Independent Women's Forum - Research Areas > Title IX

Title IX Not the Answer for Scientific Men's Club

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:21:00 EDT

Graduation season is upon us. In the coming weeks thousands of American students will celebrate their accomplishments, reflect on four years' of memories, don silly robes and hats, and graduate from college. The majority of those students will be women, who nationally make up 6 in 10 college students.

Women have made tremendous strides in all aspects of life over the last few decades, but perhaps none is as pronounced as in higher education. In 1970, only 42 percent of undergraduate students were female. Women now dominate campus life, raking in the majority of bachelor's and master's degrees awarded each year. But those tremendous accomplishments won't stop those dedicated to convincing women they are victims.

The latest charge from the gender equity crowd is that women face widespread discrimination in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). They say government action (in the form of increased Title IX enforcement) is needed to correct this imbalance.

Much of the hysteria can be traced back to a 2007 report from the National Academy of Sciences. Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering looked at the different rates of participation between the sexes in STEM fields and concluded that discrimination was the key factor holding women back. The report has been taken as gospel since its publication, but policymakers need to take a closer look at the potential causes of this gender disparity before jumping to "fix" the discrimination problem.

Most likely several factors are at play. Unfortunately, some of the likely factors are considered so taboo in the modern academic environment that few people will openly discuss them. Larry Summers came under tremendous fire at Harvard when he suggested that innate biological differences between the sexes might be a factor. Summer's detractors may have been offended by his comments, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an element of truth in there. There is a growing body of research revealing biological differences that affect how men and women learn and process information. Women also tend to profess different interests and priorities. The key question is how big of an impact do those differences have on the disparity in STEM fields.

At this point all potential factors should be on the table for serious inquiry, including differences in aptitude, learning styles, temperament, interest, work-life priorities, and discrimination. To jump ahead and label discrimination the key factor is, at best, intellectually lazy and, at worst, purposefully misleading. I, for one, find it incredibly unlikely that discrimination is the key factor. Women have broken down countless barriers in recent history, including "boys clubs" like business school and law school. Are we really to believe that the last unbreakable bastion of sexism in the academy is being led by scientists in white lab coats?

Even if there is a problem that needs fixing, politicians should pause before looking to Title IX as the solution. Currently, Title IX enforcement is most visible in college athletics where it is lauded for increasing female athletic participation over the past 35 years. But the successes of Title IX have often come with a serious price tag. Too often, Title IX gets used as a weapon against male athletes in the form of cut teams and roster caps rather than a positive force for women's athletics. The problem lies in the controversial proportionality measurement-the gender breakdown of athletes must match the gender breakdown of the student body. That leaves schools with two options: recruiting more female athletes or cutting opportunities for men. Schools often go for the latter. It's hard to see how that sort of quota mentality would benefit women in STEM fields.

Universities should aim to ensure that any remaining barriers to fields of studies are removed so that students are free to choose their preferred area of study. Yet any effort to create a politically correct gender balance is a misuse of power that disserves students.

Title IX in the Courts

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:42:00 EDT

Here's the latest Title IX litigation news out of California:

A federal judge has ruled in favor of the University of California, Davis, in a Title IX case filed by four women who wanted to be on the intercollegiate wrestling team.

In an order issued Wednesday in Sacramento, the court held that the plaintiffs in Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California failed to give the campus notice that they were making an allegation against the entire women's intercollegiate athletic program. The plaintiffs had changed the focus of their lawsuit to allege Title IX violations in the overall program after the court dismissed their claims pertaining to the wrestling team last October, finding them to be untimely.

In his 22-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. held that a complaint filed by the former students with the Office for Civil Rights in 2001 was not sufficient to give the campus notice of the broad-scale discrimination allegations they made in the lawsuit.

In noting that Title IX requires a complainant to provide notice to a school of an alleged violation so that it can resolve the issue, Damrell held "the court does not find that Congress intended to create an implied enforcement scheme that may impose greater liability, in the form of monetary damages potentially exceeding the level of federal funding, absent comparable conditions." In addressing the UC Davis case, he ruled "the evidence simply fails to establish that plaintiffs gave defendants notice of a Title IX claim for failing to provide enough athletic opportunities to female athletes."

Emphasis mine. More info here.

Fore!

