When Massachusetts high school freshman Bradley Bell wears a skirt, it's to the consternation of certain members of the Amherst-Pelham Regional High School district. Bell is one of the state's estimated 20 male students who are members of their school's field hockey team. Massachusetts is one of 18 states with field hockey programs, and only one of three in which boys compete at the high school level.
Junior varsity player Bell helped his team to a 12-0 record. But, despite his skill - or perhaps because of it - some parents, players and coaches are opposed to him competing against female opponents.
The Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association prohibits discrimination against students based on their gender. Since there are not enough interested male students in Massachusetts to form a boys' league, the association mandates permitting those like Bell to play on mixed-sex teams. Some opposed to Bell's participation see his presence as a slap to the spirit of Title IX, federal legislation passed in 1972 prohibiting gender discrimination in scholastic programs, including athletics. Diane Lussier, a coach at an opposing school, said of boys on the mixed-sex teams, "I feel very strongly that they are denying a girl an opportunity to develop their skills."
Title IX's purpose is to promote gender equality. It has been applied predominately to women because it addresses a long history of American gender discrimination, access to sports being chief among the issues. Since its implementation, many high schools and universities have added sports programs for women to give female athletes the proper access their male counterparts enjoy. Equally important, Title IX mandates access to opportunities enjoyed by males in non-sports areas, including admissions, hiring and salary equity.
Title IX's purpose is not to give women special preference based on previous inequalities. Its purpose is not to separate genders, thereby creating another inherent inequality, but to ensure equal opportunity for both men and women to compete fairly in all aspects of academia.
Title IX does not guarantee equality of outcome, simply equality of opportunity. Opportunity is based on ability. If a person desires to compete in a sporting event, and their natural talent allows them the means to do so, they should have the opportunity to prove their worth to the team. If Bell is able to make a valuable contribution to his team, and not merely a political statement, he should be given the opportunity to prove himself. The same logic applies if a woman were to try out as a cornerback for her school's football team. If she delivers effective, bone-jarring hits to opposing wide receivers, then it would be foolish not to give her a place on the team.
Lussier's logic is faulty. The purpose of membership on a sports team is to "develop skills," but not to the exclusion of qualified participants. If Bell displaces a woman on the roster, or vice versa, it should be due to his or her skills without regard for gender.
The issue is not whether a man or woman wears the skirt, but that they both get a chance to try it on.
