Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review July 22, 2003 / 22 Tamuz, 5763

Bill Steigerwald

Bill Steigerwald
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Title IX's original intent Ten minutes with Eric Pearson | Feminist groups will tell you Title IX, the 1972 federal law that prohibits schools that accept federal money from practicing discrimination based on sex, has created the boom in women's collegiate sports.

College wrestling, basketball, and track and field coaches, on the other hand, will tell you that Title IX — i.e., the misenforcement of its rules by athletic administrators — has created a gender-quota system that has killed hundreds of men's collegiate sports teams.

The Bush administration and the Department of Education announced July 11 that, after a review of the law and its effects, it was pretty much keeping Title IX the way it is, but would make sure colleges know all their options.

The decision thrilled Title IX's defenders but greatly disappointed Eric Pearson, chairman of the College Sports Council, an association of college coaches that had joined in a lawsuit arguing that the Department of Education had effectively created a gender-quota system whose victims were men. Though a judge dismissed their complaint in June, Pearson's group has asked an appellate court to consider their case.

I talked to Pearson Tuesday by telephone from Washington, D.C.

Q: Did President Bush and the Department of Education wimp out on Title IX?

A: The Bush administration caved in to the special interest groups that are led by the gender-quota advocates and trial lawyers that need the current policies to stay intact so they can continue to sue universities over Title IX compliance.

Q: Feminists are hailing this decision as a huge victory for Title IX's defenders. Is that true?

A: First of all, we fully support Title IX as the law was originally written. The law says you can't discriminate on the basis of gender. We believe that we're the ones upholding Title IX as it was truly intended. Currently, the feminists have had a victory for gender quotas. The Bush administration has put their approval on gender quotas. That is what our issue is over entirely — the gender quota.

Q: The gender quota you don't like is the one that says women have to be proportionately represented on the athletic teams, as men are, in relation to the school's overall enrollment?

A: Yes.

Q: What was Title IX supposed to do?

Donate to JWR

A: Title IX was originally supposed to protect women from discrimination in medical school, law school and, to some degree, undergraduate admission. In the 1960s and late '70s, women often confronted discrimination in the admissions process. Then when Title IX was passed in 1972, there was a slow evolution toward creating a quota system, which it was never intended to be. In the Congressional Record, it is very clearly stated that it should never become a quota system.

Q: How did Title IX go into athletics?

A: In 1979, the three-part test went into effect. That pretty much started the focus on athletics.

Q: And the three-part test is what?

A: The three-part test says that the university, technically, is in compliance if it does one of three things. One is that its student body be proportionate to its athletic departments. That includes every athlete, and it includes every student that's an undergraduate, whether they're 50 years old or 20.

The second prong says you are in compliance if you have added a women's team in the last five years. The third prong is very vague and has never held up in court. It says you are in compliance if you are "meeting interest."

Q: In other words, if 10 women want to play badminton, you have to give them a team?

A: That's the way it could be read. If a group of women petition an administrator and say, "We want to start a women's lacrosse team," they have clearly demonstrated there's interest. If the administrator says, "Sorry, you can't play because you're girls," that's discrimination. And that's why Title IX exists.


Q: Was it the rules of Title IX or the interpretation of the rules by the administrators or the courts that made it the Frankenstein you say it is?

A: Well, it all starts with the interpretation by the Department of Education. The regulations are set up by the department and then they are interpreted by the courts. The most significant case to date is Cohen v. Brown (1992).

Amy Cohen was a gymnast, and she sued Brown University because she wanted to get funding for her gymnastic team — for uniforms, team travel, access to lockers. It was an entirely reasonable request.

Unfortunately, what came out of the case is that the court only focused on proportionality. ...

And from then on, most schools have focused only on proportionality. Also, the NCAA has been promoting a gender-quota study, so the NCAA has also been putting pressure on universities to come under compliance with proportionality.

The NCAA also promotes the practice of roster management, which is a numerical limit placed on men's squad sizes to lower the total number of men in an athletic department to comply with proportionality. It's a form of discrimination that is very widespread and very underreported. Most people just talk about the tragedy of programs being eliminated, but they're not focusing on the everyday discrimination that's happening with roster management.

