The Title IX Decision against the Quinnipiac University

The Title IX Decision against the Quinnipiac University The question of gender is actively discussed in relation to sport with references to providing the equal opportunities for female athletes. According to Title IX, any discrimination regarding the sex or gender issues is prohibited (Thornton, 2010). The Title IX Decision against the Quinnipiac University of 2010 became one of the most controversial cases associated with the question.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on The Title IX Decision against the Quinnipiac University specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More It was stated that the Quinnipiac University intended to eliminate the women’s varsity volleyball team because of the lack of funding and to develop a competitive cheerleading team instead. The volleyball team’s players and their coach insisted on trying the case in court because of violating Title IX in relation to providing the equal opportunities for university athletes. According to the injunction prov ided by the Judge Stefan Underhill, the volleyball team was allowed to continue the activities during the next season when the development of the competitive cheerleading team could not be discussed as the alternative to the female sport team to meet the Title IX requirements. To evaluate the effectiveness of Underhill’s decision, it is necessary to pay attention to the details of the case. The volleyball team of the Quinnipiac University and the team’s coach accentuated that the plan to eliminate the team violates Title IX because the proportion of the male and female athletes would be defied. From this point, it is possible to speak about the direct violation of Title IX in relation to providing the equal opportunities for male and female athletes. Underhill stated that the fact of discriminating female athletes’ rights was presented, and the Quinnipiac University was obliged to provide the opportunities for the team to perform during the next season (The Quin nipiac University Case, 2010). Thus, the legal strength of the argument was accentuated, and the team could be discussed as winning the case. However, there are two visions of the decision. On the one hand, the rights and interests of the women’s varsity volleyball team were met, and the fact of discrimination was stated. On the other hand, the team was allowed to perform only during the 2010-2011 season, and the question was discussed again in 2012. Thus, the decision provided by the judge lacked some details.Advertising Looking for essay on health medicine? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Furthermore, Underhill concentrated on the fact that it was impossible to refer to the cheerleading team as the competitive team and to discuss that team as the alternative to the volleyball team to meet the Title IX requirements. The decision provided by Underhill was rather effective while discussing the cheerleading tea m as inappropriate alternative to the female volleyball team. Nevertheless, the controversy was associated with the fact that Underhill focused on the standards of the competitive sport teams and judged about the relevance of the standards and cheerleading team’s features to discuss it as the sport team. Underhill supported the decision in relation to the definition of the varsity sport with references to the Title IX standards (The Quinnipiac University Case, 2010). It is important to pay attention to the fact that the position of the judge as the advisor or an expert to determine the standards for the varsity sport is rather controversial, and it could be more effective to focus on violating the Title IX requirements regarding the women’s volleyball team rather than on discussing the features and standards of the varsity sport. In spite of the general win of the women’s volleyball team of the Quinnipiac University in relation to Title IX, the judge’s ar gument cannot be discussed as strong and effective because it was important to concentrate on the issue of discrimination to determine the position of the team not only for one season but for the long period of time. References The Quinnipiac University Case. (2010). Retrieved from http://courtweb.pamd.uscourts.gov/courtwebsearch/ctxc/KX330R32.pdf Thornton, P. K. (2010). Sports law. USA: Jones Bartlett Publishers.