From the issue dated June 21, 2002
|
|
|
Title IX at 30In the arena of women's college sports, the 1972 law created a legacy of debateBy WELCH SUGGS Listen to Mike Moyer, executive director of the National Wrestling Coaches
Listen to Donna A. Lopiano, president of the Women's Sports Foundation: "To suggest that men are losing out because of Title IX is almost laughable. The wrestling coaches are being chicken and pointing the blame in the wrong direction." Then listen to Rick R. Hartzell, athletics director at the University of Northern Iowa, after dropping men's and women's swimming and tennis: "I hated the decision. I agonized. I puked. It still bothers me. ... But when the checkbook is overdrawn, you've got to make a decision. We made one." Thirty years after Congress passed it, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 remains the most controversial topic in college sports. Advocates of women's sports, champions of men's sports, and athletics administrators are all still talking past one another. Meanwhile, colleges with major athletics departments are struggling over what to do with men's and women's sports because programs have evolved into a weird hybrid of amateurs and professionals. Athletics directors devote all the resources they can to the professionalized sports of football and men's basketball, in the often-vain hopes of turning a profit. They support women's sports to avoid being sued under Title IX. Other men's sports get what's left. As that dwindles, "minor" men's teams vanish. Lost in the fretting over finances is the idea that college athletics is supposed to be an educational enterprise. Indeed, the rest of the academy has adapted to Title IX almost without debate, leaving only athletics departments to drag their feet. If college sports were truly an educational enterprise, it would be ridiculous to think that athletics directors would not provide opportunities equitably to men and women. Who would defend a system where, say, a law school restricted admissions based on sex? But the debate is unfolding in a world where a $30-million sports budget is routine. Men's track and wrestling coaches want Congress to change Title IX so that colleges won't cut those teams simply to comply with the law. Women's advocates want athletics directors to hold down escalating expenses in football, and to cut out some of the 85 football scholarships allotted to each Division I-A team. And athletics directors just want to keep lawyers and civil-rights investigators out of their offices. "This is a three-ring circus, and nobody's being realistic," says Lamar Daniel, a former Education Department specialist who now consults with athletics departments on Title IX issues. "There are going to be more sports cut because more people are in financial trouble." The 'Dark Ages' In 1972, only a tiny number of colleges had varsity sports for women. In fact, many women in physical-education departments didn't believe their students should be participating in competitive sports. That year, there were just under 30,000 women in college varsity and recreational programs, according to the National Collegiate Athletic Association, compared with 170,000 men. It's difficult even to imagine how foreign the idea of team sports for women was back then. A few women, like Babe Didrikson Zaharias and Wilma Rudolph, had made it big in individual sports, and some colleges were dabbling in competitive teams. In fact, Title IX itself was slipped into a civil-rights law because conservative Southerners thought the idea of granting equal opportunities for women would derail the bill. Instead, Sen. Birch Bayh of Indiana and Rep. Edith Green of Oregon, both Democrats, pushed the measure through. At the time, Senator Bayh said that Title IX was designed to "provide for the women of America something that is rightfully theirs -- an equal chance to attend the schools of their choice, to develop the skills they want." One of the challenges of carrying out Title IX was determining if women had equitable opportunities to participate in sports, recalls Jeffrey H. Orleans, then a civil-rights lawyer at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. "It was pretty simple -- Title VI [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] covered extracurricular activities, so we figured Title IX covered them, too," says Mr. Orleans, now the director of the Ivy League. "It did not mean girls could try out for boys' teams," he says. "That was not going to produce real equal opportunity, so we had to set up a way of providing separate but equal opportunity." Early in the process, Mr. Orleans and his colleagues imported the concept of "substantial proportionality" from educational-desegregation cases: In a given region, if a certain proportion of the population was black, then investigators would examine schools to see if the same proportion of their students was black. If that wasn't the case, they looked closer to see whether the school in question was discriminating against black students. A similar approach applied in athletics, Mr. Orleans recalls. "The problem is finding a standard in a situation where simply letting boys and girls participate clearly won't provide opportunities for girls," he says. Just opening the door wasn't enough. Schools and colleges needed to demonstrate that the door was going to stay open, by creating new teams. "The clearest standard is that when you choose to offer an opportunity, you offer it equally," he says. However, administrators at the NCAA believed that making colleges sponsor women's sports would force cutbacks in men's sports, especially football. The association fought the law from the start. Its executive director at the time, Walter F. Byers, wrote in his 1995 book, Unsportsmanlike Conduct, that his organization argued that "to decree that football and women's field hockey immediately deserved the same per-capita expenditures was financial lunacy. We contended that income-producing sports should be exempted." Friendly senators like John Tower, the Texas