Now She's Got Game
Title IX helped more women get into sports, but opponents complain the legislation is now pushing men out

Gampel Pavilion on the university of Connecticut's campus can seat 10,000 people, and every time the women's basketball team plays there, the place sells out. At a recent home game, UConn's athletic director, Lew Perkins, surveyed the students with their faces painted in the team's colors, the dancing Husky mascot and sports reporters from publications not normally inclined to cover women's college athletics. "This turnout has nothing to do with Title IX," Perkins remarked, referring to the 1972 law that requires schools receiving federal funds to offer equal opportunities to men and women. "These people are here because our women's basketball team is so great."

But doesn't Title IX count in the team's success? Would the school have allotted the resources, facilities, equipment or salary for a first-rate coach to develop the program if it had not been mandated to do so by law?

When Title IX was written, it was clear that women needed help to achieve equality on the playing field. But 31 years later, some question whether the legislation has worked too well and promoted women at the expense of men. Under the law, a school can demonstrate Title IX compliance in one of three ways: by making the percentage of female athletes the same as the percentage of female students, by showing an ongoing history of increasing opportunities for women, or by showing that it is accommodating the interests and abilities of women.

It is the first option, the proportionality test, that gets Title IX critics in a lather. In a frequently cited case, Marquette University decided to end its wrestling program in 2001, even though the team was primarily supported by private donations. The school said it was trying to create parity between the total number of spots for women and those for men. This was one of the cases that led the National Wrestling Coaches Association to file a lawsuit against the Department of Education, claiming that Title IX was unlawful and encouraged "gender quotas."

Few words are more likely to get the Bush Administration's attention than "quota." So last June, U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige appointed a 15-member Commission on Opportunity in Athletics to consider changes to Title IX. The move dismayed the law's defenders, who believe that the White House is intent on rolling back years of gains.

Supporters of Title IX say the law is being used as a scapegoat for poor fiscal management over athletic budgets. "On too many occasions, schools that have cut teams have blamed Title IX," says Lamar Daniel, who consults with schools on Title IX issues. "At those institutions that I have worked with, lack of money has been the primary reason for cutting teams."

Both sides say much discord could be avoided by persuading athletic directors to rely less on the proportionality test and more on one of the two other options for proving compliance. "One of the greatest problems is the thinking that proportionality is the only way to reach the goal," says Valerie Bonnette, who spent 15 years in the Office of Civil Rights and is now a private consultant to schools working to achieve gender equity. "Title IX offers enough flexibility that schools have a reasonable choice."

—from TIME, March 3, 2003

Questions

1. What are the three ways that schools can show they are in compliance with Title IX?

2. What has the Bush Administration done to look into the fairness of Title IX?