Task Force Media Notes, April 9

TASK FORCE MEDIA NOTES
VOL. 3, NO. 6 (April 9, 1999)
This is part of a series of regular reports
to update, inform, educate and stimulate public discussion

ENROLLMENT TRENDS THREATEN EVEN MORE MALE SPORTS OPPORTUNITIES
If you thought things were tough for male sports programs today in the age of cutbacks
caused by proportionality, just wait a few years. Enrollment predictions for the next decade
and beyond are frightening - the number of women students will grow considerably higher than
their male counterparts on college campuses.
Consider these sobering facts from an article entitled "Proportionality standard
becomes a moving target" by Kay Hawes in the NCAA News. In 1996, there were 8.4 million women
and only 6.7 million men enrolled in college. The Department of Education projects that by
2008, there will be 9.2 million women on campus and only 6.9 million men.
If college athletic programs continue to be forced by the federal government to have
the same percentage of athletes by gender as there are students on campus, then the loss of
men*s sports programs will accelerate. This is especially true under the current interpretation
of the Title IX law in the courts, which have ruled that it is acceptable to eliminate men*s
opportunities in order to achieve a numerical quota.
The headaches that these trends will cause athletic administrators will be
considerable, especially since most colleges have already made difficult decisions in the name
of "gender equity." Consider these thoughts by Elaine Dreidame, the former senior women's
administrator at the Univ. of Dayton, in the NCAA News:
* "I'm concerned for those schools where the women's enrollment just keeps going up and
up. *We met our target (in providing additional athletics opportunities for women). But in the
meantime, women*s enrollment has risen, which is something we in athletics have absolutely no
control over."
* "I think that the intent of the law is to have fairness. What is the equitable way to
do this that's fair to both genders? Maybe we should ask OCR to say that equity is either
proportionate to enrollment, or 50 percent, which ever is less."
However, there are many people who do not have Dreidame's concern for fairness as their
main priority. Many in the women's sports movement have wrapped themselves so tightly to the
concept of proportionality that the idea of fairness no longer matters. Consider this statement
by former senior women*s administrator Charlotte West of the Univ. of Southern Illinois at
Carbondale in the same NCAA News article:
* "West also notes that a school with a huge women's enrollment would simply be remiss to
provide more slots to men. 'Those 80 percent of the women have every right to have 80 percent
of the slots.'" West said.
What makes this even more disturbing is that the concept of interest is not at all
reflected by the current national trends. The framers of the original Title IX legislation
intended that interest be an important part of the equation. The percentage of male athletes on
the high school level is just under 60%, while the percentage of female high school athletes is
less than 40%. The percentage of male athletes who have college sports opportunities could
dwindle even more.
Even Christine Grant of the Univ. of Iowa, a longtime advocate of proportionality, is
concerned. "Now is the time to take action so we don't solve the problem by eliminating men's
programs. I am very opposed to that,* Grant told the NCAA News.

USING SPORTS TO ATTRACT MALE STUDENTS JUST WON*T WORK WITH PROPORTIONALITY
An interesting concept was mentioned in the NCAA News article which could be used to
combat the decline of male college students - the creation of new sports programs for men.
According to the Hawes article:
* "Many institutions are looking to add program such as football and wrestling in an
effort to attract men."
Certainly this idea would be supported by the wrestling community. The popularity of
wrestling among men on campus is well documented. With fewer and fewer college teams available,
student wrestling clubs are popping up all over the nation. In addition, at existing varsity
programs that are not hampered by capped squad sizes, the number of men on the team is usually
very high.
Consider the new varsity wrestling team at Neosho College, a junior college in Kansas.
A proposal was accepted to add wrestling to the school, based upon the concept of increasing
the number of students on campus as well as the amount of state aid that the new students would
generate. In its first year, Neosho had more than 80 wrestlers on its team, a major financial
boost to the college in many, many ways. With this kind of commitment, Neosho was able to place
seventh in the NJCAA Nationals in its very first year.
Before you get too exited about this, remember that many schools will not be able to
take advantage of this idea because of proportionality. The enforcement of a strict gender
quota in the athletics program is a main reason that most universities are unable to add men*s
teams, even if adding the teams will be an overall benefit to the institution.
If you take it a step further, perhaps one of the reasons that the trends are showing a
decreased percentage of men on campus is because of the opportunities already taken away. How
many men are not coming to college because of the lost opportunities in sports and other
activities caused by Title IX? Consider this theory from Elaine Dreidame, the former senior
women*s administrator at the Univ. of Dayton:
* "Dreidame also points out that many schools may be unintentionally decreasing their
appeal to men because they have been eliminating men*s sports or men*s slots. 'One of the ways
you draw men is through sports,' she said. 'You compound the problem and deteriorate male
enrollment by eliminating walk-on positions.'"
Have colleges become unfriendly to males?? Consider the Boston College feminism
professor who refuses to allow men in her class, even though the law says that she must.
Perhaps the time has come to get rid of the antagonism between the sexes on campus, and put the
rights and interests of the students first.

