Remediating Discrimination Against African American Females at the Intersection of Title IX and Title VI

In Part I, I present a brief treatment of intersectionality in anti-discrimination law focusing on the distinction between cause of action and remedy. Harm caused by gender or racial discrimination may give rise to causes of action based on equal protection principles. In Part II, I go further and argue that the primary intersectionality problem presented by Title IX is one of remedy. I conclude that the differences in the remedial effects of Title IX result, in part, from unremedied racial discrimination, a conclusion that begins with Professor Jerome Dees\u27s argument that Brown v. Board of Education and anti-discrimination laws based on the single-axis of race are more responsible for the gains of African American female athletes in intercollegiate athletics. Finally, in Part III, I offer a policy solution invoking both gender- and race-based anti-discrimination laws. Accordingly, I advocate for the promulgation of regulations or a policy statement pursuant to Title VI and Title IX to specifically address the unremedied racial discrimination against African American female athletes under Title IX and the unmitigated gender discrimination under Title VI

Grooming Crossovers

This article is about the influence of African-American athletes on sports and sports law in the United States. It begins with an examination of the crossover Black athlete, one who is able to transcend color in popular consciousness and appeal to appeal to a racially diverse audience. This article studies African-American athletes from the 1950s to the present, and explores two distinct crossover models: the Jackie Robinson Model and the Orenthal James (O.J.) Simpson Model. The article argues that the initial wave of African-American athletes were groomed to integrate predominantly White educational and sports institutions. The article further maintains that African-American had a profound impact on sports and the development of legal rules applicable to sports, particularly those relating to issues of free agency and academic eligibility

Did the Fifteenth Amendment Apply in Bush v. Gore

The story comes to mind now because the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Bush v. Gore1 without any reference to the Fifteenth Amendment in the opinion or any mention of it by any Justice or lawyer in the oral argument. The Amendment provides that The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude. If I had been a Justice I would have asked the lawyers whether the Fifteenth Amendment was at all relevant to the outcome of the case. That question occurred to me almost as soon as the details about the transgressions in Florida occurred. As legal positions of the campaigns appeared in the media, I walked the halls of my school and told everyone willing to listen, Why aren\u27t they asking about the Fifteenth Amendment? Justice Thurgood Marshall would have asked questions about it. So would W.E.B. DuBois, Frederick Douglas, Sojourner Truth, and Booker T. Washington

Decisional Integrity and the Business Judgment Rule

Shareholders associate together to own a business enterprise in corporate form. The nature of this association requires that an individual shareholder accept less than exclusive control over the enterprise and live with some form of collective decision making. In fact, corporate law divests shareholders of direct decision-making power and, instead, vests it in a board of directors elected by shareholders. Despite this divestiture, shareholders voluntarily step into these associations in the hope of obtaining a share in the enterprise\u27s profits

Intercollegiate Athletics and the Assignment of Legal Rights

This Article arose out of my curiosity about the precise assignment of legal rights6 among colleges and students in the production, sale, and delivery of intercollegiate athletics. What rights might student athletes possess that give rise to legal accountability? Although a system that permits universities, coaches, concessionaires, television networks, and advertisers to reap the wealth sown by student athletes while precluding the latter from contemporaneous enjoyment of pecuniary profit seems patently unfair, my review of the cases uncovered a legal order that does not assign legal rights to student athletes consistent with my view

The Bowl Championship Series, Conference Realignment and the Major College Football Oligopoly: Revolution Not Reform

The legality of the Bowl Championship Series under the federal antitrust laws has been the subject of much scholarly commentary and Congressional inquiry. The results have been mixed but the majority view seems to be that the BCS passes muster under the Sherman Act. Most of the commentary has examined the application of Section 1 with only passing attention to Section 2. This article makes three points. First, it argues that the focus on the BCS has obscured the attention to a broader set of economic issues relating to the structure of the major college football industry. The Bowl Championship Series and its relationship to the Football Bowl Subdivision of the NCAA has obscured focus on the development of major college football as an oligopoly in which the firms are athletic conferences. The industry is dominated by the BCS automatic qualifying conferences which have engaged in conference expansion and realignments to strengthen their dominance over the industry. Second, the article acknowledges that the regulation of oligopolies has been problematic under the antitrust laws but explores whether the major college football oligopoly may present an appropriate case for regulation as a cartel under section 1 or perhaps as a shared monopoly under section 2. In exploring the application of the Sherman Act to the major football conference oligopoly, this article draws upon themes and analyses in European Community competition law. Unlike the traditional oligopoly, the industry conference members not only engage in parallel conduct but are linked by explicit agreements such as the BCS and NCAA Bylaws on conference structure and amateurism rules. Finally, assuming a strong case can be made for the application of the Sherman Act to the oligopoly, this article discusses whether traditional antitrust remedies are feasible. Accordingly, this article reluctantly considers the propriety of granting the NCAA a limited exemption from the antitrust laws to permit it to regulate the economic structure of intercollegiate athletics while concomitantly subjecting it to oversight by the Department of Education. This article thus calls for revolution not reform

Emphasizing Torts in Claims of Discrimination Against Black Female Athletes

In Black Women, Gender Equity and the Function at the Junction, I argued that an equality-based legal regime does not provide an adequate remedy for African-American female athletes. Instead I suggested that a tort-based regime may be more appropriate. I did so knowing that gender and racial discrimination are torts and I did not intend to suggest otherwise. They are statutory torts founded upon equality principles. What I intended was to draw more upon the general tort principles involved in an antidiscrimination action. I specifically invoked the notion of using mass tort theories. I wish to sketch a brief but more detailed framework for this proposition in this article. In particular, I want to consider potential challenges brought by African-American females at the collegiate and K- 12 levels, which will be based upon Titles V12 and IX. Regardless of which analysis is used, a remedy for racial discrimination or gender discrimination will not adequately compensate black women for the discrimination they uniquely suffer. That is because the antidiscrimination laws are equality-based which try to provide the same remedy to those affected by the same discriminatory force. It would be inappropriate to award a black woman a greater remedy than a black male or white female denied the same job for wrongful reasons. In many instances, the standard antidiscriminatory approach leaves black women no remedy at all