Title IX College Athletics (Part 5)

The results show clearly that women are still not receiving an equal opportunity in sports like their male counterparts 33 years after the passage of Title IX in 80 percent of all schools and colleges.

They are still not practicing the law that prohibits sex discrimination in athletic programs. Females make up 54 percent of the student body, yet they only received 36 percent sports operating dollars, 42 percent college athletic scholarship dollars, and 32 percent athletic team recruitment spending. Male athletes receive $133 million more athletic scholarship dollars than female athletes each year. Clearly Title IX laws are working to bridge the gender gap, but much work is still to be done. Seventy-nine percent of the American public supports Title IX, the law that prohibits schools and colleges from discriminating on the basis of sex (Harter 2003).

Negative Aspects of Title IX

It is clear that women’s sports are growing at the expense of male sports. From 1992–1997 approximately 5,800 female athletes have been added to sports teams. During that same period over 20,000 male athletes were cut (Hoornstra 2002). While female athletes have gained a little, male athletes have lost a lot. Everyone agrees that Title IX was never intended to limit the opportunities of one sex, yet the law is interpreted at the collegiate level as male athletes must make way for female athletes.

Between 1981 and 1999, NCAA institutions have eliminated 40 percent of their wrestling teams. Most cited Title IX for the reason the program was cut. While many programs have been cut, Title IX laws have provided more opportunities for female athletes.

Many argue that Title IX has paved the way for female stars, such as women’s soccer star Mia Hamm and basketball star Lisa Leslie. What people fail to mention is that at the 2000 Olympics in Australia, U.S. freestyle wrestlers failed to win a single gold medal for the first time since 1968 (Gardner 2001). Although there have been gains in women’s sports, it is clear that male athletes are suffering because of it.

This paper is in 10 parts. This is part 6.

Part 1: Unfortunately, I had my scholarship, as well as my fellow male teammates’ scholarships, cut at Nicholls State University so that the athletic program would be NCAA Title IX compliant.

Part 2: Nearly every educational institution is a recipient of federal funds and, thus, is required to comply with Title IX (NCAA 2005).

Part 3: According to NCAA.org, athletics programs are considered educational programs and activities.

Part 4: Since Title IX’s inception in 1972, women and girls have made great strides in obtaining gender equity not only in the classroom but also on the playing field.

Part 5: There is nothing in Title IX or its policies that requires schools to cut or reduce men’s opportunities in order to be Title IX compliant.

Part 6: The results show clearly that women are still not receiving an equal opportunity like their male counterparts.

Part 7: Women’s rowing provided athletic directors an opportunity to help to try and save male programs.

Part 8: Many other universities face a dilemma when economic reality and Title IX collide head-on.

Part 9: There has been much protest over the elimination of men’s teams over the years that has seen many cases in the courts.

Part 10: The law should be changed to limit football programs’ overbearing influence within Title IX restrictions.

Gain Exposure. Get Recruited.