What's the Real Purpose of Adding Sports?

The Title IX Blog's Kristine Newhall, after framing her own requirements for how cheerleading can be considered a sport (in light of its elimination at the University of Maryland), writes:

Meeting such conditions would clear the way for OCR to offer approval and thus make it count for Title IX which is what most schools are looking for: a cheap sport to even the numbers. (Though, as I have said before, I don't think a sport the highest rate of catastrophic injury will necessarily be cheap.) 

How telling is this viewpoint all too common among gender quota activists! Keep adding sports — with no regard to students' interests, and subsequently no identification of whether there is a need to add them — until the number of girls and boys playing sports are equal. As we know all too well, this magic number is going to be impossible to hit unless schools keep axing away at men's teams and offering girls sports whose turnouts make you seriously question whether the schools even bothered to ask them their thoughts. And, even though this target is an impossible reality (more boys than girls in sports; more girls than boys in every other extracurricular activity, not to mention that individuals should choose for themselves), activist groups keep demanding, lobbying and suing for it.

Ms. Newhall is also wrong to infer that cheerleading is just one of those sports that schools can just add to "even the numbers." (Clarification: Title IX never called for equal numbers, and schools should not implement this practice). That's because the number of participants is enormous. While no concrete data exists, a 2007 New York Times article notes there are "more than four million participants cheering at everything from local youth football games to the N.C.A.A. men’s basketball tournament." Interest not only exists but is astronomical. If bureaucrats and judge would simply move aside to let schools make their own decisions as to whether cheerleading is a varsity sport — throwing safety into the equation — athletic departments nationwide would be overwhelmed with eager, ready-to-go student cheerleader-acro-gymnasts.

Men's Gymnastics Still Victim of Title IX Gender Quotas

The decades-long demise of collegiate men's gymnastics gets a spotlight in The Norman Transcript, a newspaper in Oklahoma.

In "It's fiscal, not physical," reporter Michael Kinney lays out the stats (only 17 men's gymnastics teams exist in all 3 NCAA divisions) and describes the fundraising complexities and hardships that male gymnasts face when trying to resuscitate or keep their teams alive. But he brushes over the undeniable culprit for the wipe out of men's gymnastics — Title IX — and fails to explain why the NCAA numbers are even worse than they appear.

Although Kinney writes, "Some blame Title IX as a main reason for the losses," he then falls back on blaming football and basketball, and then ultimately counters, "In the end, [it] could just be a matter of money." Instead, he should have focused on the gender quota system created and bolstered by the Title IX enforcement regime since that's what's really killing of men's gymnastics. As schools seek to even out the number of male and female athletes, men's teams are cut; gymnastics is an extremely popular target.

Although the NCAA participation data demonstrates the near-extinction of men's gymnastics, it does not acknowledge that more schools join the NCAA status each year. That means that the situation at hand is even more grim: existing NCAA schools are cutting the sport and new additions to the NCAA are not even adding it. To put this into perspective, there were 1,367 male gymnasts in 1981-1982, yet in 2010-2011, there were 318 of them with way many more schools part of the NCAA.

As gender quotas continue to get rid of men's gymnastics at the varsity level or bump it down to club, the trickle down effect at the high school level and earlier gets even more apparent. Gymnastics hopefuls lose interest because the lack of opportunities and/or scholarships at colleges and universities makes it that much harder to realistically continue their practice. What's the point of even starting to learn gymnastics or make sacrifices while in high school if they will have no teammates, no practice space and no monetary support once they graduate?

Equally as troubling is that the U.S. men's gymnastics Olympics program tremendously suffers. If there aren't as many people coming up through the ranks, the pool of available talent dwindles. And while the men who comprise the U.S. men's team are enormously skilled and accomplished, it would be better if even more people could compete to get spots. After all, more expansive competition brings greater innovation and the commitment among many to be the best.

As The Norman Transcript article makes apparent, men's gymnastics team will have to go the fundraising route or face the consequences. But this is not sustainable nor fair, and it will never address the real source of this problem: Title IX. Reform is the real solution here, figuring out new ways to assess equality of opportunity, not mandating equality of outcome and ensuring that those who want to play sports can.

University of Maryland Cuts Varsity Cheer Program

The Washington Post's Liz Clarke reports that the University of Maryland (UMD) has cut its 9-year competitive cheerleading team because of budget. This development is especially devastating because UMD pioneered the recognition of cheerleading as a varsity sport and was one of only a handful of Division I schools to offer elevated status to participants.

The article's headline (though likely not intentional) identifies the discussion that must take place: "Title IX anniversary: Maryland cuts cheerleading, but was it ever a sport?" Despite the hundreds of thousands of girls (and boys) that begin gymnastics-heavy, muscle-building cheerleading at young ages and compete both in school and privately-held competitions, the NCAA, Department of Education, the courts and Title IX activists do not recognize it as a varsity sport. As if people who hold this view needed any more buttressing, in 2010, a federal judge ruled that cheerleading is not a sport and that Quinnipiac could not add the program to comply with Title IX.