Q: So instead of 50 guys on a football team, there are 40?

A: Right. Especially, it's really amazing to look at sports that have equivalents for both genders, like track and field. On the men's team, for example, they'll say you can only have 15 guys. Then they'll tell the women's coach you're not allowed to cut anybody. In fact, we want you get 30 women to come out for this team.

They're trying to comply with proportionality by doing this roster management. They're picking on the guys, and the guys are being punished because not enough women are going out for their teams. So if you have a lacrosse team, a track team or a swimming team for men and women, you don't get credit for that. You only get credit for the actual number of bodies that go out for a team.

That's why I say it's a strange world of enforcement. If a man shows up, and he's told to go because of his gender — the wrong gender — that's not discrimination. But if nobody shows up on the women's side, that's considered discrimination.

Q: So, what did the lawsuit filed by the National Wrestling Coaches Association against the Department of Education seek to do?

A: Well, we have said that the three-prong test actually is illegal because it has created a quota system, which according to the Congressional Record when they passed Title IX was specifically disallowed. So we're going back to the way the law was originally written and intended and saying this is not the way it was meant to be regulated.

Q: What is your best argument for enforcing Title IX's rules the way they were meant to be enforced?

A: We want to see the law continue to protect women, but not harm men. What you've got to provide is a little more flexibility to these administrators so they just don't have to count the numbers of their athletes.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Bill Steigerwald is an associate editor and columnist at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Comment by clicking here.

