Rabu, 11 Mei 2011
Jumat, 06 Mei 2011
One week later
Many, many responses to last week's NYT piece by Katie Thomas on the fudging of Title IX numbers by colleges and universities.
Here are some:
In the NYT itself, the letters to the editor the article inspired. Range of thoughts from a variety of people. Nothing too outstanding. The usual pro Title IX and the opportunities it provides as well as some of the "casualties" of the law rhetoric and the not-so-helpful or equitable solution: stop counting football. There was a good one by the captain of the fencing team at Lafayette College who reports that the formation of a co-ed fencing team has created an overall positive sporting and educational experience regardless of the success of the team from year to year.
Cornell's own student newspaper covered the fencing team's response to the NYT piece which called into question the male club players who practice with the women's varsity team and thus are counted as team members. Anyone who practices with and receives coaching via a women's team must be counted on that roster--and this includes men. Cornell was not being deceitful, as some believe the NYT implied, they were following the rules. And, we should note, they do include the fact that there are male practice players when they report their data to the Department of Education. The EADA has a special caveat section. Most schools do not avail themselves of this section to explain things like male practice players. Cornell does. Whatever one's stance on male practice players, they are not hiding the use of them.
Also in the NYT is George Vecsey's take on the effects--on Title IX and beyond--of "King Football." A good examination of intercollegiate football culture, especially in light of recent justice department questions over the lack of a playoff system in the BCS.
Thomas herself in not quite a follow up wrote about the Delaware situation and the practice of schools cutting men's team in an attempt to bring about gender equity. The Women's Sports Foundation responded to that piece in its own press release. WSF noted that overall opportunities are up--for everyone and that the dropping and adding of sports is nothing new and ongoing in the ever-changing sport landscape. They also provided a compelling metaphor (comparing cash-strapped athletic departments to families) about blame and sharing resources.
There have been many other articles, most of which we probably have not seen. And we imagine there will be more to come. It's been a busy week here in Title IX land, we might be taking the weekend off. Discussions of gender equity in education will resume Monday.
Here are some:
In the NYT itself, the letters to the editor the article inspired. Range of thoughts from a variety of people. Nothing too outstanding. The usual pro Title IX and the opportunities it provides as well as some of the "casualties" of the law rhetoric and the not-so-helpful or equitable solution: stop counting football. There was a good one by the captain of the fencing team at Lafayette College who reports that the formation of a co-ed fencing team has created an overall positive sporting and educational experience regardless of the success of the team from year to year.
Cornell's own student newspaper covered the fencing team's response to the NYT piece which called into question the male club players who practice with the women's varsity team and thus are counted as team members. Anyone who practices with and receives coaching via a women's team must be counted on that roster--and this includes men. Cornell was not being deceitful, as some believe the NYT implied, they were following the rules. And, we should note, they do include the fact that there are male practice players when they report their data to the Department of Education. The EADA has a special caveat section. Most schools do not avail themselves of this section to explain things like male practice players. Cornell does. Whatever one's stance on male practice players, they are not hiding the use of them.
Also in the NYT is George Vecsey's take on the effects--on Title IX and beyond--of "King Football." A good examination of intercollegiate football culture, especially in light of recent justice department questions over the lack of a playoff system in the BCS.
Thomas herself in not quite a follow up wrote about the Delaware situation and the practice of schools cutting men's team in an attempt to bring about gender equity. The Women's Sports Foundation responded to that piece in its own press release. WSF noted that overall opportunities are up--for everyone and that the dropping and adding of sports is nothing new and ongoing in the ever-changing sport landscape. They also provided a compelling metaphor (comparing cash-strapped athletic departments to families) about blame and sharing resources.
There have been many other articles, most of which we probably have not seen. And we imagine there will be more to come. It's been a busy week here in Title IX land, we might be taking the weekend off. Discussions of gender equity in education will resume Monday.
Competitive Cheer Article Published
Ego alert. My own article, "The Feminist Case for NCAA's Recognition of Competitive Cheer as an Emerging Sport for Women" has been published in the Boston College Law Review along with the other papers from its symposium last October focusing on the NCAA at its 100-year anniversary.
Here is the abstract:
Here is the abstract:
This Article examines whether a university can count opportunities in competitive cheer to demonstrate compliance with Title IX. A federal court in Connecticut recently considered this question for the first time. Although it held that the sport as it currently exists is not sufficiently similar to other varsity sports to qualify for Title IX compliance, the decision has mobilized two separate governing bodies to propose more organized and competitive versions of competitive cheer as possible NCAA emerging sports. This Article argues that these proposals would satisfy regulators and the courts. It then discusses how competitive cheer has potential to improve Title IX compliance, in a way that would benefit women’s sports generally, by expanding the definition of sport to include those that are women-driven and by reclaiming as sport an activity— cheer—that was initially deployed to separate women from athleticism. In light of these reasons, as well as the burgeoning interest in competitive cheer at the college and high school levels, the Article concludes that the NCAA should promote the growth of competitive cheer by endorsing it as an emerging sport for women.
