Title IX complaint against UI
- Thread starter FG86
- Start date
I still don't get this field hockey nonsense. Their coach was fired after abusing players. She was still payed the full amount of her contract. Boo hoo. Seriously, there are worse things out there than getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars and being told to find another job.
I wanted a link to the actual reporting of the story. It is on ESPN for those interested.
4 players filed the complaint. Not sure how these players have any standing whatsoever to receive information about the termination of a contract but whatever. Seems like a pretty large hill to climb.
Yes, ISU is being investigated by the feds for sexual violence on their campus. Was reported a week ago. Seems like you are more interested FG in your neighbors back yard rather than your own
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/education/2015/01/29/iowa-state-federal-investigation-sexual-assault/22551253/
4 players filed the complaint. Not sure how these players have any standing whatsoever to receive information about the termination of a contract but whatever. Seems like a pretty large hill to climb.
Yes, ISU is being investigated by the feds for sexual violence on their campus. Was reported a week ago. Seems like you are more interested FG in your neighbors back yard rather than your own
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/education/2015/01/29/iowa-state-federal-investigation-sexual-assault/22551253/
The four players are filing a complaint on Title 9, not the termination of the contract.
My neighbor's backyard would be ISU and not really interested. But you stated ISU was being investigated for sexual misconduct in your OP. And you still have it wrong. Investigation on how ISU is HANDLING sexual crimes on their campus. At least get the story right.
So . . . educate us . . . why was she terminated?
And, while you are at it, educate us regarding the burden of proof that these players will have to meet in order to show that their Title IX rights were violated when the University of Iowa terminated the field hockey team's head coach. Seriously, I'll be fascinated to read your analysis. I'll be particularly curious to read about how the players - who remain on scholarship - experienced discrimination because their coach was terminated.
Before you respond, I'd recommend that you take some time to read about the trends in Title IX litigation and the difficulties that a terminated plaintiff faces when trying to prove unlawful discrimination playing a role in the plaintiff's termination. Then, try to extrapolate that analysis to the four field hockey players' claims that they are "victims" of discrimation when they (1) remain on scholarship and (2) were not the person whose contract was terminated (but paid in full).
Anyone can file a Complaint. Proving the allegations in the Complaint and proving that unlawful conduct took place is a wholly different situation. Far too many morons in this world believe that the simple act of paying a filing fee and electronically filing a Complaint is fact-dispositive that unlawful conduct took place. Far from it.
FG:
Can you provide a link to the lawsuit you just claimed exists? Case number?
Have you read the T9 complaint? Here it is linked for those interested.
Their claim is thus: "The University of Iowa's actions are thereby denying female student athletes the
benefits of their student-athlete experience because of sex in violation of Title IX."
"The key practices motivated by sex or gender stereotypes that have harmed student athletes are:
1. The University investigates and treats differently male and female student athletes who
raise concerns about their athletic experience.
2. The University investigates and treats differently male and female coaches who are the
object of complaints made by male and female student athletes.
3. The University engages in different practices and standards when investigating female
coaches.
4. The University permits males to engage in different coaching methods and treatment
of athletes than females.
5. The University generally holds female coaches to a higher or different standard than
male coaches.
6. The University has engaged in a pattern of removing highly qualified female coaches
because of gender.
7. The University refuses to investigate allegations of discrimination or violations of Title
IX when raised by student athletes."
Maybe more specifically that:
"However, Title IX ensures that their benefits as student athletes, including coaches, are
not removed or fired because of gender or sex. Removing Women's Field Hockey Coach Tracey
Griesbaum because of her gender is just as much a violation of Title IX as taking away the team's
uniforms because of gender."
That Griesbaum was treated differently than similarly situated male coaches, and fired.....which would not have happened but for her being female.
Further that:
"This creates harm to the female coach, of course, but it
undermines the right of female student athletes to receive a similar experience to male student
athletes simply because of their sex and/or the sex of their coach"
And this footnote:
"If we fire a coach because their methods appear harsh or appear mean, or appear intimidating to a
female student athlete because we think the female is sensitive or cannot take it or because of gender
stereotypes about the female student athlete, then we are firing the coach because of the gender, or sex of
the student athlete. If we fire a coach because her methods appear harsh or appear mean because we
apply a double standard or gender stereotype to the female coach then we are firing the coach because of
gender. In this case, we have both in play and either way, the source of the problem is gender or sex.
4 For example, if Pat Summit (1000 wins) is fired because she is female, or because of gender stereotypes
about her methods of coaching, but she is replaced by John Calipari, the fact that the female team may
still have a competitive program because of a similar skill set of the head coach does not undermine the
harm done by removing coach of a female team because she is female. Of course, Tracey Griesbaum
clearly has much greater head coaching experience than her replacement in this case."
They specifically point to the Rhabdo incident as proof that male coaches are treated differently. That has been well cited on here, probably by FG, iirc.
