Posted on 06/21/2002 11:42:38 AM PDT by gubamyster
EDITOR'S NOTE: This appears in the July 1, 2002, issue, of National Review.
Tilting the Playing Field: Schools, Sports, Sex, and Title IX, by Jessica Gavora (Encounter, 181 pp., $24.95)
When Brandi Chastain stripped down to her sports bra after helping the U.S. team win the women's World Cup soccer championship, it was page-one news — one of the most memorable images of 1999. As the current legend has it, neither that win, nor Chastain's display, nor indeed any victory for women's sports would ever have been possible without a law known as "Title IX."
Jessica Gavora knows the value of girls' sports. The same year Title IX was passed — 1972 — Gavora, author of Tilting the Playing Field, was playing fourth-grade basketball in Fairbanks, Alaska. Inspired by competition with her brother, she played basketball through high school. In grade school, she says, she had been awkward, too tall, and an "uninspired student": "What saved me was sports." Today, Gavora is chief speechwriter to attorney general John Ashcroft (and wife of NRO editor Jonah Goldberg). So this new book is emphatically not a polemic against girls' sports; it is, rather, the chronicle of a law that, as Gavora says, "more than any other federal law" has been "interpreted and twisted and bent outside the institutions of our electoral democracy."
Passed as an amendment to an education bill, Title IX was patterned on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In the minds of its congressional sponsors, it actually had little to nothing to do with women's crew and men's wrestling — or indeed any other sport. It was crafted as a general protection against discrimination, stating simply: "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." What the backers had in mind, says Gavora, was not sports but "more prosaic educational benefits, like admission to schools and programs, access to financial aid and career opportunities."
The legislators were in fact concerned about the potential for abuse of the Title IX legislation, so they included in it an explicit provision against quotas:
Nothing [in the law] shall be interpreted to require any educational institution to grant preferential or disparate treatment to the members of one sex on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of that sex participating in or receiving the benefits of any federally supported program or activity, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of that sex in any community, State, section, or other area.
But Title IX has come a long way, baby. Today Title IX — which, to most Americans who have heard of it, means "women's sports" — does exactly what that provision in the law forbade it to. Feminists are celebrating this sainted law's 30th anniversary this year — with Lifetime cable specials, prime-time hours on ESPN handed over to quota fanatics, galas, the works (there's even a women's sports-clothing catalog named "Title 9 Sports") — but unrecognized in most of these events will be the casualties of the Title IX numbers game: men.
As Gavora explains, this law benignly written "to end discrimination against women" has had the effect of "causing discrimination against men." The stories are all similar, and every year the casualty list gets longer — as more and more men's high-school and college teams are eliminated to make room for women's teams. Much to the delight of feminists, the Clinton Education Department added to the Title IX law a standard that sports programs be "proportional": If a school's student population is 60 percent women and 40 percent men, the sports have to reflect that breakdown exactly — even if 60 percent of the women don't want to play sports. Otherwise, it's Cutsville for the men — meaning not just the team destroyed and players displaced, but student athletes often forced out of college altogether, or into a search for similar programs at other schools because they have lost precious scholarship money. Since 1972, according to the General Accounting Office, over 170 wrestling programs, 80 tennis teams, 70 gymnastics teams, and 45 track teams have been eliminated — all men's teams. In high schools, while girls' sports have increased ninefold in the Title IX years, boys are just about where they were 31 years ago. This is the legacy of Title IX.
Sterling Martin, renowned coach of the Bowling Green University track team — a team that has a large percentage of minority athletes, and has even produced an Olympic gold medalist — is now out of a job at Bowling Green. He is considering ending his 15-year career as a track coach because he's not confident that there's going to be much of a future left for men's track coaches.
For Title IX, it has been a weird evolution. As Gavora points out, feminists want sports to be both separate and equal. They want separate teams, because they are not stupid: They know that most women are not going to make the cut on a justly selected co-ed team. But they also want things the same — the "same opportunities." But how exactly are you going to guarantee that, when men and women simply aren't going to be interested in the same sports and with the same level of enthusiasm?
Feminists have not even come close to dealing with these problems. Gavora sets forth their inexorable "logic":
The gender-quota logic . . . begins with the presumption that men and women, boys and girls are identical in their athletic interests, equally eager to kick a soccer ball or wield an oar. And if interests are equal, then "equity" between men and women dictates that actual participation must also be equal. There must be just as many girl athletes per capita at any given school as there are boy athletes. Anything less is prima facie proof that someone is being discriminated against.
Title IX therefore leads to a clearly unjust result. Women today have the upper hand in just about every area of education — except sports, so feminists are now demanding special privileges in that area as well. "Far from being held back by vestigial discrimination in academia, girls and women from kindergarten to graduate school are thriving," Gavora writes. "They increasingly dominate in universities and graduate schools. And on virtually every indicia of academic achievement, they outshine boys and men. With few exceptions, they outperform, outscore, and out-graduate their male counterparts in the nation's education system." They now seek a feminist utopia in sports — however forced and unfair it might be.
