<p>Title IX
Our country is one that prides itself on its equality for all people regardless of gender or race. This is the basic foundation on which this country was built and a major separating factor between the US and other countries. I think it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of citizens in this country find this to be both an admirable and desirable trait, and would indeed advocate any measures taken to ensure equality for all. That being said, as a college athlete and one who went through the process of talking to coaches about scholarships and the limited funds available for them, I have come to question the infamous Title IX. While well meaning in its development it is in fact actually a detriment to collegiate athletics and its athletes.
It is important when questioning the merit of Title IX to understand its creation and the original intent behind it. Created to ensure equal opportunities between genders, this original purpose was not directed specifically at athletics; rather it governed all federally funded school activities (About Title IX). Upon first examination it appears to be a fine idea worthy of praise, after all as stated earlier who would not advocate equal opportunity. However the major flaw of the law is in the mandate for equal proportioning between student population and athletic involvement. One needs only to visit the local elementary school during recess to understand the flaw in this thinking; undoubtedly there is a substantial difference in the participation between male and female athletes at all levels from the earliest ages (Go Out and Play: Youth Sports in America). I do not claim to understand the reasons why this is so, however it is clearly evident. Female athletes are offered opportunities in almost all sports that once were almost predominantly male, and still the female participation lags far behind male participation. Thus it is flawed logic to compare the ratio of male to female students to male and female athletes. An idea that becomes even more unrealistic when you consider that colleges now have more female students than male students (Marklein).
On a more personal note this law strikes a chord with me. As someone who has spent a significant portion of my life on a baseball field playing the game I love; I understand the meaning of athletics to so many people. Baseball is one of the main sports that is adversely affected by Title IX at the collegiate level. An NCAA baseball program can be expected to carry up to 35 players, yet they are afforded only eleven point seven scholarships. For a sport with such a rich history within our country it would seem there would be more funding would be available, but sadly this is not the case. I was able to experience this extreme under funding first hand during high school as I was informed by several universities that the max scholarship they would be able to fund would simply replace the work/study component of financial aid. Eleven point seven is an extremely misleading number in that, eleven point seven is the maximum number of scholarships allowed. What many people are unaware of is that many institutions are operating with fewer scholarships in some cases only 6 or 7 scholarships for an entire team.
My basic qualm with the issue is the fact that Title IX requires universities to balance out the number of female and male athletes. Take Arizona State University as an example, ASU pays for and supports the majority of its athletic programs through the football program and the revenue it generates. Thus it is easy to see why football will not soon be taken away from ASU or any other athletically minded university. However a football program means 80 players, and in most cases that is 80 players that female athletics have to compensate for through the creation of new teams. Thus universities are forced to do one of two things, either pick up female sports to make up for this extra number of male athletes, or two cut smaller non revenue generating male sports. Understandably universities across the nation have been forced to choose option number two. Picking up additional female sports comes with a cost that most universities, especially in this economy are unable to pick up. A prime example of this is ASU; one would think a university of that size would have no problem funding major sports; however soccer a sport with large following and large amounts of athletes has been cut as a result of this rule (ASU Athletic Site). Across the nation sports such as soccer, wrestling, gymnastics, and baseball are taking hits, while college coaches are scouring the campus for any athletic looking girls to field a team with (Kline).
Conversely, those who disagree with my opinion bring up the point that athletic programs do in fact have a choice when cutting these programs. They claim that simply reducing the funding to such mainstay programs such as football and basketball would easily provide the revenue necessary to sustain the afore mentioned mens sports. However once again this is the problem with the idea of a proportion, while cutting the funding to either of these sports might provide more money for other programs, it would ultimately do nothing to resolve the issue since sustaining these teams still poses the problem of needing an increase in the number of female athletes at any given institution. Either way this misguided notion that the funding used for football or basketball is responsible for the loss of smaller mens sports, leads only to further complications of the original problems, complications that as to date we have yet to devise any solutions for. Lastly another oft overlooked fact is the revenue that the basketball and football teams generate for the other sports programs. This is added revenue included from conference and TV payouts not including the massive volume of ticket sales and alumni donations generated at big time programs. For example as stated on Notre Dames athletic website, Forbes magazine claimed them to be the most valuable program in college football accruing 101 million dollars during the 2007 season. Furthermore approximately 21 million of this revenue was put towards academic purposes. Now clearly this an exaggerated example and not the case for the vast majority of programs but at the very least it is easy to see that at most major universities that play in a power conference the football program easily funds itself. As well as in many cases helping fund other programs and even occasionally academics.
