JMU explains Title IX, criticized by Va. House
By Mary Frances Czarsty and Jessica Coffin , assistant news editor and contributing writer
Posted on February 19, 2007

A month after the Board of Visitors final decision was made regarding the cutting of 10 varsity sports to be Title IX compliant, JMU issued a statement explaining some of the reasons it stood by its choice.

“The university issued the Title IX statement on Feb. 8, 2007 to provide answers and clarifications to questions that continue to be asked,” University Spokesperson Don Egle said. 

JMU athletic director Jeff Bourne said the statement did not come from the athletic division.  He also said he believed it was only a reply to questions people were still asking about Title IX. 

“It was a response to individuals asking for clarification,” Bourne said.
Yet some questioned the timeliness of the statement.

The original decision was made by the BOV Sept. 29, 2006, and it decided to stand by that decision during its January meeting. While JMU said the press release was made to clear up lingering questions about the Title IX issue, some believe the statement was brought on by the Virginia House of Delegates Feb. 7 meeting in which it admonished the university for its decision and subsequent handling of it, while threatening to withhold funding.

“The House of Delegates was in an uproar,” said Jenn Chapman, president of the Student Athlete Advisory Council. “They were trying to do damage control.”

James Snyder, a member of the Coalition to Save JMU Sports whose son is a freshman on the track team, attended the session and saw the House’s response to the actions taken by JMU.

 “The delegates appeared quite upset with this ploy,” Snyder said.

 He was given the opportunity to speak to delegates about the cuts and the effect it had on the athletes involved. 

 “It was expressed very clearly to the delegates that what JMU did to these 144 student athletes was a complete sign of betrayal,” Snyder said.

Snyder told the delegates of the students’ recruitment, only to find out a month into the school year they would have to transfer if they wanted to remain on a varsity-level sports team. 

“They should have allowed these student-athletes the opportunity to make an educated decision as to whether to attend JMU or continue looking elsewhere for a university to attend,” Snyder said.

“This would have been the honorable and right thing for JMU to do. These student-athletes should be given the opportunity to complete their athletic careers at JMU as promised.”

The apparent dislike the delegates had for the actions taken by JMU are the reasons why some think JMU was motivated to issue the new statement on Title IX, but the administration maintains the press release was not in connection to the House session.

JMU President Linwood Rose said the timing of the press release was coincidental.

“The statement was to respond to questions raised at the [January] Board meeting,” Rose said. “The decision to release a statement was made within a week after the meeting.”

Members of the student-run group Save Our Sports have been working to keep the cut sports at JMU until after 2010.

But according to Chapman, it is too late for legislation by the Virginia House of Delegates to make that possible.

Both Chapman and Snyder do not see this as the end of the battle. 

 “We [are] not going to ‘just go away,’” Snyder said.

Said Chapman: “I think a lot of people thought we were just going to give up. But since JMU is a state school, and the Virginia House is willing to work with us, our fight is really just beginning.”