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:54:00 EDT

Here's how ESPN news covered Lorena Ochoa's recent LPGA feat:

It's been 45 years since we've seen someone on the LPGA Tour win four straight tournaments in as many weeks. Back when Mickey Wright pulled off the winning quartet in 1963, both Title IX and the Equal Rights Amendment were still ideas, not laws. And to world's #1 Lorena Ochoa, admittedly feeling fatigued after winning in her native Mexico last week, but poised to rewrite the record books in Tigeresque fashion Sunday.

Hmmm. Is it really fair to bring Title IX and the ERA into the equation? Newsbusters doesn't think so:

Huh? How much did Title IX, which has led to the creation of more women's college athletic programs, have to do with Ochoa's success? Long before she enrolled at the University of Arizona, Ochoa was already the world's most celebrated girl golfer, with 44 national titles in her native Mexico, and five World Golf Junior Championships. Ochoa left Arizona after her sophomore year to turn pro, in fashion similar to Wright, who dropped out of Stanford to join the LPGA Tour.

More here.

Beware of the Gender Equity Hammer

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:52:00 EDT

Christina Hoff Sommers has a great article over at National Review Online about the potential perils of using Title IX as a "gender equity hammer" to get more women into the hard sciences. The case study of Title IX and athletics should be enough to make policy makers pause before jumping on the Title IX and science bandwagon:

Although Title IX has contributed to the progress of women's athletics, it has done serious harm to men's sports. Over the years, judges, federal officials, and college administrators have interpreted it to mean that women are entitled to "statistical proportionality." That is to say, if a college's student body is 60 percent female, then 60 percent of the athletes should be female - even if far fewer women than men are interested in playing sports at that college. But many athletic directors have been unable to attract the same proportions of women as men. So, to avoid government harassment, loss of funding, and lawsuits, educational institutions have eliminated men's teams - in effect, reducing men's participation to the level of women's interest. That kind of regulatory calibration - call it reductio ad feminem - would wreak havoc in fields that drive the economy such as math, physics, and computer science.

Billie Jean King on Title IX

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:12:00 EDT

In USA Today'sweekend magazine, Cokie Roberts interviewed tennis legend Billie Jean King about the legacy of Title IX and women in sports. This question caught me off guard:

Why don't women attend sporting events like women's basketball games?
Because they don't get it. Here's how a guy looks at a ticket: "I'll buy a season ticket, and I'll worry about who we're going to give the tickets to later." Here's how a woman looks at them: She goes, "What days should we go, and how many free things can we get?" Women don't appreciate it -- they do not connect. They didn't grow up in the culture.

Really? So women are more or less incapable of deciding whether to go to a sporting event? That seems more than a little loopy, not to mention insulting and demeaning to women.

Wade Hughes on Title IX

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:48:00 EDT

Earlier this week, former Howard University wrestling coach Wade Hughes had a fabulous article on theroot.com about Title IX at Historically Black Colleges and Universities:

I support the spirit of Title IX--that no one should be discriminated on the basis of gender. I think women should have the same opportunities to benefit from organized athletics. The truth is, as a seasoned coach I have learned to appreciate women's athletics much more because of the apparent balance between athletic ability and technical preparation and execution.
What I take issue with is the unfair and unreasonable way that Title IX regulations have impacted opportunities for male athletes. The problem, in particular, is the method of compliance known as proportionality. This regulatory standard requires that the ratio of male to female athletes on varsity teams closely mirror the ratio of male to female student undergraduate enrollment.

The impact of Title IX's proportionality standard has been disastrous, because at many colleges, far more males than females are seeking to take part in athletics. Schools have been left with no choice but to eliminate men's teams, and place limits on the numbers of male students on the programs that remain. Adding a team for male athletes is out of the question when a school is out of compliance with Title IX. For the student-athletes, the unintended consequences of Title IX enforcement have been devastating.
They have devoted young lifetimes to their sport, only to have their opportunity to compete diminish.

More here. (Hat Tip: Saving Sports Blog)

Women, Science, and Title IX

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:37:00 EST

Christina Hoff Sommers has a fabulous piece in the March/April issue of The American magazine about the push to apply Title IX on science education. The reasoning is: women still make up a small percentage of students and professors in scientific fields; Title IX in the athletic realm has been a tremendous success; so applying Title IX to science education will solve the perceived problem. As Sommers shows, there's a lot wrong in there.

