A Chipper's Eye View: On A Grey, Stromy Cloud IX

[ChipperF1]

The following is my opinion based on what I've read, covered, and argued. Feel free to answer, support or oppose, all I ask is that you do it on the merits of the arguements themselves and not resort of lowball name-calling or other personal cheap shots. This issue has had enough of 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 educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

No. 1: proportionality. Defined as having a ratio of opportunties for athletic competition for men and women approximating the ratio of men and women on campus.

No. 2: consistent improvement in the number of teams and opportunities for women.

No. 3: An effort to meet the interest and abilities of the underrepresented sex -- usually women -- with athletic opportunities.

Over the weekend I took in a show at the Bushnell. It's a posh intimate theatre in Downtown Hartford, Connecticut. It wasn't a drama or comedy or avant garde faire, but it had elements of all three.

It was ESPN's big womens sports weekend attempt to mimic "Crossfire" (and as a fan of "Crossfire" I will say that Nancy Hogshead and Jessica Gavora would be a lot more entertaining than the duo of Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.)

Anyway, the Battle at The Bushnell involved Title IX. That beautiful piece of Washington handywork that insures that wannabe Mia Hamms get the same opportunities as wannabe Kobe Bryants.

I like Title IX. I have people near and dear to my heart who have benefitted, in part, because to it. When the Lord blesses me with children someday, and should those children be female they'll have the opportunity to pursue what they will. They'll have a dad who will back them, and they'll have solid legal recourse backing the both of us.

To me the whole issue is lost in rheteric and political agendas on both sides of the aisle. You have the feminist stormtroopers on one side, who are engaging in a scorched-earth policy and on the other side you have the popular, intractible turn-the-clock-back right wing. Neither of these factions in my view give a rip about these young people who are hitting the fields in our country.

Title IX needs change. It needs a change in focus and in interpretation. But that change isn't necessarily one for the courts to decide. The real battle for change has to come from individual athletic departments and institutions of higher learning in this country. The real battles have to continue to be fought and the compromises and cooperation have to continue to come from the grassroots. It was the grassroots that gave us this law in the first place.

During the discussion, carried live from Maine to Maui, the most interesting people on the panel where Nancy Hogshead and Jessica Gavora. Hogshead is an Olympic Champion-turned Title IX lawyer. Gavora is a conservative speechwriter, author, and policy advisor to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. (Chipper's Book Plug...Get Gavora's book "Tilting the Playing Field: Schools, Sports, Sex and Title IX" It is slightly tinged from the right, but it is a very scholarly, procedural look at the history of Title IX. I am reading it now, and it is a fascinating case study.)

Both are stuck on the legal recourses and responsibilities, but what of the responsibility of the schools? Much of the interpretation problem lies with individual instutions.

When programs that have produced excellence in athletics can be cut (like Miami, Florida diving and USC Gymnastics), when programs that have built national champion caliber teams and athletes can be threatened (Wichita State Baseball's been on the block for years), when Olympic sports can be targetted at will (the loss of Track and Field and Wrestling at many schools, including my alma mater which killed Track for both men and women.) It is more of a sign of expediency and a lack of fortitude than any other failure.

The problem with institutional handling of Title IX is threefold.

1. Lack of cohesion among schools, athletic departments and national governing bodies for athletics.
2. Lack of compromise.
3. Overreliance on government-borne solutions.

One of the most telling moments of the hour was the head gymnastics coach at University of Massachusetts, Roy Johnson. He had the question of the night, and true to pundit form no one answered it.

He was discussing how the decisions to cut athletics because of Title IX mandates will effect U.S. Olympic efforts in the future, and that falls right in with problems #1 and #2.
At the beginning of Title IX in the 1970s, the NCAA, the United States Olympic Committee, the Amateur Athletic Union and the separate national governing bodies had a closer working relationship than they do now. In the past, the colleges where were the Olympic team came from in many sports. Even with the advent of greater professionalism within Olympic sports, there is still a fertile development ground in our nation's colleges and universities.
In 1984, a U.S. mens gymnastics team made up of athletes built from the college ranks beat two of the best teams in the world and won a gold medal doing it.
In 2000, the U.S. men were 100% uncompetitive, partly because of culling of the last 15 years and much of it due to the "excuse of Title IX".

