Feds weigh allegations of gender inequity in University of Minnesota

Donate To GopherHole
short ornery norwegian said:
Also, title XI is a fact of life, and every AD in college sports understands that (or should understand it). A man who practices against the women's basketball team is not a female athlete - and trying to count them as a female participant looks bad, whether it is common practice or not.
Click to expand...

Agreed they aren't female athletes and shouldn't be counted as such, but they are part of the women's basketball program the same way a male coach of a women's team is part of the women's program. No one who isn't listed on a roster as a team member should be counted as an athlete regardless of their sex.


short ornery norwegian said:
When all is said and done, the new facilities are going to be built, and some accomodations/adjustments will be made to satisfy the women's and non-revenue sports. This is not the end of the world. It's unfortunate, but it could have been prevented with a little more foresight from the AD's office.
Click to expand...

I'd give Teague a break on the foresight. I would like to hear his side at length first. Some people won't ever be satisified

Upnorth,

Anyone who thinks that a public institution in Minnesota with our political climate could be anything but above average in the way it handles all political correctness/gender equity/race relations/sexual orientation tolerance isn't looking critically at where we are relative to the rest of the country. This state supports same sex couples going to prom, same sex marriage, allowed girls to wrestle and play tennis with boys. Has transgender restrooms in downtown theaters. Supports the largest Somali and Hmong populations outside of their countries. We are the beacon of tolerance/equity in the Midwest The idea that behind closed doors we have been shorting women's athletics to the point where this will be a landmark Title IX case is ludicrous. This isn't Alabama.
 

Posted these on the basketball side from when this originally came out. Wanted to add them here as well-

Found this in a different Star Tribune article about the law suit-

http://www.startribune.com/complaint-alleges-gender-discrimination-against-u-athletics/289636661/

Women’s track and cross country accounted for 227 of the university’s 501 female participants (one cross country, indoor track and outdoor track athlete can count as three participants) in 2013-14 , according to the latest equity in athletics data figures. There were 388 total men’s athletes, 337 women; but in total participation there were 471 men, 501 women.

Both the men’s and women’s track teams are being moved from the new Bierman athletic village during the 2015-16 school year when construction begins. The existing track, in fact, will be destroyed as part of the that project.
Click to expand...

And don't forge this gem-

http://www.mndaily.com/sports/track-field/2015/01/25/university-undergo-federal-investigation-0

“I’m confused why the word Title IX is being thrown around. It’s a business,” said one member of the women’s track team.

The anonymous party who filed the complaint wrote in an email to track and field athletes that Title IX was used as “the only means I could find to save the track facility” and “my intent was not to ignore the affect [sic] this is having on the men’s team.”
Click to expand...
 


BleedGopher said:
Station19, there is nothing wrong with these short shorts, and nothing stupid about this track video, which has 27 million views! :cool:


Go Track Videos Like This One!!
Click to expand...

Matt Bingle should hire this young lady to raise funds for a new track.
 

1) Yes, college athletics is a business, but it's not just a business. It's part of the university. As mentioned earlier the athletic department exists as part of a mission to educate young people, and thus things like Title IX and gender equity are important. I'm guessing that the less you care about the athletic department's connection to the University, the less of a connection you have to the University yourself. That's fine, but you can't forget that the University is ultimately what's really important.

2) That being said, who the hell knows if the suit has merit. I really doubt that there's anyone here who can say definitively. It may be totally BS or it may be completely legit. Regardless of how the Star Trib reported it, the Feds have been investigating for 6 months. I doubt you can ascribe any of your pro-Maturi/anti-Teague bias to the Department of Education. On the other hand, I wonder what the bare minimum is that an investigation has to do in order to tick the boxes? In other words, does every complaint get investigated regardless of initial facts?
 


LakerFan said:
And OCR has upheld for years that as long as a school is progressing towards equality, i.e. male female athlete ratio improving not necessarily equal, then a school is doing what is required by title IX.
Click to expand...

Which is really freaking sad since the law came into effect in 1972. 43 years is a long time to be "progressing" but never meeting the language of the law.
 

SelectionSunday said:
Matt Bingle should hire this young lady to raise funds for a new track.
Click to expand...

