News Page
Miranda, Murata, Montgomery win golds at Gilbert Schaub Open in France
1/19/2003
Gary Abbott/USA Wrestling
Three U.S. women wrestlers claimed gold medals, leading the United States to a strong third-place finish as a team at the annual Gilbert Schaub Open in Tourcoing, France, Jaunary 18-19.
The individual U.S. champions were Patricia Miranda (Colorado Springs, Colo./Dave Schultz WC) at 48 kg/105.5 lbs., Stephanie Murata (Colorado Springs, Colo./Sunkist Kids) at 51 kg/112.25 lbs. and Toccara Montgomery (Cleveland, Ohio/Sunkist Kids) at 72 kg/158.5 lbs. All three are past World silver medalists and were members of the 2002 U.S. Women’s World Team.
Kristie Marano (Albany, N.Y./ATWA) claimed a silver medal at 63 kg/138.75 pounds. Marano, also a 2002 World team member, is a six-time World medalist, including a 2000 World gold medal.
The United States placed third as a team, with 39 points. Host France won the tournament with 51 points, followed by Germany with 43 points. Poland was fourth, Spain and Sweden were tied in fifth, Austria was seventh and Poland 2 was eighth. Including club teams, 33 different squads participated in the tournament.
Miranda opened the tournament with a 5-0 win over 2002 World Champion Brigitte Wagner, then dominated the rest of the way. She scored two pins and two technical falls in closing out the title. In the gold-medal finals, Miranda scored a 12-2 technical fall over Flor Quispe of Peru. Miranda was a 2000 World silver medalist.
Murata had a 4-0 record in the tournament, with a pin and two technical falls. In the gold-medal finals, Murata edged Juliette Willocq of France, 6-4. Murata was a World silver medalist in 2001.
Montgomery went 5-0 in the tournament, including four falls. In the gold-medal finals, she pinned Marina Gastl of Austria. Among her victims were German veterans Anita Schatzle and Nina Englich, as well as Poland star Monika Kowalska. Montgomery won her World silver medal in 2001.
Marano had a very challenging pool. She beat five-time World champion Nikola Hartmann of Austria, 3-1 and veteran Ewelina Pruszko of Poland, 7-0. Pruszko was the person Marano beat in the 2002 World bronze medal match. Marano finished with a 4-1 record, losing only to four-time World medalist Stephanie Gross of Germany in the finals, 3-2.
Placing seventh for the USA at 51 kg/112.25 lbs. was Katie Kunimoto (Colorado Springs, Colo./Gator WC), with a 1-1 record.
The U.S. team was coached by Troy Steiner of Madison, Wis.
Team Scoring
1. France, 51
2. Germany, 43
3. United States, 39
4. Poland, 31
5. tie. Spain, 24
5. tie. Sweden, 24
7. Austria, 13
8. Poland 2, 12
9. tie Peru, 11
9. tie Tunisia, 11
11. RHE club, 10
12. Japan, 8
13. tie Italy, 7
13. tie. OML club, 7
13. tie. Switzerland, 7
(of 33 teams)
Results By Weight
48 kg/105.5 lbs. - Gold - Patricia Miranda (USA); Silver - Flor Quispe (Peru); Bronze - Iwona Matkowska (Poland); 4th - Sigrun Sobner (Germany); 5th - Matgorzata Bucka (Poland2); 6th - Katarzym Zalexska (Poland); 7th - Yuri Funatsu (Japan); 8th - Angelique Berthenet (France); 9th - Yuko Motahashi (Japan); 10th - Laurianne Mary (France)
51 kg/112.25 lbs. - Gold - Stephanie Murata (USA); Silver - Juliette Willoco (France); Bronze - Alexandra Demmel (Germany); 4th - Nadine Tokar (Switzerland); 5th - Nicole Hauptmann (Germany); 6th - Nour el Houde Bejaoui (Tunisia); 7th - Katie Kunimoto (USA); 8th - Filomena Curatella (Italy); 9th - Celine Kempf (France); 10th - Mari Mar Peralta (Spain)
55 kg/121 lbs. - Gold - Kristina Hellstrom (Sweden); Silver - Helene Lebon (France); Bronze - Ida Teres Karlsson (Sweden); 4th - Marta Wojtanowska (Poland); 5th - Ewa Jarzabek (Poland2); 6th - Minerva Montero Perez (Spain); 7th - Francine DePaola (France); 8th - Jessica Bechtel (Germany); 9th - Esther Mendoza (Peru); 10th - Chikaki Matsukaw (Japan)
