We've been following the situation in Castle Rock, Washington (see prior posts here and here), where parents have been advocating for equal rights for girls teams to use the high school's lighted stadium,which has so far been reserved for the priority use by the football team. After initial complaints to the school board failed, one parent filed a complaint with OCR, alleging that it violates Title IX to exclude girls soccer from the stadium.
A recent letter from the school board appears to resolve the controversy by stating that future seasons' soccer games "may be played in the stadium." While this language is somewhat ambiguous ("may" meaning "might"? or "may" meaning "it is now permitted"?) both the complainant and the press seem to understand this as permission for girls soccer to play at least some of their games in the stadium next fall (as well as boys' soccer, which is a spring sport in Washington).
The letter also promises more Title IX training for school district employees. Hopefully those newly-trained employees will keep their eyes on the stadium situation. If girls are not given equal access to the favored facility, the complaint should be renewed.
Showing posts with label soccer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label soccer. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Castle Rock issues in front of school board
After some delays, the concerns of parents of Castle Rock High School student-athletes in Washington will be addressed by the school board in the next week and a half.
As we have written about before, parents of girls on the soccer team asked for and were denied access to the football field (which has lights) for games that were being cut short due to darkness. The superintendent attempted to address the concerns, but parents were not entirely pleased with her recommendations, including additional training in gender equity issues for the school's athletic director. Some involved believe that training would not work for AD Neil Williamson because he knew that his decision was discriminatory. Some also feel that the recommendation for an athletic advisory committee would just add an additional level of bureaucracy they would have to negotiate.
Additionally, in a non-Title IX issue, parents requested that the original unlit field be made handicapped accessible. But apparently the accommodations are less than ideal. A portable accessible bathroom is in a grassy area that those in wheelchairs would find difficult, if not impossible, to traverse.
While the school board has implied that some girls' soccer games will be scheduled in the football field, it seems that the discord created over the way the situation has been handled may have longer-lasting effects.
If, when the board issues its decision on the matter(s), parents are displeased with the resolution, the district will likely find itself a party in a lawsuit which, if previous cases are any indication, will likely reveal additional inequities.
As we have written about before, parents of girls on the soccer team asked for and were denied access to the football field (which has lights) for games that were being cut short due to darkness. The superintendent attempted to address the concerns, but parents were not entirely pleased with her recommendations, including additional training in gender equity issues for the school's athletic director. Some involved believe that training would not work for AD Neil Williamson because he knew that his decision was discriminatory. Some also feel that the recommendation for an athletic advisory committee would just add an additional level of bureaucracy they would have to negotiate.
Additionally, in a non-Title IX issue, parents requested that the original unlit field be made handicapped accessible. But apparently the accommodations are less than ideal. A portable accessible bathroom is in a grassy area that those in wheelchairs would find difficult, if not impossible, to traverse.
While the school board has implied that some girls' soccer games will be scheduled in the football field, it seems that the discord created over the way the situation has been handled may have longer-lasting effects.
If, when the board issues its decision on the matter(s), parents are displeased with the resolution, the district will likely find itself a party in a lawsuit which, if previous cases are any indication, will likely reveal additional inequities.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Retaliation Case Against Florida School District Survives Motion to Dismiss
In Florida, a federal district court judge has denied the Citrus County School Board's motion to dismiss claims filed by students who allege they were retaliated against after one of them reported that she was "offended and uncomfortable" by sexual behavior of their soccer coaches. As we noted in an earlier post, the case began when a female high school soccer player named Stacey Bigge and her teammate known in the complaint as A.M. reported to their parents that they were uncomfortable with their coaches' tendencies to make sexual comments, which included remakes about players' physicality and genitalia, and that on one occasion, a coach pulled down a player's pants. After their parents reported this conduct to school district officials, the coaches became threatening and intimidating to Stacey and A.M., interrogating them in front of their teammates and threatening to disband the team because of what they did. Eventually, the players quit to avoid this hostility. Later, Stacey and her sister Kathryn Bigge were ordered to be transferred to another high school after the coaches then told the school officials that the Bigges lived outside the district. This transfer order was rescinded after the Bigges' father supplied proof of residency.
