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

WOMEN'S SPORTS LEADERS PARANOID ABOUT THE TRUTH ABOUT TITLE IX

As time goes by, and more national television broadcasts, articles and media reports are reaching the general public about the unintended consequences of Title IX, the pro-quota leaders of the women's sports movement are getting paranoid. Very, very paranoid.

After decades of the national media only covering their side of the Title IX debate, the last few years have seen a rapid succession of major national stories reporting on the hidden costs of the proportionality - the loss of opportunity for male athletes in the name of "equity." Consider that ABC's 20/20, PBS National Desk, and most recently HBO Real Sports have exposed the ugly truth that men's teams are being eliminated through the use of proportionality as a method to achieve Title IX goals. Suddenly, there is no longer a one-sided debate on the issue, focused entirely on the benefits of gender quotas.

Rather than engage in a healthy public debate on the issue, these women's sports leaders would prefer to use their considerable influence to quiet the truth and place their selective spin on the issue. Even worse, they are asking the NCAA, the national organization that is supposed to represent the interests of all athletes, to pay for all of this.

Consider the recent action of the Committee on Women's Athletics, as reported in the NCAA News on November 8:

"In another action, the committee expressed concern that a number of groups are sending out misinformation on the impact of Title IX, and in some cases, fund-raising letters seeking support for the repeal of the federal law. The committee discussed a variety of ways to educate the intercollegiate athletics community on the positive benefits of Title IX, ultimately recommending a two-year educational campaign to dispel some of the myths regarding Title IX, provide accurate information about the law itself, and promote the positive results of the law. The projects details will be announced at a later date."

It is not difficult to discover where the idea for this public relations campaign came from. Donna Lopiano, the out-spoken Executive Director of the Women's Sports Foundation, addressed this committee in its previous meeting. According to the August 16, 1999 issue of the NCAA News, Lopiano told the committee that she thought "outspoken leadership by the committee and the NCAA is necessary to counter anti-Title IX rhetoric."

You only need to read an internal newsletter from the Women's Sports Foundation to see this strategy in action. In their advocacy section, Libby Sandler wrote an article entitled "Danger on Capitol Hill, Misinformation Campaign Against Title IX." The article attacks a recent effort by the organization Simply Common Sense, which proposed a Congressional resolution to abolish proportionality. Sandler writes:

"There are those who are capitalizing on the frustrations of boys, their parents and former college male athletes whose sport programs have been cut by institutions seeking a shortcut to compliance with Title IX. Instead of attempting to increase revenues or instituting an across the board percentage cuts in all sports as preferred methods of funding more women's sports without cutting men's sports, some institutions are eliminating men's sports to reach compliance and blaming the program cuts on Title IX and women's sports."

According to the Sandler article, "Beware the misinformation campaigns, such as the SCS campaign, that attack Title IX." In the paranoia about having to face the truth about Title IX, the Women's Sports Foundation and other pro-quota advocates want to create their own misinformation campaign trumpeting the success of proportionality. And they want the NCAA to pay for it all, and place its stamp of approval on the program.

Those who are working hard to bring the truth about Title IX to the public should feel good that they are starting to make a difference. However, they also need to be aware that a renewed effort has been initiated to keep that truth from the public.

WHEN WILL THE NCAA RECOGNIZE THE VOICE OF MEN'S OLYMPIC SPORTS?

The recent action of the NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics once again brings up a very important question: When will the NCAA allow the voice of men's Olympic sports programs to be heard?

Clearly, the creation of a Committee on Women's Athletics was based upon a need for the interests of this important segment of the college community to be addressed. Nowhere in the NCAA corporate structure is the voice of men's Olympic sports, the group most affected by Title IX cuts, given an equal platform.

There is an Olympic sports liasion committee in the NCAA, but their charge is to consider Olympic sports for both men and women, and both revenue and non-revenue producing sports. Each individual sport on the NCAA program also has a committee, but, once again, the committees only focus on the specific needs of that sport within the NCAA structure. Certainly, the most powerful voices in men's athletics are from the revenue-producing sports (football, basketball and, in some cases, hockey). None of these groups speak for men's wrestling, swimming, track and field, gymnastics, baseball and other sports destroyed by gender equity cuts.

It would take some courage, and a bit of compassion, for the NCAA to provide a committee for men's Olympic sports. We challenge those within the power structure to create a new committee to allow a unified voice for a group that has been left out in the cold.

DOES THE NCAA UNDERSTAND THAT PROPORTIONALITY IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW?

The NCAA recently released the 1997-98 gender equity report, a major research document that gives specific information about the progress made by NCAA institutions to comply with Title IX. The information in the report allows the collegiate community to reflect on the last two years, and evaluate the trends concerning its sports programs, according to gender.

For those interested in providing expanded opportunities for women athletes, the news is good. The first statement of the press release is the most telling: "women have made significant gains in Division I collegiate athletic scholarships." In fact, women have gained in each and every category researched in the NCAA report.

So why aren't the leaders within the NCAA applauding the efforts of the college administrators who have provided all of this new opportunity? The answer lies in the fact that the NCAA has bought into the rhetoric of the women sports leaders, who will not be satisfied until complete proportionality is forced upon the entire college sports community.

