Here is an example of well-intentioned law producing rediculous result

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Title IX supposedly requires colleges to provide sufficent sports team particpation for woman as a percentage of their representation in the student population. </p>

<p>James Madison University found that they were out of sync with this requirement and thus cancelled a number of sports for men because of this. Read this article. It is a great example of how a well-intentioned law produces rediculous results.</p>

<hr>

<p>James Madison University will eliminate 10 of its 28 intercollegiate athletics teams at the end of the academic year to comply with the law banning sex discrimination at colleges that receive federal funds, the Virginia institution's governing board has decided. </p>

<p>In a written statement released on Friday, the university said that it was "fundamentally out of compliance" with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which mandates that the proportion of men and women participating in collegiate-athletics programs mirror that of the institution's overall undergraduate population. This fall, 61 percent of James Madison's student population is female and 39 percent is male, but among its athletes, only 51 percent are women and 49 percent are men. </p>

<p>Seven men's teams will be cut as of July 1, including archery, cross country, gymnastics, indoor track, outdoor track, swimming, and wrestling. Three women's teams will also go: archery, gymnastics, and fencing. </p>

<p>Once the cuts are made, the gender balance on the remaining teams will exactly match that of the overall student population, the university said. </p>

<p>University officials hired a Title IX consultant and "explored every avenue in search of an alternative to this action," Jeff Bourne, the athletics director, said in the statement. </p>

<p>The large number of teams at James Madison posed "an insurmountable challenge" for any other alternative, said Joseph F. Damico, rector of the university's Board of Visitors, in the statement. </p>

<p>The university is tied for seventh in number of athletics teams among all 327 institutions in the National Collegiate Athletic Association's Division I, and its total number this year is "unusually large for a public university of our size," Mr. Damico said. "Fundamentally, that is why the board voted today for this plan." </p>

<p>A total of 144 students now participate in the sports to be eliminated. Three full-time and eight part-time coaches will lose their jobs. </p>

<p>For the 2004-5 academic year, the most recent for which data were available, the university had a total of 720 athletes, 383 men and 337 women, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported. </p>

<p>Of the students in the cut programs, eight were receiving scholarships. The university said it would continue to finance those scholarships until the students graduate. </p>

<p>The university will spend savings from the cut programs on increasing scholarships for women's golf, tennis, and swimming. It will also provide partial scholarships for men's golf and tennis, and plans to provide full ones by 2011. </p>

<p>Of the teams to be dropped, men's cross country was among the most successful, winning three Colonial Athletic Association championships, the most recent in 1999, the Times-Dispatch reported. Some other squads had less success: The wrestlers posted a 4-16 dual-meet record last season, and the gymnastics teams had records of 0-7 (men) and 1-14 (women). Three archers were members of the Senior U.S. National Team. </p>

<p>The reductions will leave the university with a total of six men's teams, the minimum required by the National Collegiate Athletics Association. </p>

<p>James Madison's gender balance was complicated by the fact that about 100 men play on the football team, as is the case at many other universities. </p>

<p>Students on the teams cut "are understandably extremely upset," said Roger J. Burke, head coach of the men's and women's gymnastics teams. "We had a very comprehensive and broad-based sports program that gave a lot of diversity to the university." </p>

<p>Most of the teams retained by the university are team sports, and most of those eliminated involved individual achievement, Mr. Burke noted. "It's sad that a kid who doesn't fit into the mold of playing one of those team sports won't have the opportunity at James Madison University to play one of these other sports," he said. </p>

<p>Reprinted from Chronicle of Higher Education</p>

2

<p>taxguy, what would your suggestions have been?</p>

3

<p>Their first mistake appears to be hiring a Title IX consultant. My suggestion would be to stop admitting so many women and be more aggressive about recruiting nerdy (non-athletic) guys. Make it a degree requirement for women to participate in sports. Increase the rosters on girls teams. Start a competitive knitting team. Cross country is the ultimate team sport. Cross country athletes have balls (the men, that is), other sports just play with them. I hope the students riot... I mean "demonstrate."</p>

