Saving Sports

Trickle-Down Effect of College Sports: a California Case Study

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:21:00 +0000

For years, colleges and universities in California have had more than a rough time maintaining their wrestling programs; more than 20 teams have been axed since 1972. That's why Simpson University's announcement this week that it will be adding men's wrestling next fall is not only positive news for its students but also for the rest of Californian wrestlers and wrestler-hopefuls in middle school, high school and college.

Despite the void left by so few colleges with competitive wrestling opportunities, interest in the sport still plentifully exists. Anderson High wrestling coach Don Williams, named athletic coach for Simpson's U.'s wrestling team, should have no problems scouting out for competent athletes. In a public note, Williams writes, "The number of outstanding wrestlers out there far exceeds the number of colleges with wrestling. I am looking for young men who are serious about their wrestling and academics, who can compete well at the NAIA level, and who have a strong moral character." We hope he's inundated with requests for tryouts!

Williams should also should have minimal challenges building a roster because, as Simpson University athletic director Joe Griffin explains, Williams "has a great chance of success with his experience and his contacts that he has built up over the years.”

As word spreads of this team's creation, we will likely see more springing up over the next few years. After all, those wrestlers will need more teams to compete with in-state, especially given that the nearest match-up will be at Southern Oregon University. Just one added wrestling program has the potential to rebuild and strengthen the sport for all of California.

The anticipated success and reach of Simpson University's addition should be a lesson for all schools debating whether to add or reinstate, as well as cut a sport because of Title IX. The impact of unfair, counterproductive policies, like gender quotas and proportionality, commonly touches more than just the one team under consideration. Young athletes hoping to compete in the future at varsity levels or simply practice their athletic skills on intramural teams have a harder time finding easily-available opportunities and may become discouraged that after years of playing, will not be able to do so at the university level.

Dept. of Education: Power, Lobbyists More Important Than Student Athletes

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:03:00 +0000

Last Friday, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) led a tweet-up with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to "kick off 2012 and to recognize the 40th anniversary of Title IX this year."   

Here’s what actually happened:

Our Secretary of Education went to the offices of Title IX lobbyists. The lobbyists were so brazen that they even typed his answers while sitting right next to him. Secretary Duncan ignored all follow up questions from critics of Title IX enforcement. Throughout the chat, lobbyists and trial lawyers from American Association of University Women, National Women’s Law Center and Women’s Sports Foundation tweeted congratulations and applause for him, even as fair-minded questions were disregarded or whitewashed. Here’s what the Secretary had to say to the many thousands of young men who have had their teams, scholarships and dreams dashed because of his enforcement policy: nothing.

We at American Sports Council anticipated that the hosts would avoid discussing the hard truths about the impact of gender quotas, proportionality, and the three-prong test on high school and college athletic programs, so we decided to confront them with a series of questions leading up to the event. Some that we asked include:

@arneduncan @EDcivilrights What do you tell booster parents that can’t have bake sales because of your #T9 enforcement method?

When will @WomensSportsFdn @AAUW get that gender quotas and proportionality don’t create equal opportunities, they destroy them?

@arneduncan @EDcivilrights how do you say you’re promoting #T9 if your enforcement choices cut so many opps?

@arneduncan 3 part test only for colleges, not HS. How can you let it continue since it violates equal protection + equal treatment?

The responses were nothing less than shameful. Let’s start with those pertaining to men’s cuts:

(AAUW) @LisaMaatz You know, when mens sports are [c]ut, no one is happy. But it is budget decision by the school. Nothing in T9 says u must cut sports.”

@arneduncan Contrary to conventional wisdom, since 1972 access to men’s sports has not been diminished

@arneduncan T9 requires schools to offer equal athletic opps for men & women. It doesn’t require schools to eliminate any teams

@EDcivilrights Title IX is abt ensuring equal access to athletic opportunity & since its passage opportunities have increased for men & women

Did they already forget that male and female athletes from James Madison University protested outside of the Department of Education in 2007, drawing national public attention to their university’s decision to cut 10 teams? OCR officials even extended an invitation to JMU athletes —which they accepted — to discuss the unfairness of proportionality and team cuts based on gender! But, since we’re all for facts at ASC, here’s a picture proving that both men and women (they lose out on training partners, among other harms) are not only affected by the government’s methods, but that they also care:

Obviously, JMU is not the only school to axe men’s teams. University of Delaware, Rutgers University, Liberty University, and University of Nebraska-Omaha, among countless other schools, have capped rosters and eliminated programs, not because of budget reasons, but due to so-called “gender equity.” In the past two months alone, two community colleges have cut their recognized football programs because they couldn’t balance the numbers; University of Maryland has cut 8 teams — 5 of which are men's — and decreed that the boys will only be saved if their girl counterparts raise enough money and a veteran high school football coach quit because of booster club changes due to Title IX.

