quote:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,

So, does an assistant football coach at a public university beating his wife at home qualify as an "education program or activity"?

Under a common sense analysis, of course it doesn't. An interpretation of Title IX that includes private activities at home by university employees involving an individual who is neither a university employee nor student would be the strained textual reading of the century.

But don't take my word for it. There is actual precedent on this. Mike Macyntire out of Colorado was sued under the auspices of Title IX by the wife of one of his assistant coaches on the grounds that Macyntire had knowledge of the abuse, was required to report it under Title IX, and didn't. A federal judge flatly concluded that Macyntire had no duty under Title IX to report this to anybody:

quote:
"Tumpkin's actions took place outside the scope of his position with the university ... The tortious contact which [Fine] alleges Tumpkin inflicted upon her in no way depended on his position as a coach with the university in order to be carried out. Absent a special relationship between them and [Fine], therefore, [the defendants] are not liable for a failure to act in response to [Fine's] complaints ... The law does not always require that people with knowledge of bad acts take action."

This is the EXACT same situation as the one currently involving Meyer. Now, this ruling is not binding precedent on a federal judge in Ohio, but it would be considered very persuasive authority, and I can't imagine a federal judge arriving at a different conclusion.

"But but but," you might be saying, "what about the contractual provision that was added to Meyer's most recent contract extension. Doesn't that put him on the hook?"

No, dumbases, he signed that contract in 2018. Which means that the contract he had in place in 2015 DID NOT have that provision. And so he was under no contractual obligation to report anything to the university about whatever happened in 2015. And, no, it can't be applied retroactively. That's goddamn absurd.

Moreover, the language of the added provision, while not being worded with great precision, arguably is arguably coextensive in scope with what is required under Title IX itself.

quote:
Failure by Coach to promptly report to Ohio State’s Deputy Title IX Coordinator — Athletics or Ohio State’s Title IX Coordinator any known violations of Ohio State’s Sexual Misconduct Policy (including, but not limited to, sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual exploitation, intimate violence and stalking) that involve any student, faculty, or staff or that is in connection with a university sponsored activity or event. For purposes of this section ... a “known violation” shall mean a violation or an allegation of a violation of Title IX that Coach is aware of or has reasonable cause to believe is taking place or may have taken place.

And if my interpretation of that is correct -- and I'm pretty confident that it is -- then the added provision in his 2018 extension adds no additional duties that aren't required by Title IX -- and thus fails to apply to Meyer in this situation for the exact reasons articulated above by the CO federal judge.