Wrestling with Title IX
Latest update: November 5th, 2006
Please
be sure to check out
SavingSports.org
for the latest news on college sports' revival despite judicial
misinterpretations of Title IX... Meanwhile:
Here
is a
list of college wrestling programs dropped since 1972
(when the otherwise noble Title IX was enacted), and here's a list
of
recently
added varsity non-club college / university teams.
Have you seen how the Bush Administration has helped wrestling survive through restoring the Executive Branch's interpretation of Title IX more to its original Congressional intent? For details, please click here.
Did you know that President Bush invited the 2001 & 2002 NCAA championship-winning University of Minnesota wrestling team to the White House?
Have you
seen how many colleges have either reinstated or officially added wrestling
during the past year, alone? Well over a dozen. Feel free to
click
here
for the details.
DaytonDailyNews.com
article:
"In the past 15 years, wrestling is eighth on the list of most-dropped
NCAA programs, at 121 teams. Cross country leads at 183, and indoor track
(180), golf (178), tennis (171), rowing (132), outdoor track (126) and swimming
(125) have lost more than wrestling in that time....In January, faced with
a budgetary decision, the University of Findlay converted men's and women's
hockey to intramural sports and spared wrestling. Five institutions, including
Utah Valley State College in NCAA Division I, will start wrestling programs
next season."
The College Sports Council is suing the
General Accounting Office for reporting Title IX damage to men's athletics
in a very misleading, minimalistic manner. Here's the
article.
Washington Times article: Wrestling has WON with the new Title IX reform... Perhaps this was the victory that wrestling needed, even if our sport's recent Title IX victory is being kept rather quiet for politically pragmatic reasons prior to the 2004 elections?
WashingtonPost.com
article:
the Bush Administration has come out with its final guidelines regarding
how it will interpret Title IX.
For the latest on the amateur wrestling, track,
swimming and gymnastics communities' lawsuit against the U.S. federal government
regarding Clinton's proportionality interpretation of Title IX, please click
here
and also visit
SavingSports.org.
Education Secretary Paige's Commission on Opportunity
in Athletics held public hearings nationwide on proposed reforms to Title
IX: proportionality. For more information, please visit
here or
here.
Washington
Times.com
article:
Since 1979, the number of Division I programs has declined from
152 to 86. Division III programs declined from 150 to 100 during that same
time. Overall, there were only 229 wrestling teams to chose from last year.
Of all the high school sports nationwide, boys' wrestling presently
has the sixth highest total (244,637) of participants (according to the 2002
Participation Survey press release linked from
here). There
are a quarter of a million high school wrestlers despite the relatively lower
popularity levels of indoor sports in states with warmer weather. Anyhow,
elsewhere we have read that that's a record high quantity for humanity's
oldest (and arguably its toughest) sport.
Meanwhile, here's an article about the Bush Administration's having worked so hard to put Gerald Reynolds in charge of Title IX implementation...
A high profile feminist and former athlete who happens to be the chief
speech-writer for U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft strongly opposes
what "Title IX: proportionality" has done to wrestling. Ms. Gavora
recently spoke on Title IX: proportionality's chaotic consequences (past
& future), the subject of her brand new book. This took place
at the Independent Women's Forum in Washington D.C. on May 7th, 2002. Here
are the
details.
Is it a surprise that on January 16th, 2002, the National
Wrestling Coaches Association
filed
a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education on behalf
of alumni from many universities now lacking wrestling programs?
Title IX's a good law but its surprising "proportionality"
application during recent years has destroyed many wrestling teams withOUT
really boosting athletic opportunities for women. Is this desirable?
Perhaps for the first time ever, a college wrestling
team was
recently
invited to visit the White House. As the
picture
suggests, misinterpretations of Title IX are probably going to be
increasingly on people's radar screens now that they're on President Bush's.
Title IX is a highly worthwhile law, but interpretations of it during
the 1990's were never intended by Congress, and likely don't make
anyone happy as far as humanity's oldest sport is concerned.
