|
Volume CXXXII, Number 14 |
 |
An end to Title IX? An end to equality
J.P. BOX
COLUMNIST
Too often we look at sports as if they existed outside society-as if they were a separate entity untouched by the economic, political, and social climate found in other dominant American institutions. The current controversy surrounding Title IX and the simmering debate over Proposition 48 is not solely the concern of college athletes, students, professors, or university administrators.
Something larger than sports has taken control of our society and has trickled down to the athletic playing field. If we are to respond to the recent challenges made against equality of race and gender, then we must first realize that the battle is not isolated to the sports arena.
After years of liberal-minded reform, the conservative counter reaction is in full gear, threatening to halt the positive progress that our country has made in race and gender relations since the 1960s.
Additionally, the September 11th terrorist attacks along with the imminent war against Iraq have caused Americans to feel vulnerable and uncertain of their position in the world. Alarmingly, we have become regressive, instead of progressive. In our increasingly unstable world, we turn to traditions, but in doing so we abandon our future dreams.
Like a snake in the grass, this conservative political and social climate has been crept into the world of sports with the intent to make the world a safer and more secure place for white males-lucky me!
Take Proposition 48. Since 1984, this NCAA proposition assured that thousands of high school athletes could not accept athletic scholarships if they did not exceed or meet 700 on the SATs and maintain a 2.0 G.P.A. Not coincidentally, the majority of the "Proposition 48 casualties" is African Americans who represent a disproportionate percentage of the lower class. They are punished for living in poverty and for attending inadequate public schools.
With a portion of the lower class already excluded from participation in athletics (not to mention the chance to attain a college degree), the NCAA may also see fewer women participating athletically in the near future.
In 1972, Title IX of the Educational Amendments was pushed into law to promote and protect the rights of collegiate women athletes. According to this law, government-funded college athletic programs must prove that a "substantial proportionality" exists between men and women on sports teams.
Thirty-one years later, the future of Title IX is in serious doubt. By the end of February, the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education is expected to call for a less vigorous enforcement system of the law.
Critics of Title IX would have you believe that the amendment discriminates unfairly against male athletes. They contend that it forces universities to cut programs for men in order to comply with the coercive law. In other words, the government is favoring women over men - and that ain't American!
A closer look at Title IX will show that less stringent enforcement is not needed. According to sociologist John Weistart, as of 1997 only 36 of the top 300 college programs operated in compliance with the regulation.What does the Office of Civil Rights hope to achieve by further weakening an already weak amendment? Perhaps only a dozen schools will actually be in full compliance with the "law."
The office could force schools to make budgetary restrictions on the money-hungry sports like football and basketball. At the big-time universities, for every dollar spent on revenue-making sports (like football and basketball), only five to seven cents are spent on nonrevenue sports. Would the football program collapse if they got 75 cents instead?
However, the office will not ask universities to create a more equitable operating budget. On the contrary, they will allow athletic administrators to use the excuse that equality for women means loss of sports for men. Meanwhile, the statistics show that Title IX never offered equality in terms of funding or enforcement.
What Title IX offered was an opportunity for women to enter athletics at the high school and collegiate levels. In an article entitled "The Joy of Women's Sports," Ruth Conniff declares, "It has been my generation's good fortune to grow up in the era of Title IX."
When the amendment passed in 1972, only one of 27 high school girls played a sport. As of 1998, that ratio jumped to one out of every three. It would be cruel to close the window on women's sports just after Title IX helped to crack it open.
Women are not invading the sporting world-they have just entered into it! It would be naïve to assume that their presence would not drastically reshape athletics at the college level. Instead of male athletes dominating the budgetary pie, they were forced to share the joy of athletics for the first time in 1972. Will the country let them off the hook in 2003?
It is incumbent upon university administrators to plan a budget that would provide the necessary funding for a host of male and female sports teams. Or, the Office of Civil Rights could release a report arguing for less strict enforcement of Title IX.
One out of every three high school girls would be crushed. But, honestly, who's counting?
|
FastCounter by bCentral |