Jump to content



UAlbany Athletics- America East-
SOCIAL MEDIA: UAlbany Facebook- UAlbany Instagram- UAlbany Twitter- UAlbany Blog-
MEDIA: Albany Student Press- America East TV- ESPN3- Schenectady Gazette- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio Archive interviews- Times Union College Sports- Times Union Sports- WCDB- WOFX 980-
FALL SPORTS LINKS: CAA Football-
WINTER SPORTS LINKS: College Insider- Pomeroy Ratings- Real TimeRPI-
SPRING SPORTS LINKS: Inside Lacrosse- Lax Power-
OTHER FORUMS: America East Forum- Any Given Saturday Forum- Championship Subdivision forum(1-AA Discussion) The Hen House - Siena Forum- Stony Brook Forum- Vermont Forum
Sign in to follow this  
UAalum72

Title IX violations

Recommended Posts

Im not going to go through lawsuit procedures with you because you think you know something. Benson is covered by the State and its insurance. By your logic, Benson has control over the case more so than the State. Come on, you cant believe that as a fact.

 

Benson is named in his capacity as a NYS employee. Lets move on and let the actual lawyers in the court room do their job instead of you speculating, especially when your speculation is simply wrong...legally speaking.

Edited by Dane96
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally: As far as " irreparable" damage to the tennis players: their scholarships were/are honored, hence guaranteeing them their right to a college education which is what intercollegiate athletics is all about. As far as continuing their tennis "careers," assistance in transferring to another institution was/is offered and in fact taken advantage of by other members of the team. As far as the coach, his contract was/is honored according to law.

 

DO NOT BRING BACK TENNIS. Fight any injunction. Address Title IX violation, in a manner which brings us in compliance. [tennis will NOT bring us in compliance.]

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not going to go through lawsuit procedures with you because you think you know something. Benson is covered by the State and its insurance. By your logic, Benson has control over the case more so than the State. Come on, you cant believe that as a fact.

 

Benson is named in his capacity as a NYS employee. Lets move on and let the actual lawyers in the court room do their job instead of you speculating, especially when your speculation is simply wrong...legally speaking.

 

I've confirmed, Benson was named individually in the suit. You can search most of this stuff on PACER (although not all of it's available.) But whether that's viable from a legal perspective is another matter entirely. I agree with you that he should be covered in his capacity as a state employee unless his contract states otherwise (e.g. illegal wrongdoing, etc ....) Attorney General's office is already defending him and filed a written motioned to have the count against Benson dismissed on the exact basis that you're speaking of. For clarity, I'm not disputing that State is responsible for the defense of the case.

 

To the extend that Benson and company have control - if he decided to re-instate tennis (which he has the authority to do with approval of the President) OR otherwise immediately came into compliance with Title IX, at the very least a motion to dismiss the request for injunction could be made (based on my read of the filing.) If Benson had added a different women's sport to compensate for the lost of tennis, it would be a much weaker argument.

 

The implied idea that "the state" is the one calling the shots here takes responsibility away from Benson, his staff, Title IX Coordinator, etc... They can solve the problem that provides the underlying basis for the suit. They don't need get approval from the AG's office for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally: As far as " irreparable" damage to the tennis players: their scholarships were/are honored, hence guaranteeing them their right to a college education which is what intercollegiate athletics is all about. As far as continuing their tennis "careers," assistance in transferring to another institution was/is offered and in fact taken advantage of by other members of the team. As far as the coach, his contract was/is honored according to law.

 

DO NOT BRING BACK TENNIS. Fight any injunction. Address Title IX violation, in a manner which brings us in compliance. [tennis will NOT bring us in compliance.]

 

I agree with you on most of this. But the act of cutting tennis the tennis program is evidence in and of itself of a Title IX violation because it demonstrates that there was interest on campus (wouldn't have mattered if school was in compliance though.) This is the original sin if you will. We'll know in a few weeks in terms of the ruling on the injunction.

