Title IX: Not an excuse for cutting men’s programs
NCAA President Myles Brand told USA Today last week that Title IX is not to blame for cutting men’s programs during tough economic times.
In my opinion, this is a message that was barely heard and needs to be shouted from the rooftops.
Because of tough economic times, the NCAA expects that some schools may drop men’s teams in the coming months. Brand is urging schools not to blame Title IX – which bans sex discrimination at schools receiving federal funds.
To my faithful critics who will come on here and post in response to this, I HAVE to point out.. from the NCAA’s Double-A Zone (something I’ve been trying to emphasize for months):
The law does not mandate a university cut men’s programs to accommodate this proportionality. “I would suggest that athletics directors need to spend more smartly,” Brand told the paper and suggested cutting costs in travel, facilities and “expenditures in the highly visible sports.”
I’d like to personally thank the NCAA for helping me construct my argument.
Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see how the economy effects programs in the coming winter season.
Where’s the Women’s Sports Foundation? You guys should be helping the NCAA broadcast this message!!!
So Miles Brand, the person who completely botched Bobby Knight, starts telling the universities to lie and that’s a good thing?
The economy causes cuts in sports, Title IX protects the women’s sports. So, more men’s sports are cut because of Title IX.
If Title IX had anything to do with equality, it would protect both genders equally. It doesn’t.
Lower down in that same USA Today article, reporter Erik Brady deftly confronts Brand with the obvious contradiction — that Title IX plainly does cause schools to cut men’s teams first when they are under budget pressure, writing, “Schools must consider Title IX because they cannot pass the second or third tests if they drop women’s teams.”
Brand then concedes the central point, responding, “Title IX is a factor because fairness is a factor.”
Brand can throw around adjectives however he pleases — like “blame” and “fairness” — but the fundamental truth remains. I suppose he can also try to intimidate his own members or infer that they are liars when they cite Title IX. But no one is being fooled about what’s actually happening. Here’s hoping they have the integrity to stand up to him.
One additional point. Megan deserves genuine credit for fielding critical comments on this blog. That is something that most blogs on Title IX won’t do. And, of course, it’s the kind of open discourse that Myles Brand doesn’t tolerate either.
Thanks, Jim – I take pride in allowing critical comments on this blog (and responding to them) – that’s the whole point of blogging… to have an informed conversation with your adversaries – regarless of their (or your) views. It’s a beautiful thing.
It’s actually something that I criticize fellow Title IX advocates for not allowing. We need to participate in this conversation, and I encourage an educated response, always.
However, I can’t say that I agree with you. I’m just not going to budge on this one. How in the world can you not fault the institutions’ decisions on distribution of funds? They could very well choose to distribute their funds differently. The problem is that instutions value popular sports like football and basketball over other sports – and that is reflected in their decisions to cut certain sports programs.
That is one impressive thing about you Megan – that you do get into the discussion.
Why don’t you call out the institutions for funding programs girls are more likely to do then? Things like dance, song, etc, or even the Women’s studies programs?
Not only that, if you’re worried about where they spend the money, then shouldn’t the other men’s sports have first crack at the profits of football and basketball? They spend money to make money. The girls complain about how much is spent on them, but more than happy to take the money they bring in.
Aaron’s point is a strong one — the distorting effects that Title IX has on women’s sports is a crucial topic that gets far too little attention. The most popular sports for young women in high school — like competitive cheer and tennis for instance — are shunted aside by colleges while other sports with scant high school interest — like crew and ice hockey are the fastest-growing sports in college. That’s happening entirely due to pressure from proportionality. Women’s sports advocates rarely discuss this dynamic — except to disparage competitive cheer. For the pro-quota crowd, it’s all about controlling their grand social engineering project — not what the students themselves actually want.
But back to the budgets question. Megan, it seems to me that to accept your point, one has to believe that:
A) administrators are eliminating teams willingly or at least indifferently;
B) they are unable to manage basic budgeting;
C) are uninterested in expanding women’s athletics;
D) making a cynical decision to “blame” Title IX, one that amounts to a public lie (in Brand’s view) and that does them absolutely no good in terms of public opinion.