Both Bigge sisters sued Citrus County School Board, alleging that the threat to transfer them to another high school was retaliation for Stacey's complaints about the coaches' harassing conduct. The school board argued that Kathryn Bigge's claim for damages on this retaliation theory should be dismissed because she was not the person who engaged in the requisite "protected conduct" by complaining about the coaches' behavior, her sister was. But the court rejected this argument, applying the Supreme Court's recent decision in an employment law case that a whistleblower's fiance could challenge the retaliation directed at him in response to the whistleblower's complaint about sex discrimination on the job. The judge concluded that the threats against Kathryn were actionable on a theory of retaliation because it was "reasonable to infer that the School Board’s threat to transfer Kathryn Bigge to another school district (a threat that was allegedly made in direct response to the Plaintiffs’ complaints) would dissuade her father and sister from making any further charges of discrimination and/or retaliation."
The case is scheduled for a jury trial in February 2013.
Both Bigge sisters sued Citrus County School Board, alleging that the threat to transfer them to another high school was retaliation for Stacey's complaints about the coaches' harassing conduct. The school board argued that Kathryn Bigge's claim for damages on this retaliation theory should be dismissed because she was not the person who engaged in the requisite "protected conduct" by complaining about the coaches' behavior, her sister was. But the court rejected this argument, applying the Supreme Court's recent decision in an employment law case that a whistleblower's fiance could challenge the retaliation directed at him in response to the whistleblower's complaint about sex discrimination on the job. The judge concluded that the threats against Kathryn were actionable on a theory of retaliation because it was "reasonable to infer that the School Board’s threat to transfer Kathryn Bigge to another school district (a threat that was allegedly made in direct response to the Plaintiffs’ complaints) would dissuade her father and sister from making any further charges of discrimination and/or retaliation."
The case is scheduled for a jury trial in February 2013.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Washington High School Receives Complaint About Fields
A group of parents have reportedly complained to the administration of Castle Rock High School, in Washington, about the unequal treatment received by the girls soccer team, which plays on a field without lights while the football team plays in a comfortable, lighted stadium that it does not share with other teams. As a result, girls' games are sometimes called early due to darkness, which reduces their playing time in a way that football players never experience -- sometimes J.V. games have been shorted to as little is 32 minutes, instead of the usual 80. (The boys' soccer team does not use the stadium either, but their season is in the spring so they don't have the darkness problem.) Adding insult to injury, they claim, is the fact that while their games are called for darkness, the football stadium is sitting unused, because their game schedule does not conflict with high school football practice and game times.
To me it sounds like the parents have a reasonable request and a good case that a Title IX violation is occurring. The law requires equal treatment of male and female athletes. If there is a privilege bestowed to some athletes of one sex, it should be shared among a comparable number of athletes of the other sex.
Moreover, none of the school district's apparent reasons for barring the girls from the stadium are recognized exceptions to the to the requirement of equal treatment. If it really is too costly to let both teams play in the lighted stadium, as one quoted official suggested, equality would require a fair distribution of those funds so that girls and boys can both play there sometimes. School officials also seem to be reluctant to let the soccer team share the stadium because that would mean bumping the middle school football team to another location, and those parents would complain. But not only is it perfectly fair and reasonable to prioritize high school athletes over middle school athletes, it is still a gender equity problem when the middles school and high school boys get better treatment than high school boys.
Finally, officials might also be laboring under the misbelief that as long as other school districts in the area doing the same thing, everything is fine, as the Superintendent quoted in story says she's "looked at a lot of the facilities in our league in our area, and I don't find us to be the only school district with a soccer field that doesn't have lights. Nor do I find us to be the only district that doesn't play on the football field." In fact, Title IX does not recognize an "everyone's doing it" defense. These kinds of violations are common, to be sure. It certainly seems like a lot of school officials are misinformed about the equal treatment requirements under Title IX. But what we've noticed on here at the Title IX Blog is that usually when people complaint about them, they eventually prevail. Castle Rock might not be the only school in Washington that isn't giving its girls' soccer team an equal shake, but that doesn't mean its immune from enforcement.
To me it sounds like the parents have a reasonable request and a good case that a Title IX violation is occurring. The law requires equal treatment of male and female athletes. If there is a privilege bestowed to some athletes of one sex, it should be shared among a comparable number of athletes of the other sex.
