This was posted on a sports sociology list vis a vis the debate over Title IX and the cutting of men's programs. Comments welcomed...
-- Jon Entine ------ Forwarded Message From: Welch Suggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: The Chronicle of Higher Education Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 11:05:46 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Title IX: school's dropping men's track... I'm trying to stay out of this, but just to offer a couple of historical notes: * Theresa Walton alluded to the fact that the Supreme Court essentially voided Title IX for all programs save university financial aid in Grove City College v. Bell in 1984. In the Civil Rights Restoration Act, passed in 1988 over a presidential veto, Congress expressly stated that Title IX was to cover all aspects of scholastic programs, including sports. Many men's programs were dropped during these four years for a variety of reasons, but gender equity wasn't among them. Many women's programs were dropped, too. * The dramatic expansion of women's opportunities and the gradual cutbacks in some men's sports did not really start until after SCOTUS ruled that plaintiffs in Title IX cases could get money damages (Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 1992). That, and subsequent lawsuits filed by female athletes at Auburn, Brown, and Texas, really got schools' attention. * To be blatantly self-promoting, you can find a lot more about Title IX on our website devoted to the subject: http://chronicle.com/indepth/titleix . One thought I haven't gotten into a story yet is the thought that the Title IX debate really is an affirmative action debate. Once you wade through the emotion from male runners (like me), wrestlers, and swimmers, the dilemma is whether you think the government should allow the market to dictate opportunities in things like scholastic sports, or you think that the government should require schools and colleges to allocate opportunities equitably among advantaged and disadvantaged opportunities. This is an interesting theme in the discussions of the Ed Dept's commission, which can be found at http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/athletics/transcripts.html. I hope this is of interest. --Welch -- Welch Suggs Athletics Editor The Chronicle of Higher Education 1255 23rd St NW Washington, DC 20037 [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: 202.466.1047 fax: 202.452.1033 http://chronicle.com/athletics Jon Entine wrote: >Theresa: > >Interesting results, though you overstate when you write that "Title IX was >in fact not being enforced" during the 1980s. In fact many, there is >substantial evidence that many universities were adapting to the realities >of Title IX by cutting men's programs. > >Also, I don't think anyone suggests that Title IX is to blame for "any and >all cuts". I don't think we make progress on the issue by caricaturing the >controversy. > >Again, the issue is: what can be done to modify a "reform" mechanism that no >longer reflects the intent of its drafters and is having an impact in ways >that were never anticipated and are antithetical to those interested in >preserving Title IX as an instrument of reform. Do we preserve a system >that is clearly out of date and having deleterious consequences, which will >eventually result in an even worse backlash than we have even now, and will >ultimately kill reforms -- or do we find ways to tweak the system to >preserve and improve its viability. I would vote for the later. > > >On 1/9/03 7:12 AM, "Theresa Walton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Interesting list. When the numbers from the NCAA participation studies are >>analyzed, they clearly show that most men's 'minor' sport programs were >>dropped in the 1980s when Title IX was in fact not being enforced. In >>looking at men's outdoor track and field there was a loss of 23 programs in >>the 1980s and a decline of 956 athletes (577 programs in 1981-2, 554 in >>1989-90; 18,806 participants in 1981-2, 17,850 in 1989-90). The 1990s by >>comparison witnessed an increase by 72 programs (to total 638 by 2000-1) >>and 2,171 more participants (to total 20,271 by 2000-1). >> >>So, it's disengenious to suggest without question that Title IX was to >>blame for any and all cuts. Moreover, given the current economy and the >>condition of state budgets, the 2000's will clearly witness tough times for >>education (and by extension athletics) -- eliminated Title IX will not >>address that bigger issue. >> >>Regards, >>Theresa >> >> >> >> >> >>At 08:48 AM 1/8/2003 -0700, Jon Entine wrote: >> >> >>>A track and field list I subscribe to is abuzz with talk of the fallout of >>>Title IX... With many college's dropping men's track as the result of Title >>>IX. One of the sad repercussions of the current interpretation of the rules >>>is that schools that want to keep a sport on an intercollegiate basis with >>>NO scholarships and very little costs (such as track in the case of some of >>>these schools) cannot do so because they have to meet strict and >>>uncompromising quota systems. I don't think that any reasonable person would >>>want that sad reality as an outcome of what otherwise has been >>>groundbreaking legislation. Let's hope that the current reform movement will >>>introduce some sanity into the Title IX situation without gutting its >>>commitment to general parity and fairness. >>>-- >>>Jon Entine >>> >>>**** >>> >>>According to this list, the following school's are not sponsoring, dropping, >>>or will soon drop men's track/X-Country. A few are dropping track all >>>together. >>> >>>Austin Peay (kept x-country) >>>Blinn Junior College (arguably the best JC track school in the US) >>>Bowling Green (kept x-country) >>>Bradley (kept x-country) >>>Cal-State Los Angeles (dropped x-country) >>>Canisius (will drop both track programs after 2003 season) >>>Cincinnati (dropped indoor) >>>Georgia State (kept x-country) >>>Hawaii >>>Jacksonville (kept x-country) >>>Lincoln University(Div.II) >>>Massachusetts-Amherst (dropped indoor) >>>Miami/Ohio (dropped indoor) >>>Mississippi State (dropped x-country, may bring it back) >>>Nebraska-Omaha(Div.II) >>>Nevada-Las Vegas >>>Nevada-Reno >>>New Mexico State (kept x-country) >>>Northern Colorado (dropped x-country, moving from Div.II to Div.I) >>>Northern Illinois >>>Northwestern >>>Old Dominion (dropped both programs) >>>Oregon State >>>Pacific (kept womenââ¬â ¢s x-country only) >>>San Diego State >>>San Jose State >>>South Carolina (dropped x-country) >>>Southern California (dropped x-country) >>>St.John's (will drop program after 2003 season) >>>Tennessee-Martin(kept x-country) >>>Tulane (kept x-country) >>>Vanderbilt (kept x-country) >>>Vermont >>>Wisconsin-Green Bay (kept x-country, dropped both track programs) >>> >>> >>Theresa Walton, PhD >>Advisor >>Academic Advising Center >>1100 Quadrangle >>University of Iowa >>Iowa City, IA 52240 >>(319) 353-5700
