- Government Files Brief in Support of Transgender Student's Title IX Lawsuit
- NYC Public Schools Violate Title IX With Athletic Offerings
- More Campus Sexual Assault Litigation Updates
- Another Litigation Roundup
- Northwestern Professor's Title IX and Defamation Suits Dismissed
- Statistics: Surprising and non-existent
- Fired Tufts Coach Files Complaint
- Iowa complaint & coaching behavior
- Litigation Roundup
- OCR to Investigate University of Minnesota Athletics
- Court Clarifies Pleading Standard for Title IX Cases Challenging Campus Disciplinary Outcomes
- College Rec Sports Has New Policy of Transgender Inclusion
- Minnesota-Duluth digs hole deeper
- Lawsuit filed against University of Oregon
- Montana HS assocation debating transgender policy
- FSU responds to lawsuit
- Winston's victim files Title IX lawsuit against FSU
- NCAA Allows Grants for Families' Travel to Football Championship
- What counts as activism? What's the message?
- Another bathroom case: New Jersey edition
- ACLU steps in on Virginia bathroom case
- Winston cleared by conduct board
- What should we take from Miller's firing?
- Dept of Ed weighs in on records release
- Court asked to reconsider NU lawsuit
The U.S. Department of Education, acting through the Department of Justice, has filed a brief in support of a transgender students lawsuit against his Michigan school district. The student, a sixth grader in the Wyandotte public schools, alleged that school officials refused to refer to him by his male name and pronoun or allow him access to the boys bathroom, and did not intervene to protect him from the harassment of his peers. The governments brief (officially a "statement of interest" as the government is not a formal party to the litigation) argues that Title IX is applicable to his case. Though the statute by its terms limited to sex discrimination, the government urges the court to interpret sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of gender nonconformity, gender identity, and transgender status, as other courts and federal agencies have done in applying sex discrimination provisions of other antidiscrimination statutes such as Title VII. Importantly, the government emphasizes that any of these grounds may be the basis of a sex discrimination claim. This is important because gender nonconformity, while the least controversial and most precedent-supported theory of sex discrimination, without more, would likely provide this plaintiff incomplete relief. Specifically, it may not support his right to use the male restroom -- because when the school refuses to treat him like the other boys in that regard, they are discriminating against his status as a transgender person or someone with a transgender gender identity, not because he doesnt dress or act like a stereotypical member of his natal sex (female). Thus, it would be most helpful to this plaintiff -- and other transgender plaintiffs future -- for the court to endorse the governments broader interpretation of sex discrimination, one which would allow Title IX to serve the basis for challenging discrimination targeting a students gender identity or transgender status.
The Department of Educations Office for Civil Rights announced this week that it has entered into an agreement obligating the New York City public schools to come into compliance after finding that the countrys largest school system violated Title IX by depriving athletic opportunities to girls. OCR had been investigating the school system in response to a 2010 complaint filed by the National Womens Law Center. OCR found that the New York City Department of Education could not satisfy any one of the prongs in the familiar three-part test for measuring equity in the distribution of athletic opportunities. The test allows schools to demonstrate compliance evidence of either (a) a distribution of opportunities proportionate to the percentage of students of each sex; (b) history and continuing program expansion for the underrepresented sex (here, girls); or (c) providing enough athletic opportunities to satisfy the interests of the underrepresented sex. In examining the first prong, OCR found that NYC public high schools would have had to provided 3682 additional female athletic opportunities to achieve proportionality. The second prong was also out of reach, as it was actually the _over_-represented sex that benefited more from program expansion, netting 125 more boys teams that girls teams over the time period under investigation. The Department also denied more requests to add girls teams than boys over the relevant period. Finally, the Department could not satisfy the third prong, as it was unable to demonstrate that it even examined the interest level of its female students at all, let alone by any of the methods that OCR considers like surveys or participation data in non-scholastic athletics. Moreover, the fact that the Department had denied requests from school principals seeking to add girls teams in sports like volleyball, softball, basketball, soccer, tennis, cross-country, bowling, golf, and swimming served to indicate unmet interest. In response to this findings of noncompliance, the Department has now entered into an agreement obligating them to assess female students athletic interests by multiple means including but not limited to surveys, and to add teams as appropriate in response to evidence of unmet interest. It must also develop a procedure by which students can formally request the addition of teams and provide Title IX training to athletic directors.
Title IX lawsuits related to campus sexual assault remain in the news: * University of Colorado-Boulder has settled a lawsuit with a student who claimed the university discriminated against him in violation of Title IX in the process of finding him responsible for the sexual assault of a fellow student in 2013. The university will reportedly pay the student $15,000, and the student, in turn, has promised to withdraw. Per the terms of the settlement, if asked for a reference the University will not disclose anything other than the fact that he was found responsible for two violations of the code of conduct, and that prior to his withdrawal he was in good academic standing. The universitys general counsel referred to the settlement as a "business decision" to avoid the high cost of litigation, while the plaintiffs attorney was happy that the settlement preserved her clients anonymity in connection with the "false accusations" of assault. * A fraternity at Wesleyan University has sued the university challenging its requirement that residential fraternities become coed over the next three years; a policy change in the wake of (and presumably responsive to) accusations of sexual assault that have taken place at fraternity houses. The lawsuit, filed by the local chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon, one of the two residential fraternities affected by the new policy, claim that it singles out male organizations in violation of Title IX. Reports elsewhere suggest that the reason Wesleyans only sorority was not affected by the policy is because they do not maintain on-campus houses -- a fact that could make it difficult for the DKE plaintiffs to sustain their argument that Wesleyans policy is differentiating based on sex. * A female student has sued the University of New Mexico alleging that the university responded with deliberate indifference to her report that she had been drugged and sexually assaulted by two football players while other players watched and recorded it on video. She claims that the university conducted a lackluster investigation in order to shield the players from disciplinary action, including by ignoring witnesses and failing to consider evidence. The accused students were temporarily suspended from the football team during the off-season, but were reinstated prior to the conclusion of the investigation. Meanwhile, the plaintiff alleges that she was harassed and re-victimized as football players continued to share video of her from the night of the assault. She suffered emotionally as a result, and was unable to attend classes. She eventually lost her academic scholarship, forcing her to withdraw from UNM and enroll at a school with higher tuition. Her lawsuit seeks damages to compensate her for those losses. * A female graduate student has sued the University of Stony Brook (part of the SUNY system) alleging that the university violated Title IX in the hands-off manner it handled the disciplinary process of the student she accused of assaulting her in his dorm room. University officials conducted an investigation but when it came to the hearing required the plaintiff to present her own case against the accused student after only providing her a week to prepare her case. The accused student was found not responsible for assault because it appeared to the disciplinary committee that the sexual contact between them was consensual.
Here are some updates in various cases where Title IX is being used to challenge sexual harassment and sexual assault in high schools: * In Michigan, a former student has filed a Title IX lawsuit against the Traverse City Area Public Schools, alleging that the school district was indifferent to harassment and retaliation he faced after reporting that a teacher had engaged him in oral sex and had been sending him sexually explicit text messages. (The teacher was later criminally convicted.) * In a similar matter, a federal judge in Pennsylvania refused to dismiss a mothers claim against the Susquehanna Township School District challenging the hostile environment her daughter faced after police arrested the principal for having sex with her daughter, a 16-year-old student. (The principal has plead guilty.) * In yet another matter involving teacher-student harassment, a court refused to dismiss a students case against the Seattle School District where the student alleged that she reported the teachers harassing comments, stares, and touches to the principal, and that the principal did not follow up in any meaningful way, allowing the teachers conduct to escalate to more egregious physical contact. R.P. v. Seattle Sch. Dist., 2015 WL 418001 (D. Wash. Jan. 30, 2015). * The State Board of Education in Hawaii will have to continue to defend a lawsuit arising out of the repeated instances of rape of a female special-needs high school student by one of her male special-needs peers. In rejecting the states motion to dismiss, the court agreed that the plaintiff adequately alleged that school officials failed to supervise the male student even though they were on notice of the fact that he had attacked the female student off campus, and that the lack of supervision provided the male student the opportunity to rape the female student in a coed bathroom on campus. Kaukaho v. State Bd. of Educ., 2015 WL 470230 (D. Ha. Feb. 3, 2015).
