Cheerleading not a sport, according to US judge

Cheerleading not a sport? Several volleyball players and their coach successfully sued the university in 2009 after it announced it would eliminate volleyball for budgetary reasons and replace it with a competitive cheer squad.

Jay Bailey/Chattanooga Times Free Press/AP
Rah! Spirit competes in the National Cheerleading Competition sponsored by Athletic Championships at the Chattanooga Convention Center in Chattanooga, Tenn., Jan. 19, 2013.

A U.S. District Court judge in Connecticut has again ruled that competitivecheerleading, despite some upgrades, is not a sport, and says Quinnipiac University must remain under an injunction that requires the school to keep its women's volleyball team.

Several volleyball players and their coach successfully sued the university in 2009 after it announced it would eliminate volleyball for budgetary reasons and replace it with a competitive cheer squad.

U.S. District Court Judge Stefan R. Underhill ruled in their favor, saying that competitive cheerleading had not developed enough to be considered a college sport for Title IX purposes, and he ordered the school to keep the volleyball team and come up with a compliance plan.

In his latest ruling Monday, Underhill said that the additions of the cheer team, now called "acrobatics and tumbling," and a women's rugby team do not give the university's female students competitive opportunities equal to those offered to male students and he denied the school's request to lift his previous injunction.

Quinnipiac spokeswoman Lynn Bushnell issued a statement Tuesday saying the school is disappointed with the ruling, but "remains committed to its long standing plans to continue expanding opportunities in women's athletics."

Title IX, in 1972, opened doors for girls and women by banning sex discrimination in all federally funded school programs, including sports.

While the judge noted Monday that acrobatics and tumbling have made improvements, including more cohesive rules of competition and a better championship format, he said two organizations compete to oversee the activity and it is not recognized by the NCAA as a sport or even an emerging sport.

"And without that recognition, acro lacks what every other varsity men's team sponsored by Quinnipiac enjoys: the chance to participate in an NCAA-sponsored championship," the judge wrote.

Underhill found that the rugby team lacked quality competition because only four other schools offer women's rugby as a varsity sport, which meant the school's team spent most of its inaugural season playing club teams.

Attorney Jon Orleans, who argued the case for the volleyball players along with the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, said it was significant that the judge went beyond just counting male and female athletes at the school.

"The court went on to analyze the quality of competition offered to men's teams and women's teams, and found that women at Quinnipiac were not, on the whole, provided with competitive opportunities equivalent to those provided to men," he said. "This is one of very few, if not the only, court decisions to address this particular aspect of Title IX's requirements."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.