59 kg/130 lbs. - Gold - Monika Michalik (Poland); Silver - Seba Jimenez (Spain); Bronze - Stefanie Stuber (Germany); 4th - Elodie Aucaigne (France); 5th - Faiza Bejaoui (Tunisia); 6th - Christina Hahn (Germany); 7th - Berangere Delqueux (France); 8th - Audrey Prieto (France); 9th - Faiza Bejaoui (Tunisia); 10th - Amai Imani (France)
63 kg/138.75 lbs. - Gold - Stephanie Gross (Germany); Silver - Kristie Marano (USA); Bronze - Meryem Selloum (France); 4th - Sara Eriksson (Sweden); 5th - Aurora Fajardo (Spain); 6th - Ewelina Pruszko (Poland); 7th - Nikola Hartmann (Austria); 8th - Christelle Dalleau (France); 9th - Hiromi Uno (Japan); 10th - Helena Alandi (Sweden)
67 kg/147.5 lbs. - Gold - Lise Legrand (France); Silver - Annika Oertli (Germany); Bronze - Vanessa Jimenez (Spain); 4th - Jenny Ottoson (Sweden); 5th - Cindy Rey (France); 6th - Angelique Levaire (France); 7th - Anelie Stahl (Sweden); 8th - Stefanie Sutter (Germany); 9th - Amelie Boissenot (France); 10th - Takato Matsui (Japan)
72 kg/158.5 lbs. - Gold - Toccara Montgomery (USA); Silver - Marina Gastl (Austria); Bronze - Nina Englich (Germany); 4th - Marjorie Murguet (France); 5th - Anita Schatzle (Germany); 6th - Caroline Dos Santos (France); 7th - Rosa Minoia (Italy); 8th - Delphine Deloit (France); 9th - Fanny Gai (France); 10th - Monika Kowalska (Poland)
U.S. performances -
48 kg/105.5 lbs. - Patricia Miranda, Colorado Springs, Colo. (Dave Schultz WC), 1st - dec. Brigitte Wagner (Germany), 5-0; won by tech. fall over Mary Kelly (USA), 11-0; pin Angelique Berthenet (France); pin Iwona Matkowska (Poland); won by tech. fall over Flor Quispe (Peru), 12-2
48 kg/105.5 lbs. - Mary Kelly, Mahomet, Ill. (Dave Schultz WC), dnp - lost pin to Brigitte Wagner (Germany); lost by tech. fall to Patricia Miranda (USA), 11-0
51 kg/112.25 lbs. - Stephanie Murata, Colorado Springs, Colo. (Sunkist Kids), 1st -pin Mari Mar Peralta (Spain); won by tech. fall over Sabah Fellag (France), 10-0; won by tech. fall over Nadine Tokar (Switzerland), 10-0; dec. Juliette Willocq (France), 6-4
51 kg/112.25 lbs. - Katie Kunimoto, Colorado Springs, Colo. (Gator WC), 7th - won by tech. fall over Paulina Rojek (Poland), 12-1; lost pin to Juliette Willocq (France)
59 kg/130 lbs. - Brandy Rosenbrock, Warren, Mich. (Shamrock), dnp - lost tech. fall to Janet Sovero (Peru), 10-0; pin Theresa Blom (Sweden)
63 kg/138.75 lbs. - Kristie Marano, Albany, N.Y. (ATWA), 2nd - dec. Maria Muller (Germany), 9-0; dec. Nikola Hartmann (Austria), 3-1; dec. Ewelina Pruszko (Poland), 7-0; won by tech. fall over Meryam Selloum (France), 10-0; lost dec. to Stephanie Gross (Germany), 3-2
72 kg/158.5 lbs. - Toccara Montgomery, Cleveland, Ohio (Sunkist Kids), 1st - pin Emilie Wind (Sweden); pin Monika Kowalska (Poland); pin Anita Schatzle (Germany); dec. Nina Englich (Germany), 4-2; pin Marina Gastl (Austria)
--------------------------------------------
1/17/2003
Gary Abbott/USA Wrestling
16 January, 2003
Ted Leland and Cynthia Cooper, Co-Chairpersons
Commission on Opportunity in Athletics
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Ave., SW ROB-3, Room 3060
Washington, DC 20202
Dear Chairpersons Leland and Cooper:
On December 19, a teleconference was held by leaders from a number of special interest groups resisting any change and improvement of current Title IX enforcement. These speakers told the media their positions concerning the work of the Commission on Opportunities in Athletics, which included questioning the integrity and the motives of the Commissioners, the staff and the Department of Education. Included were five different talking papers, some of which provided what was claimed to be new statistical information. I heard the entire teleconference as part of the media, so I have direct knowledge of what was said.