Encouragingly enough, as the latest women's college
amateur wrestling
rankings
from TheMat.com, as well as other news
at the
InterMat´s
ever-expanding women´s amateur wrestling site suggest, gender equality
regarding college participation in amateur wrestling is gradually starting
to emerge. It stands to reason that more and more women would now
consider wrestling as an athletic endeavor. After all, self-defense
sports are becoming increasingly potentially useful due to the USA's
record-setting $5.9
trillion dollar national debt, which is straining law enforcement budgets
nationwide like never before. College wrestling already attracts among
the largest crowds of any college sport except for football & basketball.
With increased active female involvement, this will probably
only improve. Meanwhile, though, eliminating more men's college
programs until equality takes place does not seem to favor our sport for
either gender. As this
list
of college wrestling programs dropped since 1972 demonstrates, although
Title IX has very noble gender equality goals, it has nevertheless done
ENOUGH damage to NCAA wrestling. Several hundred college wrestling
teams have vanished since Title IX went into effect in 1972, even though
amateur wrestling is among the 6 most popular sports in terms of participation
at the high school level. How could women (let alone men) possibly
want this outcome regarding practically the only sport that does not
discriminate on the basis of blindness, deafness, amputee status, size,
gender or race?
Let´s hope that Mr. Rod Paige, the
Bush Administration's impressive new head of the
Department of Education, will recognize the
importance of sports that have been severely damaged by the new proportionality
interpretation of an otherwise noble Title IX. The following February,
2001 NCAA
article lays
out what we can seemingly expect on the road to reform. Although
we did not succeed at curtailing the Clinton Administration´s Title
IX: proportionality
tantrum at
the U.S. Supreme Court level, fortunately
one of our country´s
two major political parties nevertheless seeks to help remedy the callous
killing of secondary male sports. Please
support
political candidates willing to save college wrestling if you want
today´s and tomorrow´s youth (of both genders) to be able
to benefit from such a relatively equal-opportunity, and amazingly
character-building sport. Our elected
officials need our votes and support, and want to at least appear to
be responsive too.
In the mean time, the non-profit club team league
NCWA also continues to persevere and grow.
Please visit the National Collegiate Wrestling Association's page
at: http://www.ncwa.net and
learn about the several dozen college "club teams"
that are duking it out from coast to coast. If you feel up to it, please
send an informative e-mail about the NCWA to some of the athletic departments
at schools currently lacking wrestling teams. By doing so, you
could help set off a domino effect and this Title IX article will
finally become useless. Here is a free directory
of college homepages:
http://www.scholarstuff.com
.
Moving along, the disproportionate damage that
Title IX has caused to men's athletics is remarkable, as
the July
30th, 1997 report issued by the Joint Task Force to Protect Wrestling
demonstrates. Indeed, as stated by Clay McEldowney, former
chairperson of the Friends of Princeton Wrestling organization, the NCAA
released a survey of 742 NCAA schools revealing that
from 1992 until April of ´97, such schools have gained 5,009 female
varsity athletes while having simultaneously lost 17,009 male ones.
Why should the USA continue losing 3.4 male athletic positions (not necessarily
scholarship-related ones, either) every time it ads merely ONE female athletic
position in its collective roster?
One need not look any farther
than the hundreds of men's wrestling teams that have been exterminated since
1972 to realize that something really sad is happening. As the
Washington
Post's page exclusively dedicated to Title IX suggests, these are
very difficult times for men's amateur sports at the college level.
The Clinton Administration's
bureaucrats' clarification
(i.e. dictation) regarding the otherwise noble Title IX of the 1972 Higher
Education Act states that a school is in compliance with gender equity laws
only if the percentage of women participating in athletics is equal [within
5%] to the percentage of women making up the student body. This test
is known as "proportionality". It is unlike the former interpretation
of Title IX that the pre-Clinton Department of Education applied.
