being cut when women are the underrepresented sex. Under Title IX, it's not necessarily unlawful for one sex (almost always men) to have more opportunities than another sex. All Title IX says with regard to cutting opportunities is that schools can't cut from the sex that had fewer opportunities to begin with. If there was a proportional distribution of opportunities, then Title IX would have no effect on a school's decision on which teams to cut. It could cut women's swimming and spare men's wrestling. What puts schools in the position of only being able to cut men's teams is the act of favored men with athletic opportunities all along.

Myth: Football funds women's sports (and therefore, we shouldn't care if there are men have more athletic opportunities due to football).

Fact: While this may be true at a small number of institutions, most football programs lose money. And football "profits" would be even smaller if schools had to report the true cost of running a program. I hate the argument that profitable sports are somehow more valid in the non-profit sector of education. If colleges want to decide what sports to keep based on commercial standards like profitability, they better be ready to give up their their tax-exempt status and their federal funding.

Myth: Title IX is 38 years old, and the regulatory interpretation that gave us the three prong test is 31 years old.

Fact: Well, this is technically true. But the purpose for which people tend to cite the age of Title IX is usually to suggest that it's time to repeal the law because it's done its job. And that's clearly myth. There are existing disparities in opportunities, support, and scholarships. In college, men still have more athletic opportunities than women -- in absolute numbers, not just relative to enrollment. Male athletes still receive $133 million more scholarship dollars than female athletes every year. The other thing that gets covered by references to Title IX's age is the fact that colleges and universities fought hard to avoid Title IX compliance for much of the 1970s and 1980s, and for much of the 1980s (the Reagan-Bush era) the government was not enforcing the law. It wasn't until the Supreme Court decided in 1992 that the law allowed private plaintiffs to recover money damages that there litigation posed enough of a threat for schools to take the law seriously. So while Title IX the statute may be 38, in some ways, the law is still a teenager. No wonder it hasn't reached its full potential yet.

OCR and Kansas Reach Agreement Over Title IX Complaint

According to news reports, the University of Kansas and the Office of Civil Right have agreed that KU will document its Title IX compliance, in resolution to a complaint that KU violates Title IX by discriminating against men in the distribution of athletic opportunities. As we have mentioned, KU is one of the rare schools where the percentage of female athletic opportunities is greater than the percentage of women in the student body. (How much of a disparity is not entirely clear to me. The article cited here says there is a 5 percentage point disparity, while my calculations today based on 2008-2009 EADA reports shows a disparity of less than 2 percentage points, and my earlier blog post, presumably based on earlier EADA data, suggested that the disparity was 4 percentage points. As we have recently noted, EADA data is not always accurate.)

While the agreement between KU and OCR will resolve the complaint, the agreement does not suggest that KU currently is not in compliance with the proportionality prong, KU's chosen method of compliance. Rather, it requires KU to demonstrate compliance by taking the following steps: assess its participation rates and enrollment rates for men and women (by March 2011), submit a plan to demonstrate it is in compliance with the proportionality prong (by April 2011), and follow up with documentation it is in full compliance (by December 2011).

The men's swim club, on whose behalf the complaint was filed, hopes that KU's compliance plan includes adding men's varsity swimming back. But because KU is so close to proportionality already, it seems like it could demonstrate compliance by making minor adjustments to men's and women's athletic rosters, without adding a team. Depending on the numbers KU uses as the basis for its compliance plan, it could be that adding an entire men's team would swing the balance too far the other way.

News of this agreement also raises the question of what exactly it means that KU pledges to demonstrate compliance with the proportionality prong? Is exact proportionality required? Clearly, OCR thinks the existing disparity (whether it be 2, 4, or 5 percentage points) is not an example of substantial proportionality, otherwise this agreement would not have been necessarily. In fact, OCR has indicated in earlier policy documents (the 1996 Clarification) that proportionality compliance requires either an exact match in the percentage of students of each sex and the percentage of athletic opportunities for each sex, or minor (1 or 2 percentage point) disparities caused by fluctuation in enrollment. Perhaps OCR is using KU's case as an example to dispel the common misunderstanding that schools can demonstrate compliance with the proportionality prong as long as they are within 5 percentage points. I hope this is the case, though it is interesting to me that the mythical 5 percentage point rule is usually used to justify athletic imbalances that negatively affect women. Now that men are underrepresented, a stricter proportionality rule comes into play.