When it was first signed into law in 1972, the now infamous Title IX's expressed purpose was to ensure that "no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity." Aside from its extremely broad scope, the law appears to be justified. Few would disagree that schools and universities should treat the genders equally. But there's nothing fair about "equality" when school administrators decide to become the referee. Ask James Madison University's men's track team or the University of Oregon's wrestling squad, both of which likely competed for the last time this year.
The most damaging aspect of Title IX is the use of quotas and proportionality that handcuff athletic departments. As it has been interpreted, Title IX requires schools to allocate scholarships in equal proportion to the student body. Essentially, for every male scholarship athlete, there must be a parallel female scholarship athlete. What supporters of these quotas fail, or choose not, to recognize is the innate social and physical differences between men and women, namely that young men are more likely to gravitate towards physical sports than young women. Fewer athletic scholarships for men means those scholarships left become much more competitive, while an increase in the number of positions for women makes obtaining a scholarship easier.
While it may be slightly unfair to men, an abundance of athletic scholarships for women would not be ruinous. If universities had taken a different path after 1972, college athletics might look very different today. But rather than expand budgets to create new women's teams, many colleges have chosen to downsize. By cutting men's teams, particularly in low-revenue sports such as gymnastics, wrestling or men's volleyball, athletic departments around the country have sought to comply with Title IX quotas not by promoting female sports more but by shrinking the number of male athletes. Collegiate wrestling alone has seen 453 programs cut since 1972, with only 45 new programs emerging in that time. As these programs continue to dwindle, "unprofitable" sports such as wrestling may well disappear to make way for equally uneconomical women's sports.
Supporters of Title IX say it is not the law's illogical quotas that are to blame. Many point to enormous men's football programs as the scapegoat. The average Division 1-A football team has 114 players, and though some of these players may be non-scholarship "walk-ons," many more are at the school on scholarship. While sports such as basketball and soccer can field men's and women's teams with equal numbers, there is not a women's equivalent for football in terms of roster size. For every D-1 football program, a university must field two to three women's teams to compensate. Given the option of adding 100+ scholarships and three or more new women's teams, or simply cutting two men's sports, a cash-strapped athletic department will usually choose the latter. However, there is a more reasonable solution to the issue: Take football out of the equation.
Division 1 football is a different beast than other collegiate sports, and to compare such mammoth programs on the same scale as other NCAA sports is unfair to both parties. The majority of the 116 D-1A football programs turn a profit, sometimes reaching well into the millions. For the 2006 season, UT's team earned a profit of more than $46 million, more than enough to fund every other sport the school has to offer. As profits continue to grow, the football program, like many around the country, continues to grow along with it - as well it should. The University would be foolish to interfere with a program that has such a positive net benefit for the school.
But that growth should not come at the expense of other athletes from smaller sports, whether they're male or female. By exempting Division 1 football from Title IX quotas, universities across the country could enjoy top-caliber football while still fielding equally funded teams, finally putting athletes of both sexes on an equal playing field. Or gym floor, ice rink, track or wrestling mat.
Player is a Plan II and economics sophomore.
Be the first to comment on this article!