On the next day, another of these special interest groups made a national call for people to begin harassing the Commissioners, the Commission staff, the Department of Education, the national media and the U.S. Congress concerning the work of the Commission. This was in spite of the fact that the public comment period for the work of the Commission ended November 29, 2002. They are attempting to intimidate and threaten you individually and as a group.
At the same time, this small and biased group launched a well-funded national media campaign. They are hoping that they can buy the results of the Commission’s work. They are doing anything they can to make this a wider political issue rather than just concentrate on the goals and mission of the Commission. I am writing to urge you not to let their millions of special interest dollars convince you that they are representing the beliefs of the American public. Remember that they will do or say anything to keep the status quo.
I was proud to be selected as a panelist at the Colorado Springs hearing, one of the four Olympic family members who were unified in their request that Title IX enforcement be improved. These special interest groups are not only attacking your integrity, but also questioning the panelists as well. I am personally insulted by the assertions that I was not qualified to testify to you. I have been working on Title IX issues for almost a decade. If you remember my testimony (or review the transcripts), I believe that I contributed meaningful testimony that will help you in your work.
The people from the Olympic sports community are not going to ask their millions of members to send threatening e-mails to you at your personal e-mail address. We believe your time is too valuable, and we appreciate your decision to serve our nation on this Commission.
What I believe is valuable is a direct response to the literature published by the special interest groups on December 19. Much of this material is appearing in print, even though it is misleading and not accurate. I have prepared a response to this propaganda, which I hope will help you in your final hearing. Call me anytime if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Gary Abbott
Director of Special Projects
cc: All 15 Commissioners, Rod Paige (Secretary of Education), Gerald Reynolds (Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights), Deborah Price (Commission Executive Director), Brian Jones (General Counsel), Lou Goldstein (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education for Policy)
RESPONSE TO BRIEFING PAPERS FROM THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR WOMEN AND GIRLS IN EDUCATION
Briefing paper No. 3
Proposals Being Considered by the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics Would Further Disadvantage Female Athletes and Dismantle Title IX Protections, by Christine Grant.
In this document, Grant takes liberty with the facts and makes key assumptions that have no basis in reality. She claims that under proposals suggested in the Philadelphia Commission hearing that:
* females would lose between 3.5% and 10% of their opportunities to play sports
* there could be 578,000 to 1.4 million fewer high school opportunities for girls
* there could be 31,000 to 78,900 fewer college opportunities.
Grant starts with an assumption that all schools have a 53% female student population and that they are all achieving compliance through “strict proportionality.” It is also based on no loss or gain for men and the harshest possible cut in women.
REALITY - SCHOOLS WILL NOT JUST GO OUT AND DROP WOMEN
These numbers assume that under a new formula for proportionality that colleges will ONLY drop women to reach the new numbers. There is no proof that any schools will do this. In fact, the most probable cause of action if a school has a less restrictive quota is that they will:
a. No longer eliminate walkons from the men’s programs
b. No longer cut men’s programs just to reach strict proportionality
c. Add back men’s teams and women’s teams
Since Grant allows herself to make “assumptions” in coming up with her statistics, we can do the same. We will make the much more logical assumption that colleges will NOT DROP ANY WOMEN under a new formula, because of the massive public relations disaster that will occur if the school chooses this option. It is safe to say that college presidents and athletic directors, after 30 years of supporting Title IX’s goals, will not suddenly go back on their commitment to fair opportunity just because the quota percentage is changed. If Title IX enforcement becomes more fair to men, then you might expect that both men and women would protest side by side when programs are eliminated.