07/11/03: Vanity Fair dishes it out on JFK Jr., N.Y. Times
07/09/03: Why Ben Franklin should be the "Father of Our Country" ... 10 minutes with Walter Isaacson
07/07/03: Honoring nation's first celebrity superstar
06/27/03: Reader's Digest can't help but act its age
06/24/03: Dick Morris, consultant for hire, reveals the inside story
06/20/03: Move over, Hillary. Here comes a better work of fiction
06/10/03: Publications take us away from Middle East
06/03/03: Dear graduates: Work for freedom 10 minutes with Penn Jillette
05/30/03: National Geographic goes to the top of the world
05/23/03: Editors dabble in history, fiction
05/16/03: The Old Grim Lady gets covered
05/09/03: Political parties fighting over Iraq's wreckage
05/07/03: 10 minutes with a big-city Dem mayor who loathes budget deficits, the federal highway program, taxpayer-funded sports stadiums and the meddling (and aid money) of Washington
05/02/03: Are you sufficiently terrified?
04/29/03: Finally, a president defending American principles in the Middle East ... 10 minutes with Alexander Haig
04/25/03: Newsweeklies starting to lose interest in Iraq war
04/21/03: There's bias, and then there's bias
04/11/03: Planning future of Iraq, world
04/04/03: Newsweeklies come back with graphic look at war
03/28/03: Newsweeklies try to keep up with TV war coverage
03/26/03: Wen Ho Lee whistle-blower says beware of China
03/21/03: America's ready for war ... and peace
03/18/03: Baseball limping, not dead 10 minutes with author Andrew Zimbalist
03/14/03: Vanity Fair gets us ready for month's big event
03/11/03: A road map for Iraq's liberation devised by James Madison? 10 minutes with James S. Robbins
03/06/03: Iraq war will come and go before we know it
02/28/03: America takes time out for swimsuits
02/26/03: 'We shall be seen as liberators' .... 10 minutes with noted Brit commentator David Pryce-Jones
02/21/03: Terrorism one of many losing battles
02/14/03: Editors planning for the day after Gulf War II
02/12/03: The 'religiosity' of Ronald Reagan 10 minutes with author Paul Kengor
02/10/03: Should the shuttle crash be the end of NASA?
02/06/03: Dear Joan ...
01/31/03: Newsweek, Nation ponder pros, cons of Gulf War II
01/24/03: 'Original' ideas follow New Deal philosophy
01/22/03: When handicapping 2004, watch the economy: Ten minutes with Charlie Cook
01/17/03: New Republic fans hatred for SUVs
01/14/03: 10 minutes with Santorum on ... taxes, steel and Lott
01/10/03: Newsweeklies move on to latest menace
01/07/03: The best of the Q&As
12/30/02: Rosie's demise tops list of 2002 highlights
12/23/02: GOP must stick to its principles: 10 questions for ... Bill Kristol
12/20/02: Lott fiasco uncovers bigger problem
12/18/02: Free markets king in Sweden, at least for a day: Ten minutes with . Donald Boudreaux
12/13/02: Corruption of Indian casinos no surprise
12/06/02: Giving credit to young philanthropists
12/02/02: Ten minutes with . Chris Matthews
11/26/02: It's critical to memorialize communism's victims: 10 minutes with Lee Edwards
11/22/02: JFK's secret health woes are revealed
11/19/02: “It's best to contain Saddam”: Ten minutes with Col. David Hackworth
11/15/02: Brushing up on the affairs of a wild world
11/12/02: Make Dems filibuster 10 minutes with Robert L. Bartley
11/08/02: National Geographic: Urban overpopulation is good
11/05/02: The bloody consequences of a broken INS: Ten minutes with Michelle Malkin
11/01/02: Going to pot; thank heaven for media overkill
10/29/02: It's all about federalism: Ten minutes with Jonah Goldberg
10/25/02: Frank Sinatra, Kurt Cobain, Mad Magazine will never die
10/22/02: Here's why Orwell matters: Ten minutes with Christopher Hitchens
10/18/02: The sniper knocks Iraq off the covers
10/15/02: Iraq, oil and war: 10 minutes with ... economist/historian Daniel Yergin
10/11/02: England's gun-control experiment has backfired
10/04/02: Buchanan the media baron?
09/27/02: Analyzing Esquire, GQ is not for the squeamish
09/20/02: CEOs: The rise and fall of American heroes
09/13/02: Skeptics remind U.S. to calm down
09/10/02: 'A failure to recognize a failure': 15 minutes with ... Bill Gertz
09/06/02: Rating the 9-11 mags
08/30/02: Bad trains, bad planes, and bad automobiles
08/28/02: Baseball, broken, can be fixed: 15 minutes with George Will
08/16/02: 9-11 overload has already begun
08/13/02: Tell us what you really think, Ann Coulter
08/09/02: A funny take on a new kind of suburb
08/02/02: It's not the humidity, it's the (media) heat wave; the death of American cities
07/12/02: Colombia's drug lords are all business
07/09/02: If capitalism is 'soulless' then show me something better: 10 minutes with Alan Reynolds
06/25/02: Origins of a scandal: 10 minutes with Michael Rose
06/21/02: 9/11 report unearths good, bad and ugly
06/18/02: The FBI is rebounding 10 Minutes with Ronald Kessler
06/14/02: U.S. News opens closet of Secret Service
06/11/02: 10 minutes with William Lind: Can America survive in this 'fourth-generation' world?
06/07/02: America, warts and all
05/30/02: FBI saga gets more depressing
05/13/02: The magazine industry's annual exercise in self-puffery
04/30/02: 10 Minutes with ... The New York Sun's Seth Lipsky
04/26/02: Will the American Taliban go free?
04/23/02: 10 minutes with ... Dinesh D'Souza
04/19/02: Saddam starting to show his age
04/12/02: Newsweek puts suicide bombing in perspective
04/09/02: How polls distort the news, change the outcome of elections and encourage legislation that undermines the foundations of the republic
04/05/02: Looking into the state of American greatness
03/25/02: The American President and the Peruvian Shoeshine Boys
03/22/02: Troublemaking intellectual puts Churchill in spotlight
03/20/02: 10 minutes with ... Bill Bennett
03/18/02: Suddenly, it's cool again to be a man
03/12/02: 10 minutes with Ken Adelman
03/08/02: TIME asks the nation a scary question
03/05/02: 10 minutes with ... Rich Lowry
02/26/02: 10 minutes with ... Tony Snow
02/12/02: Has Soldier of Fortune gone soft?

© 2002, Bill Steigerwald