Parents of female athletes sue over cuts to school sports

[Bruce Caldwell]

Parents of female athletes sue over cuts to school sports
JOHN DAVIS
Parents of eight female high school athletes filed suit in federal court Tuesday, accusing a state board of sex discrimination in mandating scheduling cuts to all high school sports except football and cheerleading.
The lawsuit contends that the Florida High School Athletic Association violated federal and state equity laws, including Title IX, a federal law requiring high schools and colleges to offer equal sports opportunities for boys and girls.
The six parents are asking a judge to reverse the competition cutbacks -- intended to save budget-strapped school districts money -- and award payment of legal costs and unspecified monetary damages.
FHSAA administrators had no comment on the suit, though the group has hired an attorney who it touted as an expert in Title IX law, according to an e-mail from Executive Director Roger Dearing to the board.
The 34-page complaint says exempting football from game cuts "essentially separates out boys' football players as a special, privileged class of athletes" in violation of Florida and federal equal protection laws.
The FHSAA agreed in April to reduce varsity schedules by 20 percent and junior varsity by 40 percent as a cost-cutting measure. Football was exempted because the sport is popular and profitable in many districts.
The student athletes suing the FHSAA live in Tampa, Jacksonville, Green Cove Springs and Miami. They asked for an injunction to stop the shortened schedules from being implemented this fall.
"We're not trying to get monetary damages out of the case, frankly," said Nancy Hogshead-Makar, one of three attorneys representing the parents. "We're trying to get the cuts rescinded."
Hogshead-Makar, a Jacksonville law professor and former Olympic swimmer, implored the board to revisit the game reductions at a public meeting this month.
Instead, the FHSAA decided to remain silent on the issue, citing the possibility of a lawsuit. After that meeting June 5, Dearing asked Hogshead-Makar to postpone filing suit to work out a potential settlement.
Hogshead-Makar agreed, but Dearing, the former Manatee County school superintendent, left for vacation last Friday without completing a proposal.
Hogshead-Makar expressed frustration with the inability to reach an agreement and worried that further delay would not give schools enough time to add games to fall schedules.
Last year, 36,104 high school students participated in football; three were girls. Football accounted for 29 percent of boys playing high school sports, or more individual students than in girls' basketball, volleyball and track combined.
Critics said the cutbacks were poorly conceived because officials could not say how much money would be saved and noted that some money-making sports were cut along with money losers.
The game reductions had the backing of many school superintendents across the state who wanted athletic programs included in cuts imposed in other areas in a tight budget year.
At least one FHSAA board member said he hopes that a deal can be reached to avoid protracted and expensive litigation in what has become an emotional issue for parents and coaches.
"I think it caught us off guard and a little by surprise that we had this issue," said Tim Wilder, an FHSAA board member and superintendent of Gulf County Schools, noting that he is open to changing schedules again to get equity, though he opposes a wholesale reversal of the cuts.
"My discussion with the superintendents as a group was not about Title IX, it was about the number of games," he said.
Wilder said he hopes to reach a settlement deal next month at an emergency FHSAA board meeting under consideration.
FHSAA and Lee County School Board member Steven Teuber wrote in an e-mail that "Dearing and our counsel are working diligently on this matter for an equitable solution."
Dozens of parents statewide wanted to be part of the lawsuit, according to Hogshead-Makar, who said going forward with the shortened schedules as mandated by the FHSAA could open districts and even individual schools to similar litigation.
"Hopefully they've become abundantly aware of the requirements of Title IX," said Leslie Goller, a Jacksonville attorney for the plaintiffs.
June 18, 2009
http://athleticbusiness.com/articles/lexisnexis.aspx?lnarticleid=992540059&lntopicid=136030023

[VaultPurple]

Welcome to America!

[kev44000]

Only in America!!!!!!!!!

[Tim McMichael]

Girls deserve equal access to competitive activities. It is a basic issue of fairness. Title IX is good law, and districts planning to cut everything but football should have known better.

[VaultPurple]

Yes but they did not cut cheerleading either.... which is traditionaly a female sport. And since there is no rule saying girls can not play football then they technicaly have the same oppertunity.

I mean I think the decision sucks... But this is not a matter of guys and girls, this is a matter of football getting whatever they want because they make the money.


Title 9 is great but some people take it too far, expecially NCAA.

The combination of title IX and football being allowed almost 120 athletes on their roster compleatly screws over most other mens sports. Because there are so many people on the football roster, for the school to compensate with close to the same amount of girls they have to have less guy sports than girl sports. Then on top of having less guy sports, they also have to have less guys on rosters than girls. In track at my school we are only allowed something like 42 guys, while we can have as many girls as we want.

In track you need around 30 or more athletes just to fill all the events with 3 people ( some schools have like 5 per event ). Comapred too football only having something like 22 first string positions, so if they had 3 strings per positon counting kickers thats something like 70 people. So why do they need 50 people on the roster that have absolutly no chance of ever seeing the field? Then on top of that 20 on full rides that will never see the field?

I mean I know they make the money and diserve a little extra special stuff but those 20 to 30 extra guys on full rides that never touch the grid iron are not making the school any money.

I think this just shows how title 9 was designed for a good reason, but it does not make equal rights for guys and girl sports, it just makes sure there are enough girls to make up for the over amount of guys on the football team.

[CowtownPV]

I'm not real sure what they were trying to do but they seem to be limiting the number of games. Football here plays 10 games a year where basketball, vollyball, softball, and baseball play 25 or more. If they were cutting the number of games played maybe they felt football was allready at a good number.

[Tim McMichael]

I feel pretty strongly about this, so please don't take what I say as a personal attack. I just want to speak to the ideas themselves. Debate is like competition; you can do it hard without hard feelings.

