John Stossel Weighs in on Title IX

I'm sure many of you saw last week that the Washington Post ran an op ed by CSC board member Clay McEldowney detailing how because of Title IX, men's athletic programs are bearing the brunt of athletic department budget cuts around the country this Spring and Summer.

Just a couple of hours ago, John Stossel of ABC News, a former college classmate of McEldowney's from Princeton University, read his article, and had the following to say about the way that Title IX is currently implemented:

Feel-good legislation like Title IX usually has harmful unintended consequences. Today women (and their parents) are not shy about demanding that schools accommodate their needs. If they don’t, they’ll pick other schools. They don’t need government force.

Insisting on equal participation is absurd. The Title IX zealots may not want to admit it, but men and women are just different. Fewer girls than boys want to run around and smash into each other. In school, girls dominate chorus, student government, and the yearbook. Dance classes don’t get an equal number of boys, even when they recruit them. If we accept the argument that any inequality means discrimination, then the lawyers take all our money.

To read the rest of Stossel's post right now, click here.

CSC Director Calls for Title IX Reform in the Washington Post

Earlier today, the Washington Post ran a column by Clay McEldowney, a member of the board of directors of the College Sports Council, where he argued that in light of some of the more recent cuts this year in men's athletic programs, it's time for federal authorities to reform Title IX:

This year, men's programs across the country have gotten the third-strike call: swimming and soccer at Kutztown University (Pa.); baseball at the University of Northern Iowa; football at Western Washington; wrestling at Delaware State, Portland State and Carson-Newman. MIT, which has one of the largest athletic departments in the nation, eliminated men's teams in gymnastics, ice hockey, golf, wrestling, alpine skiing and pistol.

Even in cases where a women's team was eliminated alongside a men's team -- as happened when baseball and softball were cut recently at the University of Vermont, soccer and volleyball were dropped at the University of Maine, and men's track was cut along with women's swimming and diving at Pepperdine -- the men's teams had the larger roster.

From these wrenching choices an equally difficult question arises: Why are more guys being taken off the athletic field while the women mostly play on?

It's a question that the Department of Education, the NCAA and its member institutions ought to be asking. Be sure to read the whole thing right now.

Gender Quota Crowd Can't Live Up to Their Own Standards of Truth

It's been a week since the College Sports Council published its study of NCAA Division I scholarships, and to say that the response from our traditional antagonists has been wanting would be something of an understatement. Well, earlier this week, somebody finally stepped up, and in this case it was Melanie Ross Levin, the Outreach Coordinator for the National Women's Law Center.

You can click here to read it, and I promise you it won't take very long. For starters, Ms. Levin claims that our study is "full of holes," yet she won't trust her readers to make any sort of independent judgment on that question because she fails to link to the study. This is pretty typical of the gender quota crowd, who figure that if they just ignore people who disagree with their agenda, they'll go away. I guess that isn't working.

It also pretty much gibes with the way they work online, where they not only consistently fail to link to those they disagree with, they also neglect to give anyone an opportunity to freely comment on what they have to say -- witness the Title IX Blog, which has been in business for a while now, yet still doesn't allow anyone outside of approved contributors to participate in the conversation about the law and how it affects college athletics.

In any case, please take a moment to read Ms. Levin's post here, an argument that amounts to not much more than "but they didn't include football," something we acknowledged in the report. Unacknowledged by Ms. Levin, however, is the fact that 28% of NCAA Division I programs don't have football teams. Which begs the question: if those schools don't have football, why should they have to comply with NCAA scholarship limits that appear to be designed to discriminate against men?

Also unacknowledged by Ms. Levin is the fact that all of the numbers we used were culled from the NCAA itself. Here's the relevant passage from a note we published with the study:

Research Note: The underlying data from this study was obtained from the NCAA ("1981-82-2006-07 NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rate Report" and "2006-07 NCAA Division I Manual") and the National Federation of State High School Associations using the 2006-07 academic year as a common baseline. The figure for NCAA Division I Maximum Allowable Scholarships in Gender Symmetric Sports was obtained by multiplying the number of Division I teams in which both men and women compete by the scholarship limits set out by the NCAA in the 2006-07 Division I Manual. Please note, not all NCAA institutions fully fund their programs to the NCAA Division I Scholarship Limits. For example, Ivy League institutions do not award athletic scholarships, though most athletes at those institutions do receive some form of financial aid. The final chart, "The Long Odds Against Athletic Scholarships," was calculated by dividing the number of high school participants by the maximum number of scholarships available.

