W&M ATHLETES TO SUE SCHOOL
Law firm threatens to file suit claiming violation of Title IX
Women’s gymnastics, volleyball and swimming teams at William & Mary have retained counsel and are prepared to pursue a class action lawsuit against the college if their sports are eliminated following the 2020-21 school year.
William & Mary announced on Sept. 3 its decision to eliminate of those sports, as well as men’s indoor and outdoor track and field, men’s gymnastics and men’s swimming.
In a letter to school president Katherine Rowe dated Wednesday, Arthur H. Bryant of the Oakland, California-based law firm Bailey & Glasser, LLP said the lawsuit against the college would be for “depriving women athletes and potential athletes of equal opportunities, financial aid and treatment in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.”
Bryant asked for a response no later than Sept. 30.
Suzanne Clavet, W&M’s director of news and media, said that the school does not comment on pending or potential litigation.
Bryant is no stranger to William & Mary. When the college announced it was eliminating women’s basketball in 1991, he was retained by that team.
Bryant said according to public information available (in ’91), eliminating the basketball team was “a blatant violation of Title IX,” which among other things, prohibits educational institutions receiving federal funds from eliminating women’s teams for which interest, ability, and competition are available unless “intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to
their respective enrollments.”
Bryant threatened a class action lawsuit if school did not reinstate the team “for violating Title IX by depriving women athletes and potential athletes of equal opportunities, athletic financial aid, and treatment.”
He met with then-President Dr. Paul R. Verkuil and school lawyers to discuss the matter.
“The school, in its wisdom, decided to reinstate the women’s basketball team and avoid being sued,” Bryant wrote in his letter this week.
Bryant believes the elimination of the women’s sports teams is “another blatant violation” of Title IX. He wrote that unless the school preserves those teams, he will file an injunction and a class action in federal court to “prevent the teams’ elimination and to hold William & Mary accountable for violating Title IX by depriving women athletes and potential athletes of equal opportunities, athletic financial aid, and treatment.”
Bryant has requested to meet with Rowe or W&M’s lawyers. He said if W&M can prove the elimination of the sports “and other associated actions assures Title IX compliance,” he will have no basis for a suit. But he does not believe that is the case.
Bryant cited W&M numbers submitted to the U.S. Department of Education for the 2018-19 school year as part of the basis for a lawsuit. The numbers showed the school’s female undergraduate enrollment to be 57.7%, but only 46.3% of its intercollegiate athletes were female.
Changes resulting from the elimination of the seven teams would mean about 51.6% of W&M athletes will be females, according to Bryant. But he contends W&M athletics would still need to add 65 women to reach gender equity under Title IX — roughly the number of women on the teams being eliminated.
Criticism of W&M athletics and administration also is growing among the faculty.
Katherine Guthrie, an Associate Professor of Finance, penned a letter this week to fellow faculty members criticizing the process used to cut the seven sports and said that “many” of her colleagues have signed on. She called the lack of faculty involvement and engagement in the decision “alarming” as she voiced her opinion Wednesday during the Board of Visitors Listening Session about the cuts.
“Our leadership has not included the larger W&M community in these discussions,” she said. “In 2006, the 27-person strategic planning committee had seven faculty members, three student leaders, three coaches outside the ‘Big 3’ sports, and the director from Rec Sports.
“That is what I call community representation. In contrast, in 2018 the 25-person committee had no students, no coaches, and only one faculty member. The campus community has gone from having almost 50% representation to 4%.
“This is unacceptable.”
Guthrie also argued athletic cuts that favor revenue-producing sports are a bad gamble.
“Unfortunately, I fear you have supported a decision that does not reflect our community values and arguably is a poor business decision,” Guthrie said to the Board of Visitors. “If this was a slam dunk, few would object if this was going to bring in millions.
“Given my expertise in finance and sports economics, I see no such avenue here. At the very least, we should see a business case with financial projections. Until then this is a gamble with the university’s funds. “
Dr. Suzanne Hagedorn, an Associate Professor of English at W&M for 22 years, also expressed concerns about a lack of faculty representation in the process of cutting sports. But she was most passionate in her criticism of Athletic Director Samantha Huge for plagiarizing Stanford’s announcement in July that it was cutting some sports.
“A student would fail, and I have failed students and had them kicked out of the college, for honors offenses like Samantha Huge’s,” Hagedorn told the BOV. “So I think she needs to be disciplined by the Board of Visitors, if not dismissed.
“She has lost the confidence of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and if you don’t do something about this, I’m prepared to introduce a motion at the October (6th) meeting of a vote of no-confidence in Samantha Huge.
“She can still do her job officially, but can she really do he job well if the faculty don’t trust her? I don’t think so.”