Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

Myles Brand's Code of Silence

December 12, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Myles Brand, president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, has been embarking lately on a peculiar public relations campaign. With NCAA member institutions increasingly worried about the consequences of Title IX, a federal statute that governs the gender distribution of athletic opportunity, Brand has been loudly urging them all to, well, shut up about it.

On November 21, Brand told USA Today, “My expectation is that over the next year or two we are going to see more cuts of men’s teams and so I am trying, frankly, to pre-empt the argument against Title IX … and dissuade universities from going public with this approach.”

Brand’s forecast was based on shrinking budgets in a period of economic decline. But it’s not the first time he has tried to silence the debate about Title IX enforcement. When the NCAA and the U.S. Olympic Committee met in 2005 to discuss the tragic and ongoing decimation of men’s collegiate teams, Brand insisted on this ground rule: “While the impacts of Title IX are likely to be relevant to the Task Force’s deliberations, consideration of the merits or scope of the law as enforced and proposals for the modification of the law or its enforcement are not.”

Incredibly, Brand has even stiff-armed the federal government itself when its representatives have asked him for straight talk on Title IX. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights called the NCAA to testify last May about why Brand has fought against colleges’ surveying their own students on athletic interest, which is an alternative way to comply with the law. Asked point blank how institutions ought to solicit student input, the NCAA offered no answer. Last year, when the U.S. Government Accountability Office asked the NCAA for school-by-school data on athletic participation -- the key measure of Title IX’s impact -- the NCAA refused to provide it and to this day keeps the information under lock and key.

Brand’s intransigence seems an especially troubling posture for a former university president, whom you might hope would regard open and free discourse as a high virtue. It is stranger still since in his current office he is supposed to be fostering the interests of college athletes, not papering over the harms that are causing teams to be eliminated.

In the six years that Brand has led the NCAA, the lion’s share of teams that have been eliminated are men’s programs -- which many coaches and administrators say is a result of Title IX’s strict gender requirements. Many of the men’s teams that remain have to endure a fixed roster cap that shuts out male athletes in order to meet Title IX’s proportionality rule.

For their part, colleges around the country are agonized about the compliance bind they face. Universities such as Fresno State, Rutgers, James Madison and Ohio have said explicitly and with real emotion that Title IX is the major factor in their decision to select men’s teams for elimination. These wrenching decisions are being made by conscientious administrators who, it must be noted, do themselves no favors by citing the truth about Title IX enforcement. Their candor earns them the wrath of advocacy groups on both sides of the issue, including ours.

But on his blog, the Double-A Zone, Brand effectively calls those administrators liars. “Title IX is an excuse and I’m not happy that some schools have come out and blamed Title IX for the cutting of sports,” he said on his podcast. “It isn’t Title IX that’s doing it.”

As for the athletes themselves, Brand doesn’t want to hear from them, either. Although the spirit of Title IX is to accommodate the interest of students that wish to participate, Brand has fought tooth and nail against allowing colleges to survey those students directly. The top objection stated in his open letter on the matter? “[It] permits schools to use surveys alone ... as a means to assess female students’ interest in sports.”

Got that? Simply asking young women whether they want to play sports is too much for Brand. His second reason is that surveys might somehow perpetuate “stereotypes that discourage [women] from participating.” That’s pretty galling from a man who apparently believes that young women can’t think for themselves and so others should make decisions for them.

Even though the Department of Education -- the enforcers of the Title IX regulations -- has encouraged schools to implement surveys, only one of Brand’s member institutions, Western Illinois, has dared to defy his edict.

But Brand found much more like-minded company during a trip he made a few weeks ago to China as a guest of their Ministry of Education. “As I talked with those both inside and outside the universities, there was one thing that … distinguished the current social milieu in America from that of China,” Brand wrote on his blog. “There was almost a complete lack of cynicism … a common attitude that I found remarkably refreshing. There was some willingness to disagree … with those in authority but it always occurred not with the kind of cynicism that takes any situation, even a very good one, and focuses on the negative.”

Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that Brand admires a totalitarian government’s methods of dictating public discourse. After all, he comes from the world of academia, where campus speech codes are all too common. Perhaps the NCAA would like a more sweeping edict: thou shalt not disagree with Myles Brand.

