Title 9 unfair



And then there is the part that the 'gender equity' feminists really don't want you to know about.

It is not just any women who have been gaining at the expense of just any men in college athletics as a result of the 'proportionality' prong used by the U.S. government as a measure of enforcement for Title IX. While these feminists try to cloak their campaign in the rhetoric of civil rights, the facts that are emerging indicate that the key beneficiaries of proportionality have been well-off white women, while the key people losing out have been Black and Latino males.

This has been written about by Bobby Douglas, currently the head wrestling coach at Iowa State, who guided Cael Sanderson through his unprecedented four undefeated seasons. In 1964, Douglas was the first African-American wrestler on a U.S. Olympic team. In 1988, while at Arizona State, he was the first African-American coach to head an NCAA Div. I championship wrestling team. And in 1992 he was the first African-American coach of the U.S. Olympic wrestling team. He was profiled in Sports Illustrated in 1992, is a member of the National Wrestling Hall of Fame, and is respected by everyone in wrestling. He will also be head coach of the U.S. freestyle team at the upcoming 2003 World Freestyle Wrestling Championships.

Last year Douglas wrote an opinion piece for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution called 'TITLE IX - Minority athletes lose in quest for 'equity.'' He wrote, in part, 'Educators know that college athletics provide one crucial gateway for minority students, especially ones from impoverished communities to reach for higher education. Among collegiate baseball players, for example, approximately one in 10 is a minority. In soccer it's one in eight and in track it's one in four. When athletic directors apply the cruel logic of the gender quota to cut those teams, it is the minority athletes who are hurt the most.'

He continued, 'It saddens me enormously that the chances are ever-decreasing that a determined African-American or Latino boy from the projects will be able to use a sport such as wrestling to elevate himself and return to his community to help lift others.'

And he concluded, 'When college coaches are forced to eliminate men's wrestling, track and baseball teams or ordered to shrink the number of athletes on their teams for gender quota purposes, that is a tragic loss. Far more than high-profile sports such as basketball and football, these so-called 'minor' sports offer minority kids a realistic alternative to the gangs, drugs, and other problems that plague our communities.'

Douglas was not alone in these sentiments.

In July 2002, reporter Bob Young of the Arizona Republic wrote an article entitled 璽Title IX: Women's benefits come at expense of minorities, men.璽 Young studied the effect of Title IX enforcement on many Black and Latino student-athletes. He wrote, 璽Thirty years later, opponents of the way Title IX has been enforced suggest that in balancing one scale, others have been set askew. College sports dominated by White athletes, such as rowing, field hockey, lacrosse, equestrian and synchronized swimming, have been added for women. Meanwhile, some of the so-called 璽minor璽 men's sports that have been reduced by Title IX enforcement, such as wrestling, men's gymnastics, and most recently track and field, are sports that historically have provided opportunities for African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans and Native Americans.璽 Young mentioned how this has led to the loss of opportunity for Latino wrestlers, especially in the Southwest U.S.

Young also examined the elimination of men璽s track and field at Bowling Green University. He wrote, 璽Sterling Martin, the only African-American head coach at Bowling Green, lost his job as track coach. He thinks college administrators are now sacrificing minority opportunity in the name of gender equity. He finds it ironic that it is the Office of Civil Rights - which investigates claims of discrimination based on race or disability - that is responsible for enforcing Title IX. 璽I've been screaming about this for a long time, and nobody listened,璽 Martin said.璽

In other words, to a large degree, the 'gender equity' feminists have hijacked Title IX. This was supposed to be a civil rights bill, but they have refashioned it into something that predominantly benefits wealthy white women at the expense of men from lower income and disadvantaged groups.

Both the Democratic Clinton Administration and the Republican Bush Administration have been on the same page regarding this denial of civil rights. Draw your own conclusions from that fact.

And it has been the wrestling community that has been in the vanguard of what really is a new civil rights struggle. One pioneer was Dale Anderson, two-time NCAA champion at Michigan State and now an attorney. He wrote a series of articles over several years in W.I.N. that exposed the fallacies behind this proportionality scheme, and lambasted those in wrestling who sat by silently while program after program was shut down. And, of course, Leo Kocher not only hammered home pretty much the same message in the pages of W.I.N., but also is part of the latest efforts of the College Sports Council (CSC).

