For the Plaintiffs:
Natasha Kardassis
Overview
The significance of this court case is that it was the first time a court had to be asked to rule if competitive cheerleading was considered a sport for Title IX purposes. In the case Biediger versus Quinnipiac, Quinnipiac University argued that competitive cheerleading is a sport therefore being able to cut the women’s volleyball team and replace it a women’s cheerleading team but still reporting equal athletic opportunities for men and women under Title IX. When the members of the volleyball team learned that Quinnipiac University was going to terminate their sport and replace it with competitive cheer they filed a lawsuit and brought Quinnipiac to court. With the facts and knowledge of this case, I argue that the Women’s Volleyball team was right in filing lawsuit and that Quinnipiac University violated rules under Title IX.
Title IX
Quinnipiac University receives federal funding so it must comply with rules and regulations set forth by Title IX. Quinnipiac University violated Title IX because of three reasons. The first reason was that Quinnipiac inaccurately reported the numbers of participants on the roster, secondly Quinnipiac counted cross country runners multiple times for their participation in indoor track, outdoor track and cross country which boosted women’s participation and finally competitive cheerleading is not considered so women participants can not be counted under Title IX.
Title IX states ““No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”1 It also has a three- part analysis set out in Title Ix that interoperates whether both sexes are being equally accommodated or not. The first part looks at whether participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to the schools undergraduate enrollment.2
Argument 1: Roster Manipulation
In 2009-2010, male undergraduates made up 38.13 percent of the population while women undergraduates made up 61.87 percent.3 Sports had to have equal percentages of men and women participating in athletics in relation to how many students attended the university. The way Quinnipiac was counting their players on the different athletic roster was misleading showing that there were equal opportunities between men and women athletic when at times there were not.
Quinnipiac University was underreporting the participation of men in athletics and over reporting the participation of women in athletics. For example the men's baseball and lacrosse teams would drop players before reporting data to the Department of Education and reinstate them after the reports were submitted. On the other hand, the women's softball team would add players before the reporting date, knowing the additional players would not be on the team in the spring.4 Therefore, the reason to cut the women’s volleyball team was seen as justified under the numerical figures when in actuality the way the figures were calculated was misleading, violating Title IX.
Argument 2: cross country and track participants
Secondly, the University has one men’s cross country team but a women’s cross country team, and a women’s outdoor and indoor track team. In this case, many women participating in the women’s outdoor and indoor track team were being counted three times instead of just being counted once. The track team lacked the facilities to have sporting events, they lacked coaching staff because there was only one coach and they were not receiving the same scholarships and funding as other varsity sports. Because they were counting women from the cross-country team to the track team three times, the numbers seemed larger than they actually were for women participants versus men participants.
Argument 3: Cheerleading
The biggest question in this case is whether cheerleading is considered a legitimate intercollegiate varsity sport or not. An activity can be considered a sport under Title IX if it meets specific criteria. It must have coaches, practices, competitions during a defined season and a governing organization.5 The activity also must have competition as its primary goal not just the support of other athletic teams. Even though cheerleading may have competing events, its primary goal is to be on the sideline and support other teams. In my opinion, cheerleading should not be considered a sport at the expense of cutting a legitimate women’s team sport. Men’s teams would never lose funding if there was a choice between cutting the men’s basketball team and implement a men’s cheer squad instead which is considered sex discrimination.
The office of Civil Rights, which enforces Title IX, states a number of factors that classes an activity as a sport. It must have athletic elements, structure, the competition it fostered and how the experience of competing on a team compared to other varsity sports. In 2008 the OCR stated that cheerleading was not a sport and cannot be considered under the Title IX ruling. Cheerleading has athletic elements to the sport but as governance it does not have a clear structure. Although Quinnipiac and seven universities started a governing cheer structure called the NCSTA ( National Competitive Stunt and Tumbling) there was no clear governance, structure, strategy or progressive systems of competition.6 Because cheerleading does not have one governing body like the NCAA, the rules from competition to competition are different.
The competitive cheer team would not receive any locker space at Quinnipiac University, it has to have separate insurance rather than the “catastrophic insurance” provided by the NCAA, and finally the team was not considered a structured administration because it did no off campus recruiting. The court stated, “ A division one team must participate in off campus recruiting in order to field a competitive squad.” 7
Conclusion
With the two factors of not counting the 30 cheerleaders on the squad and subtracting cross country runners that participate in track, there was a difference between the numbers of men and women participating in athletics and the amount of students there were in the school. With this the court ruled the Quinnipiac University was not in compliance with Title IX. It is also important to note that the judge was not saying the cheerleaders can’t be considered athletes or that it is not an intense sport, the judge was ruling based on the structure and administration of the sport therefore not being able to count under Title IX.
