Internet culture has a phrase for the moment when the consequences of a bad decision start becoming impossible to ignore: “the saxophones are getting louder.”
At UC Davis, the saxophones must be deafening.
On Jan. 9, UC Davis announced it would eliminate its NCAA Division I women’s equestrian team effective July 1, 2026, while elevating STUNT to varsity status. The university cited a third-party report that stated it had reviewed finances, athletic strategy and gender-equity considerations. Coaches and athletes were blindsided and told “not to fight this.”
This wasn’t a struggling program. The team would go on to win its third conference championship and earn its second UC Davis Women’s Team of the Year award. It consistently ranked among the nation’s best, produced graduates who entered veterinary, agricultural and equine professions, and represented one of the few varsity programs directly tied to UC Davis’ agricultural identity.
And there’s no meaningful alternative for the student-athletes.
University officials have repeatedly suggested riders can return to club competition. That sounds reasonable until you understand the realities of collegiate equestrian. Most club programs lack the horses, facilities and roster space needed to absorb more than 30 displaced Division I athletes. The UC Davis club teams no longer practice on campus because of costs and now operate off-site. Additionally, IHSA and NCEA serve fundamentally different purposes. NCEA is the highest level of collegiate equestrian competition and recruits elite riders, while IHSA is structured around broader participation and introducing riders to the sport.
For many athletes, the loss of varsity equestrian doesn’t mean riding at a “lower level”. It means the end of collegiate riding altogether.
Six months later, questions surrounding the decision remain unanswered.
After weeks of public pressure and questions, UC Davis released the consultant report it claimed informed the decision. Instead of settling the controversy, the report ignited it. Team supporters immediately identified factual errors, questionable assumptions and financial calculations they argued were difficult to reconcile with publicly available information.
Public Records Act requests suggest the decision may have been made as early as April 2025, yet recruiting and fundraising continued. Athletes committed. Families made plans. Donors gave money.
As concerns mounted, UC Davis announced on April 3 that it would conduct its own audit of the financial data used to justify the decision. The university gave itself until June 30 to complete its review. Now it is July, the team has officially lost its Division I status, and the public is still waiting for an audit and answers.
Supporters, however, commissioned their own independent review, which concluded the university may have overstated equestrian costs by more than $850,000 annually and questioned accounting assumptions involving donated horses, internal boarding fees, tuition revenue and fundraising income.
And that is why the saxophones are getting louder.
Universities typically release information that supports their decisions. They do not usually sit on it. If administrators remain confident in their numbers, and if the independent review is incorrect, like UC Davis spokesperson, James Nash, has claimed, where is the evidence showing why?
Their silence creates a story of its own.
The university’s own student newspaper editorial board publicly called for greater transparency from campus leadership. The response did not give additional clarity or answers, it was a letter from a university communications officialdefending the administration’s position.
As a communications professional myself, that’s what we call crisis communications.
UC Davis appears to be relying on a familiar strategy: wait, redirect attention and hope the questions fade. If enough time passes, enough headlines disappear and attention shifts to the university’s (expensive) move to the Mountain West Conference, perhaps the controversy goes away.
But those who helped build and support the team won’t fade into the background because we have poured literal blood, sweat and tears into making a successful program.
That’s why this is personal to me.
I didn’t come from wealth or the elite horse-show world. I grew up in a lower-middle-class family in Washington state and competed through 4-H on borrowed horses.
At age 18, I moved to California for UC Davis — my dream school because, as a former FFA and 4-H kid, it was the nation’s premier agricultural university and home to the country’s leading veterinary program.
I joined the Western Club Equestrian Team and worked at the Equestrian Center in exchange for housing, helping maintain a facility the university proudly promoted as part of its agricultural mission.
But in 2018, I nearly left. My grades and mental health were struggling, and it felt like the state and school were rejecting me.
So, I made a deal with myself: I had just tried out for UCD’s new DI equestrian team — a program I had helped advocate to bring to campus. If I made the roster, I’d stay. If I didn’t, I’d take it as a sign to leave.
A phone call offering me a roster spot changed my life. I stayed, changed my path and graduated. I built relationships, a career and a future.
None of it would have happened without the opportunities created by the team and UC Davis Athletics.
When UC Davis elevated equestrian to Division I status in 2018, it promised to invest in women’s opportunities. Today, a championship program is gone, the opportunities it created are disappearing, and the transparency the university promised remains nowhere to be found.
Until the UC Davis administration faces the music, releases its audit and answers the thousands of calls and emails it has ignored, the missed deadline and unanswered questions will continue to erode public trust.
UC Davis must acknowledge its mistake and reinstate the team. Until then, their silence will speak louder than any press release they hide behind.
And the saxophones will keep getting louder.
Olivia Russell-Burke is a UC Davis alumna and former member of the UC Davis’s inaugural NCAA Division I equestrian team. She now works for a public affairs and communications firm in Sacramento.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
I suspect that there aren’t enough people (even on campus) who care about a women-only competitive equestrian team, formed less than 10 years ago. Especially not if it’s costing “everyone else” money to support it (e.g., the university, taxpayers, and/or other students).