Eric Pearson is chairman of College Sports Council, a coalition of coaches, athletes and parents that seeks changes in Title IX.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Myles Brand's Code of Silence

  • Title IX
  • Posted by Bronco N. on December 12, 2008 at 7:55am EST
  • What sayeth this group about Bylaw 17.11.6.1, the "football exception"?

  • Mr. Brand's blog
  • Posted by Frank on December 12, 2008 at 7:55am EST
  • Having studied China for 20 years, I've read a wide variety of comments about The Middle Kingdom -- but few as weird as on Mr. Brand's blog. “There was almost a complete lack of cynicism .."

    China is many things -- large, complex, polluted, ambitious, pragmatic, mono-racial.

    Obvious to those with their minds open -- full disclosure and freedom of speech are issues that China is still working on.

    And full disclosure on Title IX, absent Mr. Brand's "don't criticize Title IX" directive?

    Fact 1: D-1 MEN'S football TV revenues bring in a majority of NCAA sports operating funds. Fact 2: D-1 MEN'S basketball TV revenues are No. 2 in the $$$ area.

    Without MEN'S FB -- the NCAA structure would collapse financially, immediately, needing a bail-out.

    Truth-seeking -- not for the closed-minded.

  • Posted by Kevin Delaney , Professor at Temple University on December 12, 2008 at 9:00am EST
  • I think Myles Brand is correct here. Men's teams do sometimes get eliminated due to budget issues. When this happens, you can equally say this is due to Title IX or this is due to the huge size and cost of football teams, for example. Either explanation is valid. Complying with Title IX through "surveying students" seems to me a flawed methodology. If a college does not have a women's lacrosse team, for example, and you survey the current student body and find not that many women want to play lacrosse, isn't this becuase females who are interested in lacrosse have gone somewhere else where there is a lacrosse program?

  • Missing the point
  • Posted by LCL on December 12, 2008 at 9:55am EST
  • While I've never admired Brand for the profundity of his communication style, the underlying point he is making is largely correct.

    Title IX is about providing balance in opportunities - the fact that schools have chosen to try and attain balance by relying heavily on cutting opportunity on the male side of the ledger is the school's choice.

    To merely insinuate, as this author does, that Title IX is a reductionary measure, reinforces the political game that schools play when they "emotionally" talk about how Title IX "forced" them to cut men's teams is half-logic at best. Um, sure, I bet they really go home crying at night because another men's wrestling team met its Waterloo. It's not like the women's lacrosse team and the men's wrestling team compete over the same players, facilities, equipment - they only 'compete' on budget.

    The whole collegiate sports system (at least at the NCAA level) is riddled with problems in myriad ways. Honestly, I'd be happy if they scrapped it and started over (albeit probably not with any better results).

    But, the fundamental point is that it's easy, but flawed, to make Title IX the 'fall guy' for what is really a deeper level of issues. The argument this author makes is a tired rehash of the same half-logic argument we've heard for a decade now. He knows he can't win talking about school budgetary choices, so he falls back on the easier Frankenstein of big government (indirectly at best) forcing schools to cut men's teams.

    /Yawn.

  • Major flaw
  • Posted by Frank on December 12, 2008 at 10:35am EST
  • " .. When this happens, you can equally say this is due to Title IX or this is due to the huge size and cost of football teams, for example. Either explanation is valid."

    Inconvenient fact, based on a hands-on review of financial statements by D-1 colleges:

    The only D-1 NCAA sports that are revenue-positive: men's football (mostly); men's basketball (usually); men's baseball (sometimes); and men's hockey (sometimes).

    The minor sports teams are revenue-negative. Do not bring in enough revenue to cover their costs. Money-losers. Could not be sustained without men's football and/or men's basketball.

    That is a major part of what Title IX is about -- subsidizing money-losing minor sports teams for women and men (e.g., golf, swimming, lacrosse).

    Revenues minus expenses equals surplus or loss. Not very difficult to understand, if one's mind is open and capable.

  • Response to Frank
  • Posted by Longtime observer on December 12, 2008 at 10:35am EST
  • Frank:

    No one questions whether some football programs and a somewhat greater number of men's basketball programs are profitable. And you're right that eliminating them would make the finances of college sports generally collapse.