Earlier this month, a federal district court in Illinois dismissed claims filed by a Northwestern philosophy professor against Northwestern and a student who had accused him of sexual assault. The court dismissed Ludlows Title IX claims against Northwestern after concluding that he had not sufficiently alleged discriminatory motive. Ludlows complaint criticized the procedure by which the university conducted the investigation of the graduate students complaint that he had sexually assaulted her in the context of an otherwise-consensual romantic relationship. He also challenged the universitys conclusion--having found insufficient evidence to substantiate the graduate students allegations--that Ludlow was guilty of capitalizing on an equal power dynamic, on the grounds that Northwestern had no policy against such relationships. Yet, the court refused to infer from the fact of these allegations alone that Northwestern could have violated the professors rights under Title IX, since the complaint contained no allegation that Northwestern officials were motivated by bias against Ludlow on the basis of sex. The court also dismissed Ludlows claims that the graduate student had defamed him when she directed her complaint against Ludlow to Northwesterns general counsel. Defamation is a tort that renders a defendant liable for making false statements against the plaintiff. However, some statements are subject to a qualified privilege, meaning that the defendant cannot be liable for them, even if they prove false, unless the plaintiff shows that the defendant was acting maliciously when making the statement. The court determined that the graduate students statement is subject to the qualified privilege because it is a statement made to an employer about alleged employee misconduct__. The court recognized that the privilege is justified by the strong public interest in having misconduct reported. Accordingly, the court examined Ludlows complaint against the graduate for evidence of malicious intent. However, all Ludlow alleged was that her statement was untrue, and the court refused to infer malice from that alone. (The court also dismissed a second charge against the graduate student for invading his privacy by presenting him in a false light, because the situation did warrant making an exception to the requirement that a false light claim involve the "public presentation" of private matters--a requirement not satisfied by the graduate students communication with the university counsel.) When we blogged about this case while it was pending, we noted concern for the possibility that defamation lawsuits could potentially have a chilling effect on valid reports of sexual assault. The courts decision appropriately addresses that concern by recognizing the privilege afforded to statements made in the context of such complaints. While a person who makes a false report of sexual assault for malicious reasons like retaliation or spite can still be held accountable, the law does not impose liability every time a sexual assault report does not prove true. This limitation provides important protection for erstwhile whistleblowers, who may actually _be _telling the truth, yet fear the possibility of not being able to marshal enough evidence to support their claim, as well as in cases where the accuser turns out to be mistaken because of memory lapse or trauma. In such cases, the accusation will not stand, but nor will it give rise to liability on the accusers part. Decision: Ludlow v. Northwestern Univ., 2015 WL 508431 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 5, 2015).
A short, but important editorial from this past weekends New York Times about the statistics on campus sexual assault covering two angles. The first is one with which many are familiar: we dont know the rate of campus sexual assault. The one in five statistic is based on a small sample size. The unreliability of that number is fodder for those who believe the problem is not as serious as the recent campus activists have made it out to be. It has also been suggested that the number is inflated because women are "crying rape" when they regret their sexual encounters and/or have a grudge against a fellow student and are using the campus judicial process to get him (usually this is in reference to heterosexual encounters when the man is the accused and the woman the victim) expelled. We need better numbers to stop this discourse because, as those of us involved in the study of and activism around this issue know, the number is likely higher because of underreporting. The many stories that have emerged from the movement illustrate why people do not report sexual assaults. The questions about why victims dont just go to the police ignore both the poor treatment victims receive in the system including the difficulty in prosecuting rape cases. But as we have unfortunately seen, the campus judicial system is often failing these victims, too. The movement may be bringing these injustices to light, but it is hard to say if reporting will increase or decrease because of it. I would like to believe that more people would come forward to report sexual assault, but it likely depends on the campus environment and the history of the institution in its handling of cases. This brings me to the second angle of the editorial: the reporting of sexual assaults that colleges and universities are required to do under the Clery Act. All campus crimes must be reported but it seems that sexual assaults have been the most controversial because schools have been underreporting them. Some of the nearly 100 schools under investigation for Title IX violations in relation to the handling of sexual assault are also facing Clery Act violations. Here is what I did not know about Clery Act reporting that the editorial shed light on: "When the Department of Education audits universities for possible Clery Act violations, reports of sexual assault rise dramatically, by approximately 44 percent; when the period of scrutiny ends, reporting rates fall right back to pre-audit levels." This was evidence of a study that looked at data from 2001-2012 during which time the government conducted over 30 Clery Act audits. This is disturbing. There have long been calls for putting some teeth into Title IX as it applies to sexual assault and Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights in the Department of Education Catherine Lhamon promised that the department would indeed pull federal funding from offending schools. Tht has not happened yet. Clery Act violators, though, already incur fines. Unfortunately they do not seem, based on the above data, to be much of a deterrent. This is from a 2014 Inside Higher Ed article about Clery Act violators and their punishments: "In spite of that increased scrutiny, colleges facing penalties have continued to be successful in getting their Clery Act fines reduced, according to data provided by the Education Department. Far more often than not, colleges are able to either persuade officials to lower the fines or enter into a settlement through which they pay a lower amount than the department had originally proposed. Of the 21 Clery Act fines that have actually been imposed on colleges since 2000, 17 have been lower than the department initially proposed, the agency’s data show. Among those institutions successful in winning a discount on their fines, the average reduction was more than 25 percent and usually represented tens of thousands of dollars. The largest discount, proportionally speaking, was a $110,000 fine that the department proposed against Pittsburgh Technical Institute in 2005; the for-profit institution based in Oakdale, Pa., was ultimately fined half that amount, $55,000, in 2007." This is a bad--as in ineffective--precedent and does not bode well for putting some force behind Title IX compliance either.
Though its no longer truly "news," I recently learned that former mens tennis coach Jamie Kenney filed a Title IX complaint with the Department of Education back in December alleging that her termination from the position was illegally motivated by gender stereotypes and double standards. According to the complaint (which I have read but do not have a link for) Coach Kenney suspended two team captains for violating the teams drinking policy. As part of their suspension, a decision Kenney had cleared with the Athletic Director, the players were banned from attending the conference championship in any capacity. The players attended anyway in defiance of their coach, so Coach Kenney confronted them, as well as a (male) assistant coach who had been in on their plan, to insist that they leave. In response, the rest of the team rallied around the suspended players by enlisting their parents to complain to the university president. The Athletic Director then withdrew his support for the coachs decision, and a representative from human resources confronted Coach Kenney with the parents complaints, which had been forwarded by the President, as well as the negative evaluations that the students had filled out in the wake of (and in obvious reaction to) her unpopular disciplinary decision. Eventually, after raising gender equity concerns about the way she was being treated, Coach Kenney received notice on July 1 that she was terminated from her position. The complaint alleges that the universitys response to the complaints about Coach Kenneys decision to discipline her players was discriminatory on the basis of gender, in that male coaches are afforded greater freedom to engage in coaching methods that female coaches are scrutinized for. Additionally, she alleges that Tufts tends to ignore complaints made against male coaches and to support male coaches decisions to discipline their players. I am hopeful that OCR will investigate this complaint and expose some of the under-examined obstacles facing female coaches in general (see also Kriss post from yesterday about the Iowa complaint), and female coaches of male athletes in particular. As the complaint points out, gender stereotypes create the expectation that women, including female coaches, embody a "caretaker" role. When they step out of that role and into a stereotypically male"leadership" role, they are often penalized for it in overt and subtle ways. This puts female coaches in a double bind, because the leadership model is generally more valued that the caretaker model, and may be particularly so when the athletes in question are male. It is no wonder that women constitute a mere 2-3% of the head coaches of mens teams, while men, in contrast, are the majority of coaches of mens teams. This matter, therefore, provides OCR with a rare opportunity to address a concrete, individualized example of conduct that contributes to a widespread problem.