Palpable men’s cuts are one thing. Unseen effects are another. What Arne Duncan, et al. also don’t understand is that schools haven’t been able to add popular men’s sports, like soccer and lacrosse, because they preemptively predict the outcry from activists that their numbers don’t add up. Similarly, schools often add women’s teams without surveying their interests; padding the numbers by adding all-girls rosters ensures that they are in compliance with the Department of Education’s version of Title IX compliance.

Next up: tweets demonstrating that groups like the AAUW encourage people to sue their schools. Why? Because it ensures they are still relevant and perpetuates their survival through the revolving door of government officials, activist groups and Title IX consultants:

@LisaMaatz OCR is open to questions about T9, how to comply, how to ensure equal opp, says @EDcivilrights

@LisaMaatz Last year, @EDcivilrights received 747 athletics complaints alone

@LisaMaatz Is your school in compliance with Title IX in all its various aspects? Look at @AAUW’s Know the Score

@LisaMaatz We get complaints filed on behalf of boys & girls. If any1 believes they r being discriminated against, pls file says @EDcivilrights

Again, these statements are misleading. The OCR received 747 complaints because the National Women’s Law Center filed Title IX complaints in 12 school districts nationwide and emboldened others to do the same. What Lisa Maatz conveniently leaves out is that the OCR is already declining these complaints (albeit at not a fast enough pace). This fall, the OCR turned down the complaints in Oregon, because according to the Department of Education press department, “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."

Despite publicly holding them accountable to their inaccurate statements and their Title IX enforcement system, AAUW, Arne Duncan and the Department of Education proved in their final tweets and post-talk wrap-up that patting themselves on the back is most important — and not the boys and girls whom the law is intended to protect:

@LisaMaatz Thanks again to @arneduncan for taking out time of his busy day to talk about an issue he cares personally about.

@LisaMaatz And special thanks to Russlynn Ali, Asst Sec at OCR @EDcivilrights, for her expertise and passion – and even hand.

@LisaMaatz Holy crap! RT@TrendsDC: Lisa M. Maatz, @lisamaatz is now trending in #DC

“Talking Title IX on Twitter” – U.S. Department of Education blog

In the lead-up to the 40th anniversary in June, we will undoubtedly see more of the same from our leaders and activist organizations. However, they can be sure that American Sports Council and all of our supporters will not back down in pressing them to promote meaningful discussion and reforms on returning to Title IX’s original intent.

Elementary Schools New Front For Discriminatory Title IX Implementation?

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:11:00 +0000

In an unfortunate follow-up to our last post disproving activists' claims that boys teams aren't cut due to Title IX, a discriminatory new athletic policy has emerged out of Pittsburgh's elementary schools. Not college, not high school. Elementary school. That's how far removed we are now are from where Title IX was supposed to lead us.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that school officials have modified the K-5 basketball program to attempt to provide more opportunities for fourth - and fifth-grade girls. However, those opportunities blatantly come at the expense of the boys:

Now, K-5 boys and girls will be split as the district revamps its program to remedy years of "Title IX equity issues," or unequal opportunities for girls.

But there's a twist.

If a school can't field enough players for both a boys' and a girls' team, neither team will be allowed to compete in the eight-game season that begins in January.

The district says the new rule is intended to force schools to make more vigorous efforts to recruit girls and offer equal opportunities.

We fully support equal opportunities for girls to play sports and hope that Pittsburgh Public Schools ensure those options. If girls want to play basketball, they should be able to play. However, the issue at hand is what happens when officials try to achieve equal outcomes, not equal opportunities.