    But there is also little argument that there is also vast overspending on football programs, especially, that could be minimized without any meaningful (to the average fan/alum) impact on the quality of play. Cutting scholarships to 60 from 85, eliminating hotel stays the night before home games, easing the arms race in indoor practice facilities, etc.

    You do that, and suddenly it becomes a lot easier to find money to support both women's sports AND the other men's sports.

    Bottom line is that Title IX is often scapegoated by supporters of "non-revenue" men's sports (an awful phrase) when the irrational protection of football is actually the bigger problem.

  • Assumptions behind the question
  • Posted by Midwest Prof on December 12, 2008 at 11:45am EST
  • Brand's not my favorite person either, but that's because the NCAA is not my favorite organization. Call me old fashioned, but I just don't see any reason for colleges and universities to be involved in athletics beyond providing facilties for students to be physically active. Once the existence of massive athletic budgets is accepted without question, then debates emerge about who should get access to those funds. Left unexamined is whether athletics, as it is currently organized, has any place on campus whatsoever.

  • Revenue - expenses = surplus/loss
  • Posted by Frank on December 12, 2008 at 11:45am EST
  • " .. But there is also little argument that there is also vast overspending on football programs, especially, that could be minimized without any meaningful .."

    ??? Have you ever watched ESPN (try your local college)?

    A statement like that would bring at least week of "argument" on ESPN I -- a lot of it loud, pointed, and unpleasant. And which makes the comments moot.

    Third time -- most minor NCAA sports do NOT generate enough fan revenue to cover their costs. That's reality -- period.

    Tearing down and attacking men's football will not generate more money for the minor sports. Only the minor sports and their fans can fix their financial situation -- try asking for part of the Fannie/Freddie bail-out. Good luck.

  • Ask Development
  • Posted by Frank on December 12, 2008 at 12:45pm EST
  • " .. Left unexamined is whether athletics, as it is currently organized, has any place on campus whatsoever .."

    First: I don't even go to FB or BB games -- too busy.

    I do try to stay attached to reality. And the reality is: happy alums write bigger donation checks, IMHO.

    Ask college development people what happens when the football team starts losing. Do the donation checks get smaller?

    If one thinks a football-free college would be better -- go start one, and become a billionaire like John Sperling, PhD, founder of U. of Phx (no NCAA sports there). Don't sacrifice yourself for moi. You're welcome.

  • The facts
  • Posted by J on December 12, 2008 at 12:50pm EST
  • Title IX is one of the greatest legislative laws ever passed focusing on education and opportunity. There is nothing in Title IX that suggests that sports teams should be eliminated. Where this has happened, it has been an administrative decision to downsize rather than promote new opportunities for the under-represented gender. Alternatives, more consistent with the goals of Title IX to promote opportunity, would be to increase opportunities for the under-represented gender. If finances are an issue (which is likely to be an increasing challenge), then expanding resources or reallocating existing resources would be a more appropriate strategy.
    Recently the athletics director at an eastern university was a driving force in the rise of the football program from one of the nation's worst programs to one that has qualified for bowl games in four consecutive seasons. But he came under criticism from inside the university after several minor sports were cut while the football team's expenditures skyrocketed. The athletics director was recently released from his position.
    Myles Brand is correct when he states that Title should not be blamed.
    According to a December 2, 2008 New York Times article, when Jim Giunta, the executive director of the National Collegiate Wrestling Association, became involved in the organization in 1997, he did it to give dropped varsity wrestling programs a place to compete until they could be reinstated as varsity teams. ''Everyone was talking about Title IX effects, and I thought those policies might eventually level out,'' Giunta said, ''so our goal was to posture ourselves as a bunch of schools that were ready to be brought back. But some of us have come to realize that institutions have been using Title IX as a cop-out. The real reason they are cutting sports is to save money.
    Jim Giunta is also correct when he states that institutions have been using Title IX as a copout.
    Title IX became law more than 36 years ago. Let's stop the blame game and comply with the law.

  • Posted by P on December 12, 2008 at 1:30pm EST
  • I'd like to join other posters in saying that the problem isn't Title IX and that Brand is right to tell coaches and administrators to shut up when they insist, time and again, on blaming it.