I carefully reviewed that video three or four times including in super slow mo and think we need to evaluate the safety of this sport as it relates to concussions.
 

LakerFan said:
2005 2014
56 40 Rowing
21 25 Hockey
16 9 Basketball
43 48 Cross country
11 9 Golf
16 14 Gymnastics
15 23 Soccer
15 22 Softball
38 31 Swim and Dive
11 10 Tennis
89 81 Track and field
13 13 Volleyball

344 325 Total whopping 5 % difference in 10 years. Public information if you trouble to look for it


I used 2005-06 rosters, guessing Ole maybe used 2004-05 numbers which accounts for our slight variance. Forget the facts though. just throw around unsupported numbers like 37% if it fits your agenda.
Click to expand...
Great job! UpnorthGo4 better reply to this.
 

What I'd like to know is how the U compares to other institutions accepting Federal monies.

How do we compare to southern schools in particular.

Why is this coming out now that the U is planning to update facilities for the programs both men's & women's that generate revenue to fund the rest of the athletic programs?

Is there jealousy involved? If they end up cancelling the facilities upgrades and i donors stop giving, that may spell further downward spiraling of all athletics program. It may even mean some sports programs may be cancelled.

I hear Pam Borton is one of the complainers.
 



LakerFan said:
Anyone who thinks that a public institution in Minnesota with our political climate could be anything but above average in the way it handles all political correctness/gender equity/race relations/sexual orientation tolerance isn't looking critically at where we are relative to the rest of the country. This state supports same sex couples going to prom, same sex marriage, allowed girls to wrestle and play tennis with boys. Has transgender restrooms in downtown theaters. Supports the largest Somali and Hmong populations outside of their countries. We are the beacon of tolerance/equity in the Midwest The idea that behind closed doors we have been shorting women's athletics to the point where this will be a landmark Title IX case is ludicrous. This isn't Alabama.
Click to expand...

I agree. Up until 2012, we had an AD who literally bent over backwards for women's/non-revenue sports at the expense of the money-makers in many cases. I would challenge you to find a Power 5 school that has done more for its women's/minor sports than Minnesota. This seems to be entirely about the fact that Teague ain't Joel Maturi (thank god) and about the track facility, which effects men's and women's track equally. The idea that Minnesota is treating its women's teams far worse than any other school in the B1G or the country is just absurd.
 

hungan1 said:
What I'd like to know is how the U compares to other institutions accepting Federal monies.

How do we compare to southern schools in particular.

Why is this coming out now that the U is planning to update facilities for the programs both men's & women's that generate revenue to fund the rest of the athletic programs?

Is there jealousy involved? If they end up cancelling the facilities upgrades and i donors stop giving, that may spell further downward spiraling of all athletics program. It may even mean some sports programs may be cancelled.

I hear Pam Borton is one of the complainers.
Click to expand...

I believe UVa recently became entirely self-funded despite being a public university. I'm not sure if this would give them the right to tell the Feds to pound sand in a case like this or not though?
 

hungan1 said:
What I'd like to know is how the U compares to other institutions accepting Federal monies.

How do we compare to southern schools in particular.

Why is this coming out now that the U is planning to update facilities for the programs both men's & women's that generate revenue to fund the rest of the athletic programs?

Is there jealousy involved? If they end up cancelling the facilities upgrades and i donors stop giving, that may spell further downward spiraling of all athletics program. It may even mean some sports programs may be cancelled.

I hear Pam Borton is one of the complainers.
Click to expand...

Would that be Athletically Related Student Aid?

If so:

Men's Teams Women's Teams Total
Total $4,809,511 $3,930,837 $8,740,348
Ratio (percent) 55 45 100%


You can find other ones here, if that is what you are looking for.
 

Sparlimb said:
Which is really freaking sad since the law came into effect in 1972. 43 years is a long time to be "progressing" but never meeting the language of the law.
Click to expand...

