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.
Showing posts with label roster management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label roster management. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Intersex Athletics, Roster Floors Addressed in Law Student Notes
The current issue of the Brooklyn Law Review contains two Title IX-themed articles written by students.
In Policing the Policing of Intersex Bodies, author Laura Zaccone lays out a regulatory approach to "preventing the gender inquisition that befell Caster Semenya from occurring in the educational context." She urges the Department of Education to
A second article, Leave It On the Field, student author Carolyn Davis criticizes the federal court's decision in Biediger v. Quinnipiac, which rejected the university's claim to satisfy the proportionality standard because the university had counted several athletic opportunities for women that were not meaningful in comparison to other varsity opportunities (specifically, those in competitive cheer, winter track for some athletes for whom it was an extension of the season for other running sports, and opportunities on teams with a roster inflated for Title IX purposes). Davis criticizes the court's analysis as "part of a worrisome trend" that courts are interfering with athletic department's spending decisions. In this spirit, she argues that the use of roster floors ought to be an acceptable practice, and that courts should not scrutinize the "subjective" question of whether those rosters offer meaningful participation opportunities. Interestingly, however, Davis's defense of the practice of expanding/inflating the size of women's teams by arguing that it is most acceptable when it is accompanied by commensurate increases in support for the team. Yet, by using an example the inflated roster of Quinnipiac's softball team, which did not receive commensurate additional support, Davis demonstrates that without judicial oversight, universities facing budget problems will solve them by very means she agrees are problematic.
76 Brooklyn Law Review 265 (2010).
In Policing the Policing of Intersex Bodies, author Laura Zaccone lays out a regulatory approach to "preventing the gender inquisition that befell Caster Semenya from occurring in the educational context." She urges the Department of Education to
issue Title IX regulations--or, failing that, a policy interpretation--making a student's self-identified gender determinative of eligibility to compete in school athletics. If a student lives and identifies as a female, there should be no other eligibility criterion for participation on a female team. Under this policy, the perspective of the individual student is the deciding factor. But an individual's self-identified gender is not always readily discernable to others. Some basic guidelines, then, are needed to ensure that this policy is administered fairly.76 Brooklyn Law Review 385 (2010).
Above all, students should not be subjected to gender-identity tests. Procedures seeking to establish gender identity are just as pernicious as those purporting to verify biological sex. The DOE should make clear that testing of this nature is likely to violate Title IX.
To determine a student's gender identity, there are a numbers of factors that school administrators can consider. Substantial weight should be accorded to the gender self-identified by the student at enrollment.
Administrators might also consider the gender marker on identification documents, such as passports, driver's licenses, or birth certificates. These records should not be regarded as conclusive, however, given the adverse implications for transgender students, who often face obstacles in modifying the gender designation on personal documents even after sex reassignment surgery.Whatever factors are used to show self-identified gender, the DOE should require that school officials apply them consistently across the board. A case-by-case approach risks that athletes appearing more “masculine” than others will be subjected to more vigorous scrutiny.
A second article, Leave It On the Field, student author Carolyn Davis criticizes the federal court's decision in Biediger v. Quinnipiac, which rejected the university's claim to satisfy the proportionality standard because the university had counted several athletic opportunities for women that were not meaningful in comparison to other varsity opportunities (specifically, those in competitive cheer, winter track for some athletes for whom it was an extension of the season for other running sports, and opportunities on teams with a roster inflated for Title IX purposes). Davis criticizes the court's analysis as "part of a worrisome trend" that courts are interfering with athletic department's spending decisions. In this spirit, she argues that the use of roster floors ought to be an acceptable practice, and that courts should not scrutinize the "subjective" question of whether those rosters offer meaningful participation opportunities. Interestingly, however, Davis's defense of the practice of expanding/inflating the size of women's teams by arguing that it is most acceptable when it is accompanied by commensurate increases in support for the team. Yet, by using an example the inflated roster of Quinnipiac's softball team, which did not receive commensurate additional support, Davis demonstrates that without judicial oversight, universities facing budget problems will solve them by very means she agrees are problematic.
76 Brooklyn Law Review 265 (2010).
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Quinnipiac trial begins tomorrow
The trial in the Quinnipiac University volleyball case begins tomorrow in federal court in Connecticut. There is nothing new to report since last month's decision to grant class-action status to the case being brought by five volleyball players.