Let's start with my personal pet peeve, the notion that Title IX in the athletic realm has been all positive:

While Title IX has been effective in promoting women's participation in sports, it has also caused serious damage, in part because it has led to the adoption of a quota system. Over the years, judges, Department of Education officials, and college administrators have interpreted Title IX to mean that women are entitled to "statistical proportionality." That is to say, if a college's student body is 60 percent female, then 60 percent of the athletes should be female-even if far fewer women than men are interested in playing sports at that college. But many athletic directors have been unable to attract the same proportion of women as men. To avoid government harassment, loss of funding, and lawsuits, they have simply eliminated men's teams. Although there are many factors affecting the evolution of men's and women's college sports, there is no question that Title IX has led to men's participation being calibrated to the level of women's interest. That kind of calibration could devastate academic science.

So where did this push for Title IX in the sciences come from?

The idea of "title-nining" academic science was proposed by Debra Rolison in 2000. She has promoted Title IX as an "implacable hammer" guaranteed to get the attention of recalcitrant faculty. Prompted by Rolison and a growing chorus of activists, the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space held a 2002 hearing on "Title IX and Science." Later, in 2005, former subcommittee chairmen Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Senator George Allen (R-VA) held a joint press conference with feminist leaders. Wyden declared, "Title IX in math and science is the right way to start." Allen seconded, "We cannot afford to cut out half our population-the female population." The Title IX reviews have already begun.

Title IX aside, the key question on this issue should be why are there so few women in the high echelons of academic math and in the physical sciences? The rhetoric and programs (think bias workshops and equity initiatives) surrounding the issue suggest the answer is clear: sexism. But Sommers claims the issue might have less to do with sexism and more to do with innate differences between the sexes:

In a recent survey of faculty attitudes on social issues, sociologists Neil Gross of Harvard and Solon Simmons of George Mason University asked 1,417 professors what accounts for the relative scarcity of female professors in math, science, and engineering. Just 1 percent of respondents attributed the scarcity to women's lack of ability, 24 percent to sexist discrimination, and 74 percent to differences in what characteristically interests men and women.

Many experts who study male/female differences provide strong support for that 74 percent majority. Readers can go to books like David Geary's Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences (1998); Steven Pinker'sThe Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (2002), and Simon The Essential Difference: The Truth about the Male and Female Brain (2003), for arguments suggesting that biology plays a distinctive-but not exclusive-role in career choices.

Sommers admits that much of the research connecting biological differences to career choices is not decisive. But the reserach is serious and credible and if we really care about the evidence of the situation, this is an area that deserves serious attention.

The whole article is available here. There is a lot of great information in there -- I highly recommend reading the article in its entirety.

IWF Flashback: I covered the Oct. 17th hearing that Sommers mentions in her article here. And more IWF Title IX commentary is available here.

New Title IX Data

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:08:00 EST

The College Sports Council released some interesting data today about Title IX and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). The CSC's study shows that HBCUs have trouble meeting Title IX's strict proportionality test (a school's gender ratio of enrollment must match its gender ratio in athletics to pass the test). Here are some of the stats:

72 of the nation's 74 HBCUs that are co-educational and have athletic programs were out of compliance with the strict proportionality standard.
29 of the schools out of compliance would have received an "F" from the Women's Sports Foundation in their latest report card on gender equity in college athletics.
43 schools, though they didn't get an "F", are still vulnerable to lengthy and expensive litigation.
Only 2 schools (Allen University, Morris College) were in compliance.

Why does this matter? I'll let a former coach from Howard University explain:

"Currently, HBCUs are struggling to increase male enrollment, and offering varsity athletic programs is one practical tool a college or university has to increase the number of male students on campus, " said Wade Hughes, who was head coach of Howard University's wrestling team when the program was terminated back in 2002 along with the baseball team. "At the time the wrestling and baseball teams were eliminated at Howard, the university was out of compliance with proportionality. Now here we are again, five years later, they've added bowling as a varsity sport for women and the university has still not achieved proportionality."

"Many HBCUs are struggling financially. Adding sports teams for male athletes will not only attract more students to their campuses, but help to achieve a more balanced undergraduate student gender ratio," added Hughes.

"If these schools are forced to comply with Title IX's proportionality test, then adding sports teams to attract more male students is not an option."

CSC's solution, and I couldn't agree more, is for the NCAA to support the use HBCUs' use of surveys to comply with Title IX. These surveys offer schools flexibility and the chance to base their athletic programs on proven student interest, rather than fitting to the one-size-fits-all quota system the proportionality test currently requires.

