Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
PublicationGhost Athletes: A Subversion of Gender Equity and Violation of Title IX(2019-06-26) Unwalla, SimoneTitle IX of the Education Amendments to the 1964 Civil Rights Act established a three-prong test to determine whether or not educational institutions are providing female and male students with equal opportunities for athletic participation. Under the proportionality prong of the test, schools must demonstrate that their overall percentages of female and male athletes are substantially proportionate to their respective enrollment percentages. However, to circumvent the financial costs needed to increase female participation, many schools use roster manipulation to artificially inflate their proportionality numbers. This thesis investigates the practice of using ‘ghost athletes’ on women’s team rosters to artificially achieve Title IX compliant gender proportionality statistics. It analyzes the practice against scholarly research, legal arguments, and relevant Title IX court precedent to argue that it violates Title IX. Relying on expert literature, an autoethnography of my own experience with ‘ghost athletes’ on the University of Pennsylvania varsity women’s fencing team during the 2017-2018 season, and Title IX jurisprudence, this thesis demonstrates that ‘ghost athletes’ do not constitute genuine athletic participation opportunities and cause significant (and legally-relevant) harm to female athletes. The research presented supports the finding that using ‘ghost athletes’ to inflate female participation numbers subverts the intentions of equality underlining Title IX and violates the federal statute. PublicationDeath is Different. Death Sentencing is Not.(2019-05-15) Unwalla, SimoneThis paper investigates the conditional demands of Death-Is-Different jurisprudence in the United States criminal justice system and argues that the dissonance between the need for heightened protections in capital sentencing and the reality of our capital-sentencing institutions ultimately renders the death penalty, as it currently exists in our society, impermissible. This claim is substantiated in three parts: first, through an analysis of foundational death penalty decisions from the Supreme Course, which condemn the arbitrary nature of capital juries while simultaneously justifying their constitutional necessity as sentencing agents; second, through an examination of the development of Death-Is-Different jurisprudence and its conceptual implications for the application of the death penalty; and finally, through an identification of the faults that render capital juries unable to meet the protective standard that America's Death-Is-Different principle requires.