The Elite 10

Teams.NCMat

Wrestling Mall

Free Newsletter

Mats for Sale

Forum

Make NC Mat your start-up page

Contact NC Mat

Submit a link

Feedback

1998 NCAA TITLE IX SEMINAR VIOLATES PROPORTIONALITY

The NCAA sponsored its Fourth Annual Title IX Seminar at the Westin Hotel in Chicago, Ill., May 12-13. This seminar deals with a very important public issue that affects both men and women college athletes.

On May 6, the NCAA released the complete list of speakers and panelists for the weekend. It appears that the gender ratio of the featured guests was completely out of whack. According to the published agenda, there were 31 female speakers and just 11 men speakers in the program.

For an organization that is so sensitive to the gender make-up of athletic departments, this disparity at this seminar is very surprising and disturbing.

According to proportionality, the enforcement mechanism of choice for Title IX, the percentage of participants should be in proportion with the gender of students in NCAA institutions. Certainly, a 31-11 female-to-male ratio is not proportional.

The Joint Task Force to Protect Wrestling is on record to be against the use of strict proportionality in colleges. However, we are strong defenders of fairness and opportunity. Certainly, the gender make-up of this panel is stacked in one direction, and, it can be assumed, towards one political ideology. This is not a fair representation of the complete Title IX issue. It would have been just as unfair if there were 31 men and 11 women guest speakers.

If the NCAA is going to continue to help fund and promote these “Title IX Seminars,” it is certainly time that it fairly represented both genders, and offered a wider variety of opinions. By the way, a court has just ruled that Title IX does apply directly to the NCAA.

THE AXE CONTINUES TO FALL ON MEN’S SPORTS PROGRAMS EVERYWHERE

Since the last Task Force Media Notes, men’s athletic programs have been slashed on college campuses across the nation. The victims were not just wrestlers - they were male athletes in a variety of sports. They all have been axed because of the gender quotas that are being forced upon athletic departments in the name of Title IX.

Consider the University of Cincinnati, which cut three men’s teams in the name of Title IX - rifle, tennis and indoor track. In addition, the university announced a plan to cap the participants on the remaining men’s teams. A new women’s team to be announced is expected to be added in the 2000-01 season.

How about the University of Louisville, which added three women’s sports, along with cutting the men’s indoor track program. The university noted that adding the women’s teams, plus other gender-equity expenses, will cost $1.5 million per year.

Then there is New Mexico State University, which dropped its men’s track and field and swimming programs. The cuts were made to reduce the athletic department’s budget deficit by two-thirds. In this case, the university had budget problems. However, based upon the landmark Brown University decision, cutting women’s programs is not possible, leaving men’s teams the target for such cost cuts.

Wrestling programs continue to be in danger. Such is the case at Div. I Chicago State University, where the athletic director has decided to drop the wrestling team. According to the sports information director, the decision has been made but a press release has not yet been written. If this decision stands, it is another major loss for college wrestling, which is down to about 95 Div. I teams.

This is the time that athletic departments must make budget and planning decisions for the next year. If you look at the “Transactions” column in your daily paper, you can see how colleges are dealing with their financial and gender equity problems. And in far too many cases this year, the decision has been made to cut men’s sports teams.

HASTERT/WELLSTONE INITIATIVE FALLS SHORT IN CONGRESS, AS NCAA FLEXES ITS MUSCLES

A promising proposal in Congress, presented by Congressman J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois in the House and Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota in the Senate, was defeated on the floor of the House. This vote was a setback for those who seek fairness in the way that colleges treat their student athletes.

The bill, which is referred to as the Title IV of the Higher Education Act Section 485 (a) (1) (g) (1) (k), would require colleges to inform incoming students if the school is going to eliminate a sport or reduce its resources or participants during the upcoming four years.

The reason for this bill is to protect the young women and men who enroll in a college and commit to participate in their sports program. The proposal required that universities be honest with their incoming students about their plans for the sports program for a four-year period.

This legislation faced a powerful opponent, the NCAA, which directly lobbied Congress, along with help from its member institutions. The NCAA was opposed to the law, citing institutional control and federal interference issues.

An amendment to the bill, which was presented by Congressman Tim Roemer of Indiana, would eliminate the Hastert language from the overall bill. Roemer’s amendment was passed in the House by about a 2-1 margin.

The media covered this issue closely, intrigued by the idea that Hastert, a conservative Republican, and Wellstone, a liberal Democrat, would work together on this issue. Both are former wrestlers and wrestling coaches, and both understand the damage that occurs to students when a school drops a sports program.

