INDEPENDENT WOMAN’S FORUM
P.O. Box 3058
Arlington, VA 22203-0058
Tel: 703-558-4991
Fax: 703-558-4994
Email: iwf@iwf.org
Title IX Athletics
Issue In-Depth
Background and Analysis of Government
Policy Governing Sports in Schools



Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 prohibits sex
discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal
financial assistance.
Policies developed and enforced by the Department of Education allow
for discrimination against male athletes, which has led to widespread
destruction in men’s collegiate sports.
These policies should be changed to reflect actual levels of interest in
athletics by all students, regardless of sex.
Prepared by Kimberly Schuld
June 2000
Table Of Contents
Why would a Women’s Group Complain About Title IX?
3
What is Title IX?
4
Background: An Athletics Policy Meltdown
5
Identifying the Problems
10
The Interest Level Problem
 College Students
 High School Students
 Historically Black Colleges and Universities
11
13
14
16
Men’s Losses n Collegiate Athletics
16
Women’s Participation in the Absence of Men
17
The Football Issue
18
The Sports Magazine
20
How the Status Quo Shortchanges Women
21
Solutions
22
Final Thoughts
25
Appendices
1. Men’s Losses in Collegiate Athletics 1993-1999
2. Athletic Participation at All-Women’s Schools
26
32
Other Sources
34
About the IWF
35
This information is presented by the Independent Women’s Forum for educational purposes only, and not
as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill.
This material on Title IX was prepared by Kimberly Schuld, Project Director.
Please direct inquiries on this publication to kschuld@iwf.org or (703)558-4991.
Title IX Athletics – 2 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
Many people mistakenly believe that Title IX was originally written to guarantee
women and girls athletic opportunities. It was not, but the athletic field is one place in
education that easily affords itself to evaluation by comparing participation levels and
budgets by sex.
Activists falsely claim that these comparisons indicate the presence or absence of
sex discrimination, and based upon this deceptive premise, participation quotas have
been created by bureaucrats and upheld by the courts. The end result has led to drastic
cuts in male athletic opportunities in order to demonstrate adherence to the law. In
simpler terms, men can only play sports to the extent to which women are interested in
playing sports.
Unfortunately for the men, women’s interest levels in varsity sports and at the
high school level have remained steady at about 38% since the early 1980’s. Despite
the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) addition of eight new sports for
women, and the allowance of more scholarships for women than for men, women are
not turning out to play in numbers anywhere close to that of men at the collegiate level.
Why Would a Women’s Group Complain About
Title IX?
The independent Women’s Forum launched the Play Fair project in 1997 to
examine the unintended consequences of the application of Title IX regulations and
policy. Title IX long ago ceased to be an effort to guarantee equal opportunities to all,
and has instead become a crusade to impose unfair quotas and gender preferences in
schools.
At issue is not the Title IX statute itself, which simply and correctly outlaws
discrimination in educational institutions on the basis of gender. The problem is the
way in which Title IX has been applied, especially since 1992. Feminists have used
Title IX as their all-purpose vehicle to advance a radial agenda in our schools, and have
imposed this agenda onto a willing bureaucracy and federal courts. In the process, Title
IX has been maligned, misconstrued and misused. By serving as the blunt instrument
wielded by federal judges and bureaucrats in the name of “gender equity,” current Title
IX enforcement demeans the legitimate athletic and academic accomplishments of
women. Along the way, we have institutionalized discrimination against boys and men
in schools.
The department of Education’s policy of compliance through proportional
participation rates is the crux of the problem. The government claims that if the
percentage of female athletes is close to the percentage of all female students, a school
has proved non-discrimination. By demanding that women participate in athletics at eh
same rate as men under the false banner of proportionality, Title IX policy not only
ignores legitimate differences between men and women, but legitimate differences
Title IX Athletics – 3 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
among women. We are not all athletes, and we are not all scholars. We look to
ourselves, not the government, to know the difference.
Title IX policy also undermines equal opportunity by forcing colleges and
universities to eliminate men’s sports opportunities in order to provide few or no new
opportunities for women. This is not fighting discrimination against women: this is
enforcing quotas against men.
It is fashionable to attribute much of the progress that women have achieved in
the past three decades to the enactment of Title IX. After all, women have made
significant gains and crediting them to a federal law only boost the case that further
progress demands more federal laws.
At the independent Women’s Forum we know better. We do not seek a repeal of
Title IX, but rather, a return to what the state was designed to do – end discrimination
based on sex – for both sexes, and in doing so, guarantee equal opportunity for all.
What is Title IX?
Passed in 1972 as an Education amendment, Title IX simply 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.”
Congress further stated in Title IX that the intent of the act was not to establish
quotas, or require preferential treatment as reparation for past discrimination. But a law
intended to prevent discrimination in education based on sex has become a regulatory
behemoth. The avalanche of regulations and court actions initiated by quota activists has
buried these original tenets.
The problems with current Title IX enforcement largely stem from a 1979 Policy
Interpretation which was supposed to clarify what the “interests and abilities” section of
the regulations meant. This Policy Interpretation established what is known as the threeprong test. According to this policy, an educational institute offering athletics can
demonstrate compliance with Title IX by:
1. Showing that intercollegiate participation opportunities for male and female
students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective
enrollments;
or
2. Showing a history and continuing practice of program expansion in response to
the interest and abilities of the “underrepresented” sex;
or
Title IX Athletics – 4 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
3. Demonstrating that the interests and abilities of members of the
“underrepresented” sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the
school’s program.
This three-prong test is at odds with the original statute because it creates both a
quota and a reparative punishment against men.
There are, in effect, two “Title IX’s.”
1. Title IX #1 was passed in 1972 by a Congress that wanted to prohibit sex
discrimination in schools.
2. Title IX #2 is a reinterpretation of #1, created by un-elected bureaucrats at the
Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
The most pernicious aspects of the Title IX #2 are:
1. Unlike the vast majority of civil rights laws and regulations, it was never
presented to, debated in, or approved by Congress, and
2. It functions as a strict quota law, clearly at odds with the statutory language and
Supreme Court civil rights rulings. The OCR’s reinterpretation of Title IX has
resulted in the wholesale devastation of men’s sports at the collegiate level.
Background: An Athletics Policy Meltdown
This is really the story of a government agency run amok, a cultural takeover by
feminist ideology, and the tragic consequences of the resulting misinformation and
manipulation.
Colleges and universities across the country have tried to defend their decisions to
cut men’s athletic programs by claiming that “Title IX requires gender equity.” Actually,
neither the Title IX statute nor its regulations require such a thing. But, the OCR has
issued an interpretation of compliance stating that a school may demonstrate compliance
with Title IX if it can show that the gender breakdown in the athletic department mirrors
the gender breakdown of full-time undergrad students. This provision – the
proportionality test – is known as prong one of the three-prong test (see above). The
other two-prongs showing a history and expansion of women’s sports, or showing that all
student interest has been accommodated – have no measurable ways to demonstrate
compliance, and thus are simply holding patterns until prong one is met.
The legitimacy of this interpretation is disputable. As men’s teams are being
terminated at an astonishing rate, federal courts are in disagreement over whether this test
is congruent with the statute and intent of the law. Members of Congress have begun to
express concern about the authority of one small government agency’s ability to subvert a
statute with an application that discriminates against so many student-athletes.
Title IX Athletics – 5 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
First, a Little History
Title IX was passed in 1972 as a simple anti-sex discrimination law– the language
prohibits discrimination in educational programs. However, the implementation of
regulations and policies written under the rubric of this law tells a different story.
Regulators and bureaucrats have created an environment or preferential treatment for
women and girls at the expense of men and boys. The hope of non-discrimination had
been subverted by a feminist myth that non-discrimination can only be achieved by equal
outcomes. Discrimination is a means, not an end, and it is being practiced today against
male students.