I would say most schools met the language of the law very quickly. The law says they weren't supposed to discriminate based upon gender. It says nothing about discriminating based upon value, interest, or profitability.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 




UpnorthGo4 said:
There is absolutely no evidence to support what you believe about Teague. What we do know is that Kaler and the Board of Regents will have him on a very short leash from now on. His days at the U are numbered. It doesn't take a genius to understand that one thing Teague needed to do was keep Title IX complaints at the U off the front page of the Strib. Needless to say, he failed miserably at it.
Click to expand...

So you quoted my post about my faith in Teague and this was your response. Please stop being a troll, learn what "faith" means and go pound sand.
 

MNGoldenGophers1 said:
I carefully reviewed that video three or four times including in super slow mo and think we need to evaluate the safety of this sport as it relates to concussions.
Click to expand...

I was a little dissappointed there was no reverse angle...but I got over it.
 

AO54 said:
I would say most schools met the language of the law very quickly. The law says they weren't supposed to discriminate based upon gender. It says nothing about discriminating based upon value, interest, or profitability.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Actually it said the percentage of women playing sports should be equal to the percentage of women in the student population. No D1 school with football has EVER met that standard. Now that said, to meet the wording of the statute, you'd have one men's football team and 12 women's team in various sports to equal out the numbers. That was never going to happen. So both sides compromised and said as long as you're making an effort that's good enough. To me, its a law. If you don't like the law, you change it. But otherwise, comply with the damn law.
 

I think we all know that the U is no worse than any other school. My fear is that we are going to be used as a whipping boy...just like '97. UNC is equally guilty of anything we did in the '90s but they get a pass. The University of Minnesota is a perfect target for the NCAA - we're big enough to garner publicity, but not important enough to ruin their brand. Hopefully sanity prevails, but if there is any pent up desire for punishment we will feel the wrath.
 

BleedGopher said:
Station19, there is nothing wrong with these short shorts, and nothing stupid about this track video, which has 27 million views! :cool:


Go Track Videos Like This One!!
Click to expand...

I might have to re-position my stance.
 

Sparlimb said:
Actually it said the percentage of women playing sports should be equal to the percentage of women in the student population. No D1 school with football has EVER met that standard. Now that said, to meet the wording of the statute, you'd have one men's football team and 12 women's team in various sports to equal out the numbers. That was never going to happen. So both sides compromised and said as long as you're making an effort that's good enough. To me, its a law. If you don't like the law, you change it. But otherwise, comply with the damn law.
Click to expand...



You're confusing the actual wording of the law with the beauraucrats making up rules and regulations as they go. The quotas, three pronged tests and locker room measurements are nowhere in the law.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
Why did you totally ignore the most pertinent part of the quote I posted that claims the number of female athletes at the U are down 37.2% since 2005? On second thought, don't bother answering my question. I already know why you ignored that inconvenient fact. The relative reduction in spending on women sports at the U only adds fuel to the fire for the Title IX complaint. It is a good bet that when the final decision is made this case will set a precedent for every Division I school in America.
Click to expand...

Didn't Norwood get hired in 2012? Doesn't that mean that for 7 years from 2005-2012 that Joel Maturi was AD that women's participation dropped? it's an absolute joke to think that the U has reduced spending on women's sports, aren't they eating a year of Pam Borton's contract? Why on earth do we have to continue to see quotes from this former coach that won't leave gracefully and be quiet.
 

Old Goph said:
Trust me, I've got no fascination with you, odd or otherwise. I sometimes feel the need to respond when someone posts garbage such as yours. Now you try to change your thought after the fact to imply that I'm saying no women or members of the left support the complaint. I'm merely objecting to your original premise that this complaint is somehow tied to the mainstream view of ALL Women and ALL members of the left. Do you really think I can't easily find women and leftists who are wildly in favor of Gopher football and upgraded facilities? And do you really think I can't just as easily find staunch Republicans who want zero dollars going into facility upgrades? I really think it's you who needs to take another look at the garbage you wrote.
Click to expand...

Calm down, brother. The gist of my statement is that many people will assume that ALL on the left support this action (because, lets face it, Title IX is a touch feely lefty thing) when this is NOT the case. I'm sure many centrists and left of center, like me, are aghast at the overreach.

You are completely misinterpreting the intent of my statement. I will strive to be more clear.
 

