Search News


Browse Archives

News

Probe of Extra Help for Men

November 2, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has started an inquiry into the extent to which liberal arts colleges discriminate against female applicants in an attempt to minimize gender imbalances in the student body. On Friday, the commission agreed on a set of colleges -- primarily in the Washington area -- to investigate, but declined to release a full list.

The issue is an extremely sensitive one for liberal arts colleges, many of which in recent years have worried about their gender ratios reaching points (60 percent female is commonly cited) where they face difficulty in attracting both male and female applicants. Generally private undergraduate colleges have the legal right to consider gender in admissions. They were specifically exempted from the admissions provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

But despite that legal right, many at liberal arts colleges are uncomfortable about either the extent of admissions favoritism some colleges may engage in, or are embarrassed about it receiving public attention. Further, the Civil Rights Commission's inquiry is based on concerns about another part of Title IX -- its requirement that colleges provide equitable athletic opportunities to male and female athletes. A theory behind the inquiry, outlined in the proposal used to launch the probe, is that colleges may be favoring men in admissions because they are worried about gender-neutral changes they might otherwise use to attract more male students. Foremost among such strategies would be adding more male athletic teams, a move some colleges may be reluctant to make out of fear of the expense of then being required to add more women's teams.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has members with six-year terms appointed by the president and Congress, and its members -- due to the timing of appointments -- still include officials who are much more skeptical of affirmative action than one might see in appointees coming from the current administration and Congress. The commission doesn't have power to order colleges (or other entities) to change their policies, but the commission can draw attention to issues, and prompt action from groups that have more legal options.

Nationally, female enrollments have grown steadily; about 58 percent of bachelor's degrees are awarded to women, and gender gaps have become visible not only at liberal arts colleges, but at many larger institutions, including research universities. From an educational standpoint, many observers think that the falling educational aspirations of college-age men is a serious problem. But from the perspective of admissions officers, the issue is especially pressing at liberal arts colleges. Their relatively small student bodies make gender gaps particularly visible to potential applicants, and they are less likely than research universities to have educational programs -- such as engineering programs -- that may enroll more men than women and balance the overall population.

 

Interested in Admissions Issues?
Visit our "In Focus" page, which
features highlights of our coverage.

And sign up for our Twitter feed.

 

As a result of these concerns, some private liberal arts colleges have talked openly about making extra efforts to recruit male applicants -- and holding female applicants to higher standards in admissions. A 2006 op-ed in The New York Times by Kenyon College's dean of admissions brought the issue national attention, leading to considerable discussion about the ethics of favoring male applicants, and clarifications by the dean about her views. The Title IX exemption that allows liberal arts colleges to consider gender doesn't apply to public colleges or graduate and professional programs -- a fact not always known by all in higher education. When data in 2005 indicated that the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's freshman class was 58 percent female, some trustees suggested that the university consider some form of affirmative action for men. (The idea was rejected.)

The proposal that the civil rights commission is basing its probe on frames the issue this way: "Recently, accusations have been made that some selective private, coed, liberal arts schools are discriminating in admissions in to order to maintain what they regard as an appropriate gender balance. Specifically, the accusation is that women applicants are being discriminated against in order to prevent the schools from becoming 'too female.' Indeed, some commentators have called this an 'open secret' and suggested the same may be occurring at state schools too (where it would be illegal).... Privately at least, some college administrators argue that they must discriminate against women or the gender balance at their institutions will become so off-kilter that many of the women they want won’t be willing to attend. Colleges will then be unable to attract the female students they want most – or so they fear. Interestingly, this may be a bit of a collective action problem. Once a few lower-ranked liberal arts schools started giving preferential treatment to men, others feel they must follow suit, since the failure to do so will cause any hold-out school to have a gender ratio that is seriously off-kilter."

Nothing in the proposal suggests any interest in challenging the legal right of private colleges to consider gender in admissions, although the proposal expressed interest in documenting whether this discrimination is in fact widespread. Rather, the proposal seems focused on legal issues related to Title IX. This comes out of another issue the commission will examine -- how colleges could use gender-neutral ways to achieve gender balance. The proposal for the inquiry notes that colleges have attracted many groups of students by adding either academic or extracurricular programs believes to be of interest to various groups.

But in this case, the proposal speculates, colleges may be avoiding such a strategy -- which may be "preferable" to admissions discrimination -- to avoid running into Title IX issues in athletics.

"A small but significant part of the problem may lie in the enforcement policies of the Department of Education in connection with Title IX," the proposal says. "If a school seeks to make itself more attractive to men by adding more athletic opportunities for men, it must also make more athletic opportunities available to women essentially unless it can affirmatively show that added opportunities for women would not be taken advantage of. This makes it difficult. Since flat-out discrimination is a clear legal alternative, it is possible that what we are witnessing is Title IX 'backfire.' A law that was designed to prevent sex discrimination in higher education may be causing sex discrimination on account of the Department of Education’s emphasis on athletics in enforcement."

