[L Fan]

Not sure what your trying to imply, your spouse doesn't make you related? true I guess. Anyways you seem to know a lot about the athletic dept but what is interesting is people are on record for saying Liberty was in compliance and chose to remove themselves from the prong to a prong that placed them out of compliance. What is the truth? If your so close to the Compliance office please do tell. I'm just a dad trying to make horse sense and it doesn't add up. And if it does add up someone should be looking for a job, because they significantly miscalculated causing a lot of people some harm. Secondly, to just roll over? Isn't that in the Liberty handbook? "Never just roll over" even wrestlers understand this concept.

Where was Belshazzar 5 years ago, you were here since 2006. Why weren't you telling your "VERY CLOSE' source it was a bad idea or on here saying you know the numbers don't add up. All of this hind sight rhetoric you give us is not on the board previously.

The compliance office hasn't done anything but pass the problem onto 40 wrestlers and then proclaim they solved the problem. All they did was make it worse by effecting other people that were not previously involved. Doesn't make sense to me. Nothing about Liberty University translates to cowardice to me, this would mark a first that Liberty didn't come out strongly on an issue. They need to say this is the wrong intent of title 9,and an injustice to men's athletics. Where is the liberty for these young men to go to a christian university and represent their sport. By taking on the challenge Liberty would be a testimony and example to many who understand it is a bad law.

[JLFJR]

There is one other piece of information that impacted this decision that, for some reason, we all neglected to mention. All of this is from memory so I may not have the details 100% right but this is the substance of what happened: Around 1997, some women's rights group filed a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education. The complaint named a long list of universities that it claimed were not in compliance with Title IX. Liberty was on the list. The OCR met with us and discussed ways that Liberty could bring its program in compliance and explained that the OCR would be monitoring all schools that were not in compliance until they achieved compliance. Schools that are being "monitored" have to explain to the OCR every six months or so what action is being taken to correct the problem and have to show forward progress every time they report. A school not being watched has much more freedom to do what they want and to stray from the required percentages. Of course, they run the risk of a complaint being filed by some watchdog group but they do not have the constant oversight that we had. The meetings with the OCR were really quite comical. When they pressured us to add more oppotunities for women, we suggested that we might reduce opportunities for men to achieve compliance. They begged us not to do that because, when schools do that, it makes them and Title IX look bad. Well, we made progress -- too much progress, in fact. It wasn't long until the numbers showed that we actually were discriminating against the men! So, the OCR kept monitoring us and we worked on solving that problem. Every time we would come close to compliance, something would push us back out of compliance. Either more men or more women would enroll at LU and throw the numbers off or something else would keep the AD from achieving full compliance. After a few years, I stopped following the OCR's dealings with LU because it seemed like a circus but I believe we were either still discriminating against the men according to the numbers or we were very close to compliance when the wrestling advocates pushed hard to reinstate wrestling in the early 2000s with all their promises that their donations would be enough to sustain the program. Dr. Borek and my father made the decision to reinstate wrestling at a time when nobody (at least, nobody at LU) saw the huge demographic shift of significantly more women than men attending college on the horizon. Very shortly thereafter, Jeff became the AD and that shift was occurring. Remember, the OCR never stopped monitoring us so we faced much stricter enforcement of Title IX than most schools. We don't have the luxury of adding a women's sport every five years like a non-monitored school might have. We literally have had the feds watching us every step of the way. The three new women's sports were the first action we took and the feds watched that so closely that they even debated with us whether our surveys of LU women were more supportive of field hockey or equestrian. We have been micro-managed by the OCR on this issue since 1997. Without wrestling in the mix now, we may have a chance to achieve compliance and end the monitoring -- which will be a huge burden off our athletic staff and will save a great amount of legal fees. For the athletic staff, this experience has been very similar to you or me being audited by the IRS every year since 1997. Even though our staff has done an excellent job, it still drains them and distracts them from more important tasks. Again, this is all from memory and I have only followed this peripherally so, Chris, don't report on this without getting the facts from Jeff and Meredith, but I thought it was important for everyone to understand that it wasn't the simple fear of being audited that LU was considering when the wrestling decision was made.

[Purple Haize]

L Fan, I have no spouse that works for the athletic department. I am not related to anyone currently working in the athletic department, so your scratchy heads are appropriate. Back when the debate was raging about reinstating wrestling, there were plenty of Belshazzar's in the athletic department.
What JLFJR says is correct in broad strokes. If you ever want some good reading, just look at some of the OCR filings!! When we were "compliant" it was because of our commitment to increasing participation activities for women. Ever tried living with a large government microscope on you? Not fun. Now that Prong 2 no longer "cuts the mustard' what schools do you think the OCR are going to visit first? Those ON the list or those NOT on the list? hmmm
Roll over? Really? When you pay your taxes, are you "rolling over'? When you comply with something that you don't agree with but the government demands, are you 'rolling over'? I would suggest you first walk a mile in the shoes of those in the compliance office before you cast dispersions. Personally, I would LOVE to see a succesful legal challenge to the "compliance ratio", and I am a pretty die hard supporter of women's athletics. BUT the powers that be are not going to overturn anything because we want it, especially if LU is involved. Like any proceeding of this type, it is going to take the right client, the right judge, lots of money and lots of time. IMO, this is not that case. Also for fun, look at all the legal challenges to Title IX that have already been shot down. Some of them IMO were pretty darn good.

