Saving Sports

We've Moved!

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Wed, 23 May 2012 13:36:00 +0000

As of May 23, 2012, we'll be blogging away at www.savingsports.org. We hope you'll join us there!

Our new site will have this blog's full archive, in addition to many more exciting capabilities to share posts with your networks.

Thanks!

Is It So Hard to Fact Check?

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Tue, 22 May 2012 15:48:00 +0000

Slanted coverage of Title IX celebrations and academic symposia is unfortunately expected and widely tolerated, but that doesn't mean we can't publicly hold journalists accountable.

The latest example is a May 18th Twin Cities Daily Planet story, "Looking at girls in sports as Title IX marks 40 years in Minnesota and the United States." It's painfully clear that reporter Charlie Hallman fell under activists' spells when recapping the "Title IX at 40" SHARP Center event. Again, no surprise there. The Women's Sports Foundation (WSF) is one of SHARP's co-sponsors and advocates for proportionality policies, erroneously blames basketball and football for men's cuts and repeatedly dispenses talking points completely ignorant of reality.

Granted, Mr. Hallman only covered the specific conference, but he could have least carried out some simple fact checking to validate statements or point out inaccuracies before publishing. Or even better, he could have added some outside sources to counterbalance the 12 — yes, 12 — sources he cited or quoted who all held the same, biased views.

Here's a telling excerpt:

Mainstream media too often reports on the popular belief about Title IX that men’s sports have been cut because of it, says Drexel University Sport Management Professor Ellen Staurowsky. Such headlines as ‘Title IX harms men’ and ‘Title IX has gone too far’ are misleading and create “rancor,” she explains.

“Title IX has nothing to do with that. Reporters should take a critical view, or at least explore the validity of a certain statement when certain claims are made,” the professor continued. Staurowsky added that in such cases when a certain sport program is indeed eliminated, “almost 99 percent of these cases, there is a larger issue at stake beyond what’s going on [with Title IX]. ... Beyond the issue of accuracy of informing the public, I think the other issue we need to be addressing is by repeating this message over and over again, we create a framework in the minds of the next generation of leaders is that this is what to expect from Title IX.”

First things first: we wish Professor Staurowsky was correct that the media commonly exposes men's cuts caused by Title IX. Conversely, those "terrible" headlines that cause "rancor" are few and far between. The bitter truth is that Title IX enforcement encourages schools to cut and cap men's teams, so imagine the pain and disappointment those boys feel when they have to face this reality. If activists feel uncomfortable with that, too bad. Maybe they should try working on their empathy and rethink their most favorite Title IX policies due to all the harms they cause.

Also, did anyone bother to ask her where she found the 99 percent statistic or whether she even examined press releases schools put out when announcing team cuts? Title IX most certainly affects — if not outright governs — schools' decisions. If schools were using Title IX as a facade for budget reasons, they would reinstate cut teams after they fundraised enough money themselves.

Ironically, Staurowsky is right to ask for reporters to conduct basic accuracy assessments of people making claims about Title IX. She just doesn't realize that she and the rest of the crew cited in the article always get a free ride when it comes to making baseless statements in the media.

SMC Update: Students, College Happy; Title IX Blog Complains

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Fri, 18 May 2012 21:50:00 +0000

We mentioned that students, coaches and administrators are thrilled that Santa Monica College (SMC) added men's soccer after an almost decade-long absence. California is a hotbed of soccer, so of course they're celebrating.

As predictable as ever, the Title IX Blog's Erin Buzuvis wants to shut down the party, citing the lack of proportionality between the school's athletic and student populations. You see, prior to the addition of men's soccer, the school sponsored 8 women's teams and 8 men's teams, with 125 and 166 athletes, respectively. There were 10,920 students in the student population, comprised of 5,676 females and 5,244 men. For Ms. Buzuvis, the numerical differences represent the barriers to athletics faced by female students. If there are less female athletes despite a majority of female students, the school must be ignoring their preferences and failing to present enough opportunities.

Her conspiratorial post suggests that she knows better than SMC officials responsible for investigating the possibility of new sports. She ponders the "college's prudence and good judgment" for adding a men's sport, thinks SMC would have acted differently "if OCR was looking over their shoulder" and "shed[s] some skepticism on the claim that all women's interests are satisfied by SMC's existing opportunities."

The evidence tells a different story — one that shows that school officials are committed to maintaining compliance with Title IX. Every year, the school reviews forms filled out by incoming students. According to this Corsair article, "[b]ased on incoming student application data that is looked over annually, all the women’s sports that incoming students wished to play have been accounted for and offered at SMC." Other school officials also seriously reviewed Title IX regulations because they recognized obstacles to and ramifications of adding a men's sport. Athletics project manager Joe Cascio even stated, “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.” After checking all the boxes, SMC decided it was clear to add men's soccer, which was the most requested sport by potential, incoming and current students.

Yet Ms. Buzuvis questions legitimate proof because it led to the addition of a men's team. She's unhappy with the school's reliance on the third prong — interest — to determine how to ensure equality of opportunity. She points to the OCR's 1996 clarifications to show why this prong isn't appropriate in this instance, yet ironically contradicts the advice. The clarification clearly states: "the three-part test furnishes an institution with three individual avenues to choose from when determining how it will provide individuals of each sex with nondiscriminatory opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics. If an institution has met any part of the three-part test, OCR will determine that the institution is meeting this requirement."

Well now we know: if Ms. Buzuvis doesn't agree with how a school chooses to comply with Title IX, especially if it relies on an under-utilized prong, that school is guilty of discrimination against girls and merits a smack down from the OCR. In reality, if schools are following the heart of Title IX, both men and women will benefit, and both will see the addition of teams that reflect their interests.