The Congressional Record shows that when Congress passed Title IX of the
Education Act in 1972, the sponsoring members assured both the House and the Senate
that Title IX would not be a quota bill. Senate sponsor Birch Bayh stated that the gender
quotas were “exactly what this amendment intends to prohibit…” and, “The trust of
the amendment is to do away with every quota.” He further stated, “It only requires
that each individual be judged on merit without regard to sex.” Title IX House
sponsor, Rep. Albert Quie, made it clear to his colleagues that Title IX “would provide
that there shall be no quotas in the sex anti-discrimination title.” These assurances
that quotas would not be part of Title IX were critical to its passage.
The Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) was tasked with
developing the regulations that would instruct educational institutions on Title IX
compliance. In 1975, under the guidance of Caspar Weinberger, the first policies were
released. For the first time, schools were given direction on accommodation of student
interest in athletics, distribution of scholarships and availability of facilities. The
regulations written by HEW allowed for different needs by sport and by gender.
The regulations weren’t perfect, but they were a start. Congress allowed an
administrative 45-day review period to pass without affirming or vetoing the regulations.
At the time, the Supreme Court was weighing whether a failure by Congress to take a
specific action on regulations was equivalent to its tacit approval of the regulations in
question. Months after the Title IX regulations passed through Congress without
comment, the court ruled against the notion of tacit approval. Therefore, we do not know
from the Congressional Record whether Congress would have approved the regulations
pertaining to athletics.
But we do have living history on this issue. Twenty years later, in a 1996 amicus
curiae brief to the Supreme Court in support of Brown University’s Title IX appeal of a
non-compliance ruling, former secretary Weinberger wrote:
“The First Circuit’s decision in this case is squarely at odds with the terms and
intent of those regulations, as well as the Department’s stated position at the time
of their release. The court of appeal’s test (the proportionality test) would prevent
schools from choosing to provide opportunities in response to actual student
Title IX Athletics – 6 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
interest. Instead, schools would be forced to allocate opportunities so as to
equalize the rates of participation by men and women.”
If a quota law was not Congress’ intent, then one might ask, how did we get one?
During the 1979 reorganization of HEW into the Department of Education and the
Department of Health and Human Services, the responsibility for Title IX and its
regulatory language was thrown to the newly formed Office of Civil Rights (OCR) under
the DOE. Schools had been anxiously awaiting further clarification on Title IX’s intent
and were treated to what has come to be known as the 1979 Policy Interpretation – a
document hastily concocted before the department split. This policy interpretation was
never reviewed or approved by Congress, and has been used extensively under the
Clinton administration an din the courts to require strict adherence to a participation
gender quota.
“The Policy Interpretation has taken on a life of its own, becoming the most
powerful and controversial guidepost in the Title IX regulatory morass. It has
expanded the scope of Title IX to the point of subverting the statute’s original
purpose of prohibiting educational discrimination against either sex. (T)he fact
remains that Congress never reviewed, debated, or approved – either by an
affirmative vote or a failure to act – what would become the most powerful and
controversial component of its anti-discrimination law.”
-- David Aronberg, Florida Law Review, December 1995
Although Title IX impacts all educational programs, complaints to the OCR and
to the courts have predominantly fallen into two areas – athletics and sexual harassment.
During the 1970’s, complaints were virtually non-existent because the regulations had not
been written and implemented. During the early 1980’s, new programs in athletics and
academics were exploding for women and girls. No one had reason to complain. This
explosion in opportunities was not driven by the presence of Title IX and the treat that the
OCR could withhold federal funds from a school, as much as by a booming economy that
made the addition of new programs feasible.
Early Legal History
A private right of action under Title IX was first recognized by the Supreme Court
in 1979 under Cannon v. University of Chicago. There was a small spattering of legal
cases where women filed and won lawsuits for discrimination, usually for egregious
inequities. In these cases, the remedy was always specific to the university in question
and there were no personal gains for the complainants except an opportunity to play their
sport if they were still in school by the time the case was decided.
In 1984, the Supreme Court disenfranchised athletics from Title IX in its Grove
City College v. Bell ruling. The court stated that only those university activities receiving
direct federal funds were subject to Title IX. Since athletic programs do not receive any
federal funds through direct channels, Title IX was no longer a vehicle to pursue
discrimination complaints. Congress reversed the Supreme Court with the 1987 Civil
Title IX Athletics – 7 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
Rights Restoration Act, specifically citing that athletic programs were an extension of
universities receiving federal funds, and would therefore be subject to Title IX.
In 1992, the Supreme Court opened the can of worms that Title IX has become by
ruling in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (a quid-pro-quo sexual harassment
case) that a Title IX complainant had the right to request unlimited damages and
attorney’s fees in federal court. That ruling spawned a spate of Title IX lawsuits crafted
by feminist organizations to promote the gender-quota as the solution to inequities in
women’s sports.
The Courts in the 1990s
The cases of the 1990s have effectively codified the 1979 Policy Interpretation,
making it very difficult for men to claim discrimination.
Cohen v. Brown University
 In 1992, Brown University was sued by gymnast Amy Cohen for demoting two
women’s teams to donor-status, meaning that less than 50% of their operating
budget would be provided by the university. (Two men’s teams were also
demoted, but Cohen’s suit did not mention them.)
 Brown argued that the university met the third test of “accommodating interest
and abilities” of the Policy Interpretation, and presented substantial evidence of
the school’s high number of female athletic teams, polls taken of students
indicating interest, and studies of the interest levels of high schools. The school
also felt it had successfully met the second test of “history of expansion” as it had
been one of the most progressive schools in the nation for female athletes by
expanding women’s sports dramatically during the 1980’s.
 The judge admitted that the OCR Police Interpretation and the OCR Investigator’s
Manual did not carry the force of law, but he relied on the m as important guides
in ruling on the case. This left the proportionally test as the predominant
guideline.
 Through a series of appeals and remands, the proportionality test was given more
weight than the other factors in the Policy Interpretation. Ultimately, Brown’s
appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected and the proportionality test stood as a
non-binding legal guidance to other courts in Title IX compliance.
Roberts v. Colorado State University
 In 1992, CSU cut the 18-member women’s softball team and the 55-member
men’s baseball team under severe financial strain. Although the cuts increased
the proportion of female athletes overall, it did not bring the university into full
compliance. In 1993, the softball team sued for reinstatement and monetary
damages.
 In ruling for the plaintiffs, the judge adopted the holding in Cohen that the Policy
Interpretation’s three-part test can, by itself, determine non-compliance with Title
IX.
 In this case, the monetary damages were substantial, with each member of the
softball team being awarded a $5,000 award in damages.
Title IX Athletics – 8 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
Kelley v. Board of Trustees of University of Illinois
 In 1993, members of the men’s swimming team at the University of Illinois
sought injunctive relief when it was announced that the team was being cut to
meet budget constraints and Title IX proportionality.
 Although sympathetic to the plight of the men, the court relied on Cohen for the
proposition that reducing men’s participation was one way to achieve Title IX
compliance.
 Two significant twists to Title IX took place. The court held that increasing
women’s opportunities was not necessary under the proportionality test. And, the
court further ruled that as long as the percentage of male athletes was
substantially proportionate to male undergraduate enrollment, only women could
wield the Title IX sword.
 The judge took pains to admit that the Title IX statute neither sanctioned nor
anticipated the three-part test that would later “convert Title IX from a statute
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex…into a statute which provides
‘equal opportunity for members of both sexes.’” The judge recognized that
“Congress, in enacting Title IX, probably never anticipated that it would
yield such draconian results.” Nevertheless, he followed the leads of Cohen and
Roberts by giving great deference to OCR’s Policy Interpretation, Investigator’s
Manual and 1996 Clarification.
