Re: REPORT: North Dakota cutting women's hockey
EDIT: I had no clue that North Dakota moved its whole program to D-I in 2008, so never mind.
---
Regarding Title IX, there does seem to be sufficient grounds for a lawsuit. What is the women's sport that's now providing an opportunity for women at North Dakota comparable to D-I men's hockey?
So, for example, Colorado College is a D-III school that of course plays up to D-I in men's hockey with no women's team, but they do play up to D-I in women's soccer. All the D-III ECAC schools playing up have men's and women's hockey.
Yes, I know the women's championship is a national collegiate championship not a D-I championship, but most D-II schools like UND are still playing up to D-I in NCAA classification for the championship
Yes, I know Title IX law, though I'm rusty. I know the three-pronged test, and how proportionality is a safe harbor, but you cannot claim that a school with one D-I program that is men's has equal opportunity for men and women. And the law is asymmetric in terms of cutting programs vs adding them, because you can achieve compliance by arguing that you have been increasing opportunities for women over time.
So this is one reason I did a double take when I first saw the news this morning. I do not expect that the UND program is in compliance in my recollection in the latest interpretation of the law, and it seems UND was willing to take that risk.
EDIT: I had no clue that North Dakota moved its whole program to D-I in 2008, so never mind.
---
Regarding Title IX, there does seem to be sufficient grounds for a lawsuit. What is the women's sport that's now providing an opportunity for women at North Dakota comparable to D-I men's hockey?
So, for example, Colorado College is a D-III school that of course plays up to D-I in men's hockey with no women's team, but they do play up to D-I in women's soccer. All the D-III ECAC schools playing up have men's and women's hockey.
Yes, I know the women's championship is a national collegiate championship not a D-I championship, but most D-II schools like UND are still playing up to D-I in NCAA classification for the championship
Yes, I know Title IX law, though I'm rusty. I know the three-pronged test, and how proportionality is a safe harbor, but you cannot claim that a school with one D-I program that is men's has equal opportunity for men and women. And the law is asymmetric in terms of cutting programs vs adding them, because you can achieve compliance by arguing that you have been increasing opportunities for women over time.
So this is one reason I did a double take when I first saw the news this morning. I do not expect that the UND program is in compliance in my recollection in the latest interpretation of the law, and it seems UND was willing to take that risk.
Comment