All of this leads back to the renewed legal efforts of CSC. On last Friday's teleconference call, CSC lead attorney Larry Joseph explained his perspective on CSC's next steps by pointing out that 'I come at this from the lawyer's perspective.' But what he outlined goes far beyond mere legal maneuverings.

'We saw what was happening,' said Joseph. 'We filed this petition that they repeal it. And as a result of their decision not to do anything, that gives us the standing that the District Court lack. So in a sense we were ready for this outcome, even though as Eric [Pearson] said, as a coalition we tried to convince the Administration and the commission that this really needs to be fixed. And we succeeded at least with the commission. We were also ready on the legal front for them to say 'no.' And so as a result we will get our day in court.'

So it is back to the courts, back to the media, back to the battle for public opinion. The powers that be may be lined up against all these forces, but they may have forgotten one very important thing: Think twice before you pick a fight with a bunch of wrestlers.

The web site of the College Sports Council is at:



Hmm as a new college student (although not one involved in athletics this is very interesting).

Are there statistcs from a neutral source on the effects Title IX has had on collegiat sports?


Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Apr 24, 2002
Reaction score
What Title IX is and what it strives to accomplish:
Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 is the landmark legislation that bans sex discrimination in schools, whether it be in academics or athletics. Title IX states:
"No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aid."
Athletics has created the most controversy regarding Title IX, but its gains in education and academics are notable. Before Title IX, many schools saw no problem in refusing to admit women or having strict limits.

Title IX and its application to intercollegiate athletics:
Title IX governs the overall equity of treatment and opportunity in athletics while giving schools the flexibility to choose sports based on student body interest, geographic influence, a given school's budget restraints, and gender ratio. In other words, it is not a matter of women being able to participate in wrestling or that exactly the same amount of money is spent per women's and men's basketball player. Instead, the focus is on the necessity for women to have equal opportunities as men on a whole, not on an individual basis.

34 CFR 106.41 Athletics.

(a) General. No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis.

(b) Separate teams. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, a recipient may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport. However, where a recipient operates or sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of the other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to try-out for the team offered unless the sport involved is a contact sport. For the purpose of this part, contact sports include boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball and other sports the purpose of major activity of which involves bodily contact.

(c) Equal opportunity. A recipient which operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics shall provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. In determining whether equal opportunities are available the Director will consider, among other factors:

(1) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;

(2) The provision of equipment and supplies;

(3) Scheduling of games and practice time;

(4) Travel and per diem allowance;

(5) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;

(6) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;

(7) Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;

(8) Provision of medical and training facilities and services;

(9) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;

(10) Publicity.

Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.


Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Apr 24, 2002
Reaction score
Title IX and Race in Intercollegiate Sport
Mon 23-Jun-2003

The Women's Sports Foundation

Are women of color receiving their fair share of the opportunities in intercollegiate athletics?

Executive Summary
Are women of color receiving their fair share of the opportunities in intercollegiate athletics? Some writers have suggested that female athletes of color have not accrued as many gains during the Title IX era of American sport as white female athletes. Other writers suggest that Title IX has hurt male athletes of color. Overall, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in all education programs and activities receiving federal funds, has helped to spur girls and womens participation in sport. Yet the assessment of progress in intercollegiate sport by women of color and men of color is confounded not only by the complexity of race relations in American history, but also by the scarcity of reliable data on minority athletic participation rates during the Title IX era (from 1970 to the present).
Historically, both race and sex discrimination has shaped the patterns of institutional opportunity in sport and higher education. Thus, an untangling and understanding these forces is a complicated challenge. The main purpose of this study was to examine the limited amount of available data on male and female athletes of color in collegiate sport in order to evaluate the extent to which their participation and scholarship support compares to those of white male and female athletes. We also attempted to measure or judiciously estimate some racial and gender trends in athletic participation since 1972, the year that Title IX became law. Whenever possible, we used NCAA data on athletic participation and graduation rates by gender and race, and United States Census Bureau statistics as the empirical basis for analysis.

The Analysis of Available Evidence Yielded 10 Major

1. Since the passage of Title IX, female college athletes of color have experienced a dramatic increase in NCAA sports participation opportunities.
For female athletes of color, there was a 955% increase in participation opportunities from 1971 to 2000 (2,137 to 22,541 participants respectively).