It's true what the gals say, though: Women have prospered in sports over the last few decades, and not just because they have more teams at schools. But it was not because of Title IX that Brandi Chastain and her team won the World Cup. "The formative soccer experience of the women's national team — like that of millions of American girls," Gavora writes,
was not in school-sponsored play under rigid rules about gender equity but in independent youth leagues. Here, outside the jurisdiction of Title IX, competition for young girls has proliferated in the past quarter-century with a governance comprised not of federal bureaucrats but of moms and dads who shuttle pigtailed players to and from practice in minivans.
Amidst all this celebrating of a law the girls don't need and the guys definitely don't, is there hope for men's sports? Moneymakers like college football will always prosper — but what about the less lucrative sports, like those featured in the Olympics? A group of college-coaches associations — representing wrestling, gymnastics, and track — are suing the federal government. It's not Title IX per se they have in their sights, but rather the warped feminist interpretation of it that the Clinton administration and the courts have turned into binding law. Despite a recent loss — the Bush administration backed down from an opportunity to make a pre-anniversary change in the reading of the law — the guys have some friends both in the administration and on the Hill (House Speaker Denny Hastert was a high-school wrestling coach). Overall, though, men's sports remain undeniably on the defensive, literally fighting for the lives of their programs against the preponderance of media and uninformed public opinion.
Those who have been injured by the perversion of Title IX have a treasure in Jessica Gavora's excellent new book. She is a talented advocate, offering definitive history and policy analysis, along with stories that will tug at your heartstrings and inspire you to take up arms alongside those who are working to undo what Title IX has done. High-school and college sports are long overdue for a time-out — to level the playing field, and let the guys back into their games.
How much longer before Bush lets Reynolds act on this? The Marxist Women's Law Center just put out a paper that cites 30 more schools for "porportionality" discrimination (ie 54 % of the school is female, only 48 % of the athletics are, etc)
At this rate, male college wrestling, gymnastics, swimming, etc will be rare or nonexistent in this country in a decade or so.. For example, there are thousands of high school wrestlers in Florida, but one one college that has it there! And this is an Olympic sport, too (as if any feminist cared about that)
That takes money the college/university doesn't have, thus, it must cut other things to get the money. Every college isn't a Penn State, Michigan or UCLA with a huge student body and a huge alumni base. There are colleges with a couple thousand people who have to comply with this nonsense.
The money just isn't there. Rather than create women's sports teams that will cost a lot of money and have few fans that will pay admission, the colleges cut men's teams that cost a lot of money and have few fans that will pay admission. Wrestling, swimming, diving and baseball teams are being cut all over the country, including several that have produced Olympic medalists.
Unlike the women's movement, the men's sports that are being cut aren't supported by a rabid, militant lobbying organization with lawyers and substantial resources.
Read the article again. The problem is that fewer women are INTERESTED in being on a sports team. The only solution would be to start MANDATING that women HAVE to be on a sports team -- then see the feminists scream
But what if you cant achieve proportionality without cutting mens programs? What if women arent as interested in sports as men? My niece was recruited out of class to be on the Crew team, and she became captain (U of Alabama).Yet they have cut 4 mens programs. There are colleges with women's scholarships unfilled because of the lack of qualified applicants. In every college in the country you have many more men than women interested in sports (and less men interested in dance, theater, cooking, cheerleading, etc)
The safe harbor rule for compliance is proportionality; if there are 54 % women in college, then 54 % of the slots have to be female, regardless of demand. But only in sports; notice how there are more women going into law school, medical school, grad school in general, all undergrad schools. Disproportionately more women.
If this isnt a quota system, then quotas don't exist.
Its more insidious than that. Wrestling, which has been the most decimated, is the cheapest sport out there, now. Alumni from Princeton, for ex, have offered to Fully pay for the program, and it was still cut because of the safe harbor proportionality rule. And Marquette, for example, cut wrestling even though they dont even have football, the big money sport (which is the WLC big bugaboo, cause of all the problems).
The problem is as you say, lawyers who make big bucks suing colleges for non-compliance, like the Womens Law Center. And of course the ignorance of the general public, reinforced by the leftist media.
No it isnt. The real problem is private entities (ie WLC) suing colleges for non compliance with rules mandated by the Department of Education. The safe harbor is for the college to allocate funds and slots proportional to enrollement by gender, regardless of demand. (As opposed to submitting tons of paperwork every year, showing their "good faith" attempts at "redress")
Bush and the Dept of Ed could solve this problem in a heartbeat, with new mandates, if they had the ba//s.
OK, call me a pig, but this is the reason that men watch women's sports. They watch stock car racing for the spectacular wrecks and women's sports for the eye-candy. Put as much money into it as you want and this is still what you'll get. When the women are not eye-candy but Sumo wrestler look-alikes the viewership/number of fans will be zero.
Bingo! This is precisely why Anna Kournikova is world-famous despite never having won a major championship.
Bingo! This is precisely why Anna Kournikova is world-famous despite never having won a major championship.
...And why the WNBA might as well be called the "Waste of Network Broadcasting Airtime."
(Oops! That one's gonna get me in trouble.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.