Columnist Criticizes Sex Discrimination in State Championship Site

I'm glad to see sports columnist Steve Hanlon calling the Indiana High School Athletic Association on the apparent sex discrimination in its chosen locations for the girls' and boys' state basketball championships. Criticizing a recent IHSAA memo siting the girls' championship in Terre Haute, Hanlon writes:

While female Hoosiers play an unequal game of geographic Ping-Pong come title time, the boys continue to perform on the big stage, under the bright lights of Conseco Fieldhouse.

Boys get the state capital that is centrally located. The girls get the town in western Indiana where Timothy McVeigh was executed.

Do you feel the thrill, ladies?

Apparently, the girls' basketball championship got squeezed out of Indianapolis's premier basketball venue again this year, due to scheduling constraints created by the fact that Consesco also serves as the championship site for the women's Big Ten conference. But that doesn't mean that the high school girls should perpetually lose out. Hanlon suggests that the girls could play their championship a week earlier so that both could be held at Conseco without conflict.

Another way equitably address the limited playing time available at Conesco would be would be to alternate the championship that gets to play there. Every year, either the boys or the girls would have to relocate to a remote location that will be very inconvenient for either northern or southern teams. Since the girls had to play elsewhere last year (Fort Wayne), this year, the boys should have to play in Terre Haute. The fact that this solution hasn't been suggested -- not even by a columnist who taking up this issue of discrimination -- shows just how unexamined male privilege is in high school basketball.

Indiana scheduling case in court

This week the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the Indiana high school scheduling case. The original lawsuit, filed in 2009 by a former girls' basketball coach charged that boys' basketball in the district got favorable treatment in the scheduling of games. (Other posts about this case can be found by clicking on the Indiana tag.]
No word on when a decision will be made.
We will make sure to note any further news out of Chicago this week.

Retaliation Case Against Texas Southern University Dismissed

Last week a federal court in Texas dismissed a former coach's claims that he was fired by Texas Southern University in retaliation for his Title IX advocacy. Cummings alleged that one week prior to his termination, he met with Athletic Director and raised concerns about the comparatively lower number of assistant coaches allowed for the women's basketball, as well as a lower budget for recruiting and operating costs, and the absence of an appointed Title IX Coordinator and Senior Women's Administrator. Though these facts created an inference of retaliation, TSU overcame this inference with evidence that they fired Cummings because of his team's poor win-loss record and low academic success indicators. None of Cummings's evidence rebutted TSU's claims that its reasons for firing him were legitimate. The only evidence that his advocacy and termination were related was the fact that they happened close in time, but this circumstantial evidence, without more, was not enough to survive summary judgment.

Though this case was dismissed, another former TSU women's basketball coach's retaliation cases remains pending. You may recall Surina Dixon, who was hired to be Cummings's successor. She held the job for just a couple of months before she was terminated, allegedly for questioning TSU's decision to pay her half as much and on a shorter contract term than the newly-hired men's basketball coach. Dixon's case remains pending and dispositive motions have been filed. I expect we'll be hearing more about that TSU case in the near future.

Cummings v. Texas Southern University, 2011 WL 1750697(S.D.Tex. May 06, 2011).

Former coach files separate lawsuit

Amber Parker, the former coach of the girls' high school basketball team in Franklin County, Indiana, has filed a lawsuit against the district alleging that the non-renewal of her teaching and coaching contract was due to her other lawsuit claiming disparity in scheduling of girls' and boys' basketball games. Parker had to "hand off" that lawsuit when she moved to Massachusetts (to those who had standing in the case as parents of current players). It is currently under appeal in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.
Parker is claiming that her firing was a direct result of her public comments (and subsequent lawsuit) about the disparities in scheduling and that the superintendent told a school board member that he wanted Parker fired. The complaint also notes that the contracts of two other varsity coaches were renewed the year Parker was let go even though their teams had worse records.

