Seven Men and Two Women Will Rule on Pivitol Title IX Case
Latest Update as of December 1, 2004, from College Athletic Clips

From the highest court in our land comes word of arguments on whether Title IX should protect whistle-blowers who accuse educational institutions of sex discrimination even if they were not personally the victims of bias.
 
Most parties agree that, in the 32 years of its existence, Title IX has promoted gender equity at institutions that receive federal funds.
 
However, the issue at hand has everything to do with different interpretations of the same law. One side says that protection (for whistleblowers) is implied in the existing law, the other side says that if protection was intended, then it would have been written in.
 
Coaches and other athletics officials have not been allowed to fight perceived discrimination by suing their own institutions (i.e.-whistle blowing). If the Supreme Court rules in their favor, women's sports advocates would gain leverage that they never had before.
 
The case being heard by the Supreme Court, Jackson v. Birmingham (Ala) Board of Education, stems from the termination of a high-school girls' basketball coach after he complained of inferior facilities for his team compared to the boys’ team.
 
The facts of the case:
• In 2001, Ensley HS girls’ basketball coach Roderick Jackson complained to school officials that girls had inferior facilities—unheated gym, wooden backboards and bent rims—compared to the boys. Also, girls were transported to games via carpools, boys got buses.
• Instead of changing the facilities, the school board changed the coach: Jackson was fired (but he retained his tenured teaching job at the school).
• Jackson sued over his lost coaching job. A US district court ruled that whistle-blowers are not protected against retaliation under Title IX.
• Jackson took his case to the US Court of Appeals in Atlanta and lost there as well.
• Two years after Jackson was fired, a new principal came in and rehired him.
• Jackson’s case is being handled by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), a powerful advocacy group for women’s issues that has been involved in several important Title IX rulings.

NWLC lawyers claim that the Supreme Court has previously ruled that there are implied protections from retaliation in other anti-discrimination laws. Wording in court papers from Jackson’s lawyers includes this Catch 22 pretzel logic gem: “If schools and other defendants could freely retaliate against those who protest discriminatory treatment, they would effectively be engaging in the discrimination prohibited by the statute.”
 
Several good tidbits arose from a lively arguments heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Examples:
• Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated that "Mr. Jackson was not dismissed because of his gender." An attorney countered that Mr. Jackson "is a victim of discrimination within the meaning of the statute" because the phrase "on the basis of sex" should be broadly interpreted.
• Justice David Souter supported both inclusion of advocates under Title IX, saying that "unless you allow this teacher or this whistle-blower to bring private action, the law is a dead letter."

And some classic quotes illustrate how far apart different constituencies are with regard to achieving gender equity:
• Mike Moyer, National Wrestling Coaches Assoc.: "There shouldn't be any gender discrimination, period, and there's serious discrimination going on against men."

• Donna Lopiano, Women's Sports Foundation: "To suggest that men are losing out because of Title IX is almost laughable. The wrestling coaches are being chicken and pointing the blame in the wrong direction."
• Rick Hartzell, Univ. of Northern Iowa AD, after dropping men's and women's swimming and tennis: "I hated the decision. I agonized. I puked. It still bothers me. ... But when the checkbook is overdrawn, you've got to make a decision. We made one."

But it was whistle-blower Roderick Jackson whose words made the most impact at the Supreme Court on Tuesday: "To turn my back on discrimination I observed would be to participate in it."

More later (the court will rule on the case by mid summer) . . .
 
The case is Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, case no. 02-1672.
 
(This 656 word excerpt—with attendant commentary—was distilled from a 1159 word article from the Chronicle of Higher Education of 12-1-04, plus a 2111 word article in USA Today of 11-5-04, a 528 word article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer of 11-8-04 and an article from the Chronicle of Higher Education of 6-21-02.)