Title IX and UCLA
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 refused to admit women or enforced strict limits. Some statistics highlighting the advancements follow:
- In 2010, women received 48.3% of medical degrees, compared with 9% in 1972.
- In 2009, women earned 46% of law degrees, compared with 7% in 1972.
- In 2009, 40% of all doctoral degrees to U.S. citizens went to women, up from 25% in 1977.
For athletics, Title IX governs the overall equity of treatment and opportunity while giving schools the flexibility to choose sports based on student body interest, geographic influence, 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.
In regard to intercollegiate athletics, there are three primary areas that determine if an institution is in compliance (the "three prongs"):
- athletic financial assistance
- accommodation of athletic interests & abilities
- other program areas
Appraisal of compliance is on a program-wide basis, not on a sport-by-sport basis.
It is unclear what the consequences are for a school not adhering to the letter of the law with respect to Title IX. Usually, any threat to take legal action under Title IX has caused the school to cave rather quickly. To make matters more complicated, the vague wording of the law leaves much room for interpretation which would make any kind of enforcement expensive and time-consuming, unless it can be proved that efforts were made specifically to avoid compliance with the law.
UCLA currently has 10 men’s sports and 12 women’s sports, with rosters shown below:
The Daily Bruin has three articles today about how Title IX compliance has affected the athletic department at UCLA, so let’s delve into them.
The first article describes how financial restraints have prevented some UCLA club teams to gain NCAA status, specifically discussing lacrosse and rugby:
The cost of adding men’s sports to college programs has to be balanced with women’s sports to keep in compliance with Title IX. Sports such as lacrosse are high in cost on the West Coast, creating an imbalance in the men’s and women’s programs.
The issue for lacrosse is that most NCAA sanctioned teams are on the east coast, which makes travel quite expensive. Yet, California is the state with the most lacrosse teams. Rugby however has no NCAA sanctioned teams, yet it is growing in popularity for with both men and women which could make adding the sports more likely.
The second article describes the genesis of the UCLA softball program and the demise of other men’s programs in 1993, namely gymnastics, swimming and diving. Women’s gymnastics was nearly dropped that year as well, but the team threatened legal action on the basis of gender discrimination and thus was reinstated. Curtis Wilson, a former diver at UCLA, summed it up best:
Wilson said he thinks many universities feel they have their hands tied by Title IX. Although teams are usually cut to address budget issues, Wilson wondered whether, without the law, administrators might be more inclined to look for solutions that do not involve eliminating entire programs, such as cutting small amounts to all programs. The damage done to men’s sports is an ugly side effect of a law meant to bring positive change for female athletes, he said.
The third article is about the UCLA women’s rowing team, which was added in 2001 after being cut in 1991 with the men’s team. The men’s water polo team was nearly cut that year as well. I was on the men’s team when it got cut, though not on scholarship yet. We had some potential Olympians on the team, and were coming off a national top-5 finish. The effect on them was pretty devastating. The women had two consecutive top-4 finishes. Clearly, performance had no influence on the decision, which at that point in time was purely financial and somehow justified stealing some athletes' dreams. Adding the women’s team in 2001 allowed UCLA to be in "compliance" with the three prongs cited above.
All in all, the law has had some great benefits and has a wonderful intent. But when it comes to athletics, it is at best misguided and at worst discriminatory. Can you imagine if law schools and med schools had stopped admitting as many men in order to achieve gender equality in numbers? It is ludicrous. The very fact that women’s teams were kept at the expense of men’s teams is in itself pure and simple discrimination and violates the spirit of the law. That is just my opinion of course. When there is a legitimate demand for a sport that will serve an existing base of athletes with an established intercollegiate network, taking away that opportunity simply because of someone’s gender is reprehensible.
In fact, cutting swimming, gymnastics and rowing shows that for the last twenty years, the Morgan Center has had virtually no respect for any UCLA athletic tradition, running the department instead like clueless constipated bureaucrats obsessed with the bottom line. "Losing" the Pauley center circle, relegating students behind the basket, Thursday night football away games…it makes you really wonder if they really understand what UCLA is all about.
The final point which I would like to make is that Title IX is supposed to apply to every educational program that receives federal funding. Well, how much does that apply to UCLA anymore?...
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
13 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Title IX
I propose that UCLA uses the additional $15million+ to distribute to the athletic teams and perhaps allow for the reinstatement of some of the teams above. First of all, Title IX has done a lot to achieve gender-equity in terms of resource allocation and has absolutely evened the $$ spent playing field for nonrevenue producing sports. Title IX is not the problem, but rather the philosophy and interpretation of various colleges and universities.
Check this New York Times piece about the excess of deception at universities including some schools listing inactive female athletes, others citing male practice players as females, and USF listing some female track and field athletes as holding roster spots. This is all in efforts to comply with Title IX while in my opinion Universities attempting to maintain power (read: money) within their institutions.
