Bad Call, A Soccer Dad's Second Look At Title IX

July 15, 1999 by Clarence Page

Have a Title IX related comment or question? Contact Dale Anderson, JD, at TitleIX@themat.com

WASHINGTON
One of the many things on which my 10-year-old son has educated me is the sweeping degree to which times have changed since I was a kid. A heartwarming example occurred as we watched the United States beat China for the Women's World Cup championship.

"Why do men and women play on separate teams?" he asked. "Isn't that sexist?"

His question gave me pause because it was very different from the sort of sports question I would have asked when I was 10.

For one thing, soccer, like the word "sexist," was not in vogue among very many Americans in my youth. Today, experts tell me that more than 14 million American kids participate in soccer leagues. Millions of dutiful parents like me are setting out every weekend to roam the countryside in search of elusive soccer fields.

It also is quite common for boys and girls to play on the same teams, and I think our nation is better for it. (My son's team certainly is. The sole girl on his team is one of the best players.)

Since President Clinton also has been a soccer dad, I am confident he had similar thoughts in mind when he praised the United States women's soccer victory as "a tribute" to the success of Title IX.

Passage of Title IX, the 1972 civil-rights measure that guaranteed equal opportunity for women in college athletics, accelerated widespread acceptance of the notion that little girls deserve the same athletic opportunities as little boys.

But Title IX has its problems too. It takes nothing away from the success of Mia Hamm, Briana Scurry, Brandi Chastain and the rest of the players to point out that pressure from Title IX has resulted in an unintended tragedy for men's sports: the loss of more than 350 men's teams in track, wrestling, tennis, swimming and soccer, even while slots on women's teams go unfilled.

The problem is Title IX's court-approved "proportionality rule." Many athletic departments interpret it to mean men and women must participate in sports at equal rates. Since fewer women want to play than men, many campuses have boosted the proportion of female athletes by cutting programs for men. Particularly vulnerable are sports like soccer, which don't pull in big revenues.

In Washington, where everything has a political spin, the issue has created an unusual alliance between two political adversaries, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, one of the chamber's most conservative Republicans, and Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, one of the Senate's most liberal Democrats.

Both men wrestled in college (Hastert later coached the sport) and both strongly support Title IX (Hastert's wife is a physical education teacher and has been a girls' athletic coach.)

Nevertheless, both men introduced measures last year to address the unintended consequences of Title IX. Hastert's amendment would have required a four-year notice by a school of any plans to change funding for or to kill off one of its smaller sports. Wellstone's milder measure would have required a public "statement of justification" for such a move.

Both measures died under opposition by the National Collegiate Athletic Association and others who objected to the proposed intrusion on the ability of colleges to design programs and budgets.

"Members of Congress are not getting many calls from their constituents on this and if they don't get any complaints, they don't take action," said Kimberly Schuld, a specialist on the issue for the Washington-based Independent Women's Forum. "This is a problem that calls for more discussion and debate on what the intended goal of Title IX should be, given how far we have come as a society since it was passed in 1972."

She has a point. It should be a simple matter, for example, to change the criterion for determining sports opportunity to the number of programs offered to men and women, not the actual positions. That way, you would not have to eliminate an entire sport for men just because women's sports did not have as many participants.

Unfortunately, emotions surrounding this issue have made it a "third rail" issue'--touch it and you die--for many on Capitol Hill. Everyone seems to be reluctant to talk about it out of fear of being seen wrongly as an enemy of women's sports or, as my son would say, a "sexist."

We are not likely to roll the clock back on women's sports if we revisit a "proportionality rule" that has created a one-size-fits-all quota system. Quite the opposite. In light of all that we have learned about the differences of what men and women want in athletic programs, we have a golden opportunity to return Title IX to its original intent.

After all, guys deserve some equal opportunity too.

Comments & Questions -- info@ncmat.com