Recent Judicial Skepticism
But were these courts correct to rely on the Policy Interpretation? In 1996, Judge
Rebecca Doherty of the Western District Court of Louisiana challenged the legitimacy of
the Policy Interpretation in Pederson v. Louisiana State University. She wrote in her
opinion that the Policy Interpretation is an agency document not approved by Congress or
the President, and that it “is also susceptible, in part, to an interpretation distinctly at odds
with the statutory language.”
Judge Doherty also wrote,
“Without some basis for such a pivotal assumption, this Court is loathe (sic) to
join others in creating the ‘safe harbor’ or dispositive assumption for which
defendants and plaintiffs argue. Rather, it seems much more logical that interest
in participation and level of ability to participate as percentages of the male and
female populations will vary from campus to campus and region to region and
will change with time. To assume, and thereby mandate, an unsupported and
static determination of interest and ability as the cornerstone of the analysis can
lead to unjust results.”
In December 1997, Judge Robert Coyle of the Eastern District of California cited
the Doherty decision in his ruling to deny in part a motion to dismiss the discrimination
suit brought against the CSU by the CSU, Bakersfield wrestling team. He further stated:
Title IX Athletics – 9 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
“..the court today evaluates the dicta prevalent in both cases (Brown and
Pederson) and concludes that the Pederson court’s rejection of the safe harbor rule
is sensible. The court essentially finds that the safe harbor rule is not dictated by
the Policy Interpretation and inconsistent with the text, structure and policy of
Title IX itself.”
Pushing a Gender Quota
The OCR insist that it is not requiring that schools comply with the
proportionality test, and that its actions are not causing schools to drop men’s sports.
Norma Cantu, the Assistant Secretary in charge of the OCR wrote in Insight Magazine
that, “Nothing in Title IX or OCR’s enforcement policy requires or encourages schools to
cut men’s sports…A school can choose to drop a men’s team in order to provide
substantially proportionate athletic opportunities for men and women students. But,
neither Title IX nor OCR require or encourage this as a way to reach that goal.” (August
3, 1998).
The actions and publications from the OCR paint a very different picture. In a
1996 Clarification of the three-part test, Cantu’s office designated it as a “Safe harbor”
for schools, and then wrote interpretations clearly favoring a quota-based approach to
gender equity. In numerous investigations, the OCR has required that schools meet
prong one’s gender quota either by spending money the school doesn’t have to build new
women’s teams, or by cutting men. It is rare indeed that the OCR will accept prongs two
or three as anything other than temporary position as the school promises to reach
proportionality at some future date. This only serves to delay the agony of cutting men.
Universities, colleges and high schools governed by Title IX are being punished
for failing to create or prove a level of interest in sport among women and girls that
simply does not exist. The OCR is following a poorly-designed, outdated and possibly
illegal policy interpretation to dictate the number of female athletes at colleges and high
schools regardless of the needs, interests or priorities of an individual campus or an
individual student.
Identifying the Problems
The problem with the current application of Title IX reflect a lack of
consideration for the nature of sports, or for the natures of men and women. The primary
problem with Title IX is that the gender quota is an inadequate and illegal measure of
non-discrimination. These issues can be resolved fairly easily by either the OCR taking
on the task of reforming outdated policies, or by Congress or a new President directing it
to do so.
Title IX Athletics – 10 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
Current OCR policy fails to take into consideration legitimate levels of interest in
sport, the nature and demographic profiles of men and women on campus, or the market
forces driving sports financing. These issues are discussed further in this session.
The Interest Level Problem
More Males than Females Pursue Athletics
Men and women are not the same; their interest in organized sports will never be
the same. Title IX should focus on the overall availability of opportunities to
accommodate interest, no on the selections of those opportunities by one sex or the other.
Ironically, Title IX policy ignores actual interest levels and capabilities of either sex as
determining factors in whether the interests and abilities of students have been met.
In 1994, Peacy Economics, Inc. of Boulder, Colorado conducted a study of
interest and participation rates among NCAA schools for a variety of athletic programs.
Their statistics on intramurals and club sports – voluntary participation driven by pure
interest – is very revealing of the vast differences between the sexes on athletics. This
graph reflects the 1994 participation rates at Division I-A schools:
80%
70%
78%
66%
65%
60%
50%
40%
35%
34%
30%
Men
Women
22%
20%
10%
0%
Intercollegiate
Intramural
Club
At the Women’s Sports Foundation, they say about girls, “If you build it, they
will come.” But, that hasn’t proven true. When Brown University was sued in 1992
under Title IX, the varsity female teams at the university had a combined total of 85
unfilled slots. The school had built it, but the women didn’t come. Further, coaches of
female teams have talked on camera about their difficulty in keeping female athletes who
don’t make the travel squad, even when they are receiving some financial aid. Coaches
have also talked about their difficulty in filling the minimum number of positions desired
by the athletic director to achieve proportionality, often because the minimum demands
more players than the sport itself requires.
Title IX Athletics – 11 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
Men’s teams, on the other hand, are no longer allowed to keep any of the
numerous men seeking a walk-on position. Further, most schools have capped the
number of men on team rosters, usually at numbers far lower than a competitive program
needs. Some schools have even tied the number of male athletes to the number of female
athletes who go out for comparable teams. For example, male swimmers are allowed one
position for every two female swimmers, and until the females sign on, the coach doesn’t
know how many men he can have.
The National Center for Education Statistics 1996 Youth Indicators also confirms
that boys are more interested and likely than girls to participate in organized athletics.
Girls were more likely to pursue individual exercise activities over team play. Girls were
also more likely than boys to avoid physical activity and exercise altogether.
PERCENT OF HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS WHO ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN SPORTS,
ATHLETICS OR EXERCISING, 1994:
60.00%
55.60%
50.00%
40.30%
40.00%
35.50%
30.00%
24.10%
23.80%
20.00%
Males
20.70%
Females
10.00%
0.00%
Daily/Often
Once Week
Rarely
PERCENT OF HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS WHO EXERCISE VIGOROUSLY
(includes jogging, swimming, calisthenics or other activities), 1994:
70%
60%
50%
61%
45.40%
40%
30%
25.20%
19.60%
20%
29.30%
19.40%
10%
0%
Daily/Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Title IX Athletics – 12 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
Men
Women
Physiological differences also contribute to men’s and women’s level of interest
in organized sports. There is substantial research on testosterone to indicate that its
presence will impact interest in sports as a participant, as well as a fan. A review of
social science and psychology literature shows that testosterone is a very strong indicator
of a woman’s interest in sports, and females with high levels of testosterone still have less
testosterone than the lowest levels found in males. It stands to reason that if nature takes
its course, there will always be more men than women pursing varsity athletics.
Today’s College Students
Factors That May Impact Whether a Student Participates in Athletics
Today’s college students represent a diverse population, becoming more and more
non-traditional. The proportionality test for Title IX compliance does not allow for
schools to leave un-interested students out of the formulation. The full-time 50-year old
mother of adult children returning to school for the first time in thirty years is assumed to
be as interested in playing varsity sports as an 18-year old female coming from a high
school varsity team.
Demographic profiles of today’s college students show a need for the OCR to
created better identification of the “qualified applicant pool” from which female athletes
will most likely be drawn.
Facts from the National Center for Education Statistics, “Profile of Undergraduates in
U.S. Post-secondary Education Institutions: 1995-96” May 1998, Report 98-084:
Gender
 At all post-secondary institutions, 56.9% of students are women, 43.2% are male
 Attending a 4-year institution: 54.8% female/45.2% male
 Attending more than one institution: 62.4% female/37.6% male
 61% of independent students (most of whom are 24 or older) are women,
compared with 53% of dependent undergraduates.
Age



45% of undergraduates are between the ages of 19 and 23, typical of athletes.
15% of undergraduates are 30-39 years old.
12% of undergraduates are 40 or older.