[SuperJon]

Not only has there been a shift in the demographics going to college (females going to college more than males), but there's also been a shift of religious people among teenagers. Stats show that the amount of women in the church are much higher than the amount of men. We had a spiritual retreat for our students this weekend and it was a 60/40 split between girls and guys. In our culture, girls are more spiritual in their teenage years than guys and so there are more girls interested in Liberty than guys.

You can hate on the athletic administration or the executive administration of the school all you want. The truth is we live in a culture that has changed and we have a law governing us that hasn't changed. Because of that, we're having to make hard decisions that everyone agrees sucks so that we don't get sued or some other type of legal penalty. We didn't cut wrestling because we wanted to cut wrestling. We cut wrestling because we had to cut something and, by cutting wrestling, it hopefully will save our other sports that are more deeply rooted and have conference affiliation (tennis, soccer, baseball). One sport had to be sacrificed and for the students, coaches, parents, and fans of wrestling it sucks big time. However, for those who are fans of Liberty overall and not just one sport, it was a necessary thing that had to happen so that we could enjoy all of the other sports for years to come.

[Purple Haize]

Not only has there been a shift in the demographics going to college (females going to college more than males), but there's also been a shift of religious people among teenagers. Stats show that the amount of women in the church are much higher than the amount of men. We had a spiritual retreat for our students this weekend and it was a 60/40 split between girls and guys. In our culture, girls are more spiritual in their teenage years than guys and so there are more girls interested in Liberty than guys.
.

Oh way to bring RELIGION into the discussion!
And we now know WHY you know these stats!

[L Fan]

I do not know the answers to these questions but here they are:

Has the Fed ever punished a school for being out of compliance? and to what extent?

Why does the Fed not want you to cut a Men's sport?

Do you actually have any reason to believe that the Fed will not continue to monitor?

If I understand, the hope is that the by laying the wrestling team on the alter the Fed will go away?

Purple, you thought I was "naive", no wonder you misspelled it in a previous post.

Aside,
Chancellor, it means a lot to me for you to get on the forum and speak to the issue, it demonstrates sincerety and gives me solace that you are involved. My oldest son wrestled for Univ of Maryland and Debbie Yow was the AD, she was a strong advocate for men's wrestling. I think she is a Liberty Alum at least that what it says in Wikipedia. I think if she were to look at Liberty's numbers and report we were hopelessly doomed to extinction it would be enough to satisfy the nagging ache we have this great sport diminished

[Purple Haize]

L FAN, tell me about it. Why we can't upgrade to an auto spell checker here I have NO IDEA!! I blame SLY!

Here are some things you might find a fun read:
1. Cohen v Brown University
2. Neal v Board of Trustees of the California State Universities
3. http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/C ... 0%20A.aspx
4. http://bailiwick.lib.uiowa.edu/ge/historyRE.html

These should answer your questions and should provide PLENTY of background.

[L Fan]

Purple,

Looked up your references and found this under the women's sports foundation:
6. Are most schools and colleges in compliance with Title IX?
No. Current estimates are that 80% or more of all colleges and universities are not in compliance.
At the high school level, financial data are unavailable. Participation data reveal that while female comprise 50% of the general student population, they receive only 39% of athletic program opportunities.
Male athletes at the college level receive $135 million more than female athletes in athletics scholarships each year (2002-2003 NCAA Gender-Equity )

Also found:
http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x127134 ... -violation

Synopsis: 80% of the schools are out of compliance and no school has lost a dime .

So besides you throwing references on the wall like crap, my questions still remain.

The Chancellor in my opinion is getting poor advice, unless there is another reason lurking.

[Purple Haize]

Purple,

Looked up your references and found this under the women's sports foundation:
6. Are most schools and colleges in compliance with Title IX?
No. Current estimates are that 80% or more of all colleges and universities are not in compliance.
At the high school level, financial data are unavailable. Participation data reveal that while female comprise 50% of the general student population, they receive only 39% of athletic program opportunities.
Male athletes at the college level receive $135 million more than female athletes in athletics scholarships each year (2002-2003 NCAA Gender-Equity )

Also found:
http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x127134 ... -violation

Synopsis: 80% of the schools are out of compliance and no school has lost a dime .