Kamis, 05 Mei 2011
Court Dismisses Sexual Harassment, Retaliation Case Against Hofstra
Last month, a federal court in New York awarded summary judgment to Hofstra University, dismissing claims of sexual harassment and retaliation that had been filed by Lauren Summa, former student manager of the football team. Summa, you’ll recall from prior posts, alleged that she was sexually harassed by members of the football team on bus rides to away games and in other contexts. She also claimed that she was not rehired for the manager position or for a grad assistant position elsewhere in the university as retaliation for complaining about the incidents to the coach and others.
The court analyzed Summa’s sexual harassment claims under Title VII as well as Title IX, after concluding that as a student manager she was an employee within the meaning of the employment discrimination law. The court determined that several of the events Summa included in her description of a “hostile environment” consisted of “gender neutral” harassment -- that is, not motivated by her sex -- and thus did not qualify as sexual harassment. For instance, the court described an incident when football players holding shut the door while she was in the bus bathroom as “boorish” and “immature,” but not motivated by sex. Also, the screening of a movie with sexual themes on the team bus did not count as sexual harassment because there was no evidence that it was shown to target Summa. The fact that players responded to Summa’s complaint about the movie (which prompted the coach to turn it off) by shouting “we want boobies” and that one of them yelled at Summa to “sit down and shut … up,” while gender-motivated, did not “by itself” evidence of a severe and pervasive hostile environment.
As my employment discrimination students know well, there’s a lot of subjectivity in the “severe or pervasive” standard in sexual harassment law. Had I been the judge, I would have likely viewed Summa being physically entrapped in the bathroom of a bus full of hostile football players as not only severe, but also gender-related given that none of the men on the bus were apparently subjected to that kind of intimidation. Moreover, while the court concludes that Hofstra responded appropriately to the incidents of harassment that Summa reported (for example, the football player who yelled at Summa after the movie incident was suspended from the team by operation of the coach’s third strike policy) there is no indication that the coaching staff addressed the bus bathroom incident or the “we want boobies” chant which also would have rated with me as evidence of hostile, sexual harassment.
For a variety of reasons, the court also rejected Summa’s claims that she was retaliated against by the University for complaining about the harassment she experienced in her position as student manager. According to the court, Summa did not demonstrate that the person in charge of hiring student managers had knowledge of her complaints, a required element for any retaliation claim. The court also accepted Hofstra’s articulation of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision to deny her a graduate assistant position, one relating to certain misstatements on her resume, which Summa did not demonstrate to be pretext of a retaliatory motive.
Decision is: Summa v. Hofstra Univ., 2011 WL 1343058 (E.D.N.Y. Apr.7, 2011).
The court analyzed Summa’s sexual harassment claims under Title VII as well as Title IX, after concluding that as a student manager she was an employee within the meaning of the employment discrimination law. The court determined that several of the events Summa included in her description of a “hostile environment” consisted of “gender neutral” harassment -- that is, not motivated by her sex -- and thus did not qualify as sexual harassment. For instance, the court described an incident when football players holding shut the door while she was in the bus bathroom as “boorish” and “immature,” but not motivated by sex. Also, the screening of a movie with sexual themes on the team bus did not count as sexual harassment because there was no evidence that it was shown to target Summa. The fact that players responded to Summa’s complaint about the movie (which prompted the coach to turn it off) by shouting “we want boobies” and that one of them yelled at Summa to “sit down and shut … up,” while gender-motivated, did not “by itself” evidence of a severe and pervasive hostile environment.
As my employment discrimination students know well, there’s a lot of subjectivity in the “severe or pervasive” standard in sexual harassment law. Had I been the judge, I would have likely viewed Summa being physically entrapped in the bathroom of a bus full of hostile football players as not only severe, but also gender-related given that none of the men on the bus were apparently subjected to that kind of intimidation. Moreover, while the court concludes that Hofstra responded appropriately to the incidents of harassment that Summa reported (for example, the football player who yelled at Summa after the movie incident was suspended from the team by operation of the coach’s third strike policy) there is no indication that the coaching staff addressed the bus bathroom incident or the “we want boobies” chant which also would have rated with me as evidence of hostile, sexual harassment.
For a variety of reasons, the court also rejected Summa’s claims that she was retaliated against by the University for complaining about the harassment she experienced in her position as student manager. According to the court, Summa did not demonstrate that the person in charge of hiring student managers had knowledge of her complaints, a required element for any retaliation claim. The court also accepted Hofstra’s articulation of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision to deny her a graduate assistant position, one relating to certain misstatements on her resume, which Summa did not demonstrate to be pretext of a retaliatory motive.
Decision is: Summa v. Hofstra Univ., 2011 WL 1343058 (E.D.N.Y. Apr.7, 2011).
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)