UC Berkeley Cuts Five Teams

posted by Title IX Blog
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 at 10:29pm EDT

An interdisciplinary resource for news, legal developments, commentary, and scholarship about Title IX, the federal statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded schools.

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

As Kris noted recently, the University of California, Berkeley athletic department has been considering eliminating sports as a cost-reduction measure. So it is sadly no surprise that the Chancellor has announced that baseball, men's and women's gymnastics, women's lacrosse, and men's rugby will be no longer be varsity sports. Men's rugby will occupy a new "varsity club" status.

I have a couple of questions about whether this decision complies with Title IX. First, what is varsity club status? It seems like the rugby team will continue to receive some university support -- more than the club teams receive but not as much as varsity teams receive. Title IX does not preclude Cal from making up new status labels for its sports, but those labels must be equitably applied. If a women's sports asks for "varsity club" status, I cannot see the grounds on which Cal would deny them.

Second, I have concerns that the resulting distribution of athletic opportunities complies with Title IX. Before the cuts, Cal could have claimed compliance with prong two or prong three, but eliminating women's teams forecloses that option. This leaves prong one: substantial proportionality. As Kris noted in her earlier post, Cal's women received about 41% of the total athletic opportunities (385/948), despite constituting about 53% of the student body. After the cuts, they still receive about 41% (385-45/948-102). There is no way a 12 percentage points qualifies as substantial proportionality, so my question is, on what basis is Cal making that claim?

This denominator figure is adjusted by the loss of both gymnastics teams, baseball, and lacrosse. I did not subtract the 60 terminated opportunities in rugby from the denominator. because Cal's EADA report did not include men's rugby when calculating the total number of athletic opportunities.

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

Filed Under:

View Original Post at title-ix.blogspot.com

View EBuz's Full Profile

No one has commented on this yet. Be the first!

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

MORE ABOUT THIS AUTHOR:

Title IX Blog

An interdisciplinary resource for news, legal developments, commentary, and scholarship about Title IX, the federal statute prohibiting discrimination...
full profile

Title IX, sexual assault and high schools

High School Basketball Hazing Case May Go to Trial

Oklahoma colleges handling misbehaving student athletes

NCAA Reform and Title IX

Title IX: Who will investigate Air Force Academy next?

Understanding the Religious Exemptions from Title IX

UTexas learning from others' mistakes?

FSU finally addressing sexual assault

UConn settles lawsuit

George Fox updates transgender policy

George Fox University's Religious Exemptions From Title IX Compliance

Twice accused athlete going to third campus?

For more, visit EBuz's Full Profile