As a reminder, at issue is Quinnipiac's "roster management" practices which seemed--in the past at least--to under report the number of men playing sports and overinflate the number of women doing so--so much so that some of these squad sizes were not in compliance with NCAA regulations.
Also at issue is the addition of competitive cheer as a varsity sport.
We will be doing our best to keep the details of the trial coming. (There might even be a Title IX Blog field trip to Connecticut!)
As a reminder, at issue is Quinnipiac's "roster management" practices which seemed--in the past at least--to under report the number of men playing sports and overinflate the number of women doing so--so much so that some of these squad sizes were not in compliance with NCAA regulations.
Also at issue is the addition of competitive cheer as a varsity sport.
We will be doing our best to keep the details of the trial coming. (There might even be a Title IX Blog field trip to Connecticut!)
Saturday, January 23, 2010
St. Rose adds lacrosse
Bucking the cutting trend, the College of St. Rose has announced it will add lacrosse for the 2010-11 season. Men's lacrosse. They are building a turf field as part of a general improvement of facilities project and need a team to put on it. Apparently adding lacrosse has always been on the agenda. The DII school in Albany, New York is taking it slowly offering only 3 or 4 scholarships in the first year and not hiring a full-time coach until the second season.
No plans, however, to add a women's team. The school's president has said it will add spots to existing women's teams to remain (?) Title IX compliant.
An initial look at the school's offering, especially the lack of a football team, makes one think this solution is quite plausible. But it turns out women greatly outnumber men at the school who comprise less than 30 percent of the undergraduate population. But the athletic opportunities are split 50/50. Lacrosse is going to exacerbate that situation. St. Rose is going to have to add many, many roster spots to existing women's teams to close the gap.
No plans, however, to add a women's team. The school's president has said it will add spots to existing women's teams to remain (?) Title IX compliant.
An initial look at the school's offering, especially the lack of a football team, makes one think this solution is quite plausible. But it turns out women greatly outnumber men at the school who comprise less than 30 percent of the undergraduate population. But the athletic opportunities are split 50/50. Lacrosse is going to exacerbate that situation. St. Rose is going to have to add many, many roster spots to existing women's teams to close the gap.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Judge Grants Injunction to Save Qunnipiac Volleyball
Quinnipiac University women's volleyball will remain a varsity sport, for another season anyway, after federal district court judge Stephan Underhill granted the preliminary injunction the team was seeking to stave off the university's effort to terminate the sport for budgetary reasons.
The judge determined that the volleyball plaintiffs satisfied their burden of showing a likely success on the merits of their claim that QU cannot cut women's volleyball and still comply with Title IX, which for QU meant demonstrating proportionality in the number of athletic opportunities afforded to women and men. Though the judge was not persuaded by the plaintiffs' challenge to QU's plans to count newly-added competitive cheerleading squad as athletic opportunities (he stated that they "do not appear likely to prevail" in that argument) he did agree that QU likely would not satisfy the proportionality test because of its roster management policy. "The plaintiffs in this case offered credible testimony that the athletic department’s roster management numbers did not accurately reflect the actual number of genuine participation opportunities available to both genders at Quinnipiac," the judge wrote in the ruling. The practice of setting minimum "floors" for women's teams, in particular, did not create "genuine opportunities to participate." In the case of women's softball, for example, those extra players added for proportionality purposes were cut from the team after the first day of the season, when numbers are reported. On the other side, QU instituted caps the size of on some of their men's teams, which also proved meaningless because players were added above the cap after the numbers were reported on the first day of the season. Thus, said, the judge, he had "no confidence" that the numbers QU reported to the Department of Education under the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, which provided the basis for QU's proportionality calculations, were accurate reflection of athletic opportuntities at QU.
Litigation is not over, as the court will now proceed to evaluate the merits of the plaintiffs' case for a permanent injunction. I haven't seen a timetable, but I expect the court will issue one relatively soon.