I think it boils down to maybe this simplistic statement: The University of Iowa overreacted to a female athlete complaining about a female coach....which they wouldn't have done if the player or coach was male. They did this based on gender stereotyping.
Sure, possible, but they still have many hurdles to clear. The University clearly hires female coaches for these positions, and replaced her with a female coach. As the complainants agree, they do not have a right to a specific coach.
Also, and this is important, they are claiming that THEIR t9 rights are violated....not Griesbaum's. Griesbaum was fired pursuant to contract and bought out. Her claim and their claim are not the same.
Can you provide a link to the lawsuit you just claimed exists? Case number?
Have you read the T9 complaint? Here it is linked for those interested.
Their claim is thus: "The University of Iowa's actions are thereby denying female student athletes the
benefits of their student-athlete experience because of sex in violation of Title IX."
"The key practices motivated by sex or gender stereotypes that have harmed student athletes are:
1. The University investigates and treats differently male and female student athletes who
raise concerns about their athletic experience.
2. The University investigates and treats differently male and female coaches who are the
object of complaints made by male and female student athletes.
3. The University engages in different practices and standards when investigating female
coaches.
4. The University permits males to engage in different coaching methods and treatment
of athletes than females.
5. The University generally holds female coaches to a higher or different standard than
male coaches.
6. The University has engaged in a pattern of removing highly qualified female coaches
because of gender.
7. The University refuses to investigate allegations of discrimination or violations of Title
IX when raised by student athletes."
Maybe more specifically that:
"However, Title IX ensures that their benefits as student athletes, including coaches, are
not removed or fired because of gender or sex. Removing Women's Field Hockey Coach Tracey
Griesbaum because of her gender is just as much a violation of Title IX as taking away the team's
uniforms because of gender."
That Griesbaum was treated differently than similarly situated male coaches, and fired.....which would not have happened but for her being female.
Further that:
"This creates harm to the female coach, of course, but it
undermines the right of female student athletes to receive a similar experience to male student
athletes simply because of their sex and/or the sex of their coach"
And this footnote:
"If we fire a coach because their methods appear harsh or appear mean, or appear intimidating to a
female student athlete because we think the female is sensitive or cannot take it or because of gender
stereotypes about the female student athlete, then we are firing the coach because of the gender, or sex of
the student athlete. If we fire a coach because her methods appear harsh or appear mean because we
apply a double standard or gender stereotype to the female coach then we are firing the coach because of
gender. In this case, we have both in play and either way, the source of the problem is gender or sex.
4 For example, if Pat Summit (1000 wins) is fired because she is female, or because of gender stereotypes
about her methods of coaching, but she is replaced by John Calipari, the fact that the female team may
still have a competitive program because of a similar skill set of the head coach does not undermine the
harm done by removing coach of a female team because she is female. Of course, Tracey Griesbaum
clearly has much greater head coaching experience than her replacement in this case."
They specifically point to the Rhabdo incident as proof that male coaches are treated differently. That has been well cited on here, probably by FG, iirc.
I think it boils down to maybe this simplistic statement: The University of Iowa overreacted to a female athlete complaining about a female coach....which they wouldn't have done if the player or coach was male. They did this based on gender stereotyping.
Sure, possible, but they still have many hurdles to clear. The University clearly hires female coaches for these positions, and replaced her with a female coach. As the complainants agree, they do not have a right to a specific coach.
Also, and this is important, they are claiming that THEIR t9 rights are violated....not Griesbaum's. Griesbaum was fired pursuant to contract and bought out. Her claim and their claim are not the same.
Here is an article commenting on it, for those that don't want to read the complaint.
The players claim that their former coach, Tracey Griesbaum, was fired
for using the exact same coaching methods employed by male coaches at
Iowa, and that by firing her, the school compromised their ability to
win and robbed them of the opportunity to be challenged by a demanding
coach.
The Iowa players said they believe that the protection offered by Title
IX should cover their claim -- even if it's unprecedented. "Just because
we're women doesn't mean we don't want to be coached just as hard as
the men," Silfer said. "Tracey was as hard as any of the male coaches,
and that's what we were here for: to be pushed as hard we could be
pushed, to have someone get everything out of us."
This post was edited on 2/5 1:33 PM by theIowaHawk
The players claim that their former coach, Tracey Griesbaum, was fired
for using the exact same coaching methods employed by male coaches at
Iowa, and that by firing her, the school compromised their ability to
win and robbed them of the opportunity to be challenged by a demanding
coach.
The Iowa players said they believe that the protection offered by Title
IX should cover their claim -- even if it's unprecedented. "Just because
we're women doesn't mean we don't want to be coached just as hard as
the men," Silfer said. "Tracey was as hard as any of the male coaches,
and that's what we were here for: to be pushed as hard we could be
pushed, to have someone get everything out of us."
