Ohio University

[oz615]

http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/articles/20...orts/17226.html

Title IX concerns cited in dropping of sports

Matt O'Donnell / Staff Writer / mo134405@ohiou.edu

Michelle Munoz / Staff Writer / mm162504@ohiou.edu

One of the main reasons Director of Athletics Kirby Hocutt gave yesterday, for eliminating lacrosse, men’s swimming and diving and men’s indoor and outdoor track and field from was the athletic program’s inability to comply with Title IX.

Title IX is a federal statute that prohibits gender discrimination in all areas of education that receive federal funding, not just sports.

To comply with Title IX an athletic department must meet three conditions. The first is to have roughly the same proportion of men to women in athletics as in the student population. The second is to show a continual expansion of the athletic program for the underrepresented gender group. The third is to ensure that the interests of the underrepresented group has been accommodated by the program.

Hocutt said that the university had not been compliant with the federal mandate for more than seven years.

In 1995, Ohio University instituted a gender equity program that led to the addition of three women’s teams: women’s soccer in 1997; women’s golf, 1998; and women’s lacrosse, 1999.

The NCAA’s most recent accreditation review of Ohio came in 1998, and in 2001 the university submitted a report on its plan to continue compliance with Title IX. The report stated that a fourth women’s team would be added by Sept. 1, 2002. It didn’t happen.

“Simply put, Ohio Intercollegiate Athletics has not met our goal of compliance with Title IX and due to our financial position we cannot add a women’s program,” Hocutt said.

Because of a projected athletic budget deficit of more than $4 million, which prevents the addition of another women’s team, cutting teams was the only feasible option to come closer to Title IX compliance, Hocutt said.

Track and field was especially vulnerable to these cuts because the NCAA counts indoor and outdoor track as separate sports, therefore the students that participate in both are counted twice.

Mid-American Conference commissioner Rick Chryst said that he thinks the elimination of men’s track and field and men’s swimming and diving is a part of a national trend

The Ohio Athletics Department expects to come under NCAA re-certification review again in the spring of 2008 and Hocutt said that it was a factor to become Title IX compliant by that time.

These cuts were the first steps in the “development of a comprehensive gender equity plan,” Hocutt said.

Ohio will now support 16 teams, which is the minimum number required to remain in the Mid-American Conference. Member institutions are obligated to include football, men’s and women’s basketball, softball, baseball and volleyball.

To further ensure compliance with Title IX, the athletic department will utilize squad management with the remaining teams. Although the meaning of “squad management” was unclear, the term might include eliminating spots on certain teams or cutting the number of scholarships available to any one sport.

Although Hocutt said he didn’t want things to come to this he felt that it was the best thing for the future of Ohio sports.

“We’ve made an extremely difficult decision that will ultimately place us in the very best position to be successful in the future,” he said.

I swear this law needs to be abolished.

(Edit: food for thought)

This is law suppose about gender equality right? here's a list of the MAC cuts since '99

now what's equal about that?

[NJTank]

Title IX is a joke, sure it opened doors for women, but at what cost if the women were more interested in sports it would occur naturally now with out big massive government getting in the way.

[-kj]

Depends on what the balance was before the cuts.

Of course, if football programs had a reasonable amount of athletes, as opposed to programs having so many that they have to duplicate numbers....

[VandyDelphia Mike]

Until there is a sport for women that requires a comparable amount of scholarships as football does for the men, Title IX will rear its ugly head at the expense of fringe mens' programs.

[Fred T. Jane]

I for one am heartbroken that Western Michigan had to cut Women's Synchronized Swimming. I mean, nothing's better than women swimming around in a pool wearing Western Michigan's colours...

[oz615]

Until there is a sport for women that requires a comparable amount of scholarships as football does for the men, Title IX will rear its ugly head at the expense of fringe mens' programs.

Yeah i'll give you that,but at the same time cutting mens' programs isn't the answer and there is way of doing this ,i mean look @ Ohio State for example.

Plus its now bitting us in a$$ in international competition.

[dfwabel]

There is one sport which can gobble up scholarships for women...and that is Equestrian. Most, if not all, are particals, but it increases numbers. Then again, there is the costs for the care of the entire stable, which is enormous.

I was surprised to see that Ohio U. is 51/49 female. I thought it would ahve been larger to favor female students. As long as more females are attending higher education, accomodation must be there for them whether you like it or not. Remember, for every 100 girls born, there are 106 boys. So hif you have a daughter, you better want to have these opportunities still there.

[oz615]

There is one sport which can gobble up scholarships for women...and that is Equestrian. Most, if not all, are particals, but it increases numbers. Then again, there is the costs for the care of the entire stable, which is enormous.