Men's Soccer Returns to Santa Monica College

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Thu, 17 May 2012 17:16:00 +0000

The excitement is genuine for soccer players and coaches who've been deprived of the opportunity to play and train for such a long time.

According to The Corsair:

“I am happy to be one of the people to bring men’s soccer back to Santa Monica College,” said SMC President Chui L. Tsang. “We have a great tradition with the women, so I hope that men’s soccer will be just as popular as the women’s soccer.”

According to Pierce, it took a long time to get the team back on the field because the Western States Conference wasn’t admitting any new teams. The almost 10-year-hiatus from men’s soccer was due to the team’s expulsion from the league after both a Title IX violation and a fight that the team had started.

The fact that SMC relied on the third prong — student interest — to add this sport is an added bonus:

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.

Good luck, boys!

CA Lawmaker Speaks Truths on Title IX, Bashing Ensues

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Wed, 16 May 2012 19:38:00 +0000

The overblown, hostile reactions following California Assemblyman Chris Norby's public criticism of Title IX enforcement would be laughable if they didn't mean that the media and activist groups actually believe that Title IX is impervious to criticism. The last time I checked, our society welcomes — no, cherishes — free speech, even if it's not so pleasant or what the majority of people want to hear. And while contentious debates are permissible for every other law, disagreeing with some aspects of Title IX is just impossible without silencing backlash.

And that's a shame, especially because Mr. Norby's comments were truthful:

"We need to be honest about the effects of what I believe are faulty court interpretations or federal enforcement of Title IX, because it has led to the abolition of many male sports across the board in UCs and Cal States...And that was never the intention of this, to have numerical equality. It was never the intention to attain equality by reducing opportunities for the men."

What's so controversial about what he said? Nothing, except the regulations, court decisions and cuts he alluded to. Schools, government bureaucrats, and the courts have said that when girls are cut, that's sex discrimination; when guys are cut, tough luck. Their policies dictate equal outcomes — "numerical equality" — no matter what students' real preferences are, forcing thousands of men to forgo sports while putting pressure on girls to join teams. They've enforced a system that punishes male athletes for wanting to play sports — because they are men. What happened to adhering to "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from..."?

Title IX was created to end the double standard, to guarantee equal opportunities for both genders. Yet here we are, 40 years after the creation of Title IX, and it's still acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sex via enforcement policies that rely on numbers, not human beings, to judge schools' compliance with Title IX. And not only that, we are chastising people like Mr. Norby who recognize that this phenomenon is real — and rampant.

Contrary to the popular assertion that Title IX reform will set us back, detract from the athletic experiences of female athletes, and establish male-only sports departments, altering the law's regulations will strengthen it and guarantee that men and women who want to play sports are able to. Mr. Norby is both correct and brave to reflect on how far we've veered away from the original Title IX path; anniversaries aren't just for celebrating.

Title IX Should Benefit All, Not Some

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Tue, 15 May 2012 20:39:00 +0000

As the old saying goes, "One person's loss is another person's gain." It's often repeated in the context of finding a dropped 5 dollar bill, saying goodbye to a coworker or describing the current stock market situation.

But is it acceptable to throw around when talking about sports opportunities in K-12 and college? Absolutely not. Students' athletic experiences should not be interchangeable. Period.

Apparently, Gazettes reporter Mike Guardabascio seems to think that as long as some students are benefitting from athletics, it doesn't matter who or what is sacrificed along the way:

But for every hurdle Title IX creates, it also affords an opportunity, and a promise: that if the next Billie Jean King or Susie Atwood comes along, they’ll be given a chance to compete for their schools, and etch their name at the bottom of Long Beach’s long list of high school and college trailblazers.

It's clear that Guardabascio just doesn't understand the severity of Title IX's unintended consequences. The only negative aspect of Title IX enforcement he (barely) mentions is the inability of Long Beach State's football team to get reinstated, even though the effects of proportionality are much more profound.

An intentional shortage of opportunities is devastating to boys who have practiced sports their whole life, relied on scholarships, wanted to stay out of trouble, and reaped the physical and mental benefits of joining a team. When teams are cut to make way for new ones, real people are affected; this is an emotional aspect that so many reporters and activists ignore. Asking men to "get over it" and accept that they are pawns in a numbers game is not only unfair, but the complete antithesis of Title IX's spirit. Whereas we should be offering opportunities based on interest, blind to gender, we are striking them down at an alarming rate because of it.

It's time Guardabascio and the whole rest of the lot understand that getting rid of men's teams to try to produce "the next Billie Jean King or Susie Atwood" is sex discrimination at its finest and should not be tolerated. The law's regulations must reflect that both genders should be able to excel at sports, and that they can't to the fullest if one is being brought down to benefit the other.

Is It So Hard To Give the Full Story?

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Fri, 11 May 2012 14:43:00 +0000

For Erin Buzuvis, co-author of the Title IX Blog, why yes, relaying all of the facts to her readers is just too difficult. Case in point: Her post detailing Butler University's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) compliance review wrap-up leaves out a key point simply because it does not align with her views.

The examination was conducted to address two facets of Butler's athletic department: The breakdown of male and female athletes and the allocation of scholarships to each gender. The official OCR press release includes the answers to both questions:

According to data provided by Butler, during the 2010-11 school year women made up 2,267, or 59.6 percent, of the university’s full-time undergraduate students. But, the institution’s 164 female athletes comprised only 36.5 percent of its 449 athletes. Butler’s 285 male athletes represented 63.5 percent of its athletes. During the 2010-11 academic year, the university distributed more than $3.8 million in athletic scholarships to male and female athletes. Women received 53.4 percent of this amount and men 46.6 percent.

