NYTimes Columnist John Tierney on College Sports & Title IX

Parents Forum
1

<p>July 11, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Let the Guys Win One
By JOHN TIERNEY
Suppose you’re the head of a school whose students belong to two ethnic groups, the Alphas and the Betas. The Alphas get better grades and are more likely to graduate. They dominate the school newspaper and yearbook, the band and the choir, the debate team and the drama club — virtually all extracurricular activities except for sports.</p>

<p>How much time would you spend worrying about the shortage of Alpha jocks? </p>

<p>Not much — unless, of course, the Alphas were women, the Betas were men, and you were being sued for not complying with Title IX. Then you would be desperately trying to end this outrageous discrimination.</p>

<p>When Title IX was enacted in 1972, women were a minority on college campuses, and it sounded reasonable to fight any discrimination against them. But now men are the underachieving minority on campus, as a series by The Times has been documenting. So why is it so important to cling to the myth behind Title IX: that women need sports as much as men do? </p>

<p>Yes, some women are dedicated athletes, and they should be encouraged with every opportunity. But a lot of others have better things to do, like study or work on other extracurricular activities that will be more useful to their careers. For decades, athletic directors have been creating women’s sports teams and dangling scholarships and hoping to match the men’s numbers, but they’ve learned that not even the Department of Education can eradicate gender differences. </p>

<p>At the University of Maryland, the women’s lacrosse team won national championships year after year but still had a hard time getting 40 players to turn out for the team. The men’s team had no such trouble, because guys were more than willing to warm the bench even if they weren’t getting a scholarship, but the coach had to cut the extra ones to maintain the gender balance. The school satisfied Title IX, but to no one’s benefit. </p>

<p>On or off campus, men play more team sports and watch more team sports. Besides enjoying the testosterone rushes, they have a better chance of glory — and of impressing the opposite sex. Thirty-four years after Title IX, most women’s games still attract sparse audiences. Both sexes would still rather watch men play games, especially football. </p>

<p>College football is such a mass spectacle that it can’t really be compared with other sports. It’s more of a war rally or religious revival. But football’s unique popularity unfairly penalizes men because colleges fear flunking the “proportionality” test, which is the safest way to comply with Title IX. If the school doesn’t have enough female athletes to offset the huge football squad, it has to cut other men’s teams — or get rid of football, as some schools have done.</p>

<p>Lately, though, as colleges have struggled with the declining number of men on campus, a few small schools have dared to start football teams. They argue that even if they end up with more male athletes, they’re still being fair because more men want to play sports. It’s not clear if this approach could survive a Title IX lawsuit; advocates for women’s sports complain it’s still discrimination. But the results on campus are already impressive, as Bill Pennington described in The Times yesterday.</p>

<p>The new football teams have helped attract a lot of male and also some female students, boosting enrollment and tuition revenues. The teams have provided publicity and excitement, bringing in donations from businesses and alumni. Most important, the chance to play football has attracted boys who otherwise wouldn’t have gone to college.</p>

<p>“We kind of trick them into seeing that getting an education is the real benefit,” said Mike Kemp, the coach of the football team started five years ago at Utica College in upstate New York.</p>

<p>Besides attracting boys to campus, football and other sports help them stay in school. Provided they’re not at a school that lets jocks get away with anything, a good coach can provide them with the discipline — mandatory class attendance, supervised study periods, required grade-point average — that male students seem to need more than female students. </p>

<p>I’m not suggesting that sports are a panacea for male education problems. Men are lagging behind women on campus for lots of reasons: less motivation and self-control, poorer academic skills. No matter what happens with Title IX, women will deservedly continue to outnumber men on campus and dominate the honor rolls. </p>

<p>But because they’re now so dominant, they don’t need special federal protection in the one area that men excel. This playing field doesn’t need to be leveled.</p>

2

<p>Another interesting piece from the NYT on this topic. I'm going to have to break down and start buying the paper rather than trying to scrounge it around the office.</p>

3

<p>What is any female athlete really supposed to think about this? </p>

<p>The argument really is:
-Women used to be outnumbered on campus and therefore needed special help
-Women are now excelling in other areas and therefore don't need help in this one.
-This is all bad for men.</p>

<p>Um, huh? That's like saying that we should stop trying to recruit women into the sciences because they excel at psychology. Clearly, this man has not contemplated that there could be lingering effects of discrimination. Clearly, he has not contemplated that there are some high schools (like mine) where MORE girls compete athletically than boys. Clearly, he is not proposing any alternatives that would still ensure that women could get the resources that they are paying for. He also missed the fact that sports can be phenomenal for women, too. </p>

<p>I guess I bristle at the idea that women are "taking" the resources meant for the men. If your older sibling spent 10 years taking most of your allowance, and then you got sick of it and started hiding it in your mattress, the fact that he then can't buy as much ice cream doesn't mean that you are getting too much allowance and he is being deprived. </p>