REALITY - SCHOOLS ARE NOT IN PROPORTION NOW, SO WE CAN’T START FROM THERE
As these special interest groups keep saying, few schools are in strict proportion. In fact, every time somebody calls proportionality a quota, they say that it is not a quota because there is an opportunity to comply from prongs two and three. When defending the quota, they embrace the other two prongs as a way to deflect criticism for the harsh cutbacks caused by it. When trying to show that there is not “gender equity,” they immediately ignore the other two prongs as if they do not exist.
When manufacturing these numbers to strike fear in women athletes and their families, Grant starts with the baseline of a school currently in proportion. By assuming that all schools are in proportion, Grant counts female athletes that do not exist. It is just a numbers game. There are currently more than 57,000 more men athletes than women among NCAA schools. The fact is that for all the schools that are not in proportion now, a change in the quota standards will mean that there may not be any changes at all in the athletic department gender makeup with the proposed “wiggle room” concept.
Judith Sweet of the NCAA, in her discussion of these numbers at the NCAA Convention, was quoted in the press as calling all of these numbers a “worse case scenario.” In fact, if we went by on a college-by-college basis, even assuming a college takes a “worst-case” approach and chooses to cut women, the numbers of possible cuts to women’s sports will shrink considerably from Grant’s “Chicken Little” scenario. And again, if you can have a “worst case,” then let’s look at the “best case scenario.” The emphasis on counting bodies will be eliminated, and athletic departments will be able to concentrate on making sure that all student athletes are treated equally with a focus on the quality of experience provided to all athletes (not just for revenue sports and women’s sports).
REALITY - HIGH SCHOOLS DO NOT USE PROPORTIONALITY SO IT DOES NOT APPLY THERE
In the testimony about high school athletics in Chicago and in the discussions in the other cities, one thing was very clear: proportionality is not the mechanism used to determine opportunity for boys and girls in high school. There seems to be a much stronger commitment by high school state associations and individual high school administrators not to cut anything while seeking fair opportunity. In fact, the high school statistics are showing growth for both boys and girls each and every year. This is something we should celebrate not mess with. Proportionality is not fueling the growth in high school opportunity, period.
Since there is currently 1.1 million more boys competing than girls in high schools, how can a change in the proportionality quota cause a cutback in girls’ opportunity? Again, Grant is counting “non-existent” athletes as opportunities, then cutting them to show a loss.
In fact, if proportionality was used on the high school level, the only athletes that would be cut are boys. High schools would have to CUT 1.1 MILLION BOYS to reach the 50-50 mark. Certainly, this is not the kind of progress that the Department of Education is seeking.
NOTE: Once you decide that the method that was used to invent this potential loss to women athletes is not valid, then the entire document can not be given any credibility. For instance, the loss of scholarship money claim (between $75-$189 million) is based entirely on the premise of lost women’s participation, which can not be proved. Therefore, there is again no basis to conclude women will lose any scholarship support.
Grant goes on in the document to comment on proposals such as regional high school participation, interest surveys, recognized roster sizes, elimination of non-traditional students from consideration, the repeal of EADA and the elimination of prong two. Her responses to these areas are entirely opinion, not based upon accepted facts or real life examples. Just as easily, those that favor the elimination of proportionality and reform of Title IX enforcement standards can give opinion on those areas. Consider these contrasting viewpoints:
* Regional High School participation - Clearly, the selection of college sports opportunities right now have little or nothing to do with proven participation in high school and developmental NGB sports programs. If sports choices were based upon proven participation, colleges could decide to use either regional or national information to review their sports offerings. For instance, wrestling is the No. 6 sport in American high schools based upon the number of teams. Those who choose national trends would therefore need to consider wrestling if their men’s athletic opportunity includes six or more teams. However, in Mississippi, a state with no formal high school wrestling programs, wrestling might be excluded due to regional sports participation factors. Right now, sports selection in college is more based upon squad size (especially in women’s sports) than on actual sports participation. The development of, for example, a large-roster women’s crew team in a state that has no high school or youth programs would no longer be a method needed to demonstrate “opportunity.”
