In a victory for women's collegiate athletics, Assumption College, a Catholic four-year liberal arts college in Worchester, Massachusetts, has reinstated both the men's and women's indoor and outdoor track and field teams. The college had planned to cut the teams, citing budget concerns, but received a letter from Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ) informing them that the cuts would create a violation of Title IX regulations.
According to a TLPJ, Assumption College used the third part of Title IX’s three-part test for compliance. This guideline requires that the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex be met by the current program; TLPJ pointed out that cutting a viable women’s team would indicate a refusal to meet the interests and abilities of the women students and would lead the organization to file suit on behalf of the women’s team. Assumption chose to reinstate all teams rather than face the lawsuit. Track and field participant Amie Nolan told TLPJ, “I’m thrilled that the teams have been reinstated… I am happy and relieved that the school has finally agreed to do the right thing.”
Sue Klein, Education Equity Director at the Feminist Majority Foundation, said that “in this case it was clear that Assumption College’s plan to eliminate two women’s teams would not have been justified by any of the three standards… It is sad that school athletes need to threaten lawsuits to stop their college from backtracking on even limited progress in meeting the standards outlined in the Three-Part Test.”
A recent attempt by the Bush Dept. of Education could weaken the enforcement of the three-part test of Title IX. The Department of Education could alter the criteria for the third part of the test, which is used to measure compliance at two-thirds of colleges and universities, including Assumption College. The new policy interpretation by the Bush Administration would allow interest to be determined through an email survey, rather than by multiple indicators such as interviews with students, coaches, and faculty, and could strongly misrepresent actual levels of women’s interest.
Two recent actions by the US Supreme Court have affirmed Title IX. In March, the court ruled that victims of retaliation for pointing out violations could sue under the 1972 Title IX statute. More recently, the court dismissed a case alleging that Title IX regulations resulted in discriminatory cuts to men’s teams. Since the passage of Title IX, women’s participation in college athletics has risen by 400 percent.
10/30/2014 Medication Abortion Access Threatened by Oklahoma Court Ruling - An Oklahoma state district court judge has refused to block a state law restricting medication abortion, clearing the way for the law to go into affect on November 1.
The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, together with a local abortion clinic in Tulsa, challenged HB 2684 in September, arguing that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on non-surgical abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. . . .
10/30/2014 UPS Switches Pregnant Worker Policy Ahead of Supreme Court Case - The United Parcel Service (UPS) is changing its policy on light duty assignments for pregnant workers, even though the company will stand by its refusal to extend accommodations to a former employee in an upcoming Supreme Court case.
UPS announced on Monday in a memo to employees, and in a brief filed with the US Supreme Court, that the company will begin offering temporary, light-duty positions to pregnant workers on January 1, 2015. . . .
10/30/2014 North Dakota Medical Students Speak Out Against Measure 1 - Medical students at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences are asking North Dakotans to vote no on Measure 1, a personhood measure on the state ballot this fall.
The students issued published a letter in the Grand Forks Herald stating that they opposed Measure 1 in part because they are against "the government's taking control of the personal health care decisions of its citizens." Nearly 60 UND School of Medicine students signed the letter, citing concerns over the "very broad and ambiguous language" used in the proposed amendment, which has no regard for serious and life-threatening medical situations such as ectopic pregnancies.
Measure 1 would change the North Dakota state constitution to create an "inalienable right to life" for humans "at any stage of development" - including the moment of fertilization and conception. . . .