<p>The things that women do are traditionally unfunded or underfunded, while the things that men do are traditionally very well funded. The school newspaper has to sell ads to stay in circulation; the academic teams have to pay for their own transportation to competitions while the athletes get buses; and the dance troupes (if there are any) have to sell tickets to even rent an auditorium, while the athletes use the gym, track, and tennis courts for free. Don't even get me started on the fact that the women's sports aren't considered to be sports - rare is the college that provides dance instruction, but there are coaches for traditional athletics. </p>

<p>Okay, okay, I'm done. I'm just tired of men crabbing about Title IX and telling me that it's so cute that I go for jogs with my girlfriends, but I should really paint my nails and drink frozen daquiris before going to watch the football game and drool over the men.</p>

4

<p>The whole premise is completely absurd.</p>

<p>Athletes get special admissions consideration. At many schools, they get partial or free rides, depending on the school and the sport. One can argue whether these advantages are good ideas, but I can't think of a good argument for giving more of these advantages to men than women.</p>

5

<p>I have always been troubled by the numerical standard which the federal government imposed in the Title IX legislation because it is narrowly focused on college athletics at the exclusion of everything else. Certainly colleges should offer a wide range of activities which will provide a fulfilling college experience for both men and women and provide equitable scholarship opportunities too. However most colleges compete in a "buyer market", competing to attract the best student body possible based on a broad range of criteria including ec interests. If a colleges chooses to field a 54 man football squad why should the federal government they require it to field 3 additional 18-women athletic teams or eliminate 3 other 18-men teams? </p>

<p>What if women are over represented in political, music, theatre, art, public interest groups sponsored by the college? Would we want the federal government to impose numerical quatas on those to equalize male-female participation? Of course not. </p>

<p>Title IX is merely symtamatic of the over emphesis we place on athletics in this country. Every other country relegates its athletic teams to club status on equal footing with other ec's which the colleges offer. No big statiums or arenas but fields and gyms with some bleacher seating. And as an OSU alum I loved the spectacle and spirit which the f'ball team brought to the university each fall, I also enjoyed the music, theatre, political and academically related offerings which students partiipated in.</p>

6

<p>"Let the Guys Win ONE?"</p>

<p>Be serious, NYTimes. The guys win lots. What bugs "the guys" is not winning them all.</p>

7

<p>I agree with pretty much everything Aries said. Though it's been a long time since any guy tried telling me I should paint my nails. :)</p>

<p>By the way, Aries, at my university we have several dance options in the list of phys ed classes.</p>

<p>originalloog: The difference between theater and sports is that normally you don't have separate men's and women's theater troupes, but you have separate men's and women's sports teams. Thus in sports it becomes more necessary to equalize opportunities to participate.</p>

8

<p>I know about fifty girls that would love the opportunity to be on the Maryland lacrosse team - that comment makes no sense.</p>

9

<p>originaloog:</p>

<p>Women are NOT overrepresented in theater. Oh, there may be more women theater majors than men overall (though I have no numbers to prove or disprove that), but that is a substantial disadvantage for them because most PLAYS have more (and sometimes MANY more) roles for men than for women!!! And that's true even of most modern plays. When you start going back to Shakespeare (still the most produced playwright in the world), women's roles are reduced to almost nil.</p>

10

<p>What a horse's ass. Girls don't need sports? C'mon. </p>

<p>Title IX has helped so many women find themselves in a activity that demands their best efforts. Why is that exclusive to males? Can't women enjoy winning and losing in competition? </p>

<p>Besides the women scholar atheletes have a greater probability of coming into college and doing well. So how is the money wasted? A good student, good athelete, how do we lose? </p>

<p>Can't stand this type of male. "don't girls have better things to do like hang banners for the football team?" JErk.</p>

11

<p>What this is about is MONEY - read: scholarship opportunities. If that wasn't the issue, the equity concern could be solved through club sports. </p>

<p>In virtually every women's sport I have heard about at Div. I schools, there are way more applicants than scholarships available. No one is preventing any of these schools from closing down their male football teams if they don't want to provide equal scholarship opportunities for women. The list of Div I schools that have discontinued their football teams is not very large, is it? In fact, no one forces any Div I school to provide any football scholarships at all. At Title IX says that if you offered the opportunity for a subsidized education for one - based on gender - you have to offer equal opportunities to those of the other gender. And there are plenty of women lining up for the chance.</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
Every other country relegates its athletic teams to club status on equal footing with other ec's which the colleges offer.

