Title IX In The News

It's not surprise that Title IX, gender quotas and inequality of opportunities among male and female athletes are getting more attention press attention. After all, if schools keep using proportionality and unfair methods of implementing Title IX, we're going to see more students unhappy with the status quo.

Here's what's happening this week around the country:

Title IX Cause Inequality, The Hoya (Georgetown)
by Matt Emch

While Title IX's goals are admirable, it has not worked out in practice as it was meant to. Its implementation dictated that colleges had to balance the numbers of female and male athletes to mirror the student population at their institutions. In theory, it was as simple as creating more female sports teams to even out the number of scholarship athletes between the two genders. But in practice, many males suffered as a result of this legislation.

Male athletes from all over the country were told that their sports would be cut and they would have to provide an education for themselves. Young men who had dreamt of playing a sport in college, many of whom could not pay for an education if it weren't for their full-ride scholarships, were left out to dry.

That isn't equality, but a ludicrous attempt to justify more discrimination. Not one critic of Title IX will argue that creating more athletic opportunities for women is a bad thing. But discriminating against males to fill a quota for athletic departments is just as wrong as exclusion.

College football not in PSC's future, eCorsair (Pensacola State College)
by Brian Brian McLellan

The cost of starting a program from scratch is steep. After the inclusion of staff salaries, equipment purchases, and other necessary purchases, initial costs can run more than $1million.

“If you add in the cost of 85 scholarships, living stipends and travel expenses, we would more than double our current athletic budget,” said Pensacola State Athletic Director Bill Hamilton. “Then on top of that you have to offset those scholarships with women’s programs, which will double the cost of the start-up.”

Pensacola State has received national recognition for its strict adherence to Title IX, which requires institutions to offer the same opportunity for women’s athletic programs as it does for men. Because of Title IX, adding 85 scholarships for a football program would require the school to add a financial equivalent for either new or existing women’s programs.

Deer Valley Unified School District gives badminton a try, Arizona Republic
by Tyler Emerick

Prompted by law and fueled by eager participants, badminton in Glendale gained tremendous steam in 2011. To meet Title IX requirements, the Deer Valley Unified School District voted to introduce the sport to all five of its high schools in August.

Despite its forced origin*...

(*need we include more?)

A question of fairness in high school sports, Albany Times-Union
by Mark McGuire

This is a question of fairness in competition — the foundation of the “level playing field” principle. On one side you have people saying having a guy play is unfair to all-girls teams.
But the other argument carries greater validity: You can’t deny a kid a chance to play solely on the basis of gender. That has been clearly established for girls. The right extends to guys as well, again within reason.

Rules governing guys playing field hockey and other mixed competitions vary by state. The New York State Public High School Athletic Association Handbook is pretty clear:

“Equal opportunity to participate in interschool competition, either on separate teams or in mixed competition on the same team, shall be provided to male and female students, except as hereinafter provided. In schools that do not provide separate competition for male and female students in a specific sport, no student shall be excluded from such competition solely by reason of sex …”

That said, there is a clause that allows the denial of a male athlete to play in a girls’ sport, and it makes sense: school or other officials “may decline to permit a male or males to participate on a team organized for females upon a finding that such participation would have a significant adverse effect upon the opportunity of females to participate successfully in interschool competition in that sport.”

Translation: “If I think he is endangering the welfare of a student athlete, I can say no,” Johnstown athletic director James Robare said. It’s in the school’s best interest, since such a player would be more likely to injure a teammate in practice than an opponent in less-frequent games. In other words, don’t look for a 220-pound guy who can run a 4.5 on field hockey field near you.

A final counter-argument: If claims are made regarding aggressive play as the above email writer made, then that is the domain of on-field, not off-field officials. Again, treat everyone the same.

It's More Than Just a Sprint To Save Sports

A recent article in Delaware's News Journal attempts to show how Patrick T. Harker, president of the University of Delaware (UD), is making budget and administrative decisions that are drawing both positive and negative attention. Unfortunately, because of the rationale Harker used to put certain programs on the chopping block, some members in the UD community are more affected than others.

Especially the men's track and cross country teams. Teams, that according to a columnist at UD's student newspaper, the Review, who cited the U.S. Department of Education, cost $775/athlete for cross country (18 athletes) and $751/athlete (48 athletes). That is nothing compared to other varisty sports. Teams that boosted the second and third highest overall GPAs among UD athletic teams (track with a 2.950 GPA; cross country with a 3.029 GPA).