The judge determined that the volleyball plaintiffs satisfied their burden of showing a likely success on the merits of their claim that QU cannot cut women's volleyball and still comply with Title IX, which for QU meant demonstrating proportionality in the number of athletic opportunities afforded to women and men. Though the judge was not persuaded by the plaintiffs' challenge to QU's plans to count newly-added competitive cheerleading squad as athletic opportunities (he stated that they "do not appear likely to prevail" in that argument) he did agree that QU likely would not satisfy the proportionality test because of its roster management policy. "The plaintiffs in this case offered credible testimony that the athletic department’s roster management numbers did not accurately reflect the actual number of genuine participation opportunities available to both genders at Quinnipiac," the judge wrote in the ruling. The practice of setting minimum "floors" for women's teams, in particular, did not create "genuine opportunities to participate." In the case of women's softball, for example, those extra players added for proportionality purposes were cut from the team after the first day of the season, when numbers are reported. On the other side, QU instituted caps the size of on some of their men's teams, which also proved meaningless because players were added above the cap after the numbers were reported on the first day of the season. Thus, said, the judge, he had "no confidence" that the numbers QU reported to the Department of Education under the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, which provided the basis for QU's proportionality calculations, were accurate reflection of athletic opportuntities at QU.
Litigation is not over, as the court will now proceed to evaluate the merits of the plaintiffs' case for a permanent injunction. I haven't seen a timetable, but I expect the court will issue one relatively soon.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Roster doctoring confirmed at QU
Yesterday in a court in Connecticut where the coach and members of the Quinnipiac women's volleyball team are trying to get an injunction against the school that would prevent administration from cutting the team until all legal issues are resolved, the QU athletic director took the stand.
Jack McDonald said that in the 2007-08 school year that men were cut from team rosters before the start of the season in order to meet gender equity standards--and then added back. But he said this manipulation was not approved or encouraged by the athletic administration; no one was told on the DL to engage in this practice. He also said that next year, when the undergrad population is at 63 percent women, the percentage of female athletes will be 62.
Also testifying was the coach of the women's cheerleading team who said that the stereotype of cheerleaders does not reflect the current reality of their activity. A video of a competition was shown to indicate the high level of physicality, strength, and skill involved. This is true. But as coach Mary Ann Powers admitted, the multiple organizations that govern and run competitions and the fact that she did not know how cheerleading might affect Title IX compliance are big issues here.
In an interesting moment Powers said that she thought it was unfortunate that other women degrade cheerleaders. So many issues in this one statement. First, it is not just "other women" who are perpetuating the stereotypes of cheerleaders. Said degradation by these other women--and I assume she is talking about female athletes in this context--also may be an attempt by these athletes to express their concern over cheerleaders potentially degrading their participation in their respective sports. In other words, some may feel that the designation of cheerleader as a sport hurts the more non-traditional sports other women participate in. Cheerleading confers a femininity guarantee no matter how many muscles those women need to hoist and throw and flip around; at the end of the day it is seen as a feminine activity in ways that remain largely unquestioned. Other sports do not have that privilege and other athletes have to fight their own stereotypes about women playing sports.
And finally, I usually find that the accusation from women towards other women about women not supporting women often hides the culpability of some of other people (i.e. men) and assumes that everything that every woman does should be supported by every other woman.
Still waiting for a final decision regarding the injunction, which we expect will come soon.
Jack McDonald said that in the 2007-08 school year that men were cut from team rosters before the start of the season in order to meet gender equity standards--and then added back. But he said this manipulation was not approved or encouraged by the athletic administration; no one was told on the DL to engage in this practice. He also said that next year, when the undergrad population is at 63 percent women, the percentage of female athletes will be 62.
Also testifying was the coach of the women's cheerleading team who said that the stereotype of cheerleaders does not reflect the current reality of their activity. A video of a competition was shown to indicate the high level of physicality, strength, and skill involved. This is true. But as coach Mary Ann Powers admitted, the multiple organizations that govern and run competitions and the fact that she did not know how cheerleading might affect Title IX compliance are big issues here.
In an interesting moment Powers said that she thought it was unfortunate that other women degrade cheerleaders. So many issues in this one statement. First, it is not just "other women" who are perpetuating the stereotypes of cheerleaders. Said degradation by these other women--and I assume she is talking about female athletes in this context--also may be an attempt by these athletes to express their concern over cheerleaders potentially degrading their participation in their respective sports. In other words, some may feel that the designation of cheerleader as a sport hurts the more non-traditional sports other women participate in. Cheerleading confers a femininity guarantee no matter how many muscles those women need to hoist and throw and flip around; at the end of the day it is seen as a feminine activity in ways that remain largely unquestioned. Other sports do not have that privilege and other athletes have to fight their own stereotypes about women playing sports.
