The Super 32
Make NC Mat your start-up page
|
Task Force Media Notes, October 23, 1998
Autumn is usually a quiet time in college athletic departments, as most of the major decisions regarding the department had been made the previous spring. However, in this time of Title IX chaos, even the fall can be dangerous. Providence College, a Div. I university located in Providence, R.I., recently announced that it would be dropping three men¢s sports teams at the end of this year - baseball, men¢s golf and men¢s tennis. As with previous massacres of male sports programs on other campuses, no new women¢s opportunities were added. And, once again, Title IX was the excuse for this action. *It became apparent to us that we could not add funding to athletics and reallocation was our only path,* said Providence Athletic Director John Marinatto to the New Haven Register. *Aside from men¢s and women¢s basketball, which had to remain to classify us as a Division I school, every other sport was reviewed in the process to achieve gender equity.* After the cuts are made, Providence will have 19 sports, featuring 11 women¢s teams and eight men¢s teams. Scholarships from the eliminated programs will be given to women¢s athletics. The baseball program at Providence, created in 1921, has been very successful. The team has appeared in eight NCAA Tournaments and had 16 players drafted by major league teams since 1975. Once again, student athletes are left wondering what is wrong with the current interpretation of the law. *It makes no sense to us,* said baseball player Mike O¢Keefe to the New Haven Register. *Title IX is supposed to create opportunities for women, not take opportunities away from men.* Proportionality strikes again!!! PROGRAM CUTS ARE CAUSED BY TITLE-IX INDUCED FINANCIAL STRESS Often, when colleges drop sports programs, financial challenges are given as the reason for the action. However, a closer look in most cases will reveal that these financial challenges are caused by one major factor - Title IX. And the scary thing is that the financial problems are getting worse on campuses, not better... An article in the October 12 issue of the NCAA News indicates that financial deficits for college athletic programs are growing at an increasing rate. According to the story, *the deficit for the average Division I-A program grew from $237,000 in 1995 to $823,000 in 1997. In 1993, the average deficit was $174,000.* Looking at the four year period from 1993-97, deficits on these campuses increased by an amazing 374 percent. In addition, the percentage of Division I-A programs turning a profit is decreasing, from 51 percent in 1993, to 46 percent in 1995, to 43 percent in 1997. What has caused the financial stress? Consider this fact. *Spending on women¢s programs is up at all levels surveyed,* said the article. The chart that accompanies the article gives a clear picture. Women¢s expenses at Div. I-A schools have escalated dramatically, from about $1.5 million in 1993 to over $2 million in 1995 to about $3 million in 1996. Meanwhile, revenues produced by the women¢s programs have increased only slightly, and still remain less than $1 million. Women¢s basketball, the marquee sport for college women¢s programs, tells the tale very well. In 1993, only 2 percent of the Div. I-A women¢s basketball teams turned a profit. In 1997, the percentage remained exactly the same - just 2 percent. However, the average deficit for the other 98% of the teams climbed dramatically, from $373,000 in 1993 to $550,000 in 1997. It is interesting to note that the percentage of Div. I-A colleges showing profits in football and men¢s basketball has increased during the same time period. However, this new income generated by the men¢s program does not come close to covering the increased expenses on the women¢s side. Basically, the current trend to expand spending on women¢s programs, fueled by the push for proportionality, is causing many athletic departments to lose money. In order to make ends meet, college athletics departments often must cut somewhere, and women¢s sports programs are rarely touched. In too many cases, the result is the slashing of men¢s Olympic sports programs. The NCAA will provide you with the complete report, if you call NCAA Publishing at 913-339-1900. You can see for yourself that the truth is in the numbers. OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS REQUIRES A 1-PERCENT DISPARITY ON SCHOLARSHIP BUDGETS What makes matters even worse for college administrators is the fact that the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), the federal bureaucracy that interprets and enforces the Title IX law, is making its requirements more stringent each and every year. This past summer, the OCR came down with a technical assistance letter to 25 institutions named in a law suit by the National Women¢s Law Center a year ago. In simple terms, these colleges must spend scholarship money within one-percent of the ratio of men to women athletes in the program. Consider these exact quotes from the OCR document: *If any unexplained disparity in the scholarship budget for athletes of either gender is 1 percent or less for the entire budget of athletics scholarships, there will be a strong presumption that such a disparity is reasonable and based upon legitimate and non-discriminatory factors. Conversely, there will be a strong presumption that an unexplained disparity of more than 1 percent is in violation of the substantially proportionate¢ requirement.