Exactly thirty years to the date the Federal Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in cohesion with the National Collegiate Athletic Association helped create legislation that has perhaps been the most influential and debated topic in college athletics today.
It was founded on the principle of gender equality and was first instituted to protect the underrepresented sex, not solely women, as has been widely believed to be the purpose. Under the federal civil rights statue of Title IX, sexual discrimination in education programs, including athletic programs that receive or benefit from federal funding is strictly prohibited. Since roughly all academic institutions receive federal funding in one capacity or another, they all must comply with Title IX. OCR within the U.S. department of education has been delegated to enforce the laws.
"It's top to bottom, for example the football and basketball team probably have 120 members," said UB Associate Athletic Director Nan Harvey. "To be in compliance 120 women would have to receive the same level of treatment."
Before I get into the technicalities of the legislation I want to make one thing clear. Myself as well as the interviewed parties in this article acknowledge the basis and agree with the principles involved with Title IX. We all support gender equality and the foundations for which the legislation was founded. The consensus that we all share is that equalizing the proportionality of sports on a college campus should not come at the expense of a particular gender.
"When I first started coaching there were no scholarships, and after Title IX there was forced respect," said Head Volleyball Coach Sally Kus. "I wish it would have happened without a law."
Title IX is broken down into three components, which must be met in order for a college or university to be in compliance. It is often referred to as the three-prong test. The first component is called proportionality and accommodates the interests and abilities of the athletic body. It states that the ratio of the male to female student body has to coincide precisely with the ratio of male to female student athletes. In other words there has to be a sufficient number of sports offered relative to the number of students, both male and female on campus.
The second component measures athletically related student aid or scholarships. This has to be proportionate to the ratio of male student athletes and female student athletes. It does not mean that half of the scholarships must go to women and the other half must go to men.
Finally, the third prong is for the complete operating expenses of both men's and women's teams. This should ideally also correspond to the ratio of athletes by gender.
This includes such areas as coaches' salaries, travel expenses, equipment and supplies as well as any other essential cost to operate a team.
However, if a school is not compliant in a certain area, the guidelines can be satisfied by recent history, meaning what actions have been taken recently.
"If we weren't in compliance based on proportionality, we could say we added softball and we added crew, so we're making progress," added Harvey.
One of the major issues that drove me to investigate Title IX was the continuing trend of cutting men's collegiate programs at schools across the nation. The disturbing thing is that the same men's programs seem to be cut including swimming, wrestling and of course tennis, which I play. These programs have been targeted because they are for the most part non-revenue producing sports and help shift the balance in favor of proportionality.
However in many cases Title IX is not to blame. Athletic programs have the discretion of which teams to support and which teams to cut or not carry at all within the confines of Title IX. Often at the schools where programs are getting cut have appeared to have bad management at the top. By simply carrying too many teams, their finances have taken a big hit and many have not been compliant with the law for too long and are paying the price now.
"I think it's easy to have a knee jerk reaction and blame Title IX, but there is so much more involved," said Head Baseball Coach Bill Breene. "I think the problems lie with the individual coaches and are more related to the athletic administrations. UB has done a great job in this area."
Administrator Nan Harvey has a concurring opinion on Title IX and feels there is nothing inappropriate about the law. "If you can defend the merits of athletics for a male you can defend the merits of involvement in athletics for a female."
On the twist side some feel, myself included, that at the very least the legislation needs to be looked at again. The fact is, as a result of the enforcement of laws many men's programs have taken hits and that is an unfortunate side effect.
"I think maybe what Title IX was supposed to bring forth, there may have to be some set of legislation," said Kus. "I want to uphold what women have and attain it. There also has to be a way to maintain excellence in more sports."
Wrestling is a sport that has taken a big hit as a direct result of Title IX legislation. In 1980 there were 374 NCAA wrestling teams, last year in 2001 that number dwindled to 239.
"I don't know a wrestling coach in the country that doesn't agree with Title IX," said Head Wrestling Coach Jim Beichner. "The OCR's interpretation of the way Title IX is presented needs to be looked at. The National Wrestling Coaches Association has filed a lawsuit with the NCAA saying gender quotas and proportionality are illegal."
I will close by saying this investigation into Title IX has opened my eyes about what the legislation says, and it has changed my perspective. I initially thought Title IX was solely responsible, but now I see there is more to it. I still feel slight modifications can be made, perhaps exempting 15-20 football scholarships because I feel football is a special sport.
Whatever the outcome may be, I do not want to see teams getting cut whether they are men or women's for gender equity reasons. The legislation should be reviewed again, but on the whole, administrators should stop blaming the law and start taking more responsibilities for their poor judgments.
