In a court filing posted Oct. 27, Swarthmore College asked for an ongoing civil action against the institution to be dismissed. The action, brought by recent alumna Evelyn “Evie” Parts ’25 in August, seeks damages on the basis that Swarthmore’s policy preventing transgender athletes from participating in some sporting events violates Title IX.
Title IX, which bans “sex-based discrimination” in educational programs that receive federal funding, was interpreted by the Obama and Biden administrations as offering protections to transgender students. Earlier this year, a few weeks after President Trump issued an executive order attempting to ban transgender women from women’s sports, the NCAA changed its guidelines. As a member school, Swarthmore adopted its new athletic policy in alignment with the NCAA, allowing them to continue to participate in NCAA athletics without penalty.
Swarthmore’s filing argues that the college can not be held liable because it had no way of knowing whether its policy violated Title IX. This element of Swarthmore’s case is predicated on the legal uncertainty created by conflicting court rulings and federal guidelines regarding what Title IX mandates in relation to gender identity, suggesting the college was merely trying its best to follow the most recent rulings.
However, the lawyers representing Swarthmore and its staff members don’t merely rely on this uncertainty argument in the filing; they also advocate for their own reading of Title IX.
Swarthmore and its codefendants write that “Title IX speaks only to ‘sex,’ not to ‘gender identity,’” and that it is not clear if it “would preclude an institution from segregating sports activities based on biological sex.”
The filing also asks for the case to be stayed until the Supreme Court rules on West Virginia v. B.P.J., a pending case specifically related to Title IX protections for transgender college athletes. If the court were to rule that bans on transgender athletes do not violate Title IX, a conceivable result given its conservative majority, it would more than likely shield the college from liability in this case.
Named both as codefendants in Parts’s complaint and in support of the recent motion to dismiss are Head Men’s & Women’s Cross Country/Track & Field Coach Peter Carroll, Associate Director of Athletics Valerie Gómez, Marian Ware Director of Athletics Brad Koch, and Assistant Athletic Director for Compliance and Diversity and Inclusion Christina Epps-Chiazor.
In email correspondence with The Phoenix, Vice President for Communications and Marketing Andy Hirsch reiterated the college’s argument that inconsistent federal guidance, which he alleges has provided no clear decision on whether the NCAA’s Participation Policy violates Title IX, is why the college cannot be held liable. “There continues to be differing interpretations about, among other things, whether the term ‘sex’ under Title IX applies to gender identity.”
Hirsch expects that the Supreme Court will decide the issue next year. He did not state how the college would respond to any potential policy change in the future.
The case brought against Swarthmore by Parts alleges that the college and its staff violated Title IX by preventing the plaintiff, a transgender student athlete, from participating as an attached athlete in college athletics competitions.
While she could theoretically participate as an individual athlete without a Swarthmore jersey, she was responsible for her own transportation to and from the game, paying her own entrance fee, and could not receive coaching or medical care from Swarthmore athletics staff. The complaint also alleges that Swarthmore College deferred to NCAA guidelines and disregarded federal and state law in creating its transgender exclusion policy.
Hirsch indicated that his statement to The Phoenix represented the “collective response” of the school, including the staff members named in the complaint.
Parts’s case also seeks damages for the claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. In making these allegations, it provides an extensive timeline of Parts’s exclusion from the team. During this time, her mental health worsened considerably, and she was sometimes suicidal.
According to the complaint, Evie had to wear arm sleeves to hide the razor marks on her arms during a race because she did not want her teammates or parents to see them. “After the race, Evie discovered her right inside ankle was bleeding, but did not request any medical care because of the discriminatory restrictions that Swarthmore implemented because she is a transgender woman.”
Parts’s attorney has not provided comment at this time.
Hirsch reiterated that Swarthmore values its transgender community. “We recognize that this is an especially difficult and painful time for members of the transgender community, including student-athletes. In this case, we worked to support this alumna in a time of rapidly evolving guidance, while balancing the ability of other members of the women’s track team to compete in NCAA events.”