Individual schools have attempted to remedy the situation by offering girls the ability to play on co-ed teams (there were only two schools with all-girls teams). Aimee Zundel, the school district's solicitor, also conceded the point that regional girls' teams were a possibility. Yet instead of providing reasonable solutions, she opted with this one, consequences be damned.

Ultimately, the district decided to go with the recently announced rule, which officials realize will have the potential to limit boys' ability to play basketball, she said.

"We understand that, but the real motive was to provide an incentive for schools to really work to recruit girls."

In other words, if boys can't play because enough girls can't be "recruited" (this is at the elementary school level — come on) —so be it. The logic behind this decision is eerily similar to the recently announced cuts at University of Maryland (boys' teams can only be saved if the girls' team they're paired with can raise enough money). Additionally, because of proportionality measures and team cuts at the college and high school levels, the reality is that boys frequently play on all-girls' teams. When boys have no option but to do that, it's acceptable for gender quota activists; when it happens to girls, there are outcries followed by discriminatory measures.

Ultimately, this decision is extremely dangerous, especially because the kids are at such a young age. Stunting their opportunities now — including pursuing activities they enjoy now, getting physical exercise and learning the importance of teamwork — will surely have consequences later on. Unless Title IX implementation is reformed, those boys likely to be affected are going to face the same grim situation at every level of schooling they're in.

Debunking the Title IX Myth...For Real

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:28:00 +0000

Dawn Redd, head volleyball coach at Beloit College, attempts to provide "the truth" about Title IX on her blog, Coach Dawn Writes. Except in trying to set the record straight, she further distorts the myths reiterated by gender quota activists.

Let's begin with this statement: "It turns out that equity in athletics was a happy by-product of a much broader law." The purpose of Title IX is to create equality of opportunity; if you (male or female) want to play a sport, you can. When activists use the word "equity," they're most likely referring to equal numbers; if 52 percent of the population is girls, then 52 percent of the athletes at that school should be girls. And where does that lead us? Slashing team rosters, cutting whole teams, adding teams like golf and sand volleyball to arbitrarily boost participation numbers. They fail to realize that not all girls want to play sports in equal numbers to boys, and that girls are involved in a plethora of extracurricular activities. Why is the emphasis only on sports? The bottom line is that many kids, especially boys, who want to play sports can no longer do so because of groups solely pursuing equal rates, not equal chances.

That leads us to the next fallacy: "a prevalent myth is 'women's sports are causing men's sports to be cut.' Schools aren't cutting men's sports because of women's athletics...they're cutting them because that's the choice they've made." What?

Here are just some of the men's teams cut specifically because of Title IX, not to mention all of the men's teams cut because of "budget reasons" (read between the lines):

University of Delaware track and field ("While this was a difficult decision, this action demonstrates the University’s commitment to the equity principles embodied in Title IX.”)
Northern Iowa baseball (Troy Dannen, athletic director: "We weren't going to look at a women's program, we had to look at the men's side of it.")
Rutgers University men’s heavyweight crew, men’s lightweight crew, men’s fencing, men’s swimming and diving and men’s tennis (Robert E. Mulcahy, Director of Athletics: "compliance to the guidelines of Title IX"
PLNU men’s golf, men’s cross country and men’s track and field teams (Caye Barton Smith, Vice President of the school: "we have worked closely with the Office of Civil Rights to make certain we remain in full compliance with our gender balance in athletics relative to our university balance")
Liberty University wrestling ("legal obligation to comply with federal law relating to gender equity.")
University of Nebraska-Omaha wrestling and football

Here are just some of the academic support pieces showing how cutting men's teams is just one of the byproducts of Title IX quota implementation:

The real myth of Title IX is that it's only doing good. While we certainly want as many opportunities available as possible for both males and females, we can't help but to think of the many hardworking, dedicated student athletes who are no longer able to play out of their schools' concerns for gender quotas. It's time we get real reform going.

Contradiction of the Week

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:53:00 +0000

Reporting on Liberty University, from WSLS:

Liberty worked doggedly to get into proper Title IX compliance, though the school had to cut its wrestling program in pursuit of that goal. The athletics academic support staff has grown from a half-person position to a full department. Coaching staff sizes have increased across the board.

Hm. Title IX states, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."

Cutting the wrestling team — because Liberty University implemented a gender quota system, not required by law — denied males the chance to participate in sports.

