Title IX

TASK FORCE MEDIA NOTES
VOL. 1, NO. 3 (August 13, 1997)
This is the third in a series of regular reports
to update, inform, educate and stimulate public discussion

A FRESH LOOK AT THE 1997 NCAA GENDER EQUITY STUDY
        The NCAA published its 1997 Gender Equity Survey in April 1997,
which
offered a five-year comparison of college athletic department
activities. The study looked at college programs in 1992 and 1997, with
742 institutions responding to the survey.
        The study provides specific information on numerous areas of
interest,
including athlete participation, coaches, operating and recruiting
expenses, student aid, coaching salaries and revenue and expenses.
        This study has been quoted in the public and in the press to
support
the position that not enough has been done to comply with Title IX. The
study provides the average numbers on each campus, as well as percentage
comparisons between men and women athletic programs.
        Most of the public discussion has been based on the fact that
women’s
programs have not yet reached a 50-50 quota level in the areas studied.
What has been totally ignored in this discussion is the devastating loss
of sports opportunities for men, especially in the Olympic sports
programs.
 
MEN’S SPORTS OPPORTUNITIES HAVE DECLINED ON EVERY NCAA LEVEL
        There have been false claims that men’s sports opportunities really
haven’t been reduced due to the enforcement of Title IX. The Women’s
Sports Foundation’s Gender Equity Report Card said “the facts do not
support the claim that the increasing opportunities for women’s sports
in the last decade have lowered the number of men’s sports programs.”
This myth has no basis in reality. The NCAA Gender Equity Study of April
1997 shows that men’s sports opportunities have declined between 1992
and 1997 on every single NCAA level.
        l In Division I-A, the average men’s participation went from 323 in
1992, down to 289 in 1997. This is a loss of 34 male athletes per
institution, which is 10.5 percent
        l In Division I-AA, the average men’s participation went from 252
in
1992 to 233 in 1997. This is a loss of 19 male athletes per
institution,which is 7.5 percent.
        l In Division I-AAA, the average men’s participation went from 161
in
1992 to 128 in 1997. This is a loss of 33 male athletes per institution,
which is 20.4 percent.
        l In Division II, the average men’s participation went from 167 in
1992
to 149 in 1997. This is a loss of 18 male athletes per institution,
which is 10.7 percent.
        l In Division III, the average men’s participation went from 216 in
1992 to 190 in 1997. This is a loss of 26 male athletes per institution,
which is 12 percent.
        Don’t believe it? Look it up today. The NCAA will gladly provide
the
information to you.

IT ALSO SAYS THAT 3.4 MEN HAVE BEEN CUT FOR EVERY WOMAN GAINED
        During the five year period studied by the NCAA, women’s athletics
have
gained, especially on the Div. I level. It can certainly be said that
women’s sports have benefited from Title IX, which is consistent with
the intent of the law.
        However, there has been a cost. When you do the math, you find that
5,009 female opportunities were added at the institutions surveyed,
while a total of 17,099 male opportunities were lost during the five
years. For every new female college athlete, 3.4 male college athletes
have been eliminated. 
        Is this what Congress intended when it originally wrote Title IX?
Did
they want colleges to wipe out huge numbers of men athletes, in order to
see modest increases in women’s participation? We believe this is not
the intent of the law. The reason that so many men’s opportunities are
being eliminated is the use of proportionality, which is simply a gender
quota, as the method of compliance with the law.

IN DIV. III, MEN’S SPORTS HAVE SUFFERED AND WOMEN’S SPORTS HAVE HAD NO
GAIN
        The most dramatic illustration of the effects of proportionality
are in
NCAA Division III, where athletes participate solely for the love of the
game - there are no scholarships for athletic participation. Based on
this format, Division III athletics may be the best measure of interest
in sports on the college level.
        In the 1997 Gender Equity Study, 266 Division III colleges
responded to
the questionnaire. According to the study, Division III colleges have
lost an average of 26 men’s athletic opportunities per campus, while
gaining ZERO women’s athletic opportunities in those 266 colleges.
        In 1992, the average number of men athletes on each campus was 216,
which dropped to 190 on each campus in 1997. This is a loss of 12% of
the men’s sports opportunities. In raw numbers, that is a loss of 6,916
athletic opportunities for men in the short five year period in those
266 colleges.
        The women’s numbers did not change during the five year period. In
1992, there was an average of 116 women athletes per campus, and again
in 1997, there was an average of 116 women athletes per campus. 
        What is happening here? Certainly, men have not lost interest in
sports, since no study has ever indicated a decrease in men’s desire to
participate. What has happened is that men’s sports opportunities have
been eliminated for just one reason - to attempt to reach a numerical
quota that is forced by proportionality. This indicates that women have
not gained because of proportionality, and men have suffered greatly. 

REMEMBER, PROPORTIONALITY IS NOT THE ONLY METHOD OF COMPLIANCE WITH
TITLE IX
        In spite of what you might hear from some organizations,
proportionality is not the only way to comply with the Title IX law. The
Office of Civil Rights has identified three ways that a college can
comply with the Title IX law. The first is called proportionality, where
the percentage of men and women athletes should be substantially
proportional to the number of men and women on campus. The second has to
do with a continuing history of expansion of opportunities for women.
The third has to do with accomodation of interest and abilities.
        Norma Cantu of the Office of Civil Rights confirms this in her
clarification letter in 1995. “An institution that does not provide
substantially proportional participation opportunities for men and women
may comply with Title IX by satisfying part two or part three of the
test.”
        Many institutions have felt compelled to use proportionality as
their
method to comply with Title IX. Proportionality is very clear cut and
objective, based strictly on percentages. Even though university
administrators talk about how difficult it is to cut programs,
proportionality is the simplest and the least creative method to reach
Title IX compliance.
        When reading the 1997 Gender Equity Study, or any study that looks
at
college sports, you have to look a little closer than just reading the
percentages.
        If proportionality is the only method for enforcement of Title IX,
then
only nine Div. I-A schools would have been in compliance in 1996, and 99
would be in non-compliance, according to USA Today’s research on April
22, 1997. Of the nine schools, three are military academies (Army, Navy,
Air Force) and two are technical institutions, which have a high
percentage of male students, which makes compliance with proportionality
much easier to achieve.  
        Take a closer look and see what proportionality really is doing.
Rather
than increasing women’s opportunities, many colleges are just cutting
men’s opportunities to achieve a numerical quota. Once you understand
the destructive unintended consequences of proportionality, then the
numbers really begin to make some sense.
Comments & Questions -- info@ncmat.com