Two pieces of news from two of my alma maters today. One, four field hockey players at the University of Iowa have filed a Title IX complaint with OCR in conjunction with the firing of field hockey coach Tracey Griesbaum. The second: University of New Hampshire fired womens ice hockey coach Brian McCloskey signed an admission of wrongdoing in a case of assault against a player during the course of a game. Regarding Iowa, we were expecting something Title IX related to come out of this situation, but we presumed it would be a lawsuit from Griesbaum. (This still could happen, of course.) So it was a pleasant (in that unfortunate kind of way) surprise to hear about the four student-athletes taking the initiative and filing the complaint. The premise of the complaint is that the firing of Griesbaum, a highly successful coach, disadvantages female athletes, i.e, they are not receiving treatment equal to that of their male peers. They also contend that there is unequal treatment of female and male coaches within the department noting that the alleged abusive behavior committed by Griesbaum (based on student exit interviews) is tolerated when it is done by male coaches. This relates to the case at UNH. The original story from McCloskey, who did have a lawsuit pending against the university for a while, was that he grabbed a players shirt after she came off the ice and spoke back to him when he reprimanded her for her performance. He contended that this would have been tolerated if he were a female coach and/or coaching men. And he was probably right. This does not excuse his behavior or make it acceptable. It does point to the double standards that exist around gender and coaching styles--the same ones that the Iowa complaint points out. McCloskey, as part of the admission--which includes more details (he pulled the players shirt which caused her to fall and hit her head; he then grabbed her face mask)--will attend anger management classes. I was about to suggest that all coaches take anger management classes or that there be better training programs for coaches, but I do not think the solution is that simple. We chastise coaches who engage in abusive behaviors, but the paradigm never shifts away from the idea that harsh disciplinarians and tough love and other such euphemisms are the key to creating a successful team. We justify these behaviors by pointing to athletes who say they are motivated by such tactics. I believe there is more (there always is!) to both the Iowa and UNH situations that resulted in the dismissal of these two coaches. Even if it was the only reason, there are gendered implications to the bad behavior rationale. Still, there is a huge positive to take out of, at least, the Iowa complaint. The four student-athletes are challenging their department, a pretty bold move given that three of the four will be returning athletes next season. I suspect there may be a Title IX whisperer somewhere in Iowa City. Regardless, I hope the activism is contagious. Maybe it will head north towards Duluth??
Two separate Title IX lawsuits have been filed recently, one challenging disparities in athletic opportunities at a high school, while the other alleges a college mishandled her complaint of having been raped by a fellow student. * A parent in Englewood, Tennessee, is suing the McMinn County Board of Education on behalf of his daughter, a freshman at McMinn Central High School who participates in softball and volleyball. He alleges that disparities in the athletic opportunities for girls violate Title IX. In particular, he alleges that the softball team has to pay itself for field maintenance and equipment, amenities that are provided to boys teams from the school budget. Also, the school does not provide the softball team with a lighted field, which limits the teams scheduling options for practices and games. The complaint also notes that the boys baseball team is provided superior quality locker rooms, dugouts, field house, storage facility, playing surface, and warm up and practice areas. The lawsuit seeks an injunction against continued discrimination and damages to compensate the plaintiff for out-of-pocket expenses and other costs. * A former student is suing the West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine, claiming that she was forced to withdraw after she reported to school officials that she had been raped by a fellow student at an off-campus party. She alleges that school officials responded to her report by advising her to leave school, since they could not guarantee her safety. Additionally, she claims that they did not administer a drug test, leaving her on her own to discover that her assailant had drugged her with diazepam, that they failed to protect her from further contact with him, that they threatened to sue her if she spoke out, and that they breached her confidentiality. Moreover, she alleges that she experienced a sexually hostile environment after a school employee who was dating the alleged, disclosed details of the incident to the campus community. Her complaint demands damages to compensate her for emotional distress and other costs, as well as an injunction that would require the school to do a better job responding to victims in the future by implementing drug tests and protecting them from harassment and retaliation. And in another story, a Title IX lawsuit was partially dismissed. * The Bibb County School District in Georgia prevailed in dismissing part of a students Title IX claim seeking damages for a 2012 rape she suffered at the hands of a gang of fellow students who had orchestrated a plan to attack her in a school restroom. The student alleged that two prior instances of gang rape at the school, one in 2008 and another in 2002, should have put the school on notice of the threat, one of the required elements for institutional liability to attach in cases of sexual harassment and sexual violence among peers. But the court ruled that the two earlier gang rapes could not serve as notice because they were sufficiently different, having been conducted by different gangs than the one that raped the plaintiff. In imposing this requirement for gang-specific notice, the court rejected plaintiffs argument that the schools notice of a gang rape problem in general should suffice. The plaintiffs other argument, that the school also responded to her own rape with deliberate indifference, continues to be litigated. The remaining claim could potentially result in damages attributable to the schools indifferent response, which itself could have been the source of some independent emotional distress. However, the dismissed claim was likely considerably more valuable to the plaintiff, as it would have made the school liable for damages arising from the rape itself. Doe v. Bibb County Sch. Dist., 2015 WL 403320 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 28, 2015).
The Department of Educations Office for Civil Rights will investigate a Title IX complaint directed at the University of Minnesota athletics department, according to an article in the local press yesterday. The complaint alleges that the department does not provide comparable facilities to womens programs, as evidenced by the womens cross-country and track teams exclusion from a proposed $190 million athletic "village" that will provide facilities for football and mens and womens basketball. The running sports, which account for almost half of the opportunities offered in womens athletics, will actually be losing their existing track to make way for the new village. The team, along with its mens team counterpart, may even be relocated to a facility four miles away in St. Paul. OCRs investigation would presumably focus on the overall treatment of mens and womens athletic programs in comparison to each other. At first blush, it seems problematic that the new facility will benefit a far greater number of male than female athletes and that its construction seems to be disrupting a far greater number of female athletes than male (running sports account for 227 opportunities for women and 145 for men). Depending on the level of quality of the facilities for other womens sports, however, its theoretically possible for OCR to determine that the programs receive equal treatment in the aggregate. We shall see what the investigation reveals.