These boys, obviously fed up with the administration's nonsense, have taken serious action to save their sport and continue to make their college experience worthwhile. In their formal complaint with the Office of Civil Rights, they shed light on exactly the problem with using Title IX as a means to eliminate, rather than create opportunities. In this case, many speculate that the law supposed to ensure gender equality is used as a scapegoat to save funds. Either way, the boys write:

The University of Delaware chose to use an outside counsel for the decision made by its Board of Trustees and Administration to cut our sports programs and avoid working with the Office for Civil Rights or community stakeholders - most notably those directly affected by the decision.
...
Only the first prong of compliance to Title IX was evidenced in meetings with student athletes, press releases and community meetings to explain the decision. The second and third prong of Title IX which encourages accommodation and expansion of programs and not elimination of programs - were rebuffed and dismissed in question and answer sessions. No logical or reasonable arguments have been delivered to us, the student athletes directly affected by the decision - but offers to help us transfer and leave UD remain.
...
We believe that the University should have looked at alternative and creative solutions to remain in compliance with Title IX instead of eliminating two men's programs. As student athletes involved with cross country and track & field, and excluded from this decision, we have looked at clarification of Title IX law, work done by the Office for Civil Rights, case law and alternative solutions provided by other "flagship" universities and found that the University of Delaware has not followed the spirit or letter of Title IX.
...
[W]e, the student athletes make this complaint to work and have the opportunity to save our sports.

Thankfully, and rightfully, the Office of Civil Rights is looking into the complaint to determine gender discrimination. We are looking forward to seeing the outcome of this case, and hope that the hard work and current campaign run by the UD track and cross country boys will pay off.

To learn more about how they're working to save their sports, please visit their website, Save UD.

Sand Volleyball & Proportionality... This Time in Arizona

As schools continue to rely on a numbers game to ensure proportionality between male and female athletes and overall school populations, we're going to keep seeing creative — if not outright controversial — ways to meet Title IX requirements.

Starting female sand volleyball teams seems to be an increasingly popular method. We previously wrote on Georgia State's decision to do this, and now the Arizona Interscholastic Association (AIA), at the high school level is following suit. Choosing between sand volleyball or lacrosse, the AIA decided to go with sand volleyball because economic considerations, not proven interest among females, won out. For the decision makers, it didn't matter that there are already twelve Arizona high schools with female lacrosse teams; it was more important that sand volleyball incurs fewer expenses for uniforms and equipment.

Mark Heller at the East Valley Tribune does an excellent job at expressing underlying issues in the decision making:

[W]ill this just be the same 10 or 12 volleyball players from the fall sport? Or will other girls sign up? Will it interfere with club teams, often a priority for kids to reach the next level?

More importantly — and this is about Federal Law compliance, not the AIA or school districts — with football being the obvious skewer of sports participation between boys and girls, are we being forced to match proportionality numbers to comply with Title IX regardless whether or not there’s a genuine, widespread interest in a given sport?

If the ultimate goal of Title IX is to provide equal opportunities among males and females, shouldn't we value actual interest among those athletes? When cost considerations, not existing realities — like the fact that there are already twelve female teams playing lacrosse in Arizona, are more persuasive to those in charge, shouldn't we openly question whether we're making decisions and offering opportunities based on Title IX's original meaning?

Update: Here's an article from the Tucson Citizen with more details..

Bake Sales Not So Sweet Anymore

Controversy in New Mexico continues over booster club funding and Title IX implementation as discussion heats up over the state's Schools Athletics Equity Act. The issue remains whether private donations raised by parents through bake sales and working concession stands, or whether philanthropic contributions by private businesses, should be pooled together and distributed among all boys and girls teams under the guise of Title IX equality — and regardless of which parents/teams raised what.

The American Sports Council believes that combining volunteer, charitable donations will harm athletic departments. Quite simply, pooling donations will create a disincentive for parents to raise money for their own child's team when they realize that their own time, effort and money will go to other teams that have nothing to do with their child's sport. Furthermore, given that teams are already cash-strapped in this tough economic climate, why should schools demand that programs forgo financial contributions that others are willingly and intentionally giving to certain teams?

It's important to recognize that nowhere in the language of the federal Title IX law does it say that booster club/volunteer money will be counted as part of creating an equitable balance among males and females. Instead, like in New Mexico's case, the state law's interpretation of Title IX completely skews the law's original intent. Most assuredly, students will be denied opportunities to play sports as the impact of the contributions is lessened when they are distributed to a variety of teams, as well as when generous donations stop trickling in because of the mandate.

Fortunately, one New Mexico State Representative is fighting to overturn the New Mexico law, and even goes so far as to say that its spirit may even be un-American.

Las Cruces Sun-News has the latest:

State Rep. Dennis Roch, R-Texico, says hard-working sports teams that raise money for their program have to share it with the lazy ones.

...

Roch, an associate school superintendent and former coach of boys' and girls' athletic teams, said the law had created burdens on schools and uncertainty about how sports programs can be run.

For instance, he said, if a boys' basketball team makes the playoffs and therefore spends more on travel, has the girls' team that did not qualify for the post-season been shortchanged financially?

Many legislators considered that purported problem to be a reach, not a practical concern.

A more important issue to Roch is expenditures made on individual teams.

Certain boosters raise a lot of money to help their team with travel expenses or uniforms. Why should they have to share their money with other teams that showed no initiative? Roch asked.

He said the state law borders on being un-American, as it provides a disincentive to hard work.