In other words, all we really set out to do was to publicize some hard facts that not a lot of folks were aware of. Here's another of those inconvenient truths: despite the fact that boys and girls participated in high school soccer in roughly equal numbers in the academic year we analyzed in our study, the NCAA sponsors far more teams for women than for men (300 to 195). Click here to review all of our charts and graphs.

Now, if you really want to know how to publish a study that's both full of holes, and more or less completely dishonest about the way it was put together, take a look at some of the things we wrote last Fall about a study that was published by the Women's Sports Foundation. Click here and here for more.

And when we looked at that study, what did we find?

• WSF provided no links to the source data, which was witheld from public view;
• WSF represented the 1995 baseline data as though it were independent, government material. But in reality, that data was collected by the WSF itself, which meant there was no way to verify its accuracy;
• Finally, WSF presented the study as done by an independent researcher, and then failed to disclose that the person who conducted the study, John Cheslock at the University of Arizona, was paid by WSF to do so.

And now, the gender quota crowd turns around and tells us that our study is full of holes?

The bottom line here is pretty simple: when you tell the truth about how the misapplication of Title IX is killing men's athletics, the only way you can defend the law is by doing your level best to obscure the truth.

Findings of First-of-a-Kind Study Reveals Apparent Scholarship Discrimination by NCAA

Last month, the College Sports Council (CSC) announced some preliminary findings of a study into NCAA Division I scholarships in "gender symmetric" sports that found significant disparities into opportunities for men and women. Yesterday, the CSC released the full study (click here for the charts and graphs that accompanied the study), which generated a story by Greg Beachem of the Associated Press:

Women athletes have far more opportunities than men to earn scholarships and to participate in many college sports, according to a study by an organization which advocates Title IX reform.

The College Sports Council largely limited its analysis to 19 sports in which both men and women compete, such as basketball, volleyball and tennis. The study released Wednesday determined male high-school athletes in those gender-symmetric sports face longer odds and fewer total opportunities to land college scholarships.

"We are trying to shine the light on a problem that exists where football frequently clouds the issue," CSC chairman Eric Pearson said. "We're not trying to tear down the women's numbers. We just want it to be even and fair. We support both men and women playing sports. We want more sports. We want more athletes to play, both men and women, and the NCAA's rules make that difficult."

Click here to read the entire story.

New Study of Gender Symmetric Teams Reveals Significant Disparity in Athletic Opportunities at Division I Level

New Study of Gender Symmetric Teams Reveals Significant Disparity
in Athletic Opportunities at Division I Level

37 Years After Passage of Title IX, the College Sports Council
Calls on NCAA to Equalize Scholarship Limits

WASHINGTON, D.C. – June 23, 2009 – The preliminary findings of a study of NCAA participation and scholarship data conducted by the College Sports Council (CSC) shows that in gender symmetrical sports, which have teams for both male and female athletes, women are accorded far more opportunities to compete and earn scholarships at NCAA Division 1 schools, the highest level of intercollegiate athletics.

“After nearly four decades after the passage of Title IX, it’s time to erase all institutional gender discrimination, and that includes bias against boys,” said CSC Chairman Eric Pearson. “Current NCAA policies cultivate the disparity between male and female scholarship opportunities. In sports where there are symmetric teams the scholarship limits should be the same. The CSC calls on the NCAA to equalize scholarship limits in all sports which have teams for both male and female athletes.”

Later this Summer, the CSC will release a comprehensive study on athletic opportunity in NCAA Division I in “gender symmetric” sports where both men and women compete. Preliminary findings of this study include:

• At the NCAA Division I level, there are far more women’s teams (2,653) than men’s teams (2,097), denying thousands of male athletes the opportunity to compete.

• Overall in “gender symmetric” sports, there are far more scholarships available for women (32,656) than for men (20,206).

• By far, the most difficult athletic scholarship to obtain at the Division I level is in men’s volleyball, where there are 489 high school athletes for every full NCAA scholarship.

For the charts related to the study, click here.