So besides you throwing references on the wall like crap, my questions still remain.

The Chancellor in my opinion is getting poor advice, unless there is another reason lurking.

You asked for any court cases involving violation of Title IX. I supplied those. They the 2 seminal cases that pertain to this. I gave you what you asked for and you say it is crap? Assuming you read them, there are plenty other precedents cited in each case. If memory serves, they even go through the appellate courts and their findings. Can you produce legal cases supporting your arguments?
Which is it? Do we "do the right thing", at least in your eyes or do we discount the law simply b/c it doesnt fit our purposes?
You said that the Chancellor is getting some bad advice, but after 100's of posts, we are still waiting for your "good advice".

[SuperJon]

Okay, let me get this straight. I want to make sure I'm following you completely:

You "thought the institution (Liberty) was willing to take the RIGHT stands for good (Godly) causes" and "thought this institution was beckon of light in an otherwise dark world."

But

You want Liberty to keep doing something that is against the law because no one has ever been caught for it or gotten in trouble for it before?

Which is it? Are we the "beckon of light in an otherwise dark world" that follows the rules and sets an example because that's what we're called to as Christians or do we cheat the system, break the rules, and keep the one sport you care about all because no one has gotten in trouble for it before?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You have to pick one or the other here.

[thepostman]

You want Liberty to keep doing something that is against the law because no one has ever been caught for it or gotten in trouble for it before?

This is a good point...we need to follow the law of the land, possibly even more so then other schools, simply because we are a Christian school. The law is flawed and needs to be addressed and changed, but we can go around breaking laws simply because we think they are stupid.

[L Fan]

SuperJon, Here is the straight part. Don't but words in my post that I didn't write. Never said "beckon of light in an otherwise dark world". But you should understand our country was founded on not paying their taxes and breaking the law(the original tea party). I'm not advocating for any of that, I just think if some people were better at their job we wouldn't be doing knee jerk reactions under the guise of we have been painfully calculating for the last 5 years. The chancellor said he stopped paying attention to the OCR because it was a circus and comical. I believe him it sounds like a circus but there is no sense in shooting the animals. Go eat some cake with thepostman

Back to the high and mighty group of thinkers. Here is a question for you. What are you going to do when you have to have homosexuals on the team because title 9 protects them? Be careful on the soap box it can slippery up there.

The best parts of our country are in place because someone decided to challenge the law. That is all I am saying and have consistently said "Challenge" not "break"

Purple,

Did a little research on the boatload. Yes, there are some but not a boatload of settlements unless your thinking a dinghy, and the ones I saw were not the issue we are addressing. Didn't find one because a school refused to drop a male program. Delaware tried to drop women's Equestrian and got banged. Not seeing anything close to a scenario that Liberty is going through, can you help?

My simple questions still remain:

Has the Fed ever punished a school for being out of compliance? and to what extent?

Why does the Fed not want you to cut a Men's sport?

Do you actually have any reason to believe that the Fed will not continue to monitor?

If I understand, the hope is that the by laying the wrestling team on the alter the Fed will go away?

[SuperJon]

Sorry, that was Dan P. I grouped all of the radical wrestling supporters together. My bad on that.

[L Fan]

So now I am a "radical" wrestling supporter? Why does my defense of a good sport have to be radical? Are you telling me you are not ever passionate or zealous about anything in life? I suppose you go through life rather complacent about everything just so that you don't step over the line .... good for you.

[BJWilliams]

L Fan do go back and read what JLFJR has said...I do hope he gets a chance to see your questions and answers them to something resembling your satisfaction

[thepostman]

I believe Jesus said we will follow our leaders as long as they aren't telling us to go against God. Homosexuality would be going against God, its not a slippery slope at all...thanks for trying though

[Hold My Own]

He already has Beeeeeej....it just wasnt the answer he was looking for.


As for "knee jerk reactions" you meant them in the sense of getting rid of wrestling, which is ironic because it was a knee jerk reaction that got us in the predicament to begin with.

[Purple Haize]

Don't tell anyone but we HAVE had homosexuals on teams at LU. And a few BiSexuals thrown in for good measure.

I can't help you with the law statutes because your reasoning and deductions on the case law posted is flawed. I will try to make it easier. If you are out of complliance you basically have 2 choices: Add women's sports or Reduce men's sports. That is the basis of the majority of Title IX law suits and fits PERFECTLY with what we have here.

Has the Fed ever punished a school for being out of compliance? and to what extent?Yes. That is what the law suits were about. While you can argue not all of them were brought forward by the OCR, the fact that they were brought about has the same effect. Plus you even mentioned Deleware getting banged.