In the Washington Post piece, quotes from Neena Chaudhry, senior counsel of the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) and Donna Lopiano, former executive director of the Women's Sport Foundation (WSF), are extremely telling, and quite frankly, sad, that they come from people whose professional careers are founded in encouraging girls to join physical and competitive activities:

Lopiano: "It was an ill-conceived notion, done for the wrong reason at the wrong time."

Chaudhry, re: Quinnipiac cheer ruling: "Broadly speaking, that case sent a message to other schools that were counting cheer for Title IX purposes and suggested they take a close look at their programs... ‘We’re not there yet’ is what the judge effectively said.”

To which we say: REALLY? Why is competitive cheerleading, supported by throngs of young women who have dedicated their lives to it and risk an array of catastrophic injuries every time they hit the mats, not an eligible candidate for varsity? It's about time we let schools, not activists or government bureaucrats, decide varsity status for cheer; they should factor safety into their decision. When those in power are finally ready to sit down to talk Title IX reform, changing the rules on cheerleading will definitely be on the to-do list.

ESPN Confuses Title IX Rhetoric And Factual Reporting

ESPNW's coverage (read: advertising, media, traffic-driving blitz) of the fortieth anniversary of Title IX makes us question its commitment to journalistic integrity. Sure, ESPN has a handbook on "Editorial Guidelines for Standards & Practices," but what's the point if some of the network's employees haven't bothered to either read or adhere to it?

The latest article, "Five myths about Title IX" by Kate Fagan and Luke Cyphers is a flagrant example of ESPN's biased, opinion-saturated compositions masquerading as serious journalism. It especially violates the following ESPN standards:

• "ESPN also must guard against bias and distortion, which can sometimes be the result of improper emphasis or omission. There may be errors of fairness, when we omit an important element of information, don't fully report a story or offer an unbalanced view."

• "FAIRNESS AND BALANCE: Always be mindful of and sometimes even state the opposing argument. It will often serve to buttress your conclusion or point out areas of your argument that need support. Whom you choose to interview can impact balance and perspective. Distinguish between commentary/opinion and reporting. The "other sides" of an issue can come from other points of view from other people."
  

The authors sourced most of their information from the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) and Women's Sports Foundation (WSF), two of the loudest activist, lobbying groups that won't quit until every school in this country enforces gender quotas to equalize the numbers of boys and girls playing sports (an absolutist goal that eliminates individuals' freedom of choice and contradicts the spirit of Title IX). They have made football, basketball and males their top public enemies and fail to acknowledge the ever-mounting evidence that Title IX's unintended consequences are seriously harming the integrity and purpose of athletics.

So why do Ms. Fagan and Mr. Cyphers use the perspectives listed above as facts when there is no pretending that the NWLC and WSF have specific, policy-driving agendas? It is extremely troublesome, not to mention 100 percent inaccurate, that they claim that a "myth" is "Title IX is controversial." A simple online search would have demonstrated to them that not only does American Sports Council exist to reform Title IX because all of the disastrous cuts it has caused, but also that every day athletes, sports fans, commentators, etc. are furious with how the law has unraveled through burdensome, logic-denying regulations.

But that's no foul compared to the next whopper of a "myth": "Title IX forces schools to cut men's sports." Why is this false, according to the ESPN writers? Well, of course, the WSF, et al. say so! "But over the years, as Hogshead and others point out, administrators have found it more convenient to blame Title IX than football or men's basketball for cuts to non-revenue men's programs." Yet again, these two revenue-making, wildly popular sports are blamed for the elimination of others. That these two sports receive many of their "perks" through money coming from volunteer booster club donations and activities is entirely ignored, but that's likely because the booster association enterprise is the next frontier of attacks for Title IX activists.

The article also conveniently omits any statements by high schools, colleges and universities (even elementary schools) for why they have axed men's teams and prevented popular men's club sports like soccer, volleyball, and lacrosse from achieving varsity status or have demoted them to club status. If the authors had simply made an effort to fact check their sources and insert additional, opposing voices into the essay (male athletes immediately come to mind), they would have quickly seen that men's cuts are no myth but a phenomenon that has occurred for decades.

Another one of their cooked up myths, "Opportunities are now equal" falls into the proportionality trap. According to the NWLC and WSF, athletic opportunities for men and women will never be equal unless the gap between them is closed. That entails achieving an equal ratio between the number of males and females in overall student populations with the number of male and female athletes. Well, because so many schools have female majorities in their overall populations but more male athletes, there is no way to bridge the gap unless male teams are cut and women's teams are added. However, we can't say this enough: Solely looking at numbers means that student interests are not accounted for, girls' teams are unnecessarily added (meaning that girls are not asked whether they care to play the new sports) to bloat the figures, and boys who have proven a passionate interest in sports by participating are sacrificed. This is a no-win and absolutely no way to gauge how schools are offering opportunities.

