Just read where Stanford has backed down and is not cutting 11 sports. Wonder if law suits had anything to do with this decision?

bearfan66 said:

---

Just read where Stanford has backed down and is not cutting 11 sports. Wonder if law suits had anything to do with this decision?

---

Given that Stanford is ultra PR conscious, I think the bad optics played a huge role in the decision. An incredibly wealthy school cutting sports by claiming "poor me"? It never added up and made them look very bad.

71Bear said:

---

bearfan66 said:

---

Just read where Stanford has backed down and is not cutting 11 sports. Wonder if law suits had anything to do with this decision?

---

Given that Stanford is ultra PR conscious, I think the bad optics played a huge role in the decision. An incredibly wealthy school cutting sports by claiming "poor me"? It never added up and made them look very bad.

---

In the letter Stanfurd put out, they insisted that the lawsuits had nothing to do with the decision. So, in other words, the lawsuits had everything to do with the decision.

My guess would be they made the decision at the outset of Covid, but now endowments and surpluses are all at record levels, so it's difficult to justify.

Personally, I was hoping the Furd reduction would be successful as it may pave the way for Cal to do the same.

Out of curiosity, how many varsity sports is Cal still competing in?
I count 27 listed on the official athletics website, but always thought Cal supported 30 sports.

This is bad for Cal because if we ever try to cut sports (which we probably should've done long ago) any yahoo will get the idea to file a lawsuit.

YamhillBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

bearfan66 said:

---

Just read where Stanford has backed down and is not cutting 11 sports. Wonder if law suits had anything to do with this decision?

---

Given that Stanford is ultra PR conscious, I think the bad optics played a huge role in the decision. An incredibly wealthy school cutting sports by claiming "poor me"? It never added up and made them look very bad.

---

In the letter Stanfurd put out, they insisted that the lawsuits had nothing to do with the decision. So, in other words, the lawsuits had everything to do with the decision.

---

Lawsuits - a pain in the neck but the chances of any succeeding? On what grounds?

another example of the many factors that can impact a decision

Should have cut sports a long time ago? Sure, easy t do as long as they're not the sport(s) you like to follow,
or played by someone you know. As always, it all depends whose ox is gored.

hanky1 said:

---

This is bad for Cal because if we ever try to cut sports (which we probably should've done long ago) any yahoo will get the idea to file a lawsuit.

---

There is no shortage of examples of colleges cutting sports. Because it's Furd doesn't make it more relevant to Cal. Probably even less so, considering it's a private school, but Title IX compliant is pretty clear.
Besides, Cal has had it's own legal athletic issues, thanks to the last AD...."oh yes, let's have Field Hockey practice every day at Stanford."

YamhillBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

bearfan66 said:

---

Just read where Stanford has backed down and is not cutting 11 sports. Wonder if law suits had anything to do with this decision?

---

Given that Stanford is ultra PR conscious, I think the bad optics played a huge role in the decision. An incredibly wealthy school cutting sports by claiming "poor me"? It never added up and made them look very bad.

---

In the letter Stanfurd put out, they insisted that the lawsuits had nothing to do with the decision. So, in other words, the lawsuits had everything to do with the decision.

---

Ridiculous narrative. I mean, when Cal was going to cut sports, and didn't that wasn't an issue...people came up with the dollars...seems even more likely to happen at Furd.

mbBear said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

This is bad for Cal because if we ever try to cut sports (which we probably should've done long ago) any yahoo will get the idea to file a lawsuit.

---

There is no shortage of examples of colleges cutting sports. Because it's Furd doesn't make it more relevant to Cal. Probably even less so, considering it's a private school, but Title IX compliant is pretty clear.
Besides, Cal has had it's own legal athletic issues, thanks to the last AD...."oh yes, let's have Field Hockey practice every day at Stanford."

---

T9 compliance is the easy part: just make sure to cut at least one more men's scholly than women's....