The new test:
1) calls for the use of primarily quotas to determine if colleges (and soon
even high schools) are in violation of Title IX. Such quotas are not
related to female interest in sports at a particular institution. They
also don´t consider the fact that of the high school seniors who
choose to participate in varsity athletics, 64% are male and 36% are female.
These quotas are based merely on the percentage of each gender in a college's
(and soon a high school's) student body. The two genders' comparative
interest in participating in sports is essentially ignored;
2) ignores the 1972 congressional intent, which was to provide equal opportunity
for both men and women who are interested in participating in college athletics.
The goal was always to expand opportunities for females, BUT NOT
by destroying the athletic opportunities of males just because females
at their particular school choose not to fill up the existing (but vacant)
female varsity roster positions. There are ALREADY about 7,000 male teams
and 7,000 female teams at the college level, and males walk-on at twice the
percentage of females. Why don't females choose to first fill the existing
rosters before asking for STILL MORE teams to be established at the expense
of male walk-ons?;
3) TOTALLY IGNORES:
a) recent Supreme Court precedents,
as well as
lower federal court ones, saying that arbitrary quotas are
not sufficient to prove the existence of discrimination.
(Hopefully schools interested in appealing
to the U.S. Supreme Court won't be discouraged by
The Court's refusal
to hear the Ivy League's Brown University appeal of its hotly-contested
Cohen case.
The Court only has time to hear about 1% of the appeals put before it, and
it is typical for the Supreme Court to want to wait for more than one lower
court case to come before them. They want to choose a factually clear
cut case which generalizes a national problem or trend that is CLEARLY bugging
a LOT of people. While the Supreme Court's decision not to become involved
in the Cohen case seemed to send a signal of approval of the gender-equity
law, it did NOT establish a legal precedent. Other universities, therefore,
may continue interpreting the law as in previous years. Meanwhile, if we
organize at the grassroots level we'll eventually be more likely to get an
audience in Washington D.C. Please click here
if you're willing to put forth just 15 minutes of your time to help save
wrestling.)
As future appeals to The Court will surely state,
why should school enrollment ratios be used as the primary test for
discrimination, instead of participation ratios? Females have spent
lots of money conducting lots of Title IX studies but not one shows that
there is any relationship between a school's enrollment ratios and its
comparative interest in participating among the two genders.
The most obvious reason why there is no relationship is because almost all
athletes, even at the Division III level, are recruited from the high school
ranks (where sports are more popular among boys than girls). Should
men's opportunities be eliminated just because they're more than twice as
likely to walk-on to college teams? If somebody can truly demonstrate
a relationship between these two ratios, then PLEASE show us the study.
Otherwise, though, isn't the test unconstitutional?
b) requests by Deputy Whip Congressman Dennis Hastert (IL)
to:
1) count unused roster spots on female teams
as participation opportunities for women when complying with (now former)
U.S. Dept. of Educaion director Norma Cantu's quota; and
2) specify acceptable surveys to measure the
athletic interests and abilities on a campus.
Essentially, here is
what would need to happen before colleges could obtain the "proportionality"
between men's and women's athletics programs at the college level....Presently
there are about 190,000 male athletes and 110,000 female athletes, participating
on a nevertheless equal quantity of teams. In the wake of budget cuts,
proportionality with the 14 female sports (and their corresponding 110,000
participants) would essentially have to be obtained by completely eliminating
nearly a dozen MALE programs on the national level. Those programs
include: Wrestling (6,500 participants), Swimming (7,500), Soccer (15,000),
Track O (16,000), Track I (18,000), Gymnastics (500 participants), Fencing
(800), Lacrosse (5,000), Ice Hockey (3,500) and Volleyball (1,000). Eliminating
these men's programs would leave five male sports (Baseball, Tennis, Golf,
Basketball and Football) along with a little over 100,000 male participants.
Then there would finally be the so-called "equity" between men's programs
and the comparable quantity of females who opted to go out for a sports
team. (Please remember that males "walk-on" at twice the rate as females.).
