Saw UND shut down womens hockey. Where did their recruits go?
https://deadspin.com/north-dakota-cuts-womens-hockey-and-leaves-recruit-out-1793872610
https://deadspin.com/north-dakota-cuts-womens-hockey-and-leaves-recruit-out-1793872610
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
UND Womens Shutdown : Where did recruits go?
- Thread starter BlackI
- Start date
Puckdrop14
New member
Re: UND Womens Shutdown : Where did recruits go?
Where have you been hiding?
Where have you been hiding?
Re: UND Womens Shutdown : Where did recruits go?
I believe the recruit in the article ended up at Lindenwood....
I believe the recruit in the article ended up at Lindenwood....
Re: UND Womens Shutdown : Where did recruits go?
Interesting. Think they have any chance of prevailing?
Former UND women's hockey players file discrimination suit
https://www.grandforksherald.com/sp...omens-hockey-players-file-discrimination-suit
Interesting. Think they have any chance of prevailing?
Former UND women's hockey players file discrimination suit
https://www.grandforksherald.com/sp...omens-hockey-players-file-discrimination-suit
Timothy A
Let's go RED!
Re: UND Womens Shutdown : Where did recruits go?
I don't believe it will be successful. I doubt the Sue would have done this without full confidence from their own legal council that is was an airtight situation, knowing this move could easily end up getting the response it is getting now. I question the timing of it, a year plus afterwards, and how will these young ladies pay for this? I think they made their point when the Sue shut the program down (with full support of the entire women's college hockey community), big picture this could be a lot of money spend on both sides for no gain.
I don't believe it will be successful. I doubt the Sue would have done this without full confidence from their own legal council that is was an airtight situation, knowing this move could easily end up getting the response it is getting now. I question the timing of it, a year plus afterwards, and how will these young ladies pay for this? I think they made their point when the Sue shut the program down (with full support of the entire women's college hockey community), big picture this could be a lot of money spend on both sides for no gain.
Still Eeyore
New member
Re: UND Womens Shutdown : Where did recruits go?
UND has done a number of legally dubious things over the years, so I'm not sure that their counsel having confidence that their case is airtight ought to inspire the same level of confidence in everyone else. That said, I'm dubious that this case would win at trial, on two grounds. The first is that I don't see how the remedy sought, reinstating the UND women's hockey program, would address any damages suffered by the plaintiffs. They've moved on and are playing hockey elsewhere, and will likely be out of eligibility by the time the case would be resolved. Once that happens, the case would probably be ruled moot and dismissed. There are occasions when a case is allowed to continue in such circumstances, but it's rare.
The second is based upon this sentence in the article: "Title IX does not require schools to offer particular sports or the same sports, but it requires that schools “effectively accommodate” student interests and abilities." The U.S. Supreme Court has held that this part of Title IX is not a requirement that schools "effectively accommodate" the interests and abilities of each individual student, but rather that they must provide equal accommodation for men and women in general. Obviously, you can't draw strong conclusions about plaintiffs' overall legal reasoning from a brief newspaper article, but they'd have to have something more than this.
I suspect that the intention here isn't to take this to trial, but rather to use the filing to pressure the university to sit down and talk about reinstating the program.
UND has done a number of legally dubious things over the years, so I'm not sure that their counsel having confidence that their case is airtight ought to inspire the same level of confidence in everyone else. That said, I'm dubious that this case would win at trial, on two grounds. The first is that I don't see how the remedy sought, reinstating the UND women's hockey program, would address any damages suffered by the plaintiffs. They've moved on and are playing hockey elsewhere, and will likely be out of eligibility by the time the case would be resolved. Once that happens, the case would probably be ruled moot and dismissed. There are occasions when a case is allowed to continue in such circumstances, but it's rare.
The second is based upon this sentence in the article: "Title IX does not require schools to offer particular sports or the same sports, but it requires that schools “effectively accommodate” student interests and abilities." The U.S. Supreme Court has held that this part of Title IX is not a requirement that schools "effectively accommodate" the interests and abilities of each individual student, but rather that they must provide equal accommodation for men and women in general. Obviously, you can't draw strong conclusions about plaintiffs' overall legal reasoning from a brief newspaper article, but they'd have to have something more than this.
I suspect that the intention here isn't to take this to trial, but rather to use the filing to pressure the university to sit down and talk about reinstating the program.
FiveHoleFrenzy
Well-known member
FiveHoleFrenzy
Well-known member
Re: UND Womens Shutdown : Where did recruits go?
Agreed, but didn't this discussion already take place and isn't this what was needed?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFrag8ll85w
Agreed, but didn't this discussion already take place and isn't this what was needed?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFrag8ll85w
Still Eeyore
New member
Still Eeyore
New member
Lol, that's exactly what I thought.
Timothy A
Let's go RED!
Re: UND Womens Shutdown : Where did recruits go?
They will always be the Fightin' Sue to me. Screw political correctness. It's a game.
They will always be the Fightin' Sue to me. Screw political correctness. It's a game.
Re: UND Womens Shutdown : Where did recruits go?
Some broad thoughts:
Yes, you all are right that Title IX does NOT require all interests to be effectively accommodated. It is the third prong of the three-prong test. It's clear to me that UND has not been aiming for compliance by that prong. (Though the failing of the third prong IS a necessary condition for a Title IX violation)
Without a doubt UND was seeking compliance through the first-prong, substantive proportionality. In the Title IX case law, merely achieving proportionality has typically been considered a safe harbor. Timothy A mentions that UND's lawyers must have believed the case is "airtight" -- this is likely why.
Nonetheless I believe such a conclusion by UND's lawyers is misguided. The ruling would hinge on the meaning of "substantive proportionality." As I wrote in my letter to Herald last year (link below), cutting the flagship women's sport for a school is unprecedented. If there were any time such that proportionality would fail to be "substantive" I believe this is it, and it sounds from coverage that the students' legal team is using similar reasoning.
http://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/letters/4246494-letter-unds-title-ix-compliance-remains-air
Regarding
Some broad thoughts:
Yes, you all are right that Title IX does NOT require all interests to be effectively accommodated. It is the third prong of the three-prong test. It's clear to me that UND has not been aiming for compliance by that prong. (Though the failing of the third prong IS a necessary condition for a Title IX violation)
Without a doubt UND was seeking compliance through the first-prong, substantive proportionality. In the Title IX case law, merely achieving proportionality has typically been considered a safe harbor. Timothy A mentions that UND's lawyers must have believed the case is "airtight" -- this is likely why.
Nonetheless I believe such a conclusion by UND's lawyers is misguided. The ruling would hinge on the meaning of "substantive proportionality." As I wrote in my letter to Herald last year (link below), cutting the flagship women's sport for a school is unprecedented. If there were any time such that proportionality would fail to be "substantive" I believe this is it, and it sounds from coverage that the students' legal team is using similar reasoning.
http://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/letters/4246494-letter-unds-title-ix-compliance-remains-air
Regarding
It's a fair point to raise, but I find it reasonable to argue that there is significant value in the continuation of your women's hockey program and growing its alumni network.