Sept. 24

Title IX Tantrum

The debate concerning the enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 — the federal statue banning sexual discrimination in education — and its effect on college athletics has long been a contentious one. Following today’s release of a Women’s Sports Foundation study concerning participation levels for male and female athletes during the past decade, don’t expect the argument to end any time soon.

Looking for a job?

See all 212 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,466
Administrative: 1,661
Executive: 159
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

The sports foundation hopes the study will put to bed what it says are false claims by some critics that Title IX has led to a decrease in male participation in college sports. Critics of the foundation, however, argue that the recent study is nothing more than repackaging of misleading data, ignoring what some see as the problems of gender-quota enforcement of the statute.

Institutions can achieve Title IX compliance if its athletics program has a population of male and female athletes proportional to the population of male and female undergraduate students enrolled. Still, an institution does not need to meet this quota if it has a history of expanding athletic programs to meet the needs and interests of the underrepresented gender or it appears to meet such demand already. Critics often take issue with the proportionality option to meet the standard of Title IX and not the spirit of the statute itself.

Chief among the major findings of the study, the women’s sports group asserts that both men’s and women’s participation levels in college athletics have increased during the last 25 years. Evaluating Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) data — required of all institutions participating in intercollegiate athletics by the Department of Education — and National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) data, the study notes that men’s participation on intercollegiate teams increased by about 6 percent between 1995-96 and 2004-5. By comparison, the study states that women’s participation increased by more than 20 percent during the same period. It also notes that although women’s participation has slowed in recent years, the gap between male and female participation has not substantially changed in the years since 2000-01, when the annual growth in female participation has averaged at around 1.5 percent a year.

The study also argues that colleges and universities have largely responded to Title IX by increasing female participation in their athletics programs rather than by decreasing male participation. In one example, the study notes that institutions that were not in compliance with the statute in 1995-96 were more likely to add female athletes during the next nine years than those institutions which were either in compliance with Title IX or closer to it. Additionally, those same institutions were also less likely to eliminate slots for male athletes than those other institutions during the same time period.

Marj Snyder, chief planning and programming officer at the foundation, said what she characterizes as the “Title IX blame game” must cease.

“It’s just become an easy whipping boy,” Snyder said. “It’s a lot easier to blame Title IX than it is to tell the men’s football and basketball coach to do some cost control. … There are a number of ways to improve gender equity and one of the primary ways it happens is by adding female athletes and not decreasing male athletes. To characterize all adding and dropping of sports [as] because of Title IX is inaccurate.”

In its final major point, the study argues that the earliest growth in women’s athletic programs favored sports that had the highest levels of racial and ethnic diversity. Now, the study states, more recent growth in women’s athletics favors sports with less diversity. Snyder said this trend affects black female athletes most as they are considerably segregated by sport. The study notes that almost 68 percent of black females participate in either track and field or basketball.

The College Sports Council, a group that advocates for Title IX changes on behalf of male athletes and men’s sports teams, challenges many aspects of the sports foundation’s study. Jim McCarthy, a council spokesman, said he believes this report is a “copycat” analysis of a study it did last year, which analyzed similar data but reached a different conclusion. He argues that men’s participation has declined since the introduction of the federal statute. The sports foundations’ close relationship with the NCAA makes this data suspect to critics like McCarthy.

He said data are available only in the aggregate from the NCAA in comparison to the individual institutional assessment garnered by the Department of Education. He argues this use of aggregate data, which cannot be verified, can often be used to form misleading conclusions.

“They’re trying to paper over the drastic harms that proportionality has caused in men’s athletics,” McCarthy said. “This activist group has pushed for years with the NCAA for the proportionality quota. This has decimated men’s participation and men’s teams that have to endure artificial quotas. It’s all smoke and mirrors.”

Additionally, McCarthy said the study fails to discuss the nature in which Title IX has distorted women’s athletics. He said small-roster sports teams, some with traditionally high participation, are being abandoned for large-roster sports teams that often do not have significant participation among high school women. Gymnastics teams, for example, might be eliminated to introduce a women’s rowing or ice hockey team simply to increase the number of female athletes in a program.

“You can slice the data in different ways to show different levels of harm,” McCarthy said. “It seems apparent to us that the data is inaccurate.”