* Interest survey - Panelists who testified before the Commission noted on many occasions how an interest survey could provide valuable information for a school attempting to comply with Title IX. The question is how that information, if collected in a fair and responsible way, could be used by a college attempting to provide equal opportunity. As long as proportionality is the “safe harbor,” the only true way for a college to remain in compliance, then interest surveys and other methods of evaluation have little long-term practical impact. All other methods of compliance, including the use of participation information, interest studies (in prong three) or a continued practice of expanded opportunities (prong two) are ultimately invalid as long as proportionality is given priority status. They are just temporary steps toward the ultimate goal: achieving prong one. In her dramatic testimony at the Atlanta meeting, Crista Leahy testified that prongs two and three in their current context of being invoked for the “underrepresented” gender will always lead back to proportionality, thus making proportionality the only long term solution for schools. Using only proportionality provides a system that only guarantees outcomes, and does not reflect a true measurement of opportunity.
* Recognized roster sizes - A proposal to either set recognized squad sizes, or to include unfilled participation slots in measurement of sports offerings, are based upon a desire to truly reflect “opportunity” rather than “outcomes.” The current system artificially restricts men’s opportunities based upon women’s actual participation. Nobody has presented a compelling case why, if a college can only attract 18 female swimmers, that the men’s swimming team be held to 18 members, or in many cases even less, if many more boys come out. Looking at opportunity on a sport by sport basis shows the folly in this. Title IX is about eliminating discrimination. When women’s teams do not fill all of the opportunities offered, it is the men who are cut to achieve the quota that are being discriminated against.
The discussion of recruiting budgets here is not a relevant factor. First, when a college cuts men’s non-scholarship athletes (which cost little or nothing to recruit), then the men’s average recruiting expense is artificially inflated. Also, these raw numbers do not reflect the differences between sports, where recruiting expenses may vary based upon the roster size, regional considerations and many other factors. Recruiting budgets is an appropriate discussion when comparing men and women’s teams in the same sport. Comparing recruiting costs between different sports can be misleading. This is especially true when comparing expenses of Div. I revenue producing teams which generate funding of all the women’s sports teams and the remaining men’s Olympic sports teams. Money invested in filling stadiums and arenas, which allow revenue sports to fund the non-revenue sports, should not be viewed in the same way as funds spent on supporting the other programs.
* Non-traditional students: Educators agree that not all students who attend college are actually able to be athletes. Those who return to school later in life, that have full-time jobs and families, do not have the time or capability to be varsity athletes. It makes no sense to count these students if the goal is to provide fair opportunity. A majority of non-traditional students are women. Counting these people who can not be athletes when evaluating athletic offerings provides an artificial and inaccurate recruiting pool. When included in the proportionality formula, especially at schools with high percentages of non-traditional students, it forces the elimination of qualified and interested men athletes just to reach a numerical statistic.
EADA - Time and time again, athletic directors on the Commission, as well as those testifying as panelists, expressed problems with the completion of the EADA paperwork. No law is beyond review, and every law that has an enforcement component should be evaluated for effectiveness and efficiency. The concept of using an EADA system on the high school level is frightening. Once again, the only purpose would be to use the information to force proportionality quotas in every community, which would (just like college) lead to the elimination of programs for boys.
Prong Two - Grant claims that prong two provides flexibility, while at the same time her entire statistical study is based upon prong one proportionality. Panelists often explained in the hearings that prong two and prong three are not being enforced in a consistent way, and that there is much confusion about how to use them. Without strengthening and clarifying prong two, there really is no reason to have it. The only way that the elimination of prong two would injure men’s sports would be if prong three also remains weak and unclear. A strong and effective reflection of “interest and abilities” that applies to both genders (not just the under represented gender) would allow for the flexibility that Grant suggests, whether or not prong two exists.
NOTE: Of the five briefing papers provided by the NCGWE, Grant’s paper is the most flawed and inaccurate. In addition, it is Grant’s paper that is being spread throughout the media and provided to the public as a tool to incite fear. You must take this document for what it is: a piece of propaganda crafted to achieve the goals of special interest groups. What it can not be considered is objective, independent or non-biased. In fact, it is very subjective. Public policy should not be based upon biased reports.
Briefing paper No. 1
Current Title IX policies are essential to implement Title IX’s Guarantee of Equal Opportunity, by Jocelyn Samuels
* In this document, Samuels makes sure to point out that Title IX has a three-part test. However, when claiming that “the playing field is not yet level,” she conveniently only cites percentages, referring to test one, the proportionality quota.
* In discussion the proportionality prong, Samuels writes that it adopts a “common sense principle.” In fact, nobody has demonstrated any rational reason why the gender makeup of a student body has anything to do with participation levels in athletics. There is no common sense relationship between the two populations, a main reason why proportionality is flawed and unfair. As Commissioner Yow has said, there is “no logic flow.”