Earlier this month, a federal district court in Ohio considered Miami Universitys motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a male student whom the university had expelled after a disciplinary board found that he had committed sexual assault on another student. The court found that the student had not sufficiently alleged a Title IX violation in his complaint, though it granted him the opportunity to amend his complaint and try again. In evaluating the students first attempt, the court provided an analysis that is useful to understanding the scope of institutional liability under Title IX in cases challenging universities decisions to discipline students for sexual assault or other misconduct. The students argument in this case is that he did not commit sexual assault, but rather, had consensual sex with the female student who later accused him. He thus charges the university disciplinary board with having reached the wrong conclusion in his case. Accordingly, the court refers to this claim as an "erroneous outcome" claim, as earlier court decisions have done. Citing twenty-year-old precedent* the court explained that a complaint alleging an erroneous outcome in violation of Title IX must include allegations of (1) facts sufficient to cast doubt as to the accuracy of the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding and (2) causation, i.e., that the errors were the result of gender bias. The second requirement is important because it separates conduct that could possibly give rise to liability on other grounds, like negligence or breach of contract, from conduct that constitutes sex discrimination in violation of Title IX. At the pleading stage, it is not difficult for plaintiffs to satisfy the first requirement, as the student in this case easily did by alleging his version of the facts as they relate to the matter of consent. The second requirement is typically met if the complaint alleges "statements by members of the disciplinary tribunal, statements by pertinent university officials" or "patterns of decision-making that also tend to show the influence of gender." In this case, the complaint included neither type of allegation. It is not a sufficient "pattern" allegation to point out, as the student in this case did, that “[i]n virtually all cases of campus sexual misconduct,” the accused student is male and the accuser is female. The court addressed another recent case, also from Ohio, in which a plaintiff like the one here sufficiently pleaded erroneous outcome in violation of Title IX, and thus survived the universitys motion to dismiss. In that case, Wells v. Xavier University, the plaintiff alleged that bias stemmed from the fact that Xavier was being investigated by the Office for Civil Rights for failure to adequately protect sexual assault victims, and as a result, was motivated to use him as a scapegoat to improve their image. The court was satisfied that such an allegation could, if proven serve as evidence of gender bias on Xaviers part.** In the present case against Miami University case, the plaintiffs complaint did not contain allegations of the "scapegoat" theory that had been present in Wells v. Xavier University, though the court indicated that if the plaintiff amends his complaint along these lines, he may be able to withstand dismissal as well and continue to litigate his Title IX claim. The court gave the plaintiff a month to re-file an amended complaint. We shall see what happens. Sahm v. Miami Univ., 2015 WL 93631 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 7, 2015). *the age is worth noting, in light of common misconception that Title IXs application to sexual assault is something brand new. The decision the court relied on is Yusuf v. Vassar College, 35 F.3d 709 (2d Cir. 1994). That case also set forth selective enforcement model as an alternative to the erroneous outcome model for framing Title IX challenges to university disciplinary decisions. In selective enforcement cases, the plaintiff does not need to allege his innocence, only that the university engages in a pattern of disciplining only members of one sex and ignoring complaints of similar violations by the other sex. ** The parties in Wells v. Xavier University decided to settle rather than go to trial, so it does not serve as an example for how to _prove _bias, only how to plead it.
The National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association (NIRSA) has announced a new policy of inclusion for transgender athletes, which will take effect this spring. NIRSA governs a series of regional and national "extramural" championships for college students in a variety of mens, womens, and coed sports. The policy allows encourages transgender athletes to self-identify as male or female for purposes of participation: NIRSA RECOGNIZES AND CELEBRATES THE TRANSGENDER STUDENT POPULATION AMONG THEIR TOURNAMENT PARTICIPANTS. THROUGH THE GUIDING POLICIES OF THE NIRSA CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES TOURNAMENTS, NIRSA EMPOWERS STUDENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN INTRAMURAL SPORTS AND SPORT CLUB DIVISIONS BASED ON THEIR EXPRESSED GENDER IDENTITY.The policy does not require the participant to undergo hormone treatments, sex reassignment surgery, or any kind of legal process in order to participate consistently with ones gender. In this way, the policy distinguishes itself from the NCAAs policy for its championships in womens sports, which requires transgender female athletes to undergo hormone treatment for a year prior to competing. With an increasing number of high school athletic associations adopting or considering NCAA-type policies, NIRSAs policy serves as an example that more inclusive policies are possible and more appropriate for sport organizations that are striving to maximize athletic participation. On its website, NIRSA acknowledges that the new policy will not "noticeably impact the experience of the majority of tournament participant organizers and participants." Yet, it underscores the value of its efforts "if these changes make participation more inviting and inclusive for even one more individual." Another thing I like about this policy is that it imposes no additional burdens on transgender athletes, in contrast to some high school athletic association policies that allow gender-identity based participation only after a committee of sorts has investigated and affirmed the students gender. NIRSAs policy simply requires that the campus official who signs off on the teams roster should include transgender athletes as participants on a single-sex team, or denote their sex for purposes of a coed sport that specifies a particular ratio of men:women, based on that players good faith representation of their gender identity. The policy specifically instructs the campus official not to designate the player according to the sex listed on the players school records if that designation is in conflict with the players affirmed gender identity. And it provides a work-around for any player who is not comfortable discussing their gender identity with that particular campus official. The policy also affirms that "for many, coming to know one’s gender identity is not something that happens in an instant; it is a complex process that can occur over an extended period of time." This language appropriately preempts any requirement that a player consistently identify as a single gender over the course of their time in college. The policy is also sensitive to issues of confidentiality ("Under no circumstances should a student-athlete’s identity as a transgender person be disclosed without the student’s express permission"). Along with announcing a new policy for participation, NIRSA has updated its code of conduct, which already prohibits "verbal or non-verbal profanity, disrespectful language, and obscene gestures or behavior" to also ban "bullying" and "homophobic and transphobic expressions of any kind." And, it includes a set clear and straightforward "best practices" for facilities:
Transgender student-athletes should be able to use the locker room, shower, and toilet facilities in accordance with the student’s gender identity. Every locker room should have some private, enclosed changing areas, showers, and toilets for use by any athlete who desires them. When requested by a transgender student-athlete, schools should provide private, separate changing, showering, and toilet facilities for the student’s use,but transgender students should not be required to use separate facilities.The policy stops short of requiring such facilities as a condition for hosting a NIRSA-governed competition, but it does require host institutions who do not meet this standard to "work with NIRSA to make comparable accommodations." Ideally, this language will encourage institutions that are not already thinking about incorporating principals of universal design into their facilities and locker rooms to begin to do so.
When I give my sport management students scenarios about sport organizations and their responses to or creation of various controversial situations, I do so for several reasons. One is to present examples of non-compliance with laws or policies and ask them to think critically about what went wrong, why, and how. Another is to demonstrate lack of leadership and the consequences of ignorance and/or ego. I ask them (as an example) "do you want to be the athletic director under whose watch multimillion settlements had to be made with victims of retaliation/abuse/discrimination?" Hopefully they get it. Of course the real test is what they do when they gets jobs in athletics. This is a test that University of Minnesota Duluth Athletic Director Josh Berlo is failing. Last month, as we noted, he announced that womens ice hockey coach, Shannon Miller, would not have her contract renewed because, as the highest paid coach in womens ice hockey (at just over $200,000) the cash-strapped university could not afford her anymore. After considerable outcry--which is ongoing--the chancellor issued a vague statement suggesting that there are other issues: "The decision to not renew Coach Millers contract was difficult, but was made thoughtfully after a full review of a number of factors. Its the right decision for the program and I support it. While the decision is sound, we did not communicate it publicly as clearly as I would have liked. We could have communicated this in a less narrow way, and more clearly explained our desire to see the program go in a new direction." I have already noted how the money rationale was not so much "narrow" as discriminatory. But I am curious about the always-vague but at least equally applied "new direction." The team has won 12 of their 13 games this season. Miller has produced over 20 Olympians and was the national team coach for Canada in the first Olympics that offered womens ice hockey. What direction is UMD looking to take their program? Down? I have, as I am wont to do, buried the lead. The latest news out of UMD is that a second female coach has been told her contract will not be renewed. Softball coach Jen Banford, who is also very successful and has been at the university for a decade, will no longer be the softball coach. There seems to be confusion over Banfords dismissal, though. Berlo told ESPNW that the coach would remain the softball coach; it was her position as Director of Operations for womens hockey (i.e., part of Millers staff) that was being terminated. But a copy of the letter Banford received (which can be found via the above link to Kate Fagans ESPNW article) very explicitly states that it is both positions. Banford herself confirmed this with Human Resources. Banford believes she is being retaliated against for her support of Miller and the womens ice hockey program. She too has retained lawyers. The he said/she said is playing out in the media--not in the athletic department offices. Berlo said this is a paperwork issue and that he plans to retain Banford as the softball coach and is merely restructuring her position. Banford told ESPNW: "Josh has not spoken with me in six weeks. To me, its obvious why hes saying hes in the process of writing a renewal, but if he wanted to give me a renewal, he would have given me that on Dec. 11." I could never have devised a scenario like this for my students. Two female coaches contracts not renewed within weeks of one another and with specious rationales for the dismissals; it just would not have been believable. But here we are.