— David Moltz

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

About 2500 men’s sports teams have been eliminated since the 70’s. For example, over 200 men’s gymnastics programs have been eliminated, leaving just 18! Most of the damage was done prior to 1995, so selecting the ex post time period is, of course, complete nonsense. The PR machine behind the defense of Title IX is amazing and always wrong.

Jim Treleaven, at 10:36 am EDT on September 24, 2008

You ain’t seen nothin yet.

You think this is bad, see what happens when they start applying Title IX to hiring and tenure decisions!

Mountaineer, at 10:51 am EDT on September 24, 2008

Title IX a Great Law

Title IX is one of the most important pieces of legislation of this century. It is too bad that The College Sports Council continues to “bad-mouth” Title IX instead of going after the real culprit, football! Since the passage of Title IX in 1972, women’s sports opportunities have grown significantly to meet the educational needs of females and bring them closer to those for males. And while they have increased more than those for men, particiaption opportunities for men have also increased. The basic problem lies in the fact that football rosters have balloned to an average of 118 players (85 full scholarships) on Division I rosters. The typical NFL team carries 53 players. If football scholarships were cut to 60, the average college would have approximately $750,000, which would be more than enough to finance 2-3 additional men’s sports teams. Many schools have “put all their eggs in the football basket” to increase opportunities in one sport at the cost of the others. Now you will tell me that football supports all the other sports programs.....WRONG! 85% of all NCAA football programs spend more than they bring in and contribute nothing to other sports budgets. 1/3rd of NCAA Division I-A programs run deficits of more than 1 million per year.And one last comment, yes, men’s gymnastics have lost over 60 college teams during the past 15 years. But, during that same time, women’s gymnatics have lost over 95 teams. Opponents blame Title IX for the loss of men’s programs, but can’t apply it to women’s programs. What we need to understand is that it is college administrators who determine what teams a school will sponsor and it is not surprising that over time some sports see increases and others decreases. If we truly believe that sports is an integral part of the educational experience I suggest we come together to advocate for broad based sports programming for males and females. Not all young men are built for, or able to play football, and if we keep attacking Title IX instead of the real issue, we will hurt all of our young athletes in the end.

Laurie Priest, Mount Holyoke College, at 12:30 pm EDT on September 24, 2008

Why should women not have the same/similar opportunities to participate in athletics as men? We pay half of the tuition and the taxes that support these institutions. It’s a choice of every institution to either cost control existing programs (many football teams have well over 100 athletes each)in order to add women’s sports, or add dollars to the existing athletic budget to support women’s athletics.

There is no choice to leave the status quo, and to not have women compete (although some people seem to think that’s a fine option). This is the 21st century, not the 19th century!! It’s not ok to provide opportunities for men and not for women just because it is our historical pattern of behavior.

My husband was a gymnast in college and he sees the need for the university to provide more opportunities to women athletes. Therefore, he donates money to support the men’s gymnastics team. Another positive step people can take to support their institutions...

Karen in Michigan, at 1:10 pm EDT on September 24, 2008

Football is a problem but...

Laurie is correct in some of her comments about football. There doesn’t need to be 85 scholarship players on a team. 65 to 70 would do just fine (53 at the NFL level might not be realistic since pro teams can replace injured players with players off the practice squad or waiver wire, which would open up a can of worms at the collegiate level). Then again, the NFL should set up their own minor league system (but that argument is for another day).

Furthermore, coaches don’t need to be paid at the astronomical salaries they are (same with basketball coaches). Coupling this with a reduction in scholarship numbers would certainly free up money to support some other sports. However, there is still a fairness issue regarding funding.

Women’s sports depend on the revenue generated by football and men’s basketball (with the exception of a couple of women’s basketball programs). While I support equal opportunity for women athletes, is it really fair for many of their sports (and non-revenue men’s sports) to be supported by the revenue generated by football and male basketball players? I know a lot has been written about this issue, but the socialistic implications of it always gnaw at me.

I would like to see more Title IX advocates address the funding for women’s sports (and other men’s sports). Where should it come from? Students fees? General fund? Bake sales? It is easy to knock the excesses of football (arguments I agree with), but the overall funding issue needs to be addressed.

George, at 2:05 pm EDT on September 24, 2008

Funding

Regarding the comment above—since most Division I-A football teams lose money it is a perpetual deficit that is funded by all of the mechanisms you mention. So in many cases football does not fund Title IX—it can barely fund itself. The salaries and scholarship reduction issue would definately change the funding model and enable other sports to survive.