Do you actually have any reason to believe that the Fed will not continue to monitor?No. But it sure as heck gives them one less thing to look at and ding us for. The FEDS and the NCAA are not going to go away.

Why does the Fed not want you to cut a Men's sport?This makes no sense. The case law SUPPORTS cutting men's programs to achieve equity

If I understand, the hope is that the by laying the wrestling team on the alter the Fed will go away
Obviously you don't understand. Because again the FED won't go away. It is all about what they see when they get here.

And again, you offer no solutions yourself. The only 'salvation' you see is by sacrificing the Compliance Department, which I would wager you have no concept what they do, and the athletic director. Or you suggest that we don't follow the rules simply b/c you don't like them. Maybe putting it this way will help: When the NCAA or the OCR come and audit us will it look better if we show good faith in attempting equality or we show disregard for guidelines that we knew we had already violated?

[L Fan]

Liberty had the program twice that would be two knee jerks

[SuperJon]

So now I am a "radical" wrestling supporter? Why does my defense of a good sport have to be radical? Are you telling me you are not ever passionate or zealous about anything in life? I suppose you go through life rather complacent about everything just so that you don't step over the line .... good for you.

Radical - a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist.

I'm pretty sure you hold strong convictions or extreme principles regarding our wrestling program. The shoe fits. I never said it was a negative thing.

[Hold My Own]

Liberty had the program twice that would be two knee jerks

You would not call the first wrestling stint successful? Starting the first time was a knee jerk reaction that worked out well.

[Purple Haize]

He already has Beeeeeej....it just wasnt the answer he was looking for.


As for "knee jerk reactions" you meant them in the sense of getting rid of wrestling, which is ironic because it was a knee jerk reaction that got us in the predicament to begin with.

I am not saying you are right. But I am saying that you are correct.

[L Fan]

Don't tell anyone but we HAVE had homosexuals on teams at LU. And a few BiSexuals thrown in for good measure.

I can't help you with the law statutes because your reasoning and deductions on the case law posted is flawed. I will try to make it easier. If you are out of complliance you basically have 2 choices: Add women's sports or Reduce men's sports. That is the basis of the majority of Title IX law suits and fits PERFECTLY with what we have here.

Has the Fed ever punished a school for being out of compliance? and to what extent?Yes. That is what the law suits were about. While you can argue not all of them were brought forward by the OCR, the fact that they were brought about has the same effect. Plus you even mentioned Deleware getting banged.

Do you actually have any reason to believe that the Fed will not continue to monitor?No. But it sure as heck gives them one less thing to look at and ding us for. The FEDS and the NCAA are not going to go away.

Why does the Fed not want you to cut a Men's sport?This makes no sense. The case law SUPPORTS cutting men's programs to achieve equity

If I understand, the hope is that the by laying the wrestling team on the alter the Fed will go away
Obviously you don't understand. Because again the FED won't go away. It is all about what they see when they get here.

And again, you offer no solutions yourself. The only 'salvation' you see is by sacrificing the Compliance Department, which I would wager you have no concept what they do, and the athletic director. Or you suggest that we don't follow the rules simply b/c you don't like them. Maybe putting it this way will help: When the NCAA or the OCR come and audit us will it look better if we show good faith in attempting equality or we show disregard for guidelines that we knew we had already violated?

I don't have to tell you just did, but I'm sure they had to fly under the radar.

My reasoning is flawed?

Question 1 Yes but No is what your saying? The case you quoted was Brown trying to cut two men and two women's how is that comparable? If your cutting women's sports you may as well chum the water before you jump in. bottom line not even close.

Q2 We agree, one less please if they want to look they will look. Solution is a compliance dept that develops a relationship saying we don't want cut a men's sport, how can you help us satisfy your requirements and not cannibalize mens athletics.
Q3 I disagree because as noted by Meredith there was a time when you were out of compliance with vice versa.
Q4 we agree the Fed is never going away, so you may as well learn to play ball and if you keep losing find some better players. Don't take your balls and go home(sorry, couldn't resist)Tracking?

[L Fan]

So now I am a "radical" wrestling supporter? Why does my defense of a good sport have to be radical? Are you telling me you are not ever passionate or zealous about anything in life? I suppose you go through life rather complacent about everything just so that you don't step over the line .... good for you.

Radical - a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist.

I'm pretty sure you hold strong convictions or extreme principles regarding our wrestling program. The shoe fits. I never said it was a negative thing.

So now I'm an extremist, what's next a terrorist?

I simply am not buying, the knee jerk reaction to cut a men's sport period. If that makes me radical the threshold is pretty low here. Go eat some more cake

[L Fan]

I believe Jesus said we will follow our leaders as long as they aren't telling us to go against God. Homosexuality would be going against God, its not a slippery slope at all...thanks for trying though

I agree, but will the OCR? because if they don't obviously there goes all the sports