Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by GTOWN View Post
    My understanding is that title IX applies across ALL programs at all levels. my daughter is playing DIII and there have been discussions about title IX implications. don't think that's just a DI impact.
    I believe it even plays a roll in high school.

    Comment


    • Re: RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa

      Originally posted by MAHOCKEY FAN View Post
      I believe it even plays a roll in high school.
      Title IX is an amendment to Title 20 of the U.S. Code, which pertains to all educational institutions, of all levels, that receive any federal government aid, defined broadly. It covers all aspects of education, not just athletics. It is constituted as Chapter 38 of Title 20. You can find it here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/chapter-38

      Comment


      • Re: RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa

        Originally posted by GTOWN View Post
        My understanding is that title IX applies across ALL programs at all levels. my daughter is playing DIII and there have been discussions about title IX implications. don't think that's just a DI impact.
        The proportionality rule applies to scholarships so that element doesn't apply to most D-III schools. It does apply to hockey at RPI due to the grandfathering provision passed about 15 years ago.

        However, Title IX overall applies to all educational institutions receiving federal money . It requires equity between opportunities for men and women not just for athletics but all programs. I'm sure there are complicated criteria that are used to assess "equity."

        Edit: I see Eeyore beat me to it.

        Comment


        • Re: RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa

          Originally posted by rpi82 View Post
          The proportionality rule applies to scholarships so that element doesn't apply to most D-III schools. It does apply to hockey at RPI due to the grandfathering provision passed about 15 years ago.
          This is false. Proportionality is not limited to scholarships. Indeed, proportionality of scholarships is not actually required, though it would be difficult to satisfy Title IX if they are far out of balance over a long period. What Title IX requires, in regards to athletics and according to a large body of case law, is that an institution must provide athletic opportunities substantially proportional to gender representation in the institution as a whole. One aspect of this is that there must be substantially proportional access to such opportunities, and proportional scholarships are one of the three ways that a school can demonstrate compliance. It does have extra importance, because providing proportional scholarships provides a safe harbor, while the other two are subject to litigation. The three tests are:

          (1) Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or
          (2) Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of thatsex; or
          (3) Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion such as that cited above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.

          Item one is not specifically about scholarships. A school that does not offer them must still provide proportional opportunities on varsity teams to satisfy the test.

          There is a second issue beyond access, which is that the institution must provide equivalent treatment for the athletes in things such as: quality of facilities and equipment; practice times; travel and per diems; and a number of other measures. Substantial proportionality is not the standard here.

          Comment


          • Re: RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa

            RPI's women's hockey team was mentioned in Sports Illustrated's first issue of the year (they only print one issue a month nowadays).

            Unfortunately (though probably not surprisingly), it wasn't a particularly positive mention. A Faces in the Crowd item about Clarkson's Elizabeth Giguere mentioned that she had become the school's all-time assists leader with two assists in a 5-0 defeat of Rensselaer.

            At least they spelled the school's name correctly.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Waite21 View Post
              RPI's women's hockey team was mentioned in Sports Illustrated's first issue of the year (they only print one issue a month nowadays).

              Unfortunately (though probably not surprisingly), it wasn't a particularly positive mention. A Faces in the Crowd item about Clarkson's Elizabeth Giguere mentioned that she had become the school's all-time assists leader with two assists in a 5-0 defeat of Rensselaer.
              At least they spelled the school's name correctly.
              I used to have a book called “The Football Hall of Shame” and the RPI football team and coach Ed Jontos are in there. I’ll let you look up the story.
              Uncle Mickey: July 23, 1950-July 22, 2003

              WRPI, 91.5 FM...usually color commentary.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Still Eeyore View Post
                This is false. Proportionality is not limited to scholarships. Indeed, proportionality of scholarships is not actually required, though it would be difficult to satisfy Title IX if they are far out of balance over a long period. What Title IX requires, in regards to athletics and according to a large body of case law, is that an institution must provide athletic opportunities substantially proportional to gender representation in the institution as a whole. One aspect of this is that there must be substantially proportional access to such opportunities, and proportional scholarships are one of the three ways that a school can demonstrate compliance. It does have extra importance, because providing proportional scholarships provides a safe harbor, while the other two are subject to litigation. The three tests are:

                (1) Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or
                (2) Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of thatsex; or
                (3) Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion such as that cited above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.