Republican, offered amendments to exclude football, which failed amid strong opposition from the National Organization for Women and other groups. In any case, football was never in danger. Nor were men's minor sports in the 1970s. Instead, women's phys-ed departments started turning out eager coaches, and the number of female athletes and women's teams soared, even if the money spent on them didn't. "I started with $70,000 in my first budget," recalls Ms. Lopiano, the women's athletics director at the University of Texas at Austin from 1976 to 1993. "We had close to exponential growth after that, but that isn't saying a lot." According to a 1979 federal report, the number of women participating in varsity sports rose to 62,886 in 1976. Men's sports did not suffer, though: The same report showed that the number of male athletes increased slightly during that period. After seven years of politicking, the final Title IX regulations were published in 1979, covering 11 aspects of athletics operations. Most of them, governing scholarships, uniforms and equipment, per diems, and practice times for men and women, were pretty straightforward. What would eventually prove controversial, though, was a regulation on how many women a college ought to have participating in sports, which came to be known as the "three-part test." Colleges had three options for showing that they had complied with the law: having the same proportion of women on sports teams as there were female undergraduates; having a "history and continuing practice of expanding opportunities for women"; or proving that they were "fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities" of women on the campus and among the institution's potential students. For most of the 1980s, the three-part test was a non-issue. The administrations of Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush never placed a priority on enforcing the law, and in 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title IX applied only to programs that directly received federal funds, such as financial aid. That instantly halted enforcement of Title IX in other educational programs for four years, until the Democrat-controlled Congress passed the Civil Rights Restoration Act, which specified that civil-rights regulations applied to all units of an institution that received federal funds, whether or not the unit itself received the funds. Throughout the 1980s, the number of women playing Division I college sports rose very slightly, while the number of men plunged from an all-time high in 1986 to an all-time low in 1990, as colleges struggled to contain rapidly escalating costs in athletics. But few athletics administrators were treating women's sports as a big deal. Some colleges had discovered that women's sports could be good publicity -- basketball teams at Texas, the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, and the University of Connecticut were drawing good-size crowds. So was the University of Utah's gymnastics team. But those were isolated examples. In the Courts and on the Fields In the 1990s, college sports truly came into its own as big business. Television networks began paying billions of dollars for the rights to football and men's-basketball games played by big-name colleges in big-time conferences. That gave those colleges money to lavish on their programs while lesser lights fell behind, financially and competitively. Meanwhile, a series of lawsuits transformed the tenor of the debate over Title IX. A Supreme Court case, Franklin vs. Gwinnett County Public Schools, established that plaintiffs could sue for monetary damages in Title IX cases. Female athletes did just that at Auburn, Brown, and Colorado State Universities, in precedent-setting cases and settlements. The courts, almost without exception, upheld the 1979 regulations, and the Education Department reaffirmed them in 1996. In a memorandum, Norma V. Cantú, then the assistant education secretary for civil rights, noted one of the points of the original guidelines: If a college had the same proportion of women among its athletes as it did among its students, then it would be presumed to be in compliance with Title IX. This made substantial proportionality a "safe harbor" for athletics directors who didn't want to be sued. The question was, how to get there? In 1993-94, according to a Chronicle survey, 50.8 percent of undergraduates at Division I institutions were women, while only 33.7 percent of athletes were. "Once the '80s and '90s kick in, there was a very, very different approach on how you fund the whole collegiate-sports enterprise," says Christine A. Plonsky, senior associate athletics director at Texas. "Those who waited to add women's sports felt double or triple pressure when they were trying to get revenue sports on a positive revenue-generating platform at same time." Texas was one of several universities that settled lawsuits by promising to add women's sports; the Longhorns have started rowing, soccer, and softball teams in the past five years, at a cost of some $3-million. "Texas was a lot like Brown," recalls Ms. Lopiano, who moved on to the Women's Sports Foundation just before the lawsuit at Texas. "They were amazed when they were sued," she says. "They'd done more than anyone else had done, but the rule was not, 'Have you done more than anyone else?' "Texas treated existing sports programs as well as the men's, but they just didn't have enough opportunities." Not many colleges can conjure up $3-million for new sports, as the Longhorns did. So the poorer relations have taken the perverse route to compliance: dropping men's teams. This occurred often in the 1980s, but is becoming even more prevalent now. Very few of those dropped teams have been in the so-called "revenue" sports: The number of Division I football teams rose from 193 to 232 over the course of the 1990s. Instead, the losses have come in what are politely known as Olympic sports, such as swimming, tennis, track and field, wrestling. This, predictably, has enraged coaches and athletes