 Undergraduates 40 and older are more likely to be women, compared with
undergraduates under 30. In fact, two-thirds (65%) of undergraduates age 40
or older are women.
Marriage/Children
 21% of 1995-96 undergraduates are married.
 15% of students enrolled at 4-year schools have dependants.
Title IX Athletics – 13 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum

 66.6% of these students are women.
11% of all 1996 undergraduates are single parents.
Employment
 79% of undergraduates work:
 13% work 1-15 hours per week
 12% work 16-20 hours per week
 17% work 21-34 hours per week
 37% work 35 or more hours per week
 50% consider themselves to be “students who work.”
 29% consider themselves to be “employees who study.”
High School Students
Participation Rates in Extra-Curricular Activities
The most recent data from the National Federation of High Schools (1997-98)
shows that girls outnumber boys in almost all extracurricular activities except athletics.










97.8% of cheerleaders are girls; 2.2% are boys
99.2% of pom-pom team members are girls; 0.8% are boys
87.9% of drill team members are girls; 12.1% are boys
70.2% of vocal music participants are girls; 29.8% are boys
65.7% of speech-group interpretation are girls; 34.3% are boys
63.9% of orchestra members are girls; 36.1% are boys
61.3% of speech-dramatic participants are girls; 38.7% are boys
56.6% of band members are girls; 43.3% are boys
51.2% of debate-Lincoln/Douglas members are girls; 48.8% are boys
40.6% of high school athletes are girls; 59.4% are boys
In 1971, prior to the passage of Title IX, the NFHS reported 3, 666,917 male high
school athletes and a mere 294,015 female athletes. For the 1997-98 school year, NFHS
records show 3,762,120 male athletes and 2,570,333 female athletes. This reflects an
874% increase in the number of female varsity athletes, while the number of male
athletes remained relatively stable during the same time period.
Some states provided additional information on other student activities:
South Dakota: 76.6% of students on yearbook staff are girls
Florida:
64.2% of students in honor society are girls
Virginia:
63.6% of students in creative writing are girls
Wyoming:
62.4% of students in journalism are girls
Colorado:
60.1% of students on the newspaper are girls
Title IX Athletics – 14 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
What would happen if proportionality was applied to non-sport activities?
Assuming a high school student body with a 50-50 gender breakdown:
 96.4% of female cheerleaders would have to be cut
 35.8% of girls in the choir would have to be cut
 32.8% of female debaters would be denied an opportunity to compete
 25.4% of orchestra members would be cut to balance the gender gap
Do college athletics programs reflect high school athletic ability?
There are currently more sports and more teams available to female athletes at the
college level than there are for males. By dividing the number of high school athletes in
39 men’s and women’s sports with the number of college athletes, we can estimate the
likelihood of becoming a college athlete by creating an “opportunity percentage.”
(calculated using 1996 statistics for high school students)
Top ten sports for opportunity percentages:
1. Women’s Crew:
2. Women’s Squash:
3. Men’s Crew:
4. Women’s Fencing:
5. Men’s Fencing:
6. Men’s Squash:
7. Women’s Synchronized Swimming:
8. Women’s Ice Hockey:
9. Women’s Lacrosse:
10. Men’s Lacrosse:
365.52%
216.66%
163.25% (non-NCAA)
109.10%
105.63%
74.75% (non-NCAA)
46.42%
28.28%
24.72%
23.07% (non-NCAA)
These numbers indicate that colleges are artificially creating women’s programs
that would appear to increase women’s overall participation rates. But are they costing
opportunities to other women’s programs in the long run?
Let’s say a public university in Arizona has a student population of 25,000
students, 70% of whom are from high schools within the state. As the school examines
it’s athletic program, it finds that its football team unbalances the gender quota. The
school decides that it must add another women’s sport that can generate a large number
of female athletes and female scholarships very quickly and selects women’s crew.
However, suppose 40% of the high schools within the state offered varsity girls
water polo, and none offered varsity girls crew. Given the large percentage of in-state
students on campus, it is more likely that the school would find female athletes with an
interest and experience in water polo than crew. But given the smaller squad size of
water polo, the school takes the “easy route” and chooses a non-existent high school sport
(crew) to meet the federal gender quota, effectively denying experienced female athletes
(water polo) an opportunity to compete.
Title IX Athletic – 15 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Gender Imbalance in Undergraduate Population
Enrollment and graduation rates at Historically Black Colleges and Universities
have long favored women and appear to be moving further that direction. This makes
reaching the Title IX gender quota unfathomably difficult for HBCU’s, especially those
with football programs. Many of the male athletes at these schools would probably not
be attending college without an opportunity to participate in sports.
Full time enrollment of 4-year HBCU institutions, Fall 1997 (Source: National Center for
Education Statistics 1999 Digest):
Total Enrollment:
Men Enrolled:
Women Enrolled:
198,427
80,835
117, 592
100%
41%
59%
In 1997, the National Women’s Law Center filed Title IX complaints with the
OCR against twenty-five Division I schools that have football programs. Four HBCUs
were among them. Despite higher than average female participation at Coppin State and
Hampton University, both schools fail the proportionality test favored by feminists,
leaving the schools vulnerable to lawsuits.
BETHUNE-COOKMAN COLLEGE
HAMPTON UNIVERSITY
Total 97/98 Enrollment:
% Female Enrollment:
% Female Athletes:
Total 97/98 Enrollment:
% Female Enrollment:
% Female Athletes:
1800
58%
34%
6000
61%
40%
COPPIN STATE COLLEGE
SOUTH CAROLINA STATE
Total 97/98 Enrollment:
% Female Enrollment:
% Female Athletes:
Total 97/98 Enrollment:
% Female Enrollment:
% Female Athletes:
3200
72%
56%
5000
58%
33%
Men’s Losses in Collegiate Athletics
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) conducted its first gender
Equity study in 1992. The five-year follow-up study published in 1997 showed a
disturbing downward trend for male athletes. During that time period, more than 200
male teams and over 20,000 male athletes had disappeared. Over those same five years,
the number of female athletes increased by only 5,800 – nearly four males dropped for
each new female.
Title IX Athletics – 16 –June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
The NCAA schools are separated into three divisions. Schools at eh Division I
level offer the most competitive atmosphere, the most extensive recruiting and the most
athletic scholarships. Ninety-five percent of the gains for female athletes were seen at the
Division I level. At the Division III level where there are no athletic scholarships and
student athletes play purely for the love of the game, the effect has been disastrous. The
five-year span of this study showed that only 178 female athletic opportunities were
added while male opportunities were reduced by over 9,000 in Division III – 20 males
dumped for every female added.
In June 1999, the General Accounting Office (GAO) of the federal government
completed an analysis of Intercollegiate athletic participation, evaluating a static universe
of 725 NCAA member schools that were in the same division in academic years 1985-86
and 1996-97. This report revealed a twelve percent drop in the number of male
participants and a ten percent drop in the maximum number of scholarships allowed for
males in Division I. In Division II, male scholarships dropped nine percent.
During the time period of the GAO study, women’s participation rates increased
sixteen percent and the number of women’s teams increased seventeen percent. But at
what cost were these increases achieved? At Division I, women saw a sixty-six percent
increase, at Division II, a seventy-three percent increase in scholarship awards. This
indicates that the claimed numbers of women seeking new opportunities was not nearly
as overwhelming as the legitimate need for increased resources. Yet, Title IX advocates
insist that there are thousands of girls just waiting for an opportunity to play. The GAO
data does not support that claim.
When athletic departments sit down each year to face their growing deficits and
shrinking revenues, gender equity is not a principle, it is a budget item. The Office for
Civil Rights and the NCAA have forced schools into the unsavory position of needing to
meet and illegal gender quota to be “safe.” Athletic directors often take the easies and
safest way out of their gender equity problems by cutting the number of male participants
and male dollars. The gender-quota formula fails to allow for consideration of actual
athletic interests for either sex. Today’s Title IX application discriminates against men,
the exact opposite of what the law specifically says.