For the Defense:
Juan Figueira
Why Quinnipiac University’s decision does not discriminate
Overview of the Facts
On April 16th, 2009, Quinnipiac University women volleyball players Stephanie Biediger, Kayla Lawler, Erin Overdevest, Kristen Corinaldesi, along with Quinnipiac Volleyball coach Robin Lamott Sparks filed a complaint accusing Quinnipiac University of discriminatory misconduct, especially in the manner women’s sports teams were managed by the university. The catalyst behind such a controversial decision was to induct a competitive women’s cheerleading team, by consequentially eliminating the women’s volleyball team, men’s track team, and men’s golf team. The decision by Quinnipiac was made in March 2009 and sparked significant controversy due to the magnitude and effects of such decision.
Issue at Stake
Some of the most delicate consequences in this case can point to the fact that many of the women athletes on the team received financial scholarships from the university. However, despite the number of inconsistencies that Quinnipiac’s decision could have entailed the plaintiffs and defendant agreed to contest only one allegation. This allegation framed by the plaintiff states that Quinnipiac’s decision violates Title IX (explained in last post) and discriminates against women.
“Although the plaintiffs allege several theories for relief under Title IX, the parties agreed
to sever and try independently the plaintiffs’ first claim: that Quinnipiac discriminates on the
basis of sex in its allocation of athletic participation opportunities.”1
Therefore, in this brief, I will focus solely on this issue as I try to argue in favor of the defendant, Quinnipiac University.
Summary of the Plaintiff
Since I will be arguing against the plaintiffs it is of considerable importance to summarize the crucial points of the plaintiff’s complaint. These points were the ones considered in framing the argument and issues I will be addressing. All of the following points are juxtaposed within the realm of Title IX.
By no longer offering the sport at stake, Quinnipiac discriminates on the basis of sex
Quinnipiac University manages its programs in a way that offers male athletes more opportunities compared women
The institution should offer equal opportunities
Brief
In the following statement I will argue in favor of the defendant why Quinnipiac is not discriminating in their decision to terminate the women’s volleyball team. It is important to recall that the plaintiff alleges that the University violates Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which state that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”2 Moreover, Title IX purports ten points that help determine fair treatment. Two important points relate directly with the plaintiffs’ complaint: The first point is whether the managing and selection of teams and team members accommodates the interests of male and female athletes equally; and secondly, fair and equal provision of supplies to male and female teams. This last point ties directly with the plaintiffs’ argument that Sparks was not provided equal means to coach the women’s volleyball team, therefore, it lead to poor results.
I will show that Quinnipiac University’s decision was not in violation of Title IX. First of all, the decision to eliminate the team was not a discriminatory decision against a women’s team. The rationale of the decision was to protect the university’s competition, communal, and economic interests. The women’s volleyball team was not the only team affected by this decision. The men’s golf and outdoor track teams would also be eliminated under this decision.
Secondly, as of 2009, Quinnipiac University offers ten women sports and nine men sports. If the decision to eliminate the women’s volleyball, men’s golf and outdoor track teams proceeds, then there will still be ten women teams and only seven men sport teams. This is considering that the university inducts a women’s competitive cheerleading team. This kind of decision would favor women athletes and equate Quinnipiac’s sports culture more with the university’s student-body culture. The approximate female-to-male ratio in Quinnipiac is close to 60-40, therefore, with the decision the female-to-male sports teams ratio will be 10-7, if we consider that competitive cheerleading could become an intercollegiate sport. The school looks to preserve its interests and the volleyball is a team that has not caused results for the institution. Quinnipiac has a right to look for alternatives that will better the entire program.
Finally, regarding the treatment of the athletes, the plaintiffs mentioned Quinnipiac University’s system in employing a target number to fill spots in a roster. In the past, the university would impose ceilings on men’s teams and floors on women’s teams. The plaintiff claims that in this sense, the university favors men’s rosters because men’s teams are essentially composed of more players. Even though the data proves that men’s rosters have more players, women rosters still have more players compared to the NCAA average of women per team. Therefore, this is not a matter of discriminating against women, but rather a matter of following a trend that rules not only in Quinnipiac, but also the entire system. Women rosters in Quinnipiac have more players on teams than the NCAA average of all teams.
Word count = 870
No comments:
Post a Comment