More data from CSC's study is available here.

IWF's commentary on Title IX is available here.

Say Goodbye to Male Practice Players

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:49:00 EST

The NCAA announced this week that women athletes in Division III will not be allowed to practice with men, except in strictly limited circumstances. The Chronicle of Higher Education has the details:

The NCAA's Division III voted [Jan. 14] to limit male players in women's sports, narrowly passing a proposal that would restrict their use to one practice per week. The number of players that coaches can use will also now be limited to half the number of a starting squad in a sport.
Coaches who use male practice players say they do so to allow women to practice against players who are stronger and faster, and to augment a small squad when players are absent. But some athletics officials say it takes away opportunities from female players and implies that the only way to improve is to practice against men.

Men and women helping each other and respecting one another as teammates? Can't have that!

(For background on the controversy over male practice players, read this old article from USA Today.)

The 411 on Female Coaches

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:46:00 EST

Here's the latest good news for women in sports:

The highest-ever number of women--14,742--are now employed in athletics departments as administrators, head coaches, paid assistant coaches, head athletic trainers, and sports-information directors.

If you missed that uplifting figure in last week's coverage in the Chronicle of Higher Education, it's because it was buried at the end of an otherwise doom and gloom article on the state of female coaches and athletic administrators. The picture that Libby Sander's article (subscription required) paints is not a pretty one. More men are coaches and athletic administrators than women. So, while the absolute number of women in these areas are at an all-time high, compared to men, women are lagging behind. The implied message is that this is due to some sort of foul play.

These sorts of allegations are nothing new (I reported on a similar story in October) but a few things to be concerned about in this recent coverage:

-The Chronicle's coverage ignores a very important question: why? That seems like a reasonable place to start when looking at these statistics. Simply chalking any disparities up to some nefarious sexism just doesn't fly. Are we really to believe that there are no other explanations? Perhaps there is a significantly larger pool of male applicants for these jobs, as men tend to watch sports and participate in sports in larger numbers than women do. Perhaps more men and fewer women are attracted to the often grueling schedule and constant traveling associated with coaching. Or, maybe I'm wrong on those two points and other factors are at play -- the point is that we should be discussing possible factors and not crying discrimination every time we observe a difference between two groups.

-Why are their no voices of skepticism in the story? There is rich debate when it comes to the many issues surrounding Title IX and readers are robbed of an interesting intellectual debate when only one side is reported.

-Does any of this even matter? Athletes consistently report that they don't care whether their coach is male or female -- they want the best coach possible. That strikes me as a good attitude to take. It seems a lot more productive to ask whether the best coaches are getting the open positions, rather than putting all of the focus onto gender.

PBS' To the Contrary: Iowa caucus, women business owners, and sex-segregated sports

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:04:00 EST

...

Think Pink, Get Sued

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:17:00 EST

As if the world needed more evidence of how absurd and capricious Title IX enforcement has become, a former University of Iowa law professor is happy to provide another example. Inside Higher Education reported today that Jill Gaulding plans to file a complaint under Title IX over a pink locker room. I repeat, a pink locker room.

For those of you who aren't Big Ten football fans (I'm a Big Twelve fan -- go Buffs!), a history lesson is in order. It all goes back to legendary Iowa football coach Hayden Fry. Fry was a psychology major and had read that pink had a calming effect on people. So, in 1980s Fry painted the football stadium's visiting locker room pink in an attempt to get a mental edge on the competition. (And who could blame him for wanting to calm down angry linebackers?). The locker room lived in infamy (longtime Michigan coach Bo Schembechler, who passed away last year, hated the locker room) until 2005 when Kinnick Stadium underwent intensive renovations, including adding even more pink features to the locker room. The renovations didn't sit well with the easily offended on campus, who called the locker room insulting to women and homosexuals. Debate eventually died down and the locker room remains pink to this day.

Fast forward to 2007: The university has a new president and Gaulding, who is no longer at Iowa, still doesn't like the locker room (she was one of its critics in 2005). Now it looks like this whole ordeal could end up in court (I dare one of the lawyers to wear pink to the trial).

Gaulding's complaint raises so many questions. For starters, Fry is right that pink has a pacifying effect -- that's why prisons and drunk tanks are sometimes painted pink. Is Gaulding also offended by those decorating choices? The comments on the IHE article also raise several interesting questions:

If painting a male locker room pink is sexist and offensive to women, then painting a female locker room blue (just as "traditionally" male as pink is female) must be sexist and offensive, as well. We wouldn't want to risk implying that women athletes are masculine, "butch," or less than feminine because they change their clothes in a blue room.