Hopefully, New Mexico legislators will overturn the law, and other state lawmakers will not even consider a similar regulation, by realizing that it not only strays far from what Title IX aims to achieve but will also negatively impact student athletes in the process.

Clarity on Title IX Complaints In Oregon

Following the Office of Civil Rights' decision to dismiss Title IX complaints in Oregon, many of us were wondering (and cheering) why they did it. Well, it looks like we have an answer, and it's one that we welcome. Hopefully, this outcome will be repeated in other states that have been overwhelmed by complaints by gender quota activists.

The Oregonian reports:

Jim Bradshaw with the U.S. Department of Education press office, said in an email Wednesday that the Office of Civil Rights dismissed the complaints "because they did not provide facts in support of the allegations so as to raise a potential violation of the Title IX requirement to equally effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of both sexes."

And there we have it. Claiming injustice by using strict proportionality measures will only prevent us from focusing on how to implement real, meaningful reforms to Title IX so that it can applied fairly to both sexes.

More Light Onto Georgia State's Sand Volleyball Team

Previously, we wrote about Georgia State's decision to build a women's sand volleyball team to balance out the numbers after creating a football team. The case sheds light onto how schools address compliance with Title IX, including how they use proportionality, budget and student interest to make decisions.

For Georgia State, the relatively low cost of sand volleyball — $1.5 million — in comparison to more popular female sports like crew — helped them to decide what women's sport they would create after football. It is interesting to note that there are only 15 spots on the team.

However, other schools, like Old Dominion, paid more — $2.75 million — to create a female crew team that would allow 75 athletes to participate.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has the details:

[S]and volleyball seems like an odd choice for an urban campus such as Georgia State’s, but it comes with a relatively small price tag: four scholarships spread among as many as 15 players. The estimated start-up cost of $1.5 million covers building three courts and bleachers, among other things.

However, it’s an inexpensive addition when considering the cost of building a pool for a swim team, or buying the land to build a practice facility and field for lacrosse, for example. Those sports create a lot of opportunities, but come at a big cost, particularly for urban campuses where real estate not only is scarce, it’s pricey.

...

Old Dominion, located on the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia, chose a slightly more expensive route, but one that created numerous opportunities. It constructed a world-class crew facility at a cost of $2.75 million. The team has 20 scholarships that can be divided among as many as 75 team members.

The athletic department also decided to fully utilize the maximum number of scholarships in each of its women’s sports, in addition to adding locker rooms for its women’s field hockey and lacrosse teams in its new football complex. It’s considering the addition of another women’s sport, but hasn’t decided which one.

“We want to make sure we are in compliance with Title IX because Old Dominion has always been a leader for women and women’s athletics,” athletic director Camden Wood Selig said. “We understand our history and want to make sure we maintain our consistency with our past relative to opportunities for women.”

As schools must find ways to balance out the numbers and as the economy continues to suffer, we will likely see more scenarios in which schools heed to budget needs, not interest, as a means to create opportunities for student athletes.

Title IX's Unseen Consequences Keep On Evolving

It gets old saying this, but we're going to again: we told you so. As gender quotas used to apply Title IX in college athletics surface at the high school level, we will see the same destructive consequences — such as cuts to whole teams or partial rosters on boys team (and even girls teams) — unravel.

Unfortunately, for the College of Staten Island (CSI) High School and McCown High School in Staten Island, they're dealing with this reality. The Public Schools Athletic League (PSAL) is axing the junior varsity boys team in their joint basketball program because of a Title IX complaint. And that's not all. The varsity boys basketball team is in hot water as well.

Tom Dowd from Staten Island Live reports why:

Citing a Title IX complaint, the PSAL is refusing to approve a junior varsity for the combined boys’ basketball program that represents CSI and McCown high schools. Because the Dragons do not have a junior varsity sanctioned by the PSAL, the varsity team, which has steadily improved over its five years of existence, cannot enter the Staten Island High School League.

How’s that for cause and effect?

It’s got Ray Palma, who took over a program still in start-up mode following a 0-14 PSAL season in 2008, tied up in knots. The Dragons improved to 5-9 last season with forward Quamaine Tomlin selected as the program’s first Advance All Star. With his fourth season about to begin, Palma wants his team to have the opportunity to compete for a championship in the league that includes all of Staten Island’s PSAL and CHSAA varsity programs.

“It’s really penalizing my varsity,” said Palma. “They’ve really grown. My team is one of the better ones on Staten Island.”

Perhaps Title IX gender quota proponents should consider both the glaring and more subtle effects of implementing a strict numbers game before denying enthusiastic, driven student athletes the ability to play sports. This case underscores the ripple effect of gender quotas in athletic departments. Now, not only will this decision deny the junior varsity boys the opportunity to compete but also the successful boys varsity team, which is improving their winning streak and wants to continue on that path. In addition, what does the potential loss of the boys varsity team mean for the league as a whole? And finally, how many other schools will begin to take this route in the quest to impose rigid proportionality numbers?