The University of Oregon Ducks will take the field shortly in the first College Football Playoff National Championship. This event has likely overshadowed last weeks news that a student has filed a Title IX lawsuit against the university and the basketball coach, Dana Altman. The woman alleges she was raped by three basketball players multiple times in one night in early March 2014. All three were dismissed from the team and barred from the university for a period of 4-10 years. But the disciplinary action did not occur until May 2014--after post-season play had concluded. At the time, the dismissal of these players inspired protest on behalf of the student-athletes citing sex discrimination. But the only Title IX complaint filed with OCR was about the universitys failure to respond to the report and to the lack of notification to the campus community about an accused sexual perpetrator on campus. Yes, one of the accused Brandon Austin, was a transfer from Providence College where he never played after being dismissed from the team as a first year after accusations of his participation in a gang rape there. We wrote about this last summer here and here. Oregon continues to maintain that it did not know why Austin transferred from PC. I continue to maintain that this seems highly implausible. Whether there is evidence to prove this will be revealed during a trial--if it gets to a trial. The importance of this aspect of the lawsuit though should not be underplayed. Austin is now at a junior college in Florida. Administrators there know of his past. So the question that may be addressed in this lawsuit is: what does a university have to know? when? and how must they handle similar situations? Will a court find that Oregon--if they knew of Austins prior indiscretions--exhibited deliberate indifference that lead to the rape of the plaintiff? It is well past the time that some of these questions be answered. Misbehaving student-athletes have been passed around from school to school for far too long. Someone has to be held responsible when they re-offend. Regarding the timeliness of the schools disciplinary action, to a cynical outsider this might look like the university was trying to keep the student-athletes in good standing until the end of the semester thus not damaging the overall academic standing of the team in terms of progress towards graduation and overall GPA--markers the NCAA uses to determine post-season eligibility. This case has not received nearly the amount of attention of FSU, perhaps because Oregon did some things right (despite the increase in awareness the bar remains very low). Or maybe the lack of coverage is because this is the basketball team and not the football team. Some of lawyers on the FSU case are also handling this one, and I expect as it goes forward and all the pieces are revealed, it will get more attention.
In Montana, we have shades of Minnesota. The controversy last fall over the transgender policy in Minnesota has moved westward. The Montana High School Association has written a policy to address the participation of transgender student athletes in sports. The association will vote later this month on the policy. A difference between the Montana and Minnesota situations is the voting. In Minnesota a board of 20 voted on the policy. In Montana all the member schools--179 of them--will vote. Passage of the proposal, which is considered a change in policy, requires a 2/3 majority. This is my first concern. Thats a lot of people in a fairly conservative state, and the conservative religious groups--as they did in Minnesota--have mobilized. The rhetoric and misinterpretations are similar. There are the "privacy concerns"--again, not those of transgender children, but of cisgender children. There are the outrageous statements based on complete ignorance, arguably willful, regarding transgender lives; including this one from a recent podcast by the Montana Family Foundation: “Will your high school be forced to put boys and girls together in a hotel room overnight? What about sharing a locker room? And what about putting a 6-foot-5, 220-pound guy on the girls’ basketball team? They may have to if the Montana High School Association gets its way.” This does not sound like the libertarianism that Montana conservatism trends towards. The policy does not address locker rooms or accommodations. What it does say is that transgender students seeking to compete on a team consistent with their gender identity must "apply for eligibility" which will be determined by a panel consisting of "medical experts," members of MHSA, and a student advocate (unclear exactly who gets to fill this position). This group makes a recommendation to the associations executive board which makes the final decision. Concerns about the policy itself: There is nothing in the policy that sets clear guidelines on locker rooms or shared hotel rooms during travel. So, as in Minnesota, we have a lot that can go wrong in terms of outing transgender children as well as ostracizing and isolating them from teammates. Also, the policy does not have guidelines that state what this committee will be looking at. What are the criteria? I fear this is more of the "case-by-case basis" trend that I discussed in the New Jersey bathroom case. This means that in addition to a committee sitting in judgement about a childs gender identity, there is nothing guiding that decision, meaning that children who come to the committee are putting themselves at risk of rejection on terms they have not been made aware of. Perhaps this will change if the policy does indeed get passed; but right now everything seems too vague for comfort.
Florida State President John Thrasher responded to the news that the university was facing a Title IX lawsuit as a result of its handling of the sexual assault allegations against Jameis Winston (who has announced--as expected, though apparently the party line is that he only decided earlier this week--that he will enter the NFL draft this year). So a bad news/good news week for Thrasher, though I am sure which adjective goes with which announcement might be different in public versus behind closed doors. I would suspect everyone involved with the entity that is Jameis Winston is probably a little relieved not to have to work so hard to keep him out of trouble and eligible for the next two years. Public statements are expressing sadness though. Thrashers public statements regarding the lawsuit suggest he is not worried--just disappointed: Florida State University is disappointed to learn of this lawsuit. The university has not yet been served and will need time to review the complaint fully before we respond in detail." That is when he should have stopped speaking about this issue. But he went on to say that the university did everything the victim asked for and that she was not cooperative regarding the investigation into the events of that night in December 2012. His version of the handling of the allegations stands in stark contrast to the outline of events in the complaint filed Wednesday. He also said that he looked forward to clearing FSUs name regarding "selective news leaks and distorted coverage." Hes probably not in a great position to talk about leaks given that the accused received police reports from a university employee before that information arrived at the DAs office. Also, the timeline of events that has been reported in the news and by the accused is one that FSU has confirmed. Thrasher is also touting the universitys Victim Advocate Program and implying that they work they did for the victim somehow absolves the university of its duty to investigate the allegations in a timely manner. The VAP did indeed seem to do an excellent job in this case, but it is not a mandatory reporter. The investigation should have happened regardless of whether the victim used VAPs services or not and it should have been triggered by the reporting of the crime to the university police on the night of the incident. It should have been done whether the victim was going to pursue a disciplinary hearing or not. Thrasher is claiming that she stymied the investigation because of refusal to be interviewed. This directly contradicts the facts presented in the filing. Again, he probably should have waited to review the complaint. There are emails chronicling these requests and events! I am not sure how to read Thrashers response. Hubris? Ignorance? Privilege? It seems to be an ill-advised (is anyone advising him?) response given the evidence against the school and the situation it finds itself in.