And, my favorite:

What would happen if our women's basketball team painted the visitors dressing rooms pink? Surely this would not be self-hate.

Back during the 2005 debate, Washington Post sports columnist Sally Jenkins criticized the campaign against the locker room, which at the time was led by Iowa law professor Erin Buzuvis. Jenkins' words still ring true today:

You have to try awfully hard to take offense at what's implied in a color. But it's not hard to take offense at what Buzuvis implies, or her insulting line of reasoning. She buys into the very sort of discrimination she alleges. What she implies is that locker rooms are full of large unfeeling men who can bench press a refrigerator and hammer nails with their fists, and therefore they must really be ashamed to be naked in a pink room, because pink, after all, is a girly color, even a queer one. And therefore putting those men in such a room for a couple of hours is a dire insult to girls and homosexuals, who can't help it that they have closets full of pink bathrobes, a color that no real man would ever like.
You better know who you are if you walk into that room. Otherwise, the pink could shatter you.

Jenkins is right that you have to try awfully hard to take offense at a color. We're surrounded by pink (see here, here, and here if you need examples) -- and I think it's a positive thing. And if it happens to help the University of Iowa win some football games, I'm fine with that -- as long as it's not against my Buffs.

Apparently, this passes for a Title IX debate at Harvard

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:34:00 EST

Harvard recently sponsored a Title IX discussion featuring academics that support the law and others who have problems with it. Before you get excited, I should explain that those who took issue with Title IX, did so not because Title IX's strict gender quotas have been used as a weapon to limit male athletic participation, but because it has reinforced "sex segregation":

"Right from the very, very beginning of the implementation of Title IX there was a remarkable and, I think, pernicious [tacit] permission to allow sex segregation in contact sports" like football and wrestling, said [Eileen L.] McDonagh.

Another academic involved in the discussion, Susan Ware, added:

"This segregation in sports makes us blind to how much men and women have in common. ... [It's] reinforcing one of the last places where you can really say, ‘All right, men are stronger and more important than women.' ... If we can encourage ... a more gender-neutral approach to sports, you can't say those things anymore."

Never mind, of course, that Title IX enforcement has decimated the sports where men and women actually do compete together-like track, swimming and tennis, for example.

The Coming Academic Title Wave

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:56:00 EDT

Originally published by Townhall.com

If the October 17^th House hearing is any indication, a full-scale assault on the academy is coming. The target: STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. The charge: wide scale discrimination against women.

Witnesses, Congressmen, and a crowd of over 100 people gathered last Wednesday on Capitol Hill for a hearing on women in academic science and engineering. No Committee Member or panelist challenged the presumption behind the hearing-that discrimination is the primary cause of women's underrepresentation among science and engineering academics-they turned right to consideration of government-mandated solutions to the perceived problem.

Several panelists, including former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, spoke of the need for massive "institutional transformation." Chairman Brian Baird (D-WA) asked what sort of "hammer" the government could use to enforce this transformation. A popular answer was Title IX.

Normally associated with gender equity in athletics, Title IX (and the strict gender quotas that come along with it) could also be used to increase female participation in STEM fields. Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), the ranking Republican on the subcommittee, went so far as to joke that the sciences should be designated as a sport. This would have two advantages: "NCAA rules would apply" and the sciences would "share in the football revenues."

Shalala complained that, as a university president, she hears from a variety of government agencies and organizations about gender equity in sports, but rarely hears anything about gender equity in science. She went on to stress the need for an organization similar to the NCAA to hold schools accountable for Title IX enforcement.

Another way to force change is pulling Congressional purse strings. The message from panelists was loud and clear: money talks and the government should leverage its funds to "ensure results."

Gretchen Ritter from the University of Texas at Austin also envisioned university provosts holding STEM department chairs accountable for their hiring practices with strict financial consequences, such as a year-long hiring freeze. Translation: hire more women or else.

But before Congress or universities embrace drastic measures to attempt to increase the percentage of women in these fields, they should begin with an unbiased look at the root causes.

A National Academies of Sciences report detailing bias in academic science is taken as gospel, but critics allege that the NAS report glosses over contrary findings and downplays alternative explanations for the discrepancies.

