Imagine life without Title IX. For a generation of American girls whose parents drove them to Little League practice, cheered them on at high school track meets, or watched proudly as they went on to become Olympic medalists, an entire lifetime of team camaraderie, triumphs, defeats and life lessons would be wiped out.
That’s why it’s disappointing to see the legislation that improved the lives of thousands of American women become a target. On its 30th anniversary, the landmark piece of legislation that gave women the right to participate in sports was being "re-examined" recently in a series of hearings sponsored by the U.S. secretary of education. Any recommendations for change will be made by Jan. 31.
Title IX opponents have always existed (U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft is among them), but a recent lawsuit by the National Wrestling Coaches’ Association has prompted the Bush Administration to put together a 15-member Commission on Opportunity in Athletics to look into their complaints.
Currently, Title IX threatens to withdraw federal funding from schools that do not adhere to one of the following requirements: 1) female/male participation in athletics is proportional to female/male enrollment, 2) there is a history of expansion of programs for the underrepresented sex, or 3) the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex are fully accommodated.
The NWCA alleges that Title IX’s equal participation policy is a "quota system" designed to undermine men’s programs, and wants the proportionality requirement dropped. However, critics rarely consider the other option for compliance with Title IX — adding women’s programs instead of cutting men’s.
After all, while it is true that more than 300 men’s programs have been discontinued since 1993, male athletic participation has risen more than 20 percent since the passage of Title IX, and more than 300 men’s teams have since been added. Meanwhile, male athletes still receive 1.1 million more participation opportunities than women, $133 million more in college athletic scholarships, and the bulk of athletics operating dollars and team recruitment spending.
Eighty percent of schools are out of compliance with Title IX, but not once has there been a withdrawal of federal funds.
What is most discouraging about these attacks on Title IX is that, in the end, both sides continue to lose: women’s athletic programs as well as men’s sports like wrestling, tennis and gymnastics. One of the saddest examples is the decision by Greg Louganis’ alma mater, the University of Miami, to cut its swimming and diving program. Understandably heartbroken, the former Olympian was quoted as saying, "just once, I would like to see a college program cut 10 football players who never play a down."
Certainly, schools can afford to do this without getting rid of other programs: 70 percent of NCAA Division I athletic budgets are devoted to football and men’s basketball. In 1995, UCLA saved exactly $266,490 by cutting its men’s swimming and gymnastics programs and blaming it on Title IX, but its football budget for that year was more than $6.5 million.
It’s time to question the administrative and budgetary wisdom of schools that cut men’s sports, not the law that gives women a right to play.
If the hearings on Title IX are really dedicated to "expanding opportunities to ensure fairness for all athletes," then the real question is not whether women’s athletics are taking away opportunities for men. The bigger question is the one thousands of young women ask themselves each year when they get passed over for athletic scholarships while the football team takes a chartered jet to its next game: "How long will it take before Title IX is enforced?"
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