In an Associated Press article, Wellstone said, “I can’t even begin to express my gratitude for the sport. I was really a tough kid and heading for trouble. The sport really saved me.”

In a Washington Post article, Hastert said, “Athletics gave me discipline and were the motivation to get me through.” He added that when sports programs are eliminated that “you are actually cancelling generations of leadership of people who can redirect young lives.”

This is a clear indication that this is a bi-partisan issue, that should not be reduced to partisan politics. The issue has to do with fairness, a concept which can be understood on both sides of the aisle.

NCAA SPOKESPERSON DORIS DIXON SLAMS WRESTLING WITH MISLEADING

INFORMATION In an effort to defeat the Hastert/Wellstone initiative in Congress, Doris Dixon, the director for federal relations for the NCAA, was outspoken to the press against the bill. She called the bill “an unparalleled federal intrusion” along with other negative things. However, Dixon crossed the line when she attacked the sport of wrestling as a way to try to defeat the bill.

According to the Washington Post: “She also provided statistics showing that the number of high schools with wrestling programs dropped 37 percent in the last 20 years, an indication that interest in the sport has been tailing off before students reached college.”

Dixon’s inference that wrestling is fading as a high school sport is not only misleading, but it also had nothing to do with the merits of the Hastert/Wellstone bill. It was a cheap shot that has been used in the past by other special interest groups that chose to attack wrestling rather than discuss the real issues.

It is true that wrestling took a participation dip in the 1980’s, but all recent statistics indicate that wrestling is strong and growing. According to Fritz McGinness of the National Federation of High School Associations, wrestling “without a doubt” has shown growth over the last five years.

The 1997 statistics show that wrestling had 227,596 participants, up nearly 4,000 since 1991-92. Wrestling ranks sixth among the 32 sports available to high school boys. In addition, wrestling had 8,738 programs in 1997, a growth of 346 schools since the 1991-92 survey. This ranks wrestling No. 8 among all boys sports for number of teams. Certainly, these statistics do not indicate a sport in decline.

A look at USA Wrestling’s membership numbers also indicates a rise in youth wrestling. There were 94,541 registered athletes in 1986, which skyrocketed to 139,497 in 1996 - nearly a 50 percent increase in just 10 years.

It is easy to see why Dixon chose to go back 20 years for her comparison. The closest year of comparison, the 1977-78 year, was in the middle of the “baby boom,” when more students were enrolled in our nation’s schools than at any other time. It is true that there were 9,653 wrestling teams in 1977-78, which ACTUALLY works out to about a 9.5 percent reduction over 20 years.

However, in 1975-76, there were 4,367,442 boys participants in sports, in comparison to 3,706,225 in 1996-97. This works out to a reduction of 9.8 percent, almost identical to the wrestling figures. Clearly, there were more boys involved in all sports 20 years ago than there are today.

Donna Dixon owes an apology to the wrestling community for giving false and misleading information about the sport to the public, in a political effort to defeat a bill in Congress.

THE MEDIA IS STARTING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON WITH PROPORTIONALITY

There may be a light at the end of the tunnel for college athletes. It seems that the media is starting to understand the destructive effect of proportionality quotas, and is coming out on a much more regular basis with stories about the unintended consequences of Title IX.

We will provide excerpts from a number of recent articles, all which have a good understanding of how Title IX is being applied in practice:

John Leo, in the On Society column of U.S. News and World Report, wrote a piece entitled “Gender Police: Pull Over.” Wrote Leo:

l “The evolution of Title IX into a quota program has been remarkable and perverse. The law forbids discrimination ‘on the basis of sex,’ but adds that schools are not required to ‘grant preferential or disparate treatment’ to women ‘on account of an imbalance that may exist.”

l “The drift away from Title IX’s original meaning came with the release of governmental regulations and a ‘policy interpretation’ in the 1970s, neither of which was ever approved by Congress... Partly because the last two tests are so vague and hard to pass, proportionality emerged as the major test in a series of court cases. Quotas in practice turned out to be the only foolproof way of deflecting claims of bias.

l “As a result, college sports programs have been scrambling to subtract males and add females, while gender balance has replaced the original emphasis on avoiding discrimination.”

Kathleen Parker, a nationally syndicated columnist for the Orlando Sentinel (Fla.), wrote a piece entitled, “Thanks Title IX, for quota nonsense.” Wrote Parker:

l “If all goes as promised, President Clinton’s latest gender equity plan will mean that equal number of men and women must be rocket scientists - whether they want to be or not. Such is the bastard offspring of Title IX, the federal statute originally designed to prevent discrimination in college athletic programs. Now the regulation is being expanded to apply to academic programs as well. Forget discrimination, we’re talking about the Q-word. Quotas.”

l “Not enough women competing in college athletics? Must be discrimination, goes the hysteria. Bye-bye goes the men’s team.”

l “Congress has the power to stop this silliness as the new regulations don’t reflect the intent of the original statute - and they don’t since the statute specifically forbids quotas - Congress can hold public hearings and block the Justice Department. Unfortunately, few are willing to buck the trend.”

