LINKS
Home
In Memoriam
What's the Buzz?
Embezzlement in Athletic Department
OU Sports Financials 2005-2006
Equity in Athletics - Great Lakes Chapter
Big Collegiate Sports vs All Other Sports
Reporting Suspected Violations
Title IX Information
AD Boeh: OU Compliant with Title IX
Unanswered Letters
Important Info for Athletes
Rallies and Other Actions
We're Organized - Join Us!
HELP US TAKE ACTION!
$277,550 Over Budget Spent In Mobile
VA Legislators Angry
The Issues
Developments
Reactions
Articles and News Reports
Who are these dropped athletes?
Class, Dignity & Competitive Spirit
Lacrosse
Swimming & Diving
Track & Field
"Vision Ohio"
Reinstatement Success Stories
Parallel Efforts at Other Universities
Resources
OU Compliance
Links
PETITION
Please
sign our petition to save dropped OU sports. Click
here. If
your current circumstances or position with Ohio University do not require
anonymity, we
request that you sign with your name rather than as "Anonymous"
as some have. Thank you and thanks to the Women's Lacrosse blog
for setting up this petition.
MORE
LINKS
EMAIL
CONTACT FOR THIS SITE: SaveOUSports ATgmailDOTcom
| |
TITLE IX INFORMATION AND RESOURCES
TITLE IX - A LAW USED CONTRARY TO ITS ORIGINAL
INTENT TO DESTROY ATHLETES' DREAMS
An
imbalance?
Sunday,
April 01, 2007
For
the 2005-06 school year, women outnumbered men as full-time undergraduates in
Ohio - nearly 54 percent compared with 46 percent. Yet : 40
percent of the schools' athletes were women.
Schools
spent nearly $73 million on women's sports compared with more than $139 million
for men's sports.
The colleges offered $31 million for scholarships for
female athletes compared with nearly $46 million for men.
They spent $2.1 million on recruiting female athletes
compared with $4.5 million on men.
SOURCE: Preliminary results of a Title IX compliance
study by faculty at Ithaca College, Ohio University, Michigan State University
and the State University of New York at Cortland.
A
comment from our petition from Tyler, a high school student athlete doing a
paper on Title IX. If he can find an alternative solution to cutting
sports, why can't OU's Athletic Department?
"I'm a high
school student athlete writing a research argument report, I chose my topic to
be Title IX, and after much research I fell upon your website. And after reading
your problem and what other schools have done with similar problems, I feel that
there are many different ways for your school to comply with Title IX versus
canceling a few of your sports. I know my say isn't much, but if your school
board would take a serious look at other options, that it could find a fairly
reasonable resolution."
Tyler - As a
potential collegiate athlete, your say is important. We sincerely
appreciate your interest. Thank you for your encouraging words.
We would like to see your paper when it is finished if you are willing to share
it with us. Please email it to us at SaveOUSportsATgmail.com. Please
replace the AT in the email address with @ when you email.
We hope you get an "A+" on the paper.
"...More specifically, the forums
held by the Title IX panel brought to light the fact that overspending by
Division I athletics departments is nearly every bit as much to blame for the
elimination of many men's sports and the lack of expansion for men's lacrosse as
Title IX. Many who testified pointed to the outrageous amounts of money spent at
big-budget Division I schools for sports that ultimately lose money. Even the
elite Division I institutions that send football teams to bowl games lost money
on the very post-season venture that they are competing for and one member of
the panel even said that some of the BCS bowl teams lost money despite going to
the biggest of bowl games. It's hard to believe but between recruiting, travel,
and equipment expenditures, a football program can draw in upwards of 100,000
fans a game and still lose hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Just
incredible.
And for smaller Division I football schools, the losses are just as bad.
Recently, three members of the MAAC Conference (St. John's, Fairfield, Canisius)
dropped their football programs in cost-cutting efforts. St. John's used this
opportunity to specifically begin a men's lacrosse program and Canisius has
significantly upgraded the status of men's lacrosse at that school. One must
wonder how many other schools out there could add men's lacrosse if only they
saw the light...."
Myles Brand, the President of the NCAA, said recently:
‘I certainly hope no
University cuts sports to comply with Title IX. There are always alternatives.
The NCAA is always ready and able to work with an athletics department to
identify acceptable alternatives to cutting sports. It should not be the case
that men's participation opportunities are diminished to comply with Title
IX.'