If these numbers have to be the same under the
Ed. Dept.'s new proportionality quota interpretation of Title IX, how do
college wrestling's 6,000 or so participants get spared from extinction?
Illustrating the injustice, amateur wrestling is very popular
at the high school level, but also disproportionately endangered
because female interest in the sport is so relatively low. Wrestling
suffers at the feet of social engineers in Washington D.C. even though it
is apparently the only sport that doesn't discriminate against people
on the basis of blindness, deafness, amputee status, size, or
gender. Nevertheless, even though back during
the early 1970s there were nearly 9,000 wrestlers on 400 college teams (according
to an Associated Press article), participation in the sport has
since declined
substantially.
Wrestling should be treated as
a "sacred cow" for its inspirational non-discriminatory nature, and
not punished for its relative health and popularity
among males at the high school level. Such popularity is substantial,
by the way. At least during the late 1990's, more than 220,000
high school wrestlers compete on 8,500 teams, making wrestling the sixth
most popular sport at the high school level. The above figure represents
an increase of almost 2,000 high schools since the early 1970s, according
to the National Federation of State High School Associations.
Its popularity is probably increasing more than ever in this new
age of rugged individualism and law enforcement budget cuts, too. Of
those 220,000 high school wrestlers, 1,000 are female.
We really would be wise to SUPPORT
WOMEN'S WRESTLING PROGRAMS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. Nothing
would be better than to have more women willing to identify with our
loyalty to humanity's oldest (and best?) sport. However, although
women's
amateur wrestling is finally catching on at the college levels, please
keep in mind that female wrestling programs likely won't reach the level
of participation and female-interest that would be required before we could
finally salvage and replenish jeopardized (and already destroyed) men's wrestling
programs. It's well worth a try, though, and it's encouraging
to see the many advances that are taking place, as noted on the
ever-expanding
InterMat´s
women´s wrestling site. Meanwhile, praise is warranted each
time we notice a significant female wrestling breakthrough such as
that of
Collegiate High School's
female 119 pounder
(Sunny
Clemons ), who became the first female ever to win a match in Virginia's
independent high schools state tournament.
Meanwhile, in returning to the quotas issue,
please keep in mind that capping rosters of the equilibrium-tilting sport
of men's football would merely prompt affected coaches to simply dump
ambitious walk-ons. Not one penny would consequently be saved for helping
the females. Would anyone care to dispute any of these claims?
This article's author is very much a feminist, but nevertheless disagrees
with some women's callous "OH WELL!!!" responses to wrestling's forced decline.
Indeed, even the feminist academician Camille Paglia fairly recently
stated at a
Princeton
sports debate that the Ed. Dept.'s latest efforts are a misguided interpretation
of feminism. "It does not do feminism any good to create this kind of backlash.
Women's liberation cannot be achieved upon the smoking ruins of men's
traditions." Nevertheless, some still reply with
question-begging (i.e. assuming what they're trying to prove) by saying existing
(but un-used) places on female rosters would be occupied IF only women had
more role models. An interesting assertion......
The data strongly suggests that sufficient seeds have
already been sewn to ensure the appropriate level of prosperity of women's
athletics. IF women REALLY WANT such programs to do well, they possess the
power to actively control their destinies. First, equity between
the quantity of roster opportunities ALREADY exists. The potential
financial support is there, too. In fact, today nearly half the U.S. businesses
are owned by women, and the rate of female ownership is growing 3 times faster
than male ownership (Source: John Naisbitt, author of best sellers such as
Megatrends 2000, and Global Paradox). These impressive, energetic and
non-fatalistic female entrepreneurs are productive individuals who tend to
view micro-managing civil rights efforts as not only degrading to women,
but also as tax-wasting, and self-perpetuating for D.C. bureaucrats.