2. Female college athletes of color have also experienced a substantial increase in scholarship assistance.
Women athletes of color received approximately $82 million in scholarship assistance in 1999 compared to less than $100,000 in 1971.

3. Sex discrimination negatively impacts all female athletes, including female athletes of color.
Compared with the percentage of women of color enrolled at NCAA institutions (24.9% of female students), female athletes of color were underrepresented (14.8% of female students). A similar pattern of disproportionate representation existed for all female athletes. (54.7% of all students enrolled, but only 42.1% of athletes were women).

4. Unlike female athletes of color, male athletes of color in NCAA varsity sports(22.1% of male athletes) were proportionally represented compared to their presence in the student body (22% of male students).
However, the overrepresentation of male athletes of color in basketball and football, sports with high participation numbers, disguises a pattern of racial inequality in many other mens sports.

5. There is a pattern of racial inequality in most NCAA sports.
This pattern of racial clustering appears to be related to continuing racism and the disparate impacts of economic inequality on populations of color. Clustering refers to a situation where athletes of color have very high participation rates in some sports but very low participation rates in others; e.g., male rates for athletes of color are very high in football but very low in swimming and diving. The analysis uncovered an overall pattern of under-representation of males of color in 14 of 25 intercollegiate sports and females of color in 20 of 25 intercollegiate sports in 2001. The realities of clustering must be addressed if male and female athletes of color are going to reap the same widespread athletic and educational benefits as their white counterparts.

6. Sports help to advance opportunities for some students of color in higher education.
Male athletes of color in basketball (43%), football (34%), volleyball (29%), outdoor track (26%) and indoor track (24%) exceeded their overall student body representation (22%). Female athletes of color in bowling(80%), badminton (33%) and basketball (29%) exceeded their overall student body representation (24.9%). However, in the sports of badminton and bowling for females, these sports reported extremely low rates of overall participation (33 and 197 total participants respectively).

7. Scholarship opportunities for male and female athletes of color are greater than their proportion within the athlete population.
Male and female athletes of color were overrepresented among scholarship recipients (32.6% and 19.3%,respectively) compared to their representation in the total athlete population (26.4% and 17.5%, respectively). Male and female athletes of color also received a larger proportion of the scholarship dollars (36.2% and 19.5%, respectively) than would be expected considering their proportion in the total athlete populations (26.4% and 17.5%, respectively). However, female scholarship athletes of color (19.3%) were underrepresented in comparison to their proportion in the overall student body (26.2%).

8. All female scholarship athletes graduated at higher rates than the general female student body.
Both white female scholarship athletes (68%) and female athletes of color who are on scholarship (55%) graduated at higher rates than their respective counterparts in the general student population (59% and 49%, respectively). White male scholarship athletes (53%) and male athletes of color (41%) who are on scholarship graduated at about the same rate as their respective general student counterparts (54% and 42%, respectively).

9. Graduation rates of both female and male athletes of color were significantly lower than the corresponding rates for white athletes. This relationship is also true for the general student body and demonstrates that regardless of athletic participation, students of color face unique challenges throughout their undergraduate educational experience.

10. Title IX has not decreased the participation opportunities for male athletes of color.
More than 85% of the teams that have been discontinued (i.e., wrestling, tennis, gymnastics, rifle, and swimming) are in sports in which males of color are moderately or severely underrepresented. In addition, more than half of the total participation opportunities added for male athletes were in sports in which male athletes of color were overrepresented.




Black Belt
Apr 25, 2003
Reaction score
Yes, it's true...Title IX has failed miserably. My daughter attends a local university and has told me of coaches roaming the dorms begging to get women to play some sort of intramural or collegiate sport. They rarely have enough to feild teams. While at the same time they are cutting or discontinue mens teams that have an overabundance of people wanting to play. Sure they can quote statistics of drastic increases of women playing, but when you start out with a low number, ANY increase appears large. The fact is that not as many women WANT to play sports as men. And the men bear the brunt of this.


Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Aug 28, 2001
Reaction score
Terre Haute, IN
On the subject of tennis (and somewhat off topic)...I passed a tennis club this morning and heard at rainer helping a beginner with the backstroke. He kept saying "It's just like a Karate chop!" As he fired ball after ball at the person, he would call out "Karate chop! Karate chop! Karate chop!" I found it amusing. The Karate chop is a more familiar reference than the tennis backhand swing?