By Ellen J. Staurowsky, Ed.D., Senior Writer and Professor, Sports Media (retired), Ithaca College, staurows@ithaca.edu
As the new year dawned on January 2, 2026, California Baptist University (CBU) vice president for athletics, Dr. Michah Parker, announced that following serious deliberations and prayer, three men’s athletic teams – golf, swimming, and wrestling – would be discontinued at the end of the 2025-2026 academic year. In justifying the cuts, Parker cited changes in the NCAA Division I landscape due to the House Settlement, the need to position the athletic department for the purpose of achieving the university’s goal of greater competitive excellence, Title IX considerations, and an impending move to the Big West Conference starting in July of 2026. The 69 affected athletes were assured that existing financial aid agreements would be honored, and the university would provide support to assist athletes in dealing with the repercussions of the cuts (Meluski, 2026).
In the months that followed, a movement spearheaded by Nolan Kistler, a former CBU wrestler from the class of 2008 and local Riverside (CA) attorney, brought supporters together to initiate a “Keep CBU Wrestling” initiative. Sponsoring a “Walk for Wrestling”, 150 people gathered on campus to protest the elimination of the team. Local media publication The Center Square has claimed it has evidence that the College discouraged journalists from covering the program cuts, referencing an email allegedly issued by the Administration indicating that any publicity on men’s golf, swim and dive, and wrestling had been suspended (Wickham, 2026).
In a leaked video of a team meeting with an athletics administrator that occurred sometime in February of 2026 a few days before the team’s final home match, an administrator confronted the team about their plan to wear singlets with the protest message “Keep CBU Wrestling”. Threatened with having their Senior Night and final home match cancelled if they wore the protest singlets instead of athletic department issued gear, the wrestlers relented but a compromise of sorts was reached when the players were “permitted” by the administration to wear their protest sweatshirts/t-shirts prior to their matches (Simon, 2026). By early March of 2026, supporters had raised a reported $1.1 million. According to the official “Keep CBU Wrestling” Website, that figure exceeded $22 million by the end of May 2026.
Less than three months after the announcement and after several months of appeals for CBU administrators to reconsider their position or at least allow the team to compete for the next three years until current athletes exhausted their eligibility, three wrestlers sued.
Allegations and Harms Raised and Relief Sought in Kelly v. California Baptist University
In Kelly et al. v. California Baptist University, the Plaintiffs cover familiar ground, alleging that CBU’s decision to cut three men’s sports to bring the institution into alignment with requirements under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, a federal law barring sex discrimination in federally funded educational institutions, is misguided (Kelley v. Board of Trustees, 1994; Neal v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 1999). The Plaintiffs complain that the University cut men’s teams to address a shortfall in athletic opportunities for women proportional to their enrollment, but by doing so on the basis of sex, the University violated their rights as men athletes to be spared program cuts based on their sex. The Plaintiffs argue that as a result of CBU’s decision to eliminate men’s teams, they have suffered in a number of ways including a disruption to their ability to train and compete for spots on the 2028 U.S. Olympic team and the potential to encounter academic setbacks due to difficulty transferring course credits and/or matching up with course requirements in academic programs elsewhere; as well as contemplating the implications of finding a comparable faith-based college community. In their request for relief, the Plaintiffs seek a judgement that CBU violated Title IX by cutting the wrestling program; a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing CBU from attempting to comply with Title IX through the avenue of statistical proportionality; reinstatement of the wrestling program; recovery of attorney fees, costs, and expenses; and reserving the opportunity for further recovery as the Court may deem appropriate.
CBU’s Response
In the institution’s response to the request for a preliminary injunction, CBU explains in greater detail than in its January 2026 announcement the factors that affected the decision to eliminate three men’s sports, including measures of program success; program revenue generation; and specifically in the case of wrestling, conference alignment. Occurring against the backdrop of the college sport business environment affected by the House Settlement that provides for fully funded athletic scholarships and a percent of revenue sharing between athletic departments and athletes, CBU states that there was a need to assess how best to allocate available resources as financial pressures on NCAA Division I institutions continue to rise. The athletic department is making these adjustments after having gone through numerous steps over approximately 15 years to elevate their athletic program from one competing in the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) and National Christian Collegiate Athletic Association (NCCAA) to National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division II and ultimately Division I. CBU formally settled into NCAA Division I competition in 2018-2019. It faces further headwinds from a financial perspective because it will be the only private institution in the Big West, meaning that costs associated with covering athletic scholarships are likely to be higher at CBU than those at the public institutions they compete against.
While the Plaintiffs argue that the three men’s sports were cut because there was a need to balance men’s interests against women’s interests under Title IX, CBU presents a picture that the wrestling program was simply not doing as well as an array of other sports in the athletic department based on winning records, conference standings, and appearances in conference and NCAA competition. During the eight years since CBU started competing at the NCAA Division I level, several CBU teams have done comparatively well including baseball, basketball (M & W), cross-country (M & W), soccer (M&W), STUNT (W), and water polo (M). While wrestling at one time also realized a fair degree of success, such was not the case for the program when it moved up to NCAA Division I competition. Since making the move, it had registered 21 wins and 68 losses overall in dual match competitions and the team had 5 wins and 26 losses in conference competitions.