But to agree with you, some departments have to generate 90-100% of their revenue and football/basketball (along with the ancillary sponsorships, broadcasting rights etc) are primarily footing the bill. That is a for profit business model of one division funding another. Happens all of the time. It might be time to enact, as many have suggested, that athletic departments should not be 100 self sufficient and that the institution should feel the pain. Will that save sports? Likely not, it might make it worse, or it might make us actually manage our money better and make athletics of the institution, not a breakaway entity that is focused on winning and revenue generation. In that model, there is no concern for Title IX.

Still we have to ask ourselves whose responsibility is it and the answer is all of us have an obligation to support Title IX and a university decides what it is going to spend money on. To ask a sport to be financially independent, when 95% cannot be is unrealistic. The university then needs to ask what it wants to be. Does it want to chase the tail of the supposed big time benefits of a winning football and basketball program (which rarely happens if ever, and most just bleed money and drop sports yet the problems get worse—See Rutgers) or does a university want to provide a broad based educational, social, and intellectual experience that is available to everyone and that athletics can be a part of?

Until we define what we are going to be—a big business entertainment enterprise that provides a free farm system to the pros (perhaps the NFL and NBA should be on the hook to fund “Olympic Sports") or an educational institition and that has athletics as part of the total experience and open to all, the problem will sadly not be solved.

B. David Ridpath, Asst Prof at Ohio University, at 2:40 pm EDT on September 24, 2008

You think this is bad, see what happens when they start applying Title IX to hiring and tenure decisions!Mountaineer

Ah, but what about admissions. With about 3/5 of undergraduates female, surely higher education is not in compliance with Title IX when admitting and retaining students. Until undergraduates represent the male/female 50/50 ratio of the population at large colleges and universities are thumbing their noses at Title IX. This should be the next battleground.

Fairness, at 3:45 pm EDT on September 24, 2008

Title IX

As the father of both male and female teenagers (one now in college), it is obvious to me that girls tend to lose interest in participating in organized sports as they get older. Anyone who denies this is blinded by ideology. I’m happy to see girls playing sports, but the simple truth is that at the college level fewer of them want to do so than boys.

You can see this is true by looking at the rates of athletic participation at all-girls’s schools. There is no discrimination in favor of male athletes at all girl schools yet the rate of participation in varsity sports is generally far lower than it is for male students at coed schools.

The right comparison should not be between the rates of participation in varsity athletics among male and female students at coed schools but instead between the female students at coed schools and the female students at all girl schools with the same SAT/grade requirements for admission.

DBL, at 5:25 pm EDT on September 24, 2008

DBL,

Girls lose interest in sports as they get older because there are next to no opportunities fro adult females to participate in sports as adults.

This is a purpose of Title IX: To provide equal opportunity from communal resources.

P.S. This thread is full of sexist misogynists. You guys should be ashamed of your prejudice.

anon, at 8:55 pm EDT on September 24, 2008

Gender Equity

Thank you, Laurie and David for your always insightful and research-based comments on Title IX. One of the biggest problems that I face in my daily encounters with students,faculty, and administrators is their ignorance about how athletics is funded at their school. I actually teach this concept in my sociology of sport classes using this introduction. “I am all in favor of girls and women playing sports...BUT...it has gone too far...” (whatever that is supposed to mean!) I ask, “What has gone too far?” Equity? Fairness? Opportunities? Numbers of scholarship football players? State supported and cash-strapped universities constructing stadiums for spectators and not student participation? (See Rutgers, and many more that I could name.)I sit on an oversight committee at my university and the so-called Intercollegiate Athletic Board had no idea who the Title IX officer was at our campus, and could not (or would not) explain what percentage of funds that support the athletic department came from required student- activity fees, tuition revenue, discretionary funding, and athletic department fundraising. Once you see these figures you will never again believe the institutional myth of money-making male sports. Please, before responding, read the research and ask the questions at your own institution. “If you build it, they will come,” is a truism that has benefited both our female and male students for many years. Let’s continue to work together creatively and educationally to offer these sport opportunities to all our students. -T.Tiso

Teri Tiso, Associate Professor, at 10:45 am EDT on September 26, 2008

Title IX Descrimation for minor sports

I am a wrestling official and wrestling coach and the number of wrestling programs that have been dropped due to the excuse, Title IX are quite extensive. I am also a girls softball coach and have two daughters so I believe that I have a good, balanced objective view of Title IX as I have fought for both sports. It has been a long-time excuse for Athletic Directors to drop what is referred to as minor sports, such as wrestling in order to achieve equal numbers of male versus female. I believe that by dropping the minor sports programs, that female opportunities have also been dropped in order to achieve a balance in numbers between male and female participants. The author of this article doesn’t have a clue and while I’m not blaming Title IX for the dropping of the minor sports, I do blame the enforcers of Title IX for not going after schools, colleges, and universities for robbing girls of additional opportunities and for cheating young men the opportunities to experience all sports, including the minor ones. Ray Black, Jr.