Unfortunately, in many circles, including the academy and apparently now Congressional committees, the topic is too taboo to challenge. You'll recall that not long ago, Harvard President Lawrence Summers was swiftly kicked out the door for asking if innate biological differences between the sexes might be a factor in the disproportional representation in the STEM disciplines.

Shalala may confidently conclude, "women opt out of careers in academic science because of the hostile environment," but what if Summers is right and other factors are at play? Leading experts go back and forth on the issue of innate differences between the sexes and the significance of stereotype threat as they relate to women and science. There is a very real possibility that biology, personality, ability, and several other factors are at play here. All of these deserve honest exploration.

Universities and colleges should examine their practices and consider ways that they can encourage talented women to explore and remain engaged in these fields. But they should do so not in a desire to reach some government quota, but because women have much to offer in terms of research and other contributions. We shouldn't assume that the optimal make up of any department or field will be equal numbers of men and women: our goal should be to ensure that men and women both are welcomed to pursue study and careers in any area they choose.

The October 17^th hearing was the first in a series. Hopefully the upcoming hearings will show more of a commitment to honest debate. It's foolhardy to jump straight to solutions without considering first if there's a problem and its nature. Let's hope that Congress gets back to the basics and takes a fresh, unbiased look at the subject at hand.

Allison Kasic is director of the R. Gaull Silberman Center for Collegiate Studies at the Independent Women's Forum.

Female vs. Male Coaches

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:37:00 EDT

Over at the USA Today, Christine Brennan laments that of the five candidates for the job of U.S. women's soccer coach, three candidates are men, while only two are women. Brennan is also concerned at the declining percentage of female coaches on intercollegiate women's teams. She suspects foul play.

But is it really so hard to imagine that, by and large, there is a larger pool of men who are coaches than women? Or that more men than would choose not just a career in sports, but one that places heavy demands on families through an extensive travel schedule? I don't think so.

To blame the disparity on discriminatory hiring practices doesn't hold water. In order to believe that line of thinking, you must accept that college administrators would support and foster women's athletics and then turn around and practice sex discrimination against their coaches. It simply doesn't add up.

Equal opportunity doesn't always result in equal results, and that's fine. Everything in life doesn't have to be 50/50. As long as the best coach is getting the job, teams should be happy, regardless of whether that coach is a man or a woman.

IWF Podcast: 35th Anniversary of Title IX

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:31:00 EDT

IWF's Charlotte Hays and Allison Kasic discuss the 35th anniversary of Title IX, the landmark legislation that banned sex discrimination in schools receiving federal funds. Looking back on 35 years of Title IX, where should the law go in the future? Is Title IX still necessary? Is reform to Title IX enforcement the answer? Find out the answers to these questions and more in this podcast.

The Debate Over Title IX

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:55:00 EDT

In a column for Sports Illustrated's website (SI.com) Jessica Gavora does a fabulous job of laying out the reality of the contemporary debate over Title IX. It all boils down to interest:

"Are women really as interested in sports as men? And if not, is it the responsibility of a college or university to create that interest?

"These are the questions at the heart of the controversy over Title IX today. On one side are some women's groups who claim it really doesn't matter if women are as interested in sports as men. It's up to colleges and universities to create that interest.

"On the other side are people such as myself, who believe that, in 2007, women are a dominant force on college campuses, they are given abundant opportunities to participate in sports and they know what they're interested in. We should let them decide."

Read more about the debate over Title IX and interest surveys here.

Title IX in High Schools

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:25:00 EDT

Jessica Gavora had a fabulous article over at NRO last week about how we must not allow Title IX's gender Quotas to enter our nation's high schools. Here's the situation:

"Title IX - the good parts, that is - has long and rightly been enforced in high schools. The law has protected high-school girls' right to equal athletic facilities with boys, their right to equivalent practice times and all the other uncontroversial indices of equality before the law.

"But the question of what constitutes sex discrimination under Title IX when it comes to participation in high-school sports has never been answered. And now the same coalition of activists, bureaucrats, and trial lawyers that brought us Title IX quotas in intercollegiate athletics is turning its attention to interscholastic athletics. And their version of what constitutes discrimination under Title IX is very specific and very narrow - anything less equal rates of participation by the sexes in athletics, even if that equality has to be achieved by limiting opportunities for boys."

