|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 20, 2024 19:41:36 GMT -5
That's not how that litigation is going to go. Go on... To me, it looks like the lawyer representing the beach volleyball team (who is THE premier Title IX sports lawyer) recruited the club rowing team to join the lawsuit because the proportionality was so far off. I take it you don't believe Oregon will elevate that rowing team to varsity status. How do you think the litigation is going to go? They are going to stipulate to build an on-campus facility and fund full scholarships for the beach volleyball team (which had been delayed but already planned for and, most importantly, fundraised for). The legal position is not exceptionally strong, despite the initial article (which I believe the plaintiffs' legal team "contributed to," and The Oregonian is always happy to run a hit piece against Oregon Athletics) attempting to portray it that way. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 20, 2024 19:49:18 GMT -5
That's not how that litigation is going to go. Go on... To me, it looks like the lawyer representing the beach volleyball team (who is THE premier Title IX sports lawyer) recruited the club rowing team to join the lawsuit because the proportionality was so far off. I take it you don't believe Oregon will elevate that rowing team to varsity status. How do you think the litigation is going to go? "THE premier Title IX sports lawyer" is a bit of a stretch. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 19:54:46 GMT -5
One prong can be mathematically proven to not be met (proportionality) I'm sure there is some reasonable, common sense buffer. You're telling me a case is going to be filed on a basis of "OOOOOOO!!!! It's 51.3% male scholarships compared to 51.1% male student body!!! OOOOO!!!" Come on. and the other prong is basically disproven on its face if the case gets litigated Which is exactly the point I just brought up a couple posts ago. Thanks for confirming I got that right. So this seems to be confirming the bigger point I made, that these rarely go to court in the first place. Probably because the schools know they're likely to lose. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 19:56:49 GMT -5
They are going to stipulate to build an on-campus facility Nike U doesn't even have an on-campus facility for a varsity sport?? I thought Daddy Phil just gave them a blank check. Man, that school would be nothing without him. It's already bad enough that it's going to be the lowest research school in the Big Ten.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 20, 2024 20:08:04 GMT -5
and the other prong is basically disproven on its face if the case gets litigated Which is exactly the point I just brought up a couple posts ago. Thanks for confirming I got that right. You actually got it completely wrong. If the vast majority of schools fail on proportionality, why is it that they are not routinely found in violation of Title IX? It's also obvious that you have little understanding of the law, the statutory language of the law, or the legal process. Your crazy dialogue about non-employees negotiating a collective bargaining agreement was completely off the rails whacko. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 20:11:52 GMT -5
why is it that they are not routinely found in violation of Title IX? You don't actually think there's someone who goes around like a parking meter maid checking participation numbers, do you? |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 20, 2024 20:15:10 GMT -5
why is it that they are not routinely found in violation of Title IX? You actually don't think there's someone who goes around like a parking meter maid checking participation numbers, do you? It's actually infinitely easier to determine one's participation numbers than to monitor the parking decals of the cars parked on a campus. I'm pretty confident that just about every institution is aware of its participation/proportionality numbers, which is quite different from publicizing those numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 20:15:21 GMT -5
Who cares what the law says now??
What's actually interesting and worth discussing is (hypothetical) new law. New law can say .... *wait for it* ... something new! Different!
Amazing!
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 20:16:20 GMT -5
You actually don't think there's someone who goes around like a parking meter maid checking participation numbers, do you? It's actually infinitely easier to determine one's participation numbers than to monitor the parking decals of the cars parked on a campus. I'm pretty confident that just about every institution is aware of its participation/proportionality numbers, which is quite different from publicizing those numbers. I see you neatly avoided the part where your implication that a school "gets in trouble" if their numbers are off, is wrong. There is no one to get in trouble with.
You're not in trouble, unless someone actually files. If they don't, then it didn't matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 20:18:31 GMT -5
And indeed.
Women's (collegiate) sports have come from nothing to 100. Sure, schools could probably spend a bit more ... but it's in incredibly good shape now, compared to pre-Title IX.
Title IX did its job. It's over. The battle is won.
You don't need to go around busting balls of schools if they're a few percentage off. So what?
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 20, 2024 20:25:06 GMT -5
It's actually infinitely easier to determine one's participation numbers than to monitor the parking decals of the cars parked on a campus. I'm pretty confident that just about every institution is aware of its participation/proportionality numbers, which is quite different from publicizing those numbers. I see you neatly avoided the part where your implication that a school "gets in trouble" if their numbers are off, is wrong. There is no one to get in trouble with. You're not in trouble, unless someone actually files. If they don't, then it didn't matter.
I didn't avoid it because it's not true. It is true that a lawsuit is likely and/or often the most common way that an institution "gets in trouble" or at least garners enough negative publicity to make it look like it's in trouble, but there are multiple avenues and agencies that are actually involved in some or all aspects of monitoring compliance with Title IX, in athletics and otherwise. It's obvious you aren't familiar with those agencies or their administrative remedy authority, otherwise you wouldn't make a ridiculous conclusion that the lack of litigation is an indicator of the legal arguments being made or not made. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 20, 2024 20:28:57 GMT -5
Go on... To me, it looks like the lawyer representing the beach volleyball team (who is THE premier Title IX sports lawyer) recruited the club rowing team to join the lawsuit because the proportionality was so far off. I take it you don't believe Oregon will elevate that rowing team to varsity status. How do you think the litigation is going to go? "THE premier Title IX sports lawyer" is a bit of a stretch. The cases I've seen won/settled lately have been Arthur Bryant. He brought back William & Mary Volleyball. He got Florida State to add varsity lacrosse. Maybe there are others, but I think he's the one to go to. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 20, 2024 20:33:20 GMT -5
but there are multiple avenues and agencies that are actually involved in some or all aspects of monitoring compliance with Title IX, in athletics and otherwise. This discussion is strictly about athletics and in terms of lack of resources or insufficient participation. As you knew. Nothing at all to do with any other aspects. So strictly in that sense, what are examples of schools that were penalized by [___] (name the agency) due to lack of resources or insufficient participation for women's varsity sports, in the last say five years? |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 20, 2024 20:40:12 GMT -5
but there are multiple avenues and agencies that are actually involved in some or all aspects of monitoring compliance with Title IX, in athletics and otherwise. This discussion is strictly about athletics and in terms of lack of resources or insufficient participation. As you knew. Nothing at all to do with any other aspects. So strictly in that sense, what are examples of schools that were penalized by [___] (name the agency) due to lack of resources or insufficient participation for women's varsity sports, in the last say five years? I'm aware that this discussion is about athletics. That statement is merely describing the range of authority that those agencies have which includes athletics and other things--a fact that you may or may not be aware of. What you should be looking for are consent decrees, both court approved and agency approved. If I can help you in your journey of self-education, feel free to ask. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 20, 2024 20:43:48 GMT -5
"THE premier Title IX sports lawyer" is a bit of a stretch. The cases I've seen won/settled lately have been Arthur Bryant. He brought back William & Mary Volleyball. He got Florida State to add varsity lacrosse. Maybe there are others, but I think he's the one to go to. I don't think Title IX is really his expertise. He was with a justice center and was kind of a broker for these cases. At some point very recently, he pivoted towards Title IX, perhaps in light of that success. But I'm certainly not arguing that he's not a reasonably good choice to litigate such a matter. |
|