And what is left unsaid is that the so-called country club sports on the chopping block did not help in the pursuit of greater undergrad diversity.

The purpose of Title IX isn't to promote racial/ethnic diversity on campuses.

SoCalie said:

---

The purpose of Title IX isn't to promote racial/ethnic diversity on campuses.

---

Didn't say it was, but as some colleges have figured out, cutting a sport with a large number of persons of color is not a good look (cough, cough, Brown) and can impact diversity.

OTOH, for highly selective colleges, including Stanford, giving admissions tips to country club sports, which are predominately persons of palor, is also not a good look.

Just a practical (and political) reality.

Big Dog said:

---

mbBear said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

This is bad for Cal because if we ever try to cut sports (which we probably should've done long ago) any yahoo will get the idea to file a lawsuit.

---

There is no shortage of examples of colleges cutting sports. Because it's Furd doesn't make it more relevant to Cal. Probably even less so, considering it's a private school, but Title IX compliant is pretty clear.
Besides, Cal has had it's own legal athletic issues, thanks to the last AD...."oh yes, let's have Field Hockey practice every day at Stanford."

---

T9 compliance is the easy part: just make sure to cut at least one more men's scholly than women's....

And what is left unsaid is that the so-called country club sports on the chopping block did not help in the pursuit of greater undergrad diversity.

---

It's only easy if there is a sport that isn't heavily supported, in whatever way you want to define that.
I am not aware of Furd's interest in undergrad diversity. By why is this a point? "Country club sports" (not sure how Field Hockey fits in here) would be neither here or there on this topic.
I certainly think if you have real interest in undergrad diversity, it's not about sports as a trigger.

mbBear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

mbBear said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

This is bad for Cal because if we ever try to cut sports (which we probably should've done long ago) any yahoo will get the idea to file a lawsuit.

---

There is no shortage of examples of colleges cutting sports. Because it's Furd doesn't make it more relevant to Cal. Probably even less so, considering it's a private school, but Title IX compliant is pretty clear.
Besides, Cal has had it's own legal athletic issues, thanks to the last AD...."oh yes, let's have Field Hockey practice every day at Stanford."

---

T9 compliance is the easy part: just make sure to cut at least one more men's scholly than women's....

And what is left unsaid is that the so-called country club sports on the chopping block did not help in the pursuit of greater undergrad diversity.

---

It's only easy if there is a sport that isn't heavily supported, in whatever way you want to define that.
I am not aware of Furd's interest in undergrad diversity. By why is this a point? "Country club sports" (not sure how Field Hockey fits in here) would be neither here or there on this topic.
I certainly think if you have real interest in undergrad diversity, it's not about sports as a trigger.

---

All highly selective colleges desire greater diversity. (Not sure why that is even a question.) Attached is an article about Harvard, arguably Stanford's biggest academic competitor.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/10/college-sports-benefits-white-students/573688/

OTOH, track can bring in persons of color. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/06/11/brown-reverses-elimination-mens-track-field-and-cross-country

wrt to donor support, sure, it's still simple math. If a college has say, a men's team that is fully supported by alums and a women's team that is not, by cutting both, the college saves on the scholarships/expenses of the women's teams. Net gain to the bottom line and remain on compliance with T9. Of course, that will tick off the donors to the men's teams and they may pull their other support (to general fund). If so, the college just has to add up their recent GF donations and see if they exceed the expenses of the women's team. If they do, then both teams can remain. Otherwise, tell the women's team to start raising money, and give them a few years to build it up. If not, both teams get eliminated.

Things like Stanford's Synchronized Swimming team cannot be inexpensive, but perhaps they are all full payors.

There are several ways to comply with title 9

One is number of athletes of each gender, which is what people in this thread are talking about

Cal is not using that prong

It's just not that simple

Big Dog said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

mbBear said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

This is bad for Cal because if we ever try to cut sports (which we probably should've done long ago) any yahoo will get the idea to file a lawsuit.