And of all things, proponents are using obesity to push for quotas:

"...Title IX quota advocates are now using the catch-all excuse of the so-called "epidemic of obesity" as their rationale for forcing teenage boys out of the chance to play lacrosse. Their message: ‘Get your girls involved in sports; their lives depend on it!'"

So what exactly is the quota brigade pushing for?:

"At the center of the pro-quota activists' marching orders for Congress today is something called the "High School Sports Information Collection Act." It's modeled after the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA), which for a dozen years has forced colleges and universities to annually report their athletic participation and expenses - broken down by sex - to the feds. The EADA was meant to be, and is, a one-stop-shopping list for trial lawyers and activist groups looking for schools to sue for failing to meet the Title IX quota. Now, courtesy of Senators Olympia Snowe and Patty Murray, they are about to have the same litigation hit list of high schools."

We've seen the deleterious effects of Title IX at the university level and now we must stop the strict gender quotas from trickling down to the high school level. The problem is getting politicians to stand up to against harmful quotas. That is easier said than done. Nevertheless, the College Sports Council and Pacific Legal Foundation are trying. Last week they called on the Department of Education to clarify how Title IX is to be enforced at the high school level:

"‘The Department of Education has an obligation to provide clear and unambiguous guidelines for Title IX compliance at the scholastic level. Their failure to act will allow gender quota advocates to advance their own version of Title IX compliance,' said Eric Pearson, Chairman of the CSC. ‘If proportionality would be applied today at the High School level, you'd have to eliminate over one million boys from teams to get a 50/50 gender ratio, and nobody wants to see that happen. It would create the largest quota system ever imposed by government in the United States.'"

More details here.

Title IX on Newsweek.com

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 21 May 2007 10:27:00 EDT

Newsweek has a great web-exclusive interview on Title IX with Jessica Gavora of the College Sports Council. It's a great overview of the problems with Title IX enforcement. (Also, note the fabulous picture from the Title IX reform rally that IWF sponsored with the CSC last November)
Check out the interview here.

Title IX Debate in USA Today

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 09 May 2007 13:25:00 EDT

Earlier this week, USA Today featured two opposing op-eds on the need for Title IX reform. In the pro-reform piece, Larry Joseph makes an excellent point about those cases where money is a deciding factor in cutting teams:

"Even when schools cut teams for purely financial reasons, proportionality exacerbates the cuts and targets men and small-roster women’s teams. And schools often refuse alumni offers fully to endow teams cut for 'financial' reasons. The proportionality requirement is to blame, and its repeal is essential to equity and athletics."

Check out his whole article here.

The Face of Title IX

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 04 May 2007 11:40:00 EDT

Roanoke.com has a feature on some of the athletes who are victims of the recent Title IX cuts at James Madison University.

Give it a read here.

Is the tide turning?

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 02 May 2007 13:08:00 EDT

Fresh off the heels of the USA Today story we talked about a lot here on Inkwell, National Public Radio had a segment on Title IX reform. It's great to see news outlets finally talking about Title IX reform.

You can check out the audio here.

One News Now: Women's group cites need for Title IX reform

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:04:00 EDT

Several universities recently announced they were cutting some of their sports teams in order to comply with the federal law banning sex discrimination in schools that receive federal funding. Among other things, the law requires that number of male and female athletes at a school mirror its percentage of male and female enrollment. One school making Title IX cuts is James Madison University, which is dropping seven men's and three women's teams.

Alison Kasic, campus director for the Independent Women's Forum (IWF), says Title IX is often used as a weapon against men's sports teams to promote so-called "gender equity." She feels that JMU's decision to cut the men's track team but not the women's track team carries with it some ramifications that are not being taken into account.

"[W]ho are some of the most outraged people about this? The women's track team," she explains. "These women, a lot of times, train with the male athletes, they're friends with them, they compete with them. So to think that the women's team doesn't have any ill effects because the men's team gets cut -- I think that's sort of missing the big picture."

Kasic says Title IX places a large strain on the athletic departments of schools like James Madison, which is historically a nursing school and has a 61 percent female enrollment. She believes there is currently no fairness or equality in Title IX enforcement -- which is why she is calling for reform.

"It would be great if Congress could revisit this issue and try to come up with something that is just commonsense reform that restores equality of both sexes under Title IX, rather than what so oftentimes [happens]," says the IWF spokeswoman. "Title IX is ... not even providing that many positive things for female athletes. I think that's not good for either men or women, and we should be able to do much better than that."