My guess is that the number of “saxophone players” isn’t increasing as a result of this forced controversy.
Also wondering why this has to be a “women’s only” team, since the horse is the one doing most of the work. Really? A woman on a horse can’t beat a man on a horse?
And if it’s to be a women’s only team, what about trans women?
First, the reason the team is women’s-only isn’t because women can’t compete against men. Title IX requires that schools provide equal opportunity regardless of sex, including in athletics. Football is effectively a men’s-only sport at the NCAA level, with well over 100 male athletes at Davis. To provide equal athletic opportunities, universities must also sponsor women’s sports. That’s why sports like equestrian, lacrosse, and beach volleyball often exist as women’s varsity sports. Nobody asks why football is men’s-only, yet the same principle applies in reverse.
Second, the financial argument doesn’t really hold up. At UC Davis, football operates at a significant annual deficit—roughly $7 million in expenses against about $2 million in revenue, requiring millions in university support each year. By comparison, equestrian has relatively modest operating costs, since the horses are donated rather than purchased by the university, and the program attracts students who pay full out-of-state tuition. When you look at the overall financial picture, equestrian has been a net positive for the university, not a burden on taxpayers or other students.
Whether someone personally enjoys equestrian or not is beside the point. The question is whether the university should provide equitable athletic opportunities and whether it makes financial sense. In this case, the evidence supports keeping the program.
Title IX can be addressed in more than one way, and I suspect that the trans issue is making this more complicated. Volleyball doesn’t seem to need much (at least, not a horse of course).
Also, I don’t see how allowing men on the women’s-only equestrian team “violates” Title IX, unless perhaps it somehow “displaces” women. In fact, if men “aren’t” allowed on the team, that’s a textbook example of discrimination.
Assuming you’re correct regarding football at UC Davis (e.g. financially), that is not an argument “for” female-only equestrian teams. But of course (a horse is a horse?), and those type of claims aren’t likely to be accurately determined on a blog.
If you’re correct that the women’s only equestrian team is financially net-positive, there’d be no other reason that I’m aware of for the university’s actions.
But I’m pretty sure that this is a “niche” activity, and that the elimination of it doesn’t impact the vast majority of students. (From the article, it sounds like it would continue anyway, at a lower level.)
Not a defense of football, but that attracts a far larger audience. A much more high-profile sport, including its own stadium for spectators.
At the very least, I’d suggest that if the team continues in some manner, that they stop banning men. (It’s not a good look, and appears to be more of a sorority or club, than a sport. Not even sure if it’s legal to ban men on such teams.)
Ron, in one respect you are correct, the elimination of the D1 Equestrian team does not affect many on campus (myself included). On the other hand, you are incredibly incorrect. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Although this is still about doing right by the equestrian team, it has become so much more. All students, staff, and faculty should expect, and demand, that the University at the very least follows the law. And we should honestly expect better than that. As a side note, please educate yourself about Title IX.
Title IX is not just for women. From AI, though I could post other sources:
“Title IX is a landmark federal civil rights law enacted as part of the Education Amendments of 1972. It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or education program that receives federal funding. This includes academic admissions, financial aid, athletics, and protection from sexual harassment or assault.”
Also, I have trouble accepting that elimination of the equestrian team (not even an elimination, but a return to “club competition” according to the article) is a violation of Title IX. (However, not allowing men on the team sounds like it violates the spirit of Title IX. This does not appear to be a sport like football, where both sexes generally cannot compete at the same level.)
I’d sill like to know if trans women are welcome on the team. (Since this is at UCD, I suspect they are allowed.)
I trust UCD to know more about Title IX than any article writer (or commenter) on here. And if they’re willing to eliminate this particular team, then I suspect they’ve already determined that they’re not violating Title IX.
Nothing to do with “threats to justice”, either.
What we have here sounds more like “entitlement” than anything else. A bunch of mostly white, female-only members of a semi-private club. Can’t help but think of Animal House (the fraternities and sororities that were doing battle with Belushi and company.) Just based on appearance.
I’m not opposed to the club (and don’t care either way). I just don’t like fake arguments. (And this isn’t the first time this particular issue has come up on here.)
You seem to be unable to see the hypocrisy of your own statements, so let’s be clear what legally has been set up as the framework for assessing whether the athletics program is providing equal opportunity. You’re welcome to google “title ix three prong test” to verify this. The Department of Education’s legal framework says that schools have to provide (1) equal participation opportunity, i.e. athletic positions proportionate to student enrollment, (2) equal financial aid, and (3) equal treatment and benefits. We’re working on number one. The school has a football team offering 100+ athletic positions to men. You seem to be ok with that. What the school has to do to comply with title ix is to match those positions (and more since the enrollment is 60% female) with female athletic positions. Somehow you’re not ok with that? Sounds like male entitlement rearing its head.
nnlee: Neither you nor the other commenter seem to have a clue regarding what Title IX is about. It covers all aspects of education, not just athletics (and not just women).