---

There is no shortage of examples of colleges cutting sports. Because it's Furd doesn't make it more relevant to Cal. Probably even less so, considering it's a private school, but Title IX compliant is pretty clear.
Besides, Cal has had it's own legal athletic issues, thanks to the last AD...."oh yes, let's have Field Hockey practice every day at Stanford."

---

T9 compliance is the easy part: just make sure to cut at least one more men's scholly than women's....

And what is left unsaid is that the so-called country club sports on the chopping block did not help in the pursuit of greater undergrad diversity.

---

It's only easy if there is a sport that isn't heavily supported, in whatever way you want to define that.
I am not aware of Furd's interest in undergrad diversity. By why is this a point? "Country club sports" (not sure how Field Hockey fits in here) would be neither here or there on this topic.
I certainly think if you have real interest in undergrad diversity, it's not about sports as a trigger.

---

All highly selective colleges desire greater diversity. (Not sure why that is even a question.) Attached is an article about Harvard, arguably Stanford's biggest academic competitor.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/10/college-sports-benefits-white-students/573688/

OTOH, track can bring in persons of color. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/06/11/brown-reverses-elimination-mens-track-field-and-cross-country

wrt to donor support, sure, it's still simple math. If a college has say, a men's team that is fully supported by alums and a women's team that is not, by cutting both, the college saves on the scholarships/expenses of the women's teams. Net gain to the bottom line and remain on compliance with T9. Of course, that will tick off the donors to the men's teams and they may pull their other support (to general fund). If so, the college just has to add up their recent GF donations and see if they exceed the expenses of the women's team. If they do, then both teams can remain. Otherwise, tell the women's team to start raising money, and give them a few years to build it up. If not, both teams get eliminated.

Things like Stanford's Synchronized Swimming team cannot be inexpensive, but perhaps they are all full payors.

---

It was a question about efforts, not desire. Diversity through sports is not an effort. Many places, and certainly true at Cal, many Track and Field rewards are partial scholarships, so, again, not exactly meeting the challenge of college head on for students who can't afford it.
Obviously Furd found the money, be it donations, or they lost less money then they thought they would. As someone else posted, it's now like a 3(I think) prong choice to get to Title IX requirements.
Why is Synch Swimming so expensive as long as a school has a pool? Field Hockey has very specific field requirements (Cal knows all to well seeing it cost them a lawsuit) and more participants, maybe a better example.
And speaking of Field Hockey, the "general fund" needs of the sport (at Cal)decreased because of specific donations relative to sustaining the Head Coach position. Interesting to note: at least one of those donors was not allowing that money to go to the athletics general fund had the sport folded (less likely now thanks to Furd)or if it gets eliminated in the future.

HoopDreams said:

---

There are several ways to comply with title 9

One is number of athletes of each gender, which is what people in this thread are talking about

Cal is not using that prong

It's just not that simple

---

yeah it is rather simple. Whichever of the 3 prongs that Uni is using, if the goal is to reduce the athletic budget, just make sure you cut more men than women based on whatever the prong math says. Most r1 unis have plenty of quant jocks who could model it.

Big Dog said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

There are several ways to comply with title 9

One is number of athletes of each gender, which is what people in this thread are talking about

Cal is not using that prong

It's just not that simple

---

yeah it is rather simple. Whichever of the 3 prongs that Uni is using, if the goal is to reduce the athletic budget, just make sure you cut more men than women based on whatever the prong math says. Most r1 unis have plenty of quant jocks who could model it.

---

again, you are talking about prong 1. Chancellor is trying to move Cal to that prong

we are currently on a different prong because we don't comply with prong 1.

our current prong is that we field a women's team if our student body wants a women's team in a particular sport

mbBear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

mbBear said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

This is bad for Cal because if we ever try to cut sports (which we probably should've done long ago) any yahoo will get the idea to file a lawsuit.

