Female Wrestlers' Case Against UC Davis Goes to Trial

On Wednesday, a federal district court judge in California heard closing arguments in the trial to determine whether the University of California at Davis violated Title IX when it denied opportunities to female wrestlers in 2001. The case has been in litigation for a many years, and we have blogged about it several times (see here, here, here, and here.)

The plaintiffs in this case are three female, former student athletes who wrestled on the U.C. Davis team until they were cut in 2001. According to this article about the trial, there is conflicting testimony about whether then-athletic director told the then-wrestling coach Michael Burch to cut the women, or whether the coach decided to cut the women, who did not contribute points in wrestling meets, after being told by the AD that he had to reduce the size of the team. In response to protest, the athletic director granted them the right to try out for the team. Two of the women tried out but did not make the team, and a third did not try out.

What about this scenario could violate Title IX? On the one hand, the law does not require schools to have coed teams in contact sports like wrestling. And where the contact sport exception does not apply, female athletes athletes are limited to a right to try out for the men's team when it's the only team in that sport. But at the same time, universities have the obligation under Title IX to provide an equitable number of athletic opportunities to female athletes. Thus, UC Davis could have lawfully excluded women from the wrestling team, if it otherwise provided equitable opportunities to women. But because it did not, the plaintiffs argue, eliminating their opportunities to participate in wrestling violated the law.

Thus, what the judge will really be deciding is whether UC Davis's overall distribution of athletic opportunities complied with Title IX. Davis contends that it complied with prong two, which requires it to show a history and continuous practice of expanding opportunities for women. Plaintiffs' witnesses, including women's sports expert Donna Lopiano, testified that UC Davis's history of women's sports, which included going twenty years without adding any women's teams, then adding three at once in 1996, followed by outdoor track in 1998 and indoor track in 1999, does not qualify. According to the same article, however, another women's sports expert, Christine Grant, testified for UC Davis that the university deserved credit for adding three teams at once.

Other issues also bear on the question of UC Davis's proffered prong two compliance. Namely, the judge will also have to figure out whether the university had good reasons in the 1990s to cut two other women's teams and to reject petitions by women's club teams seeking elevation to varsity status. And the judge will have to figure out how much prong two credit to give to the university's decision to add indoor track as a women's sport in 1999. An appellate court has already ruled that a sport does not necessarily have to raise the number of actual athletes in order to count as new athletic opportunity for existing athletes to compete in another sport. But adding indoor track could still be questionable evidence of prong two compliance if it appears that the decision was motivated by the universities interest in efficiency (in that indoor track doubles as an off-season for other running sports) rather than in response to genuine student interest.

The judge's decision is expected in July.

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.

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).

Liberty reclassifies wrestling

Liberty University reinstituted its DI men's wrestling program in 2006. This was a move that bucked the trend of dropping men's intercollegiate wrestling. And they produced a successful program in that time. But the university announced this week that it would be dropping the team from the roster of intercollegiate sports and reclassifying men's wrestling as a club sport. In order to comply with Title IX. Or so they say. Liberty has added three women's sports since 2009 but says that even those additions are not enough to achieve proportionality. True, perhaps. But we don't even need to go look at their Department of Education Equity in Athletics data--because they are already in compliance. They don't have to achieve proportionality right now because they are adhering to prong two. Adding three sports in three years demonstrates a history of expanding opportunities for women. The only reason they might be seeking proportionality is if they intend on dropping a women's program. Once a women's sport is cut, then proportionality becomes the only option. Or they might want to add a different men's sport in the future. The wrestling community and the Title IX community are often seen as adversaries, and Liberty saying that they cut wrestling because of Title IX is not helping things. Liberty already is in compliance (regarding participation). So if I was a wrestler, I would start questioning Liberty's rationale.

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).