I’m on the UCLA men’s crew team, and I’m
telling you, big things could happen this year. We’ve
got the right combination of dynamic coaches and stellar athletes
““ now all we need is a few new boats and oars, a couple new
rowing machines, an assistant coach or two, and we seriously could
go all the way!Â
Unfortunately, we just can’t afford it. Men’s
crew lost its funding a decade ago and has only survived because of
the generosity of alumni and the enormous dedication of its coaches
and team members. I, along with every male rower, swimmer,
diver, gymnast and wrestler at UCLA, am a victim of Title IX.
In 1972, Congress passed Title IX in an attempt to equalize
educational opportunity ““ both on the high school and
collegiate levels ““ in the United States. Title IX
addressed all aspects of the educational experience, and for the
most part, has been a resounding success. Teenage mothers are
now given the chance to graduate high school without facing
discrimination. In 1972, women represented 7 percent of a
graduating law school class ““ today, women receive 43 percent
of all law degrees. Athletic scholarships for women were
virtually nonexistent before Title IX, but today there are more
than 10,000 nationwide scholarships for women athletes. Sounds
great: All students, regardless of gender, getting an equal
opportunity to compete in sports on the collegiate level,
right?
Not exactly. In an attempt to equalize campus athletics, UCLA
(along with many other great universities nationwide) has
eliminated funding for a lot of men’s programs. And
these aren’t failing teams siphoning funds from the athletic
department ““ these teams have national-champion quality. Many
of UCLA’s potential male Olympians were stopped dead in their
tracks by Title IX.
In an ironic twist of fate, a law designed to open the door for
women shut that door for men.
Title IX itself is not so bad, it’s the traditional
interpretation of the law which causes problems. According to
the Department of Education, there is a “three-part
test” to determine if a school is complying with Title IX,
and a school only needs to satisfy one of these parts to be
following the law.Â
The first part is “substantial proportionality”,
which requires a school to provide athletic opportunity for men and
women, which is proportional to the school’s
enrollment. For example, if women comprise 56 percent of the
student body, then 56 percent of the athletic department must be
comprised of women.
The second part is “history and continuing
practice,” which is satisfied when a school demonstrates a
history of expanding its athletic program (facilities, teams,
funding, etc.) to meet the needs of the underrepresented sex.
The third part is “effectively accommodating interests and
abilities.” Remember your Economics 1
class? Section 3 is about supply and demand. This test
requires the school to supply athletic opportunity (for both men
and women) based on the demand for it.
Even though there are three ways of satisfying Title IX, nearly
all schools use the proportionality test. That is a big
mistake. They use this test because it’s the easiest of
the three to prove. All an athletic director has to do is look
at the gender makeup of the student body and adjust the team
rosters accordingly. However, this test doesn’t reflect
reality ““ it assumes men and women have an equal desire to
compete in college sports. But studies have shown men are
statistically more interested in competing in sports than
women. J. Robinson, wrestling coach at the University of
Minnesota and a national spokesman against the discriminatory
effects of Title IX, pointed out that “intramural sports
reflect students’ interest in sports, and that "men outnumber
women 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 on the intramural field."Â Look at Drake
Stadium in the afternoon and see for yourself.
I believe the “effectively accommodating interests
and abilities” test is a better way to determine funding for
college sports. Instead of basing sports programs on male to
female ratios of the student body ““ numbers which don’t
reflect interest in sports ““ universities should determine
the demand for each sport.Â
Supply and demand works for our economy; why can’t it work
for our sports teams? If women show a greater interest in
sports than men, women should receive a greater proportion of the
school’s funding, and vice-versa.
A victory for women doesn’t have to be a defeat for men.
Opportunity in sports doesn’t have to be mutually
exclusive. UCLA should reevaluate its athletic funding
policies and apply Title IX more fairly. Until then, the crew team
will remain unfunded and outnumbered.
Ludlow is a second-year political science student. E-mail him at
dludlow@media.ucla.edu.