Complying with Title IX-At What Price?
James Madison University has made the decision to cut ten of its varsity sports. This is being done so that the university can become Title IX compliant.
Being dropped are men’s indoor and outdoor track, men’s cross country, men’s wrestling, men’s swimming, men’s gymnastics, men’s archery, women’s gymnastics, women’s archery, and women’s fencing.
Moves such as this baffle me. Is the elimination of opportunities to students what was in mind when Title IX was enacted?
The original intention for Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was to ensure that female students had the same opportunities as male students in schools that receive some form of federal financial assistance. Exactly, what Title IX says is:
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
While the original intent of this was to equalize academic opportunities, Title IX has become synonymous with athletics.
The NCAA can enact sanctions on any university that is not deemed compliant under Title IX. Schools can be considered compliant in one of three ways.
1. Have the percentage of male and female athletes exactly (or nearly exactly) match the percentage of male and female students.
2. Show a consistent increase in the number of opportunities available to women in an effort to reach the equal percentages.
3. Prove that they are meeting the athletic interests and abilities of its female students.
James Madison was already a university with one of the largest number of intercollegiate sports. In total they had 28 sports. The problem was that while 61% of the student population is female only 51% of the student athlete population is female.
In an effort to reach compliance these 10 sports were eliminated. With these ten sports removed, 61% of all student athletes are now women.
But is this really complying with the original intent of the law? I’m a big supporter of Title IX, but I can’t imagine that those who enacted it really intended it to take away opportunities to anyone in an effort to get “equality.” Now 144 athletes at James Madison are without a sport, 8 of which were at James Madison on an academic scholarship. The funding that was going to these ten sports will now, however, provide more scholarships to women’s golf, tennis and swimming, and will allow men’s golf and tennis to have athletes on scholarship.
I understand that it is not always economically feasible to have more female sports than male sports. That is a fact of collegiate athletics. It was probably not cost effective for James Madison to add more women’s sports. But the question I have is, were they wanted or needed? If James Madison was meeting the athletic wants and needs of its female population, wouldn’t it have been compliant under the third prong of its test even though only 51% of their student athletes were female?
I do think that the NCAA and those who enact Title IX have to give serious thought as to its implementation, particularly since it seems to be doing the opposite of what it originally intended: it’s taking away opportunities instead of adding them.
Being dropped are men’s indoor and outdoor track, men’s cross country, men’s wrestling, men’s swimming, men’s gymnastics, men’s archery, women’s gymnastics, women’s archery, and women’s fencing.
Moves such as this baffle me. Is the elimination of opportunities to students what was in mind when Title IX was enacted?
The original intention for Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was to ensure that female students had the same opportunities as male students in schools that receive some form of federal financial assistance. Exactly, what Title IX says is:
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
While the original intent of this was to equalize academic opportunities, Title IX has become synonymous with athletics.
The NCAA can enact sanctions on any university that is not deemed compliant under Title IX. Schools can be considered compliant in one of three ways.
1. Have the percentage of male and female athletes exactly (or nearly exactly) match the percentage of male and female students.
2. Show a consistent increase in the number of opportunities available to women in an effort to reach the equal percentages.
3. Prove that they are meeting the athletic interests and abilities of its female students.
James Madison was already a university with one of the largest number of intercollegiate sports. In total they had 28 sports. The problem was that while 61% of the student population is female only 51% of the student athlete population is female.
In an effort to reach compliance these 10 sports were eliminated. With these ten sports removed, 61% of all student athletes are now women.
But is this really complying with the original intent of the law? I’m a big supporter of Title IX, but I can’t imagine that those who enacted it really intended it to take away opportunities to anyone in an effort to get “equality.” Now 144 athletes at James Madison are without a sport, 8 of which were at James Madison on an academic scholarship. The funding that was going to these ten sports will now, however, provide more scholarships to women’s golf, tennis and swimming, and will allow men’s golf and tennis to have athletes on scholarship.
I understand that it is not always economically feasible to have more female sports than male sports. That is a fact of collegiate athletics. It was probably not cost effective for James Madison to add more women’s sports. But the question I have is, were they wanted or needed? If James Madison was meeting the athletic wants and needs of its female population, wouldn’t it have been compliant under the third prong of its test even though only 51% of their student athletes were female?
I do think that the NCAA and those who enact Title IX have to give serious thought as to its implementation, particularly since it seems to be doing the opposite of what it originally intended: it’s taking away opportunities instead of adding them.
posted by IUAngelini at
11:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home