A quick study of the law shows that there are three ways to comply with Title IX: a pattern of increased opportunity for women, accommodating interests and abilities, and proportionality. When challenged, the women's sports leaders are quick to remind everyone that the law does not specifically require proportionality. So why does the NCAA insist on using proportionality as the only method to evaluate Title IX progress?

Consider these statements by NCAA Executive Director Cedric Dempsey, who seems to walk in lock-step with the women's sports elite. Says Dempsey: "As we move closer to proportionality, we recognize improvements will not be as dramatic. At the same time, we must do better. The good news is that we have seen a nine-percentage increase in women's participation in the last seven years. The bad news us that we have only seen a nine-percentage-point improvement."

The only other voice provided in the press release came from Cheryl Levick, senior associate athletic director at Stanford and the chair of the NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics. "Any growth or gain is a positive action for female student-athletes. But the rate of growth in participation numbers and dollars spent is much too slow."

It is ironic that nobody is given the chance to comment on this startling fact which was included in the fifth paragraph of the NCAA release: "Women, however, received more scholarship money than men in Division I basketball, fencing, golf, gymnastics, skiing, soccer, swimming and diving, tennis, volleyball, track and field and cross country."

You might want to read that sentence again. In 11 sports that both men and women compete, women receive MORE scholarship money than men. Certainly, even the most die-hard quota advocates have to admit that women have made substantial progress.

EXPENSES AND SALARY DIFFERENCES WILL THREATEN MEN'S TEAMS

The 1997-98 NCAA Gender Equity Study provides basic information that can be used not only to evaluate the past, but to look into the future of collegiate athletics. Those who are concerned that men's sports are in major jeopardy because of proportionality need to look past just the raw participation and scholarship numbers. The gender ratios in operating expenses, recruiting expenses, head coaches salaries and assistant coaches salaries loom as the next threat to men's programs.

The Gender Equity study gives a comparison between all three NCAA reports, the 1991-92 study, the 1995-96 study and the 1997-98 study. Since 1992, the ratio of men to women participants went from 69%-31% to the 60-40 ratio in 1997-98. Likewise, the ratio of men to women scholarships went from 69-31 in 1991-92 to a 59-41 ratio today. These two areas have been the major focus of discussion in the public forum.

However, there are other important areas that the NCAA also evaluates in its research. According to the 1997-98 figures, the ratio of operating expenses of men to women is currently 67-33, and the ratio of recruiting expenses is 70-30. In addition, the ratio of head coaches salaries of men to women is currently 60-40 and the ratio of assistant coaches salaries is at 73-27. With enrollment ratios running at 53-47 in favor of women, and a widening gap projected for the future, these numbers are daunting.

If you force proportionality in any of these categories, the money to increase the women's percentage will have to come from somewhere. Once again, just like with participants and scholarships, many colleges will find it easier to drop men's programs, which will increase the percentages on the women's side, than to find new revenue for the women's teams. This could again be the case of addition by subtraction, with nobody winning.

ISN'T IT TIME TO FIND A NEW WAY TO MEASURE COMPLIANCE BESIDES ENROLLMENT?

The problem that many people find with proportionality is that it does a very poor job of measuring whether there is discrimination against women in collegiate sports. The quota is determined by comparing the number of students enrolled by gender with the number of students participating in athletics. This only works if you assume that everyone in the general student body is interested in competing in sports, and is physically able to participate at the varsity level.

In reality, this is certainly not the case. One of the reasons that there are often more women on a campus is the fact that more adult women go back to college later in life to get a degree than men. In most cases, these women not only aren't interested in sports but are not capable of competing at the elite level. This fact alone brings into question the quota based upon enrollment.

The problem with the other two prongs of the enforcement criteria, "history of expansion for women" and "interest and abilities" is that they are hard to quantify. Thus, proportionality, the so-called safe harbor, in practice proves to be very unsafe to male athletes. Perhaps a different measuring stick could be used besides enrollment. A few suggested ways to better quantify interest and abilities follow:

Percentage of students in intramurals - How about taking a look at the interest of the general student body in competing in intramurals. These athletic activities are open freely to both men and women on campus, yet in overwhelming numbers, men are much more interested in competing than women.

Percentage of high school athletes - How about taking a look at the number of boys and girls who compete in sports on the high school level. The national average of boys to girls in high school athletics is 60-40, just the same as it is now on the college level. According to this ratio, colleges have already achieved gender equity, in terms of interest, and there is no need to cut any more men's programs to reach a quota.

A fair survey of the student body - Finding a fair and accurate way to measure student interest on campus is another possible solution. Even though this suggestion was recently made on HBO Real Sports by Norma Cantu, who runs the Office of Civil Rights (the group that enforces Title IX), in practice, surveys have been shot down by the courts and the government bureaucrats. The development of a test that is acceptable by all will not be easy to do, but is a worthy project.

In practice, all that the current proportionality ratio measures is student interest in higher education, not student interest in athletics. It's time to find a new way to measure.