While Buzuvis underscores the different participation percentages of males and females and insinuates that discrimination must be occurring, she omits any reference to the discrepancies in scholarship funding. The fact that male athletes receive less scholarships even though there are more of them is no minor detail. The fact that OCR is tasking Butler with ensuring that "equal opportunities are being provided in awarding athletic scholarships to male and female athletes" in addition to actual athletic opportunities is extremely noteworthy.

Without a doubt, Buzuvis intentionally overlooked this point. She is an outspoken advocate of proportionality and has continually turned the other away when cuts and caps to men's teams have caused discrimination simply because of their gender (but if they were female, we certainly know what the reaction would be). She has made it her business to post whenever celebratory, one-sided coverage of Title IX hits, but she does not feel obligated to report on the consequential downsides to Title IX.

Buzuvis should have included the full story, but didn't. She calls her site the "Title IX Blog," yet draws attention to situations in which women are discriminated against, not men. It's unfortunate to have to issue this reminder to a credentialed professor who specializes in Title IX, but here it is:

“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," guarantees Title IX. So when men are told to pack up because there are too many of them showing up to play sports, or when popular sports can't be added because they will "throw off the numbers," and even when scholarships are disproportionate to the number of male athletes, schools are consciously disregarding Title IX. Yes, OCR regulations say that schools should use the Three-Part test to comply, and yes, that also includes a proportionality component, but how much longer can we tolerate the discrimination and harm that they are causing to one gender?

Update: The Title IX Blog has updated it's site to include a post on Butler's scholarships situation. At the start of writing our post, the Title IX Blog had not yet commented on this facet of the OCR investigation. We are also unaware of whether a new post is coincidental or in response to our rebuttal. The general point still stands regardless of today's addition: All of the facts must be included at the time of writing, even if they are unfavorable.

A Rare, Welcomed Voice of Reason on Title IX

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Tue, 08 May 2012 19:07:00 +0000

Despite a media environment that is hostile to critics and hopeful reformers of Title IX, Doug Robinson, columnist at the Deseret News, bravely tells us what he really thinks about the law:

While everyone is celebrating the upcoming 40th birthday of Title IX, shouldn't we also hold a funeral for men's sports?

I hate to rain on the party (not really), but if Title IX is gender equity (it isn't), then we should look at the effects of the law from the men's side, too.

But first, a disclaimer: If you try to turn this into a rant against women's sports, you're missing the point. I've coached both female and male high school athletes in track and field since 1990. I've coached hundreds of girls and seen sports change their lives for better in many ways. I've seen girl athletes produce great performances. I've seen girls with the heart of Secretariat and the toughness of a linebacker, including one who went airborne like Superman to edge a rival at the finish line.

It's amazing to remember that high school sports didn't even exist when I was a teenager. There are generations of women who never experienced sweat and competition and hard physical training and being part of a team and all the other benefits of competitive athletics (then again, maybe some of my girl athletes tell their mothers they're lucky they never had to do 8 x 400 meters in 72-75 seconds with two minutes rest).

All this notwithstanding, the way Title IX has been interpreted is wrong, period.

The original law, as passed in 1972, stated, "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."

But that is exactly what is happening in collegiate sports, except now it's the men who are being denied opportunities and subjected to discrimination.

That's because in 1979 the Office of Civil Rights interpreted the law to mean strict proportionality — in other words, if a school's enrollment was 51 percent women and 49 percent men, then athletic scholarships and spending should be exactly the same.
And yet the original Title IX law, passed in 1972, required that schools examine "whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes."

It also states that the law should not "be interpreted to require any education institution to grant preferential or disparate treatment to one sex on account of an imbalance which may exist" in the numbers of each sex participating in a sport.

That is exactly what has happened.

Read the whole column here.

Butler U.'s Title IX Investigation Has Wrapped, but Its Story Is Just Beginning

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Fri, 04 May 2012 21:52:00 +0000

A U.S. Department of Education press release announced today, "U.S. Education Department Reaches Agreement with Butler University to Resolve Title IX Athletics Compliance Review."

The investigation, which began last summer to assess the number of opportunities offered to female students and whether scholarships are allocated according to athletic enrollment, found the University has discriminated.

This outcome comes as no surprise given the numbers-centric analysis, which the press release posts:

"According to data provided by Butler, during the 2010-11 school year women made up 2,267, or 59.6 percent, of the university’s full-time undergraduate students. But, the institution’s 164 female athletes comprised only 36.5 percent of its 449 athletes. Butler’s 285 male athletes represented 63.5 percent of its athletes. During the 2010-11 academic year, the university distributed more than $3.8 million in athletic scholarships to male and female athletes. Women received 53.4 percent of this amount and men 46.6 percent."

The agreement holds that Butler has until September 1 to:

" demonstrate that it is accommodating effectively the interests and abilities of female students in order to provide them an equal opportunity to participate in sports or, if unable to demonstrate current compliance, submit a detailed plan to OCR to accommodate effectively the interests and abilities of female students in its athletics program over the next three academic years. The plan must include a description of interim steps that the university will take during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 academic years to increase athletic participation opportunities for women.