I was surprised to see that Ohio U. is 51/49 female. I thought it would ahve been larger to favor female students. As long as more females are attending higher education, accomodation must be there for them whether you like it or not. Remember, for every 100 girls born, there are 106 boys. So hif you have a daughter, you better want to have these opportunities still there.

I agree w/ that per se, but what if have son that is into baseball,soccer,wrestling,track etc.,then what.That's my biggest issue w/ Title IX. While it's creating opportunities for one group while giving others the shaft.

[HedleyLamarr]

I was surprised to see that Ohio U. is 51/49 female. I thought it would ahve been larger to favor female students. As long as more females are attending higher education, accomodation must be there for them whether you like it or not. Remember, for every 100 girls born, there are 106 boys. So hif you have a daughter, you better want to have these opportunities still there.

This needs to be amended. Yes, opportunities should be made for girls, but if the girls aren't taking said opportunities, the men have to suffer.

This is an archaic rule that needs to be abolished.

[illinirox1]

I for one am heartbroken that Western Michigan had to cut Women's Synchronized Swimming. I mean, nothing's better than women swimming around in a pool wearing Western Michigan's colours...

"If it's brown, flush it down..."

[whitedawg22]

The problem with Title IX is that, simply, more men are interested in sports than women, so a much higher percentage of men that want to play sports get left out. It was great in getting women's sports off the ground in the 70s, but I don't know anybody that thinks it's a good idea now. This gives yet further credence to the idea that the NCAA is the most ass-backward, worthless, monopolistic, power-hungry organization in... well, anything.

[Sport]

as a student at Ohio University I can tell you that there is a reasonable uproar hear. They're holding save the team rallies and what not. I know three of the swimmers who will lose their scholarships when this whole thing goes through. It's really too bad. The main argument is that they just built a new $60,000,000 student center that so far as proved to me at least to be a little unecessary (although the escalators inside make it alot easier for me to get from my dorm to the library). The point is, that money could've been used towards academics or athletics.

[Bleujayone]

While I certainly respect the spirit behind the creation of Title IX, I cannot see the logic of penalizing mens'/boys' sports as a way to equalize.

In some cases I would argue that rather than eliminating sports, I say make them accessible for everyone. Honestly, some sports are male orriented. If you have an exception of someone who wants to participate, they should be allowed to tryout on the regular team. I understand that is $X amount of dollars is spent on the men, so too should the women. But it needs to be understood some sports are going to be more expensive than others. And I also understand that many schools would outright screw over women's sports if left to their own devices. But there are better was to carry this out. A universal barring might be equal but now EVERYBODY gets to miss out. Is this really what people had in mind when they drafted this rule?

Sports should be oriented on more of a demand basis. There are going to be times when there are going to be more men demanding to play sports than women. There are some sports that are easier to organize separate programs for both genders such as basketball and soccer than it is for other sports such as football or wrestling. I really haven't met that many women that are interested in these sports to organize entire squads/programs/interscholastic competition, so I would suggest again rather than punish everyone else because there isn't it should be welcome for everyone regardless of gender. You might have a wide receiver who's a female or a field hockey goalie who's a male, but I would imagine by and large these will be an exception to the rule. Many schools eliminate more of the cheaper sports for the programs to keep few more expensive programs because they are more glamorous/profitable. Sure technically it's "equal" but the execution of this rule has at times ruined opportunities for many male athletes rather than creating new ones for females. This is an unacceptable practice, but one where people are often fearful of calling out out being accused of bias.

I see the death of many smaller sports in many high schools and colleges at the "benefit" of an equality that in many ways isn't really there. Simply making a certain number of males miss out on sports because an institution cannot or will not spend more money to develop more programs. It is counter-productive. I could understand cutting back on funding of said programs so that it isn't as cushy (less fancy uniforms, bus rides over plane rides, more games closer to home, etc.) but the outright elimination is asinine.

We as a society tend to lean towards males in the sports area. The men dominate on all fronts both amateur and professionally. This is not to say that women cannot excel or that this arraignment is right. But one of the elements that seems to be present is not only a lack of public demand but a less numerous collective of fanatical athletes too. There are just going to be times when men are just more interested than women. It's not just schools or professional. Look at such things as weekend warrior sports. Yes there are women that play sports, but look how many men play in rec leagues across the board. Look at the percentage of men watching sports on TV. Men dwarf women in the sports participation department. That's not to say there aren't women involved or even that woman are not a viable market- But men are the dominate gender in all regards and the difference isn't even close.

I am all for women having an equal forum to play sports. I feel if someone wants to play, they should. It is a healthy environment and its something that everyone should have an opportunity to But eliminating a sports program for lack of participation is one thing- to kill a program full of people willing to play is a tragedy. Treating everyone equally poor is a hollow victory for equality.