The woman who accused Florida State football player Jameis Winston of sexual assault has filed a lawsuit against the school for Title IX violations. This is not surprising news, and we would not be surprised to see additional legal action against various entities. But dealing with the complaint at hand: this lawsuit does not (directly) involve Winston but rather how the school dealt with the reported allegations against him. The plaintiff is claiming deliberate indifference (i.e., the university knew of the situation and took no action) and a hostile educational environment. FSU is already under investigation by OCR and those findings have yet to be issued. The goals of the lawsuit and OCRs investigation are not identical. OCR is not necessarily looking to nor needs to prove that the university acted with deliberate indifference. They will look at FSUs policies and procedures for their suitability and to see if the university acted in accordance with Title IX in investigating claims of sexual assault and harassment. They are not limited to looking only at the case involving Winston. It is possible that OCRs report could be helpful to the plaintiffs lawsuit, but I know of no timeline for the OCR investigation. So the issue now is whether the plaintiff can prove both of her counts. Deliberate indifference could be the more difficult if the court perceives that the school did _something_ to address the issue. And FSU did do something--eventually. There was an investigation--albeit quite late--certianly outside the 6-month window in which an investigation is supposed to occur after someone at the university is notified. (FSU police knew the night of the incident in December 2012.) This shifts the consideration to "when" and "how" should be factored into a finding of deliberate indifference. The entanglements between members of the athletics department (one of whom gave Winstons lawyers the police reports about the assault before they even arrived at the prosecutors office) and the Tallahassee Police could work in the plaintiffs favor. There was clearly a delay in the investigation for reasons that appear to be because Winston is a star athlete. Will this be read as deliberate indifference? Also, the actions of university officials suggest attempts to suppress the victims claims against Winston. (These actions contributed to the delay as well.) From the filing: _Despite being on notice that two women had reported being raped by Winston, on November 12, 2013, FSU Dean of Students Jeanine Ward-Roof (“Ward-Roof”), who supervised Code of Conduct proceedings at FSU, emailed Chief Perry [FSU chief of police] and others at FSU stating that no disciplinary proceedings against Winston were going to take place._ This initial decision suggests the desire to suppress any information about the assault and lead to delay even further the Title IX-mandated investigation. To me, this reads "we know; were not doing anything about it." The delay and suppression hypothesis is reaffirmed by the following, also from yesterdays filing: _Despite FSU Police being on notice within an hour of the rape on December 7, 2012 and the FSU Athletics Department’s awareness of the rape in January 2013, the incident was never reported by either of those departments to FSU’s Title IX Coordinator._ There is an entire section of the complaint that details how FSU athletics department personnel in concert with the Tallahassee Police, worked to conceal the allegations and prevent an investigation. This section implicates football coach "Jimbo" Fisher in the cover-up, as well as other administrators and FSUs chief of police as noted in this passage: _Chief Perry also told Jeanine Ward-Roof, the FSU Dean of Students who supervised the Title IX Coordinator, the SRR Office and the Victim Advocate Program, what was going on. Ward-Roof informed Chief Perry in an email at 1:16 p.m. on November 12, 2013 about the second student accusing Winston of sexual assault and assured Chief Perry that an SRR Code of Conduct proceeding against Winston for raping Plaintiff would not move forward._ Thus, as of November 12, 2013, the FSU Administration had shut down any investigation into either of the reports of sexual assault against Winston. The above is just about the count of deliberate indifference. The second count is about the hostile educational environment created by FSUs indifference and non-compliance with its own policies and the law. The plaintiff was forced to leave school because of the trauma she suffered not just at the time of the rape but in the wake of revelations about her identity. For Plaintiff, FSU became a sexually hostile environment where her rapist roamed free and could turn up at any moment, where she became the target of death threats and vilification campaigns, and where her rapist could act with such impunity that he posted a video of himself boasting of rape and stood shouting obscene sexual acts.FSU was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s known sexual harassment and the sexually hostile education environment in which she suffered as a result of its failure to institute any accommodations for Plaintiff’s safety, including, but not limited to: (i) excluding her assailant from campus; (ii) providing an escort for Plaintiff around campus; (iii) requiring that her assailant not come within a certain distance of her; or (iv) excluding her assailant from her residence hall and classrooms. As a result of FSU’s deliberate indifference, Plaintiff was forced to leave campus and lost her educational opportunities at the university. She is suing for damages on both counts; amounts will be determined at trial. In discussing the filing, Erin noted that the plaintiff may be able to show that the university did not follow its own policy about achieving consent. (The student conduct hearing transcript noted that Winston felt consent was given by the victims moaning. Moaning does not fall under acceptable consent according to FSUs own definition.) This is not a Title IX issue and not included in the current filing, but Erin feels it could be added later as a breach of contract claim. So some questions: How will FSU respond? Will there actually be a trial? Will FSU settle? They might think things are going their way given that they seem to have gotten Winston through his time at FSU earning a national championship in the process. But a trial is going to put a lot of administrators both within and outside the athletics department into the proverbial hot seat. And though I would love for a very public demonstration of the extent to which football controls the functioning of the university, I do not think FSU would like that too much. And finally, will Jameis Winston (who is not on trial here) ever have to answer more than three questions about the night in question?
Yesterday the NCAA announced plans to offer financial assistance to families of athletes who will travel to the mens and womens basketball Final Four and championship game in April, as well as the national football championship next week. For the basketball tournament, the NCAA itself will pay up to $3000 in travel, hotel, and meal expenses for family members of the athletes who participate in the semifinal games, and $4000 for families who stay on to watch their athlete compete in the final. The NCAA has given permission for the College Football Playoff to provide $3000 to the families of athletes competing in the championship game. (Such benefits would otherwise not be permitted by NCAAs rules against player compensation, and thus required a waiver.) It is easy to surmise the NCAAs benevolent motivations here. College athletics is under fire for the ways in which it arguably exploits the labor of college athletes, whose efforts generate millions of dollars for the NCAA and its members. Programs like this one answer that charge in ways that appear consistent with the principle of amateurism, which prohibits compensation for labor. Separately, however, the NCAAs family travel grants program raises some Title IX issues that are important to consider. _THE NCAAS FAMILY TRAVEL GRANTS PROGRAM, WHILE DISCRIMINATORY, IS NOT SUBJECT TO TITLE IX_. The NCAA is providing grants to families of both its male and female athletes, so from its standpoint, it is not engaging in sex discrimination where basketball is concerned. However, in permitting football players to receive this benefit and not extending a similar waiver to other female sport, the NCAA has arguably engaged in discrimination on the basis of sex. However, this discrimination does not have much legal significance. The Supreme Court has concluded that the NCAA is not itself subject to Title IX because it does not receive federal funds. (Technically, that decision was decided on rather narrow grounds that leaves some room for reexamination. But Im setting that rather complex issue aside for now to focus on more glaring Title IX problems.) _BUT, MEMBER INSTITUTIONS WHO RECEIVE FAMILY TRAVEL GRANTS FROM THE NCAA/CFP MUST ACCOUNT FOR THEM UNDER TITLE IX_. On the other hand, the NCAAs members do receive federal funds and are subject to Title IX. An institution that receives family travel grants on behalf of its players and their families would have to ensure that these benefits do not produce disparities on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX. The fact that the grants would come from the NCAA or from College Football Playoff (or technically, CFP Administration LLC) and not the institutions themselves does not absolve the university of ensuring Title IX compliance. OCR has already made clear that benefits to the athletes "attained through the use of private funds" are considered in combination with all benefits, services or opportunities that are subject to Title IX. This standard was set forth in a letter explaining the Title IX obligations with respect to booster-club funded benefits, and there is no reason to think that benefits funded by other private benefactors, whether it be the NCAA or CFP Administration LLC, would be treated any differently. _FAMILY TRAVEL GRANTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A FACTOR IN THE EQUAL TREATMENT ANALYSIS_. In terms of equal treatment, it is clearly a benefit of participation for athletes to have their family members at the championship game, just as it is a benefit of participation to have access to coaching, dining, travel, equipment, uniforms, etc. If the family travel grants favored athletes of one sex, it would violate Title IXs requirement to provide equal treatment in the aggregate to mens and womens programs, just as any other lopsided distribution of a laundry-list item would. In the basketball context, a university that receives this benefit on behalf of athletes of one sex but not the other would be able to defend the lopsided distribution by pointing out that the basketball team of the other sex had equal opportunity to access this benefit, if it too had made it to the Final Four. But in the football context, such a defense is unavailable. Institutions that accept family travel grants on behalf of football players actually have no way of providing a commensurate benefit to the members of another womens team who makes it to their championship game, since the NCAA did not provide any other waivers that would permit such awards. A Title IX violations in this regard seems inevitable. _FAMILY TRAVEL GRANTS COULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED ATHLETIC FINANCIAL AID_. There is also a strong argument that the grants would be considered athletic financial assistance, which according to OCR "includes any financial-assistance expenditure through the institution’s athletics program and any other _aid connected to a student’s athletic participation_ or ability." The benefit is clearly connected to the athletes participation. It is also probably not significant that grant is to the athletes family rather than the athlete him or herself. In general, the government treats the student as an extension of his or her family when it comes to financial aid for education. It is hard to imagine the Department of Education drawing a distinction between financial aid awarded directly to a student and a grant awarded to a students family. Assuming that the family travel grounds count as athletic financial aid, Title IX would require the institution to factor in the total amount awarded in family travel grants to the overall total of athletic financial aid that must be distributed proportionately to the athletes of each sex. For example, the University of Oregon football team has 115 players on the roster. If each of their families receives $3000, thats a total of $345,000 more in athletic financial aid for men that the institution would have to match in athletic financial aid for women in proportion to their percentage of the total student athlete population. Interestingly, I think this obligation to provide matching funds for the opposite would apply in the basketball context, as well, regardless of whether its the womens or mens team who receives the benefit. _HMMM..._ I wonder if the NCAA was thinking about Title IX when it made this decision?