in those sports, especially wrestling. Grapplers have unsuccessfully sued California State University at Bakersfield, Illinois State University, Miami University, the University of North Dakota, and most recently the Education Department for dropping their sport, arguing that the proportionality standard is illegitimate. Title IX was set up to end discrimination against women, not to shift it to men. Conservatives have jumped on the wrestlers' cause as yet another example of a meddling government trying to impose politically correct quotas on high schools and colleges. However, the Justice Department has defended the Education Department's handling of the law, and no one else in the executive or judiciary branches has been sympathetic to the claims of male athletes. Gerald Reynolds, assistant secretary for civil rights in the Education Department, did not respond to interview requests, and his spokesman, Daniel Langan, would say only that the department could not suspend enforcement of the law. However, activists on both sides of the issue have been speculating about what the Bush Education Department might do with Title IX and sports. During the campaign, Mr. Bush said he did not favor quotas, but women's groups have warned him and Congress not to make changes to the law. Missing the Point The argument made by wrestlers and other activists is essentially a free-market one: Colleges should not be forced to create sports and roster spots for women when the demand for those sports doesn't exist. Their favorite example is the proliferation of crew in the Midwest, where coaches often roam the campuses looking for tall women who might want to row. At the same time, when far more men want to "walk on" to wrestling and track squads, colleges ought not to limit them, the argument goes. Ms. Lopiano and other women's sports advocates say that that's not the point: "There are 2.7 million girls out there playing high-school sports," she says. "Neither men's nor women's sports can even begin to think about filling the demand" for athletic opportunities for interested college students. That is an argument that wrestlers and others hate. One extra walk-on baseball player or wrestler doesn't cost much, and thus doesn't take away resources from women's sports. Are There Any Solutions? Advocates of men's and women's sports can't agree on what the problem is, so predictably, they don't agree on a solution. Ms. Lopiano and her peers are clear about what they think colleges should do: Stop the arms race in men's basketball and especially football. At the Division I-A level, football teams are allowed 85 scholarships apiece and often have as many as 150 players -- far more than in any women's sport. Cutting back would allow colleges to shift those scholarships and those "participation opportunities" to women's sports, without spending more money. That, however, isn't likely, she concedes, unless football becomes simply too expensive for most colleges. Of the 115 colleges with Division I-A football teams, 91 spend a larger percentage of their budget on football than they do on all of women's sports put together, according to data published under federal gender-equity laws. However, even when women's advocates suggest ways of saving money on men's sports, athletics directors always trump them with the promise of the glory, and money, that big-time football can bring. Eighty-two of those Division I-A sports programs contend that their football teams have generated a profit, although only a tiny number of them can cover expenses for other sports. "Let's face it: At many places, college football is an event, not just a game," says Charles S. Neinas, former director of the College Football Association. "It's the best way you can get people back to campus. "There's not a lot of excitement on a weekend when you're playing soccer or volleyball or baseball. Not like a football weekend." Stepping back from the debate over money, conservatives and wrestlers such as Mr. Moyer argue that Title IX is a great thing, but that the substantial-proportionality prong should be removed. That, they say, would get rid of the incentive to cut men's teams. Ms. Lopiano says that's just wrong. She cites statistics that show that most men's teams were dropped in the mid-1980s, when Title IX wasn't being enforced. What's clear is that athletics directors and advocates aren't speaking the same language. Athletics directors want to maximize revenue. Advocates for men's and women's sports want to maximize education. Only a few colleges in the country can afford to do both. So perhaps it's time to rethink sports in an educational context. Why spend enormous amounts of money on teams in the hope that, one day, they might be able to fill the stands and net some kind of profit? Why pay coaches millions of dollars to keep them from jumping to the pros? "I think we're at a real crossroads," says Patricia Viverito, commissioner of the Gateway Football Conference. "I keep being hopeful that presidents will sort of see the big picture and recognize that we are migrating further and further away from an educational model, and that someone is going to right that course and force us to do things in a more reasonable fashion." That might mean looking at roster sizes in all sports, the way male and female athletes are recruited, and the number of scholarships allowed in men's and women's sports. Mr. Orleans, the Ivy League director, says it might even mean strengthening the substantial-proportionality test instead of weakening it. "In Division I, where schools choose and really control what they [offer], it's hard to avoid the suggestion that the numbers should be proportionately equal," he says. Athletics directors need to get out of the business-model mentality, he says, and treat college sports as an educational program, realizing that they must take special care to treat men and women equitably. "If it really is a business, let's tax it," he says. "If it isn't, all the more reason to make sure it's being provided equally and not as a frill." 
