Virginia equality group names JMU in Title IX suit
Posted on August 30, 2007
Equity in Athletics, a nonprofit Virginia nonstock corporation whose membership includes 450 coaches, student-athletes, fans, booster clubs, parents, save-our-sport groups and alumni, has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education, JMU, President Linwood Rose, Athletic Director Jeffrey Bourne and JMU’s Board of Visitors over the legality of the decision to cut 10 JMU athletic teams.
Nearly a year ago JMU’s Board of Visitors voted to cut men and women’s archery, men’s baseball, men’s cross country, men and women’s gymnastics, men’s indoor and outdoor track, men’s swimming, men’s wrestling and women’s fencing in compliance with Title IX’s gender – equity requirements.
The proportionality requirements of Title IX require schools’ athletics programs to reflect the population, according to court documents. At the beginning of the 2006-07 academic school year, JMU’s population was 61 percent female and 39 percent male, while athletics participation was 50.7 percent female and 49.3 percent male.
The EIA formed in February and decided to sue the U.S. government. The organization initially believed the Department of Education misled the university in its understanding of Title IX.
“Under the original 1975 Title IX regulations approved by President Ford and presented to Congress, schools must provide equal athletic opportunity, based on an assessment of relative interest,” EIA attorney Larry Joseph said.
According to Joseph, bureaucrats changed the standard to equal athletic participation without actually following the procedures to amend the original regulations. Under the 1975 standard Joseph said JMU would not have needed to make these cuts, while under the 1979/1996 standards JMU felt the need to cut many of the sports because they couldn’t add enough women’s sports to make the participation reflect enrollment.
“In the lawsuit, EIA argues that the 1979/1996 standard is both substantively and procedurally illegal,” Joseph said.
EIA asked JMU not to make any cuts until after their lawsuit was settled. In April it became apparent that JMU was not going to wait. One month later JMU was added to the lawsuit.
In mid-June the EIA filed for a preliminary court injunction to stop JMU from cutting the sports teams. It was denied by U.S. District Judge Glen E. Conrad in Roanoke last Tuesday. The preliminary injunction would have temporarily stopped JMU from cutting the teams.
“The court is not unsympathetic to the plight of the members of the athletic programs,” read the judge’s memorandum opinion. “These students are innocent victims of Title IX’s benevolent attempt to remedy the effects of past discrimination against women and JMU’s efforts to comply with Title IX.”
According to the court document, when deciding whether or not to grant the preliminary injunction the most important factors considered were the likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiff if it’s denied and the likelihood of harm to defendant if it’s granted.
The court decided that, while the athletes will suffer more emotionally as they will not be able to complete their athletic careers at the college of their choice, the university would be faced with more harm since coaches have been terminated, money for programs redistributed, and competitions cancelled for the year.
“Granting the preliminary injunction would nonetheless override the university’s own judgment as to how to apportion its resources and what its athletic offerings will be,” read the judge’s memorandum opinion.
Though the temporary restraining order was denied, Joseph said the EIA will make a decision as to whether or not to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond this week.
“The EIA hopes to persuade the courts to reinstate as many teams as possible, as quickly as possible,” he said.
JMU has refused to comment.
“The university is aware of the ruling,” University Spokesman Don Egle said. “At the same time the university has said all along through this process that it would be inappropriate to provide any comment throughout the litigation process.”