ONCE AGAIN, REMEMBER THAT PROPORTIONALITY IS NOT THE ONLY COMPLIANCE PRONG
The fact that the percentage of women students on college campuses continues to rise is
helping remind many people that proportionality is not the only way to achieve compliance with
Title IX. Perhaps it is time to revitalize prongs two and three of the compliance test, and put
less emphasis in proportionality as a way to measure *equal opportunity.*
In case you have forgotten, compliance with prong two is achieved by "demonstrating a
history and continuing practice of program expansion for the underrepresented sex," and prong
three compliance is met by "fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of
the underrepresented sex."
Valerie M. Bonnette, a Title IX consultant and president of Good Sports, Inc., is a
leading voice of reason in the maddening world of college athletics. Consider her thoughts from
the NCAA News story:
* "Proportionality has gotten such press, and I think such misinformed press. Many
articles have presented proportionality as the sole test, and that*s simply not true."
* "There are a lot of people who think that if you have a club team out there, then you
have to consider adding that sport. That is not true. It has to be a viable team with a
reasonable expectation of competition. Having one woman who wants to play lacrosse isn*t the
point."

HEY, DONNA LOPIANO!!! DOUBLE STANDARDS ARE NEVER, EVER DEFENSIBLE!!!
Donna Lopiano, the outspoken executive director of the Women's Sports Foundation,
continues to advocate a narrow feminist viewpoint when it comes to sports opportunities. As
long as women receive the benefits of Title IX, she is in favor of it. However, when men are
the recipient of opportunities because of the law, suddenly the law should not be ignored.
Lopiano was quoted in a USA Today article by Alexandra Robbins entitled "Boys on girls
teams stir controversy." The topic discussed the situation when boys are allowed to participate
on girls teams, because there is no boys team available in that sport in the school. A number
of boys across the nation have decided to go out for their school*s field hockey team.
You must remember that Lopiano is in favor of allowing girls to participate on boys
team when there is no matching girls squad. This includes allowing girls to participate on
wrestling teams, which is something that is growing rapidly across the nation. Yet Lopiano
makes this amazing statement about boys that want to play field hockey:
* "It is a double standard, but a defensible double standard. Boys should not be
permitted to play on girls teams when they have physiological advantages over girls at that
level or when taking a spot on a girls team would further disadvantage girls as an
underrepresented class."
Take another look at that statement. Is this fair or consistent? Can you have it both
ways? Why is it permissible for girls to wrestle and play football, but not for boys to play
field hockey?
The answer is simple. Lopiano and other women's sports advocates do not believe in fair
opportunity for all. They are only concerned about getting every possible advantage for women
athletes. Certainly, that was not the original intent of Title IX. Double standards are never
defensible.

CHEERLEADING SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A SPORT, ACCORDING TO COLUMNIST ZAVIAN
Ellen Zavian writes a weekly Women in Sports column for Streets and Smith*s
Sportsbusiness Journal, one of the most respected publications in the sports industry. Unlike
Lopiano, who is also a regular contributor to the publication, Zavian often takes an
independent view from the women*s sports establishment.
Zavian went totally against the position of the Women*s Sports Foundation (WSF) when
she proposed that cheerleading be considered a varsity sport. The WSF suggests that
cheerleading is an extracurricular activity, when the primary function is to entertain or drum
up audience enthusiasm. In addition, a 1975 Office of Civil Rights memo also labels
cheerleading as an extracurricular activity "not to be considered as athletic programs for
compliance purposes."
The article explains that "the Cheerleading Association says 95 percent of high school
cheerleaders are girls, and 55 percent of collegiate cheerleaders are women." Is there any
surprise that advocates of proportionality want to exclude cheerleading as a sport?
Zavian explains all of the reasons why cheerleading is a sport. Consider this important
paragraph:
* "Oddly enough, everyone I spoke to for this article labelled cheerleading as a sport,
especially with the addition of males and difficult stunts. In fact, beyond institutional
cheering, the industry has witnessed an increase in 'all-star' programs, which supports this
position."
An even better question is who should decide what is considered a sport? Shouldn*t
interest and abilities, an important part of the Title IX equation, be taken into
consideration?

MIAMI OF OHIO IS A FEW SHORT DAYS FROM ANOTHER DECISION ON FOUR MEN*S SPORTS
Forgotten in all the hoopla surrounding the NCAA Div. I basketball tournament is the
continuing athletics saga at Miami University (Ohio). While sports fans across the nation
enjoyed the success of Miami*s basketball team, led by superstar Wally Sczerbiak, the drama
over the future of the rest of the athletic department seemed to be lost in all the noise.
Back on campus, D-day approaches for the men*s wrestling, golf, tennis and soccer at
Miami. In February, the Trustees at the university gave an April 16 deadline for supporters of
these teams to raise $13 million to maintain the programs. Few people expect the $13 million
ransom to be raised, and another difficult battle looms ahead for the school.
Miami University wrestling fans handed out a detailed brochure at the recently
completed NCAA Div. I Championships in State College, Pa. (which was sold-out for every
session). Consider these excerpts:
* "Miami*s wrestling tradition is one of the strongest at the University. Beginning in
1921, the 78 year old program has produced 8 Conference Team champions, 67 individual
conference championships, 115 NCAA Tournament qualifiers, 8 Division I All-Americans, finished
in the Top 30 five times and the Top 50 15 other times."
* "Ohio ranks as one of the premier high school wrestling states in the nation. We rank
second only to California in the number of high schools competing. More than 14,000 high school
athletes and thousands more in grade school participate in the sport. Ohio ranks in the top
five states producing NCAA Champions and All-Americans. It seems inconceivable that ANY
institution in Ohio can justify dropping the sport."

Comments & Questions -- info@ncmat.com