DO NOT BRING BACK TENNIS. It does not and will not have any effect or baring on UA's Title IX violation. Screw up or not by Bensen et all; it is now out in the open and must be addressed. 6 or 9 tennis players will not correct the issue; and now that it is out in the open, it must be handled properly for multiple reasons. No least of which (not that we agree with it or not), Title IX is the law. We should fight any injunction the court issues regarding tennis, on the grounds that it will not in any way resolve our Title IX violation. We will not save face as some are claiming. Move on from the embarrassment/screw-up and address the issue.
I'm not so sure about this...in order to meet the requirements of Title IX I believe I read in the original communication between UA and the governing body administering this program is that it's NOT a strict 1-1 calculation. Title IX speaks to equal opportunity which can be shown with a campus wide survey or similar type polling of the student community asking if there are unmet or unavailable opportunities for females on campus as it related to athletic participation. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong but I could have sworn I read this. UA has NOT demonstrated and clearly CAN'T demonstrate this point and thus is non-compliant by virtue that there are known cases of female tennis players that can't play because there is no program. Restoring this program MAY (maybe, big maybe) in whole or in part restore confidence in that equal opportunity is provided.
I'm not sure if my reading is correct on this...
I linked to the OCR findings, Resolution Agreement, and Timesunion article.
Accommodations of Interests and Abilities is a 3-prong test. When OCR looked at it, UAlbany and Benson could not demonstrate compliance with any of those parts.
Surveys are generally considered acceptable to demonstrate that a school is already meeting interest and therefore in compliance. I'd go so far as to say they are essential in some cases.
The problem in this situation is that it a survey would only acceptable to OCR if there have been no requests to add a sport as those requests would, by definition, demonstrate interest. The motion for preliminary injunction provided declaration(s) showing that there was 2-3 requests made to add a sport in the last five years - again, demonstrating interest. I was told last weekend that there was another request submitted sometime in November (sorry, don't have details otherwise I would provide them.) Again, demonstrating interest.
In the resolution agreement with OCR the school (and therefor Benson): "...will demonstrate that participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments." Agreed upon date is October 1, 2020.
I've never understood how they were going to do that base on this quote from Benson: ""We have no plans to add any teams or bring teams back and no plans to cut any programs," Benson said. "We're not in a position from a budgetary standpoint to do that."
He suggests in the same article that they're going to roster manage to compliance but OCR said in their findings that they were already doing that.
OCR Letter with Findings
http://www.timesunio... OCR letter.pdf
Article that it was pulled from:
Edit: Reinstating tennis could be a step but would not seem sufficient in terms of numbers. But your correct about the fact that having a team when it was cut demonstrated interest.
Edited by kikuria, 29 December 2017 - 12:24 PM.