THREE DECADES OF TITLE IX 1971-72 A total of 29,992 women and 170,384 men play college sports, the National Collegiate Athletic Association reports. 1972 Congress passes Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, banning sex discrimination at any educational institution receiving federal funds. 1972-73 The Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women, the first national governing body for women's competitive sports in college, conducts its first championships. Events are held in badminton, basketball, golf, gymnastics, swimming, track and field, and volleyball. 1974 Sen. John Tower of Texas, a Republican, proposes an amendment to exclude football from Title IX regulations. It is rejected. 1976-77 A total of 62,886 women and 168,136 men participate in varsity sports. 1979 The U.S. Education Department's Office for Civil Rights issues a "policy interpretation" covering athletics, which orders schools and colleges not to discriminate against women in awarding athletics scholarships, offering opportunities for participation, and providing other services and benefits. 1982 The NCAA begins sponsoring women's championships. The AIAW disbands. 1984 The U.S. Supreme Court rules that Title IX and other civil-rights laws apply only to educational programs that directly receive federal funds -- for example, financial-aid programs. Sports and other activities are left out. 1988 Overriding a veto by President Ronald Reagan, Congress approves the Civil Rights Restoration Act, which mandates that civil-rights laws, including Title IX, apply to all operations of any educational institutions receiving federal funds. 1990-91 A total of 92,778 women and 184,595 men are on varsity sports teams. 1992 The U.S. Supreme Court rules that students may sue educational institutions under Title IX for monetary damages, opening the door to female athletes' suing for better athletics opportunities. 1996 A federal appeals court rules that Brown University had discriminated against female athletes by dropping their sports. The case is viewed as a precedent for colleges to add women's programs, and often to eliminate men's teams, to balance the number of male and female athletes. 1996 The Education Department issues a "policy clarification," affirming the 1979 guidelines on participation. Having the proportion of athletes who are female match the proportion of undergraduates who are female is a "safe harbor," it said. 2000-1 A total of 150,916 women and 208,866 men are on varsity sports teams. 2002 The National Wrestling Coaches Association and other groups sue the Education Department, claiming that the 1979 guidelines and the 1996 clarification discriminate against male athletes.
SOURCE: Chronicle reporting
TITLE IX AND SCHOLARSHIP FUNDS, 2000-1 Here are the 45 institutions that are in compliance with Title IX rules covering scholarship funds allocated to female athletes. The rules specify that, absent nondiscriminatory circumstances, colleges must award the same proportion of aid (within one percentage point) to female athletes as there are women participating in varsity sports. Athletes who compete in more than one sport are counted only once. Alabama State University American University Appalachian State University Arkansas State University Bowling Green State University College of Charleston College of the Holy Cross College of William and Mary Duke University East Carolina University Furman University George Washington University Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Southern University Howard University Illinois State University Jackson State University Lafayette College Mississippi Valley State University Montana State University at Bozeman Norfolk State University Northeastern University Ohio State University at Columbus Rutgers University at New Brunswick South Carolina State University Southwest Texas State University Syracuse University Texas Tech University University of Akron University of Alabama at Birmingham University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff University of Central Florida University of Connecticut University of Iowa University of Kansas University of Maine University of Maryland at College Park University of North Carolina at Asheville University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of Richmond University of Tulsa University of Virginia University of Wisconsin at Green Bay Vanderbilt University Wofford College These are the 10 institutions that award the lowest proportion of their scholarships to women: 
SOURCE: Chronicle reporting
http://chronicle.com Section: Athletics Page: A38
|
Copyright © 2002 by The Chronicle of Higher Education