2008 Woodie Awards
Despite long debate, university was right after all
Issue date: 1/18/08 Section: Opinion
On Jan. 7, while most of us were whiling away the last days of our winter break and trying to remember what we were thinking when we made those New Year's resolutions, an important decision was handed down regarding the university's compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars universities from making gender-based discriminations in federally-funded programs.
At the behest of several female student athletes who asked that the university's Title IX compliance lawsuit be reopened, District Court Judge Donetta W. Ambrose ruled against reopening the case. She noted that based on the 2006-07 enrollment and athletic participation figures, the university remains in compliance with the much-ballyhooed law that has generated quite a buzz on our campus in the last two years and in recent months as "End Title IX" shirts pop up here and there.
Per the university's April 2007 settlement agreement with the female student athletes, SRU is required to keep the percentage of athletic opportunities for women within two percentage points of the female population of the student body. For the 2006-2007 academic year, women accounted for 53.6 percent of the total athletic opportunities provided while females made up 54.8 percent of the student body, a difference of 1.2 percent. This margin means SRU continues to remain within the parameters of the settlement regarding Title IX, which has been of great benefit for women's rights in general and women's athletic equality in particular, helping to provide a level playing field in college athletics in the United States.
In the land of gender equity at SRU, all is well for now.
But what this decision means for the future is still uncertain. SRU President Robert Smith said that he is unsure of whether, come the end of the 2007-2008 academic year, the water polo and swimming teams will be cut-something Ambrose said the university is entitled to do. In her ruling, she also said that she didn't want to venture down Hypothetical Lane in considering whether our university will still be in compliance should the swimming and water polo teams be cut come summer.
Who knows? Within a matter of months, we may again be having are-they-or-aren't-they Title IX compliance discussions, if and when those two squads are eliminated, and when the university has recalculated its student-athlete participation percentages in relation to the total number of men and women.
But for now it's worth noting that the university continues to take steps necessary to provide equal athletic opportunities for its women.
The bottom line? Score this one as a clear-cut victory for SRU, which has come out on top despite a barrage of claims that it was taking a bevy of missteps in its handling of the situation.
At the behest of several female student athletes who asked that the university's Title IX compliance lawsuit be reopened, District Court Judge Donetta W. Ambrose ruled against reopening the case. She noted that based on the 2006-07 enrollment and athletic participation figures, the university remains in compliance with the much-ballyhooed law that has generated quite a buzz on our campus in the last two years and in recent months as "End Title IX" shirts pop up here and there.
Per the university's April 2007 settlement agreement with the female student athletes, SRU is required to keep the percentage of athletic opportunities for women within two percentage points of the female population of the student body. For the 2006-2007 academic year, women accounted for 53.6 percent of the total athletic opportunities provided while females made up 54.8 percent of the student body, a difference of 1.2 percent. This margin means SRU continues to remain within the parameters of the settlement regarding Title IX, which has been of great benefit for women's rights in general and women's athletic equality in particular, helping to provide a level playing field in college athletics in the United States.
In the land of gender equity at SRU, all is well for now.
But what this decision means for the future is still uncertain. SRU President Robert Smith said that he is unsure of whether, come the end of the 2007-2008 academic year, the water polo and swimming teams will be cut-something Ambrose said the university is entitled to do. In her ruling, she also said that she didn't want to venture down Hypothetical Lane in considering whether our university will still be in compliance should the swimming and water polo teams be cut come summer.
Who knows? Within a matter of months, we may again be having are-they-or-aren't-they Title IX compliance discussions, if and when those two squads are eliminated, and when the university has recalculated its student-athlete participation percentages in relation to the total number of men and women.
But for now it's worth noting that the university continues to take steps necessary to provide equal athletic opportunities for its women.
The bottom line? Score this one as a clear-cut victory for SRU, which has come out on top despite a barrage of claims that it was taking a bevy of missteps in its handling of the situation.
Be the first to comment on this story