For a list complied by the Independent Women’s Forum of men’s teams
eliminated by sport and division, please see Appendix I.
Women’s Participation in the Absence of Men
In October 1997, Benita Fritzgerald Mosley, president of the Women’s Sports
Foundation, testified to the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues that only 37% of
all college athletes are women. Feminists have contended that women constitute such a
low percentage of varsity athletes because male administrators, male coaches and amle
athletes are denying women opportunities.
Title IX Athletics – 17 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
Here is some information that disputes the premise that a participation rate of
37% is evidence of widespread discrimination:





Among high school varsity athletes (the most likely source of collegiate varsity
athletes), female participants account for 39.5%.
The SAT’s survey of interest in academic and extracurricular activities indicates
that males outnumber females by a ration of 3 to 1 in indicating interest in
collegiate varsity athletics.
Surveys of high school students’ extracurricular activities show that females
dominate band, orchestra, vocal music, debate, drama, speech, spirit squad, drill
team, journalism, year book, social clubs, service clubs, and student government.
Males dominate only in sports.
Despite the existence of more sports, more teams and more allowable
scholarships per team at NCAA member schools, female high school athletes
have a higher drop-off rate between high school participation and college
participation than do male high school athletes.
The Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association 1998 study on the most popular
sports for women reveals that only three NCAA varsity sports made up the tope
ten list. Most women engage in non-varsity physical fitness activities.
Yet, feminists insist that it is sex discrimination hold women back – a concept with no
reliable data to back it up. The Independent Women’s Forum thought we’d try to find
some evidence that the presence of men in the athletic department impact women by
looking at athletic departments where there are no men. After all, if all women are as
interested in playing varsity sports as men, and men hold them back, wouldn’t every
student at an all-female university be participating in varsity sports?
We didn’t expect to find a 100% participation rate at women’s schools, but the
sister schools posted participation rates slightly lower than the average Division III co-ed
liberal arts college (about 16% of Division II female students play sports). Appendix II
shows the results of our phone surveys conducted in the summers of 1997, 1998, and
1999.
The Football Issue
Proponents of the Title IX status quo would like us to believe that the reason so
many schools are dropping non-revenue men’s sports is because they are egotistical (their
word) enough to want to keep their football team, and that football eats up too many
resources. Additionally, feminist posit the false statistic that fewer than 20% of football
teams are profitable, and suggest a radical overhaul of football to be less competitive and
more feminine, i.e., less focused on winning an more focused on collaborative play.
Title IX Athletics – 18 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
Don’t believe it. Attacking football and its cultural impact is a distraction from
the issue of government-sanctioned discrimination against male athletes.
The truth is, when the resources are invested to create a competitive program,
football helps women. The Social Science Quarterly printed an article by Patrick James
Rishe in its December 1999 issue (Vol.80, No. 4) which concluded that women’s sports
at schools with big football programs fared better than women at schools with smaller
football programs. While Rishe’s research does verify what the quota proponents tell us
– expenditures are higher for football players than for any other sport – it then goes on to
calculate that where the football expenditures are highest, so too are the expenditures on
female athletes.
In another study by Donald E. Agthe and R. Bruce Billings for the January 2000
issue of the Journal of Sport Management (Vol.14, No.1), the authors point out that 71%
of Division I-A football programs are profitable. The study also concluded that football
profits were a significant influence on achieving financial gender equity in athletic
departments.
The Chronicle of Higher Education found a similar pattern when it examined
Division I schools with and without football programs for is April 7, 2000 edition. The
article makes the point that there is a wide variance in women’s progress, with greater
progress seen at the big money football and/or basketball schools.
“While women’s sports are clearly on the rise across the board, the rate of growth
varies widely among the different kinds of colleges in Division I. Wealthy sports
programs can subsidize new opportunities and greater spending for women, but
those without revenue-producing football and basketball teams lag. And the gap
between the haves and the have-nots is widening.”
Some have suggested that schools should curtail football and scale the number of
positions down to 65, or even down to the 45 carried by professional teams. This
suggestion reveals an appalling lack of understanding about the game of football. The
collegiate ceiling of 85 football scholarships is already too tight. It has forced coaches to
the undesirable measure of playing freshman who are unaccustomed to the caliber of
physical play, and the psychological balance of becoming a college student and athlete.
It affects the ability of coaches to run a full practice schedule, especially in the Spring
when the outgoing players are gone, and the incoming players are finishing high school.
The pros, on the other hand, command an unlimited supply of mature players. When an
NFL player is injured or waived, management picks up the phone and brings in a
replacement.
Football is not the issue causing schools to drop men’s sports. The Title IX
gender quota drives schools to drop men’s programs despite their best efforts and fervent
wishes for keeping all teams intact. Even when there is no football team to blame, men
still suffer. That is not equal opportunity.
Title IX Athletics – 19 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
The Sports Marketplace
The world of sports does not exist in a vacuum. There must be people interested
in participating, and there must be people willing to watch others participate. Not all
sports will be equally popular with society, but each can define its own market and
maximize that market. The OCR athletics policy ignores market forces. By forcing
schools to choose between men and women, the market does not have a chance to work
for either sex.
One effort of Title IX advocates has been to address the past limitations on the
women’s sport marketplace. But through the 1980s and 1990s, our society and culture
changed dramatically in its interest in sports. The factors that worked to discriminate
against women prior to this cultural shift are no longer at work. However, the advocates
seem to be stuck in a time warp, and insist that only an equal outcome in the number or
participants will demonstrate success. Thus far, society has not been clamoring for more
women’s sports,
If the public was demanding professional women’s basketball, why did the
American Basketball League (ABL) fail? One strong argument is that the National
Basketball Association (NBA) established the Women’s National Basketball League
(WNBA) to undermine the ABL. Surely the NBA has a financial interest in seeing the
WNBA succeed, but it hardly stands to reason that the NBA could have driven the ABL
out of business so quickly if the ABL was actually meeting a market need. More telling
is the fact that the WNBA still does not sustain itself financially and needs the
underwriting of the NBA to remain alive.
The need exists for women’s sports markets to be expanded, but it cannot be met
by cutting men out. And one successful women’s event (or men’s event) is not an
indication that the American market is ready for more of the same. The quota advocates
used the success of the 1999 Women’s World Cup soccer events to call for a professional
women’s soccer league. The organizers made an enormous leap in logic when they
claimed that they could fill as many stadiums with a professional league as they did
during the World Cup. The lesson from the men’s professional league is that American
are not standing in lines to see professional soccer matches on a regular basis. A love for
professional soccer on par with the American love for professional football may never
materialize. And for women’s soccer, the market may be even smaller.
Differences in interest and participation, differences in fan base and financial
profits can never be overcome with federal laws in a free-market economy. Rather, each
sport should have the freedom to maximize its own market, regardless of the number of
men or women playing.
Title IX Athletics – 20 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
How the Status Quo Shortchanges Women
This misapplication of Title IX undermines women as well as men. How does
achievement of an arbitrary gender quota guarantee that sex discrimination is eliminated?
Feminists have no answer to this question.
The three-prong test addresses only interest and ability of students on campus.
Other sections of the 1975 regulations address scholarship distribution and facilities uses.
But within the interests and abilities framework, there is still a great deal of room for
discrimination mischief in relying upon a gender quota.
When the Kelley court ruled that there was nothing in Title IX requiring schools
to expand or add programs for women in order to comply with the gender quota, it
effectively allowed for the stagnation of women’s sports. For example, a school with
nine women’s teams and twelve men’s teams can meet their gender quota simply by
cutting enough men to match the number of women on the existing teams. There is no
need to add any more women’s teams, regardless of interest, ability or market forces.