                Item one is not specifically about scholarships. A school that does not offer them must still provide proportional opportunities on varsity teams to satisfy the test.
                The three tests you cited are alternatives to each other. If you meet 2 or 3 you do not have to meet the proportionality standard to comply with the opportunity requirements. In practice, however, you are probably right that the easiest, safest and most sustainable way to show compliance is proportionality. There is no alternative to proportionality for scholarships.

                http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/inclusion/title-ix-frequently-asked-questions#comply
                Last edited by rpi82; 02-01-2020, 04:56 AM.

                Comment


                • Re: RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa

                  Originally posted by rpi82 View Post
                  The three tests you cited are alternatives to each other. If you meet 2 or 3 you do not have to meet the proportionality standard to comply with the opportunity requirements. In practice, however, you are probably right that the easiest, safest and most sustainable way to show compliance is proportionality. There is no alternative to proportionality for scholarships.

                  http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/...estions#comply
                  Hence why I said that part one of the three part test is one of the three ways you can demonstrate compliance. And it's not a question of being "probably right" that the first is the easiest way to demonstrate compliance; the courts have ruled explicitly that it provides a safe harbor for a school that achieves it, as opposed to the other two, which can involve litigation as to whether a school has complied.

                  Comment


                  • Re: RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa

                    Originally posted by Still Eeyore View Post
                    Hence why I said that part one of the three part test is one of the three ways you can demonstrate compliance. And it's not a question of being "probably right" that the first is the easiest way to demonstrate compliance; the courts have ruled explicitly that it provides a safe harbor for a school that achieves it, as opposed to the other two, which can involve litigation as to whether a school has complied.
                    In 2003 the Feds changed the enforcement guidelines to state that all 3 tests were equal and proportionality of access was not a safe harbor superior to the others. It certainly doesn't provide safety from being sued. Ask Quinnipiac, which claimed proportional compliance based on its competitive cheerleading squad, which required athletic skill (true) and competed in judged competitions (also true) so it was a sport (?). They also claimed that a single female athlete competing in outdoor track, indoor track and cross-country comprised three opportunities. They were sued and got a negative ruling on both claims in federal court. As long as any criteria is subject to interpretation there is no safe harbor.

                    It is my understanding, however, that proportionality of scholarships is explicitly cited as a requirement in the federal regulations used to determine administrative enforcement and there are no alternative paths to compliance on that element. As far as I know there is also no competing case law.
                    Last edited by rpi82; 02-03-2020, 12:12 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa

                      Only 4 games away from the perfect season!

                      Comment


                      • Re: RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa

                        Originally posted by sezenack View Post
                        Only 4 games away from the perfect season!
                        Surely you jest.
                        Minnesota Golden Gopher Hockey

                        Comment


                        • Re: RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa

                          Originally posted by sezenack View Post
                          Only 4 games away from the perfect season!
                          You forgot the tie. Perfect season ruined.
                          Fan of CLARKSON: 2014, 2017 & 2018 NC$$ WOMEN'S DIV 1 HOCKEY NATIONAL CHAMPIONS *******https://fanforum.uscho.com/core/images/smilies/smile.gi*********
                          And of 3 Patty Kaz recepients: Jamie Lee Rattray, Loren Gabel and Elizabeth Giguere
                          WHOOOOOOOOO WHOOOOOOOOO
                          If Union Can Do It So Can CCT (One of These Years) *******https://fanforum.uscho.com/core/images/smilies/smile.gi*********

                          Comment


                          • Re: RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa

                            sigpic

                            Let's Go 'Tute!

                            Maxed out at 2,147,483,647 at 10:00 AM EDT 9/17/07.

                            2012 Poser Of The Year

                            Comment


                            • Re: RPI 2019-2020: Life after Lovisa

                              RPI should take note....the difference a coach can make in a single year without your own recruits——-look at what Yale is doing! They have been in danger of not making playoffs for years ( and didn’t last year)....look at them now Bravo!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MAHOCKEY FAN View Post
                                RPI should take note....the difference a coach can make in a single year without your own recruits——-look at what Yale is doing! They have been in danger of not making playoffs for years ( and didn’t last year)....look at them now Bravo!
                                Except they gave the keys to the car to a new coach. Two good classes in a row by the last coach.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X