Subsequently, the administrative side of the athletic department became bloated with new staffers.

See where this is going?

(More here)

Update on UMD Cuts

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:48:00 +0000

Thanks to an ASC Facebook fan for pointing out the University of Maryland's (UMD) "Save Our Sports" page and for pointing us to the following statement:

Can a guarantee be provided that should the eight-year fund raising goal for my team be reached, the sport will be saved?
The University of Maryland's continued compliance with the non-negotiable requirements of the federal Title IX law prohibits the ability to make this guarantee. In order to save a men's program, we must also reach the fund raising goal for a women's program with similar squad size and scholarship commitments.

In addition to that UMD policy, this one sheds light on how the commission made its decision:

How were teams identified for elimination?
The Commission recommendation to eliminate eight teams was motivated by the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics' financial situation, and influenced by gender equity interests. Consideration was also given to factors such as whether the Atlantic Coast Conference and the National Collegiate Athletic Association sponsored the sport, the competitive success of the sport, ownership and adequacy of the University's facilities for that sport, proximity and quality of available competition, level of spectator attendance, and the history of the sport at the University.

No doubt gender quotas played a major role in eliminating opportunities and/or making it harder for teams to save themselves. The UMD's line of thinking that "continued compliance with the non-negotiable requirements of the federal Title IX" is just plain wrong. Prong 1 of Title IX — proportionality — is one of many ways to measure compliance with the law. As we've stated many times on this blog and in official statements, we believe that a proportionality measurement is outdated, blatantly discriminates against men, who often participate in higher numbers than women, and needs to be reformed. Clearly, if the men raised the money themselves to ensure their survival, there is strong interest in that sport and should be allowed to participate. Conversely, if a women's team raised enough money, they should be allowed to play as well. It is simply unfair for the school to disallow hardworking, passionate men, who are fundraising for their teams in addition to completing school work, keeping up with sports, and pursuing other activities, the ability to play if they can meet the financial requirements the school has put into place.

Equality of Opportunity This Is Not

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:37:00 +0000

The problem with gender quotas, this time at Dixie State College, as captured in this article:

If the Red Storm are to add a sport, it would almost certainly be women's track and field.

The school is undergoing a gender-equity plan in an attempt to become Title IX compliant.

The school added women's golf - which was part of the plan - and isn't in immediate dangers of facing penalties for failure to be within Title IX's bylaws.

"If were to add a men's team (next), we'd be setting ourselves up for potential issues down the road," Boothe said. "We don't want to drop men's sports. It's not something we want or need to do. It's not even in consideration."

Boothe said the program is looking at adding one of three sports on the women's side - track and field, lacrosse or swimming. With the conference's decision to sponsor track and field, it made sense for Boothe to look into the potential of adding a women's track and field team.

How about using proven student interest when deciding to add sports teams, instead of generalized quota numbers? It's time to reform Title IX so that Prong 1 at the college level — proportionality — cannot continue to discriminate against male athletes so as to deny them opportunities to participate in sports, and therefore, violate Title IX's purpose of preventing gender discrimination. What quota activists and proponents of "gender equity" programs fail to realize, or ignore, is that creating teams for females solely for the sake of making participation numbers equal is not actually helping. Allowing both genders to enjoy equality of opportunity means finding out their interests, allowing them to join sports if they desire and making sensible decisions to accommodate them — not blatantly cutting teams and rosters for the sake of only one sex.

Off Base Remarks on Title IX

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:08:00 +0000

An excerpt from an interview published on Macon.com is worth sharing to demonstrate precisely what's wrong with relying upon gender quotas to build and/or change sports programs. Interviewer is reporter Seth Emerson, and interviewee is University of Georgia (UGA)'s athletic director Greg McGarity.

QUESTION: This is a little off the beaten path, but has there been anything new in terms of starting any new sports, whether it’s lacrosse?
ANSWER: No. I think it all is a Title IX review. We have an annual review with our compliance of Title IX, and I’m sure if a time came to where we needed to add a sport, we would activate a committee to study that. But that’s not on our radar right now.
QUESTION: You get the question about men’s soccer, too.
ANSWER: I doubt very seriously it would be a men’s sport. It would have to be a female sport. The demographics here on this campus are 60 percent female and 40 percent male. That’s part of the Title IX prong there to try to mirror the demographics you have on campus. It wouldn’t make sense to add another men’s sport. It would just widen the campus further.