Notice, I am NOT blaming Title IX. I loathe the "excuse of Title IX".

When college athletic directors bemoan Title IX, 99% of the time it is a bad excuse and it doesn't hold water. And in this scenario it really doesn't hold water. This is were we need cohesion. I agree with Coach Johnson. The NCAA, the USOC and the individual national governing bodies need to come together and build a framework, and bring our national Olympic sponsors in on it, and bring in interested parties who have solutions as well.

Secondly, we have to have compromise, or more accurately

"For Title IX to work, all parties must take a hit. And that "hit" doesn't necessarily mean giving something up.

This is something that an old Title IX sufferagette told me a few years ago. She was the assistant AD at University of Nebraska-Omaha, and she built womens athletics at the school back when it was just dear ol' Omaha University.

She started from an office in a corrugated quonset hut, but it grew quickly from there. She had an administration that was serious about it, but there where fights at the start. She had a mandate to create sports and scare resources. For the first few year, she ran the bus and coach every team, heck even drove the team bus (she also won a National Championship along the way.. 1975 AIAW Softball.)

She also beat the bushes and found funding on her own. That was another thing she told me, "When you are walking into a poker game ALWAYS BRING MONEY."

UNO womens athletics has grown every year, although the school did have to cut a sport in the 1980s (Mens Track, although there is talk of comeback by 2005), but that was more due to the school's sorry financial situation and a number of cuts dealt to higher education by the state and federal governments at the time.
Since then, UNO has added 5 sports. Mens hockey, which it turn built womens soccer, golf, swimming, and tennis, plus the school under Title IX can add another mens sport (Track seems to the be the leader if the funding can get into line).
A perfect solution? No, but it is a solution that is working, and all those sports are well funded, athletes are not going without and was done through a lot of work and compromise. All those was done at a school with maybe a 1/4 of the resources as the number of BCS universities peddling endless crocodile tears.

The point? Forward thinking.

Another fine example? Stanford. I tip my stetson to the folks in Palo Alto, because they took the challenge seriously. Every national championship in every sport, you see that deep Crimson and White of Stanford in the hunt.
The fact that they own the Sears Director's Cup is not an accident. They might as well quit awarding the thing and call it the Stanford Perpetual Trophy, because when you see the funding and the committment those folks make to athletics and insuring that all sides of the equation get the tools they need to be successful, nobody else is matching that, although every school with a little bit of fortitude and work could.

This leads to #3. Title IX is a federal law, but like any law intrepretation is everything, and in this case too many schools and activists are looking to slug it out in Congress and in courtroom, and in my mind that is worst arena figure this out in.
We're looking to Congress to figure things out? The only thing those 535 varied pimp and prositutes can do is raise their own salaries, grandstand and take campaign contributions. You'll spend an entire athletic budget just trying to lobby these people, and the only winners are their reelection campaigns, and the special interests lookie-loos that support them.
We've had myriad court cases on Title IX in 30 years, and every few years somebody's going back to court on both sides, and every few years we are back to same old entrenchment, and the only winners? The lawyers.

The legal route should be a last resort. A tactical nuclear weapon used only when all other means have failed. In the 1970s, all other means often failed but they were tried. Now, all other means are not even being tried by both sides.
When I look at the current Marquette law suit, while I support it in principle, it is saddening that so many schools are not willing to hammer it out and make some compromises.

And now we come to the "What Solutions do you have" part of program http://hoopscoop.net/ubb/wink.gif

I make it a rule never to whine without bringing a tear-wiping hanky. Here's my solution, if I was the guy who had make the decisions.

1. Football I'd push for a version of the old NCAA "60-rule" except mine would be the "85-rule"
Intercollegiate Football teams shall be limited to no more than 85 partcipants and 60 scholarships at the Division I-A and I-AA levels. Division II will have the same participation limit and their present 36 scholarship level.