"With respect to scholarships, by Sept. 1, Butler must also demonstrate that during the 2011-2012 school year equal opportunities are being provided in awarding athletic scholarships to male and female athletes. Or, if the university is unable to demonstrate this, it must submit a detailed plan to ensure that by the beginning of the 2014-2015 academic year, Butler is in full compliance with its Title IX obligation to provide athletic scholarships in a non-discriminatory manner."

And then the disclaimer:

"The agreement makes clear that OCR does not require or encourage the elimination of any university athletic teams and that it is seeking action from the university that does not involve the elimination of athletic opportunities. The agreement also states that nothing in the agreement requires Butler to cut the amounts of athletic scholarships it offers to either sex, and that any such cuts are discouraged."

Of course, statements like that are used as proof to show schools are not forced to cut men's teams. But we all know that while the OCR, DOE, activists, et. al. say men's cuts aren't required, it's the policies they champion that are causing schools to do it. So let's regroup on September 1, or whenever Butler University announces its action plan, and see how they restructure its athletics department. The winning (but not desired) bet? Men's cuts.

*Update: There's also this.

What's Leading Wrestling's Future?

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Thu, 03 May 2012 21:22:00 +0000

In a Cleveland Plain Dealer article titled, "Women may hold key to future of wrestling: Olympics Watch", reporter Tim Warsinskey asks: "Can women save wrestling?"

An alternative way to understand the current wrestling landscape is: "What caused the demise of the sport's teams?" and subsequently, "What is the most effective, far-reaching prescription to negate the root of the problem?"

Therein lies our two-part answer: Title IX enforcement via proportionality and gender quotas as the cause, and Title IX reform as a way to correct the current path.

Warsinskey acknowledges that Title IX implementation is responsible for cutting wrestling teams, but he fails to paint the whole picture. He writes, "For decades, wrestling coaches and fans cursed Title IX because it put collegiate men's programs on the chopping block in the name of gender equity. In order to close the gap between men's and women's scholarships, which the federal act requires, many colleges resorted to eliminating men's wrestling."

The wrestling community didn't "curse" Title IX because it intended to create equal opportunities for both men and women. Rather understandably, it has expressed extreme disappointment that the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights' three-part test has incentivized schools to rely on proportionality for compliance. The only way to achieve proportionate numbers is the use of gender quotas. They dictate how many girls and how many boys are allowed to play sports in a given school, and if the numbers don't match, say goodbye to men's sports (women's sports are also casualties). As wrestlers know all too well, their sport is a popular choice to cut.

The American Sports Council has repeatedly questioned whether we can continue to accept a situation in which so many opportunities in various sports are offered as an either/or basis. Are we really offering equal opportunities to both genders if teams are cut solely on the basis of gender? Can we really sustain sports with our current enforcement methods?

The answer to all of the above is resoundingly no.

Instead of calling for reform, Warsinskey wishfully believes that "In the long run, women could play an important role in the sport's hoped-for rejuvenation, but that day remains a long way off. It's not a sprint to the finish. It's an ultramarathon."

There is no question that the growth of female wrestlers or females who are interested in eventually taking up the sport is exciting, encouraging and an enormously positive development. No one or nothing should impede them from competing and excelling at wrestling if that's what they choose to pursue.

But the more wrestlers, the better; that philosophy includes men, too. Wrestling as a whole will not bounce back until gender quotas are kicked out of athletics and proportionality is no longer the standard for measuring whether equal opportunities (not equal outcomes) exist. Once that happens, we will see a growth in the number of wrestling teams.

There are hundreds of thousands of boys competing at all ages who want the chance to wrestle in college and for those that dream big, in the Olympics. Unfortunately, the endless cuts to men's wrestling programs are quite dissuasive and interfere with their plans. We must change how we look at and meet Title IX requirements (not just for wrestling, but for sports and society in general). That's the only way we're going to see the type of problems facing wrestlers disappear.

What's the Real Purpose of Adding Sports?

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 21:13:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:51:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:43:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:57:00 +0000

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"

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:19:00 +0000

"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

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 20:14:00 +0000

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.

NWLC Continues to Misunderstand Title IX

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:19:00 +0000

The National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) via Neena Chaudhry doesn’t let two days go by before taking advantage of the immensely unfortunate dismissal of our case, American Sports Council v. the Department of Education, to throw easy, rhetorical bait to its supporters and further distinguish itself from serious Title IX reformers who are trying to achieve a fair implementation of the law.

The post’s first transgression is the title: “Title IX Survives, Again.” The NWLC’s flair for the dramatic and its reliance upon this cheap trick to get attention never ceases to amaze. Note to Ms. Chaudhry: The American Sports Council has never tried, nor seeks to, repeal Title IX. As our mission statement clearly states, we are “working for reform of Title IX regulations that have led to the widespread elimination of opportunities to male athletes.” Changing how the law is enforced — namely the OCR’s three-prong test and emphasis on proportionality and gender quotas — does not require changing the statute’s original text and intent: “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…”

That feeds into the post’s next misstatement that “the law has always applied to high schools, this was merely the latest attempt to weaken Title IX’s application to sports.” Actually, nowhere in the three-part test are high schools mentioned. However, it clearly specifies that intercollegiate athletes are the ones who can be subjected to the test. The NWLC and activist organizations, through lawsuits and complaints and the DOE and OCR, through pressure, are the reasons why gender quotas have even entered into high school athletics, not the language of the law. Our legal attempt to prove that using gender quotas to enforce Title IX in high schools is unconstitutional was an effort to save the opportunities and preserve the athletic experiences of male athletes, not cause harm to them. We were not trying to remove Title IX from high schools but rather remove the method of compliance that is causing tremendous damage to the strength of athletic programs and even more importantly, violating the rights of student-athletes.