The Philadelphia Daily News ran an article on May 8 entitled “Title IX creating gender inequity.” The article includes:

l “The troubling message coming out of colleges these days goes something like this: If your son is thinking about competing in gymnastics, track, fencing, rowing, swimming or lacrosse at the intercollegiate level, tell him to think again. Or change his sex. Drastic? Absurd? You bet. But so is what is happening at colleges and universities around the country as presidents and athletic directors try to ward off potential law suits and comply with Title IX mandates that even some proponents believe are inherently faulty.

l “What seems to be happening is that nearly every opportunity created for women athletes costs opportunities for men athletes. Sometimes, there is no increase in women’s sports. Athletic departments solve the Title IX dilemma simply by slashing men’s sports. And we are not talking about training-table pampered football and basketball players. We’re talking about fencers and swimmers and such. We’re talking about people who have put a lot of their lives into their disciplines, without perks and fanfare.”

Jessica Gavora, wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Clinton’s Classroom Quotas.” Gavora wrote:

l “Usually coy about favoring quotas, the administration in this case is openly insisting upon them. The effort represents an enormous expansion of federal power under Title IX, an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed in 1972. Originally conceived simply as a guarantee or equal access to education regardless of sex, the law has of late been used to force colleges to expand women’s sports programs and cut back athletics for men.”

l What is amazing about all of this is that Title IX itself clearly states that schools are not required to ‘grant preferential treatment’ to women ‘on account of an imbalance that may exist’ between men and women. The Congress members who voted for Title IX in 1972 had already seen the original Civil Rights Act transformed into a quota machine, and they meant to declare emphatically that Title IX should not be used in this way.”

IT’S THE COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO ARE DIRECTLY HURT BY PROPORTIONALITY CUTS

When the University of Cincinnati announced that it would be dropping three men’s programs, some people applauded the athletic director for courage in making hard decisions. However, others went right to those most affected, the student-athletes, and heard a much different story.

Geoff Hobson of the Cincinnati Enquirer wrote a compelling piece entitled “Athletes admire aim, mourn cost.”

Consider Brent Sitarski of the University of Akron, a recruit for the Cincinnati tennis team. Sitarski, a state doubles champion, went to Akron, which dropped the tennis team during his freshman year. Sitarski decided to transfer to Cincinnati. However, when Cincinnati announced that the tennis team would be cut for next year, he was without a team again.

In the article, Sikarski says: “‘Three schools in four months. I have no idea what I’m going to do. Maybe I’ll go to Xavier, I don’t know. What makes it tough is that it’s so late. Most of the teams are filled. Most of the scholarships are gone. It’s crazy.’”

It was not just the men athletes who were upset by the decision made at Cincinnati.

According to the article, “Junior middle distance runner Carrie Nelson of Forest Park was a woman who couldn’t take heart in Title IX Wednesday. ‘Alot of guys are young and other universities are going to go after them,” Nelson said. ‘It’s going to destroy men’s recruiting and it’s going to hurt women’s track because we feed off each other. They’ll probably still train with us, but it’s totally different. You don’t give women an opportunity by cutting men. What’s gone on for hundreds of years is wrong and has hurt women. But these are my teammates and it’s not fair to take away something they have worked for.’”

ST. OLAF BRINGS BACK WRESTLING AND HOCKEY AFTER RECEIVING PUBLIC SUPPORT

St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minn. recently announced that it would drop its varsity men’s wrestling and ice hockey teams.

The public outcry on the campus and in the community was intense. The decision also made national news, when Sports Illustrated, in its Go Figure section, mentioned that 16 wrestlers had dropped their varsity letterman’s jackets at the feet of President Mark U. Edwards when he announced that St. Olaf would eliminate the team.

In this case, the voice of the people was heard. In less than three weeks, more than 75 donors pledged $250,000 to help keep hockey and wrestling alive at the college. The college made an about-face and announced that the programs would continue.

Edwards, in the press release announcing the reinstatement, said the following; “We are delighted and overwhelmed by the generosity and outpouring of support from our alumni, parents and donors... Clearly, we underestimated the level of support we could gain for St. Olaf athletics.”

This is an example that creative solutions can be found, and that sports programs don’t have to be cut.