Oh, and of course: E) that Myles Brand’s admission that Title IX is indeed a pressuring factor when teams must be cut is, what, double-talk or confusion or something?
The truth is that the schools which eliminate teams are typically stretched thin on budget already. Cuts rarely happen at big football and basketball schools — where you are more likely to see strict roster caps and limits on the number of men’s teams. That’s just as insidious — but a different dynamic than the budget waste you describe.
Examples of this abound but my best pick lately is at Howard University here in DC. They recently eliminated their men’s baseball and wrestling teams (despite shoestring football and basketball budgets) and replaced them with women’s bowling team. The bowling team has an unlimited roster size and will hand out full four-year scholarships to any woman who can bowl 100. Despite that, Howard has been unable to attract more than half a dozen women to the team (the guy’s scholarships by the way were stripped, some of those athletes had to drop out and the coaches were summarily fired). Currently, the Howard women’s bowling team has five members. Oh, and in their most recent legal hit list, the Women’s Sports Foundation gave Howard an “F” on compliance — meaning that still more men’s cuts are required.
I expect that, as the cuts start to increase in coming months as Brand correctly forecasts, we will see similar factors. And when the administrators are brave and candid enough to speak about Title IX pressure, they deserve to be taken seriously.
i agree that this site is much different than others we’ve seen out there. while the defense of present title ix enforcment is misguided, at least the author allows opposing viewpoints to be expressed. that certainly isn’t the case with many other sites out there.
megan wrote: “However, I can’t say that I agree with you. I’m just not going to budge on this one. How in the world can you not fault the institutions’ decisions on distribution of funds? They could very well choose to distribute their funds differently. The problem is that instutions value popular sports like football and basketball over other sports – and that is reflected in their decisions to cut certain sports programs.”
this sort of twisted “logic” is why we title ix reformers are frustrated. many who support title ix “at all costs” buy into and spread this nonsense.
the institution doesn’t have full control on how they distribute funds. mandates like title ix force schools to spend money on sports they don’t value at all. women’s crew and equestrian teams have been added at universities in states where not a single high school participant can be found.
these young ladies are participating in something they love to do and i say, more power to them. that they can get their schooling paid for while representing their college is truly wonderful.
to claim, however, that the university values their sport is more than a stretch – it’s absolutely untrue! these women are merely being used by the athletic director to balance football numbers. because of title ix, they are forced to fund these sports.
while this post exposes dr. myles “he speak with forked tongue” brand’s latest p.r. blunder, i’d like to also comment on the women’s sports foundation bit.
i think they’re in trouble over at the wsf. mom’s are discovering that radical feminism’s view of what title ix is all about isn’t quite the same as their own.
now that they have boys of their own – many of whom won’t become 6’7″, 300# linemen at east cupcake university – they’re realizing that title ix has become a roadblock on their boys’ path to success.
more and more women are speaking out against the way title ix destroys the future for their sons in athletics. i’m glad they are standing up against the wsf’s man-hating agenda.
the radical feminists have for years spouted a “male equals wrong, female equals right” message.
it’s high time they understood that decent men and women value one anothers’ rights. since the majority of men and women in this country fall into that “decent” category, they can give their anti-male propaganda a rest.
I think you’re taking this way too far. To attack the Women’s Sports Foundation and call them “man-hating” and make comments about modern feminism is not only illogical, but just plain wrong.
The wsf stands for much more than just Title IX advocacy. They offer the latest female sports news(which is otherwise very hard to find), have scholarship programs to offer opportunities to girls who might not otherwise receive funds to go to college, and they bring attention to women who are making achievements and strides in athletics.
It’s really the only organization we as female athletes have that represents our interests and defends our opportunities. If we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten our own section in USA Today a few months back.
We need them – and while I am critical of how quiet they are at times, I can assure you their mission is grounded in female athletic opportunity and promotion – which has very little to do with men.
And you should also do a little bit more research on modern (third wave) feminism – which has a great deal in common with the strength and image of today’s modern female athletes.
If proportionality was not an issue in Title IX, which sports do you think would get cut first?
This law is about providing and ensuring equal opportunity. In 1971, only one in 27 girls participated in high school athletics. That number has gone up 800 percent, with 1 in 2.5 high school girls participating in sports today.
