• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

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! 

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. 

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." 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. 

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.