Using proportionality in athletics departments to reflect the percentage of males and females in the overall student population eclipses actual student interest. The interviewer alludes to people asking McGarity whether UGA will offer a men's soccer program, which means that there is already demonstrated interest. That also may be the case for lacrosse. However, the school will only really know what sports it makes sense to add based on talking to both male and female students and learning where their enthusiasm lies.

Prematurely denying men the opportunity to participate in a new sport because it would further imbalance the number of male and female athletes does nothing to implement Title IX as written. It's possible that there is enough interest among women to create a new sport, and it's possible that there's not. The school will only really know after surveying its students. But to insist on creating a female-only sport just because of gender quotas is not only unfair but also does not resonate with the original meaning of Title IX.

Football Coach Quits, Cites Booster Club Changes

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 20:59:00 +0000

Veteran Portland High football coach Mike Bailey has called it quits after 26 years and a winning record. Among many reasons, one particularly stands out: The recent booster club reforms issued for Portland and Deering this past September. Instead of separate booster clubs for each sport, next year will only allow one booster club for all sports.

We've already mentioned how pooling voluntary resources would impact private donations, bake sales and funding for individual teams, but we failed to consider that beloved coaches may quit as a result. Mike Bailey reflects, "It took me 26 years to develop my boosters. I wanted to keep as much as I could."

Although that he admitted he would have gone along with the new booster policy had he stayed, his remarks still show the importance given to booster clubs affiliated with different clubs. Unfortunately, Title IX number crunching is to blame, and it will impact schools and their people far and wide.

Explaining Outcomes of Title IX Quota Enforcement

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:32:00 +0000

On the blog, Ask Coach Wolff, Rick Wolff tells the familiar tale of boys competing on girls teams, and girls competing on boys teams in high school. He then recounts that a boy recently broke a girls' swim record and wants to know, "is that right? Was that the intent of Title IX?"

When answering this question, it's important to backtrack to see how we ended up with combined teams as a result of terminated opportunities for male athletes. As we've said before, Title IX was created to prevent gender discrimination among both sexes. Unfortunately, at the expense of many athletes and entire sports programs, activists have strongly encouraged schools to implement the law by using gender quotas and proportionality measures to create what they deem "gender equity." As a result of this zealousness, schools have actually violated Title IX by denying opportunities based on gender to achieve a strict number balance among boys and girls.

That's where we are today, and that's why many parents, like the ones who have read and responded to Rick Wolff's post, are confused that boys participate on girls' teams. Yet the real outrage is why that's actually happened, as described above. So, if those parents are that unhappy with the perverse unintended consequences of the application of Title IX to high school and college athletics, they should ask why it's taken so long to reform Title IX to restore its original purpose and ensure that all students have the opportunities to pursue their interests. Changing tactics — by using means other than strict gender quotas to evaluate opportunities — would ensure that schools allow the original spirit of Title IX to reach those individuals most affected unintended outcomes.

Setting the Record Straight on Title IX

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:24:00 +0000

Title IX, as written, is intended to prevent discrimination on the basis of gender, not to encourage it. This means that enforcing the law through proportionality measures — i.e. gender quotas — absolutely contradicts the idea of eliminating prejudice based on gender because they inevitably deny students opportunities to participate in sports. When schools implement rigid number systems based on what the activists call "enforcing gender equity," male athletes disproportionally lose out.

Is that what equality of opportunity should look like? No.

Unfortunately, Dave McKenna at the Washington City Paper gets it wrong when he writes that Title IX is the "the 1972 measure that calls for schools to have an equivalent number of athletic offerings for boys and girls."

What is more, he heavily quotes Neena Chaudhry from the National Women's Law Center. She says:

"DCPS needs to increase sports opportunities for girls not just because it’s the law, but because sports are good for girls. There are so many studies that show that participation in sports helps with health, with academic outcomes, with a whole host of life skills. It’s the right thing to do.”