The OCR also stagnated women’s sports in its 1996 Clarification on the threeprong test. In that document, the OCR defined prong two – history and expansion of
women’s sports – as only counting the addition of new women’s teams. So, if a school
has ten women’s teams that are all under-funded, it gains no credit with the government
for prong two for expanding the funding or facilities of the existing ten women’s teams.
The choice again seems to be, eliminate enough men to reach the gender quota, or add
another women’s team that will be under-funded as well.
By allowing, and even encouraging, schools to set high minimums for women’s
teams, coaches are finding themselves taking of some sub-standard players to beef up the
roster. This affects the competitiveness of women’s teams, as well as their morale. It
cannot be good for women’s sports markets in the long term to field non-competitive
teams. This phenomenon is especially prevalent in emerging sports like crew, where the
participants may have no varsity team experience, and require more of the coach’s
attention just to learn basic skills.
The current application of Title IX also stagnates the growth of women’s sports in
the overall marketplace. The adage that “if you build it, they will come” has not proved
true. However, the OCR policies do not provide the flexibility for schools to truly be a
part of building new markets for women’s sports, including the establishment of club
teams to build both interest and ability. Building a market for any sport takes time and
some measure of creativity. The focus on participation quotas ignores the need to allow a
market to grow. Today’s collegiate and high school sports teams are in competition with
the entire entertainment industry to attract both players and fans.
By advocating a gender quota, feminists are shooting themselves in the foot.
Allowing schools to find creative ways to build strong programs and strong marketplaces
Title IX Athletics – 21 –June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
for women’s sports would be better for all women. Under the current system, women’s
sports won’t get much farther than where it is now.
Solutions
Overall Solution:
1.) Eliminate the proportionality test as a method of compliance
 The OCR claims that schools can choose to comply with one prong of a three-part
test: the gender breakdown of athletes is proportional to the gender breakdown of
the undergraduate population, or, demonstrate a history and continuous expansion
of women’s programs, or, demonstrate that you have adequately fulfilled the
interests of all students on campus. The proportionality test – effectively a gender
quota – is the only test for which there is a clear compliance methodology. The
other two options serve simply as a holding pattern until the school meets the
gender quota.
2.) Create compliance mechanisms and incentives to allow for the natural development
of athletic interests of both men and women.
 Natural interest levels will be different for the two sexes, and this difference does
not necessarily indicate the presence of discrimination.
 Discrimination is a process, not an outcome. The OCR’s policies should not be
focused on measuring outcomes.
Specific Solutions: Pros and Cons
Include cheerleading and drill team as varsity sports
Because cheerleading and drill team are very demanding team-oriented activities,
some people advocate designating them as varsity sports, thereby increasing the
number of female athletes rather quickly and easily. Currently, the OCR does not
define what is a sport. The agency has left that responsibility to the NCAA and
the governing body of interscholastic high school sports and neither consider
cheerleading or drill team as varsity sports.
The Up-Side:
Schools will have more female athletes counted because both activities are dominated by
girls.
The Down-Side:
Title IX compliance can still be based upon meeting a gender quota.
Title IX Athletics – 22 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
Count only undergrad students aged 18-24
When the 1979 Policy Interpretation created the proportionality test, the
undergraduate college population was predominantly traditional – 18-22 year olds
coming to college straight out of high school. Today we have more older students
and working students attending college full-time who may not have any interest or
ability to play varsity sports.
By setting an age-appropriate condition on which undergraduate students are
considered when setting the proportionality criteria, the OCR would effectively be
creating something akin to a “qualified applicant pool.” Older students who are
interested in sports would not be precluded from trying out for teams, but the
assumption that all students are interested in sports could be overcome.
The Up-Side:
Protects athletic departments at schools hosting a large population of older women in
undergraduate programs without hurting more traditional schools
The Down-Side:
Title IX compliance can still be based upon meeting a gender quota.
Count only filled positions as participants
When Brown University was sued by Amy Cohen in 1992, the school had 85
fully-funded positions for female athletes that were unfilled – 85 women who
would have had a position did not show up to play. The court did not accept that
evidence as an indication of interest levels, and the OCR adopted a provision in
the 1996 Clarification dictating that only filled positions can be counted in
determining proportionality.
If the OCR would allow for schools to count positions that are fully-funded even
in years when a position may not be filled, schools would have more flexibility in
meeting their Title IX requirements even if the student population wavered from
year to year. The OCR could create a police requiring schools to demonstrate that
the positions are actually available and funded, not just available on paper.
The Up-Side:
Coaches and administrators could plan better roster management and male athletes would
not have to wait to find out how many female athletes show up before knowing whether
they could play or not. Additionally, coaches of female teams would not have to worry
so much about retaining non-motivated or non-talented players just to meet a roster
minimum.
The Down-Side:
Title IX compliance can still be based upon meeting a gender quota. This approach
doesn’t protect men from being cut overall.
Title IX Athletics – 23 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
State tuition/fee waivers for female athletes
Feminists often point to the ability of Washington State University (WSU) to
achieve a 50/50 gender ratio in its athletic department without cutting any men as
an example of how the proportionality test works. What they fail to mention is
that WSC receives fee waivers for female athletes from the state legislature. This
mean, the school does not have to pay for the girls tuition, so that money can be
used on their facilities and programs. The Women’s Sports Foundation has
created model legislation for other state legislature to adopt a similar stance.
The Up-Side:
This sounds like a winning situation for state-run universities. Instead of cutting men
because you have no more money to expand women’s programs, take the cost of the
women’s education off the books and transfer the financial aid to operations.
The Down-side:
This proposal is fraught with political landmines. The idea demands that each year,
taxpayers and politicians in any given state will approve the expenditure of state funds on
women, but not on men.
This also leave private colleges and universities in the same predicament they face today,
and could eventually impact their competitive advantages as they spend more money on
tuition than operation in women’s sports.
Title IX compliance would now be almost entirely based on a gender quota.
Do not count walk-ons that do not receive university funds
The OCR policy requires schools to count all participants, regardless of whether
that participant is using university funds to play. Those students who try to walk
on to the team – play without a scholarship- often cost very little in terms of
university resources. Their presence, however, can make it impossible to meet
the proportionality test. Some have suggested legislation or a change in OCR
policy that only those students receiving some form of university aid should be
counted in the participation rates. After all, isn’t equal opportunity commensurate
with resource outlays more than anything else?
The Up-Side:
Students with the desire to participate and learn from a varsity program, but cost the
university nothing, would be allowed to participate.
The Down-Side:
Title IX compliance can still be based upon meeting a gender quota. This approach
doesn’t protect men from being cut overall.
Title IX Athletics – 24 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
Getting it Done:
CONGRESS: can use its authority to conduct oversight of the operations and policies of
the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education.
 Hearings on the policy interpretations themselves
 Oversight of the OCR’s operations and investigative processes.
 Examine OCR budget requests for increased investigations
 Pass legislation directing the OCR’s to rewrite the policy, or clarifying
Congressional intent of Title IX.
COURTS: can decline to follow the non-binding precedent in Cohen v. Brown
University.
 The Cohen court (First Circuit) elevated the OCR’s Policy Interpretation to
the level of statue, but there are at least two District Court ruling that
denounce the First Circuit for this action.
 Two District Court judges (Doherty and Coyle) have subsequently advised
against the use of the Cohen ruling.
ADMINISTRATION: a new president can appoint a new Assistant Secretary for OCR,
who in turn can appoint new head of the regional office.
Final Thoughts
Of course, we could eliminate varsity athletics altogether. Title IX does not
require schools to offer organized athletics, or any other extracurricular activity. But
organized sports play an integral role in our culture and society and we cannot afford to
let these problems persist.
The IWF does not gainsay the spirit of Title IX – that sex discrimination has not
place on the playing field. But the development and current enforcement of Title IX
policies have succeeded only in replacing one form of discrimination with another.