* *Thus, for example, if men are 60 percent of the athletes, OCR would expect that the men¢s athletics scholarship budget would be within 59-61 percent of the total budget for all athletes, after accounting for legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for any other larger disparity.* If you combine this requirement with the continued push for proportionality in participation, which requires the percentage of athletes to match the ratio of the gender of the general student body, the result is clear. College must increase the percentage of women athletes, and, at the same time, increase the scholarship spending on women¢s programs. In short, the use of gender quotas is being expanded from participation to scholarship spending. It is important to remember that these *clarifications* from the Office of Civil Rights have never been approved by Congress. In fact, when Congress passed Title IX in 1972, it was never intended to be a quota law. However, as time went by, the Office of Civil Rights has taken a simple anti-discrimination law and shaped it into a gender quota law through interpretations and clarifications. The result has been the rash of dropped opportunities for men athletes, often without a dramatic increase in women¢s opportunities. SUPREME COURT TO HEAR A TITLE IX CASE THAT WILL DIRECTLY IMPACT THE NCAA The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case concerning Title IX, which could make a major impact in how the law is enforced in the future. The case is NCAA vs. Smith, 98-84, and will determine whether or not the NCAA can be sued directly under the Title IX legislation. Renee Smith sued the NCAA in 1996, contending that the organization discriminated against women in its eligibility policies. A college volleyball athlete for two years at St. Bonaventure Univ., Smith pursued graduate degrees at Hofstra Univ. and the Univ. of Pittsburgh. At each college, Smith¢s desire to join the women¢s volleyball team was not allowed, based upon an NCAA rule that bars graduate students from participating on university teams other than the one from which they earned their undergraduate degree. Smith used Title IX to sue the NCAA, but had her lawsuit thrown out by a federal judge. However, the Third District Court of Appeals reinstated her Title IX claim last March. The Supreme Court will now decide whether the NCAA can be sued under Title IX, because, as Smith claims, it receives dues from colleges that are federally subsidized. The fact that the Supreme Court will hear the case was a victory for the NCAA, which would like to see the district court decision reversed. The NCAA contends that it does not receive federal funds, and that Congress never intended Title IX to apply to the NCAA directly. If the Supreme Court rules that the NCAA can be sued under Title IX, it faces the possibility of endless Title IX lawsuits from individual student-athletes. This is a very important case because it allows the Supreme Court another chance to revisit Title IX. Even if the Supreme Court does not address proportionality and other important Title IX issues, its ruling on this case could have an major impact on the future of the law. Everyone involved in the national sports community will watch this case very closely, with the hopes that the Supreme Court will use its vast power to come up with a correct decision. WRESTLING CONTINUES TO LOSE PROGRAMS AS TIME MARCHES ON... It was a discouraging year for college wrestling, as a number of universities dropped wrestling programs and others announced plans for eliminating the sport in the future. Since the last Task Force Notes was published in July, two more colleges moved forward with plans to eliminate wrestling. There will be no wrestling team this year on the campuses at Div. I Chicago State University and Div. II Southern Connecticut University. Add these lost programs to the eliminated programs at the University of North Dakota, Georgia State University, Bismarck State College and Fergus Falls Community College. Plans are underway to drop wrestling at the end of this year at Miami of Ohio, and at the end of the 2002-2003 season at Boston College. ... BUT MANY OTHER SPORTS ARE GETTING WIPED OUT ON CAMPUS The roll-call of lost men¢s programs includes much more than college wrestling. Since last spring, the following major universities are among the many that have announced they will drop men¢s programs:
* Providence College - baseball, men¢s golf, men¢s tennis Not every college that drops a program makes a public announcement on the issue. It usually takes at least a year for all of the information to be compiled. The National Wrestling Coaches Association put together some alarming statistics, which it shared with its members during its convention this summer. In the period between 1993-97, NCAA men¢s college sports were slashed on many campuses. Included are Div. I, Div. II and Div. III teams: Baseball - 14 programs; Fencing - 9 programs; Football - 11 programs Golf - 51 programs; Gymnastics - 13 programs; Ice Hockey - 4 programs Lacrosse - 10 programs; Rifle - 10 programs; Soccer - 10 programs Skiing - 3 programs; Swimming - 18 programs; Tennis - 35 programs Outdoor Track - 26 programs; Indoor Track - 37 programs; Cross Country - 25 programs Volleyball - 7 programs; Water Polo - 4 programs; Wrestling - 36 programs In this study alone, 323 men¢s college programs were lost during the five-year period. This does not even include NAIA and Junior College teams. Wrestling is just one of the many victims of this dangerous trend.
|