Mike DiMauro: UConn hierarchy should answer for its neglect of female athletes

Jul. 10—News item: In a state that purports to be the home office for women's sports, a U.S. District judge has ruled that UConn, likely with the only Division I athletic program in the country whose most recognizable current athlete (Paige Bueckers) is female, has been noncompliant with Title IX since 2012.

In a state where a female may capitalize on the NCAA's new name/image/likeness policy far greater than any male athlete, the flagship state university has failed to comply with the federal law instrumental in giving women equal opportunity for the last 50 years.

Staggering.

And it took one of the university's least recognizable programs — women's rowing — to unearth this most glaring effrontery.

Twelve members of the rowing team filed a recent Title IX lawsuit against the university, following UConn's budget-related decision to cut the program in June 2020. UConn announced late last week that it would preserve the program through July 2023 and "conduct a more detailed assessment of the costs associated with possible program upgrades and work to secure the potential long-term reinstatement of the rowing program," per a release.

Translation: We know we'll get clobbered in court, so let's save face as best we can.

Judge Stefan R. Underhill wrote in his ruling that "there is a substantial likelihood of success on their Title IX claim" ... UConn is not providing "genuine athletic participation opportunities" to female athletes and that UConn has not been compliant with Title IX since 2012.

UConn's statement also featured this gem: "UConn takes pride in being a destination school for female athletes and as we continually review our responsibilities under Title IX, we will work to support the rowing team in its upcoming seasons."

Continually review its responsibilities under Title IX?

Holy Obtuseness, Batman. "Continually review our responsibilities?" The law is 50 years old. Shouldn't such responsibilities be pro forma by now? And if not, why not?

The evidence suggests UConn hasn't given a continental damn about its Title IX responsibilities in a decade. Mad props and bon mots to the rowing program for caring enough to fix this.

And a black eye today for all of us in the state media who have allowed a decade of neglect to happen. Coverage of UConn sports has morphed into a most dangerous game, the result of reduced staff sizes across all state outlets and those who remain partaking in what ABC News anchor Dan Harris likes to call "propagandist puffery."

Seriously: How did we let this happen?

In his last column for the Miami Herald, the great Carl Hiaasen wrote this: "corruption is now a breeze, since newspapers and other media can no longer afford enough reporters. ... You wake up one day, and they're bulldozing 20 acres of pines at the end of your block to put up a Costco. Your kids ask what's going on, and you can't tell them because you don't have a clue. ... Stories don't get reported until it's too late, after the deal's gone down. Most local papers are gasping for life, and if they die it will be their readers who lose the most."

It shouldn't be hard to connect the dots between Hiaasen's metaphorical Costco and UConn's Title IX neglect. All of us need to do better. If this rowing allegory proves nothing else, it illustrates how untrustworthy the UConn hierarchy has become.

Lest we forget that as UConn decided to cut women's rowing, university spokesperson Stephanie Reitz said, "The university engaged in a comprehensive review of its athletic program in determining how many and which teams would be eliminated. UConn used its best efforts to eliminate as few teams as possible in the review, which included a careful analysis of Title IX compliance. While the university certainly understands and appreciates the disappointment of those who supported the women's rowing team, we are confident that our actions in regard to that team and the other three eliminated teams were consistent with the university's obligations under Title IX."

The university's "obligations" under Title IX have included a Sgt. Schultz act, all while using the women's basketball program's good name to serve as a cosmic deodorant, covering up the remaining neglect.

My guess is that UConn will resort to a persecution complex, given that Title IX advocates routinely suggest most college athletic programs are in violation of the law, too. Other UConn loyalists will yawn, dismiss rowing as irrelevant, Title IX as arcane and obsess about whether Andre Jackson has added a jump shot.

Ah, the inconvenience of complexity.

Meanwhile, the athletic hierarchy has some work to do. And some explaining to do. But at this point, who'd believe a word of it, anyway?

This is the opinion of Day sports columnist Mike DiMauro