This growth is in direct correlation to the opportunities that we have. So attacking the law and wsf for institutions’ decisions to cut mens progams that they value the least is simply wrong and misdirected.
Um, just if female athletic opportunity and promotion has very little to do with men, why does it keep taking the money and cutting boys? If the third wave of Feminism is built on strength, you would think they would be able to do it under the same conditions that the men have.
Instead, it’s jealousy and vindictiveness.
Why is it that the girls’ softball team always compares themselves to the baseball team for equipment and scheduling, but then is conspicuously quiet when it’s brought up that they have more opportunities for scholarships or even participation? For some reason, a bat and when you play is more important than even getting to play or an education.
Yes, they protect women’s rights and opportunities – just like the sexist men did in the 60′s. That would be exactly why people are fighting against them. If you want equal rights and for people, they’re going to have to give up some of those protections – just like men did in the 70′s.
If you notice, none of the comments here say to punish the girls for what the schools are doing. We’d be just as bad as the WSF and the Feminists if we did that. We just them to have equal rights and opportunities to the boys.
Again, sexism is wrong no matter who is the victim.
Oh, and hey – if the WSF wants to take undue credit for USAToday and manipulate statistics to make themselves seem more important – I really don’t care. If that’s what you think is important, then that’s great, congratulations.
NOW can my son and godson have equal rights and access to sports and education? Please??? Pretty please??? We don’t care if they get written up in the paper or any of that. If the papers and public don’t notice, we won’t blame the girls, we’ll keep playing. They just want to be judged by the same standards the girls are and have the same opportunities in school.
Yeah… didn’t think so.
As a guy who enjoys football, baseball, basketball, and hockey to no end but also is obsessed with gymnastics and volleyball I have a unique position.
Title IX was there to give opportunities where none existed, but now it’s been utilized in certain circumstances by officials to hurt men’s programs. As JMU showed however, an administration can decimate both genders at the same time in support of I have no idea. All the same we have a case where each side has a very legitimate point to make but also where each side is not the cause of the problem. The men who are angry for not having their opportunities cut are not the ones who were keeping women from having equal teams when title IX came about, but the women who benefit from those protections aren’t going out there to destroy mens sports. Never mind the fact that the new changes to Title IX seemed to open the door to the run on new cuts that appeared because athletics departments had new avenues to cut programs on the women’s side, or the men’s side. But it’s not Title IX itself that is the issue, it’s the environment and certain individuals at certain schools that used it as a justification.
When a person is in pain they take aspirin. But if someone else takes that aspirin and stuffs it down that person’s throat forcing them to OD, who is to blame? The Aspirin, or the person who used the Aspirin as a weapon?
I have no doubt that there are men’s teams that have gotten royally screwed, and I have no doubt there are women’s teams that have gotten royally screwed. Shouldn’t the discussion be turned to what Athletic Departments are doing things right and which are not? I know for a fact there are plenty of schools that really do a great job. Just this year the University of Bridgeport added two sports.
If everyone gets their teams then the debate over Title IX is moot.
But I agree there’s a lot of reason for anger on both sides, and there’s definitely a need for something to change, and maybe that even means changing exactly what Title IX says, I don’t know. But I do know Title IX came into existence for a reason.
But we’re about to see Notre Dame probably pay Charlie Weis millions to leave a job he wasn’t very good at it. (So maybe he can go back to the Patriots where he was awesome.) Some colleges have plenty of money.
The debate is important. Myles Brand has an up and down record, but at least he is entering the debate. Keep in mind he pretty much must serve at the College Presidents’ pleasure so really if we wanted to be overly cynical one would think his only role would be to get Basketball and Football profits up, but it’s not that simple, college sports may deal a lot with money but there’s plenty of non-monetary things going ont here too.
And seriously, schools need to stop cutting teams period. Figure out some other way. Charge higher admission, something…
When URI lost its gymnastics and swimming teams at the same time, those teams all banded together, men and women to fight the cuts, but the administration suceeeded, all the same the swimmers supported the gymnasts and vice versa, and they still do through club fundraising. That’s the spirit by which the problem should get solved. I know easy for me to say.