Dear Mr. Knight,
Because Doug Schneebeck is out of the office this week, I write on behalf of Equity in Athletics, Inc., (EIA) to seek clarification of Susan Wheeler’s reply yesterday to Mr. Schneebeck’s letter dated March 23, 2007.

His letter indicates that that EIA would see little option to naming James Madison University (JMU) as a defendant if JMU’s Board of Visitors failed to postpone the planned cuts of ten athletic teams at the regularly scheduled Board meeting on March 30, 2007. His letter also contemplates further discussions in the days after March 30, 2007, if the Board did not act favorably on March 30. An EIA representative attended the Board meeting on March 30, and the Board did not publicly address, much less conclusively reject, EIA’s overtures.

Ms. Wheeler’s letter indicates that the Board met on March 30, 2007, without taking action and refers us to your office as JMU’s counsel. Other counsel have advised me that JMU’s Board could schedule an emergency meeting in a matter of days (three, I believe). As such, the face of Ms. Wheeler’s letter is not a conclusive rejection of EIA’s overtures to JMU. Although (as she points out) the Board did not act on March 30, the Board has ample authority to act within the days, not weeks, contemplated by Mr. Schneebeck’s letter.

Before we received Ms. Wheeler’s letter yesterday, EIA issued the press release below. EIA certainly intends to sue JMU and to seek preliminarily to enjoin JMU’s planned cuts if JMU rejects EIA’s overtures. That said, EIA does not have (and never had) any intention of suing JMU without first exhausting its opportunities to reach an accord with JMU. All that Ms. Wheeler has done conclusively is ask that we follow up with your office instead of hers.

Notwithstanding that Ms. Wheeler’s letter does not conclusively reject EIA’s overtures, I infer from my separate telephone conferences with you and Ms. Wheeler yesterday that JMU indeed has rejected them. If that is the case, please do us the courtesy of confirming it. If that is not the case, please so advise us as soon as possible so that we can continue the conversation that EIA began with Ms. Wheeler within the timeframe contemplated by Mr. Schneebeck’s letter.

One final note: although Mr. Schneebeck’s letter put JMU on very clear notice that the proportionality regime never lawfully took effect, Ms. Wheeler’s letter implies that EIA’s litigation seeks to “alter” the applicable standards. As much as JMU may want to argue that EIA seeks to move the goalposts, the information that EIA has provided to JMU forecloses that argument. Notwithstanding that the federal defendants unquestionably misled JMU into its current situation, JMU now has the information necessary to correct its misplaced reliance on the proportionality regime. While we leave open the door for JMU to change course without litigation, please know that EIA considers JMU’s planned cuts, and the process that produced them, to constitute present violations of the Equal Protection Clause, Title IX, and the Title IX regulations. Because I am not admitted to practice law in Virginia, I express no opinion about any related state-law claims.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions about this matter, and we would greatly appreciate your clarifying Ms. Wheeler’s letter in the manner described above.

Best regards,
Larry Joseph

 Law Office of Lawrence J. Joseph
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202-669-5135
Fax: 202-318-2254
Email: ljoseph@larryjoseph.com