The Javitts amendment allows for special funds to be allocated for more expensive sports (read: football) and I really feel that football is also part of the problem. I really feel portions of the money that fund football and the 85 scholarships each team receives should be distributed more fairly. I feel that while there may not be a comparative demand for female sports, providing further opportunity (more scholarships) will encourage more female athletes to strive for success in academics and sports. I feel that this would translate (and has, and would further) to the high school level wherein more girls will endeavor into athletics. And this is important because of the many benefits (both physically and mentally) sports participation and exercise provide.
I don’t think Title IX is necessarily fair, but I do still believe that a push for gender equity in sports is a lingering necessity considering the historical forced domesticity of females has put them at a disadvantage. But I’m almost certain I’m in the majority here because everyone here loves their Bruin football (as do I though!).
The "football money should be distributed more fairly" argument only works
For schools that lose money on football. There are many schools out there that fit that description. UCLA is not one of them. So distributing money “more fairly”, which really means taking money away from a money maker, makes no sense. I’m fully on board with distributing money “fairly” when you know that you’re not going to recoup that money later, but it doesn’t make any sense to punish the male sports that don’t make money just because two male sports do.
As for how much federal funding UCLA receives
if that were to include research grants/funding from places such as NIH, UCLA receives a LOT, more than most for sure.
Not to mention all the students who have there ed. paid for by the feds.
That is federal funding.
Go Bruins!
True
but that is not a UCLA-specific situation. In short, that criterion is senseless. If the rule is meant to be fair, it should cover everything and everyone.
My point is, just because there are more male athletes on scholarship than female athletes does not mean that opportunities have been taken away from female athletes. But during cutbacks brought about by financial reasons, most schools have opted to take away opportunities from male athletes rather than creating new ones for female athletes. That’s just another form of discrimination. It would be the same as laying off only young workers at a company because you have to have layoffs for financial reasons but cannot lay off older workers for fear of age discrimination.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
This is what we call a "jurisdictional hook"
The criterion itself isn’t supposed to limit the scope of the law—instead, it’s meant to make it apply as broadly as possible. Congress can only pass laws as permitted under the constitution. Without the reference to federal funding, Congress couldn’t have any effect on schools.
And courts have defined federal funding as including all research grants and grants and loans from the federal government. In other words, Title IX applies to all schools.
I get that
but why just schools? If the goal is gender equity, why not pass a law that says every company must have as many men as women employed and they must earn the same salary? Why is it that only federal funding requires gender equity? Take out the last three words of the law. And while you’re at it, why is it only educational programs?
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
If you're asking why it doesn't apply to all interstate commerce, that's an interesting question
If you removed the last three words, though, the courts would probably say the whole thing is unconstitutional and throw it out, as Congress has exceeded its powers.
If you can estabilish
equal opportunities within Universities, the law doesn’t need to apply to all employers. If 50% of law degrees are now awarded to females and 50% to males, you really don’t need a law stating that law firms must employ equal numbers of males and females. Plus, if I really wanted to work for law firm A, but it had 50 male employees and 49 female….that’d feel like descrimination to me. Best candidate should get the job, always.
Only federal funding requires “gender equity” because it’s the only thing they were able (or maybe just willing) to enforce. Requiring that all colleges have equal numbers of male/females students, athletes, faculty, whatever… just sounds unconstitutional. If I wanted to start up an all male college, i would hope that would be allowed in this country, however miserable attending such a place may be.
“Only federal funding requires "gender equity" because it’s the only thing they were able (or maybe just willing) to enforce. Requiring that all colleges have equal numbers of male/females students, athletes, faculty, whatever… just sounds unconstitutional.”
The Supreme Court has already ruled that quotas are illegal in college admissions.
good points made except for one...
what is wrong with nationally televised Thursday night football?…yes we lost badly to Oregon and Washington…but that was last year and who’s to say we might turn those games around in the near future and Thursday games could eventually bring glory to UCLA FOOTBALL?…or am i missing your point about Thursday night games in regards to students?…heck, even now they only occupy 1/3 of the Rose Bowl student section even in day games on Saturday…
Thursday night games are fine
Except we shouldn’t keep playing at the opponent’s stadium every time, giving them the chance to show off their fans and stadium atmosphere. We’re not a mid-major looking for recognition (ok, you can argue that), but the MC acts like it. Games like that do not put the team in a good situation at all.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
That's because....
We don’t have an on campus stadium or one that is close by. A student has to give up a whole day to attend a game at the Rose Bowl.
You have to arrive early to get a good parking place. Then it’s tailgate time and finally a game that lasts four hours. Game ove and time to fight traffic out of the golf course and home to Westwood. A whole day shot. Lost study time.

by 



















