ANSWER: The Foundation is hopeful that the Bush administration will continue to support and enforce strong Title IX athletics regulations. Title IX protection for girls' and women's sports is needed now more than ever. While over fifty percent of our college populations are female they only comprise 42 percent of the athlete student body. In addition, female athletes receive approximately 36 percent of all sports operating expenditures, 42 percent of all college athletic scholarship money, and 32 percent of all college athlete recruitment spending. Although more female athletes are getting a college education because of athletic scholarships, male athletes still receive $133 million more in scholarship dollars each year. (NCWGE Report, 2002)

We believe that the Office For Civil Rights of the Department of Education should increase its enforcement efforts. It is simply not right that parents of daughters who are not getting equal treatment must file Title IX complaints or go to court to gain enforcement of the legal rights of their daughters. The stress and expense of doing so and the subsequent verbal harassment of them and their children (despite Title IX's prohibition against retaliation) is simply unacceptable.

The public clearly supports vigorous enforcement of Title IX and the Foundation is hopeful that the current administration will be responsive to the wishes of American voters:

NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll results:
"Title Nine is a federal law that prohibits high schools and colleges that receive federal funds from discriminating on the basis of gender. Title Nine is most commonly invoked to ensure equal opportunities for girls and women in high school and college athletics. Do you approve or disapprove of Title Nine as it is described here?"

Yes, approve of Title IX: 79%
No, do not approve of Title IX: 14%
Do not know enough about it: 4%
Not sure: 3%

"To comply with Title Nine, many schools and universities have had to cut back on resources for men's athletic programs and invest more in women's athletic programs to make the programs more equal. Do you approve or disapprove of cutting back on men's athletics to ensure equivalent athletic opportunities for women?"

Yes, approve of cuts: 76%
No, do not approve of cuts: 19%
Not sure: 5%

The Foundation has already communicated via letter to President Bush and Secretary of Education Paige, respectfully encouraging the Administration to pursue a strong enforcement policy for Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and support the continuation of the strong compliance standards that are currently in place.

Q: If the Bush administration moves to change the Title IX policy interpretation as it applies to Title IX, what will the Foundation do?

ANSWER: Under the provisions of the federal Administrative Procedures Act, if the Office For Civil Rights of the Department of Education (OCR) wishes to change the regulations or current policy interpretations, OCR would be required to issue a "Notice of Proposed Rule Making". OCR would then be required to designate a reasonable period of time for public comment, usually 30 to 60 days, before it could issue changes in regulations. If any changes were made, these changes would still be required to prohibit non-discrimination in athletics. Depending on the proposed change, the Foundation would have the option of submitting comments. The Foundation would not favor any change that weakens this law and results in unequal treatment of female athletes.

Q: What would the Foundation's position be if OCR attempted to eliminate the current proportionality provision applicable to the determination of equal participation opportunities?

ANSWER: The courts have upheld the current three-part test applicable to the determination of equal participation opportunities, one part of which is the so-called "proportionality test". It is only one of three possible tests that can be selected by educational institutions. We think it is a reasonable test. For example, if schools and colleges provide athletics participation opportunities to five percent of their male student populations, it appears reasonable to expect that those schools also provide five percent of their female student populations with athletic participation opportunities. What could be more fair?

Q: How does the Foundation respond to the criticism that Title IX has resulted in the loss of participation opportunities for male athletes?

ANSWER: Contrary to the rationale of those who contend that Title IX's proportionality provision is responsible for the elimination of men's sports, men's sports participation and funding has continued to grow. Decisions to drop men's non-revenue sports are institutional decisions related to choosing to place more resources into other men's sports. The facts:

• In the past four years, for every new dollar going into athletics at the Division I and Division II level, male sports receive 58 cents while female sports receive 42 cents (1999-2000 NCAA Gender-Equity Report).

• NCAA participation opportunities for male and female athletes have grown to record levels. Since 1972, NCAA female sports participation has increased from 31,852 to 150,916 and NCAA male sports participation has increased from 172,447 to 208,866 (NCAA Participation Statistics, 2002).

• The data shows that lost opportunities for some men whose sports have been dropped have resulted in new opportunities for men in other sports. For instance, between 1981-82 and 1998-99, 1,022 men's gymnastics, 2,648 men's wrestling, 683 women's gymnastics and 229 women's field hockey participation opportunities were lost. During that same period, men's football, soccer and lacrosse opportunities increased by 7,199, 1,932 and 2,000, respectively as did numerous women's sports (GAO Report, Intercollegiate Athletics, 2001). There are natural shifts of funding and interest in men's and women's sports that occur and sports participation is affected by changes in NCAA institutional membership. It is inaccurate to blame these shifts on Title IX. Similarly, a 1997 study of individual institutions revealed that programs commonly added and dropped men's and women's sports between 1978 and 1996 with men's and women's sports programs showing a net gain (Women's Sports Foundation, 1997).

• NCAA average squad size data for male athletes in 1981-82 and 1998-99 has remained constant (within one participant) and more sports show an increase in average squad size than show decreases (NCAA Participation Statistics, 2002).

• The purpose of laws prohibiting discrimination is to bring the disadvantaged population up to the level of the advantaged population, not to treat male athletes in minor sports like female athletes who weren't given a chance to play. Rather than cut men's teams and unfairly blaming Title IX, all sports should be asked to operate on smaller budget so all athletes continue participating.

• Dollars in men's sports do not have to be reallocated to further support football in order to "maintain revenue production." It's a myth that football makes the money that funds other sports. Football brings in more money than other sports but spends more than it makes. Approximately 108 Division I and II football programs report generating more than they spend. When you eliminate "institutional support" as a form of revenue, this number goes down to 69 schools.

• There will never be enough participation opportunities at the high school or college level to meet the interests of male or female athletes. These opportunities are limited by what institutions can afford. For example, there are approximately 208,000 men and 151,000 women participating on college varsity teams in the NCAA. These opportunities will never fully accommodate the needs of over 5 million boys and girls participating in high school athletics. The fairest way to parcel out limited resources and participation opportunities is to have athletic opportunities match up to general student enrollment.

• Conferences, leagues and the NCAA have not been willing to legislate expenditure limitations, lower scholarship limits, or even require fewer games if that's what it takes to make sure that male non-revenue producing sport participants as well as females get the chance to play.

• Competitive sports programs are sex separate. Thus, schools and colleges themselves set "quotas" on the number of male and female participants when they determine how many teams they will offer and fund. It is only reasonable to say that if a school offers athletic opportunities for male athletes that represent 5% of the male student body, then 5% of the female student body should also have the opportunity to play sports. However, it is important to note that Title IX does not require any proportionality test.