The U had two years to deal with this issue and they didn't get it done. That is why it is now on the front page of the Strib and the new sports facilities project has been delayed. Kaler and Teague have a lot of explaining to do and issues to resolve that should have never been allowed to go on this long.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U's review of gender equity in sports, begun in 2013, is still incomplete

In March 2013, Kimberly D. Hewitt, the University of Minnesota’s director of equal opportunity and affirmative action, was concerned enough by what she saw in the athletic department’s annual report that she recommended the school conduct an internal review of gender equity in sports.

That review began in October 2013, but no findings have been announced. Hewitt, who oversees campuswide Title IX compliance, was under the impression that a February meeting stood as a final report on equity in Gophers athletics, but university officials said this week that the review is “ongoing.”

Hewitt said two things that stuck out to her originally were team spending and participation percentages, major pillars of Title IX compliance.

Deborah Olson, a Department of Athletics Leadership Council member and donor, said she and others were told last summer that they would receive a report in the fall of 2014. “They kept saying ‘Oh, it’ll be another month or two,’ ” she said. “And then they just kind of went silent on it.”

Last week, Chris Werle, senior associate athletic director for strategic communications, told the Star Tribune: “I don’t know that there is ever going to be any findings.”

Complicated issues

[Regent Dean] Johnson mentioned the OCR investigation during Thursday morning’s [regent's] meeting, asking if a new track facility would “resolve the Title IX issues.”

Kaler said, “Title IX evaluations are actually much more complicated than you might imagine initially. There are participation rates, there are competition opportunities, there are resource allocations and there are facility considerations.

“So I think it is fair to say that given the number of female track athletes that we have, a competition track facility for them, proximal to campus, will help us in being compliant with Title IX. Will that be enough for us to do? We will see.”

Read more at:

http://www.startribune.com/costs-ad...itle-ix-review-with-no-results-yet/307070931/

 

UpnorthGo4 said:
The U had two years to deal with this issue and they didn't get it done. That is why it is now on the front page of the Strib and the new sports facilities project has been delayed. Kaler and Teague have some explaining to do.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U's review of gender equity in sports, begun in 2013, is still incomplete

In March 2013, Kimberly D. Hewitt, the University of Minnesota’s director of equal opportunity and affirmative action, was concerned enough by what she saw in the athletic department’s annual report that she recommended the school conduct an internal review of gender equity in sports.

That review began in October 2013, but no findings have been announced. Hewitt, who oversees campuswide Title IX compliance, was under the impression that a February meeting stood as a final report on equity in Gophers athletics, but university officials said this week that the review is “ongoing.”

Hewitt said two things that stuck out to her originally were team spending and participation percentages, major pillars of Title IX compliance.

Deborah Olson, a Department of Athletics Leadership Council member and donor, said she and others were told last summer that they would receive a report in the fall of 2014. “They kept saying ‘Oh, it’ll be another month or two,’ ” she said. “And then they just kind of went silent on it.”

Last week, Chris Werle, senior associate athletic director for strategic communications, told the Star Tribune: “I don’t know that there is ever going to be any findings.”

Read more at:

http://www.startribune.com/costs-ad...itle-ix-review-with-no-results-yet/307070931/
Click to expand...
Uh, the report was to find out if there WAS an issue, which there likely isn't except a large group of people who got real used to Maturi's culture of non-revenue sports ruling. Maybe it's taken 2 years because the investigator is coming up short.
Oh, and it was never going to be public knowledge either way, it's internal.

At least there's one unbiased source in this article in Brad Frost who essentially admits there's not a problem.
I still think the issue and especially the numbers vomited out in the Strib's original piece are being skewed by the ultra biased quoted in that piece.
You disagree?
 

Ole said:
Uh, the report was to find out if there WAS an issue, which there likely isn't except a large group of people who got real used to Maturi's culture of non-revenue sports ruling. Maybe it's taken 2 years because the investigator is coming up short.
Oh, and it was never going to be public knowledge either way, it's internal.

At least there's one unbiased source in this article in Brad Frost who essentially admits there's not a problem.
I still think the issue and especially the numbers vomited out in the Strib's original piece are being skewed by the ultra biased quoted in that piece.
You disagree?
Click to expand...

