Loyola Marymount’s Decision to Cut Six Teams Disproportionately Targets Women
By Amanda Rives
I have worked with middle schoolers in the New York City Department of Education for 22 years. As part of our social-emotional learning curriculum, we spend time discussing intent versus impact. I reflect daily on my decisions as an educator, and when the outcome isn’t what I intended, I make changes to correct the problem and avoid negative or biased outcomes. I encourage my students to do the same. Writing today, I want to encourage the leadership of Loyola Marymount University to reevaluate its decision to cut six varsity teams (including swimming and diving and track and field) and disproportionately impact female coaches and athletes.
The school’s athletic director almost unilaterally terminated the six varsity teams in January. Perhaps his intent was not to target women unfairly, however, the statistics surrounding the decision show that the impact is unfairly distributed to female staff and student-athletes.
In simple numbers, five of the six programs that were cut were led by women. This decision unfairly singled out and affected the female coaches.
How is it that 83% of the cut programs were led by women when only 45% of the currently 20 programs at LMU are led by women?
Nine men’s programs at LMU had three female head coaches and six male coaches. Women made up 33% of head coaches of men’s teams at LMU. Women are underrepresented as coaches of men’s teams in the NCAA. LMU has far exceeded the NCAA overall percentage in this area, estimated at around eight-point-six percent, which LMU should hold up as part of its legacy in women’s history. Unfortunately, the LMU leadership’s decision reduced that number to 0%. Now, LMU’s men’s teams will be led 100% by men. Was the intent to cut female-run programs? If not, the impact was that LMU cut only men’s teams run by women. Now, there will be no female representation in the men’s programs at LMU at all.
If you look at the 115 student-athletes impacted by this decision, 81 were women, and 34 were men. This also disproportionately affects women. 70.4% of the cuts were to women student-athletes, and 29.6% were to men. Was the intent to discriminate against the women student-athletes? Nevertheless, Pintens cuts disproportionately impacted women. The direct impact of these cuts is that LMU intentionally reduces female athletic opportunities.
Regardless of whether LMU remains in Title IX compliance, the decision to terminate the teams at best places the mental abuse of this decision unfairly on the female student-athletes and coaches.
Since LMU claims that there are no budgetary concerns and seems willing to take a huge fundraising loss on the LMU Day of Giving, the only thing left to think about is that LMU wanted to reduce women’s spots and visibility in LMU sports programs. My daughter, a student-athlete at LMU, said that when she asked Pintens about this data, he did not offer any explanation.
When making decisions, these impacts should be evaluated. I think that realizing this is the IMPACT regardless of intent, LMU would backtrack and rectify the situation, but the LMU leadership, which is 100% male, has failed to comment on this disparity.
In selecting a college, we thought a Jesuit institution that prides itself on diversity and inclusion would make decisions that always consider the impact on the human person and recognize when decisions unfairly affect one demographic. However, we are shown that LMU does not value fairness and makes discriminatory decisions. LMU needs to make its impact align with its mission, which includes the promotion of justice. The student-athletes and student body at LMU deserve to see action that reflects this part of their mission.
Amanda Rives is a public school teacher in New York City and the parent of a Loyola Marymount University track and field athlete who supports Save LMU Sports’ goal of reinstating all six teams cut by the school.
Craig Pintens is a coward.
The rest of the current LMU administration is no better
LMU has failed every one of these student athletes on every level. A bad decision, delivered at a bad time, with no regard for these student athletes. A President who can’t face the students and an Athletic Director who has only cares about himself made this decision. No surprise…both men, forever negatively impacting those athletes and coaches, mostly women. My heart breaks for all of them, including my own.
I share your outrage .. do you feel same when biological males steal biological females places? if not, the stance is hypocritical
LMU is a Jesuit university in name and history only. They don’t behave or run the university on any of the Jesuit values my son learned at Jesuit High School, Carmichael,CA. My son attended LMU and despite swimming competively his whole life the university never had a men’s swimming team. LMU basically is interested in the almighty dollar. There are alternatives the university could take to continue funding these women’s sports programs including reducing Administration salaries and unnecessary staff positions. I will never give money to LMU as a parent of a LMU alum. My son was impacted financially by this university and its poor student counseling program. If you aren’t emotionally tied to LMU I would leave this university and swim your senior year at another university that supports women’s athletics. Maybe if the university lost a number of student-athletes tuition revenue they’d feel the impact of their short-sighted decision.