Increase in women's sports not due to Title IX

This weekend marks the 30th anniversary of Title IX and, hopefully, the end of me screaming at the TV. As a policy geek and pundit, I'm used to yelling at C-Span or CNN the way some people yell at the Super Bowl. I've been known to exclaim things like, "That's not how Social Security works, ya moron!" on more than a few occasions. But watching my wife debate a coterie of feminists and professional liberals has been especially exasperating.

The Missus, Jessica Gavora, is the author of "Tilting the Playing Field," a controversial book on Title IX, the 1972 civil rights statute that banned discrimination against women in education, which is, according to the entire establishment press and a zillion feminist lawyers, responsible for every soccer-playing girl in America. Jessica chronicles how Title IX has become a quota scheme for discriminating against male athletes.

But what I want to tackle is a larger phenomenon: The seemingly boundless conviction that laws are magical. I've been astounded by how many people attribute the growth of women's sports solely to a law passed by Richard Nixon, as if women had virtually nothing to do with it.

Susan Casey the managing editor of Sports Illustrated Women writes in Sports Illustrated about Title IX, "As laws go, it has been a success. In 1972, 1 in 27 high school girls participated in sports. That number has now risen more than tenfold, to 1 in 2.5."

James Carville, famed scholar that he is, noted on CNN that in the last 30 years "women's participation in sports has increased 403 percent in college and 837 percent in high school. Who would have a problem with that?"

Nobody. But it's also true that since G. Gordon Liddy broke into DNC headquarters 30 years ago, women's participation in sports increased 403 percent and lots of people have a problem with Watergate. Saying that Z happened after Y doesn't mean Y caused Z. Or, as we all remember from grade school, the rooster's crowing doesn't magically cause the sun to rise.

Now, of course, the passage of Title IX was more relevant to the increase in sports opportunities for women than Watergate. But the point remains that simply touting the progress of women since the passage of a law does not demonstrate that the law was responsible.

Author and social scientist Charles Murray has a neat trick he likes to play on those who believe laws magically change society. He calls it the "trendline test." He takes a law that is supposed to have improved society in some way. Then, he looks at how much improvement occurred before the law was passed and how much occurred after the law. Usually, the laws appear to be slowing the momentum of progress, not accelerating it.

For example: the 55 miles-per-hour speed limit, first implemented in 1974, is widely credited with saving millions of lives over the last three decades. The problem is that automobile deaths started to improve in 1925 and the biggest gains occurred between 1934 and 1949.

Dozens of allegedly landmark laws fail the trendline test. My favorite example is child labor. America banned child labor only after the practice was almost extinct. And yet, historians credit the banning of child labor as a huge victory for children, when it was almost entirely symbolic.

Title IX fails the trendline test too. Yes, there have been important and valuable gains in women's sports since 1972, but there were more important and more valuable gains before 1972. For example, according to the NCAA, the number of women playing intercollegiate sports doubled from 1966 to 1971. Take Casey's specious statistic, which sounds like it came straight out of the talking points of feminist groups. What those talking points invariably leave out is that from 1971 to 1972 -the one year prior to the passage of Title IX where good data is available -the number of girls playing high school sports jumped from 1 in 27 to 1 in 9. And, even better, Title IX wasn't even federally enforced until 1979. It just sat there symbolically with no force of law.

In effect, all of the gains in women's sports of the 1970s had nothing to do with Title IX either. When the Carter administration finally wrote the enforcement regulations for Title IX in December of 1979, 1 in 4 high school girls played sports -an increase of nearly 600 percent without any Title IX enforcement. In the two decades since, participation has increased by only 50 percent.

Title IX was a good law. But it's absurd to credit it with a trend that preceded it and would have continued without it. Does anyone think that Billie Jean King wouldn't have beaten Bobby Riggs if Nixon hadn't signed Title IX?

Tragically, it's a bad law now, hijacked by ideologues and reinterpreted to penalize tens of thousands of male athletes because of an unfair quota-scheme that creates not one new opportunity for women. That trendline is undeniable. But, again, you'll have to read about that elsewhere, hint, hint.

But your second point is wrong. If male participation grew only with their total population in college (no "real" increase), 175 wrestling, 45 track, 50 baseball and so on programs would not have been cut.

The fact that it hasnt has everything to do with Title IX enforcement. If it wasnt for the safe harbor proportionality rule, less teams would be cut and there'd be enough money to meet womens demand

Theyre cutting male participation percentage wise, and it does nothing for women, its merely punitive to men. To say men are not effected because there are more slots than 30 years ago is like an economist ignoring inflation, its basically dishonest, IMO

Here, this is an example of the first step that quota feminists employ . The citations are based on "percentages" being out of sinc, and are not based on any demand from the women effected. Eventually of course comes the lawsuits or colleges dropping mens sports to meet the proportionality req'ts,etc.

By Jessica Hopp
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 19, 2002; Page D02

Thirty colleges and universities -- including Notre Dame, Kansas State and the University of Miami -- are being cited for violating federal law by not providing "female athletes with their fair share of athletic scholarships," as required by Title IX legislation, according to information released by the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) yesterday.

Using data provided by each school, as required by the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA), the NWLC shows that the violating schools are not awarding athletic financial aid for men and women athletes in proportion to the number of men and women participating in athletics. Title IX legislation requires the scholarship and participation numbers to be within one percent of each other (or one scholarship, whichever is greater).