    The problem is that we can't decide whether we want college sports to be something *good* for students and society, something *fun* for students alone, or something *to raise money quickly*. The three categories don't always overlap.

    There's not much justification for spending any taxpayer money on any sport that isn't good for students and society. And there's not much justification for *not* spending taxpayer money on a sport that is, no matter how obscure, unpopular, or . . . girly.

    So how do we figure out what college sports expenditures are good for students and society? Well, here's a start:
    Sports expenditures shouldn't lead to programs that interfere with academics. That basically eliminates Div. 1 football and basketball.

    Sports expenditures should promote lifelong physical health. That eliminates, for example, cheerleading and riflery, and favors, for example, swimming.

    Sports expenditures should encourage the widest possible group of students to develop and maintain physical and game-related skills. That means supporting lots of different activities, but not necessarily pushing hard for national or regional dominance in any one sport.

    Any other ideas for criteria? Obviously, there's a need for a different kind of national conversation about this stuff--a rational one.

  • D1 Football and other sports
  • Posted by Faculty Person on December 12, 2008 at 1:45pm EST
  • Frank,

    Of course ESPN would be upset if universities cut back on D1 football. So? Does university athletics exist to support ESPN?

    For the most part, even in D1 athletics including football is not profitable. Some big men's football and basketball programs in D1 pay for themselves -- most don't.

    I work at a D3 school -- we have a football program, basketball, etc. No scholarships, much lower expenses, students enjoy playing (note I say students -- not athletes who sometimes attend classes). I daresay we have a much higher participation rate by students in athletics than most big D1 schools.

  • Stop subsidizing NCAA sports?
  • Posted by Isocrates on December 12, 2008 at 1:45pm EST
  • To combine a couple of ideas from prior comments, then, here's a bit more reality:

    "Out of 1,100 athletic programs in the country only 19 are profitable ... said Daniel Fulks, a research consultant for the NCAA.

    The average amount of institutional support is about 70 percent[.]"

    http://timesfreepress.com/news/2008/dec/12/tennessee-tight-times-athletics/

    Athletics isn't profitable; it's a losing proposition that gets "bailed out" by the University through subsidy year after year. It's a deep, sucking drain that has nothing to do with academics. It's nothing but headache. So why not cut the athletics programs altogether?

    Students who want athletic opportunities can enroll in intramural or club sports, no? Or do you have to have a cheerleading section of 20,000 fans to love the game? Wouldn't they be fiscally more responsible, since intramurals cost so much less, receiving proportionally less support from the institution altogether (hell, let the players purchase their own equipment and uniforms--the only thing the institution has to manage are scheduling and space for play)?

  • Try reading
  • Posted by Frank on December 12, 2008 at 2:30pm EST
  • A previous poster made claims about a report authorized by Mr. Brand at the NCAA -- then did not provide a URL to the complex, detailed 114-page report. Those "truth-seekers" who work with facts typically work with primary sources, not something someone thought they heard.

    Here is the report, in toto:

    http://tinyurl.com/ncaafootball

    An experienced analysis of the report indicates increased institutional investment in FB, most likely for marketing and revenue-generation development.

    There are no statements about any "loss," short-term or long-term; that is not the report's purpose. The report states accounting position at a point in time, not run-of-the-mill political statements that are unsupported by data and outcomes.

    As for this --

    "Of course ESPN would be upset .."

    Not ESPN -- ESPN viewers. Ever been to a Big 10 cafeteria? ESPN is on 24x7. That's a fact, Jack.

    " .. at a D3 school — we have football .."

    Yes, IMO, there are smaller colleges who should get out of NCAA sports because they will have a difficult time, being competitive.

    That's also because there are too many colleges in the U.S. -- more than a few should close. And some will, with the current economic scene.

  • I don't think so
  • Posted by Rob on December 12, 2008 at 3:35pm EST
  • The funniest line in the article is the assumption that because Brand is a former university president he would be committed to an open discussion.

