This is not very satisfactory becausethere are many legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons why some sports aremore expensive than others.
Previously in the article the court ruled that expense is not an excuse to discriminate.
18 Matching Annotations
- Sep 2020
-
inst-fs-iad-prod.inscloudgate.net inst-fs-iad-prod.inscloudgate.net
-
-
selection of athletes is not a randomprocess. The number of slots to be filled by each sex is essentially predeter-mined each year by the coaches.
There is negligible chance that any random individual will end up as a tight end on the varsity football team—there are a few individuals with a very positively weighted chance, and many many more with a very negatively weighted chance.
-
The Court took judicial notice that the likelihood of such an out-come by random selection was six in one million, but specifically said thatits decision did not depend on the probability analysis."7
I don't get this. It makes the discrimination very clear and is a good quantitative source of analysis, but it's just discarded.
-
"The mind of justice, not merely its eyes,would have to be blind to attribute such an occurrence to mere fortuity
If there is some ridiculous chance that a jury is elected excluding most if not all minority chances at representation, then chances are it wasn't up to chance.
-
however, none of the courts madeit clear how large a difference would be allowable for a university to com-ply with Title IX. I
Again, a problem because colleges can get away with larger discrepancies.
-
the court did notindicate what level of statistical disparity (between the female athletic partici-pation rate and female undergraduate enrollment) a Title IX plaintiff initiallymust show to prove a violation.
Kind of good (allows plaintiffs to stretch what not meeting could entail) but also bad because it allows schools to get away with larger discrepancies than intended
-
he court refused to create a new defense for schools. The unmetneeds of male athletes did not excuse the unmet needs of the female athlet-es. The
Precludes any possible arguments such as "men want to participate in gymnastics but we don't have a team, so a lack of a women's team means that there is equal opportunity."
-
reducing program offerings for men cannot satisfy the continu-ing expansion part of the test was a step forward in Title IX jurisprudence.
Not the intent of Title IX—get women more involved, don't kick men out of teams and then call opportunities equal
-
This indi-cated a history of program expansion, but no new teams had been addedsince 1982, except for one that was added after the preliminary injunctionwas issued.
The key word here was continuing. Sporadic progress doesn't count, there has to be steady progress approaching equality
-
That is, the plaintiffs first must show that the participation rates andenrollment rates are not substantially proportionate to succeed in a Title IXsuit.'
To even have a credible chance at a case plaintiffs must be able to prove substantial proportionality isn't met
-
increased the female participation rate, but would have decreased thepercentage of the athletics budget going to women's sports.
I like that the court forestalled the college from this rather shady move, and enforced that the team which had sued had to be maintained under equal conditions; the university was not allowed to just cut it and replace it with a cheaper, larger team
-
or what assurance of effective competition, needs to be demonstratedby a plaintiff in order for Title IX to mandate the establishment of a com-pletely new team.
If a competent athlete brings a school to court, is that not by definition failing the third prong immediately?
-
Thus the court established that "continuing expan-sion" would be judged by measurable results
The more measure-able the better, although this may be difficult to assign a numerical value
-
. Picking up the refrain from earlier Title VII cases, the court declared,"[i]t is clear that financial concerns alone cannot justify gender discrimina-tion."
This is critical, not having enough money is not an excuse to allow discrimination.
-
The defendant must also establish that noless restrictive policy can serve this business purpose adequately
If discrimination is necessary, it must be a form which affects the fewest amount of people with the least severity
-
The court reasoned that Title IX is intended toprotect not only a class of persons, but individuals, such as the Colgatewomen's ice hockey players.
Sport on sport comparison is a better way to evaluate equality
-
Although compliance with the effective accommodation requirement canbe satisfied by meeting any one of the three prongs, only the first truly pro-vides a "safe harbor" for institutions.
Goal for most colleges will be to satisfy this prong
-
(1) Athletic Financial Assistance (Scholarships);'(2) Equivalence in Other Athletic Benefits and Opportunities;9 and(3) Effective Accommodation of Student Interests and Abilities.
"Benefits" can be highly subjective
-