This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: unjust quota system “roster management” rather than Title IX compliance History of Expansion
History of Expansion Expansion Test Prove history of adding team sports in response to demands and interests of underrepresented sex. Very little guidance Almost irrelevant today since focus is on proportionality Boucher v. Syracuse University First time 2nd prong successfully used Satisfied 2nd prong by adding women’s lacrosse and soccer as varsity sports after suit was filed University’s expansion and continuing practice of program expansion constituted compliance. Compare to Brown University Full and Effective Full and Effective Accommodation of Interests Interests Test Allows school to demonstrate its disproportionate numbers are not due to discrimination against the underrepresented sex; reflect an accommodation of interests and abilities of the students. Opportunity must be given if sufficient interest to sustain a viable team. No demand = no discrimination How to prove effective accommodation? Oncampus surveys inperson, online, by email? LSU
Men’s Sports Baseball Basketball Cross Country Football (85)
Golf Swimming & Diving Tennis Indoor Track & Field Outdoor Track & Field Women’s Sports Basketball Cross Country Golf Gymnastics (16)
Softball Swimming & Diving Tennis Indoor Track & Field Outdoor Track & Field Volleyball (14) Subsequent Clarifications
Subsequent Clarifications 1996 (Clinton) Only proportionality test is safe harbor 2003 (Bush) No test favored; equal weight should be given to each test Cutting teams to comply is not necessary and disfavored 2005 (Bush) Model online survey to demonstrate interest test compliance would also need to demonstrate sufficient ability to maintain team Title IX Major Cases
Title IX Major Cases Cases Can...
View Full Document
This document was uploaded on 03/18/2014 for the course BLAW 3230 at LSU.
- Spring '08