A second distinguishing factor as presented by CBU was revenue generation. According to its response, CBU argues that wrestling was not a revenue generating sport. The sport did not draw large enough crowds to warrant charging to attend matches. They claim that the sports of baseball and softball, basketball (M & W), soccer (M & W), and volleyball (W) all garner sufficient interest to generate ticket sales.
And third, as a pragmatic matter, wrestling is not sponsored by the Big West Conference, a circumstance that would have required the team to compete under the auspices of the Big XII conference as an affiliate. Whereas the territory covered by the Big West Conference includes schools within the state of California (and one school in Utah), competition in the Big XII would have required the wrestling team to travel to schools in Colorado, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota.
CBU states unequivocally in its response that while the reduction in men’s sports did have a favorable impact on making the athletic program more statistically in line with Title IX’s proportionality standard, it was not a primary reason for the cuts. CBU also challenges the Plaintiffs assertion that the discontinuation of men’s programs was done to establish a sex-based quota for athletes.
Motion to Dismiss Scheduled to be Heard on June 4, 2026
In its motion to dismiss, CBU argues that the Plaintiffs fail to successfully make their case that the actions taken to cut three men’s sports, resulting in greater Title IX compliance, can be used as evidence in support of their claim that they have suffered a Title IX injury. Challenging the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs position, CBU takes issue with the Plaintiffs’ claim that Title IX forbids the cutting of men’s teams in order to achieve compliance under Title IX. They note under Subsection (b) of section 1681 of the statute that while it does not require schools to cut men’s team, it does allow schools to eliminate teams in order to achieve greater proportionality between the sexes. As a consequence, the statute itself does not support the Plaintiffs’ claim.
Citing to the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Neal v. Board of Trustees of California State University (1999), a case that CBU views as parallel to this one in terms of fact pattern, the Court found that schools are well within the parameters of Title IX to cut men’s teams when programs disproportionately offer more opportunities to men students compared to their representation in the undergraduate student body. Further referencing the Ninth Circuit in Neal, CBU notes:
Every court in construing the Policy Interpretation and the text of Title IX, has held that a university may bring itself into Title IX compliance by increasing athletic opportunities for the underrepresented gender (women in this case) or by decreasing athletic opportunities for the overrepresented gender (men in this case).” 198 F.3d at 769-770 (former emphasis added; latter emphasis in original) (Kelly v. California Baptist University, Defendant Motion to Dismiss, 2026, p. 16).
Attempts by Kelly to reject agency interpretations of Title IX under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) (which overturned Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 1984) are countered in CBU’s motion to dismiss with a reference to the U.S. Supreme Court’s emphasis that Loper Bright does not overturn prior precedent. CBU argues that Kelly’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. The hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for June 4, 2026.
References
“Keep CBU Wrestling”. (2026, May 27). Donations. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QVw6WDLEnXkIRTjcF1t0sqyw6VE6bfQx/view?usp=sharing
Meluski, A. (2026, January 2). California Baptist University Restructures Lancer Athletics, Discontinues Three Athletic Programs Ahead of Big West Entry. Press release. https://calbaptist.edu/about/news-events/news/january-2026-announcement
Paul Kelly, Cooper Shore, and Jesse Vasquez v. California Baptist University. Complaint. In the United States District Court for the Central Division of California Eastern Division. Case No.: 5:26-cv-1450-KK-ACCV. April 9, 2026.
Paul Kelly, Cooper Shore, and Jesse Vasquez v. California Baptist University. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction. In the United States District Court for the Central Division of California Eastern Division. Case No.: 5:26-cv-1450-KK-ACCV. April 9, 2026.
Paul Kelly, Cooper Shore, and Jesse Vasquez v. California Baptist University. Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. In the United States District Court for the Central Division of California Eastern Division. Case No.: 5:26-cv-1450-KK-ACCV. April 16, 2026.
Paul Kelly, Cooper Shore, and Jesse Vasquez v. California Baptist University. Defendant Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof. In the United States District Court for the Central Division of California Eastern Division. Case No.: 5:26-cv-1450-KK-ACCV. April 30, 2026.
Kelley v. Board of Trustees, 35 F.3d 265, 270 (7th Cir. 1994)
Neal v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 198 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 1999)
Simon, A. (2026, March 4). Controversial video leaks at California college cutting sports teams. Yahoo!Sports.com. https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/controversial-video-leaks-california-college-130000184.html
Wickham, E. (2026, April 2). California Baptist University wrestlers speak out after they sue to keep their program. Yahoo!Sports.com. https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/watch-exclusive-california-baptist-university-233000352.html
