The following material was prepared by Dr. Christine H.B. Grant for
a presentation/panel debate at the 1995 NACWAA Fall Forum, Cedar Rapids,
IA, on September 25, 1995. For assistance with PDF files, visit "What
is a PDF file? How can I read a PDF File?"
Efforts to reach gender equity should be augmented and follow the current
Office for Civil Rights guidelines and interpretations.
No other department or college would be permitted massive discrimination
like this.
Should we follow current OCR guidelines & interpretations?
No: Use per capita comparison.
In the laundry list of benefits &
treatments, my preference would be for a per capita comparison to be
used in applicable areas with the exclusion of legitimate expenses which
are non-gender related. This was proposed in the 1978 guidelines and then
rejected.
Make participation policies stronger.
Current guidelines should be made stronger & institutions should
be forced to eliminate discriminatory practices faster. How long must we
be patient? Another 23 years?
Why? Title IX passed in 1972, 23 years ago.
Every 4 years another generation of young women have forever lost
their chances to participate in intercollegiate athletic programs due to
discriminatory practices. Almost 6 generations of young women have been
cheated out of participation slots & athletic scholarships since Title
IX was passed.
If we must, we will live with the current OCR guidelines for they are certainly
better than no guidelines.
At least, they establish a minimal standard. Let me give you my interpretation
of what they say.
Substantially proportionate, not strictly proportionate as some would have
us believe;
History and continuing practice;
Interests and abilities: fully and effectively accommodated.
We need to consider interests of potential student-athletes
who do not come to school because their sport is not being offered (e.g.,
field hockey). If there is no interest by females, then ok.
The latest guidelines make it abundantly clear that an institution has
3 different & separate ways to be in compliance on the participation
issue.
For example, Iowa is not in compliance with prong #1 but is
in compliance with prong #2 because crew was added last year (history)
and will add soccer possibly as early as next year (continuing practice).
It is also abundantly clear in the guidelines that there is nothing in
the OCR guidelines suggesting or requiring institutions to cap men's participation
slots or to eliminate any men's teams.
These are institutional decisions, not OCR recommendations.
In fact, the OCR says that it will not find an institution in compliance
if it increases the participation percentage for the under-represented
sex by simply reducing opportunities for the over-represented sex or reducing
opportunities for over-represented sex to a greater degree. Men, I am sure,
will be pleased by this interpretation because it does protect them to
a degree.
Let me deal with some myths being spread to justify no further progress
for women in sport.
There is a higher athletic interest among males at the collegiate level.
The Javits amendment not being implemented to give "special consideration
to football."
It was not meant to give special consideration to football;
it was meant to permit non-gender related differences, e.g. differing equipment
costs for sports or different event managment costs. It doesn't mean treating
football differently because of size of team or because females don't have
a comparable sport (crew comes close).
The growth of females' sports has come and continues to come at the expense
of men's sports.
Finances
Spectatorship
Participation: 1989-1994
Football funds all other sports and because of this, must not be touched.
In conclusion, let me cite a few more reasons why women deserve half the
sporting opportunities.
80% of people with osteoporosis are women. 1 out of 2 women over 60 has
osteoporosis, and never had a chance to become physically fit. It is a
$15 billion per year health problem.
4 hours exercise per week reduces risk of breast cancer by 50%.
High school girls in sports are:
For a hundred reasons, girls and women deserve truly equal opportunities
in sport. There can never be a justification for discriminatory practices
in education institutions. NEVER!
or to 