Title IX

TASK FORCE MEDIA NOTES
VOL. 1, NO. 10 (December 10, 1997)
This is part of a series of regular reports
to update, inform, educate and stimulate public discussion

NCAA DIV. II CHAMPION SAN FRANCISCO STATE TEAM IS CAPPED
        In 1997, the San Francisco State University wrestling team finished off
an outstanding season by claiming the team title at the NCAA Div. II
Wrestling Championships held in Fargo, N.D.
        It was the first national title won by any San Francisco State team in
any sport, going back almost 100 years, when the university was founded
in 1899. Coach Lars Jensen’s team, which included three individual
champions, was the most successful sports squad in school history.
        When the 1997-98 season began, Coach Jensen had to attempt to defend
his national title with a major handicap. Because of Title IX gender
quotas, Coach Jensen was given a roster cap of 22 athletes, including
redshirts. Coach Jensen had to cut eight athletes who were capable and
interested in competing on the squad. This included a California state
high school champion and two California Junior College state
placewinners, clearly talented and deserving athletes. These eight
athletes are not permitted to train with the team, or compete at San
Francisco State this year.
        “I’ve never cut before,” said Jensen. “You never know what you will
have in the room by the end of the season. Some of these guys would have
contributed.”
        
WHY WOULD A UNIVERSITY FORCE ITS BEST TEAM TO CUT ITS ROSTER???
        It does not matter that the San Francisco State University wrestling
team is the defending national champion, a model program that the campus
and community can be proud of. All that matters is sheer numbers, a head
count of how many male athletes participate in the overall athletic
program.
        Proportionality, which is a gender quota in the enforcement of Title
IX, forces athletic departments to bring their participation numbers in
line with the gender makeup of the student body. However, if there are
not enough women interested in competing to increase the percentage of
female athletes, then male teams are often capped or eliminated.
        At San Francisco State, you can not blame the football team, since the
university eliminated football a number of years ago. This is a perfect
example of why interest and abilities, the forgotten prong of Title IX
compliance, must be given more weight in the Title IX debate. When you
eliminate opportunities just to meet a quota, nobody wins. 

SWIMMING GREAT JANET EVANS QUESTIONS TITLE IX ENFORCEMENT
        A recent television show entitled “More than a Game,” produced by Echo
Entertainment, addressed a variety of issues concerning Title IX. An
interview with Olympic champion swimmer Janet Evans is very
enlightening.
        “I was a definite product of Title IX...,” said Evans. “I do think that
Title IX, while giving women a lot of opportunities, has taken some
opportunities away from men. So, I do think it needs to be reexamined...
maybe just a little bit.”
NCAA STATISTICS ONCE AGAIN INDICATE THAT MEN’S SPORTS ARE BEING DROPPED
        Swimming, the sport in which Janet Evans became an international sports
hero, is one of the sports that has been affected directly by
proportionality. The 1996-97 NCAA statistics indicate that there are 432
NCAA college swimming teams for women, but only 368 college swimming
teams for men. On numerous campuses across the nation, there is a
women’s varsity swimming team but no men’s team, in spite of having the
facilities and resources to field teams for both genders.
        Those who claim that men’s sports are not being reduced due to Title IX
need to review the chart published in the October 20, 1997 issue of NCAA
News. The top of the chart shows the growth in the number of Div. I
programs for women’s sports from 1993 through 1997, including soccer,
rowing, golf, lacrosse, indoor and outdoor track, volleyball and cross
country.
        The bottom half shows the loss in Div. I programs for a number of
sports. Men’s gymnastics fell from 41 to 28 teams. Men and Women’s
fencing dropped from 92 to 80 teams. Wrestling fell from 108 to 98
teams. Swimming went from 160 to 152 teams. Men’s water polo slipped
from 47 teams to 42. There is once again clear and compelling evidence
that men’s programs have been directly affected by the misinterpretation
of Title IX.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SETS GUIDELINES FOR COACHES PAY
        The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has become the most
recent federal bureaucracy that is attempting to mandate how college
athletic programs distribute their resources and serve their student
bodies. The EEOC has provided new guidelines concerning coaches pay,
comparing the salaries for their men’s and women’s programs.
        We include an excerpt from an article by Walter Olson, senior fellow of
the Manhattan Institute, which appeared in USA Today (as reprinted in
the NCAA News). Mr. Olson attempts to explain what could be the result
of the new EEOC actions:
        “Fresh from its push to protect mental illness in the workplace, the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is back with its next
social-engineering venture: arm-twisting pay parity between men and
women’s coaches. The likely results? More outside meddling in college
sports and worsening of the current Title IX disaster for such sports as
men’s track, wrestling and diving.
        “News flash: Women are different from men. College football is a huge
business and it won’t have a female equivalent as long as women are free
to avoid it...”
        “After a token concession that not every volleyball coach may be
entitled to the pay of a Big Ten football wizard, the new EEOC
guidelines start in with the bad news. Comparisons between dissimilar
sports? No problem. Offers based on market rates or current pay levels
will be suspect: “Cultural and social factors may have artificially
inflated men’s coaches’ salaries.’
        “Washington flexes its muscles. What keeps atrophying is freedom.”

JUST BECAUSE IT APPEARS IN PRINT, DOESN’T MEAN IT IS TRUE...
        The following paragraph appeared in a recent issue of USA Today, on the
front page of its sports section. What is disturbing about this brief is
that it was written as if it were complete fact, without any opportunity
for a different viewpoint.
        “TRICKLE DOWN: Changes expected after Brown University was found to
have discriminated against female athletes won’t be limited to college
sports. Lawyers and activists say high schools will have to make their
programs more equitable or become the next legal target. Already girls
are demanding better coaching, more money for travel and equal access to
facilities. Donna Lopiano of the Women’s Sports Foundation said it’s
only the beginning.”
        This amazing paragraph offers many questions. Who says that changes
won’t be limited to college sports? What lawyers and activists say high
schools will become a target? What girls are demanding more? What
exactly does Donna Lopiano say this is only the beginning of? Exactly
what is USA Today trying to say with this brief story?
        What is clear is that only one viewpoint was expressed in this brief.
Far too often, the national media has only published the viewpoint of
those who are in favor of proportionality. In order to offer their
readers balanced coverage, USA Today should ask what these changes might
do to existing men’s sports programs, and if there is a chance that
citizens will find a way to stop this trend?
Comments & Questions -- info@ncmat.com