Moving on, Ms. Chaudhry seems to think that the ASC’s repeated assertions that schools are cutting male teams directly because of Title IX are bogus. Here at ASC, we believe in using facts and hard evidence, not conjectures based on thin air like the NWLC. We have documented men’s cuts and have publicized schools’ decisions through their press announcements that call out Title IX for years. Why can’t the NWLC just accept that even though “Title IX says nothing about cutting opportunities,” as Ms. Chaudhry writes, that’s what’s happening? Until the NWLC stops lobbying government officials and promotes senseless policies, and until it helps join the common cause of finding a more effective, positive way than gender quotas to enforce Title IX, our young men and women will continue to face the repercussions.

Then, she includes the oft-repeated refrain that schools have three ways of showing that they are providing both genders with equal opportunities. As we stated above, the three-prong test should not be used in high schools because it violates students’ equal protection under the law. That being said, theoretically, the three-prong test does imply that yes, there are that many ways to go about this. But with threats of litigation from the NWLC and others, of course schools are only going to choose proportionality. Schools are reacting to a major incentive to show compliance through statistics; their fear of burdensome, money-draining lawsuits during this economic downturn are preventing them from even considering the other two prongs. Ms. Chaudhry neglects to inform readers that the NWLC filed over 100 complaints in 12 different school districts in 2010 to intimidate high schools into using gender quotas, or else. Not to mention the fact that those complaints are still being reviewed and that no inequality has thus been demonstrated. And on top of that, it’s quite likely that the interests of students are being met, it’s just that more girls are choosing extracurricular activities that don’t involve athletics and that more boys are choosing to play sports.

Furthermore, the post points to the NWLC’s own data to show that girls participation rates are stalling while men continue to come out in larger numbers. However, an analysis using the NCAA’s statistics on Division I shows that there are far more women’s teams (2,653) than men’s teams (2,097) and in gender symmetric sports, there are far more scholarships available for women (32,656) than for men (20,206).

And finally, Ms. Chaudhry had to throw in that “playing sports makes girls healthier, helps keep them in school, and makes them less likely to smoke, use drugs, and become pregnant.” The American Sports Council certainly agrees that sports are a positive influence. We also believe that girls should have the freedom to make the decision themselves whether they want to engage in sports or participate in other activities that can also encourage teamwork, competition and self-esteem building. And we also think that the benefits of sports are not limited to one gender; boys also learn character building and stay out of trouble by joining teams. So if groups like the NWLC promote gender quotas and proportionality, they are effectively preventing boys from reaping the benefits of sports.

We’ll never hear that from the NWLC, will we?

American Sports Council Reacts to Dismissal of Lawsuit Against DOE

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:41:00 +0000

On March 27, the District Court dismissed American Sports Council v. Department of Education based on standing.

Eric Pearson, Chairman of the American Sports Council, reacts:

"It is unfortunate that the Court refused to hear the merits of our case, American Sports Council v Department of Education. The Court accepted the government's objection to the ASC's standing to bring this case on behalf of current and future high school student athletes. As a result, the Court did not consider our challenge to the legality of the DOE using gender quotas to enforce Title IX at the high school level.

Accordingly, justice has been denied to high school male athletes nationwide who have been and who will continue to be harmed by these unreasonable regulations. But we remain undeterred. The American Sports Council will continue to advocate for reforming Title IX regulations on behalf of the thousands of high school athletes who are denied equal protection under the law because of gender quota enforcement.

The language of the Title IX statute states that no person in the United States shall on the basis of their gender "be excluded from participation in, [or] denied the benefits of participation..." Unfortunately, Title IX's Three-Part Test encourages schools to do just that- deny participation in sports on the basis of gender. The ASC will continue to campaign for reform of Title IX until the regulations are consistent with the language of the law.

The ASC would like to thank the Pacific Legal Foundation for supporting the Title IX reform cause through their pro-bono work on the case."

Joshua Thompson, Staff Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, also responds:

"This is really unfortunate news. The court held that American Sports Council (ASC) did not suffer any injury as a result of the Three-Part Test’s application to high schools. Accordingly, ASC does not have “standing” to have its claim adjudicated. So, instead of reaching the merits of ASC’s claim — whether the Three-Part Test can be constitutionally and statutorily applied to high schools – ASC was kicked out of court.

On its face, the Three-Part applies to intercollegiate athletics. Indeed, its actual title is, “A Policy Interpretation: Title IX and Intercollegiate Athletics.” It requires that colleges engage in sex-balancing by requiring institutions to have a proportional representation of male and female athletes at each school. While this alone is constitutionally troubling, the rub with this latest lawsuit is that sex-quota activists have been using the Three-Part Test to force sex-balancing on high schools. The law neither allows this nor was ever designed for this."

To see the full Pacific Legal Foundation statement, click here.

Caving In

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:35:00 +0000

In October, the Arizona Interscholastic Association (AIA) announced its decision to add girls' sand volleyball at the high school level to comply with proportionality.

Little did we know — but probably should have guessed — that the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) was behind this sudden addition. The Deer Valley Unified School District in Arizona is one of 12 districts named in the NWLC complaint bonanza filed with the U.S. Department of Education (DOE). Predictably, the group cited disproportionate numbers as evidence that the district is not providing girls with enough opportunities.

DOE officials have not yet reached a verdict on whether the school district is offering enough opportunities because they are still conducting their investigation. Yet, as the Arizona Republic reports, "The charge surprised school officials and students, but still, the district went into action."