"
"Lamar Daniel [consultant used by OU] is presented to readers as an
objective source when in fact he has long been a vocal advocate for compliance
through proportionality. There are many people in college athletics who regard
him as more single-handedly responsible for cuts in athletic teams and caps on
rosters than anyone involved in Title IX. What’s worse,
journalistically, is that Daniel has a direct financial stake not just in
publicizing his dubious services but in creating legal anxiety at schools over
enforcement."
Cohen vs. Brown University - A main
case in Title IX history
BROWN UNIVERSITY'S POSITION APPEARS TO BE VERY CLOSE TO OU'S POSITION
AND BROWN LOST THE CASE
Full Ruling on
Cohen v Brown University - PDF - Click Here
XIII. Gender
Equity and Gender Discrimination Law
[622-650, case 321-354]
-
TITLE
IX (passed in 1972) should continue to be a hot area of sports
law
C. The
Modern TITLE
IX Standard
-
THIS IS
THE MAIN CASE FOR TITLE
IX
1. Cohen
v. Brown University (CTA-1, 1993) [case 322] - To
relieve the school’s athletic shortfalls, men’s (water polo and golf) AND
women’s (volleyball and gymnastics) teams would be dropped to unsupported
“club” status. DCT issued a preliminary injunction against cutting the
women’s teams, and the school appealed to CTA-1. Injunction upheld, and the
case went to trial. DCT trial verdict for the women’s teams - i.e., that
the school was violating TITLE
IX (1995), which was upheld by CTA-1 (1996). The school probably will
appeal. Eliminating the men’s sports
didn’t get in line with the ratio Test: Three prong test
to measure effective accommodation by a school (must comply with
at least ONE:
a. Safe
Harbor: Are intercollegiate-level opportunities provided in
numbers substantially proportionate to the student body ratio?
Fairly easy to prove.
b. If
one sex is (and has been) under-represented, can the university show a
history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably
responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of that sex?
They must show there is movement being made to expand opportunities to the
under-represented gender. (Arguments come into play about equal gender
representation in the feeder high schools - 8/95 - a group of girls in a
Nebraska high school sued under TITLE
IX for unequal resources).
c. If
a school has disproportionate gender representation and can’t show a
continuing practice of program expansion, can the school show that the
interests and abilities of the under-represented gender are being effectively
accommodated by the existing program? That is, they must show that the
disparity is due to a lack of interest.
Held
at trial:
Brown University failed to meet any of these standards, and was held to violate
TITLE
IX. Brown appeals, arguing that redistributing money will kill them
economically...All courts say “too bad” (including CTA-1 in 1996). DCT
had provided hypothetical justifications for disparate treatment,
but Brown couldn’t satisfy any of them:
(1) some contact
sports
require more resources for the added equipment;
(2) an influx of freshman
players requires more resources;
(3) special operational expenses - crowd
control at basketball tourneys (as long as needs are met for both genders); or
(4) affirmative measures to remedy past limitations on athletic opportunities
for one gender.
Another, more recent Title IX Case
athletes won
Barrett v West Chester University
Barrett v. West Chester
University – (U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 03-4978,
November 12, 2003)
Federal court decision granting TLPJ's motion for a preliminary injunction
seeking reinstatement of WCU's women's gymnastics team.
Barrett v. West Chester University –
(U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 03-4978,
September 4, 2003)
Plaintiffs' motion in support of a preliminary injunction seeking reinstatement
of WCU's women's gymnastics team.
Barrett v. West Chester University - (U.S. District Court
for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 03-4978, September 4, 2003)
TLPJ's complaint in a sex discrimination lawsuit against West Chester University
of Pennsylvania (WCU), charging that the state university's decision to
eliminate its women's gymnastics team in response to a budget crunch violates
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
Supreme Court's Title IX Decisions -
Copied from Title
IX Blog
Correspondence
in
our research of Title IX
This is a generic response, but it is
documentation we need to demonstrate that we are exhausting administrative
remedies before possibly taking this to the next level
Response from the Office of Civil Rights
Subject: Title IX - Women's Lacrosse Team -- Ohio University Cutting Sports
-- (07-002447)
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:43:37 -0500
From: "OCR" <OCR@ed.gov>
To: Megan Sanders
Dear Ms. Sanders:
Thank you for your email, dated February 2, 2007
to the U.S. Department of Education (Department) Office for Civil Rights
(OCR). You express concern regarding Ohio University’s (University)
recent decision to remove its Women’s Lacrosse team as well as two men’s
athletic teams from its varsity athletics program. You request
clarification of the University’s decision.