---

There is no shortage of examples of colleges cutting sports. Because it's Furd doesn't make it more relevant to Cal. Probably even less so, considering it's a private school, but Title IX compliant is pretty clear.
Besides, Cal has had it's own legal athletic issues, thanks to the last AD...."oh yes, let's have Field Hockey practice every day at Stanford."

---

T9 compliance is the easy part: just make sure to cut at least one more men's scholly than women's....

And what is left unsaid is that the so-called country club sports on the chopping block did not help in the pursuit of greater undergrad diversity.

---

It's only easy if there is a sport that isn't heavily supported, in whatever way you want to define that.
I am not aware of Furd's interest in undergrad diversity. By why is this a point? "Country club sports" (not sure how Field Hockey fits in here) would be neither here or there on this topic.
I certainly think if you have real interest in undergrad diversity, it's not about sports as a trigger.

---

All highly selective colleges desire greater diversity. (Not sure why that is even a question.) Attached is an article about Harvard, arguably Stanford's biggest academic competitor.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/10/college-sports-benefits-white-students/573688/

OTOH, track can bring in persons of color. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/06/11/brown-reverses-elimination-mens-track-field-and-cross-country

wrt to donor support, sure, it's still simple math. If a college has say, a men's team that is fully supported by alums and a women's team that is not, by cutting both, the college saves on the scholarships/expenses of the women's teams. Net gain to the bottom line and remain on compliance with T9. Of course, that will tick off the donors to the men's teams and they may pull their other support (to general fund). If so, the college just has to add up their recent GF donations and see if they exceed the expenses of the women's team. If they do, then both teams can remain. Otherwise, tell the women's team to start raising money, and give them a few years to build it up. If not, both teams get eliminated.

Things like Stanford's Synchronized Swimming team cannot be inexpensive, but perhaps they are all full payors.

---

It was a question about efforts, not desire. Diversity through sports is not an effort. Many places, and certainly true at Cal, many Track and Field rewards are partial scholarships, so, again, not exactly meeting the challenge of college head on for students who can't afford it.
Obviously Furd found the money, be it donations, or they lost less money then they thought they would. As someone else posted, it's now like a 3(I think) prong choice to get to Title IX requirements.
Why is Synch Swimming so expensive as long as a school has a pool? Field Hockey has very specific field requirements (Cal knows all to well seeing it cost them a lawsuit) and more participants, maybe a better example.
And speaking of Field Hockey, the "general fund" needs of the sport (at Cal)decreased because of specific donations relative to sustaining the Head Coach position. Interesting to note: at least one of those donors was not allowing that money to go to the athletics general fund had the sport folded (less likely now thanks to Furd)or if it gets eliminated in the future.

---

Don't forget that Stanford has some of the most generous financial aid in teh country -- up there with HYP, so while the partial scholly is awesome (officially a recruited athlete and all), for many poor/middle class, a walk-on will get just as much money.

One Law Office's Opinion of the 3 prongs:

Prong 1: Proportionality
This prong of the test looks to see if the school's athletics programs have a number of male and female students enrolled that is proportional to their overall representation in the student body. This means that if a school is 50% male students and 50% female students, and the athletics are also split 50/50 or close to it the school is generally complying with Title IX. If the student body at large is 50/50, but the athletics programs are 30% female and 70% male, for example, the school is not in compliance.
In order to comply, schools should ideally bolster the female athletics programs by adding new teams and opportunities, but many schools instead cut men's athletics to balance the opportunities, leading to criticisms of Title IX's rules and implementation.

Prong 2: Expansion
If a school has a history of having fewer programs and opportunities for female students, but they can show that they are working to expand their female athletics programs, they might be seen as complying with Title IX. As long as the expansion is in line with the interest female students have shown in joining athletics programs, the school meets Title IX's requirements even if they are still behind having equal male and female programs.