All of this action, and for what? Some complaints alleging discrimination have been thrown out by the DOE and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the past because no evidence turned up; it's possible the same will happen this time. And, as we are trying to prove with our current lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, the three-prong test has no business in high schools because it violates the guarantee of equal protection and equal treatment of people regardless of sex.

To put it bluntly, the school district immediately caved into NWLC activists who are obviously pushing their own quota agenda that inevitably favors discrimination based on gender . With no factual support proving inequalities or knowledge of whether interest among females even existed, administrators went ahead with the sand volleyball (and badminton) game plan. Perhaps a fear of mounting pressure and eventually lawsuits caused some Arizona school administrators to throw all logic aside.

After initially acquiescing to groups like the NWLC, a complicated, labor-intensive, money losing slippery slope begins. In this case, the school has to find even more programs to add because adding sand volleyball isn't enough to achieve proportionality. The same Arizona Republic article explains the new problem: "while indoor volleyball and sand volleyball are two separate disciplines, most of this season's sand volleyball players also play on their school's indoor team, so the growth of female participation numbers is minimal." Since the NWLC has made it clear that it will not be satisfied until the gender ratio in the overall student population equivalent to that of the athletic population, Deer Valley Unified will have to keep adding girls' teams and/or resort to cutting boys' teams to meet that requirement.

The danger with the proportionality approach is that it doesn't necessarily pinpoint inequalities. It's quite possible that all girls who want to play sports are already involved, but it just so happens that there are more boys overall who want to play. Additionally, when schools act upon disproportionate numbers, they often forget to gauge students' interests to determine new sports. If Deer Valley Unified had surveyed their students, they may have been able to predict that the girls interested in sand volleyball are comprised of mostly already-active indoor volleyball players.

It's time schools stop heeding the demands of activists whose policies favor numbers games over student interest and the realities on the ground.

ACLU's Way With Words

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:32:00 +0000

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) staff members are hosting a special blog series this week celebrating Title IX. So far, the posts have predictably showered the law with one-sided praise for strengthening "legal efforts" to achieve "gender equity" and creating "educational equality." Tweets and retweets of the series have simply repeated all of the warm and fuzzy statements on Title IX. Yet all of these ACLU posts and related social media hits ignore any and all distortions, cut opportunities and the rest of the unintended consequences its implementation has caused.

But what else could we except from an organization that has helped perpetuate an expansive, money-making (or money-draining depending on what side you're on) litigious Title IX environment and promote the notion that people still consider girls' sports "second class"?

Yesterday's feature, "Evening the Field: Title IX's Continuing Impact on Gender Equality in Sports," leaves out many important facts that would help balance the skewed perspective. The following points deserve attention:

Complaints filed with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights in twelve school districts nationwide by the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) are cited as solid evidence that "Title IX's requirement for gender equality in school athletics continues to be blatantly ignored." However, just because accusations were made does not by any means verify inequalities. As the American Sports Council has previously stated, the NWLC plan is clearly designed to expand the enforcement of gender quotas in high school sports. We should be getting rid of, not increasing, gender quotas because they cause the elimination of men's teams and discrimination based on gender. The complaint filed in New York City is already seriously damaging school athletics. The NYC Department of Education just announced that new schools will not be allowed to provide any teams for boys; only girls will be allowed to play sports. Let's hope that our lawsuit, filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, will knock down the practice of using gender quotas in high schools.

Readers are again reminded that "individual students have the right to go to court to enforce their right to equal treatment." They use the case against Quinnipiac University as a success story. However, not everyone agrees. Quinnipiac cut 2 men's teams — golf and track — to make their athletic program more proportional and even less male-friendly. As the Boston Globe reported, the school has 7 men's teams and 14 girls teams. Where was the ACLU when those boys were discriminated against because of their gender and offered half as many teams? Second, schools, not the courts, should rule whether competitive cheer is a sport. Varsity status for cheerleading should take into account safety (it's highly dangerous) and interest (it's one of the fastest growing sports).

While extolling the benefits of sports competition for girls, the author claims that Title IX prevents girls from being "treated as second-class citizens and relegated to the sidelines (or the mud-bath fields)." First off, athletic competition is a positive activity for both girls and boys. Second, to infer that girls are barred from sports in this day and age is not based in any sort of reality; no one is trying to prevent them from playing. Rhetoric does not belong in discussions on Title IX. What is more, using NCAA data, the American Sports Council in 2009 found there are more scholarships available for women (32,656) than for men (20,206) in gender symmetric, Division I sports.

The post clinches with, "It is imperative that we continue to fight to see the goals of Title IX fully realized as we celebrate its 40th anniversary." This advice is misguided. Instead, the sentence should read, "It is imperative that we continue to look for reforms that curtail the unintended consequences of the law's implementation to see the goal of Title IX — preventing discrimination on the basis of gender — fully realized as we celebrate its 40th anniversary."

Millersville U. Can't Run Away from the Problem

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:12:00 +0000

There's been no shortage of drama surrounding Millersville University's February announcement that it would axe men's indoor and outdoor track and field and men's cross country. Though the school's official statement emphasized budget reasons ("The University will realize approximately $200,000 in savings"), it also mentioned, albeit briefly, Title IX enforcement.

As is the usual trajectory of events following team cuts, former and present athletes released statements expressing disappointment; protests ensued (heck, even their competitors showed up to challenge the decision); and the school responded with bland, non-informative comments.

Well, it looks like we were right: Title IX is the underlying reason for Millerville's decision to cut opportunities for dedicated male track athletes. How do we know that?