That said, I have nothing kind to say about reasoning that obeys the letter and not the sprit of a law. People wanting to get around the practical implications of a law can usually come up with obscure loopholes and convoluted reasoning that allows them to do what they want. The Jim Crow laws are a good example of this. Black people could "technically" vote in the '50s, but the polling stations they were forced to use were only open for an hour on election day, and they had to pass a literacy test before they could cast a ballot. Girls can indeed "technically" play football, but there is only one position, kicking, that is a realistic option, and if you have tryouts that are based on 40 times and the bench press, girls are shut out entirely.

As for cheerleading being treated as an equivalent sport, it rarely exists as much more than an addendum to football, especially in smaller districts. It is, quite literally, on the sidelines. Imagine the reaction of those who want to call cheerleading equal to football if the situation were reversed. There is nothing to keep boys from being cheerleaders. There are already many more boys in cheerleading than there are girls in football. There are already plenty of cheerleading competitions. It does not require any other sport's sidelines to give it a reason to exist. So what if they kept track and cheerleading fully funded and cut the football program. This makes infinitely more sense if they are really concerned with saving money. I suspect we would find out very quickly what the school board and administration really thought about cheerleading as a sport equal to football.

The whole reason title IX needs to exist is to protect female athletes from just this kind of discrimination. The local community's interest in football cannot override the right of girls to equal opportunity in public schools. Because the local pressure to favor football is so great, federal law is necessary to keep this from influencing the local government's decisions.

[vault3rb0y]

I dont have a problem and I agree with you, Tim, until i see wrestlers and hockey players having their sports cut entirely. It brings the issue from gender discrimination to sport discrimination. If you make males and females equal in scholarship and funding in the NCAA sports you should try to make funding at least proportionally equal for different sports as well. Otherwise i feel like the thinking in Athletics directors is "ok... now that we have the same number of scholarships for men and women, all we have to do is screw over the men in sports that dont make money, and we can still turn a profit!" hence the football team gets 80+ scholarships, while wrestling gets how many? Track gets how many? Fencing gets how many? Do they even add up to what football gets? Yea.... you have more players, great! Make the amount of scholarships proportional to the number of key players on your roster because we have 50 kids on our track team and half dont get anything, id say 1/4 get less than 30%, then the 1/4 studs get 50-80%, and made 1 or 2 are on full.

It's like you said tim... when minds are on money and obey the letter and not the spirit of the law, the laws dont make much difference because they find loopholes. If the athletic directors and NCAA board members made their goal to see a broad range of sports, both men and women, have an equal opportunity to take their sport to the next level, we would see more equal and fair scholarships for men and women, in my opinion. Title IX is a good intentions law with bad outcomes in the larger picture of sports because of the people manipulating it for basketball and football.

[vaultmd]

Thanks, Tim. Well said.

[VaultPurple]

Girls can indeed "technically" play football, but there is only one position, kicking, that is a realistic option, and if you have tryouts that are based on 40 times and the bench press, girls are shut out entirely.

I "Technically" could have played football. But going into high school I was 5'4 and 115lb, there was no chance of me making even a JV squad, and if I did I would never see the field. So any girl out there had just as good of shot as making the team as me, ie. equal opportunity. So maybe they should make title 10 where athletes under 120lb should have equal rights as those over 180?

There are already plenty of cheerleading competitions. It does not require any other sport's sidelines to give it a reason to exist. So what if they kept track and cheerleading fully funded and cut the football program. This makes infinitely more sense if they are really concerned with saving money. I suspect we would find out very quickly what the school board and administration really thought about cheerleading as a sport equal to football.

Right here you state it can stand alone as a sport so hey, I see that as an equivalent, but thats not really the point

So how would it make more since to fund track and cheerleading and cut funding for football? Football at most high schools probably brings on average 2000 paying fans at at least $5 a ticket, so with five home games they would be losing around $50k?

The whole reason title IX needs to exist is to protect female athletes from just this kind of discrimination. The local community's interest in football cannot override the right of girls to equal opportunity in public schools. Because the local pressure to favor football is so great, federal law is necessary to keep this from influencing the local government's decisions.

I agree title IX is needed to protect females based on female discrimination in sports. This being said, they have the same opportunities to play sports. ie. the same number of sports.

However I am not debating weather title IX is good or bad, rather that it has nothing to do with this case. If anything here they are just discriminating against non-football (with gender not important).

Here you had a school program that wanted to save some money, so they are like lets cut back the amount of games the sports play. But wait football makes us $50,000 so it would be stupid to cut them. Also football already plays less games than any of the other sports in the first place (except maybe track), so if we cut the amount of games by 20 percent for the other sports they will still probably be playing just as many if not more games.

Now as far as title IX in college, that is another whole story of how good things can turn bad. Just how when someone important tries so hard to not be raciest against one group they end out hurting another one.

[CowtownPV]

To me this all whole issue was over the number of games and football doesn't play as many games as the other sports so I don't think they will win their lawsuit. When you are discussing title IX there are several things to consider. I am all for the girls BB, track, and softball teams getting everything the boys have. The thing you have to realize about football is that not only are there more players there are more costs. Every football player easiy has at least $300 dollars of pads on. Helmets and shoulder pads can be that much alone. So don't compare the budget of football to volleyball and expect them to be equal and that is also why the total money spent on girls athletics won't be equal unless you do it the NCAA way and give other girls sports more money than the boys (like 18 girls track scholarships, 12 boys).

[achtungpv]

If the parents lose this lawsuit, it could have repercussions at the collegiate level by invalidating Title IX. Either Title IX applies or it doesn't.

However, I don't see any increase in scholarships for men. They'd probably just bump the women down to 12.6 also. Plus, colleges could just get rid of any sports that are not profitable since many are maintained solely for Title IX compliance.