4

<p>"James Madison University will eliminate 10 of its 28 intercollegiate athletics teams at the end of the academic year to comply with the law banning sex discrimination at colleges that receive federal funds, the Virginia institution's governing board has decided."</p>

<p>The law did nothing of the sort. JAMES MADISON decided to eliminate its teams. It could have cut exactly one team - football - and been in full compliance with the law. Or it could have increased scholarship opportunities for women and participation opportunities to match those provided to men on the football team, but chose not to. Instead, they decided to stick with the proven money-loser.</p>

<p>It's not like the country is dying for the results of the JMU/Appalachian State game, or the big matchup against Towson. I'm glad that the football players get to play, even if they cost the taxpayers a ton of money. But I can't see why the university would choose them at the expense of others equally deserving.</p>

5

<p>why does a football team have to have so many players anyway....seriouslly...100 players...while 11 on are the field</p>

<p>no multitasking, guys?</p>

6

<p>I would bet you if each team cut back to say 70 players, all teams set a limit for its roster, you could still field a team, and players could actually do more than one thing</p>

7

<p>Methinks it may be even worse than that. ;) Could it be that JMU wanted to axe non-competitive programs and blamed it on the Title IX boogey-man?</p>

<p>And what was JMU doing with the 7th most "sports" anyway? Did they really think they could be competitive with the state schools in the PAC-10, Big 10 or 12 teams and their athletic budgets. I think they wanted to cut and this was the easiest way to do it while not disturbing the majority of the alumni.</p>

8

<p>Go to savetitleix.com and check out how what jmu did could be handled!! The DOE clarification to the interpretation of Title IX could reverse 32 years of gains. Quoting here from the website: "Largely as a result of Title IX, young women's participation in athletics has increased 400 percent at the college level and 800 percent in high schools since 1972. The benefits of this increased participation have been enormous. Study after study shows that girls who participate in sports are less likely to smoke, use drugs or engage in other risky activities, and that they get better grades." </p>

<p>And another quote: "Women still receive only about 41 percent of the sports participation opportunities
Women’s sports average just 36 percent of athletic operating budgets
Women’s sports receive only 32 percent of total recruiting expenditures."</p>

<p>So some men (i.e. likely the football players) are still doing ok in college athletics budgets.</p>

9

<p>More than a few times, these decisions are really ways to put more resources into the sports that they prefer to raise their profile in. There is a recent directive, I belive from the DOE which allows schools to bend the old proportionality rules based on demonstrated interest........meaning that if women at the school don't want to be shotputters, you don' t have to have the team. </p>

<p>I wonder if George Mason's basketball success last year has made them jealous.</p>

10

<p>The university is eliminating Men's cross country, spring and winter track, but is keeping women's cross country, spring and winter track. Won't this change result in fewer males attending the university? It is already 61% female. When the student body is 75% female they will be forced to eliminate more male sports teams.</p>

11

<p>JMU has around 15k students, and 28 sports teams are too many? Our hs barely has 1000 students, and in addition to the boys football team we have a girls field hockey team and boys and girls teams in lacrosse, soccer, tennis, volleyball, cross country, swimming, winter track, spring track, ice hockey, and boys only baseball. What's that, 21 varsity sports?</p>

12

<p>No one will FORCE them to do anything, just as no one forced them now.</p>

<p>All they have to do is comply with the law, which provides them with a huge array of options. The annual losses from the football team alone could probably fund virtually the rest of the entire athletic program.</p>

<p>But no one would force them to shut down football either. If they are willing to endure such massive losses from football, it's hard to argue that they couldn't afford such losses with their other sports.</p>

13

<p>As much as I do not like the impact football has in our upper education system, I do not think it would have been wise for them to cut the sport. Many colleges that are lacking in males to a point where it is hurting them are now ADDING football, and finding it to be the most effective, quickest and economical way to get more males to the campus, which bring more competitive students. Having football does make a difference for some colleges.</p>

<p>I am sad to hear that they are cutting sports like X country and track where both sexes could compete together. We were hurt some years ago when JMU hired a coach from my son's first choice school after he had established contact and was on the list. JMU does not have a men's team for the sport; it was axed a while ago.<br>
There are about 300 kids getting athletic awards at JMU with the average award under $8000. Some of those kids have the athletic scholarships integrated with need so in that case it supplemented the financial aid awards. It does not seem that excessive to me, as a state school. Football does hit hard on those numbers, however.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
The university is tied for seventh in number of athletics teams among all 327 institutions in the National Collegiate Athletic Association's Division I , and its total number this year is "unusually large for a public university of our size," Mr. Damico said. "Fundamentally, that is why the board voted today for this plan."

