Support women's sports and SHARE this story with your friends!

On Wednesday, a federal district court judge in California heard closing arguments in the trial to determine whether the University of California at Davis violated Title IX when it denied opportunities to female wrestlers in 2001. The case has been in litigation for a many years, and we have blogged about it several times (see here, here, here, and here.)

The plaintiffs in this case are three female, former student athletes who wrestled on the U.C. Davis team until they were cut in 2001.

According to this article about the trial, there is conflicting testimony about whether then-athletic director told the then-wrestling coach Michael Burch to cut the women, or whether the coach decided to cut the women, who did not contribute points in wrestling meets, after being told by the AD that he had to reduce the size of the team.

In response to protest, the athletic director granted them the right to try out for the team. Two of the women tried out but did not make the team, and a third did not try out.What about this scenario could violate Title IX? On the one hand, the law does not require schools to have coed teams in contact sports like wrestling. And where the contact sport exception does not apply, female athletes athletes are limited to a right to try out for the men's team when it's the only team in that sport. But at the same time, universities have the obligation under Title IX to provide an equitable number of athletic opportunities to female athletes. Thus, UC Davis could have lawfully excluded women from the wrestling team, if it otherwise provided equitable opportunities to women. But because it did not, the plaintiffs argue, eliminating their opportunities to participate in wrestling violated the law.Thus, what the judge will really be deciding is whether UC Davis's overall distribution of athletic opportunities complied with Title IX. Davis contends that it complied with prong two, which requires it to show a history and continuous practice of expanding opportunities for women.

Plaintiffs' witnesses, including women's sports expert Donna Lopiano, testified that UC Davis's history of women's sports, which included going twenty years without adding any women's teams, then adding three at once in 1996, followed by outdoor track in 1998 and indoor track in 1999, does not qualify. According to the same article, however, another women's sports expert, Christine Grant, testified for UC Davis that the university deserved credit for adding three teams at once.Other issues also bear on the question of UC Davis's proffered prong two compliance. Namely, the judge will also have to figure out whether the university had good reasons in the 1990s to cut two other women's teams and to reject petitions by women's club teams seeking elevation to varsity status. And the judge will have to figure out how much prong two credit to give to the university's decision to add indoor track as a women's sport in 1999. An appellate court has already ruled that a sport does not necessarily have to raise the number of actual athletes in order to count as new athletic opportunity for existing athletes to compete in another sport. But adding indoor track could still be questionable evidence of prong two compliance if it appears that the decision was motivated by the universities interest in efficiency (in that indoor track doubles as an off-season for other running sports) rather than in response to genuine student interest.The judge's decision is expected in July.

Support women's sports and SHARE this story with your friends!

• Wrestling
• Sports
• SportsPLUS
• College
• Discrimination/Title IX
• Student-Athlete

View Original Post at title-ix.blogspot.com

View EBuz's Full Profile

There are 3 comments on this post. Join the discussion!

Lucy says:

I need help. My duaghter has played Cal Ripken baseball since she was 6 or 7. She has just now finished 5th grade and plays on the "boys" travel team, which she made by competetive try-out. The principal for the middle school has told her that she cannot try out for the middle school baseball team because she is a girl and girls softball is offered. My daughter has never played softball, and does not desire to, and does not consider it the same sport.Is there anything I can do?

Sunday, June 26, 2011 at 12:43pm EDT

WISIBlog says:

I am not an expert in Title IX issues in the United States but am aware of instances in Canada where these rules have been challenged and won by the female player. Usually this involves first lobbying with the appropriate school board and in the worst case and more expensive scenario challenging the rule under human rights laws (See this blog for a discussion in Canada: http://www.sportlaw.ca/2010/04/girls-playing-on-boys-teams/).

In the United States the landscape is very different and I hope that someone with title IX experience does respond to you. One article that I read a while ago might give you some insight. This was in the New York Times in February of 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/sports/baseball/01baseball.html. The passage that is interesting for your daughter is:

"In at least one state, Massachusetts, high school rules bar girls from trying out for boys baseball in schools that also offer softball. Nebraska dropped its ban in 2008. In January, in a case that attracted national attention, the Indiana High School Athletic Association did the same after being sued by the parents of a 15-year-old aspiring catcher at Bloomington South, Logan Young. Tryouts are set for March 23, and Young said making the team would be %u201Cmy greatest accomplishment of freshman year.%u201D"

I look forward to other people's responses to your problem.

Monday, June 27, 2011 at 10:08am EDT

ken says:

Lucy,
You are right. Because your daughter's middle school has softball does not mean she is automatically barred from playing baseball. Baseball is a different sport. Also, it does not fall under Title IX's contact sport exemption because contact in baseball is not integral to the sport. Also, depending on where you live, you might be able to make a claim under your state's equal rights amendment.
I think that if you should accumulate enough evidence (prior cases, some info on Title IX, and other equal rights laws) and present it to your principal; it should at least give him/her something to think about. I hope this is the case and that it is enough. But you may have to apply more pressure in the form of a lawsuit or complaint.
As the second commenter noted, the rule in Indiana was changed. I believe this is a losing battle for the school. It brings a lot of negative publicity. You will need to find out if this is really a rule or just what the principal believes to be true. And if it is a district rule or state rule or school rule.
But I recommend you start acting now. You do not want your daughter to miss playing time.

Monday, June 27, 2011 at 1:39pm EDT

Leave Your Comment:  Read our comment policy

Login  |  Sign Up

LOGIN TO WOMEN TALK SPORTS:

Username: 

Password: 

SIGNUP FOR A WOMEN TALK SPORTS ACCOUNT:

A Women Talk Sports account allows you to maintain a profile at www.womentalksports.com and login to comment on posts using your WTS identity.

Fields marked with a * are required.

Your First Name*: 

Your Last Name*: 

Your E-mail*: 

Your Website: 

Your Location: 

Your Twitter Username: 

Create a WTS Username*: 

Create a Password*: 

Confirm Password*: 

Check here to receive bi-weekly emails from Women Talk Sports and partners highlighting discussions on our site and upcoming women's sporting events, as well as informing you of new products, services and special offers.

I accept the Terms & Conditions for joining Women Talk Sports