Revisiting the proportionality rule, or any other aspect of Title IX, will not roll
back the clock on women’s athletic participation. In today’s society, it is expected and
applauded that girls and women will participate in an active lifestyle. But if Title IX is
not changes, we will continue to punish boys and men for discrimination that occurred
before many of today’s athletes were even born.
Returning Title IX to its original intent is the only way to guarantee that the
chance to play is offered equitably.
Title IX Athletics – 25 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
Appendix I
Men’s Losses in Collegiate Athletics 1993-1999
School
BASEBALL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
FENCING
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
FOOTBALL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
GOLF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Division
Year Dropped
Tennessee State University
South Carolina State University
SUNY Maritime College
Colorado College
Johnson State College
Morehouse College
Boston University
Hobart-William Smith College
Stephen F. Austin State University
University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire
Colgate
University of Wyoming
University of Denver
University of New Hampshire
Providence College
Portland State University
I
I
III
III
III
II
I
III
I
III
I
I
II
I
I
I
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1997
1997
1998
1998
Cornell University
University of Illinois
Drew University
Northwestern University
Bernard M. Baruch College
College of William and Mary
Long Beach State University
University of Chicago
Michigan State
I
I
III
I
III
I
I
III
I
1993
1993
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1996
1997
I-A
II
II
III
II
III
II
I-A
II
II
II
I-AA
I-AA
1993
1993
1993
1993
1994
1995
1995
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
II
II
II
II
II
III
III
III
III
III
III
I
III
III
II
II
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
California State University, Fullerton
Cameron University
Santa Clara University
Ramapo College of New Jersey
California State University, Hayward
Gallaudet University
San Francisco State University
University of the Pacific
California State University, Chico
Sonoma State University
Northern California Athletic Conference
Boston University
University of Evansville
Emporia State University
Indiana Univ./Purdue Univ.
Lake Superior State University
Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania
Sourthern Connecticut State University
Benedictine University
Clark University
Earlham College
Hamline University
Union College
University of Wisconsin, River Falls
Bethune-Cookman College
Emerson College
McMurray College
Morehead State University
Queens College
Title IX Athletics – 26 –June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
School
17
St. Joseph’s College, Maine
18
College of St. Scholastica
19
Benedictine University
20
Colorado College
21
Ithaca College
22
Johns Hopkins University
23
Juniata College
24
University of North Carolina,Asheville
25
Midwestern State University
26
Principia College
27
Ramapo College of New Jersey
28
Saint Joseph’s College
29
Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville
30
Tarleton State University
31
Wesleyan University
32
State University of West Georgia
33
University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point
34
Franklin and Marshall
35
University of Maine, Farmington
36
Mississippi College
37
University of Pennsylvania
38
Rivier College
39
St. Mary’s College
40
Ursinus College
41
Wesley College
42
York College of Pennsylvania
43
Merrimack College
44
Molloy College
45
University of New Hampshire
46
SUNY-New Paltz
47
St. Olaf College
48
University of Central Arkansas
49
Erskine College
50
Southeastern Oklahoma State University
51
Great Notheast Athletic Conference
52
Providence College
53
University of Massachusetts, Lowell
GYMNASTICS
1
Cornell University
2
Pacific 10 Conference
3
SUNY-Cortland
4
University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh
5
University of California, Los Angeles
6
Arizona State University
7
Dartmouth College
8
Iowa State University
9
Kent State University
10
Pacific Coast Athletic Conference (PCAA)
11
California State University, Fullerton
12
Long Beach State University
13
University of Pittsburgh
14
Radford University
15
Western Michigan
16
San Jose State University
17
Syracuse
18
University of New Mexico
19
Brigham Young University
ICE HOCKEY
1
St. Bonaventure
2
Emerson College
3
Kent State University
4
University of Illinois, Chicago
LACROSSE
1
St. Bonaventure
2
Stanford University
Division
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
I
II
III
III
II
II
II
III
II
III
III
III
II
I
III
I
III
III
III
II
II
I
III
III
II
II
II
III
I
II
Year Dropped
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1999
I
I
III
III
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1993
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1996
1996
1997
1997
1999
Sched. For 2000
I
III
I
I
1993
1994
1994
1996
I
I
1993
1993
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
RIFLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SOCCER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SKIING
1
2
3
SWIMMING
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
TENNIS
1
2
School
Lake Forest College
University of New Haven
Manhattanville College
Polytechnic University
St. John’s Univeristy
Colorado School of Mines
Michigan State University
University of New Hampshire
Boston College (phasing out item)
Division
III
II
III
III
I
II
I
I
I
Year Dropped
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1996
1997
1997
Announced 1998
Jacksonville University
University of Memphis
West Texas A&M University
Citadel
University of Missouri, Rolla
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Carnegie Mellon University
Eastern New Mexico
University of Nevada
St. Louis University
University of Cincinnati
I
I
II
I
II
III
III
II
I
I
I
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1995
1996
1996
1996
1997
1998
Ashland University
Queens College
University of North Texas
Bernard M. Baruch College
Central Michigan University
Illinois State University
Portland State University
University of Arkansas, Little Rock
University of Maryland, Eastern Shore
Central Washington University
Miami University of Ohio
II
II
I
III
I
I
II
I
I
II
I
1993
1993
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1997
1997
1999
Western New England College
Keens State College
Austin College
III
II
III
1993
1994
1995
University of Illinois
University of California, Los Angeles
California State University, Fresno
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Morehead State University
Morehouse College
University of Dallas
Hobart-William & Smith College
Juniata College
Loyola College
University of Massachusetts, Lowell
Adrian College
University of Massachusetts, Boston
Rutgers University, Camden
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
University of Arkansas, Little Rock
Cornell College (Iowa)
Canisius College
New Mexico State University
University of Richmond
University of New Mexico
Northern Arizona University (swimming)
Northern Arizona University (diving)
I
I
I
II
I
II
III
III
III
I
II
III
III
III
I
I
III
I
I
I
I
I
I
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
1999
Southeast Missouri State University
LockHaven University of Pennsylvania
I
II
1993
1993
School
3
Oakland University
4
Southern Connecticut State University
5
Ashland University
6
University of Bridgeport
7
University of Massachusetts, Boston
8
North Adams State College
9
Iowa State University
10
Lincoln University
11
Regis University
12
St. Francis College
13
Arkansas Technical University
14
University of Central Arkansas
15
State University College of Buffalo
16
University of Detroit, Mercy
17
High Point University
18
Moorehead State University
19
Juniata College
20
Marymount University
21
Olivet College
22
University of Pittsburgh
23
Rowan College of New Jersey
24
Tarleton State University
25
Thiel College
26
Virginia University College
27
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
28
University of Wisconsin, River Falls
29
Colorado State University
30
University of North Texas
31
University of West Alabama
32
Rutgers University, Camden
33
San Jose State University
34
University of Tampa
35
College of St. Rose
36
University of Cincinnati
37
Southwest Texas State University
38
Providence College
39
Miami University of Ohio
TRACK - OUTDOOR
1
Cleveland State University
2
Old Dominion University
3
St. Francis College
4
University of Central Arkansas
5
Lake Superior State University
6
University of Southern Colorado
7
Clark University
8
York College of Pennsylvania
9
University of Central Florida
10
Elon College
11
Menlo College
12
University of Nevada
13
Olivet College