With the protests that spread in the wake of the grand jury decisions in Ferguson and New York and the spate of police shootings of unarmed black youth, I have felt the need to write about the activism, especially the actions of athletes in lending their voices and actions to these protests, and the support of team owners, coaches, and administrators in supporting these athletes against those who would try to silence them by suggesting they should stick to sports and/or are being disrespectful. These responses, by both fans and organizations like police associations, display the power athletes have in contributing to the public discourse. (It is not as if other individual protesters are being targeted by police associations.) We have written a little about the campus activism around sexual assault and Title IX, but there has not been an obvious presence or concerted effort by student-athletes to join these campaigns. This is not a condemnation, just an observation. In the wake of the decision not to punish Florida State University football player Jameis Winston for sexual assault (or anything else that he has done), there has been a lot of writing about the mishandling of every stage of the process--including the student conduct hearing--but no protests. What happened after FSU lost the Rose Bowl to the University of Oregon on January 1 was not a protest either. The Oregon players who chanted "no means no" were not taking a stand against sexual assault--they were rubbing salt into the wound of the loser. It was similar to the taunts aimed at Cam Newton ("Scam Newton") and the playing of "Take the Money and Run" during the 2010 Iron Bowl held at Alabama. The similarity in both cases is that both Newton and Winston were found not responsible by various (and multiple) authorities. So the taunts were basically meaningless. Newton certainly shrugged them off and went off to the NFL, and it appears Winston will do the same. What adds to the "this is not activism" verdict on Oregons actions is that their chants occurred while they were doing the tomahawk chop--a highly offensive, racially insensitive action (no matter what "arrangements" financial or otherwise have been made with the Seminole Nation of Florida). Football players and other student-athletes should step up and make a statement about campus sexual assault--and while they are at it perhaps misuse of Native American symbols and names. But this was not a statement. It was poor sportspersonship--even if perhaps Winston deserved it. It was not a stand against sexual assault or violence against women. In fact it was a belittling of the issue because it was a device used to hurt Winston and the FSU community, not to support sexual assault victims or the campaigns against campus violence.The players will allegedly be punished. I suspect it will not be a meaningful punishment (like volunteering at a domestic violence shelter) and certainly will not disadvantage the Ducks when they play for the championship next week. In other words, it will likely be meaningless (and yet still more punishment than Winston ever received).
A transgender student in New Jersey won a several month battle with his school district to use the boys bathrooms. Unlike the situation in Virginia, the school board did not pass a formal policy stating that bathroom use was dependent on sex at birth. But Rubin Smyers and his advocates and allies, spent months negotiating this resolution which, as he noted, gave him permission for something he had permission for (legally) all along. Smyers was told initially that he would have to use a single stall unisex bathroom (no word on how many of those were on campus). This "solution" was presented using the "civil and privacy rights" of cisgender students discourse that circulates around these situations. The school board did not pass a policy that barred transgender students from using bathrooms in accordance with their gender identity. In hearing the complaint Smyers brought. however, and in making the ruling, it did enact another problematic discourse that may be on the rise: the "case-by-case" policy. What is the rationale for this policy? Make the rules, set the precedent--in accordance with the law. Case-by-case policies discourage transgender students from coming forward and being able to enact their rights. This could potentially lead to more dangerous situations if cisgender students feel a transgender student is in the "wrong" bathroom. Stop requiring every transgender student to deal with the anxiety, ostracism, harassment, and retaliation that comes from having to ask permission--from a group of adults sitting at a big table--to go to the bathroom.
As was predicted in a previous post (somewhat in between the lines admittedly), the born-in-the-sex bathroom policy established by the Gloucester County School District in Virginia is being challenged. The policy, which was passed a few weeks ago, stats that children in the district must use bathrooms in accordance to their birth sex. Transgender students with "genuine" gender identity issues will use separate facilities. The ACLU has filed a complaint stating that the districts new policy (created in reaction to out transgender student Gavin Grimmss use of the boys bathroom this school year, for which he was given permssion by the school principal) is a Title IX violation. After the school board approved the policy, Grimms was forced to use the unisex bathroom located in the nurses office. In addition to isolating him (as noted in the article), it also requires him to--I would imagine--go out of his way to use the bathroom; an inconvenience not experienced by other students. This does not appear to be a formal legal challenge at this point, though I imagine the ACLU is prepared to go that route if the school board digs its heels in and ignores precedent regarding this issues.
