Title IX: Equity or Elimination?

Issues of gender equity have confronted American society since its inception. The Declaration of Independence specifically states that all "men" are created equal, leaving out women, just as the Constitution originally denied women the right to vote. Over the past two and a half centuries, however, women have striven to obtain equal rights. In 1848, for instance, leaders of the women's suffrage movement, such as Susan B. Anthony, adopted a Declaration of Sentiments calling for an equal rights amendment including women ("Women's Rights" par. 1). In 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution finally adhered to their wishes, giving women the right to vote. Despite these important steps, women in the United States, a nation founded on the ideals of freedom and equality, continue to battle for equal rights. A key moment in this fight for equality occurred in 1972 with the passage of the Title IX Amendment to the Equal Opportunity in the Education Act. Title IX states: "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 receiving Federal financial assistance" (Sadker par. 2). This piece of legislation has had a profound impact upon college athletics. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has interpreted Title IX as requiring an equal opportunity for male and female athletes at our nation's universities. More specifically, the NCAA has ruled that in order to uphold Title IX, the money spent on male and female sports must be equal, as does the proportion of male to female athletes at an institution. Though on the surface Title IX would seem to guarantee equality between the genders in collegiate athletics, the practical applications of the law have led to the elimination of many men's collegiate teams and a notable reduction in the opportunities for male athletes to participate in collegiate sports. Despite the doors opened to women as a result of Title IX, the losses suffered by men render this piece of legislation unjust; it must be revised if the United States hopes to ensure true equality between men and women in intercollegiate athletics. Rather than raising the number of female athletes, Title IX's requirement for equal funding of male and female sports has forced many universities to discontinue smaller or less popular male sports. Schools cannot afford to create new women's teams to balance the amount of money spent between the two genders. Most major men's athletic programs have survived and remained intact, but male scholar athletes in many non prime-time sports that fail to generate revenues have seen their athletic careers ended by Title IX. The California State University at Bakersfield (CSUB) wrestling team serves as a prime example of Title IX's negative and sometimes veiled effects on male athletes. While wrestling might be a second-class sport at many schools, it was, for years, one of the centerpieces of CSUB campus life. The only Division I team at CSUB, the wrestling team won two PAC-10 championships and was ranked in the top 10 in the country during three of the four years the team existed. However, wrestling was cut from the athletic budget in 1999 in order for CSUB to comply with the proportionality clause of Title IX. Critics had pointed out that the number of male athletes at CSUB exceeded the number of female athletes. With no expendable money to create new women's teams to balance the numbers, CSUB was forced to eliminate wrestling. The members of the wrestling team, made up of 21 men and eight women, fought back, filing a sex discrimination suit against CSUB in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. This case is pending before the California Supreme Court today (Lynch pars. 2-7). Nevertheless, it is ironic that Title IX, initially intended to eliminate gender discrimination, has instead led to lawsuits claiming that the law itself has caused gender discrimination. While universities now fund male and female sports, this seemingly equitable product of Title IX actually represents another form of bias. An evaluation of the numbers behind the costs and incomes of various male and female sports reveals this inequality. According to a News & Record analysis, for example, "women's basketball, classified as a revenue sport by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, is by far the biggest money loser" (Bell par. 5). In fact, only five out of 117 women's basketball programs accumulated money in 2005, losing an average of $722,000. Men's basketball programs, on the other hand, made an average profit of $1.7 million in the same year. The University of North Carolina (UNC) offers a more specific example. While both teams were very successful on the court, the men generated $10.1 million in revenue for the university, while the women's team cost $1.3 million (Bell pars. 7, 28). The extraordinary profit produced by the men's team was used to cover the financial loss suffered by the women, yet the overall budgets for the teams must, by law, remain equal. By demanding a rigid and blind form of equality, Title IX creates a tremendous inequality. Title IX forces the university to treat two teams that diverge financially in a financially equal manner, thus depriving the men's team from receiving the full benefits of their hard won success. This imbalance occurs not just on a team but also on an individual level. Jason Hairston of Providence College's baseball team saw his athletic career cut short by Title IX. In the late 1990s, Providence eliminated its 78-year-old baseball team because "women accounted for 59 percent of its students, yet they were only 43 percent of student athletes" (Lynch par. 13). In order to be in compliance with Title IX's requirements that male and female athletes exist in the same proportion as the overall male and female school population, Providence was also forced to eliminate its men's tennis and golf teams. This left sophomore Jason Hairston in a major bind. His choice was to either complete his academic degree without playing baseball or to leave his academic endeavors at Providence to continue baseball at another school. Ultimately, Hairston decided to complete his final two years of study at Providence, precluding any chance of playing professional baseball. While Hairston does not regret his decision, he does admit "it made me give up my dream" (Lynch par. 17). Title IX was intended to make dreams real for women, yet it has ended many young men's dreams along the way. Although some male athletes have suffered from Title IX and its restrictions, many women have benefited significantly and gained opportunities they would previously have been denied. Meghan McNulty is a sophomore at Princeton University and a member of the women's crew team. She had never rowed a day in her life, but when she arrived on the Princeton campus she saw a flyer inviting young women to join the team, with no experience necessary. She attended a meeting, joined the practices, and was suddenly a varsity athlete. When interviewed, McNulty explained, "if Title IX had never been added to the Education Amendment, I would never have become a member of the women's crew team" (McNulty). While Title IX led Princeton to add a number of women's teams to their offerings, McNulty acknowledges that that gain has come with an expense. Similar to the economic bailouts loaned by the government to the “Big Three” automobile companies, there are certain opportunity costs that come along with Title IX. "I do feel," she said, "that Title IX has hurt men's athletic programs. With the current guidelines of Title IX, I believe that men's athletics will continue to suffer. However, I am still grateful for the opportunity I was given due to Title IX" (McNulty). McNulty epitomizes both the benefits and drawbacks of Title IX, recognizing that her opportunity has come at the expense of men's athletic programs. Title IX has failed in its goal to bring gender equality to collegiate sports. Though its intentions were good, the guidelines that currently govern this law have proven problematic and detrimental. The idea was to raise the level of opportunity for everyone, but too often the gender equality requirements of Title IX have forced college administrators to simply limit the opportunities for men to make them equal to the inadequate provisions for women. Until the United States government and the NCAA find a way to increase the athletic opportunities for women without endangering male sports, equality between the sexes in collegiate athletics will continue to remain a dream.

Works Cited
Bell, Robert. "Women's Basketball Falters in Cash Game." News-Record. 26 Feb. 2006. 22 October 2009 .
Isidore, Chris. "NCAA's Bottom Line Winners." CNN. 18 Mar. 2004. 22 October 2009 .
Lynch, Michael. "Title IX's Pyrrhic Victory: How the Quest for "Gender Equity" is Killing Men's Athletic Programs." 1 Apr. 2001. Reason. 21 October 2009 .
McNulty, Meghan. Personal interview. 20 October 2009.
Sadker, David. "What is Title IX." Mar. 2007. American University. 19 May 2009 .
"TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972." Title IX Statute. 2001. 19 October 2009 .
"Women's Rights Movement in the U.S." Infoplease. 2007. 19 October 2009 .