Moreover, none of the school district's apparent reasons for barring the girls from the stadium are recognized exceptions to the to the requirement of equal treatment. If it really is too costly to let both teams play in the lighted stadium, as one quoted official suggested, equality would require a fair distribution of those funds so that girls and boys can both play there sometimes. School officials also seem to be reluctant to let the soccer team share the stadium because that would mean bumping the middle school football team to another location, and those parents would complain. But not only is it perfectly fair and reasonable to prioritize high school athletes over middle school athletes, it is still a gender equity problem when the middles school and high school boys get better treatment than high school boys.
Finally, officials might also be laboring under the misbelief that as long as other school districts in the area doing the same thing, everything is fine, as the Superintendent quoted in story says she's "looked at a lot of the facilities in our league in our area, and I don't find us to be the only school district with a soccer field that doesn't have lights. Nor do I find us to be the only district that doesn't play on the football field." In fact, Title IX does not recognize an "everyone's doing it" defense. These kinds of violations are common, to be sure. It certainly seems like a lot of school officials are misinformed about the equal treatment requirements under Title IX. But what we've noticed on here at the Title IX Blog is that usually when people complaint about them, they eventually prevail. Castle Rock might not be the only school in Washington that isn't giving its girls' soccer team an equal shake, but that doesn't mean its immune from enforcement.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Alleged abuses by Florida high school soccer coaches
When I started reading this story about alleged abuses perpetuated by three coaches of a girls' soccer team in Florida, I thought it was an Onion-like piece. Then I realized that in Florida it is not so unusual, perhaps, to have a high school named Citrus High School. But the allegations agains these coaches certainly seem so over the top that I wondered still.
But the complaint is legitimate. (As in the complaint has been filed, not that the allegations have been proven true at this point.) But the details are a little confusing. Here is what I have garnered thus far:
1. Some parents and players were concerned over the behavior of three male coaches who worked with the girls' JV soccer team at Citrus High School. This behavior included one coach who liked to watch the girls shower and who pulled down the pants of a varsity player, and another coach who made comments about his genitalia as well as that of his players.
2. Said parents and students made a complaint to the coaching staff and the District School Board of Citrus County. The district suspended without pay the coach who made the inappropriate comments during its investigation. They also reprimanded him.
3. After the invesitgation was complete, the girls who had complained feel they were retaliated against. They say they were made to feel unwelcome. Their families were threatened with lawsuits by the coaches' lawyers. And they allege the coaches asked the district to expel two of them because they allegedly live outside the Citrus County School District.
4. This has led to the current lawsuit against the district school board. The family is asking for an injunction (against the expulsion I would assume) and costs and damages for Title IX violations.
I suspect some of the details got muddled in the reporting of this story and in my re-reporting of it. As we find out more, we will certainly add/correct.
But the complaint is legitimate. (As in the complaint has been filed, not that the allegations have been proven true at this point.) But the details are a little confusing. Here is what I have garnered thus far:
1. Some parents and players were concerned over the behavior of three male coaches who worked with the girls' JV soccer team at Citrus High School. This behavior included one coach who liked to watch the girls shower and who pulled down the pants of a varsity player, and another coach who made comments about his genitalia as well as that of his players.
2. Said parents and students made a complaint to the coaching staff and the District School Board of Citrus County. The district suspended without pay the coach who made the inappropriate comments during its investigation. They also reprimanded him.
3. After the invesitgation was complete, the girls who had complained feel they were retaliated against. They say they were made to feel unwelcome. Their families were threatened with lawsuits by the coaches' lawyers. And they allege the coaches asked the district to expel two of them because they allegedly live outside the Citrus County School District.
4. This has led to the current lawsuit against the district school board. The family is asking for an injunction (against the expulsion I would assume) and costs and damages for Title IX violations.
I suspect some of the details got muddled in the reporting of this story and in my re-reporting of it. As we find out more, we will certainly add/correct.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
West of the Mississippi...
Teams are being added and dropped, and schools are conference hopping.
Not sure if it's the conference hopping that is encouraging institutions to the get their houses in order in terms of Title IX compliance, but it is certainly having that effect.