And finally, I usually find that the accusation from women towards other women about women not supporting women often hides the culpability of some of other people (i.e. men) and assumes that everything that every woman does should be supported by every other woman.
Still waiting for a final decision regarding the injunction, which we expect will come soon.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Evidence in Quinnipiac case
A sort of PS to yesterday's post about the beginning of the women's volleyball team's attempt to get their sport reinstated at Quinnipiac University.
Coach Robin Sparks testified yesterday that the athletic department had engaged in some doctoring of team rosters in an attempt to make their participation numbers seem more equitable. She claims that some men's teams cut players days before the start of the season and then reinstates them a few days after the season has begun. First day numbers are the ones reported for public information.
She would not say which teams engaged in this practice and the athletic department would not comment on the allegations. If she is right, though, it should not be too difficult to prove: look at the numbers QU reports and then look at other things like game programs that list players, or how many student-athletes need hotel rooms for away games, or plane tickets, etc.
Coach Robin Sparks testified yesterday that the athletic department had engaged in some doctoring of team rosters in an attempt to make their participation numbers seem more equitable. She claims that some men's teams cut players days before the start of the season and then reinstates them a few days after the season has begun. First day numbers are the ones reported for public information.
She would not say which teams engaged in this practice and the athletic department would not comment on the allegations. If she is right, though, it should not be too difficult to prove: look at the numbers QU reports and then look at other things like game programs that list players, or how many student-athletes need hotel rooms for away games, or plane tickets, etc.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Slippery Rock cuts swimming
It's official. Slippery Rock University which, several years ago tried to cut women's swimming and diving and water polo but was prevented by a lawsuit, has done so. SRU was prevented from cutting these viable women's teams because it had not achieved proportionality and the court ordered that SRU must remain within two percentage points. They currently are. Earlier in the year some of the original plaintiffs attempted to re-open the case when rumors of the cuts were swirling but the judge would not rule on how potential future proportionality would break down.
SRU administrators have said they plan on remaining compliant with the court's mandate through roster management though the article did not give further details about what teams might be expanding their rosters.
Lead plaintiff Beth Choike, a member of both the swim and water polo teams, noted one of the issues with roster management:
"It's not fair for teams because the ones not playing aren't getting the quality experience."
Monday, December 3, 2007
Slippery Rock case reopened
Though the claims from the 2006 case against Slippery Rock University which cut 8 men's and women's teams that year, have been settled, the case is being reopened at the urging of the original 12 plaintiffs. Because current compliance is in doubt, and because the university is being monitored for compliance, the reopening is not especially startling. The judge in the original case is receiving evidence about the situation right now and deliberations will occur in the next few months.
Though a list of specifics was not available in the article, it seems there is some concern over how the university is choosing to meet the accommodations standard. SRU has opted for roster management which means adding spots to existing teams, and has plans to drop women's water polo and swimming after this season. Whether SRU will be allowed to proceed with that plan given that these are currently viable teams will depend, in part, on if they have added enough spots to other teams to compensate.
It will be interesting to see how things proceed but it's also quite interesting to see how a group of students have persisted and pressured their university to follow through. While we hear a lot about initial Title IX complaints and lawsuits, we rarely hear what happens afterwards. The SRU plaintiffs have made sure their issues stay alive until they are satisfactorily resolved.
Though a list of specifics was not available in the article, it seems there is some concern over how the university is choosing to meet the accommodations standard. SRU has opted for roster management which means adding spots to existing teams, and has plans to drop women's water polo and swimming after this season. Whether SRU will be allowed to proceed with that plan given that these are currently viable teams will depend, in part, on if they have added enough spots to other teams to compensate.
It will be interesting to see how things proceed but it's also quite interesting to see how a group of students have persisted and pressured their university to follow through. While we hear a lot about initial Title IX complaints and lawsuits, we rarely hear what happens afterwards. The SRU plaintiffs have made sure their issues stay alive until they are satisfactorily resolved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