For example, 44.6 percent of Notre Dame's athletes are women, but only 37.6 percent of the total scholarship aid provided by this institution goes to women, a "scholarship gap" of 7 percent. ............cut....... The NWLC sent letters to the presidents, athletic directors and board chairs of the schools in violation, asking for an "immediate reply, setting out the specific steps you will take to remedy the scholarship gap." The NWLC will directly contact any institutions that choose not to respond. According to Jocelyn Samuels, vice president of the NWLC, further action may include contacting students on the campus to make them aware of the problem, informing the OCR or filing individual lawsuits.

cut..........................

There is no such thing as a "safe harbor proportionality rule." Proportionality is one of the three possible tests of gender equity. It is the "safe harbor" because it is the most easily quantifiable. Schools that have demonstrated that they have met either of the other two tests have not been penalized. One of the most pernicious lies that have been told about Title IX is that schools are being forced to cut men's sports because they need to bring down the number of male athletes to equal the number of women athletes, because there simply aren't enough women interested in athletics. The schools that have been losing gender equity court cases are those that have refused to create women's teams even when the women had demonstrated that there was sufficient level of interest. Men's teams were being cut even when there was no Title IX enforcement. Now the schools just have a handy scapegoat to blame.

It is the "safe harbor" because it is the most easily quantifiable.

Yea, and the most quantifiable is the easiest to prove. Schools "feel" too burdened to jump through the many hoops NLWC puts out for there for them. How do you meet the other 2 reqt's , how do you disprove a negative? To prove you're not "discriminating" , year after paper-burdened year??.

. The schools that have been losing gender equity court cases are those that have refused to create women's teams even when the women had demonstrated that there was sufficient level of interest.

That pure B.S. Brown University jumped through many "lost" court cases , all the way to the Supreme Court, trying to demonstrate that they met the "intent" of the law ( meeting demand) without actually meeting the "letter" of the "interpretation" mandating "equity" And they lost. The Court has ruled time and again that the Administration can impose these "rules" as they see fit.. but that doesen’t make them right or "fair".

Men's teams were being cut even when there was no Title IX enforcement. Now the schools just have a handy scapegoat to blame.

Yes, but they’ve reached the point now where entire men's Olympic sports are on the verge of being eliminated (gymnastics being one), even in cases where there are unfilled women’s scholarships (like at University of Md) and women’s demand at many schools appears near saturation level, and in some cases, where men’s sports that are FULLY FUNDED from outside sources are denied anything but Club standing. To deny this reality is to walk around with your head in the sand (or up somebody’ s butt).

The other two options don't involve "disproving a negative at all." Instead of proportionality, an institution can demonstrate that it has a history and continuing practice of program expansion for the underrepresented gender (it has either added programs or it hasn't), or demonstrate that it has already effectively accommodated the interests and abilities of the underrepresented gender (students have either tried to get the institution to add a team for them to play on or they haven't). The Brown case wasn't about some theoretical intent vs. letter of the law. There were existing women's teams that Brown tried to eliminate, and the women on those teams sued. That makes it kind of obvious that Brown wasn't meeting the demand. The fact that Brown failed to meet the proportionality option was not the basis of the suit.

I certainly agree that men have been getting the shaft in some cases, but the blame lies with the schools themselves, not with Title IX. If enforcement of Title IX was to stop tomorrow, schools would still be cutting wrestling teams in order to cut costs.

Instead of proportionality, an institution can demonstrate that it has a history and continuing practice of program expansion ..or demonstrate that it has already effectively accommodated the interests and abilities of the underrepresented gender ..

Then why not remove the third leg (proportionality or gender quotas) and force the schools to meet one of the first two (abstract though they are)? After all, thats what the current Wrestling Coaches Association lawsuit proposes , which the Womens Law Center and other lobbying lawyers oppose , since they get rich off suing colleges.

FYI, Gender quotas are more effective at eliminating opportunities than creating them. According to the GAO and the NCAA data, from 1992 to 1997 overall there were nearly 4 male roster sports eliminated for every female sport created. At the Division III level it was even worse at 20 males eliminated for every 1 female added. The current application of title ix is actually addition by subtraction. Drop men's teams, create the impression of a quota, and save hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid to the school as a whole.

If enforcement of Title IX was to stop tomorrow, schools would still be cutting wrestling teams in order to cut costs.

Only if they were to manufacture demand that wasnt there otherwise to meet a quota that doesent exist.

Note this: college intermural programs, in which students participate out of interest alone have participation rates about 75% male vs. 25% female on a national average. This is an indication of interest. At the high school level, where there are nearly the same number of teams for men and women nationwide, the participation rates are currently 59% male and 41% female. That is also an indication of interest and abilities. The standard is supposed to be interest AND abilities. Actually competing in a sport indicates both.

You wouldn’t be suggesting that there is a huge pent up interest in women's crew at Arizona State or Kansas State that caused them to create a team, with 20 scholarships, and have to set up tables at freshman orientation so that they could give out scholarships? There are about 80 Division I women's rowing teams supported by less than 100 public high school teams nation-wide. This is a classic example of "thin air interest."

What schools are now forced to do is take a high school population in which 59% of the sports participants are males, and force them into a college situation where, on the NCAA average, 54.2% of the undergraduate student body is female. Schools simply don't have the fiscal resources to add enough women's teams to meet a strict gender quota when, like the University of Maryland, athletic scholarship dollars and participants have to be within 1% of the campus gender ratio. To comply they have to cut men's teams or limit their opportunities.

As usual, the NWLC and WSF wail about the "scholarship gap" , but remember that women receive more athletic scholarship money per capita than men. A GAO study of 532 of the 596 NCAA institutions that grant athletic scholarship showed that these schools spent $4,458 in scholarship per male athlete and $4,861 per female athlete. And there are now more women's than men's teams at every level of the NCAA.

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.