Kasic says by making Title IX cuts, schools lose both academically and athletically because morale in the campus athletic community is dampened and promising student athletes transfer to other universities.

Donna Lopiano of the Women's Sports Foundation Knows All

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:03:00 EDT

Thanks, Allison, for highlighting the unbelievable article in USA Today on Title IX and JMU. What struck me most was just how dismissive Donna Lopiano is of everyone else's explanations and opinions. The JMU athletic director offers his rational for why the school felt compelled to make these cuts:

"We did not feel in a position to add" teams to satisfy the second or third tests, Bourne says, because JMU already had 28 teams --13 men's and 15 women's. Few schools sponsor that many outside of Ohio State and Stanford (which have budgets that dwarf JMU's) and the Ivy League (which offers no athletic scholarships).
"We looked at the three prongs of Title IX, and we were not in compliance under any," Bourne says. "We had no defense and we felt the most prudent action was to devise a plan that would put us in compliance with the first prong."

Lopiano dismisses this explanation though -- she obviously has a much better idea of what motivated the decision than those who were actually involved in making it. Just like she knows that a female student athlete who wants Title IX reform is "brainwashed." I'd call her dismissal of student athlete, Jennifer Chapman, flat out sexist, but I suppose since she is just as condesending to the male athletic director, so she is really an equal opportunity know it all.

It is a very telling look at the hubris of the self-proclaimed gender police at organizations like WSF.

Tales in Title IX

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:40:00 EDT

This morning USA Today has an important article on the massive Title IX cuts at James Madison University that we've been covering since September.

One of the ten teams cut at JMU was men's track. This weekend's track meet will be the last of the season for the women's team and the last ever for the men's team. It's no surprise that the biggest supporters of the men's team have been the women's team -- they train together, compete together, and support each other. Our rally for Title IX reform outside of the Department of Education in November had strong support from female athletes at JMU. One of the speakers at the rally was Jennifer Chapman, a senior on JMU's track and cross country teams. Chapman has been one of the leading voices for Title IX reform throughout this ordeal:

"'Times change, and you adapt to those changes. And if more women are going to college than men, and males want to participate in sports, why would we say no? That doesn't make sense.'

"She says her epiphany came Sept. 29 as the men's and women's cross country teams boarded a bus for the ride home from a race in Pennsylvania. An athletics administrator read a prepared statement: Ten teams-- including men's cross country but not women's-- would be gone by summer.

"'The guys' team started crying,' Chapman says. 'Then the girls cried, too. Girls might cry after a race if they don't do well or they're in pain. But we had never seen a boy cry. It hit us really hard.

"'And I thought: "We have to do something. There's no reason guys should feel like this."'"

So, what does someone like Donna Lopiano, CEO of the Women's Sports Foundation, think of Chapman and the rest of the gang that are fighting back against the JMU cuts? "They've been brainwashed."

How dare someone disagree with Lopiano! Surely she can't think for herself. She must be brainwashed! All the athletes must be brainwashed!

What a sexist notion -- that all women must think the same on this issue, or any issue. For a group that claims to represent women in sports, it simply doesn't make sense that Donna Lopiano and the gang at WSF don't understand why female athletes would be vocal supporters of common sense reform in Title IX enforcement that would restore the original spirit of the law and be fair to both sexes. Instead WSF is content to continue to use Title IX as a weapon against male athletes in the name of "gender equity."

But Lopiano isn't just content to call a group of smart and talented students brainwashed, she feels the need to spread disinformation throughout the entire article (take your pick of her many quotes), my favorite of which is this:

"The primary motivation" [for the cuts at JMU], she says, "had to be that they wanted to shift money into football and men's basketball."

So many things wrong with that statement. 1) The ten cut teams represent $550,000 in a budget of over 21 million. Small potatoes. JMU easily could have raised that money (or made cuts elsewhere) and saved the teams, thus saving themselves a ton of negative attention from national media outlets. They could have done that if there weren't other pressures on the school to cut the teams, primarily Title IX's proportionality requirement. Even if JMU had raised the money and kept those teams, they still would have been in violation of Title IX -- so money, in this case, was not a deciding factor. 2) The $550,000 will be reinvested into scholarships in the remaining women's sports. None will go to football or men's basketball. Lopiano's response? "I'll believe it when I see it."

I guess some people just like conspiracy theories. Check out the article here.