Appeal in Indiana scheduling case

A summary judgment issued by a federal judge in Indianapolis is being appealed by the plaintiffs in the scheduling of girls' basketball games in Frankling County, Indiana. This is the case started by former coach Amber Parker (who has since moved out of the state). Last year the judge ruled that the schools (and IHSAA, since dropped from the lawsuit) were not in violation of Title IX. Erin noted some of the issues with the judge's rationale when the decision was released and it seems her hopes for an appeal have been realized.
The appeal will be heard by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

Sexual harassment complaint at Syracuse

We apparently missed this story when it was first reported last summer, but a former member of the women's basketball team has filed a complaint against Syracuse University alleging sexual harassment by her coach, Quentin Hillsman. And OCR is investigating the charges. The player is accusing Hillsman of inappropriate behavior that includes touching and texting. Hilsman has denied, in a statement out of SU, the accusations and is currently receiving the support of university administrators.
The complaint was filed by the father of the student, Lynnae Lampkins, who remains at the university but left* the team because of her discomfort with her coach's actions which included butt slapping and chest bumping--of all players--not just Lampkins. Though she believes she was the only one to receive a text from her coach saying "I love you. I miss you. I can't wait to see you."
SU did its own internal investigation when it received the complaint in July 2010 and found no evidence to support the charges.
No word on when OCR will release its findings.


* Though there seems to be some confusion over whether she left or was left out. She is technically being red-shirted this year. Also of concern to some involved is Mr. Lampkins's history of formal complaints against various persons and entitites.

ESPN Magazine Profiles Homophobia and Recruiting

Props to ESPN The Magazine, for publishing an excellent profile on role of homophobia in recruiting for women's college basketball. Here's the first paragraph, which describes an example of the problem:

On every top recruit's college visit, there comes the moment of the final pitch, when the head-spinning hoopla finally gives way to the business of basketball, when the high school girl steps away from the rah-rah of all the games and the ego-stroking of all the VIP intros to sit down with the head coach. During one teen's big moment, a heart-to-heart with Iowa State's Bill Fennelly, the decorated coach of 23 years sang an insistent refrain. "He kept drilling that 'this would be a family,'" says the player, who asked not to be named. "'You should come here,' he said, 'because we're family-oriented.'"

The article goes on to unpack the references to family and reveal them for the veiled homophobia they contain. Though it presents quotes from defenders of the term -- like Fennelly himself, who defends his right to sell what he thinks his program has to offer, and UConn's Geno Auriemma -- the input from coaches, players, and scholars presents a far more persuasive case that recruits and their families interpret the family rhetoric to be "cloaking" something else. Specifically, it is a suggestion that here, unlike other programs, you don't have to worry about lesbians coaches and teammates. Backing this up, the Magazine presents the results of its own survey of current and recent players, 55% of whom said that sexual orientation was an "underlying topic of conversation" in recruiting talks.

The article also makes a persuasive case for why this is bad for the game. Unlike other forms of negative recruiting, like suggestions that an opponent coach is violating rules, or planning to leave the program -- the lesbian variety is unique to the women's game, and is operating as what Professor Heather Barber calls "subtle weapon against programs led by unmarried female coaches." It is a major factor in the disproportionately low number of head coaching jobs held by women. Homophobia not only deters some women from going into coaching in the first place, the threat of a lesbian stigma also keeps women isolated and prevents them from forging mentor relationships and networks that are necessary for advancement in the coaching profession. It is even rumored to be the reason why the biggest powerhouse teams in the game, Tennessee (coached by an unmarried woman, Pat Summit) and Connecticut (coached by a married man, the aforementioned Auriemma) don't play a head-t0-head game anymore (though the article did not present any evidence to substantiate the rumor, only that the rumor exists). More importantly, it is oppressive to student athletes, like Emily Nkosi (nee Niemann) who played for Baylor until she couldn't stand the closet any more. She left Waco because in her words, "my internalized homophobia made me believe that if people found out I was gay, they would kill me."

Ending on a hopeful note, the article echoes coaches and others calling for better education and enforcement of recruiting violations, and a campaign to raise the ethical bar from within the coaching profession. More optimistically, it suggests that the changing cultural attitudes about lesbians will eventually catch up to athletics and render the lesbian stigma meaningless there too. Veiled homophobic references will backfire when they are addressed to recruits who are looking for team atmosphere that is open and affirming of their or their teammates' lesbian orientation.

A change of seasons

OK the title is a misleading and mostly my own projections as I get ready to go outside and shovel/plow for the third time this week.
What has really happened is that the Schuylkill League in Pennsylvania has decided to switch the days of play of the boys' and girls' basketball teams. (So change within the season.) The boys have usually played a Tuesday/Friday schedule and the girls Monday/Thursday. But after seeing a Title IX complaint filed in the nearby Tri-Valley League, Schuylkill decided to be proactive. And thus the schedule change. Hopefully there is not too much consternation over the switch. No mention of what the plans are for future scheduling: keeping the midseason switch or altnerating years, or something else entirely.

