By Jiaying Wang
The filed complaint consists of four counts against MSU, Beekman, Stanley, and the Board of Trustees. In the first count, the plaintiffs addressed on the defendants’ unequal allocation of athletic participation opportunities to male and female students at MSU, arguing that the university failed to pass the Title IX three-prong test. In the second count, the plaintiffs complained about MSU’s unequal allocation of financial assistance to male and female student-athletes, asserting that “MSU does not provide athletic financial assistance to its female athletes that is substantially proportional to its female athletic participation as required to comply with Title IX” (p. 49). In the third count, the eleven female swimmers and divers stated that the university has been allocating athletic treatment and benefits for male student-athletes more than for female student-athletes. Fourth, the plaintiffs also sued MSU as an educational institution for its gender discrimination.
On January 15, 2021, eleven current student-athletes on the Michigan State University (MSU) women’s swimming and diving team filed a class action against MSU, its Athletic Director Bill Beekman, President Samuel Stanley, Jr., and Board of Trustees for their alleged longstanding Title IX violations. The case was filed to the United States District Court – Western District of Michigan less than three months after the university announced the “final and irreversible” decision to discontinue its women’s swimming and diving program after the 2020-2021 season. While the case was brought by the eleven swimmers and divers in their individual capacities, the plaintiffs claimed in the statement that they sought to “redress the undisputed historic and ongoing discriminatory conduct perpetrated by MSU,” and they brought the action on behalf of “all similarly situated student athletes now and in the future” (p. 3).
The plaintiffs asked the court to grant them injunctive relief that would require MSU, Beekman, Stanley, and the Board of Trustees to: (1) stop their longstanding sex-based discriminatory behaviors and conduct; (2) stop cutting the university’s women’s swimming and diving program; and (3) offer more intercollegiate athletic participation opportunities to current, prospective, and future MSU female students with the goal to meet their interests and abilities.
According to the plaintiffs, the harm associated with the defendants’ discriminatory actions is far more severe than any possible harm to the defendants should the injunctive relief be granted. Some damages and difficulties the eleven MSU women’s swimmers and divers had experienced or will likely experience in common include economic and compensatory damages, lost educational and athletic opportunities because of sex, risk of losing academic credits due to possible transfer, risk of delayed graduation, and distress related to emotion and self-esteem. The defendants, on the other hand, will suffer no loss except “the monetary cost of the program that it has already borne for many years” (p. 44) if the injunctive relief is granted, as stated by the plaintiffs. This money, however, could be obtained by “shifting [the university’s] longstanding favoritism toward men to an equitable allocation between men and women” (p. 44), added the plaintiffs.
The eleven MSU women’s swimmers and divers pointed out that while their team does not receive any financial assistance directly from the federal government, the team is a program affiliated with and recognized by the university, a public institution that receives federal funding. Thus, the university’s athletic department has the obligation to comply with all Title IX requirements, argued the plaintiffs. As a result, the current, prospective, and future female student-athletes at MSU should not be discriminated in any form based on their sex.
But according to the plaintiffs, MSU failed to comply with Title IX. Based on the data provided by the plaintiffs in their complaint, the school’s female athletic participation rate is about 48.65%, whereas the female undergraduate enrollment rate campus-wise has reached 51.34%. In addition, the number suggests that before the women’s swimming and diving team is cut, there is a 25-women participation gap for MSU to fill if the university wants to reach “participation parity with their undergraduate enrollment gender breakdown” (p. 41). However, the actual gap between male and female student-athletes at MSU is even larger, given the common phenomenon of roster padding on the women’s rowing, cross country, and track and field teams. That is, the roster size for those teams at MSU are a lot bigger than the national average, which has resulted the lack of real sport participation opportunities for a large number of female student-athletes due to their extremely limited playing time.
Moreover, according to the complaint, no female varsity team has been added by the MSU administration since 1998. Given this, the plaintiffs contended that MSU lacks the history of providing an increasing number of opportunities for women to participate in intercollegiate sports. Now instead of adding new sports, the university has decided to eliminate women’s swimming and diving program at the end of the season. The team currently has 38 student-athletes, and the plaintiffs believe the action to cut the team will further exacerbate the existing gender inequality problem at MSU.
The plaintiffs suggested in the complaint that a letter from the plaintiffs’ counsel was sent to the defendants in November 2020, in which the plaintiffs first explained why they thought the elimination of the women’s swimming and diving team is a violation of Title IX and then expressed their desire for further discussion on reserving the team. As stated by the plaintiffs, the defendants replied the letter, indicating that to their knowledge, the university’s decision is in compliance with Title IX requirements. The plaintiffs claimed that besides the MSU Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act data, no other information in relation to Title IX compliance was specifically addressed by the defendants in their response. Consequently, the plaintiffs were not satisfied with the defendants’ response to the letter, which in turn led to the lawsuit.
In the current COVID-19 environment, this Title IX lawsuit brought by the eleven MSU women’s swimmers and divers could have a profound impact. Due to the outbreak and continuance of the COVID-19 pandemic, many college athletic programs have been heavily affected financially. As a result, cutting varsity teams that are not profitable has become a common trend for universities to reduce the cost. Should the eleven MSU women’s swimmers and divers be granted the injunctive relief, there might be a good chance for female student-athletes from other eliminated teams to bring similar Title IX legal actions against their universities. As of February 15, 2021, the MSU case remains pending, and the defendants have not yet responded to the alleged charges.
Jiaying Wang is a first-year doctoral student in the Department of Sport Management at Florida State University.