Research Note: The underlying data from this study was obtained from the NCAA ("1981-82-2006-07 NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rate Report" and "2006-07 NCAA Division I Manual") and the National Federation of State High School Associations using the 2006-07 academic year as a common baseline. The figure for maximum number of scholarships available was obtained by multiplying the number of Division I teams in which both men and women compete ("gender symmetric") by the scholarship limits set out by the NCAA in the 2006-07 Division I Manual.

Please note, not all NCAA institutions fully fund their programs to the NCAA scholarship limit, so this number is a theoretical maximum. For example, Ivy League institutions do not award athletic scholarships, though most athletes at those institutions do receive some form of financial aid. The final chart, "The Long Odds Against Athletic Scholarships," was calculated by dividing the number of high school participants by the maximum number of scholarships available.

The College Sports Council is a national coalition of coaches, parents, athletes and alumni.

Additional Background: www.collegesportscouncil.org

The Crisis of the Disappearing Educated Male

That's the title of an article by Janice Shaw Crouse that appeared in the The American Thinker last week. Here's the passage that caught my eye:

Some experts claim that the imbalance begins in the public schools, where recess and physical education are being cut. More active boys are at a disadvantage, they say, when there is no outlet for their energy and restlessness. In addition, Title IX programs have hurt men's athletics with the less profitable men's sports being cut (over 400 men's collegiate athletic teams have been cut since Title IX went into effect) in order to fund women's programs. According to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), "for every new women's athletic slot created between 1992 and 1997, 3.6 male athletes were dropped."

Something to think about, as we endure yet another Spring of further cuts.

Judge Rules Against Quinnipiac; Women's Volleyball Reinstated, But Men's Indoor Track Eliminated

From the Associated Press:

Quinnipiac University reinstated its volleyball team Tuesday and dropped men's indoor track in response to an injunction issued last week in a gender equity lawsuit against the school.

The announcement came four days after U.S. Judge Stefan Underhill prevented the school from carrying out plans to eliminate the women's volleyball program, a move announced in March as part of budget cuts that also saw the elimination of men's outdoor track and golf.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut brought the lawsuit on behalf of the volleyball team and its coach, who argued that Quinnipiac isn't in compliance with the Title IX federal law mandating equal opportunities for female athletes.

Underhill found that the team is likely to win that argument, and also prohibited the university from eliminating any other women's teams or athletic participation opportunities until the lawsuit is decided.

University spokeswoman Lynn Bushnell declined to comment on the reason for eliminating the indoor track team, though school officials acknowledged during the court hearing that many of the athletes on that team also run cross country and outdoor track.

Andrew Schneider, executive director of the ACLU of Connecticut, said testimony at trial showed the budget cuts being sought by the school could be made without eliminating any teams.

"Therefore, today's decision to cut the men's indoor track team to keep the women's volleyball team is a false choice that unnecessarily pits men athletes against women athletes," he said.

Really? And why is that? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Roger I. Abrams, professor of law at Northeastern University, writing this past weekend in the Huffington Post:

Unless college women suddenly decide that they no longer wish to pursue college athletics, schools will have to save money by cutting only men's teams or finding some other means to balance their budgets.

Wonder where we've heard that before?

WIU Completes Model Survey

It was last October when we first told you about how Western Illinois University (WIU) signed an agreement with the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights to resolve a Title IX complaint that alleged the school wasn't providing enough athletic opportunities for women.

As part of the agreement, WIU conducted a model survey to asses the level of interest in sports the school wasn't currently offering. The results are below:

In an effort to explore how well the current 10 men's and 10 women's NCAA Division I intercollegiate athletics program at Western is meeting the competitive athletic interest of WIU students, all undergraduate were invited to participate in an online survey regarding their interest in competing, level of athletic ability, and willingness to commit the time and energy required to be a successful Division I student-athlete. In addition to potential intercollegiate athletic expansion, the survey results may also lead to greater intramural and competitive club team sports. Of 10,743 undergraduate students invited to participate, 831 (8%) responded to the survey. (Contact Intercollegiate Athletics for more information.)

• Among survey respondents, 8% were current Western student-athletes, 12% were members of a Club Sport team, and 23% were currently participating in intramurals, while 70% said they were interested in participating in some sort of athletic program at Western.

• The survey considered the 19 men's and 20 women's current NCAA Division I sports, 7 NCAA considered emerging women's sports, as well as additional non-gender specific considerations to gain a fuller grasp of WIU student interest in athletic participation at any level. Students who indicated interest in participating in a currently offered WIU NCAA Division I sport were encourage to contact that sport's head coach.