[/quote]

Exactly. </p>

<p>But, since we don't operate that way, we should at least have equal opportunity. I don't want equal results - which would be equal championships, attendance, etc - but I want the opportunity to play and compete. </p>

<p>Tierney seems to be saying that, in the absence of equal results, we should not have equal opportunity. (He also defines "results" in a pretty odd fashion.)</p>

13

<p>The issue concerns much more than scholarship money. Title IX applies to all athletic programs at any school (elementary through college) that receive federal funds (even indirectly through govt. guaranteed loans.) Non-scholarshipo athletes are counted in the parity calculations. So many schools were being challenged that they found it cheaper & easier to cave and cut men's teams. Alumni even offered to provide 100% funding for wrestling teams in danger of being cut. The teams still were casualties of the twisted, agenda-friven enforcers of Title IX. Women's teams frequently rallied and protested the cuts to their male colleagues. Their rational arguments were ignored.</p>

<p>Now there is a movement to use interest surveys to demonstrate that there is a much greater interest level in playing inter-school sports among men than there is among women. This makes sense. Like it or not, many more men would be willing (ala Rudy) to train like a madman & warm a bench with no financial compensation than women would. Women are simply not as interested (as a group) in varsity athletics. Many prefer to attain fitness in private, individually, in a gym or dance class. Lots of guys prefer more confrontational type fitness activity, like pick-up basketball or touch football. These same guys would give their eyeteeth for a spot on a college team.</p>

<p>Football is hugely popular and often profitable. Ticket lotteries & scalping are insane. Sports like swimming and gymnastics often draw no spectators other than the participants' relatives. Not a real hard choice to see which sport adds more to the campus culture. I was watching the NCAA Women's LAX Final Four on tv. There were more spectators at my 9 year old son's lax game. Women's sports simply don't draw crowds & support the way big time college football does.</p>

<p>I was one of those moms bringing my daughter to World Cup games to see Mia Hamm years ago. I love to watch women's sports & my own d is an athlete. But I'm living in the real world here. Men's contact sports are always going to be more popular.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
If a colleges chooses to field a 54 man football squad why should the federal government they require it to field 3 additional 18-women athletic teams or eliminate 3 other 18-men teams?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Originalalog:</p>

<p>WRONG!!! WRONG!!!! WRONG!!!!</p>

<p>I defy you to show me where in the law Title IX requires that as the basis for compliance with the interest and ability component of the statute. You can come into compliance with Title IX that way if you wish, but there is no requirement that you do so. Indeed the way you state it is inaccurate. </p>

<p>There are two other ways to come into compliance (that's why it's called a three-part test), and most schools use the third way which simply requires that a college have a sports program which represents the interests and abilities of the current student population.</p>

15

<p>Sticker, I disagree. Title IX became an easy out for many administrations to cut men's programs that weren't revenue producers. Blaming the girls and the feds was just an easy out. Wrestling didn't disapear across the nation, just in certain locations. </p>

<p>You do realize without title IX you and your daughter wouldn't get to experience Mia Hamm? If the only qualification for a sport to be valid is money production, just about every sport must go. Also not every college football program makes a profit. </p>

<p>But really, I remember how limited choices were for girls growing up in the 70's There was track, basketball, softball and cross country and swimming. If you were female you had to watch the boys play soccer. Had title IX not been introduced back then, you and your daugther would have never experienced Mia, Julie and Brandi becuase the opportunity would have never been there. </p>

<p>Overall to our culture title IX has been a good thing. The fact that some college administrators saw it as an opportunity to thin the ranks isn't the act's fault.</p>

16

<p>Arguments for or against particular sports that rest on popularity or profitability are specious. Women's naked mud wrestling would be popular and profitable too. Casinos are popular and profitable, but you don't hear people calling for bringing students to colleges to run casinos. I'm not arguing for or against any particular sport; I'm just saying that the number of people willing to pay to watch an activity shouldn't be the determining factor in deciding whether to support it. My daughter is a college athlete, but I think it's a shame that wrestling, men's volleyball, etc., have had to suffer in order to provide opportunities for women. Doing away with Title IX isn't the answer, but what is?</p>

17

<p>1down:</p>

<p>The fact is, every college has a limited budget to fund sports. The issue is, and has always been, how to divide that limited budget "pie" into reasonable slices.</p>

<p>Historically, almost all the pie (scholarships, practice facilities, game-day facilities, top coaching, etc.) was given to men. Once women began to say, "Wait a cotton pickin' minute? Why don't we get some pie?", colleges were forced to either increase the size of the pie to fund women's sports or dole out what pie they had differently.</p>

<p>If a college decides not to increase the size of the pie, that is not the fault of women who want some pie. When men's programs are cut, it is because they, historically, had WAY too much of the pie to begin with. Had things been equal, historically, there would be no men's programs cut, because those programs would probably never have existed in the first place.</p>

18

<p>I generally agree with Tarhut but it would have been nice to see the women make some effort to increase the revenue side of the pie. I saw many women out demanding addition of sports but not one making any such effort to increase fundraising to help enlarge the pie.</p>

19

<p>barrons:</p>

<p>You're thinking maybe a bake sale?</p>

20

<p>hardly--doing what the men do--raise millions. There are plenty of women out there with $$$$. Start endowing scholarships and coaches salaries. Those are two big expenses. Currently they are riding the financial coatails of the men. They should be a bit more proud.</p>