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.

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

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.

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.

76 Brooklyn Law Review 385 (2010).

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).