If there isn't a problem why wasn't the internal review completed long ago so that the new facilities project would not have to be delayed? This is a significant screw-up and I would guess that Jerry Kill for one is not too happy about it. We can only assume that the Board of Regents aren't happy about it either. One of the primary responsibilities of AD's are to deal with complaints like this before they blow-up and the OCR becomes involved. I have to believe that problems are almost always found when the OCR does an investigation. Kaler had to tell the regents that he doesn't even know if a new track facility will resolve the Title IX issues.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Calm down, brother. The gist of my statement is that many people will assume that ALL on the left support this action (because, lets face it, Title IX is a touch feely lefty thing) when this is NOT the case. I'm sure many centrists and left of center, like me, are aghast at the overreach.

You are completely misinterpreting the intent of my statement. I will strive to be more clear.
Click to expand...

Thank you. You never know what's going to set old people (like me) off.
 

Rochester Post Bulletin: Teague quiet on heels of controversy

As for Thursday's article, Nanne considered it slanted. He said not enough voice was given to Gophers women's coaches who aren't on the side of the dissenters.

"This was done completely to create controversy," Nanne said. "They did it without ever giving the other side.

"The fact is, (college athletics) are a business, and if you cut (short) the revenue-making sports, all of the other sports (funding) suffers. We are trying to make ends meet."

http://www.postbulletin.com/sports/...cle_2161fd6f-7f0d-53c2-b6ad-884e844853a3.html

Go Gophers!!
 

Hewitt said two things that stuck out to her originally were team spending and participation percentages, major pillars of Title IX compliance.

Q. Why does Title IX not require the same amount be spent on men and women's sports?

The Javits Amendment stated that legitimate and justifiable discrepancies for nongender related differences in sports could be taken into account (i.e., the differing costs of equipment or event management expenditures). A male football player needs protective equipment such as pads and a helmet, and a female soccer player needs shin guards. Title IX does allow for a discrepancy in the cost of the equipment as long as both the football and soccer player received the same quality of equipment. However, a female ice hockey player must receive the same protective equipment that a male ice hockey player would receive, inasmuch as the protective equipment is the same.


The only thing I can think of in regards to disproportionate spending could be transportation. Football flying charter vs commercial or gasp, bus for non- rev teams. But, if true I would guess many/most teams are in violation. Butthead's linemen fly first class.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
The U had two years to deal with this issue and they didn't get it done. That is why it is now on the front page of the Strib and the new sports facilities project has been delayed. Kaler and Teague have a lot of explaining to do and issues to resolve that should have never been allowed to go on this long.
Click to expand...

Your posts have the tone of one of the ignorant, small minority whiners in Minnesota that has caused this to become front page news. Are you?

When it comes to spending, read the first 3 paragraphs of Souhan's article today and that's all that needs to be said on the subject, period. If you take issue with college football spending vastly exceeding the spending on non-rev sports, then I resent your use of Minnesota as the vehicle for change. If you think "fixing" that spending "disparity" at Minnesota will cause the Alabama's and FSU's of the world to follow suit, leading to a national "correction" of priorities, you're completely off your rocker. All it will do is smack Minnesota's football program back to obscurity. Maybe that's what you want?

With respect to the "participation numbers," can someone explain why the female "participation numbers" could possibly decline, as the article alleges, when we haven't dropped any womens sports or scholarships?? What are we talking about here? If we're talking about walk-ons, who cares. If we're talking about scholarship athletes, are these people suggesting that womens scholarships went unused?? How is that possible?
 

station19 said:
Listening to Lou Nanne on espn1500. Taking real issue with Strib article and some of the people making some of the statements in it. He is not happy with the 'one-sided' article.

Will post podcast when available.
Click to expand...

e.bigelow said:
Yes, please linky when available. Thanks 19.
Click to expand...

Here ya go.

Going on memory here.......latter part of hour 1(?). Also spills over into hour 2 a little...........found it interesting, and Nanne is able to say things that Kaler and Teague can't.

http://www.1500espn.com/shows/judd
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom