The Super 32
Make NC Mat your start-up page
|
Task Force Media Notes, November 17, 1998
The NCAA News continues to offer opportunities for a variety of opinions on the topic of Title IX and its interpretation. In its November 9 issue, a number of different quotes were published in the Comment section. As is often the case, the athletic director of a university which has cut men's sports programs as a method to comply with Title IX tries to explain the action. This time, it was John Marinatto, the athletic director at Providence College, which dumped three men's sports this fall. Rather than take responsibility for this destructive solution to its problems, Marinatto pointed the finger somewhere else. Said he: * "I think (Title IX's) intent is fair. I don't think the intent was ever meant to take opportunities from men and give them to women. The litigious society we live in... (is to blame)." Rather than blame somebody else, college administrators should take a long look in the mirror and begin to take full responsibility for their actions. Rather than find a more creative solution, many administrations take the easy way out and cut men's teams to reach a gender quota. It's about time that these people came clean with the public about their choices. In the same issue of the NCAA News, attorney Lynette Labinger gave an accurate portrayal of what happens when sports teams are cut in the name of Title IX. Said she: * "My mindset is to preserve opportunities and increase them, not cut them in the name of paper compliance. That creates hard feelings and causes people to assess blame, and that's always bad." Touche!!! THE REASON THAT INTEREST NO LONGER EQUALS OPPORTUNITY Jim Scherr, the Executive Director of USA Wrestling, presented a speech on Title IX as part of the Colorado Springs Sports Corporation's Legal Symposium, held in Colorado Springs, Colo., Nov. 6. The audience for the message was a group of his peers, national governing body executives from a variety of Olympic sports. Scherr gave a complete review of the legal and regulatory history of the statute's interpretation and enforcement. He explained how a law which in 1972 Congress explicitly intended never to be a quota regulation was changed over time to become exactly that - a gender quota. Scherr presented this assessment of the original intent: * "The bill's sponsor in the Senate, Birch Bayh, stated that gender quotas were 'exactly what this amendment intends to prohibit... and the thrust of the amendment is to do away with every quota, and 'it only requires that each individual be judged on merit without regard to sex.'" Scherr explained how these changes were made through a series of bureaucratic interpretations, supported by a number of court decisions. He presented what Title IX has become today, through a quote by Title IX proponent U.S. Representative Maxine Waters in a subcommittee meeting in July of 1997: * "It's the biggest quota you have ever seen. It is 50/50. It's a quota - big, round, quota." (laughter) Early in the history of Title IX, the accomodation of interests and abilities was the most important area of inquiry in the process, explained Scherr. However, a series of interpretations and clarifications from the federal government, backed up by court cases such as Cohen v. Brown University, has changed this completely. Now, "proportionality" has become the most important mechanism for enforcement, and "interest and abilities," although still part of the formula, has been basically ignored by the bureaucrats and the judges. The result has been an enormous reduction in opportunities for male athletes in recent years, he said. Scherr said that the time may have come that the unintended consequences of the law now outweigh the positive results of the regulation. He said that the basic reason for the problem is the faulty reasoning behind proportionality. Said Scherr: * "The premise for proportionality relies on the assumption that females are equally as interested in participating in athletics. Neither the OCR nor the courts have provided any statistical data to validate this assumption." A series of facts were presented as proof that men and women do not have the same interest in sports. Consider these: * In high school athletics, boys participate at a rate of approximately 2 to 1 over girls, but in other extracurricular activities, girls out-participate boys tremendously. * In intramural sports on college campuses, the participation rates are 78% males to 22% females * The SAT each year asks students what their interests may be in college. The number of male students indicating interest in sports outnumber the females by more than 3 to 1. Scherr also noted that girls have a much higher interest in other activities on high school campuses than boys, including band, drama, debate, orchestra, spirit squads, choir and others. Scherr asked why Title IX has not been used to eliminate girls from these educational activities to achieve a numerical ratio. The basic truth that boys have a greater interest in sports than girls has been ignored in the Title IX debate. Scherr warned that male opportunities will continue to be eliminated until the faulty premise behind proportionality is corrected.
IT IS TIME FOR MOTHERS TO STAND UP FOR THEIR SONS AS WELL AS THEIR DAUGHTERS Soccer moms understand the importance of sports activities for all of their children, both boys and girls. They are equally willing to take their daughter to a soccer game, their son to a baseball game, or both children to a swimming meet. Their families are living examples of the original intent of Title IX, which was passed to provide equal opportunity for all in educational activities. It is a safe bet that these soccer moms would be upset if one of their children had less opportunity to participate in sports than another of their kids. They might also be surprised to learn that, on the college level, statistics clearly indicate that their daughter-athlete has more opportunity to compete than their son-athlete. The "opportunity percentage" statistic compares the number of high school athletes in each sport with the number of college athletes in each sport. This research indicates that in 10 of the 16 sports that have teams for both genders, women student-athletes have a greater opportunity to compete in college than men student-athletes. It is time for mothers who love their sons and their daughters equally to stand up and be heard. This group of leaders has made a difference in the past, and can help create change today. In the past, maybe 15 years ago, college sports programs were unfair to their daughters. However, the statistics show that today, the unfair opportunity is faced by their sons. It is time for all the soccer moms to stand up for their sons, just like they did for their daughters in the past.
MEN'S LACROSSE, ICE HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIPS MAY BE ELIMINATED IN DIVISION II In order for a division to host a national championship, at least 40 institutions must sponsor the sport. A moratorium permitting championships to continue with low numbers ends this season. However, another rule was passed in 1997 that no Olympic sport can be discontinued without approval of its membership. Ice hockey is an Olympic sport and would be protected under the current regulations. However, because many top teams have moved up to Division I, only seven Div. II hockey teams will exist next year. The elimination of this event would not have a major impact. However, lacrosse is not an Olympic sport, and receives no protection. There are currently 30 Div. II teams in men's lacrosse, and unless the membership votes to save the championship, the 1999 Div. II Lacrosse Championships will be the last. There has not been a dropped Div. II championships since the men's gymnastics tournament was eliminated in 1985 and the women's gymnastics tournament was cut in 1985, but Div. II institutions retained access to national championships in both sports, according to the article. Title IX is certainly a factor in this equation. If any lacrosse program was eliminated at the Div. II level because of proportionality, it helped lower the total number of teams. In addition, as the Pickle article points out, "adding men's lacrosse as a new sport would cause a proportionality problem at almost any institution unless it was accompanied by the addition of a comparable women's sport." The article also points out that some women's sports advocates have challenged allowing men's sports below the 40 teams to retain championship status. The article says: "At the Title IX seminar this year, questions were raised about why some men's championships were continuing below the required level of sponsors, while women's emerging sports with similar sponsorship could not be established." In this unsettled climate, wrestling, although an Olympic sport, may also be endangered on the Div. II level. NCAA statistics from 1996-97 indicate 48 Div. II wrestling teams. Since then, Portland State has moved up to Div. I and North Dakota has dropped its program, bringing the number even lower. Wrestling is dangerously close to the cut-off number of 40. If wrestling drops below the 40 threshold, it becomes vulnerable to a vote by Div. II institutions, a prospect that should worry every wrestling fan.
HOW ABOUT ADDING A COMMITTEE ON MEN'S ATHLETICS TO PROTECT MEN'S INTERESTS?? This begs the question about why there is no Committee on Men's Athletics within the NCAA structure. Where is the equality in women having a committee to protect their interests and men not having one? If the NCAA truly believes that they need to hear the voice of women as a gender, then shouldn't they also hear the voice of men as a gender? The argument may be that men, as the larger percentage of athletes, already have their voice heard within the NCAA system. However, men's viewpoints are mixed-in on committees with those of women. There is no one committee that addresses issues and expresses the viewpoints exclusively devoted to men's sports. One could also argue that the men's major revenue sports, such as football and basketball, are the voices that the NCAA is hearing, while the voices of the men's Olympic non-revenue sports are being pushed aside and clipped. Perhaps if the NCAA were to provide a forum for men to communicate and work together for the benefit of all male athletes, some of the problems caused by Title IX might be addressed and solved. In this case, you might change the old saying to something like this: what's fair for the gander is also fair for the goose.
|