Eastern Michigan's Title IX Case Highlights Difficulties In Cutting Women's Sports Programs

Submitted by Mastodon on Tue, 2018-12-11 23:03

Article here. Excerpt:

'At first blush, Judge Steeh's decision may seem unfair to EMU because it applies a law designed to promote sex equality so as to allow men's teams to be cut for financial hardship whereas women's teams may not. The decision, however, aligns with the way courts have consistently applied Title IX to situations in which women's teams are cut.
...
Title IX, however, does not protect opportunities for men’s sports because the law was designed to promote equality in education settings for women. That is why EMU could cut men’s sports without triggering Title IX’s application. Cuts to sport opportunities for women will implicate Title IX and the legality of the cuts, if challenged, will turn on an application of Title IX’s infamous three-part test.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

He's right in that courts apply the law to protect women's teams but not men's. He's wrong in saying Title IX is applicable only to situations where women's teams are in danger of getting cut. The law is written in gender-neutral language for a reason. It doesn't mention women's programs in particular at all.

But he's right in that money is an issue -- coaching staff money. Coaches' jobs are on the line. He couldn't be happier that courts make it hard to prove that interest is so low among women in a sport, the uni may as well cut it.

If it were so, coaches wouldn't have secure easy jobs. Imagine being the women's tennis team coach at a school where only like 4 women want to play tennis. It's easy money. You get paid the same coaching 4 players as coaching 12.

And keeping loads of women's teams around when so few girls want to be on them? Tons of jobs, little work!

It's brilliant.

Nothing like a law to gin up demand where there is none.

Like2 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2018-12-12 02:37