The problem with this line of thinking is that it doesn't take into account what girls actually want. Rather, this top down approach just assumes that all girls want to participate in sports in equal numbers alongside men, and therefore, imposing a gender quota system will get them to play sports. Instead, to comply with Title IX, schools should ask students to fill out interest surveys to see what passions and skills students of both genders want to pursue. Out of those responses will come the decisions as to where and how to add opportunities for males and females, and not just in sports.

Maryland U. Not Immune to Unfair Cuts

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:10:00 +0000

Addressing budget shortfalls, Maryland University's presidential commission on intercollegiate athletics has suggested the elimination of 8 teams from its roster of 27 sports. The final report admits that not just balancing the school's finances came into play because "gender equity interests [also] influenced the selection of programs. The Commission was guided now, as the University has been in the past, by the need to comply with Title IX."

Out of concerns for so-called "gender equity," the commission is eliminating more men's teams then women's — 5 out of 8 to be exact. What's interesting is that track is one of the least costly sports to maintain. But yet again, strict compliance with Title IX numbers will hurt male athletes and deny them opportunities to play.

The Washington Post's Tracee Hamilton points out:

They have to look at the school’s success in different sports, the numbers competing, and of course comply with Title IX at the same time. ... (On the other hand, could there be a cheaper sport than men’s cross-country? All they need are uniforms that are so skimpy and lightweight, the runners are literally nicknamed the “thinclads.” How much could that cost?)

It's unfortunate that the University's commission is hiding behind financial concerns to heed to Title IX proportionality.

Student Interest, Not Title IX Gender Quotas, Can Work

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:11:00 +0000

Now for some relatively positive news out of Santa Monica College (SMC): Men's soccer may be added to the athletics program next fall. Although the addition isn't certain, the Western States Conference has already approved it. And, the school has deemed that adding more opportunities for male student athletes is in compliance with Title IX by using prong three, or student interest, to determine what sports are should be offered.

The Corsair, SMC's student newspaper, reports:

“Our goal is to continue to offer all of the sports that our students want to play that are available in the California Community College system,” said Cascio.

Mike Tuitasi, SMC Vice President of Student Affairs, said that SMC is in compliance with Title IX because men’s soccer has been the most requested sport by incoming students during the application process.
“We have a lot of students that want to play and we’re trying to provide that opportunity for them,” said Tuitasi.

We're pleased that SMC is reliant upon prong three and surveys to adequately pinpoint student interests. After all, what drives the size and offerings of athletic programs should be the students, not arbitrary gender quotas that completely disregard the needs of both males and females — whether that be sports, the arts or sciences.

JJC Dropped the Ball on Title IX

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:08:00 +0000

Joliet Junior College's (JJC) board voted yesterday to cut its 61-year-old football program for two reasons: budget considerations and Title IX proportionality. At the expense of the boys with no college football future, JJC officials and local newspapers claim victory for gender equity and student athletes who participate in other sports programs. More specifically:

The Chicago Tribune reports:

As part of Title IX rules, colleges and universities must ensure there is equity among men's and women's sports programs. King said the savings would likely go toward supporting other sports programs.

The Herald-News writes:

The football team made the school’s sports program lopsided in favor of male athletes, which went against Title IX requirements, King added. Title IX was enacted in 1972 to eliminate sexual discrimination in educational programs.

Before the football program was cut, there were more than twice as many male athletes as female athletes at JJC, said JJC spokeswoman Kelly Rohder. With the program’s elimination, the numbers are roughly equal, Rohder said.

Really? What exactly do "roughly equal numbers" achieve when that requires eliminating plenty of opportunities for certain male athletes? Using proportionality to implement Title IX only encourages discrimination on the basis of gender, which is the exact opposite intention of the law.

When Interest Isn't Enough

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 14:25:00 +0000

In an editorial in today's Quad News, Quinnipiac's independent student newspaper, editor John Hood expresses frustration that Title IX concerns are impeding students' ability to create and participate in club sports. It's unfortunate that Title IX, which is supposed to ensure that no one is denied opportunities based on gender, is causing those who played varsity high school sports and wanted to continue to play recreational athletics at Quinnipiac to not play at all.

Hood elaborates:

Quinnipiac currently enrolls 5,900 undergraduate students. According to collegeprowler.com, about students 447 of those nearly 6,000 play a varsity sport. That is a measly 7.5 percent of the undergraduate students that get to bear the Quinnipiac name on their chest.