[/quote]
I still think this speaks volumes as to their true intentions.</p>

15

<p>I think JMU was being dishonest about why they were cutting the teams mentioned. </p>

<p>If you noticed, they cut 3 womens programs as well as the 7 mens programs. Excuse me, but how does cutting womens programs serve to increase the ratio of women participants in sport?</p>

<p>No, I think they were just trimming programs and decided to make Title IX the bogeyman for their axe-wielding.</p>

<p>BTW, Title IX does not require the numbers (or dollars) spent on womens athletics to be proportional to the numbers enrolled. That is just one of several tests that can be used to show compliance. In fact, most universities would not comply if that test were a requirement. Many schools use a survey method whereby they can demonstrate that their male and female students have their competitive sports interests satisfied by the university's offerings equally.</p>

16

<p>Whoa! No football at JMU? My D would withdraw her application for sure.</p>

<p>Yes there are many ways JMU could have complied with Title IX, and the cynic in me says this was as much political as anything. But it wouldn't concern me if each college could exclude one team (men's or women's) from the Title IX calculation.</p>

17

<p>The larger question: why SHOULD men receive a disproportionate amount of the sports budget to begin with? Women and men pay the same tuition. I'm not sure why women should pay a bunch of tuition money that goes to men, pretty much on the basis of gender. If you consider that men have been getting too much to begin with, the whole thing is a lot less offensive.</p>

<p>Imagine that you have two children of the same age. You give them allowance every week. Johnny gets $2 and Sally gets $1. Johnny is used to spending his $2. When you give them each $1.50 (or, more accurately,when you give Johnny $1.70 and Sally $1.30), Johnny will have to cut back his spending because his allowance is going to Susie. After all, Susie doesn't need the full $1.50 - she can get by quite fine on $1. </p>

<p>Unfair? Methinks not.</p>

18

<p>I have been told that the number crunchers do not like athletic budgets at schools that are not big sports schools, and love to cut there. There are usually some programs that are sacred cows and as much as the bean cutters fingers itch to cut them, they cannot, football being the supreme idol. It has to do with the number of heavy hitting supporters for the program who have a say in the school as well as for finances. I agree with Goaliedad that JMU is putting the blame too much on Title IX though I do believe there has been some bad results from schools trying to compy wiht that rule.</p>

19

<p>It does look like they are using Title IX as an excuse. I find this surprising:</p>

<p>"Currently, eight students on the rosters of the 10 affected teams receive a total of $13,500 in scholarships."</p>

<p>That is a paltry amount! They said 144 student athletes were affected, and only $13,500 in scholarships? Additional cost savings in coaches salaries and operating expenses (transportation, etc), but that is not a lot of scholarship dollars. I also read (but not sure if it is true) that a student running cross country, winter track and spring track would count as 3 athletes, which argued for the elimination of those 3 programs.</p>

20

<p>ariesathena: By your logic, the choirs, dance clubs, drama offerings, literary magazine, and other offerings more popular with girls should be cut to make things equitable.</p>

<p>Using interest surveys to prove that girls are being as well served as boys is a revolutionary concept. Imagine giving college kids opportunities to do what interests them! </p>

<p>Have you seen the compliance documents for Title IX & the three pronged approach? It's a confusing nightmare. Every move a college makes is pounced on by radical feminists. More boys are interested in competitive sports at the college level than girls. It's a fact. So as long as girls aren't clamoring for more teams, why on earth should there be a problem? The irony in all this nonsense is that when the women's male counterpart team is cut, the women's team suffers. Women & men in the same sport form very close bonds and often cross train in sports like track & swimming. How does cutting the men's team benefit anyone?</p>