The school turned down an offering of $300,000 from a generous alumni to save outdoor track and cross country (indoor track would be club). According to the Lancaster Online, Janet Kacskos, Millersville University's spokeswoman, wrote, "the money offered is not a solution to the budget issues facing the university as a whole." In other words, if this predicament was solely because of the budget, a donation to cover the costs of those teams for the next three years would be the immediate, favored solution. In fact, alumni were even starting to "look for permanent funding."

So, there has to be another way to explain why the administration turned down the money: Title IX.

For Millersville University, cutting 3 teams is all about reigning in the number of male athletes to resemble the overall percentage of males in the student population. Lancaster Online further explains: "Kacsckos said that while there haven't been any formal complaints, Title IX compliance is a concern. Under the law she said, athletic participation by gender should mirror enrollment, and Millersville's is about reversed."

No matter how strongly students, alumni, the community and outside organizations mobilize, Millersville University has made it clear that it is not interested in saving those 3 teams. It is not looking to rely on another, more fair way to comply with Title IX, like surveying interest and demonstrating history. And it is not going to level with those most affected.

Unfortunately, this reality is ubiquitous. Disheartened, passionate students rally to save their teams by fundraising — what they think is the obvious defense against budget tightening — only to be told that their efforts are pointless because the cuts are really due to skewed Title IX enforcement measures.

What a No-Win Looks LIke

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:40:00 +0000

Assuming all of the student-athletes are happy, try to figure out the problem with the following offerings at St. Johns River State College:

2 sports for men: Basketball and baseball. 2 sports for women: Fast-pitch softball and volleyball. Winning teams. Nicer places to practice in recent years. Not to mention generous scholarships.

According to the proportionality option of the three-prong Title IX test, a lot is wrong with this picture. The underlying "problem" is that the school population is 60 percent female. Therefore, having 2 male teams and 2 female teams is not adequate enough to represent the female majority in the overall student population. The school is now pressured into satisfying the proportionality prong by either cutting one of the boys' teams or adding a girls' team. Because the budget is small and resources are tight, it's likely that only one of those options will be realized.

On top of that, the school sets aside more scholarships for female athletes that for male athletes. The Palatka Daily News reports:

"It is not even enough these days that SJR State offers more athletic scholarships to women. It offers the maximum the state allows in each sport - 12 in basketball, 14 in volleyball, 18 in baseball and 24 in softball. That's 38 for women, 30 for men, for those of you scoring at home. (Again, these are state guidelines set with gender equity in mind. The NJCAA permits as many as 24 baseball scholarships.)"

"It's not a 50-50 deal," said Ross Jones, the head baseball coach and athletic director. "The amount of money spent on the sports has got to be reflective of the student population."

Shouldn't the sports department budget be reflective of the athletic population? If the school found that all of the students who want to compete are actually playing, why should St. Johns River State College have to restructure and cut opportunities for males? Does the school administration even know if their female students want to play any of the sports they might add?

Details get even dicier when president of St. Johns offers an explanation. According to a different Palatka Daily News article:

"It's a matter of adding one and allocating the resources we have to five sports or eliminating one and allocating the resources we have to a smaller number of sports," Pickens said. "But also probably reallocating a portion of that (activity fee) money to other student activities that are non-athletic related."

How does the last part of his statement make any sense? The school is going to cut spots for males and then give away some of that "saved" money to non-athlete students? Here's a hard question for St. Johns River State College: Does it really think that this proposed scenario resembles anything close to Title IX compliance?

Don't Be Fooled by Budget Claims: Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 20:10:00 +0000

In the Minnesota Daily, the University of Minnesota's student newspaper, Sports Editor Derek Wetmore examines how the school can reign in its sports budget after athletic director Joel Maturi leaves. The athletic department is currently a big money loser. Only 3 of the school's 23 varsity sports actually make money: football, men's basketball and men's hockey. On top of that, Wetmore describes Maturi as having an "unrelenting dedication to non-revenue sports."

To fix the budget mess, cutting teams seems like the go-to option. But as readers of this blog know, resolving budget issues is the perfect excuse to enforce proportionality by cutting predominantly male teams. We just saw it at Millersville University, and we will certainly see it throughout "Spring Slaughter." Yet the writer seems to have been tricked by the budget claim. Wetmore cites cuts at the University of Maryland, University of Delaware, James Madison University and Bemidji State University. He also includes teams that were cut and then saved at St. Cloud State, University of California-Berkeley and the University of Minnesota. He says that only James Madison University dropped teams because of Title IX enforcement.

This is false. All of the schools listed above chose the teams they did because of Title IX concerns like gender quotas and proportionality. Here are press statements and news coverage proving that more than just money — specifically gender — factored into their decisions: University of Maryland, University of Delaware, Bemidji State University, St. Cloud State, University of California-Berkeley and the University of Minnesota.

Additionally, the reporter notes that private donors, joint fundraisers and booster clubs have rescued teams in the past. However, he does not address the fact that if Title IX activists get their way, no amount of voluntary money will be able to save sports. Requiring booster clubs to split their money across all teams is one of the new trends in Title IX enforcement. This essentially means that private citizens, such as parents and community members, who care only about certain sports are no longer entitled to donate their money as they wish. This notion of forced sharing also applies to teams on the chopping block; vulnerable teams at the University of Maryland are currently scrambling to raise enough money not just for their own sport but also for the gender-opposite team they are paired up with. Otherwise, both teams are gone.

Let's hope that if and when the University of Minnesota is forced to cut teams due to budget shortfalls, it doesn't use proportionality to guide its decisions. After all, when schools claim that they're considering Title IX alongside the budget, they usually mean that they will implement enforcement mechanisms that cause rather than prevent discrimination on the basis of gender.