I have spent the last several days going through the various accounts of Florida State University student-athlete Jameis Winstons student conduct hearing. And the more I read, the more my initial response of "disappointed but not surprised" has changed. Because I truly am surprised that former Florida Supreme Court Justice Major Harding really felt that there was not enough evidence to confirm the Winston had violated FSUs student code of conduct. A note about the media coverage of this case and its outcome: several reporters have written something to the effect of "FSU is investigating Winston despite the fact that the prosecutor chose not to file charges against him last year because of lack of evidence." What happened with the potential criminal case (the highly problematic one), has no bearing on this investigation. Winston is being charged with violations of FSUs student code of conduct. The schools investigation is mandatory (and almost 2 years late). There is no "despite." After two days of hearings earlier this month, which included multiple witnesses who were questioned by the complainant (victim) and respondent (Winston) respectively, Harding announced in a letter to Winston that he did not find that the information presented met the preponderance of evidence standard required in student conduct hearings. Harding was approved by both sides to oversee the hearing, in part because he had no ties to FSU. Other panel members, however, were FSU employees. Both sides had witnesses; both had advisers all of whom were lawyers. Advisers are only allowed to confer and offer advice. All questions to witnesses were asked by the respondent, the complainant or members of the panel. Both the victim and the accused offered opening statements. Winston, somewhat curiously, had his entered into the record seemingly as an attempt to make it appear to be evidence, which it is not. As has been noted already in this 2-year long case, Winston has continually refused to answer questions about the events of that night in early December 2012. This hearing was not very different. He did not, as was his right, take questions about his statement which gave his version of the events of that night. His two witnesses, the roommates and teammates who have already had their own student conduct hearings, also were called and they too--as was their right--refused to answer questions. These are the two men who could have corroborated Winstons version of the events of that night which differ greatly from those of victim and do not hold up to various accounts offered by other witnesses including law enforcement, friends of the complainant, and health professionals. As a reminder of some of the details: the victim did not know the name of and could not identify Winston, who maintains that the sexual encounter was consensual despite never--as the student conduct code requires--receiving verbal or physical consent. She only recognized him when they, coincidentally, had a class together, even after hearing his name she did not know who he was (i.e., the quarterback for FSU). She sought help immediately after Winston brought her home (she lied to him about where she lived and he dropped her off nearby), from her friends, police (both campus and local), family, and medical professionals (she went to the hospital, had a rape kit performed and asked for a victims advocate). This was not a case of trying to bilk a celebrity or feeling bad after a consensual sexual encounter and "crying rape." (These narratives are actually quite rare.) Often in cases of sexual assault--at least in the criminal system--the victims credibility is questioned. There were questions swirling about alcohol consumption and willingness to get into the cab with the three (implying that she was seeking multiple sexual encounters??), which the victim addressed during the hearing. But Harding was apparently not convinced that the victim did not want to go home with the men. He writes in his ruling that she did not seek help from people outside of the bar where they all were. This presumes a couple of things. One, that she was able to or felt safe enough to protest. Two, that even if she did want to go wherever they were going that such an action was tantamount to consent to sexual relations with any of them. It is not, which is why the fact that even Winstons statement did not include the victim saying yes makes me question what evidence Harding was looking at when making what amounted to a non-decision. Hardings rationale also questions her motives and credibility in a way that Winstons was never questioned. Winstons credibility was very difficult to question--because he wouldnt answer questions--though his past behaviors are well known (stealing, making disparaging comments about women in a public place, writing and posting a pro-rape song). It is clear that none of these actions were a factor for Harding and also point to a problem that might hurt FSU: they were never the subject of student conduct code investigations. The victims lawyer, Baine Kerr, who was present at the hearing as an adviser, said to the press that he and his team do not believe Florida State intends to hold Winston accountable. Given what I have read, I have to agree with him. There is a 5-day period (which will be in January given the semester break) in which an appeal can be filed, but Kerr has not said whether they will do so. Kerr and his team are also working on a civil lawsuit, and there remains the OCR investigation into FSUs handling of sexual assault cases. In other words, its not over--for anyone.
This post will start cynical (it has not been a great week for discrimination against women in sports) but I will try to end on an up(ish) note. So we can now add to the list of things that will get female coaches fired/dismissed/forced into retirement: having too high of a salary. This joins such explanations (which range in legitimacy--Im not commenting on whether or not they are true, just that they have been offered in some suspect dismissals): having a family, not having a family, pulling a players shirt, banning white bread, reporting gender inequity, yelling at players, being too feminine, not being feminine enough, too successful, not successful enough. University of Minnesota Duluth womens hockey head coach Shannon Miller, who coached her team to five NCAA championships, was told this week that her contract is not being renewed (she will finish out the season) because her salary--the highest of any head womens hockey coach at $215,000--is too high for the financially distressed UMD to sustain. Most of those reasons above are never applied to male coaches (yes, Tim Rice at Rutgers--who was _caught on videotape_--is an exception and lack of success is often a reason male coaches _get bought out of their contracts_)--but certainly "were paying you too much, so we have to let you go" is something male coaches do not hear when they are sat down in the athletic directors office to be fired. This incident cannot be looked at in isolation. Dont forget the story from just a few weeks ago out of Iowa and the apparent pattern of female coaches being fired, not renewed, or entering into early retirement. Yes, UMD is a different school, this is a different rationale, but it is part of the pattern. We may not know exactly what the pattern is and, unfortunately, I suspect the number of smoking guns that exist to explain things are rare--because I dont believe there is one thing that makes an athletic department fire female coaches. Its about the power of male administrators, beliefs about female leadership, the value of womens sports, the value of female coaches, and so much more. Though this story broke two days ago, I feel we are a little bit behind given the extensive news coverage. But--and here is the potential upside--doubts are being raised and questions are being asked. Dr. Nicole LaVoi of University of Minnesota has been speaking to the media and also posted on her blog, One Sport Voice, some revealing data about coaching, salaries, and discrimination. UMD made a mistake not just in firing Miller but in providing a weak justification, which only serves to make people question the actual justification. They also made a mistake in doing it so close to the revelations about what is happening at Iowa. And they underestimated a general public that dislikes overt discrimination. It may be difficult to see and understand structures and systems of discrimination, but it is not hard to see that firing a female coach under the guise of being paid too much when there are other, less successful male coaches who are paid more...well thats gender discrimination.
We wrote in July about writer Jonathan Krakauers attempts to get the records related to the hearings and disciplinary actions against a University of Montana quarterback. He was initally granted access but the decision was appealed and the Department of Education is filing an amicus brief with the Montana Supreme Court for the purpose of "clarify[ing] that disciplinary records constitute protected education records under" FERPA. The department claims it is not taking a side in the case, though it certainly seems like they are saying, with this filing, that Krakauer should not get access to these records, which is one of the two sides. Several legal experts have weighed in on the case with no clear indication about how the law should be interpreted. Does the fact the the students name is widely known matter? What about his status as a student athlete? How does public interest and protection weigh against the privacy of this student? The legal wranglings, which are not my area of expertise, are actually manifesting the sociocultural concerns (more my speed) over how schools are handling sexual assault--specifically assaults committed by student athletes--and the balance between transparency and privacy. We know that athletic departments have often tried to keep the punishment of crimes by student athletes "in-house." The NCAA addressed this issue over the summer by clarifying that investigations and punishment of sexual assault needs to be handled by the appropriate university officials usng university policies and procedures just as they would for non student athletes. But looking around (perhaps looking a little south--toward Florida maybe?), some might wonder how much influence this edict has had. Also, given that the discourse from the Department of Education and the Obama administration has centered around transparency--in how cases are reported, handled, and investigated, how discipline is enacted, how communication among all the parties occurs--some see this amicus brief as pulling the shade down a little. How or whether these concerns will play out in the appeal remains unknown. Here is what I know: a high-profile student athlete was found guilty of sexual assault and expelled. That punishment was appealed to the state commissioner of higher education (i.e., to a pretty high level) who reduced the punishment to a suspension that allowed the player back on campus in time for football season. Eyebrows are rightly being raised. In the end, the court may decide that FERPA does not allow for these records to be released, but that does not mean that an explanation should not be provided. I think that the story will come out regardless, the question is whether it will be supported by official documentation or the testimony of anonymous insiders familiar with the case.
The student whose lawsuit against Northwestern University was dismissed last month has asked the court to reconsider or vacate its decision based on new evidence. The initial dismissal was due to a lack of evidence that NU showed deliberate indifference in responding to the students report of sexual assault by her philosophy professor. The motion includes statements from the report of the investigation conducted by the Title IX coordinator. The writer herself expressed concern that the professors behavior might be a pattern in which he uses his power as a professor to gain sexual and/or romantic access to female students. There are other statements from faculty members expressing no surprise at the allegations against Professor Peter Ludlow given his tendency to date former students. And there is documentation that Ludlows department chair approached him several years ago about potentially inappropriate relationships with graduate students. (Ludlow has a defamation lawsuit pending against a graduate student who filed a complaint alleging a non-consensual sexual encounter. The first link above is to Erins post about the many legal actions around this case.) The students motion also states that she continues to be a victim of retaliation by the university. This claim, which was also made in the initial lawsuit, was dismissed. She is reporting new retaliatory actions. In short, the legal drama continues with apparently none of it yet resolved.