What about the other 92 percent that aren't lucky enough to score a position on a varsity team? That's where club sports come into play.

Club sports were first brought up in March during a weekly SGA meeting. However, the talks were put on hold due to the ongoing Title IX lawsuit and have resulted in students still having to settle for intramurals.

Quinnipiac offers 20 intramural sports to all students, faculty and graduate students at the school. While the intramural program is successful, a game is not guaranteed due to the immense amount of forfeits.

However, there is a huge hole left inside an athlete that intramural sports can never fill. That hole is the pride in representing your school. Club sports allow students to not only represent the school but also feel like they are a part of a team.

Let's hope administrators at Quinnipiac University wake up really soon to this enormous problem: Enabling Title IX to turn kids who have an expressed interest in sports away from what they love most.

Prong One Not The Way To Go

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:22:00 +0000

An article today in The Maneater, The University of Missouri (MU)'s student newspaper, revisits why the school has chosen not comply with Title IX by using prong 1, or proportionality:

MU athletics director Mike Alden wrote a column for mutigers.com in 2003 explaining why MU, controversially, does not comply with prong one.

“Proportionality stems specifically from situations where a sport is added only to meet a numerical requirement,” Alden said in the article. “In order to fund these additional teams, many institutions must simultaneously discontinue men's sports programs.”

Instead, MU relies on prong 3, or student interest. As Eric Pearson has previously noted, "Providing sports opportunities based on interest is a simple, fair, and obvious way for schools break free from the widespread practice of limiting male participation." Enabling student to vocalize their interests — be it sports, the arts. or science — through surveys can help schools to make sound decisions and minimize the chances of cutting sports and denying opportunities for both genders.

Getting WVU Back on Track

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 14:36:00 +0000

A recent article in The Daily Athenaeum, West Virginia University's student newspaper, sheds light on how gender quotas have affected multiple men's teams at WVU and makes the case for bringing back men's distance running now that WVU is headed to the Big 12 conference. In 2003, the university axed men's cross country, track, indoor track, tennis and coed rifle, and as a result, eliminated many opportunities for men.

Let's hope that administrators at WVU realize the full impact of cutting 5 men's teams 8 years ago — perpetuating gender inequality by denying men opportunities to play their sports — and reinstate those teams as quickly as possible.

The article explains:

The new conference will let WVU take advantage of a prestigious distance program that never deserved to be eliminated.

In fact, the origins of men's cross country and track cuts never had anything to do with the quality of the programs.

In 2003, WVU cut five sports teams: men's cross country, track, indoor track, tennis and coed rifle. Budget and Title IX concerns motivated these cuts, though it seems Title IX had far more of an influence.

Title IX threatens public funding to demand universities have men's and women's sports opportunities proportional to their enrollment of each sex.

This was intended to increase athletic participation for women, but the arbitrary quota has resulted in the elimination of hundreds of flourishing low-budget, low-revenue men's teams. It's cheaper to cut men's teams to shift the balance than to add women's teams.

WVU's 2003 cuts eliminated 54 male athletes and two female athletes. A cut like this increases the female-to-male athlete ratio on paper without adding any new women's athletic opportunities.

Title IX In The News

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:12:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:33:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:14:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:23:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:30:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:39:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:59:00 +0000

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?

Does Georgia State Have Sand In Its Eyes?

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:03:00 +0000

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Georgia State will add women's sand volleyball for the 2013 spring season. Predictably, the school's athletic director, Cheryl Levick, cited Title IX compliance — specifically to balance gender proportionality numbers with football — as the key reason. The addition of this sport brings with it an estimated $1.5 million price tag for start-up costs.

There are a few things to keep in mind when talking about women's sand volleyball, which the NCAA deemed last year an emerging sport:

So far, only fifteen teams nationwide play sand volleyball, according to the American Volleyball Coaches Association.

Only a handful of southern colleges, such as Florida Atlantic and Tulane, host sand volleyball teams.

The Colonial Athletic Association, which Georgia State belongs to, hosts exactly zero other colleges that play sand volleyball.

Given the issue of cost and relatively low interest in the sport around the region, is it really fair to ask the school to foot a $1.5 million bill simply to comply with a law built around arbitrary gender quotas?