14
Emory and Henry College
15
Ouachita Baptist University
16
Presbyterian College
17
University of Wisconsin, River Falls
18
Drexel University
19
Midwestern State University
20
Southwestern University
21
St. Andrews Presbyterian College
22
Mississippi College
23
Southwestern Oklahoma
24
Southeast Oklahoma State University
25
East Central University
26
Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference
27
New Mexico State University
Division
II
II
II
II
III
III
I
III
II
I
II
II
III
I
II
II
III
III
III
I
III
II
III
II
I
III
I
I
II
III
I
II
II
I
I
I
I
Year Dropped
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1998
1999
I
I
I
II
II
II
III
III
I
II
III
I
III
III
II
II
III
I
II
III
II
II
II
II
II
I
I
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
School
TRACK - INDOOR
1
Old Dominion University
2
San Diego State University
3
Tennessee Technological University
4
Lack Superior State University
5
University of Southern Colorado
6
Gallaudet University
7
University of Arizona
8
Benedicine University
9
Clarion University
10
Franklin College
11
Johnson C. Smith University
12
Martin Luther College
13
Morehead State University
14
University of Nevada
15
University of Oregon
16
St. Andrews Presbyterian College
17
St. Francis College
18
Texas A&M University, Kingsville
19
Troy State University
20
High Point University
21
University of North Carolina
22
University of Wisconsin, River Falls
23
California University of Pennsylvania
24
Carson-Newman College
25
University of Dallas
26
Drexel University
27
Muhlenberg College
28
University of Northern Colorado
29
Siena College
30
University of Southern Maine
31
Southern Methodist University
32
Wake Forest University
33
Eureka College
34
Columbia Union College
35
Mississippi College
36
University of Hartford
37
University of Florida
38
University of Cincinnati
39
University of Louisville
TRACK – CROSS COUNTRY
1
Cleveland State University
2
Old Dominion University
3
University of Southern Colorado
4
Wayne State University
5
West Liberty State College
6
Fitchburg State College
7
York College of Pennsylvania
8
Barry University
9
Menlo University
10
University of Nevada
11
Randolph-Macon College
12
University of Southern California
13
San Diego State University
14
Saint Leo College
15
Beckerd College
16
Juniata College
17
Lincoln University
18
University of South Carolina
19
Bluffton College
20
Concordia College
21
Keuka College
22
Mississippi State University
23
Northern Michigan University
24
Marian College
Division
Year Dropped
I
I
I
II
II
III
I
III
II
III
II
III
II
I
I
II
I
II
I
II
II
III
II
II
III
I
III
II
I
III
I
I
III
II
II
I
I
I
I
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1997
1997
1998
1998
I
I
II
II
II
II
III
II
III
I
III
I
I
II
II
III
II
I
III
II
III
I
II
III
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
School
25
Westminster College
VOLLEYBALL
1
Lehman College
2
University of Bridgeport
3
Dartmouth College
4
Menlo College
5
Montana State University
6
University of Wisconsin, Madison
7
Thomas Moore College
WATER POLO
1
Hamden-Sydney College
2
University of Arkansas
3
University of California, Riverside
4
University of Dayton
5
University of Richmond
6
Boston College (phasing out team)
WRESTLING
1
Drake University
2
Grand Valley State
3
Alleghany College
4
American University, Puerto Rico
5
Elmhurst College
6
University of Massachusetts, Boston
7
Rutgers University, Newark
8
Wentworth Institute of Technology
9
Carthage College
10
John Jay College
11
Lake Superior State University
12
Liberty University
13
Ripon College
14
Southwest Missouri State University
15
University of Toledo
16
Clemson University
17
University of Dayton
18
Fort Lewis College
19
Illinois State University
20
Valparaiso University
21
St. Lawrence University
22
Moravian College
23
Manhatten College
24
Juniata College
25
College of William and Mary
26
California University of Pennsylvania
27
Central Connecticut State University
28
Concordia University
29
Kean College
30
University of Minnestoa, Duluth
31
Morgan State University
32
Susquehanna University
33
Rutgers University, Camden
34
University of Wisconsin, Stout
35
Martin Luther College
36
University of North Dakota
37
Georgia State University
38
Boston College (phasing out team)
39
Miami University of Ohio
40
Brigham Young University
41
University of New Mexico
42
Mansfield University
43
University of Massachusetts, Lowell
Division
III
Year Dropped
1997
III
II
I
III
II
I
III
1993
1994
1994
1994
1996
1997
1997
III
I
II
I
I
I
1993
1994
1994
1994
1998
Announced 1998
I
II
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
II
I
III
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
III
III
I
III
I
I
I
III
III
II
I
III
III
III
III
II
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
Announced 1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
Title IX Athletics – 31 –June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
SCHOOL/SPORTS
SMITH
Basketball
Crew (Varsity)
Crew (Novice)
Cross Country
Field Hockey
Lacrosse
Riding (Equest.)
Skiing
Soccer
Softball
Squash
Swimming & Diving
Tennis
Track
Volleyball
Total Athletes
Total Students
Percent Participation
WELLESLEY
Basketball
Crew (Varsity)
Crew (Novice)
Fencing
Field Hockey
Lacrosse
Soccer
Squash
Swimming & Diving
Tennis
Track/Cross Country
Volleyball
Total Athletes
Total Students
Percent Participation
1997
1998
1999
15
45
?
20
20
18
25
12
25
16
--40
20
35
15
306
2500
12.2%
11
73
?
17
21
16
31
11
21
13
--25
11
26
14
290
2700
10.7%
10
22
(23)
10
20
18
26
12
20
15
15
29
10
28
14
249
2700
9.2%
12-15
20
?
12
20
20
20
12
26
--12
12
169
2300
7.3%
15
25
(25)
15
20
20
20
15
25
--15
15
185
2000
9.3%
15
23
(22)
15
25
25
25
15
25
15
15
15
213
1750
12.2%
*Numbers reported by each school by telephone and fax transmission.
Title IX Athletics – 33 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
Other Sources
InterMat Wrestling Web Site
http://www.intermatwrestle.com
National Coalition for Athletics Equity (NCAE)
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004
(202)496-1298
4RKIDS@ncae.com
www.ncae.com
Leo Kocher
Head Wrestling Coach
University of Chicago
5640S, University Avenue
Chicago, IL 60637
PH: 773-702-4641
Simply Common Sense
529 South 7th Street, Suite 507
Minneapolis, MN 55415-1804
PH: (612)370-2678
FX: (612)349-6584
scs@thewrestlingmall.com
National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Online
http://www.ncaa.org
Title IX Compliance Bulletin for College Athletics
Editor: Harry W. Lloyd
Dept. 235F
360 Hiatt Drive
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
The Chronicle of Higher Education
1255 23rd Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
(202)466-1000
www.chronicle.com
Title IX Athletics – 34 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum
About the IWF
The Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), founded in 1992, provides a woman’s
voice on important policies and issues of the day. Our goal is to reinstate women as a
positive force for freedom, opportunity and self-government.
Through our educational programs and publications, we encourage people to
make decisions based on facts, common sense and consideration of what is best for
society as a whole, not just ”women” or any special interest group. Among the subjects
we address are women and work (tax reform, regulatory reform, retirement security, balancing
job and family)
 women in education (feminism on campus, Title IX regulation, single-sex
schools, science)
 equal opportunity (affirmative action, women in the military, sexual harassment)
and
 social justice (children, marriage, welfare reform, junk science and women’s
health).
We communicate our ideas to decision makers and the public through many means.
We publish books such as Women’s Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic
Progress of Women in America and our magazine The Women’s Quarterly. We also
assist college women in publishing their own campus magazines. Visit our website,
www.IWF.org, where many of our publications, as well as our Media Directory of
Women Experts, are available electronically.
IWF sponsors a monthly speaker series in addition to special conferences and
debates. IWF representatives appear frequently on major television and radio shows, and
often publish articles in nationally known newspapers and magazines. We are frequently
invited to testify before Congress, and we have filed amicus curiae briefs in several
important constitutional law cases.
IWF is a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization recognized under
Section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions to IWF are tax-deductible
to the extent permitted by law.
To find out more information, or to order out book Women’s Figures, contact
IWF at 1-800-224-6000 or e-mail us at iwf@iwf.org.
Title IX Athletics – 35 – June 2000
Independent Women’s Forum