Court Dismisses Retaliation Case Against University of Hawaii

Last month, a federal court in Hawaii dismissed the Title IX lawsuit filed by former women's basketball coach Jim Bolla against the University of Hawaii. As we noted when we first blogged about this case in 2009, Bolla claimed that the athletic director terminated his contract in retaliation for the coach's demands for gender equity, while the university claimed that the decision was lawfully motivated by Bolla's abusive conduct towards his players.

But a judge granted the university's motion for summary judgment after determining that Bolla did not establish a prima facie case for retaliation under Title IX, which requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that he suffered some adverse employment action (here, termination) after engaging in protected activity, and that there is evidence to support that his termination was motivated by retaliation rather than a lawful, nondiscriminatory reason.

On the one hand, the court agreed that Bolla's claims to have discussed gender equity concerns with the athletic director (a claim that the university disputes as a matter of fact) sufficiently allege that he engaged in conduct that should be protected from retaliation. The court's reasoning on this point was significant, because it pointedly refused to import from First Amendment law the requirement that an employee be speaking in their personal capacity, rather than in their official capacity, for protection from retaliation to apply. Such an interpretation, which some courts have endorsed (erroneously, in my opinion) leaves coaches without protection from retaliation for just about anything they might say about Title IX as it applies to their team or their job, a position that the judge wisely recognized was inconsistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education (ruling that Title IX prohibits retaliation against a coach who seeks to assert Title IX on behalf of his players).

On the other hand, the court acknowledged that the university articulated a "legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason" for terminating Bolla -- namely, the fact that he had kicked a player, which Bolla did not dispute other than to recharacterize it as "gently" tapping her "buttocks" with his foot. Moreover, Bolla failed to put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the university's stated reason for firing him was actually pretext for an actual motive of silencing his advocacy for gender equity. Bolla attempted to demonstrate this pretext by arguing that it represented a departure from the University's typical way of dealing with coaches' misconduct; specifically, he pointed out that the football coach was not terminated after he publicly made an offensive remark in using the word "faggoty" to describe the pre-game ritual of an opposing team (an incident my co-blogger wrote about here). But the court did not consider the football coach's situation to be comparable enough to Bolla's to have warranted a similar response. The football coach did not physically assault any player; nor, said the court, was there evidence that any members of his own team took offense at his remark. Since Bolla did not provide any evidence that the football coach's comment -- though offensive and certainly painted UH in a negative light -- rose to the level of verbal abuse (let alone, physical abuse, for which Bolla was fired), the university's decision to treat the coaches differently was not evidence that it was actually hiding its true motive of retaliation against him.


Decision: Bolla v. University of Hawaii, 2010 WL 5388008 (D. Hi. Dec. 16, 2010).

Title IX Is an Education Statute

In Menlo Park, California, an eight-year-old girl wants to play basketball in the city league with her friends, who are boys. But the city runs separate leagues for boys and girls, and refuses to make an exception for this "4-foot-6 tomboy." So her parents hired a lawyer, who threatened to sue the city under Title IX. The city's lawyer wrote back, arguing that Title IX does not require them to let her play in the boys league because of the law's limited application to contact sports.

I'm not sure how both lawyers missed the obvious here. Maybe the plaintiff's lawyer was bluffing, but both seem to desperately need a Title IX primer. Title IX is an education statute. It applies only to schools, not municipalities.

To the plaintiff's lawyer's credit, he also claimed that the city's segregated athletics program violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. OK, now you're talking -- under that clause, government entities cannot have policies that treat people differently because of their sex unless they have a good reason. In many cases, courts have ruled that excluding girls from boys' athletic programs (including contact sports like football) violates the Equal Protection Clause because stereotypes about girls' ability, fragility and interest are not good reasons to exclude them. However, those reasons may be less at play in cases like this one, where the city isn't excluding girls all together, but is running sex-segregated programs. Nonetheless, if the city finds itself in litigation, it had better be ready to articulate a good reason to keep kids who are friends, and have comparable size and talent from playing with each other just because they are of different sexes.