Ultimately, after the Commission hearings ended, the Bush Administration chose not to listen to the suggestions of the panel, and issued a weak clarification that did not change the law. Those that were seeking to eliminate proportionality or change it dramatically did not get their way.

Now, the OCR issues a new clarification of the enforcement rules, basically saying that all three parts of the test are "safe harbors." That means that if you can comply with any of the three, you are not in violation of Title IX. A method for using part three, the "interest and abilities" test, was clarified, with a Model Survey for colleges to use to test whether or not they are accommodating interest.

Those that would like to see the quota eliminated did not get what they wanted again. Those who said that there are three ways to comply with Title IX were given what they asked for, a way to actually prove that compliance could be measured in part three.

So what is all this noise about coming from the quota advocate groups and from NCAA President Myles Brand? Every time people tried to call proportionality a quota, they said it was not because there are three ways to comply. Why would these people oppose the OCR developing a way to comply within part three?

The National Women's Law Center said the Bush Administration "weakened" Title IX. They claimed that the "Department of Education makes it easy for schools to escape their responsibility under Title IX." The Feminist Majority issued a statement claiming that the department "released a letter weakening the requirements of Part Three of the three-part test." HUH??

Even more shocking was the immediate response from NCAA President Myles Brand, who said he was "disappointed."

Brand claimed that the clarification was issued without "benefit of public discussion and input." I don't know where Brand was in 2002 and 2003 during the year-long Commission hearings, but that was certainly public discussion under any unbiased view. And, clearly Title IX has never ceased being a public topic since, often debated in the media and within academic circles.

Brands also acted as if this clarification of one of the prongs could be disastrous, another the-sky-is-falling declaration. Brands said this decision could be "a failure that will likely stymie the growth of women's athletics and could reverse the progress made over the last three decades." WHOA!!!

Let's take a step back here. Those seeking Title IX reform asked for the elimination of proportionality and called it a quota. The other side said that it was not a quota because there are three ways to comply with the law. So the OCR decides to agree with the quota advocates and bolsters the three-part test by giving some guidance and a measuring tool to the third part. You might think the people who claimed that there are three ways to comply with the law would be happy that the OCR is working hard to maintain the three-part test, right?

The initial response to the OCR decision shows just one thing. These people only care about protecting and defending part one, the proportionality quota. They are not really interested in seeing part two or part three become well defined and effective. They only want to use the quota. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE QUOTA.

They have been and are continuing to speak out of both sides of their mouths. They want their cake and eat it too. They ask us to accept a three part test, then they want to reject the three-part test when there is any movement away from the use of proportionality.

There is something in the OCR letter that needs to be reinforced again and again and again. The clarification letter included the following sentence:

"Schools are also reminded that nothing in Title IX or the three-part test requires the cutting or reduction of opportunities for the overrepresented sex, and OCR has pledged to seek remedies that do not involve the elimination of opportunities."

This is something that we should all focus on and remember when discussing Title IX policy. If a change in part three will cease the senseless elimination of sports opportunity to men in the name of Title IX compliance, shouldn't everybody be happy?
 

The first thing Jamie Moffatt wants to make clear is that he is not trying to trash Title IX. But he firmly believes Title IX is broken and needs to be repaired.

"They say that Title IX is under attack and it is not. They say that Griffith was attacking Title IX, and he didn't. He was just trying to reform Title IX," said Pearson.

Proportionality has led to an understandable outcry among male athletes, coaches and alumni and a growing movement to reform Title IX.

Former Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Norma Cantu candidly acknowledges her desire to rebut the widely held view that Title IX is responsible for the decline in the number of men's sports opportunities.

The three sports of swimming, track, and wrestling that bring home the most Olympic medals for the United States have been hit the hardest by Title IX.

"These are perilous times," said Brand. "The future of Title IX is uncertain. We do not know what Secretary Paige will do with the recommendations of the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics."

Over 400 men's teams have disappeared since Title IX was enacted. 1000s of male athletes - mostly in such sports as wrestling, swimming and gymnastics - no longer have the opportunities they once had.

When it comes to cutting men's track programs, West Virginia is hardly alone. In the last few years, universities such as St. John's, Tulane, Vermont, Toledo and Bowling Green have all axed their men's track teams.

While 96 NCAA colleges scratched wrestling from 1980-90, only 20 programs have been dropped in the past five years. Supporters point to several reasons why wrestling should not be cut.

 Title IX improving the application of current Federal standards for measuring equal opportunity."

There is more to the troubles in college sports than the battle between the Atlantic Coast Conference and the Big East. Title IX,  has produced unintended consequences.

And, these are the people, who, for whatever reasons (such as Title IX) are not adding new wrestling teams to college athletics.

SCHOLARSHIP INFORMATION

Baseball I Basketball I Bowling I Cross Country I Fencing I Field Hockey I Football I Golf I Gymnastics I Ice Hockey
Lacrosse I Rowing I Skiing I Soccer I Softball I Swimming I Tennis I Track and Field
Volleyball I Water Polo I Wrestling