OCR is responsible for enforcing, among other
civil rights statutes, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.
§1681 et seq.,
and its implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. Part 106 (Title IX), which
prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in programs or activities
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department.
The regulation implementing Title IX requires
that recipients of Federal financial assistance from the Department that
operate or sponsor interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural
athletics provide equal athletic
opportunities for members of both sexes.
The regulation further provides that in
determining whether equal opportunities are available, OCR will consider,
among other factors, whether the selection of sports and levels of competition
effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of students of both sexes.
The Intercollegiate Athletics Policy
Interpretation, which the Department published in 1979, established a
three-part test that OCR applies, in part, to determine compliance with the
regulatory requirement to effectively accommodate the interests and abilities
of male and female athletes.
An institution is in compliance with the
three-part test if it has met any one of the following three parts of the
test:
(1) the percent of male and female athletes
is substantially proportionate to the percent of male and female students
enrolled in the school; or
(2) the school has a history and continuing
practice of expanding participation opportunities for the underrepresented
sex; or
(3) the school is fully and effectively
accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.
A finding of compliance or discrimination in
violation of these provisions would be fact-specific, requiring a case-by-case
inquiry. In the absence of an actual investigation, OCR is not in a position
to comment on the University’s decision.
The information provided in this reply is
general in nature and should not be read as an advisory opinion with regard to
this particular situation.
I hope this information has been helpful to
you. Thank you for contacting us.
Program Legal Group
Office for Civil Rights
Athletics director says OU is one of top
schools in country for meeting Title IX rules
AD Boeh said this on March 10, 2005. How could OU
get so far out of compliance with Title IX in this short time span that new AD
Hocutt says Title IX forces them to cut sports? We believe AD Hocutt's
claim is just political cover for reallocating funds to favored sports.
Read below:
By Quinn Bowman
Athens NEWS Campus Reporter
Thursday, March 10th, 2005
Ohio
University is doing a good job of abiding by Title IX gender-equity-in-sports
guidelines, and in general is working hard to boost women's athletics, the
university's athletics director said in a presentation on Tuesday.
In the PowerPoint presentation and question-and-answer session with a small
audience afterward, OU Director of Athletics Thomas Boeh outlined the athletic
program's strides toward spending the same amount of money on women's sports as
it does on men's. This is part of the Title IX legislation passed by Congress in
1972 that requires gender-neutral funding for public education institutions.
"One thing we are proud of here is that we have
created a gender-neutral environment," Boeh said in his presentation in the
Convocation Center.
The athletics director detailed the department's financial and structural
efforts toward gender equity.
A primary change in the program is the addition of women's golf in 1997, women's
soccer in 1998, and women's lacrosse in 1999, he said.
"We must show that we are advancing equity between men's and women's
sports," he said. "In today's Title IX compliance, we are at the
letter of the law as well as the philosophical sense of the law."
For 2003, Boeh said OU ranked third in Division I-A schools in the proportion of
the athletics' operating budget that went to women's sports. Athletic programs
for women took up 39.96 percent of the athletics' operating budget. (Reportedly,
OU ranked second for 2004 with a 41.7 percentage, according to the Chronicle of
Higher Education.) OU ranked behind only the University of Florida and
University of Nevada at Reno in 2003, Boeh said.
The difficulty in allocating an equal amount to both men and women's sports is
the cost of the football program, which also has the most potential for making a
profit for the university, Boeh said.
"Whether we like it or not, the money is in football and men's basketball.
Those are the only sports that generate revenue," he said. Boeh stressed
the need to strengthen the entire sports program, stay equitable under Title IX,
and to invest in sports that produce money for the university.
Boeh said OU's football program has the potential to make large profits for the
university, potential that bloom in the hiring of head football coach Frank
Solich, a man Boeh called one of the best football coaches in the country.
Boeh also discussed the management structure of his staff, which he said is team
based and allows for women to oversee men's sports and men to oversee women's
sports.
Another topic was scholarship money, which becomes more complicated under Title
IX regulation. To receive a Division I-A designation, OU must maintain 16 sports
programs. Right now, OU has seven men's sports and nine women's sports. All of
the women's programs have their full complement of scholarships, which vary for
each sport. Only men's basketball, football and baseball enjoy the maximum
scholarships allowed by the NCAA, Boeh said.