Now inside the schools. The following reform MUST be instituted. End the "extra spending". I.e....Not quartering at hotel during home games (If a kid can't keep his nose clean at home the night before a ballgame, I'd have serious reservations on whether I'd want the kid playing for me.)

2. "God bless the child that has his own": I would make it rule within a university athletic department, that proof of outside funding sources are a prerequisite for any help from the department coffers. Matching, if you will. And if a program come up with such funding, we should make it an iron-clad rule that we will NOT CUT THEM. If my Wrestling team is handing me a check for their operating resources, why am I cutting them? If my womens lacrosse team is doing the same thing? why am I cutting them?
In my mind, that is problem with many schools right now. I don't believe Kansas State, for example, wants to not fund the women. I look at KSU womens basketball and womens track and see a gold mine of future success, but its takes time and takes funding and this is the first real period that Manhattan has seen some real funding for athletics. Keep hustling and the numbers will fall into line.
That is a pet peeve I have with some people on the National Womens Law Center side of the issue. They see just the numbers, but not the story behind the numbers. Rather than send a lot of nastygrams NWLC, how about also offering to come in and lend some expertises. Again, forward thinking.

3. They are three prongs to Title IX, not just proportionality. Lets gear athletic budgeting to hitting all these prongs. This as been the Nebraska approach, and it works.

Okay, we can't add a team, but we can add more to a conditioning staff for example (Nebraska did that in turn built a strength and conditioning program that the rest of nation studies and copies). We can bolster scholarships to existing teams, and strengthen facilities used and shared by a number of athletes.

Or perhaps, we can add a team. Fine! The point is, lets looks at all three prongs of the equation. I have found that the schools that do look at the total picture, tend to come up with workable solutions, and the schools that continue to fight the "zero-sum" attrition war of proportionality end up losing.

Oh, speaking of "zero-sum"..

4. We must end our slavery to "zero-sum" thinking. The concept that for me to get, I must take from you must go the way of the dodo, because it is archaic thinking and in the case of the school athletic department or any organization, its outmoded because it can't exist without damaging the orgaization.

This is not a clarion call from redistrubtion of wealth. It is a call for a belief that goes back to what the ol' athletic director I cited earlier said, "Everybody has to take a hit." and the converse of that, "When I rise, everybody can rise."

When a school gets sued due to Title IX. The entire school loses. You have pay someone to fight it. You take a prestidge and which in turn means, you'll take a hit in admissions, and that back to your bottom line. PLUS, the boys and girls in Washington will hit you, too, because remember, Title IX is the law of the land! When you break the law, you will pay.

I'd rather take a little hit now, and have to do some more work to build new opportunities and do it our way, then have Great White Father in Washington come in, impose their solution and end up with less.

5. We need administrators in colleges who are willing to do this, if necessary:

University president Chipper, well dressed in a conservative suit and power tie has called the entire athletic department to his home for a meeting. Two weeks ago, Chipper State University was found on the National Womens Law Center watch list for noncompliance to Title IX. Needless to say, president Chipper is very embarassed. Especially given the mandates he has placed on his university in areas of cultural and administrative diversity, enhancement of undergraduate offerings, and enhanced opportunities in all fields of study for which athletics is a part.

"Good morning, people." Chipper said. "I'm glad you could come up for breakfast. I wish it was under more pleasant circumstances."
"People, my problem is this NWLC nastygram I got. My problem is this threatened Title IX lawsuit from a group of women representing the womens soccer team here about facilities. My problem is with CSU wrestling being threatened out of expedience. Didn't the Fighting Chippers finish 8th at the NCAAs this year?? And what is this about not being able to add to our training and conditioning staff. And why exactly did the Fighting Chipper's football team lose money on our trip to the Poulan Weed Eater Bowl this year?"

"When I came in as President, I said that I would let the athletic department do its work as long as it was enhancing the total program of Chipper State University. Obvious Lassiez-Faire was not a good approach.

"Ladies and gentlemen. I don't need to tell you that Title IX is the law of the land. I may not be in total agreement with some parts of it, but I believe in its tennents and I believe that resource to meet the mission."

