Title IX question

[MSNative]

Someone please help me understand the logic. My husband's alma mater just demoted his old team to club status. This team has won 25 national championships in the last 30 years. (It is also self-sufficient in funding. The school specifically said that this was not a budget issue but a title IX issue.) The team had a huge impact on my husband and many of his teammates - turned quite a few of them away from some bad, bad paths. By dropping this team, the school eliminated 60 male athletes and therefore made their male/female athlete ratio look better.

 

I don't get it. As a former college athlete, I am all in favor of equal opportunity and equal school funding for male and female sports, but I don't understand why eliminating a male team helps female athletes.

 

Can someone please articulate the reasoning behind this? Also, am I the only one who thinks this is not the best way to encourage more female athletes?

[Pippen]

Can someone please articulate the reasoning behind this?

 

Decisions like this usually are due to the almighty $.

[Lawana]

Even though they say it's not about the money, and the men's team *is* self-supporting, perhaps they anticipate that a women's team would *not* be self-supporting. It might be a defensive move to keep from getting into trouble for not having the same level of support for a women's team. Who benefits? No athletes, just the college for not getting hit with Title IX discrimination.

[MSNative]

I found this interesting statistic on the web.

According to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), for every new women's athletics slot created between 1992 and 1997, 3.6 male athletes were dropped. During the same period, colleges added 5,800 female athletes--and cut 20,000 male athletes.

 

I just don't see why colleges do this. I think you are right. It is better for them to cut programs than to risk getting zapped with discrimination fines. I guess I just don't get why colleges aren't arguing for more reasonable alternatives.

[fhjmom]

There was a reinterpretation of Title IX when I was in college (and involved in collegiate athletics) in the late 80's/early 90's. Before the reinterpretation, is Title IX was interpreted to mean that a college had to have the equal number of *PROGRAMS* for women as men. After the interpretation, it changed to mean an equal number of *ATHLETES*. Since so many colleges were using "volleyball = football", this reinterpretation put many schools in violation of the Title IX (80 football players is not equal to 12 volleyball players). Rather than add women's sports, some school chose to cut men's sports to come into compliance.

 

BTW, when I was in college, my school elevated women's soccer to a full scholarship sport to offset the Title IX interpretation. They would not consider adding men's soccer though since that would negate the reason they added the women's team.

 

Disclaimer: This is from my recollection of the explanation given at the time. I haven't researched it to find the exact specifications of the reinterpretation of Title IX, but I think that is the gist of it.

[In The Great White North]

http://www.swimmingcoach.org/articles/JL12052002.asp

[fhjmom]

http://www.swimmingcoach.org/articles/JL12052002.asp

 

Very good article! I didn't offer opinion, only reported on what I saw happening. I agree that hurting men's sports should not be the bi-product of increasing opportunities for women. It is interesting though that Lynn Hickey, quoted in the article, was the women's athletic director and head basketball coach at my university when these changes were taking place.