|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 21, 2024 7:30:54 GMT -5
If they were happy ... they wouldn't be suing? Seems kinda self-obvious? The reason Oregon Beach Volleyball players are suing has nothing to do with the school not providing enough opportunities for female athletes, but rather with the severe lack of resources provided to that program. But once there is an investigation, everything gets looked at. Instead of Oregon spending an extra $100k per year to treat their beach volleyball players better, they're going to end up spending millions to add additional sports. Which is my point. Female athletes at LSU treated great, so they have no reason to sue despite LSU not providing proportional opportunities. I believe the argument, which has been used before, is that they are not comparable opportunities. Usually this sounds like the men's sports have better schedules, better weight rooms, full coaching staffs, etc. and the women do not. In this case it is that the women's volleyball team has vagrants doing drugs in their bathroom at the park, and none of the men's teams do. The experience being offered is less than the experience being offered to the men, so it should not count the same. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 21, 2024 12:16:02 GMT -5
If I can help you in your journey of self-education, feel free to ask. Thanks! Appreciate that, and that's really the best I can hope for on the internet. My question is: What are examples of schools that were penalized by [___] (name the agency) under the legal basis of Title IX strictly because of a lack of resources for or insufficient participation in women's varsity athletics, and no other reason or element (eg. say sexual harassment by a coach), in the last say five years? |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 21, 2024 12:17:30 GMT -5
The reason Oregon Beach Volleyball players are suing has nothing to do with the school not providing enough opportunities for female athletes, but rather with the severe lack of resources provided to that program. But once there is an investigation, everything gets looked at. Instead of Oregon spending an extra $100k per year to treat their beach volleyball players better, they're going to end up spending millions to add additional sports. Which is my point. Female athletes at LSU treated great, so they have no reason to sue despite LSU not providing proportional opportunities. I believe the argument, which has been used before, is that they are not comparable opportunities. Usually this sounds like the men's sports have better schedules, better weight rooms, full coaching staffs, etc. and the women do not. In this case it is that the women's volleyball team has vagrants doing drugs in their bathroom at the park, and none of the men's teams do. The experience being offered is less than the experience being offered to the men, so it should not count the same. If Oregon tried to elevate from club or create from scratch a varsity women's sand volleyball team, and didn't even provide a facility on-campus for the team ... that's pretty bad.
It's not worthy of the Big Ten, that's for sure. They shouldn't need a Title IX lawsuit to correct such an obvious shortcoming.
As far as the rest of your post, it would be interesting if a school tried to defend itself by saying something like the following (let's use a hypothetical example of women's rowing -- and obviously I'm using layperson language to decribe it):
"The women's rowing team is being treated exactly the same as the women's tennis team, which is treated exactly the same as the men's tennis team. Therefore, there is no sexual discrimination to be found. Title IX does not require that all women's varsity teams be treated exactly equally. And indeed, the women's basketball team generates far more fan interest and revenue, so it of course makes sense that their expenses and accommodations, etc. be higher than the women's rowing team."
|
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 21, 2024 12:22:06 GMT -5
If I can help you in your journey of self-education, feel free to ask. Thanks! Appreciate that, and that's really the best I can hope for on the internet. My question is: What are examples of schools that were penalized by [___] (name the agency) under the legal basis of Title IX strictly because of a lack of resources for or insufficient participation in women's varsity athletics, and no other reason or element (eg. say sexual harassment by a coach), in the last say five years? What you are looking for are consent decrees, both court approved and agency approved. There may or may not be a public announcement of their existence, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. And in most cases, they are public records. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jul 21, 2024 12:46:37 GMT -5
As far as the rest of your post, it would be interesting if a school tried to defend itself by saying something like the following (let's use a hypothetical example of women's rowing -- and obviously I'm using layperson language to decribe it): "The women's rowing team is being treated exactly the same as the women's tennis team, which is treated exactly the same as the men's tennis team. Therefore, there is no sexual discrimination to be found. Title IX does not require that all women's varsity teams be treated exactly equally. And indeed, the women's basketball team generates far more fan interest and revenue, so it of course makes sense that their expenses and accommodations, etc. be higher than the women's rowing team."