I would agree, however, that UCD (and all other universities) may have a potential problem with Title IX in regard to the fact that females outnumber males (by a significant percentage) at UCD and other universities.
Maybe you should take up both of these concerns with the Dept. of Education, or via the court system.
If anything, I suspect that universities might experience legal challenges from men regarding Title IX, since men are almost always a minority on campuses. Title IX covers more than sports.
James – are you sure that it’s “me” who needs to “educate themselves” regarding Title IX? Maybe so, but your comment suggests otherwise.
Fortunately, we all have access to the Internet (and can use it before admonishing someone else), if only commenters would get off their high “horse” first.
UC Davis already struggles to meet the proportionality requirements of title IX. So it’s not necessarily that men couldn’t be on the equestrian team, but that it would move UC Davis further away from having 60% of its student athletes be women.
I’d also be curious to know if any men have expressed interest in competing on the team.
Everything I have read indicates that these women on the eliminated team are far from entitled (as are most student athletes I have encountered at Davis). They are good students, hard workers, and people of upstanding character. They have chosen to participate in a time consuming sport in addition to being full time students. They deserve our support.
To be clear: the injustice is that the team has been eliminated using inaccurate and/or fraudulent data. The process has been anything but transparent. The university still has not released the internal audit that they promised by the end of June. It is unjust to eliminate this team for budgetary reasons when those supposed reasons don’t hold water.
Stop asking about Trans People. That’s not at all the issue here. Stop trying to make it one. You sound like Beth Bourne.
James: Neither you nor the other commenter seem to have a clue regarding what Title IX is about, despite admonishing ME regarding that.
Title IX covers all aspects of education, not just athletics (and not just women). I would agree, however, that UCD (and all other universities) may have a potential problem with Title IX in regard to the fact that females outnumber males (by a significant percentage) at UCD and other universities.
Maybe you should take up both of these concerns with the Dept. of Education, or via the court system. Sounds like quite a tragedy that an equestrian team might not exist, compared to a particular sex under-represented at the ENTIRE university.
As far as the trans issue is concerned, does it really need to be explained to you that this falls into an apparent grey area, in regard to Title IX? The most-recent Supreme Court appointee declined to even define what a woman is – the very thing she may be asked to define (legally) at some point.
As far as men expressing interest in being on the equestrian team, do you think the others on that team (and those making decisions) would be welcoming of that interest? Or do you think they’d be told something other than a welcoming comment?
I’m well aware that Title IX is about preventing sex-based discrimination in education programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance (including athletics).
Males aren’t just underrepresented at UC Davis, but across the nation. But I think that’s because their applications are not as competitive. Please don’t tell me you’re suggesting that we make special accommodations to accept more men, that seems highly inappropriate. Although it wouldn’t surprise me if some men who didn’t have the qualifications to get accepted to the university of their choice decide to file suit.
As far as men potentially expressing interest in participating on the now eliminated equestrian team, I really have no idea how the team members would react. I imagine with kindness.
As far as people being Trans. It seems of all possible sports, Equestrian is one where if absolutely should not matter as men and women are in direct competition at the Olympic level.
At the NCAA Division I level, men do not compete with women for varsity teams. NCAA/NCEA Division I equestrian is classified as an “emerging sport for women”, created to help universities comply with Title IX by providing opportunities exclusively for female student-athletes.
These women and this team deserve honest answers and not to have been lied to about why the team was being cut.
You’re aware, I assume, that discrimination doesn’t have to be blatant or purposeful, for it to still meet that description.
If women were under-represented at universities, would you still put forth your conjecture that their applications “aren’t as competitive” and that this is a likely reason for their under-represention?
You have more faith than I do, regarding how a team for women-only would react if a man wanted to participate. But I agree that sex/gender identification is irrelevant regarding this type of sport in particular (that was one of my main points).
As far as this particular team, has the university put forth a statement? If so, then the author should include it verbatim in the article.
I’m not going to conclude that the university is “lying” based upon an article from someone with a direct interest/history in the team, nor would I conclude that eliminating it violates Title IX.
Seems to me that an article like this (and it’s not the first one regarding this issue) is attempting to generate outrage on behalf of a relatively small number of students, using incomplete information.
The university had a reason to eliminate this team.
Frankly, I don’t care if they eliminate the football team, as well.
I’m genuinely curious, do you think the current proportion of men and women in higher education is a result of sex-based discrimination?
The University’s statement on this matter is easily available, it’s not the duty of the person who wrote the op-ed to include it.
I do agree that one shouldn’t conclude that the university (or anyone) is lying based on one of-ed. It does however seem rational to come to that conclusion based upon a preponderance of evidence.
https://keepdavisriding.com/faq/
An independent auditor conducted an independent analysis and found that contrary to the university’s position, the equestrian team is actually a net positive to the campus’s bottom line. So please, enlighten me, what exactly is tge university’s reason for cutting the team?
Also, we’re still waiting for the internal independent analysis that was promised by the university by the end of June.