In keeping with Title IX, the number of scholarships given to male OU athletes
has been decreasing over the past decade, as the number of scholarships given to
women has increased fairly dramatically, according to a graphic presented by
Boeh. The amount given to each gender is now close to equal, with men still
getting slightly more than women, he said.
Contrary to what some other state of Ohio athletic programs are doing, Boeh said
OU is not considering dropping men's sports programs in order to make up for the
costs of football.
Instead, he said, OU hopes to add more women's teams in the future as the
university tries to grow the entire program, including the football program.
The money that Boeh and his staff receive from the university budget is another
concern, Boeh said.
OU's athletics budget from fiscal year 2003 was $11.7 million, which was 10th
out of the 12 schools in the Mid American Conference, according to Boeh's
presentation. In terms of spending per athlete in 2003, OU averaged $13,191,
while the average MAC athlete benefited to the tune of $17,906, he said.
Boeh's Title IX presentation was sponsored by the Women's Affairs Commission of
the OU Student Senate, the Athens Branch of American Association of University
Women, the Athens Area National Organization for Women, and the Feminist
Activism Training Network.
"CONSULTANT FAST BECOMING AD'S
BEST FRIEND ON TITLE IX ISSUES"
Article on Title IX Consultant used by
OU
From "Legal Issues in Collegiate
Athletics" February 2004
"There is no constitutional right
to play anything," he says. "Young people are resilient. They'll get
over it."
--
Recent
quote by Lamar Daniel, the Title IX consultant hired by James Madison
University. From www.SaveJMUSports.org website.
Lamar Daniel was the consultant hired to
advise OU's administration on Title IX compliance. Read his report on OU
here.
Lamar Daniel Speaks:
"There's no question in my mind that women
are less interested in playing sports than men," says Lamar Daniel, a
former investigator at the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights
who conducted the very first Title IX investigation, back in 1978. Daniel went
on to conduct over 20 reviews before retiring in 1995 to become a consultant.
"But logically, in my experience, you can't prove that," he adds.
"It's just not provable." In practice, Daniel says, this means
schools must seek proportionality, either by adding women athletes, cutting or
capping men's teams, or doing a little of both."
(From
e-Lacrosse.com)
Copied from "Save JMU Sports" at:
Read below: Do the circumstances
sound familiar?
"Sports Consultants" are enriching themselves and trashing the dreams of student
athletes by turning Title IX into a cottage industry to bail out university athletic
departments that don't seem able to manage their finances well.
See how JMU ignored two of the three
possible ways they could have complied with Title IX and chose, as OU apparently
did, only one test when they might have been able to comply with Title IX using
one of the others.
"What is Title IX?"
Title IX
was the first comprehensive federal law to prohibit sex discrimination
against students and employees of educational institutions. Title IX
benefits both males and females, and is at the heart of efforts to
create gender equitable schools. The law requires educational
institutions to maintain policies, practices and programs that do not
discriminate against anyone based on sex. Under this law, males and
females are expected to receive fair and equal treatment in all arenas
of public schooling: recruitment, admissions, educational programs and
activities, course offerings and access, counseling, financial aid,
employment assistance, facilities and housing, health and insurance
benefits, marital and parental status, scholarships, sexual harassment,
and athletics.
The
Compliance Rules
Source: CRS Report for Congress - Order Code
RL31709
[This link won't work. To to the Resources
page on this site to open up a copy]
According to the 1996 Clarification, an
institution must meet only one part of the three-part test in
order to prove its compliance with the nondiscrimination requirement.
Thus, institutions may prove compliance by meeting:
(1)
the proportionality test, which
measures whether the ratio of male and female athletes is substantially
proportional to the ratio of male and female students at the
institution,
(2)
the expansion test, which measures
whether an institution has a history and continuing practice of
expanding athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, or
(3)
the interests test, which measures
whether an institution is accommodating the athletic interests of the
underrepresented sex.
NCAA
Interpretation
Can an institution just drop sports in order to
come into compliance?
The
Question ?
What
about Test 2 and Test 3 as stated above? Were these even
considered?"
|
| |
DROPPED
TEAMS
2006
Women's Lacrosse Team
Swimming
and Diving
and
Track
and Field
|
