Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: TerpsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Maryland doesn't anticipate changes after court ruling on cheerleading

The University of Maryland does not anticipate having to make any immediate changes to the composition of its athletic program after a federal judge in Connecticut ruled on Wednesday that competitive cheerleading does not count as an official sport that can be used to fulfill gender-equity requirements.

Maryland, which added competitive cheerleading as a varsity sport in 2003, said in a statement that it was aware of the judge’s decision and that it has not yet completed its internal study of the ruling, “but since this district court is not within the Fourth Circuit, the ruling is not binding on the University of Maryland at this time.”

Prior to Wednesday’s decision, Maryland was one of four schools in the country that included competitive cheerleading as a Division I varsity sport and was one of seven schools nationally that use competitive cheerleading as a means to satisfy federal law — commonly referred to as Title IX — that prohibits gender discrimination at educational institutions, according to Sheila Noone, a spokeswoman for the National Cheerleaders Association.

Five female Quinnipiac University volleyball players and their coach filed a lawsuit against the school in 2009 after the university announced plans to cut three sports, including women’s volleyball. Subsequently, the school announced it would create a varsity cheerleading squad beginning in the 2009-10 season.

U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill said Wednesday that Quinnipiac University violated Title IX by failing to provide equal athletic opportunities to its female student-athletes. Underhill gave Quinnipiac 60 days to formulate a plan to correct the situation, and a school spokesman said Thursday the university will add women’s rugby at the start of the 2011-12 season.

Underhill also ruled that the school must keep women’s volleyball at least through the 2010-11 season in order to comply with Title IX.

Noone said Thursday that Underhill’s ruling applied only to Quinnipiac and that the other six schools that use competitive cheerleading to fulfill Title IX requirements would not be forced to comply with the ruling in a similar fashion.

Kristen Galles, an Alexandria-based attorney who represented the Quinnipiac volleyball players along with the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut and the law firm of Pullman & Comley, said that while Underhill’s opinion is “influential to everyone else, it’s only binding for those within his district.”

By Steve Yanda  |  July 22, 2010; 5:54 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Former Terps DL Dean Muhtadi working hard to make NFL roster
Next: Caleb Porzel departs Maryland football program


I'd say yes with an asterisk to Maryland competitive cheer. There's no immediate impact on the University of Maryland but nature (and federal courts) abhor incongruities. The Maryland program or one of the others will be challenged using the Quinnipiac decision as a precedent. Eventually, a single federal standard will have to be determined, one way or the other.

Posted by: evwill | July 22, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

We have Yow to thank for making cheerleading a sport. It's idiotic. Perhaps at some ridiculous level it could be considered a "performance art." The ruling in Connecticut will catch up with Maryland soon enough. There a probably more than a few real athletes in women's sports who missed out on a scholarship that will be willing to sue.

Posted by: petecard | July 23, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

There's no guarantee that the judge's order will be upheld on appeal or that SCOTUS would accept an appeal of the case.

Furthermore should somebody file suit in the 4th Circuit (where the People's Republic of Maryland is located, the case was decided in the 2nd Circuit) the judge would be free to ignore the Quinnipiac ruling and issue an entirely different ruling on their own.

That of course would trigger a SCOTUS review to reconcile the two cases but in order for that to happen, somebody with standing would have to bring a case against Maryland and that is easier said than done.

Posted by: CapsNut | July 23, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company