"Obviously we need a perestroika in our athletic effort. I want a plan fully endorsed by the athletic directorship and every head coach in this department that will get in compliance and will defuse all these law suits in one month. It must be something that everyone will sign onto. And I want it done WITHOUT cancelling a single student-athlete or without diminishing the support program we have put in place to benefit all student-athletes. In short I'd suggest you be prepared to give up something.

"If I don't see a plan fully endorsed by you all on my desk in one month? No problem. I'll give you more time. But know this. UNTIL A PLAN GETS ON MY DESK AND IS IMPLEMENTED NOT A SINGLE CHIPPER STATE UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC TEAM WILL COMPETE, PERIOD. And I have tickets for our football opener against Miami, Florida in September, It would pain me to forfeit that game. Our volleyball team opens with Stanford this year. Little ol' us getting to play the national champs? WOW! I'd hate to call that game off. But enough is enough!
"The clocks running and you all have a gun to your head. Good day, and I'll see you in a month.

I know, #5 may will never happen. But a guy can dream can't he?

Ultimately, this is all about dreams. Would we want the dreams of any of our kids deferred or denied? No, and I don't think anyone does. When we see our varied Big 12 teams play, would you even think of denying these kids that chance to play? I don't think a person on this board would.

There have been some who say, "Who cares if some men get denied." or some who say "Who cares about women getting to play."

I care.

I care as a youth coach. I care as a sports journalist, and I care as a fan.

I care when my little cousin India is told, "you are to blame for boys not getting to play."
I care when my little cousin Devan is told, "you may not get to play baseball in college because those girls will kill it because of their Title IX."

I care when schools say, "Title IX is the cause of our problem, because they are gobbling up the resources" when they just signed a new multimillion television or shoe deal.

I care when I see a Cael Sanderson doing some amazing things on a mat, then having to think that there may be fewer of him to come because of backward zero-sum thinking.

I care when I look into the faces of the kids I have coached and the joy they all have, and when I see the kids I've coached now getting college scholarships, boys and girls, and see the great promise that is the fundamental thing about this beautiful country.

Much of what I heard on Saturday night was the same old entrenchment, and its runs contra to spirit of this law, its intent and to the fabric of our national character itself.










[This message has been edited by ChipperF1 (edited 06-24-2002).]

[This message has been edited by ChipperF1 (edited 06-24-2002).]

[This message has been edited by ChipperF1 (edited 06-24-2002).]

[This message has been edited by ChipperF1 (edited 06-24-2002).]

[elfdenmom]

Now THAT is an excellent implementation of Title IX!

[YCN]

Chipper, I think we basically agree on the tenets of Title IX, but I would take a slightly different approach as president of YCNSU.

"My fellow alumni, students and friends, we are currently engaged in a difficult struggle against a foe that can't be seen; but that enemy could bring our entire athletic department and the credibility of our university under question for its credibility - or even threaten our existence as an institution of higher education.

The struggle has more to do with the past than the present, and nothing to do with the future. In the future all of our athletic programs will be no more or less successful than the success of our university as a whole. Should we, as a university, fail to produce quality graduates out of as many of our attendees as we possibly can; should we fail to recognize that the health of the whole is related to the health of each and every part; should we deny the inevitability that all persons must be addressed in equal measure - athlete or scholar, or scholar-athlete - then we will fail in our task, in our duty.

It is simply-known history of this United States that we sometimes have movements; great movements of righteousness that ultimately achieve their primary goal, that of the recognition of the rights of the oppressed; by the passing by the States of a Constitutional Amendment, perhaps the rarest of political expressions of unity within our country.

And it is equally a known fact of history that after the initial glow of success those movements have dissipated - satisfied in their knowledge that they had changed their times - and after that dissipation the Amendments that were produced were steadfastly ignored by a judiciary and public far behind the thinking of those forward ramparts of democracy.

Such was the case with Constitutional Abolishment of Slavery, and with Suffrage, and with the affirmation of equal rights for all persons within our body politic.

We have reached the point that every thoughtful person within our country in principle agrees that all persons should not be denied the opportunity of equal attainment, depending entirely upon their personal desire, commitment, honesty, integrity, and other factors which cannot be measured by law.