Impressively enough, they also couldn't care less about the rather
irrelevant "glass ceiling" that the D.C. bureaucrats cite when trying to
keep the tax dollars flowing into their parasitic paycheck fund. The
significance of this pet "glass ceiling" is greatly diminished by the fact
that the Fortune 500 accounts for far less than a mere 10% of the U.S.A.'s
Gross Domestic Product. Over 90% of the U.S. GDP is produced OUTSIDE of the
Fortune 500, and female-owned businesses are already doing their part to
put the Fortune 500 in its less-prominent place (without demeaning, and divisive,
quotas).
The U.S.A.'s recent
Olympic
success demonstrates just how much parity between men's and women's athletics
already exists. In Sydney, like in Atlanta, women accomplished a GREAT deal
to help the U.S. pull ahead of the rest of the entire world. This
is the case despite the fact that even today in the divisive "politically
correct" era which has also encouraged women to ignore virtually all gender
barriers, 64% of the HIGH SCHOOL seniors who CHOOSE to participate in varsity
athletics are male, while merely 36% are female. Men still "walk-on"
to college sports teams at over twice the rate as women. Does the
Ed. Dept. think that the "Nature versus Nurture" debate has suddenly
been resolved? Does anyone really think that further social engineering
by D.C. bureaucrats will produce anything other than a net loss in the amateur
sports movement?
We can effect positive changes, but expect no
e-mail reply from militant people working to perpetuate
(and continue profiting from) the status quo. Instead, everybody
PLEASE e-mail
your local member of Congress and persuasively ask for their position
regarding the Dept. of Education´s "proportionality" approach to Title
IX. Find out if they're in favor of the Ed. Dept.'s "proportionality
test" that's killing amateur wrestling (etc.) across the U.S.A.
If that doesn't get you a response, then feel free to call them. You
can find all sorts of information about your elected officials at either
www.Senate.gov or
www.House.gov.
Signs of progress already
exist. The Ed. Dept.'s micro-managing helped the opposition party
Republicans maintain control of the House
and the rest of Congress
for the first time in nearly a century. Additionally, thanks
to hundreds of phone calls and letters, and an impressive cyber-rally, the
University of Massachusetts: Lowell and the University of Massachusetts:
Bridgewater were at least temporarily spared from the Title IX
"anti-discrimination" guillotine. Also, Federal Courts in both California
and Texas (the two largest states) have fairly recently ruled against the
use of quota-based discrimination. California residents have also
overwhelmingly voted for a Constitutionally-sound measure ending quota-based
discrimination. Nevertheless, the onslaught against wrestling is far
from over. Even men's baseball (Wisconsin, and Colgate),
football (San Francisco State, etc.), lacrosse (Michigan State) and swimming
(UCLA) have suffered the same destiny as many now extinct wrestling programs.
Additional future steps
should probably include collaboration with the the
non-profit National Collegiate Wrestling
Association. The rapidly-growing
NCWA facilitates intercollegiate
competition at the club level. Each regular season culminates with
an N.I.T. (National Invitational Tournament) tourney which could eventually
feed its most successful competitors into each year's NCAA tournament.
Meanwhile, the NCWA's page documents the progress we're
making in converting club teams into NCAA-sanctioned ones. It's reassuring,
but it's also frustrating having to keep worrying about Title IX´s new
proportionality interpretation along the road to recovery.
Meanwhile, it couldn't hurt to seek the NCAA's
official sanctioning of dance and aerobics as NCAA regulated sports. We already
consider activities like figure skating, gymnastics, ski jumping and diving
to be sports, rating performances with numbers. Why not dance, and
aerobics (which attract women in droves)? Please don't assume your
pleas to women involved in these activities will necessarily fall upon deaf
ears, because lots of women resent the proportionality interpretation of
Title IX too.
In conclusion, any victim
of gang violence can attest to the dangers that can result from eliminating
youth sports programs, but now there's serious talk of doing so even at the
high school level, in the name of Title IX´s new proportionality
interpretation. The Ed. Dept. has to obey the president, so please
always
vote
to save college wrestling if you want today´s and tomorrow´s
youth to continue being able to benefit from the only sport that does not
discriminate on the basis of blindness, deafness, amputee status, size, gender
or race.
This space is forever donated by:
.