Furthermore the increase of female athletic teams provides an opportunity for many young women to participate in college athletics that otherwise would be unable to; however when the requirements for attaining an athletic scholarship are reduced to the simple attribute of being an eligible female student on campus the fundamental principle of the scholarship is undermined. Dictionary.com defines scholarship as as a sum of money or aid granted to a student, because of merit or need to pursue his or her studies, the random acquisition of female athletic teams in order to appease Title IX legislation devalues the essential meaning and basis behind scholarships by removing both elements of the definition. When scholarships are given out simply because a given athletic department has them to spare, and there is no merit or talent exhibited by the athlete that means that somewhere a hardworking and more deserving athlete is being neglected. In regards to the need aspect of scholarships there is already a federally funded program for establishing, determining, and distributing financial aid to those in need. Note this is not an affront to the dedicated female athlete as there are no doubt numerous incredible female athletes at all levels who deserve every scholarship they receive, rather this is a criticism of the equally talented male athletes in lesser known sports who are denied a scholarship and in many cases simply the opportunity to pursue their dream. Too often simply because girls who have never played a sport before are needed to balance a quota so that we can claim we are making progress towards equality; a process that demerits both the female athletes and the entire concept of equality. Creating obscure sports for which unqualified athletes are given scholarships not only rewards undeserving students, but also creates a negative image of womens sports only furthering the view that female athletics are not as serious as their male counterparts.
In order to promote the growth of female athletics the approach needs to be taken at a much lower level and age. Using the potential Title IX funding at younger ages would create more athletes as well as better athletes. Elevating the level of play for womens sports would increase fan interest and provide more viable female role models. Another added benefit of better competition would be increased media coverage. Essentially the problem which Title IX seeks to address can only be effectively addressed at a younger age and lower level. Attempting a quick and immediate fix at the collegiate level only provides a temporary patch rather than a lasting solution. Also it creates additional problems, addressed earlier, for an already strong male athletic community.<br>
Clearly this is a difficult situation with numerous sides and viewpoints to it. However it is clear that the current method of solving this problem leaves much to be desired. Before we can begin to devise adequate solutions to this task it is important to recognize the flaws in the current system. Two basic ideas need to be considered when discussing Title IX. How can we encourage women at all ages to actively participate in sports and furthermore ensure that those deserving and dedicated athletes are provided the opportunities they so badly desire at all level? Secondly how can we accomplish that without by the same token destroying the similar dreams on male athletes everywhere?</p>
<p>Works Cited</p>
<p>"About Title IX." bailiwick.lib.uiowa.edu. 5 9 2009 <a href="http://bailiwick.lib.uiowa.edu/ge/aboutRE.html">http://bailiwick.lib.uiowa.edu/ge/aboutRE.html</a>.
"Arizona State Men's Athletics." thesundevils.cstv.com. 10 9 2009 <a href="http://thesundevils.cstv.com/#00">http://thesundevils.cstv.com/#00</a>.
"Go Out and Play: Youth Sports in America." womenssportsfoundation.org. 10 9 2009 <a href="http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/Content/Research-Reports/Go-Out-and-Play.aspx">http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/Content/Research-Reports/Go-Out-and-Play.aspx</a>.
Kline, Malcolm A. "Title IX: What Ever Happened to College Baseball?" academia.org. 1 2009 9 <a href="http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2003/sept_2003_8.html">http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2003/sept_2003_8.html</a>.
Marklein, Mary Beth. "College Gender Gap Widens 57% are Women." usatoday.com. 10 9 2009 <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-cover_x.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-cover_x.htm</a>.
"Notre Dame Football Program Ranked Most Valuable in Nation." und.com. 5 9 2009 <a href="http://www.und.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/112007aag.html">http://www.und.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/112007aag.html</a>.
"scholarship." dictionary.com. 10 9 2009 <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scholarship">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scholarship</a>.</p>