 

But I really, really, really agree with you on Benson needing to address the Title IX violations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Im not going to go through lawsuit procedures with you because you think you know something. Benson is covered by the State and its insurance. By your logic, Benson has control over the case more so than the State. Come on, you cant believe that as a fact.

 

Benson is named in his capacity as a NYS employee. Lets move on and let the actual lawyers in the court room do their job instead of you speculating, especially when your speculation is simply wrong...legally speaking.

 

I've confirmed, Benson was named individually in the suit. You can search most of this stuff on PACER (although not all of it's available.) But whether that's viable from a legal perspective is another matter entirely. I agree with you that he should be covered in his capacity as a state employee unless his contract states otherwise (e.g. illegal wrongdoing, etc ....) Attorney General's office is already defending him and filed a written motioned to have the count against Benson dismissed on the exact basis that you're speaking of. For clarity, I'm not disputing that State is responsible for the defense of the case.

 

To the extend that Benson and company have control - if he decided to re-instate tennis (which he has the authority to do with approval of the President) OR otherwise immediately came into compliance with Title IX, at the very least a motion to dismiss the request for injunction could be made (based on my read of the filing.) If Benson had added a different women's sport to compensate for the lost of tennis, it would be a much weaker argument.

 

The implied idea that "the state" is the one calling the shots here takes responsibility away from Benson, his staff, Title IX Coordinator, etc... They can solve the problem that provides the underlying basis for the suit. They don't need get approval from the AG's office for that.

 

 

Sigh. Yes, he was named individually in his capacity as an executive for a NY agency. This is common.

 

And Pacer won't tell you who/how the case is defended and combined.

 

I'm done. You must be right. There you have it. You win. That's all you will believe...apparently.

 

For all others interested, here is the exact excerpt of "Defendant Mark Benson", who is being named and sued in his capacity as a NYS employee, a common legal tactic...and one of the reasons he is likely being protected and defended under the SUNY E&O (Errors and Omissions) and Professional Liability Insurance provisions.

 

"26. Defendant Mark Benson Defendant Mark Benson is and has been the Director of Athletics of SUNY Albany, since 2014. Defendant Benson is an employee and agent of Defendant SUNY Albany who reported directly to and was under the direct supervision and control of Robert J. Jones or James R. Stellar at all times relevant to this Complaint."

 

Count III of the complaint is the allegations against Benson, acting in his PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY AS A SUNY EMPLOYEE.

Edited by Dane96

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.timesunion.com/file/237/8/2378-DOE%20finds%20UAlbany%20out%20of%20Title%20IX%2C%20OCR%20letter.pdf

 

Resolution Agreement

http://www.timesunion.com/file/237/9/2379-UAlbany%20Title%20IX%20resolution%20agreement.pdf

 

Article that it was pulled from:

http://www.timesunion.com/sports/article/Feds-UAlbany-athletics-in-violation-of-Title-IX-12200960.php

 

********************

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread wins a Major Award for most embedded quotes per post

 

41i4pHWCUiL._AC_US327_FMwebp_QL65_.jpg

 

I figured I would embed your post in my response :)

Had to watch the movie with the kids multi times this Christmas season.

 

As for the lawsuit, everything I've read and understand makes me agree 100% with 96.

Naming Benson in the suit is a tactic, some may say a dirty one, but a tactic none-the-less.

 

Whether or not the school brings back tennis is one thing, but under no circumstances,

bring back its former coach. He is toxic, has attacked the school and athletic leadership,

and does the future of the athletic department no good.

Edited by uofalbany
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this where I get to tell kikuira..."I told you so..."

 

Fair enough. 18 months is a long time to be sure. I was hoping the judge would weigh in on the other issues that were laid out by the plaintiffs in terms of their motion but recognize that if there's no 'irreparable harm' then there's no need. Still a bummer (not the ruling but the lack of additional information.)

 

I'm afraid that there is an unfortunate lesson to be taken with this part of the story when dealing with UAlbany. One that I'm not entirely comfortable with.

File the lawsuits first and don't bother with talking until afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×