It is shameful that ESPN and ESPNW can get away with opinion-based reporting, incomplete sourcing and coverage directed by activists on an issue as controversial and complicated as Title IX. It is to the detriment of ESPN's audience that this sports outlet is too busy pleasing one subset of influencers to factually report on documented historical and recent developments in the industry it covers. So, ESPN readers beware: When you check out the sites' Title IX stories, just know that you're not getting anywhere near the full picture.

Title IX Spotlight on "Costas Tonight"

"Costas Tonight: Live from 30 Rock" produced a 2 hour, town hall special on college athletics this past Wednesday. The Title IX panel included Tamika Catchings, WNBA Indiana Fever basketball player; Andy Young, former Millersville University cross country coach; and Angela Ruggiero, president elect of the Women's Sports Foundation. Millersville University senior and former track athlete (before his team was cut) Michael Parker also spoke out from the audience. In case you missed it, click here to watch this 9 minute panel on Title IX (other guest panels ranging from the NCAA to conference realignment are posted on the side).

Bob Button over at Texas Swimming Blog has a great, to-the-point recap:

Bob Costas:

If something's gotta go, it's gonna be a men's program, in most cases.

Millersville senior Michael Parker:

We have elite caliber athletes at our university who are going to lose training partners in the men's program, and it will really be counterproductive toward elite athletes coming to our university on the women's side.

Parker also pointed out the coaching change that will hinder the women's running programs at Millersville. No, I doubt it was a slap at the new coach. Parker was just stating the facts.

Don't believe Mikey on the training issue? Just ask Kutztown University's women's swim team if they miss the men.

With the same facility and coaching, but without the men's team, they've gone from 4th in the conference and 16th at NCAA's in 2010, to 9th at conference and not scoring at NCAA's this year.

Them facts is facts: axing men hurts women.

Some of discussion also allowed for repetition of the commonly held notion that big-revenue, popular men's sports like football and basketball are the reasons why smaller revenue men's sports are eliminated. As we've written before, scapegoating football and basketball and crying "budget" are just smoke screens for what's really going on: Counting athletes and enforcing gender quotas to adhere to Title IX. When those methods are put in place, it's a guarantee no-win for male athletes. Often times no matter how much they fundraise and grass-roots organize post-cuts, male athletes are still banned from regrouping as varsity teams. That's because schools really are making their decisions according to Title IX regulations, not just because of budget; this is exactly what happened at Millersville University.

The next time that men's cuts are exposed on a large network program (we won't hold our breath, but we can continue to put pressure on them to do so), let's hope that the real causes — gender quotas and proportionality — are portrayed as the real reasons behind them. It's time to get on the anti-quota bandwagon; real opportunities for our students are at stake.

Women's Sports Foundation Celebrates While Students Still Get Cut from Teams Due to Title IX

Last Friday, the Women's Sports Foundation (WSF) issued a press release, "WSF Responds to American Sports Council v. Department of Education decision." Except the response, like that of the NWLC, did not legitimately address any of ASC's reasons for suing the Department of Education.

One of the many deceiving claims is that our lawsuit "was designed to weaken Title IX." To the contrary, we sued to prove that the very regulations WSF promotes — the three-prong test and gender quotas —are not meant for high schools and deny boys and girls their constitutional rights to equal freedom and equal protection. Unfortunately, we were denied standing to even argue the merits of our case. Unlike the WSF, we advocate for policies based on gauging student interest to direct the continuation and creation of programs. After all, it should be the students, not outside activist organizations, who guide administrators' decisions to ensure equal opportunities.

The press release even says that the three-part test is "very-flexible" and "gives schools three lenient ways to comply with participation under Title IX." This is so demonstrably and laughably false, and the WSF, NWLC and the rest of the gang know it. The OCR's regulations clearly show that the three-prong test is only meant for "intercollegiate athletes." Yet these groups continually put pressure on secondary schools to use this test. Not to mention that of course schools will only opt for the proportionality application; it's the easiest way to work around the threat of lawsuits from activists.

Bottom line? Gender quota supporters are kidding themselves if they think that creating strict ratios is accomplishing anything but an expansion of a discriminatory, sex-based Title IX enforcement regime. The Women's Sports Foundation has made clear that it is going to "begin celebrating the 40th anniversary of Title IX a few months early." That means that the tough work — fighting for meaningful reforms on behalf of those students who have, are, and will face team cuts — is up to the American Sports Council. We're up for the challenge.