• For the 18 sports that Western does not offer for either sex, in addition to Men's Volleyball, the sports with the greatest NCAA Division I expansion interest were:
  
  • Bowling - 39 students - 11 women and 28 men, however, the NCAA only sanctions Women's Bowling, and as an emerging sport
  • Men's Volleyball - 38 men
  • Wrestling - 41 students - 6 women and 35 men, however, the NCAA only sanctions Men's Wrestling
  • Ice Hockey - 34 students, 5 women and 29 men, with the NCAA sanctioning both Men's and Women's Ice Hockey
  • Lacrosse - 34 students, 4 women and 30 men, with the NCAA, with the NCAA sanctioning both Men's and Women's
  • Rifle - 33 students, 3 women and 30 men, with the NCAA sanctioning Rifle as a mixed Men's and Women's team sport

• Western's Department of Intercollegiate Athletics, along with Campus Recreation and University Administrators will be reviewing the complete survey analysis to determine where the greatest potential for adding NCAA Division I, Club Sports, and/or Intramural Sports lies when combining student interest and ability, along with the potential for the regional competition necessary for the more competitive interests.

Very interesting. More to come.

The Truth About the High School Information Collection Act

Thanks again to our friend Allison Kasic, who has taken a closer look at the High School Information Collection Act and shared her thoughts about it over at Town Hall:

The bill is modeled on the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, which requires colleges to report similar information about their athletic programs to the federal government. By providing the government this information, policymakers can assess if schools are complying with laws such as Title IX. Supporters of such proposals argue that this encourages greater equity between the genders. That all sounds good until you look at how Title IX is enforced and how greater “equity” is often achieved.

While most people think of Title IX of merely requiring schools to ensure that women have the opportunity to participate in athletics, proportionality has long been at the center of Title IX enforcement at the collegiate level. Developed in 1979 as part of a three-prong test of Title IX compliance, proportionality sets up a rigid quota for schools where the gender ratio of athletes must match the gender ratio of the overall student body. For example, if 56% of the student body is female, then 56% of the school’s athletes must also be female. The other two options for demonstrating compliance laid out in the three prong-test lack clear-cut measures and therefore schools hoping to avoid potential Title IX-based lawsuits view them as short-term holding patterns until proportionality can be met.

Proportionality’s one-size-fits-all system leaves schools with few options: to make the numbers match up they usually have to decide between adding more women’s programs or cutting men’s programs. Unfortunately, schools often go down the later path. As a result, men’s program numbers are down across the board, while certain men’s programs are on the verge of extinction. Men’s gymnastics, for example, only has nineteen varsity programs left in the entire country.

As many of our readers already know, we've been pointing out how fear of Title IX has lead to high school officials around the country to make some curious decisions -- including denying a request from a boys high school basketball booster club to charge admission to their games. If the Act gets passed into law, I'd fully expect many more ridiculous decisions like that one.

For more, click here, while it seems as if the state of Pennsylvania looks like it wants to follow suit.

Calling Out the New York Times on Title IX and Cutting Men's Athletics

Exactly two weeks ago, the New York Times ran an article about recent across the board cuts in college athletic programs. Of course, that story neglected to mention how strict proportionality and Title IX are forcing schools to concentrate their cuts in men's athletic programs.

Our friend Allison Kasic sat down at her keyboard and wrote this letter to the editor in response:

To the Sports Editor:

When colleges consider budget cuts, male athletes will always bear the brunt of those cuts because of Title IX’s demands. Title IX’s proportionality requirement mandates that the gender breakdown of athletes mirror the gender breakdown of the general student population.

Most colleges struggle to meet that demand and are left with the option of adding more women’s sports or cutting men’s teams. Combine that framework with the economic downturn, and it’s no surprise that colleges are cutting men’s teams in droves. If costs were the only consideration, there would be no reason for universities to disproportionately cut men’s teams.

People deserve to know the full story about Title IX’s impact on collegiate athletics so they can encourage lawmakers to rethink enforcement measures to ensure that they are fair to both sexes.

Allison Kasic
Washington

The writer is a director at the Independent Women’s Forum, a research and educational institution.

Thanks to Allison for helping to fight the good fight.