Copyright 2001 The Columbus Dispatch Columbus
Dispatch (Ohio)
April 9, 2001, Monday
SECTION: EDITORIAL & COMMENT, Pg. 6A
LENGTH: 529 words
HEADLINE:
UNENTITLED
BODY: The NCAA men's
gymnastics championships at St. John Arena last week was the last for the
Michigan State Spartans. The program was slain by budget concerns and by
pressure for gender equity in its sports programs.
The
Spartans are not alone. Critics blame Title IX for the demise of hundreds of
men's sports teams. Between 1992 and 1997, more than 200 men's teams and 20,000
slots for male athletes were eliminated, the NCAA reported. At the same time,
the number of women athletes increased by only 5,800.
Things weren't to work out this way.
Title IX
of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 says, "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.''
Nowhere does that sentence say to provide more athletics opportunities
for women at the expense of men. Nowhere does it set up quotas.
In fact, Birch Bayh of Indiana, who as a U.S. senator was a sponsor of
Title IX, said the amendment was intended to prohibit quotas.
But wrestling programs have been discontinued at 136 schools over the
past 20 years. Men's gymnastics programs have been discontinued at 114 schools
since 1972, and Michigan State will make 115. Fifty- three golf teams have died
since 1993. The list goes on.
The problem is not with
Title IX. The goal of Title IX is laudable and, in fact, Title IX has vastly
expanded opportunities for women. The nation has witnessed its dividends, one
example of which is the U.S. women's soccer team's victory in the 1999 World
Cup.
Rather, the problem lies with the rules set up in
1979 by the U.S. Office for Civil Rights to enforce Title IX. To demonstrate
compliance, a school can show:
* That participation in
sports for men and women is in proportion to their respective enrollments.
* That the school has responded and continues to respond
to women's interests and abilities.
* Or, that it is
meeting the needs of women on campus.
The easiest,
cheapest -- and, some experts say, the safest from a legal perspective -- way
for schools to demonstrate compliance has been to cut men's programs to make the
proportions of athletes come closer to matching enrollments.
The effect is to turn the tables so that men have become the victims of
discrimination.
Studies show a difference between the
sexes in their interest in athletics. More men than women want to play sports.
That's not unusual. More women than men typically participate in extracurricular
activities, such as cheerleading, choir and band. Such differences don't, by
themselves, indicate discrimination, just differing interests. So, setting a
quota based on enrollment is a bad idea.
During his
campaign for the presidency, George W. Bush said: "I support Title IX. I do not
suppport a system of quotas or strict proportionality that pits one group
against another.'' Good. So, let's fix it.
Any changes
to Title IX enforcement must rigidly adhere to the original
goal of giving women the same opportunities as men. But let's find a way to do
it without punishing the men.
Document 62 of 67. 