Title IX clarified

[default]

The subject of Title IX came up in the School softball suspended thread and how it may affect things so I checked with OHSAA for clarification and here is their reply.

Title IX indicates that "overall opportunities" for girls have to be equivalent to that of boys. Title IX does not indicate that sports have to be offered "similarly" across the board. For example, a school district is not required to offer girls tennis because they offer boys tennis, nor are they required to offer softball, because they offer baseball. The OHSAA offers volleyball for girls and not for boys.
Overall opportunities also permit girls to try out for boys teams even when there are girls teams of the same or similar sport. No school is required to "roster" girls even if they are required to permit girls to try out for the team.
Your school can "drop" softball and still be in compliance with Title IX. I cannot address compliance issues because Title IX is not as simple a law as counting "sports."

Anyone think this makes sense or would do you think perhaps a different official there have a different interpertation?

 

[default]

Think of it as saying the number of opportunities must be equal. So if you remove 9 opportunities by eliminating softball, you need to either add 9 somewhere or subtract 9 from the boys. A little simplistic, but not too far off the way I read it.

 

[default]

Let me put it this way. If you drop girls softball and keep baseball, not too many courts will uphold the school's decision. Think EEO.

 

[default]

I haven't done much research into Title IX, but I imagine a pattern would need to be shown, rather than a one-year discrepancy. The particular sport isn't really relevant, as most schools have girls volleyball, but not boys volleyball.

In Grandview's case, unless boys are being offered more opportunities overall - and probably for a period of at least two or three consecutive years - then I would guess there is no lawsuit.

 

[default]

The way it is in rules it quotes there must be "pairity". If they say girls can try out for baseball but they cut every one then is pairity acheived just because they got to try out? My son is expected to be starting center fielder for the baseball team this year but I told him he better be nervous if his sister tries out as she'll take his spot! lol!

 

[default]

There is a High school very near us (NEO) that did not have enough girls go out for softball so the girls tried out for baseball. A couple of them were in the starting line up. One of our pitchers struggled everytime one of them came to the plate, my son however didn't care and struck them out just the same!! LOL

 

[default]

The boys and the girls teams don't have to offer the same sports, they just need to offer the same number of sports. Example, in MS, you still go by high school rules, fall season, boys are offered football, girls offered volleyball, then they both are offered cross country. In the end, girls have a total of 5 sports offered, then the boys will have 5 offered as well.

 

[default]

Title IX is not enforced by OHSAA--it is administered by the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education (OCR) and enforced by the judicial segement of the govt. So OHSAA can give you any interpretation they desire, but they aren't going to do anything about it--they don't have that authority. It would be best to speak to a lawyer.

Here is some information from a research paper that I wrote a few years back:


Title IX uses a three prong approach to determine an insitution's compliance to Title IX:.

Prong one - Providing athletic opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, OR
Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex.

An insitution can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs. So dropping a sport does not necessarily mean that Title IX has been violated.

The primary goals for the gender equity cause as stated in the policy interpretation of Title IX are:
1) that related financial assistance be allocated in proportion to the numbers of male and female students participating in athletics;
2) that all other benefits, opportunities, and treatment afforded participants of each sex be equivalent; and
3) that the interests and abilities of students be affectively accommodated to the extent necessary to provide equal athletics opportunity for members of both sexes.

There are two main misconceived notions about the numbers game concerning gender equity. The first is that educational institutions, both at the scholastic and collegiate levels, are required to have the same number of sports for both males and females. The second misconception is that an institution must have the same number of female athletic participants as they do male athletic participants. Wrong! In respect to the actual numbers, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which is the regulating agency for enforcement of Title IX, requires only proportionality. Under part one of the three prong test for gender equity compliance, the OCR will find an institution compliant if it provides athletic opportunities for members of both sexes in numbers substantially proportionate to the respective enrollments of each gender. The key word here is substantially; the OCR itself does not require an exact figure. What is considered substantial? The use of this word leaves this portion of the test open to definition.

When dealing with equal numbers, we often find attention centered upon the division of funds. Again, as mentioned above in goal number one, the OCR requires financial assistance be allocated in proportion to the numbers of males and females participating. Many would argue that all funds should be divided 50/50 between the genders. But if the participation numbers are not equal, then why should the allocation of funds be equal? Even if the proportions of the number of athletes are taken into account, do funds deserve to be divided based on these proportions alone?