The proposal suggests as much interest in this question -- of whether Title IX is causing a problem -- as in the question of whether female applicants are getting unfair treatment in admissions.

While the commission's proposal suggests that fear of Title IX may be discouraging colleges from adding men's teams, at least some colleges have done so, linking their decisions to a desire to attract more applicants.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Probe of Extra Help for Men

  • The Noah Effect
  • Posted by Richard Rice , History at University of Tennessee/Chattanooga on November 2, 2009 at 8:00am EST
  • Funny how admissions and other problems always go back to Title IX, as some suggest.

    Now colleges worry about being "out of kilter" when so many women achieve academic excellence that they want to favor us male dummies.

    When I was an undergraduate back in the ancient 1960s, only about 30% of us were women, and nary a word about kilter. I wonder when kilter was "in" since it is now "out of." Perhaps there is a biblical influence at work here, where students enter higher education in gender pairs. Thank you Noah, for showing the way.

  • Retention Often Trumps Gender
  • Posted by Paul Prewitt-Freilino , Director of Enrollment Management on November 2, 2009 at 9:00am EST
  • It is a fact that, many small liberal arts colleges are getting many more applications from women, therefore supply and demand economics will make it difficult to attract the scarcer supply of quality men and may led colleges to give some male applicants a slight advantage if they meet admissions standards. However, I would argue that the reason a number of colleges have become increasingly female is that they also realize that it is better to focus on quality then on achiving a gender balance because retention and graduation rates are much more important indicators of quality. Most liberal arts colleges have more women because they have better quality pools of applicants from women. Colleges are aware that by admitting more women they will have better retention rates, which leds to better financial stability, reputation, and external rankings in guides like US NEWS.

  • I'm torn . . .
  • Posted by Teddi on November 2, 2009 at 10:15am EST
  • I don' t want anyone to be disadvantaged. And we should be looking at what's going on with men--why aren't they applying or graduating at the same rates? But I have to agree with Richard--where was this concern when women were not enrolling or graduating?

    Back then, the typical response was that women simply didn't have the ability or interest to be in rigorous programs like science, engineering, medicine etc. That kind of explanation is *still* used to explain the imbalances in some programs where women are under-represented.

    I'm very glad that we aren't saying the same thing about men, but at the same time, it is troubling to me that when women are under-enrolled, the problem is ascribed to the women, but when men are under-enrolled the problem is ascribed to the system. Maybe we should look at *that.*

  • Affirmative Action for Men
  • Posted by ADD on November 2, 2009 at 10:15am EST
  • How can proponents of affirmative action be opposed to this? If the diversity of the student body is as crucial as they say, then gender balance should be just as valid as other criteria for giving some students an advantage. Oh wait, it may benefit white males so it can't be good.

  • Posted by Amy on November 2, 2009 at 10:15am EST
  • Am I missing something? How is adding more male athletics teams a gender-neutral strategy?

  • Femdom EDU?
  • Posted by Mike at LSU on November 2, 2009 at 10:15am EST
  • The higher education system in this country has become so weighted toward women that it is a bubble about to burst. The systematic discrimination that created these gender imbalances is collapsing under its own weight. While the administration may not care about the 99% of male students who are not on a flagship sports team, it seems the women who go to these universities still would like to meet a future husband.

  • Maybe at LSU
  • Posted by Comm Prof on November 2, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • We care quite a bit about males not on athletic teams, but they're really just too cool for school, so we flunk them out if they come here at all. The women are far better students, so they are admitted and we have no trouble keeping them.

  • Re: Mike's comment
  • Posted by Teddi on November 2, 2009 at 11:15am EST
  • Do we know that systemic discrimination is what's causing the imbalance? A few years ago, before the economy tanked, many experts thought men weren't enrolling because they had so many attractive employment options. If we're going to look at it--and I think we should--let's do it in smart ways instead of talking about things we don't fully understand yet.

  • Wow, The Hypocrisy
  • Posted by LAJerry , NSCS on November 2, 2009 at 11:30am EST
  • Amazing - a government entity will investigate possible discrimination against one group of students, while the government promotes discrimination against another group of students.

    Either you want the student body to reflect society ("diversity"), or you don't.

  • Affirmative Action?
  • Posted by Dr T , Assistant Prof of Spanish on November 2, 2009 at 12:15pm EST
  • Isn't this effectively the same as affirmative action? No one complains that schools actively seek to increase minority populations. I see this as more of the same mentality.