And it is at this point that we have reached the current challenge presented so boldly by the United States Supreme Court: that although Constitutionally guaranteed, the rights, in particular of women in athletics, have been largely denied; that an ingrained and pervasive culture of inequal support for men's athletics over women's had become so persavive across society that this action became necessary; action necessary in order to guard the intent and spirit of the Constitution.

So how do we deal with this as an institution? Do we duck our heads into the sand and cry out our innocence? I think not, as every signpost indicates that YCNSU has been as guilty of this blatantly unfair bias, regardless of whether or not it had been invisible by basis of simply being out of our consciousness or clear knowledge. Had we been stronger advocates - more foreward-thinking advocates - of the rules and requirements of our democracy, this situation would not have occurred at all!

And at this point in our development as a university and as an American culture at large - there simply cannot be any denial, as we cannot go back - this is what must be done:

1. We must first and foremost recognize that it is to the greater benefit of our our university and our society as a whole that equal support, within not just the letter but the spirit of the law, must be provided to all of our athletes.

2. That this support must not be to the detriment of any athlete, nor any student in attendance at our university.

It is well-recognized that certain sports are vital to the financial support of our endeavor in athletics at large; and that these sports consist most primarily at this time of our football athletics team - by far our greatest current source of revenue and other external income in support of our overall athletic programs, and a great source of pride for our university; our men's basketball athletics team - which is currently in a resurgence to a golden era that perhaps we have not seen before; and to a lesser extent, our women's basketball athletics program - now in an extraordinary period of growth and national prominence never experienced before.

These are the rock-hard bases of our revenue success. All other sports currently sponsored by this university are either barely breaking even or are losing money, some of them substantial amounts.

But revenue earnings are not in the least considered within the mandate of Title IX, and within the spirit of the law, it is even less so; so all athletes, male or female must be supported as long as we have the ability to do so.

To fail to support our athletes - all of them - is a failure of dramatic consequence to our university at large. It either reflects the apathy or the inability or the refusal of our funders (or the lack of accountability of our supervisors) to fail to create an environment where our athletes can flourish and attain their goals.

And this must not be at the expense of those non-athletes who chose to attend this great university.

Some underlying factors are at hand:

Since primary internal funding of this university is from our great state, which is bound by Constitutional law to uphold the laws of the land;

Since secondary internal funding of this university is from our federal government, which is absolutely prohibited from abrogating the responsibility to abide by the Constitutionality of Its Laws;

Since very significant external support for this university is derived from corporate sources who desire first and foremost that our university provides them with qualified applicants for their employment; and that even more support is derived from alumni and allies of this great university; whose support is quite diffuse, but whose enthusiasm for this university is unquestionably based our both our athletic and academic success, and their previous and subsequent pride of what all this means: pride in fairness, pride in achievement, pride in the glory of knowing that we are striving to be at the forefront of the advancement of mankind;

That within the spirit of all that has been said before, it is necessary to define clearly the next steps which must be taken, which we be defined now:

1. This university shall strive in every way never - ever - to diminish the opportunity of any person, athlete or non-athlete, attendee or non-attendee, American or foreign; and all such subdivisions as may exist within the society of our world.

2. That in order to advance that goal, the primary decision-making criteria is and will be the improvement of opportunity for all persons touched by the reach of this institution.

3. That we can no longer allow persons to dictate through power of donation the direction of our goal - that it is now made clear that the university shall be the ultimate decider of all that is right for this school - and that those who try to subvert this goal through power or other influence shall not be considered as friends of this institution, and may face the real threat of being sanctioned from further contact with us.

4. That all approved endeavors of this university shall be considered equally important to the university; just as prejudicial approval should be assumed to be a measure of expectation of failure or success, and therefore wrong.