Prong 3: Accommodating Interests
If the programs are not equal, and they are not currently being expanded to meet student interests, then a school can show they are complying with Title IX by showing that they already meet the interests of the students. If a school runs surveys and takes input from female students and they are essentially satisfied with having less funding or fewer athletics opportunities, then it is not considered a Title IX violation. This could be the case in a school that provides other extracurricular activities and clubs that students might participate in, or it could happen in a school that simply has low interest in athletics. However, schools must do their part to seek input so they can show there is not enough interest to add more teams or balance athletics opportunities.

https://www.shubinlaw.com/three-prong-test-title-ix-lawsuit/

Chabbear said:

---

One Law Office's Opinion of the 3 prongs:

Prong 1: Proportionality
This prong of the test looks to see if the school's athletics programs have a number of male and female students enrolled that is proportional to their overall representation in the student body. This means that if a school is 50% male students and 50% female students, and the athletics are also split 50/50 or close to it the school is generally complying with Title IX. If the student body at large is 50/50, but the athletics programs are 30% female and 70% male, for example, the school is not in compliance.
In order to comply, schools should ideally bolster the female athletics programs by adding new teams and opportunities, but many schools instead cut men's athletics to balance the opportunities, leading to criticisms of Title IX's rules and implementation.

Prong 2: Expansion
If a school has a history of having fewer programs and opportunities for female students, but they can show that they are working to expand their female athletics programs, they might be seen as complying with Title IX. As long as the expansion is in line with the interest female students have shown in joining athletics programs, the school meets Title IX's requirements even if they are still behind having equal male and female programs.

Prong 3: Accommodating Interests
If the programs are not equal, and they are not currently being expanded to meet student interests, then a school can show they are complying with Title IX by showing that they already meet the interests of the students. If a school runs surveys and takes input from female students and they are essentially satisfied with having less funding or fewer athletics opportunities, then it is not considered a Title IX violation. This could be the case in a school that provides other extracurricular activities and clubs that students might participate in, or it could happen in a school that simply has low interest in athletics. However, schools must do their part to seek input so they can show there is not enough interest to add more teams or balance athletics opportunities.

https://www.shubinlaw.com/three-prong-test-title-ix-lawsuit/

---

thanks

my understanding is Cal is currently using prong 2 or 3, and trying to move to 1

Chabbear said:

---

One Law Office's Opinion of the 3 prongs:

Prong 1: Proportionality
This prong of the test looks to see if the school's athletics programs have a number of male and female students enrolled that is proportional to their overall representation in the student body. This means that if a school is 50% male students and 50% female students, and the athletics are also split 50/50 or close to it the school is generally complying with Title IX. If the student body at large is 50/50, but the athletics programs are 30% female and 70% male, for example, the school is not in compliance.
In order to comply, schools should ideally bolster the female athletics programs by adding new teams and opportunities, but many schools instead cut men's athletics to balance the opportunities, leading to criticisms of Title IX's rules and implementation.

Prong 2: Expansion
If a school has a history of having fewer programs and opportunities for female students, but they can show that they are working to expand their female athletics programs, they might be seen as complying with Title IX. As long as the expansion is in line with the interest female students have shown in joining athletics programs, the school meets Title IX's requirements even if they are still behind having equal male and female programs.

Prong 3: Accommodating Interests
If the programs are not equal, and they are not currently being expanded to meet student interests, then a school can show they are complying with Title IX by showing that they already meet the interests of the students. If a school runs surveys and takes input from female students and they are essentially satisfied with having less funding or fewer athletics opportunities, then it is not considered a Title IX violation. This could be the case in a school that provides other extracurricular activities and clubs that students might participate in, or it could happen in a school that simply has low interest in athletics. However, schools must do their part to seek input so they can show there is not enough interest to add more teams or balance athletics opportunities.

https://www.shubinlaw.com/three-prong-test-title-ix-lawsuit/

---

Thanks for posting this. Prong 3 sounds slippery at best? If football is "king" at a school, with big crowds etc. then would it be that hard that the "interest" level is just fine with larger male participants?