KU's Unique Title IX Case

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:41:00 +0000

KU Sports is reporting on a fairly uncommon type of Title IX complaint lodged against Kansas University. The complaint, filed in 2009 by a male (Ron Neugent, former KU swimmer), alleges that the University was out of compliance with Title IX because males were underrepresented. To rectify the lack of proportionality, Mr. Neugent would like for KU to add more men's teams.

Unusual case or not, it demonstrates how schools that are consumed with ensuring participation and population numbers are proportional based on gender miss out on addressing whether both male and female students have enough opportunities to satisfy their interests in sports.

According to the article:

"In this case, KU chose to show it was in compliance with the first option.

“We are doing what we’re supposed to do in the spirit of the law,” said Jim Marchiony, associate athletics director.

Judy Pottorff, corporate counsel with Kansas Athletics, said the change made at KU was a very minor one. Though KU has never received specific direction on what “substantially proportional” meant, Pottorff said the school was told it was compliant in 2007 when its male-female participation in sports differed by 1.8 percent from the enrollment figures.

“It’s something we’ve always done,” she said. “We wanted to tighten it up to get it a little bit closer.”

After the complaint, KU’s sports participation exactly matched the percentages of men and women enrolled at the university. In December, KU had 294 men participating in sports and 283 women, which was almost exactly the same percentages of the 8,846 men and 8,484 women enrolled on the Lawrence campus.
Debbie Van Saun, Kansas Athletics’ senior woman administrator, watches the rosters carefully, and works with coaches to ensure their participation numbers stay proportional to enrollment percentages. While one person dropping out might not be significant, if the percentages get off by 10 people or more, the school will work with coaches to adjust roster sizes for upcoming seasons."

Solely focusing on the numbers should not be the go-to method to enforce Title IX. Aside from the fact that proportionality ensures that students' interests are wholly ignored or are second-tier considerations, it inevitably causes discrimination based on gender and cuts spots and/or whole teams.

As one of the article's commentators, AlBerg, sums up:

"There are more women in the arts programs but the NCAA doesn't make them equal it out. I wish there was a little more research done by the NCAA to make the men's and women's sports programs proportional to the desire to play by men vs. women. Kind of tragic."

Addressing the Real Harms of Title IX Policy

noreply@blogger.com (Deborah Elson) — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:22:00 +0000

In the Atlantic essay, “How Title IX Hurts Female Athletes,” Linda Flanagan and Susan H. Greenberg cite the prevalence of injuries and eating disorders, as well as the tremendous pressure to win games as evidence proving Title IX’s negative impact on girls. Those issues are serious and do deserve attention, but male athletes face the same challenges — and that’s a separate discussion. Flanagan and Greenberg fail entirely to illustrate real, direct harms to female athletes caused by current Title IX enforcement. They do exist — and it’s a shame the authors overlooked them, to the detriment of young women everywhere.

The real issue is that most activists, schools and officials ignore what the statute is really about — ensuring equal opportunity to participate in sports — and instead demand proportionality of male and female athletes in student sports programs. The difference is profound; the law guarantees a fair shot, but the enforcement demands a rigged outcome.

Let’s look at a few examples of erroneously-applied Title IX policy that do create real harm to women and men:

Gender quotas. Schools cut men’s teams to balance the numbers, but when they are eliminated in symmetric sports, women are actually negatively affected. At the most basic level, females miss out on the beneficial effects of inter-gender camaraderie and companionship when male teams are sent packing. When young women cannot practice with male counterparts, they lose out on chances to improve their competitiveness by pitting themselves against a diverse field of adversaries. Coaches at all levels, from high school to the Olympics, recognize that male practice partners improve their female athletes’ game.

Roster management. Schools favor women’s teams with large rosters to boost the on-paper totals of female athletes. That means administrators eliminate smaller roster sports entirely, and replace them with big-bench teams like bowling and rowing. Unfortunately, those sports have minimal interest at the high school level and therefore do not generate as much participation as the schools expect, nor a level of excellence that serves the student athletes’ personal development.

Lack of surveys. When schools manipulate the rosters, they often act unilaterally and allow no input from female students on what new, larger teams they should instate. Instead, schools should provide students with interest surveys to get more truthful indicators as to what teams they want (and would actually play on.)

Failure to recognize cheerleading. Competitive cheer, which is one of the most popular sports at the high school level, is not recognized by the government or the NCAA at the college level. This means girls are forced to choose whether they want to settle for club pom or dance, which exclude a gymnastics element, or whether they should quit a sport they’ve already become exceptional at. This is unfair to those girls who have dedicated years (or even just one) learning gymnastics, performing complicated stunts and forming and emotional connection to the sport.

Time for reform

Halting Title IX’s unintended consequences requires serious reform. Implementation of the law should respect individuals’ preferences and ensure that both male and female students have equal opportunities to play sports.

It does not, however, necessitate “mak[ing] the athletic experience more responsive to female sensibilities,” as proposed by Flanagan and Greenberg. This is patronizing to tough female competitors and does not account for those who have chosen to endure hardship and make sacrifices in order to dominate in their chosen sport.

The whole point of Title IX is to give women, who are indeed as competitive, talented and deserving as men, the chance to shine. But arcane policies, numbers games and backward-thinking gender politics actually stands in the way of female athletes getting the respect — and field time — they deserve. True and fair competition fuels self-respect, discipline, loyalty and creativity, qualities that American adults need, both male and female, long after their NCAA days are over.