Many schools definitely do that, and it's completely in line with Title IX. In the Power 4, just about every sport is well-resourced. But if you look at athletic departments in conferences like the WCC, Atlantic 10 and Big East, they'll fund both basketball teams REALLY well and most of their olympic sports poorly. But the women's basketball team gets all of the resources that the men's basketball team gets. Now, it isn't required that there is a direct sport-to-sport equivalency, but it's the simplest way for an athletic department to ensure equity. If the men's basketball team charters 15 flights per season, the school could provide 3 chartered flights for each of 5 women's teams. It's just easier to give it all to women's basketball. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 21, 2024 13:05:57 GMT -5
What you are looking for are consent decrees Would seem you haven't the slightest clue how many there are or how to find them. And so, you can't be said to "know what you're talking about" any more than I do. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 21, 2024 13:14:44 GMT -5
What you are looking for are consent decrees Would seem you haven't the slightest clue how many there are or how to find them. And so, you can't be said to "know what you're talking about" any more than I do. I actually do know. This is an area that I have some practical experience in. Which is also how I know that you don't have any real knowledge of the topic. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 21, 2024 21:34:17 GMT -5
Would seem you haven't the slightest clue how many there are or how to find them. And so, you can't be said to "know what you're talking about" any more than I do. I actually do know. This is an area that I have some practical experience in. Which is also how I know that you don't have any real knowledge of the topic. I mean, employment contracts and labor unions for non-employees, non-profits with hundreds of millions in revenue, trying to comply with title IX and a competitive market at the same time, and student athletes who are not afforded the time and opportunity to really be students. None of this makes a bit of sense. Even the people in the room are making it up as they go along so it's all educated guesses... well guesses anyway, educated or not. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 22, 2024 11:12:50 GMT -5
I'll assume you have no idea how many schools were penalized in the way I specified. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 22, 2024 11:17:51 GMT -5
I'll assume you have no idea how many schools were penalized in the way I specified. There is no easily available or centralized database of consent decrees (or even filed complaints), so I would say it's safe to say that not many do know the specific answer (but many consent decrees are publicized, so you can search for them individually). If you actually knew anything about the subject, you wouldn't be asking me this question. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 22, 2024 11:22:34 GMT -5
There is no easily available or centralized database of consent decrees (or even filed complaints), so I would say it's safe to say that not many do know the specific answer. OK. I buy this. If you weren't so disingenuous, you would've just said this two or three posts ago. The question was perfectly well-defined as it was related to what was being discussed: Title IX violations by schools strictly for lack of resources or lack of participation for female athletics. I don't think that happens much, these days, anyway. The battle of getting women's athletics onto an equal playing field with men's has largely been won, in the sense that it can even be fought. You can't force people to care about women's sports as much as they do men's, so that's the bit that will take time and may never fully pull even. But who knows! |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 22, 2024 11:28:46 GMT -5
There is no easily available or centralized database of consent decrees (or even filed complaints), so I would say it's safe to say that not many do know the specific answer. OK. I buy this. If you weren't so disingenuous, you would've just said this two or three posts ago. The question was perfectly well-defined as it was related to what was being discussed: Title IX violations by schools strictly for lack of resources or lack of participation for female athletics. I don't think that happens much, these days, anyway. The battle of getting women's athletics onto an equal playing field with men's has largely been won, in the sense that it can even be fought. You can't force people to care about women's sports as much as they do men's, so that's the bit that will take time and may never fully pull even. But who knows! The disingenuous one is you, acting as if you know something about a topic when you actually don't. I disagree that it doesn't happen, that the battle has largely been won (define what victory means in this context), and it certainly can still be fought. The legal system will always provide a space for these issues to be litigated in one way or another. The current NIL situation, for example, will lead to an intersection with Title IX at some point and that may spark a new round of legal activity. The only thing I agree with is that people cannot be forced to care more about women sports, but it is certainly possible for that to change. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 22, 2024 11:39:47 GMT -5
I disagree that it doesn't happen I said doesn't happen much, not doesn't happen. Clearly, Oregon's preposterous notion of having a varsity sand volleyball team without even providing them a facility, is one such instance. Women's athletics pre-Title IX vs today. Beyond obvious a massive victory. Can't even be questioned. It doesn't have to be final, but we've come probably 90-95% of the way we're going to come, in the regulatory sense. The rest of the movement is going to have to be based on if the public steps up their game in how much they care about and tune into women's sports. If they do, then the money and TV will be there. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 22, 2024 11:43:56 GMT -5
I disagree that it doesn't happen I said doesn't happen much, not doesn't happen. Clearly, Oregon's preposterous notion of having a varsity sand volleyball team without even providing them a facility, is one such instance. Women's athletics pre-Title IX vs today. Beyond obvious a massive victory. Can't even be questioned. It doesn't have to be final, but we've come probably 90-95% of the way we're going to come, in the regulatory sense. The rest of the movement is going to have to be based on if the public steps up their game in how much they care about and tune into women's sports. If they do, then the money and TV will be there. If the passage of Title IX was the victory, then why are so many institutions out of compliance in terms of expenditures and participation/opportunity? That definition doesn't make sense. It's no different that the actual impact the passage of the 14th Amendment had on slavery. The true victories occurred through civil rights litigation that was favorably disposed in the courts. |
|
|
|
Post by mplsgopher on Jul 22, 2024 11:46:38 GMT -5
I said doesn't happen much, not doesn't happen. Clearly, Oregon's preposterous notion of having a varsity sand volleyball team without even providing them a facility, is one such instance. Women's athletics pre-Title IX vs today. Beyond obvious a massive victory. Can't even be questioned. It doesn't have to be final, but we've come probably 90-95% of the way we're going to come, in the regulatory sense. The rest of the movement is going to have to be based on if the public steps up their game in how much they care about and tune into women's sports. If they do, then the money and TV will be there. If the passage of Title IX was the victory, then why are so many institutions out of compliance in terms of expenditures and participation/opportunity? That definition doesn't make sense. It's no different that the actual impact the passage of the 14th Amendment had on slavery. The true victories occurred through civil rights litigation that was favorably disposed in the courts. Huh? I didn't say anything about simply the passage of the law being the victory itself.
The victory, as it was clear, was the explosion of opportunities for females to participate in athletics, at all levels.
Sure, that's fine to champion various cases that were fought or settled. Never said anything otherwise
|
|