Ray Black, at 9:15 am EDT on September 30, 2008

Sexist misogynist! Why does the gender lobby have to resort to name calling when the facts don’t work. I have a daughter that is a Div I athlete and a son that will be. My wife and I were both collegiate athletes. We both believe the agenda and quota driven implementation of Title IX has done far more harm than good. I firmly believe that women should have every opportunity to participate in sports but where does it say it must cost tens of thousands of opportunities for men? We know of very few women athletes or coaches who support wiping out men’s sports. The gender warriers clearly have a different agenda and shoddy and biased research is necessary to support it. The other problem is the spineless university adminstrators that are scared to death of the gender lobby.

Jim, at 9:40 pm EDT on September 30, 2008

Women’s Sports Foundation “Study” Fatally Flawed

After reviewing the WSF study, the College Sports Council can present the following facts that demonstrate why the research is utterly unreliable. Readers can learn more about our effort to set the record straight at our blog:

http://savingsports.blogspot.com/

• When the study was first released, on September 23, the WSF provided no link to the source data that was used in the research — instead they only released their executive summary. We soon realized why — that data is being actively withheld from public view. The 1995 data that serves as the starting point for the research is being held by professor John Cheslock at the University of Arizona. The other data, from the NCAA, is being held at NCAA headquarters in Indianapolis — and they refused all requests to make it available.

Of course as anyone who covers social science knows, any study that fails to reveal source data is unverifiable and meaningless.

• What’s worse still is that WSF represented the 1995 baseline data as though it were independent, government material — describing it as “analyses of Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) data.” But in reality, that data was collected by the WSF itself. That’s right — they sent out forms to schools and collected the results directly. There’s no way to verify their accuracy and there’s no way to know whether WSF altered the numbers.

• Now comes the real kicker. WSF presented professor John Cheslock as an independent researcher who compiled the study. Indeed, that’s how he was described in various news accounts including the AP’s story and also in the Wall Street Journal. We asked the AP to confirm whether Cheslock was compensated — and editor Terry Taylor told us that WSF claimed not to have paid Cheslock.

But WSF’s claim is flat-out false. In Cheslock’s curriculum vitae, he indicates that WSF gave him a grant of more than $65,000 to conduct the study.

So, to sum up. An activist interest group released a study they claimed was independent research, but in fact they compiled the baseline data themselves. They claim the data is accurate but there’s no way to review it nor verify how it was compiled. They said an independent academic researcher did the analysis but in fact he was paid tens of thousands of dollars. And many reporters were brazenly misled by these distortions and misconduct.

Here’s the bottom line: the WSF study is completely unreliable and their public release is intellectual dishonesty of the worst sort. They ought to be ashamed, especially since the consequences of their advocacy means the elimination of so many athletic opportunities because of their whitewashing of Title IX’s proportionality requirement.

We would urge reporters and news outlets that were deceived by WSF to follow up with them and demand hard answers and real accountability.

Jim McCarthy, Media Director at College Sports Council, at 1:05 pm EDT on October 15, 2008

Jobs Related to Title IX Tantrum

or search for jobs directly.

Writer | Thinker | Marketer
Mindpower, Inc.

At Mindpower, smart writing is just the tip of the iceberg. If you can create great concepts (put them into words) and think ... see job

Accountant
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora

Posting Description: Hiring Salary Range — $3,882.00 — $4,316.00/month* *Compensation: The salary offered is ... see job

Sales Representative
Corinthian Colleges

Everest Institute, a respected member of the Corinthian Colleges’ network of schools, is dedicated to helping students ... see job

Senior Graphic Designer
Zehno Cross Media Communications

Do you want to be a part of a thriving national creative communications studio? see job

Senior Associate
American Federation of Teachers

The American Federation of Teachers seeks candidate experienced in working with unions or non-profit associations who would ... see job