Blog

How Can Title IX Claims Undermine Important College Budgeting Decisions?

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Feb 27, 2020 | 0 Comments

A college in Minnesota is having difficulty on the backend of a Title IX lawsuit over its sports teams, with plaintiffs now claiming that it violated a court order to maintain the women's programs that it had wanted to cut. The situation is a classic example of how demanding Title IX claimants can be, and how they can prevent colleges from making important budgeting decisions.

St. Cloud Accused of Violating Injunction Over Women's Sports Teams

Like many colleges facing budget shortfalls, Minnesota's St. Cloud State University (SCSU) decided to cut some failing sports teams back in 2016. The school singled out six teams to cut, including the women's tennis and Nordic ski teams.

Several women athletes from each team sued the school for cutting their program, arguing that it was gender discrimination.

The judge hearing the case issued a permanent injunction against the school, forbidding it from following through on the cuts.

Now, the complainants in the case are filing a civil contempt of court motion, arguing that the school has violated the injunction by letting the teams falter. According to the complainants' motion, the tennis and Nordic ski teams are being “decimated” for lack of recruiting and facility space.

The Unreasonable Demands Made by Title IX Complainants

The demands being made by the complainants in this case are typical of many Title IX allegations, especially those that involve student programs or sports teams: They are made with zero understanding of the legitimate and necessarily binding budget concerns of the school.

Assuming that SCSU did not choose to cut the women's tennis and Nordic skiing teams out of aggressive animosity for women and that there was a legitimate financial reason for cutting these particular programs – assumptions that have not been challenged by the complainants in the case – these are likely the budget cuts that would hurt the fewest students and help the school's bottom line, the most. Demanding that SCSU not only keep the teams that hurt the school's budget the most, but double down on their funding, recruiting, and facility space is simply unreasonable.

AAUW: Do the Math

The case has attracted the attention of the American Association of University Women (AAUW), an advocacy organization for women in college.

In a press release about the case, the AAUW makes a hyper-simplistic conclusion about SCSU's conduct: St. Cloud State had claimed that exactly 50% of its enrollment in 2014-15 were women. Therefore, according to the AAUW, exactly half of their sporting opportunities should be for women, too.

But that conclusion assumes that women participate in sports as often as men do. That's simply not the case.

According to the National Federation of State High School Associations, no fewer than 4.53 million boys participated in high school sports during the 2018-19 school year, compared to 3.40 million girls.

Rather than demanding that all colleges reserve sporting opportunities for all women, why not expect them to provide one for the 43% of women who actually compete.

Title IX Advisor and Defense Lawyer Joseph D. Lento

Joseph D. Lento is a Title IX defense lawyer and national advisor. Call his law office at (888) 535-3686 or contact him online.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Joseph D. Lento has more than a decade of experience passionately fighting for the futures of his clients. Mr. Lento represents students and others in disciplinary cases and other proceedings at universities and colleges across the United States while concurrently fighting in criminal courtrooms in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, and New Jersey. Mr. Lento has helped countless students, professors, and others in academia at more than a thousand universities and colleges across the United States. He does not settle for the easiest outcome, and instead prioritizes his clients' needs and well-being. Joseph D. Lento is licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, and is admitted pro hac vice as needed nationwide.

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today!

footer-2.jpg

If you, or your student, are facing any kind of disciplinary action, or other negative academic sanction, and are having feelings of uncertainty and anxiety for what the future may hold, contact our offices today, and let us help secure your academic career.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations – the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website. In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Berks, Lancaster, Lehigh, and Northampton County. In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County, In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties. Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law. The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.

Menu