The University of Montana has slightly-more-than tentative plans to add women's softball to their roster of intercollegiate sports. The state of Montana has no DI softball, which isn't especially surprising given the limitations the weather puts on spring sports, but recent survey data show that softball is the sport undergraduate women would like to see added. Though Montana administrators maintain that they didn't think they "were close to being out of compliance" they knew that they couldn't keep administering the annual interest survey and not do anything. (Not sure why they held that belief in the first place. Simply collecting data does not make one compliant.) Not sure if the NCAA held similar beliefs about Montana's compliance. In the university's last reaccreditation administrators were apparently told that adding another women's sport would be "the right thing to do." Montana is able, it seems, to read between the lines. And its plans to move to the Big Sky Conference likely pushed forward the plan for softball. The Big Sky needs one more softball-playing school in order to hold a conference tournament. But softball is still a ways off, at least three years according to the athletic director. The program is estimated to cost about half a million dollars annually so funds need to be raised, a coach hired, and players recruited.
A different conference hop is forcing another school to do the drop/add shuffle. University of Nebraska-Omaha, a DII school (except for men's hockey), is making the move to DI. It has been invited to the Summit League and given the NCAA's lifting of the ban on division hopping that will happen in June, and that conferences hold the power to invite, UNO has decided to make the leap, something they apparently have been considering for a while now. Not knowing when another such opportunity will come along, the university is making sure everything is in order for the 2012 move.
But unfortunately football and wrestling will not be coming along. The university cited the immense costs of football and the inability to bring wrestling up to DI levels without a large amount of cash as the reason for the cuts. Good news though for a couple of the so-called men's minor sports: UNO will be adding men's golf and soccer.
Not sure if it's the conference hopping that is encouraging institutions to the get their houses in order in terms of Title IX compliance, but it is certainly having that effect.
The University of Montana has slightly-more-than tentative plans to add women's softball to their roster of intercollegiate sports. The state of Montana has no DI softball, which isn't especially surprising given the limitations the weather puts on spring sports, but recent survey data show that softball is the sport undergraduate women would like to see added. Though Montana administrators maintain that they didn't think they "were close to being out of compliance" they knew that they couldn't keep administering the annual interest survey and not do anything. (Not sure why they held that belief in the first place. Simply collecting data does not make one compliant.) Not sure if the NCAA held similar beliefs about Montana's compliance. In the university's last reaccreditation administrators were apparently told that adding another women's sport would be "the right thing to do." Montana is able, it seems, to read between the lines. And its plans to move to the Big Sky Conference likely pushed forward the plan for softball. The Big Sky needs one more softball-playing school in order to hold a conference tournament. But softball is still a ways off, at least three years according to the athletic director. The program is estimated to cost about half a million dollars annually so funds need to be raised, a coach hired, and players recruited.
A different conference hop is forcing another school to do the drop/add shuffle. University of Nebraska-Omaha, a DII school (except for men's hockey), is making the move to DI. It has been invited to the Summit League and given the NCAA's lifting of the ban on division hopping that will happen in June, and that conferences hold the power to invite, UNO has decided to make the leap, something they apparently have been considering for a while now. Not knowing when another such opportunity will come along, the university is making sure everything is in order for the 2012 move.
But unfortunately football and wrestling will not be coming along. The university cited the immense costs of football and the inability to bring wrestling up to DI levels without a large amount of cash as the reason for the cuts. Good news though for a couple of the so-called men's minor sports: UNO will be adding men's golf and soccer.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Fastest goalkeeper in the history
just look at the speed he returned to his goal and saved the goal
Awesome
Awesome
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
World cup 2010 winner prediction! - This world cup is already determined by the numbers!
A few numerology facts to ponder upon
This world cup is already determined by the numbers....
Brazil won the World Cup in 1994; before that they also won in 1970. Adding1970 + 1994= 3964- Argentina won its last World Cup in 1986; before that they also won in 1978. Adding 1978 + 1986= 3964
- Germany won its last World Cup in 1990; before that they also won in 1974. Adding 1974 + 1990= 3964
- Brazil also won the World Cup in 2002; before that they also won in 1962. Adding 1962+ 2002= 3964
- Therefore if you want to know what nation is going to win the World Cup in 2010, you only have to subtract 2010 from the magic number that we have determined: 3964.
In 1954, the World Cup was won by Germany !!
Probably not scientific.... but pretty interesting..
Thursday, July 1, 2010
The most rude women football player
A cute girl on the University of New Mexico's soccer team shows her nasty side.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