5. And that in order to implement the goals stated above, the following measures shall be taken:

a. It is recognized that those donors whose contributions reflect their pride in the university, as well as the success of their favorite athletics team or teams, shall not be denied the opportunity of guaranteed funding of that or those teams; but that no guarantee will be made that more than 25% of those contributed funds can be assured to be allocated to the team or teams favored by the donor.

b. That is will be expicitly understood that donations that are conditioned upon a refutiation or denial of the previously expressed goals of this institution shall be refused on the basis that favoritism of the powerful by necessity must be at the expense of those who may be equally fervent, but who do not possess the means to monetarily match those of the affluent.

c. And that upon this basis, this university shall proceed to the future, confident that it is right, and immune from any controversy to present itself in the future regarding such subjects.

Thank you for you attentiveness to this rather lengthy but important speech."

(That's how I would do it.)


[This message has been edited by YCN (edited 06-24-2002).]

[KSUron]

First let me ask a simple question. What do you think is the real cost of the extra 15 or so women's scholarships KSU needs to award? Certainly NOT the face or list value of the class hours the students will attend even though thats what the accounting will show. In a university the size of KSU do you think its likely they will have to add one more professor? Will they have to heat or cool an extra classroom? You get the point. Most of the time there is some silly aplication of bookkeeping going on when the costs are figured. The truth is often the prestige and marketing value of a sport to a school goes a long way to offsetting any real out of pocket costs.

I see the same kind of flawed thinking in healthcare. Everyone including those in the hospital industry seem to focus on misleading numbers. They seem to assume that since the average hospital cost per patient day is X that means if a patient stays an extra day the cost is X. Pure fantasy! The actual cost of the extra day to the hospital is often only "hotel" type costs. A little extra laundry, a little extra food, a few more medications, a little extra nursing time and so forth. The heavy cost is packed into the first few hours or the first day. That's when the most costly diagnostic testing is done. Thats when surgery is done and so forth. Each following day of stay is less costly to the hospital.

In a university the real marginal cost of adding an extra student has got to be close to nothing. Jennifer could tell you that Stataticians don't lie but stats used by the self serving or the only partly informed do. What does any of this have to do with title IX. A lot of the economic wailing and nashing of teeth is also "Pure fantasy".

There is a story told about a young army private who observed that the "officers must think that making love to their wives is more pleasure than work or they would have us do it for them". Do you think most every college president in the country has athletic programs out of a strong belief in physical fittness or some such, or do you think they have sports because on balance it benefits their institutions? If its the latter, I think you are entitled to look with a bit of a jundiced eye at claims of economic disaster if they have to support womens sports. The only problem is they may think only some sports will benefit the university and that does not include women's sports. As title IX forces women's sports to be funded and supported that idea will continue to be shown up as silly and wrong headed. Do you think 13,477 fans in Bramlege for a regular season WBB game did not benefit KSU way beyond the ticket sales and other direct economic benefit? How about the highly successful Vollyball team. How about even the NCAA 5th place women's track team with very little direct ticket sales? Darn right KSU benefits in the minds of little boys and girls who now want to go to K-State. It benefits in the minds of donors and university supporters and it benefits in the minds of the legislature who honored the teams and sent messages to the Coach Patterson to stay. That's the same legislature who represents the people of Kansas and votes on the higher education budget.

The point is folks, that if you are opposed to something any stupid argument will do. If you are ambivalent you may believe any stupid argument. If you support equality you can defeat stupid arguments and deal effectively with the few real issues that have to be overcome.

Second, don't think for a minute that title IX was not needed or is not needed. Let me give you another healthcare example. Most any administrator I know wants to do the right thing, but both the definition of what the right thing is, and doing it are easier if rules and regulations are in place. I don't have to argue with anyone about spending big bucks on non-revenue generating assets like fire alarm systems or fire sprinklers. Its not debatable. Its required. I'd love to think that every hospital would have those things even if they were not required, but history tells us otherwise. You can find countless examples in any industry and universities are no different. Even though I can say with confidence that KSU is working to get into compliance with title IX, if it were not needed they would already BE in compliance.

Chipper would likely consider me a right wing conservative but on this issue he and I would be allies and I would gladly serve President ChipperF1 as his AD at Chipper State while we enforced equal standards for women and men. Opportunity and athletics are good for men, AND they are good for women too. If a few eggs get broken to make this omlet, so be it. We will get over it and wonder what the heck the debate was about. The rightness of equality in this area will become self evident "common sense".