  • ADD's Comment
  • Posted by cts on November 2, 2009 at 1:15pm EST
  • The article suggests that there are members of the Commission who are anti-affirmative action and that they might be behind this study. Your assumption that only pro-aa types are worried about the admission of less qualified males is based on nothing in the article. Many of us who favors some aa for various purposes, think it makes sense to accept some of the less qualified males.

    Your screen name, however, raises an interesting issue: we see more males than females with ADD or ADHD. This undoubtedly affects their retention, if not their abilities.

  • Flunk them if they dare enroll!
  • Posted by Mike at LSU on November 2, 2009 at 1:15pm EST
  • "but they're really just too cool for school, so we flunk them out if they come here at all."

    Comm Prof, perhaps you should entertain the thought of reaching out to students in your class who are struggling, instead of failing them based on your opinion of their general demeanor. Perhaps its the professors who are "too cool" or too indoctrinated in politically correct pro-female / anti-male discrimination who should be flunked out.

  • Double standards by another name is still......
  • Posted by Chuck on November 2, 2009 at 1:30pm EST
  • For over 25 years, American campuses have aggressively and piously used double standards to treat people differently according to what "group" they were assigned in order to have their faculties and student bodies "reflect the diversity" of America.

    This was the perversion that affirmative action became as individuals were judged as members of racial or ethnic groups, or by their gender. Before the current hype about "sustainability" appeared a few years ago, racial and gender double standards were all the rage as "diversity" ruled the roost as a core mantra of the modern academy. 

    This latest comedy is now what the universities are reaping. Or what Malcolm X would have called "the chickens coming home to roost."

  • Not fair, Mike!
  • Posted by Comm Prof on November 2, 2009 at 2:00pm EST
  • You've twisted my point in your headline -- and you know it. I can't exactly "reach out" to get men to enroll in the first place since they self-select out of college. If you're faculty, you know that we don't flunk students -- male or female -- they flunk themselves. Hand-holding doesn't work with men, which you'd know if you'd tried it.

    In 16 years I have yet to have a female student come to class drunk. I'm sure your experience is similar.

  • Posted by WTF on November 2, 2009 at 2:00pm EST
  • Mike,

    Students who don't show up to class (e.g. "too cool for school") SHOULD be flunked out.

    How does one give any grade other than F when tests are flunked, assignments are never completed, and absence is chronic? In my experience, this behavior is primarily (but not exclusively) a male phenomenon.

    Methinks you might be the one who has been indoctrinated...

    P.S. To you 1960s deadheads, perhaps you should read some feminist literature from the 60s and 70s to see the critique of women being barred from educational opportunities in your good old days. That mythic golden past when women were absent and silent is long gone. In fact, go back a bit earlier and read Virginia Woolf's "A Room of One's Own." Pull your head out of your...sandbox.

  • Retention rates favor women
  • Posted by Hank , Retired at University of Missouri on November 3, 2009 at 12:45am EST
  • The greater retention rate for women likely reflects what we have done for the past generation, tailoring the academic curriculum to the interests of women, e.g., gender courses, and other courses where there is no substance to permit objective evaluation, etc. Thus women are better "qualified" for the modern university because we redesigned it for them, their interests, their abilities. No doubt this also explains why many men simply are not interested in what we have created.

  • Huh?
  • Posted by Comm Prof on November 3, 2009 at 12:45pm EST
  • Oh, now I understand, Hank. That's why all the chemistry departments and engineering schools have shut down, right?

  • Duh
  • Posted by Hank on November 3, 2009 at 8:45pm EST
  • It isn't necessary to shut down everything to get a very effective bias. In fact, the difficulty of making such changes in chemistry, engineering and such is why those parts of the system still attract men. The present situation has been painstakingly constructed to achieve exactly the result we have. And that's why chemistry and engineering are under such pressure to find more women.

  • You've got to be kidding, right?
  • Posted by Only on this Blog on November 5, 2009 at 9:45pm EST
  • Mike & Chuck - Thanks for stepping up and telling the truth. It takes some guts on this blog.

    Others - I've been lead to believe that many of the posters here are professors. Based upon the unbelievably negative comments from many it just confirms what most non-academic professionals have known for years. At one time a Liberal Arts BA actually meant something. Over the past thirty or so years it has been gradually degraded into a pitiful collection of foolish politically correct coursework that qualifies graduates for nothing in the real world, with the possible exception of trying to become college profs.

    It certainly isn't a surprise to me that the small, expensive liberal arts schools are having trouble keeping male student levels at equal levels to women. All a person would have to do is sit through a freshman level English class at any college to get a crystal clear understanding of the propaganda being sold off as higher education today. If young men are going to have to put up with this BS at least they and their parents are practical enough to put up with the State School version versus the more expensive small private school version.

    Finally, if I had to sit through what I understand from my sons was trying to be pawned off as higher education I'd be tempted to be something less than sober after the first two or three lectures.

    The good news is that things are starting to change.