This post was edited on 2/5 1:33 PM by theIowaHawk
Interesting point they bring up. That coach gets fired for pushing those girls hard (according to those girls) and the football strength and conditioning coach puts 19 kids in the hospital and gets awarded assistant coach of the year.
*Edit - Thanks for posting and giving a run down of it theIowaHawk
This post was edited on 2/5 3:40 PM by ThatsFootball
Is this maybe why Mason is bolting? Can't help Barta.
These young women have turned a kennel full of pit bulls loose on Iowa.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
These young women have turned a kennel full of pit bulls loose on Iowa.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Yes they are CLAIMING that is why she was fired. Like all complaints, reading it makes you think it is correct, but doesn't necessarily mean it is (a) true, or even (b) factual.
The original allegations against the coach was not, simply, "she pushed us too hard."
Along the line of a lesiban affair or something right? And just so you know... that is why I put the disclaimer "according to those girls" in my post.
Their entire case rests on the idea that they have standing to see the cause if termination of their coach. They don't
As for whether they can prove men and women can be pushed just as hard in practice? How does one measure that exactly?
They also don't have standing by the way to see the details of the rhabo incident.
As for whether they can prove men and women can be pushed just as hard in practice? How does one measure that exactly?
They also don't have standing by the way to see the details of the rhabo incident.
Might not want what you wish for. Here's what my imagination came up with. Barta gets fired and Iowa gets a new AD. New AD feels the need to be on the job for a few years before he or she feels that they can make a hugh move and fire a coach of a major sport at Iowa. Let's just say KF is that coach. That gives the Iowa fans a few more years of fascinating football. If Mr. Barta were to stay, he could/should/would can KF to show that he can be tough with the men's coaches also. Like a sacrificial lamb so to speak. Could get new blood here a little sooner. Just thinking out loud.
That is the million dollar question, isn't it?
Barta received a complaint from a single athlete that TG was verbally abusive. A review concluded there was insufficient evidence. On July 15, Barta sent out an email about how to break the news to the single complainant that the school was retained. On July 21, Barta sent an email to the coaching staff thanking them for the patience, professionalism and participation in the process, stating his goal was to move forward and make a good program even stronger. Everyone who attended a meeting later that day believed TG was being retained and they were moving forward. On August 4, she was fired. Her direct supervisor was unaware she was being fired.
I never gave any opinion about the complaint, just presented factual information that a complaint had been filed. Thank you for your hysterical rant about it though.
Hey FG show us your outrage over the feds investigating isu for their handling of sexual assault cases. I mean if isu really does handle everything better than Iowa why the investigation?
Who wants to bet FG won't call out isu? Bueller, Bueller.....anyone?
Funny how clown fans can throw rocks at Iowa and ignore how isu acts.
Who wants to bet FG won't call out isu? Bueller, Bueller.....anyone?
Funny how clown fans can throw rocks at Iowa and ignore how isu acts.
Hey 100, I will as soon as I show my outrage over this complaint. Oh Snap.
BTW, I missed your outrage over the death threat to Dakich and the extra security needed at CHA, as well as the recent disorderly house charges against Iowa athletes. Surely, you are outraged since you went lunatic over similar incidents at ISU.
FG will call out Iowa and ignore how isu and his fellow clown fans act.
Each time he posts he proves me right. Just watch. Wait for it, wait for it.......
Each time he posts he proves me right. Just watch. Wait for it, wait for it.......
Called it again. Each time FG posts he refuses to callout behavior from isu that so offends him when it comes from Iowa.
More I say we want more. We want more. We want more.
Not confused at all FG. You and your fellow clown fans take shots at Iowa and ignore how isu and clown fans act. You can always tell when he is losing it as he goes to the he thinks he knows my wife card. Only to be follwed by the he knows my parents.
Pure gold. It works every time. Just watch he will keep at. He always does.
Pure gold. It works every time. Just watch he will keep at. He always does.
Yep here we have it. FG throws rocks at Iowa and ignores isu. Maybe he will use a semantics argument to tell us what he really meant by this post?
Called it again.
When FG is losing it he goes to the he thinks he knows my wife card. When that dosn't work he goes to the he knows my parents card. When that doesn' work he really loses it and starts arguing semantics.
Wait for it. Wait for it........
When FG is losing it he goes to the he thinks he knows my wife card. When that dosn't work he goes to the he knows my parents card. When that doesn' work he really loses it and starts arguing semantics.
Wait for it. Wait for it........
Let's get the rivalry thing out of the way and assume this is some other school, not Iowa.
Having done that, if you are familiar with the history of Title IX, you will know why this is considered a potentially very important case. You also will know that there's no way to predict what the feds/courts are going to do, and especially no way to predict what the people who actually administer the law are going to do.
What they're saying is that they're not being treated the same as the men. That is ALL the law is about.....at least that is all it's allegedly been about in most of the cases thus far. They definitely have standing based on the way the courts have looked at Title IX issues.
Once again, I recommend "Tilting the Playing Field" by Jessica Gavora.
Similar threads