  • Title IX creep
  • Posted by Jerry Heyman on December 14, 2008 at 4:20pm EST
  • As sacrosanct as Title IX may be in the athletics area - for which Mr Brand refuses to allow comments, I have to wonder how this group feels having Title IX apply to other areas of the University. There is a push by Sen Boxer (D-CA) and Sen Wyden (D-OR) to expand Title IX authority to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) faculty appointments. See -

    http://pubs.acs.org/cen/education/84/8420education.html

    If Title IX is viewed as a good thing for athletics, is also a good thing for allocating faculty??

    jerry

  • Budgets vs proportionality
  • Posted by CJ on December 15, 2008 at 12:50pm EST
  • I was an athlete in the 70s in a sport that was later cut. My participation had a lot to do with making me the person I am. Because of this, I am a board member of our non-profit alumni support group. We currently fund a club team, and we have the ability to fully fund a varsity team, but the athletic dept will not even consider re-instating a men's team in our sport, (nor will it consider two other men's sports who have alumni asking to do so).

    This is clearly not a budget issue.

  • Response to Frank
  • Posted by Faculty Person on December 15, 2008 at 2:55pm EST
  • Quoting Frank
    ” .. at a D3 school — we have football ..”
    Yes, IMO, there are smaller colleges who should get out of NCAA sports because they will have a difficult time, being competitive.
    That’s also because there are too many colleges in the U.S. — more than a few should close. And some will, with the current economic scene.

    Right and whether or not they do Division I Football and Basketball should be one of the main criteria. Say goodbye to MIT (D3) (in fact the only D1 sport I can find there is Women's Rowing) Caltech, the Claremont colleges, etc.

    Sports in college are a good thing only when they don't interfere with the academic mission.

  • Title IX
  • Posted by DBL on December 15, 2008 at 3:40pm EST
  • I've said this before, but it bears repeating:

    The proper comparison to determine whether a coed school is adequately meeting the athletic interests of its female students is not to the percentage of male students who are participating in varsity sports at the coed school but rather to the percentage of female students at all womens schools who are participating in varsity sports. There is no discrimination in favor of male students at all womens schools, so the level of athletic participation there accurately reflects how many college-age women want to participate in varsity sports.

    Mr. Brand, on the other hand, starts with the assumption that men and women have the same interest in participating in varsity athletics and proceeds from there. That assumption is based on faith and ideology, not evidence.

  • Title IX and collegiate sports
  • Posted by Kevin on December 15, 2008 at 6:05pm EST
  • Missing in the whole debate about Title IX and revenue positive sports (football, basektball) is why we have sports in the first place. People quickly run to the idea that football and basketball carry the load for the athletic department in terms of finances, when in fact very few revenue oriented teams "cover" their expenses. Much of that is slight of hand and contributions from overburdened general athletics funding within colleges and universities.

    For instance, how does a Division I football team that is 6 and 6 with less than 20,000 people in the stands per game make a profit? The answer is, they don't and since only 64 of roughly 120 teams go to bowl games, that leaves an awful lot of insitutions chasing the dollars.

    More important and something that gets lost in the debate is the fact that originally, sports existed for the good of the students and fans, not to make money. Sports that don't make money don't make money because they were never intended to be profit centers. They are not a "drain" on the budget, the sports budgets wouldn't exist without them.

  • Replies
  • Posted by Frank on December 18, 2008 at 11:22am EST
  • " .. For instance, how does a Division I football team that is 6 and 6 with less than 20,000 people in the stands per game make a profit?"

    If you have proof that your administration is lying about using non-athletic funds to support athletics (on a long-term basis, not just one year) -- bring it. "60 Minutes" and Leslie Stahl will be at your door. Otherwise -- try tearing down something else, less entrenched.

    " .. We currently fund a club team, and we have the ability to fully fund a varsity team, but the athletic dept will not even consider re-instating a men’s team in our sport, (nor will it consider two other men’s sports who have alumni asking to do so)."

    Inconvenient fact: you have to fund TWO teams in your sport -- men's and women's. Apparently.

    " .. Sports in college are a good thing only when they don’t interfere with the academic mission."

    I can't think of a faster way for Harvard's president to have a near-death experience than trying to cancel the Harvard-Yale football game.

  • Winning teams and alum donations
  • Posted by Kevin Delaney , Vice Dean/Prof at Temple Univ. on April 27, 2009 at 8:00pm EDT
  • Actually, Shulman and Bowen in The Game of Life found very little evidence that there was correlation between a winning football team and alum donations. They actually found a slight negative correlation.