* Samuels discussed prong three as if it is not a valid measurement of discrimination. When writing that “this prong enables a school to adjust the requirement of equal opportunity” she infers that only prong one (proportionality) can be the requirement.
* In citing the percentage of schools that use prongs two and three, she provides no reference to where these statistics come from. In addition, her discussion uses only a four-year period. A more telling time frame would be for a decade or more, which would indicate if a school later had to use proportionality (making prongs two and three just temporary steps to prong one).
To close, Samuels gives the following opinions, all of which can be disputed.
* “The three part test does not impose quotas” - Nobody has testified that the entire three-part test imposes quotas. Those who testified indicated that prong one (proportionality) is a gender quota. The 1996 policy interpretation makes proportionality the “safe harbor,” which means that the use of the quota is the only way to guarantee that a college is in compliance.
* Men’s opportunities have increased.” - Time and time again, this misleading statement has been refuted. The ONLY way that you can claim that men have gained is by using the raw aggregate numbers of only one college sports organization without accounting for the change of colleges from one organization to another. The best resource for NCAA information is the 1982-2001 Sports Sponsorship Participation Report. In 2001, the NCAA had 208,866 male athletes, while back in 1985 there were 201,063 NCAA male athletes. (The record was 211,366 men in 1999). However, going back to 1982, the NCAA has gained 262 new institutions. And where did many of these new institutions come from? Since 1982, the number of NAIA institutions have dropped by 187 institutions. Schools were changing affiliation.
The average number of male athletes on each NCAA campus has dropped, from a high of 253.54 in 1985 to the low of 199.11 in 2001. The NCAA has more programs now because of the transfer of affiliation, but each athletic department has FEWER men. Since 1985, NCAA schools lost 54.43 men athletes per campus.In the NAIA, in 1991, there were 465 NAIA institutions and 47,355 men athletes. That’s an average of 101.84 men athletes per campus. In 2001, there were 328 NAIA institutions and 28,347 men athletes. That’s an average of 86.42 men athletes per campus. In just 11 years, the NAIA lost 15.42 men athletes per campus.
The 1999-00 NCAA Gender Equity Study also confirms this fact. In Table 7 on each level of the NCAA, there is a comparison from ‘91-92 to ‘99-00, a 10-year comparison. One every single NCAA level, there has been a loss of men student-athletes per campus.
- In Division I overall, a loss of 17 men per campus
- In Division I-A, a loss of 27 men per campus
- In Division I-AA, a loss of 7 men per campus
- In Division I-AAA, a loss of 26 men per campus
- In Division II, a loss of 12 men per campus
- In Division III, a loss of 32 men per campus
Division I-AAA are major colleges that do not have football. We have lost 26 men athletes on each campus at these colleges this decade, and nobody can blame the large numbers and budgets from football for this!!!
Division III schools are colleges that do not provide athletic scholarships. This is the true measure of interest in sports participation. Colleges can not inflate their women’s participation by giving out scholarship monies. During the decade, the gain of women athletes was just 7 athletes, while a total of 32 men athletes have been lost. The sad reality is that we most likely would have been able to add the 7 women without sacrificing the 32 men if the quota system was not in place.
Consider the 2001 GAO study, which is used by groups that say the number of men have increased. In the results in brief summary, the report says that in NCAA and NAIA schools from 1981-82 through 1998-99, women athletes went from 90,000 to 163,000 and men went from 220,000 to 232,000. But again, the number of institutions involved has gone up in that study. The “scope and methodology” section of the report shows how they counted NCAA and NAIA schools, minus those with dual affiliation.
In 1982, 1,185 colleges were counted, while in 1999, 1,319 colleges were counted. When you account for the 134 more schools in the study in 1999, that “gain” of men is actually, again, a loss on each campus of almost 10 men athletes, from 185.65 in 1982 to 175.89 in 1999.
There have actually been three GAO studies in recent years, and the conclusions on the effect on men in two studies differ from the 2001 GAO study. The 1999 GAO study has the following conclusion: “In particular, the total number of male athletes decreased, while the number of female athletes increased.” This study used 725 schools that were in the same division from 1986 through 1997. This takes out totally the problems caused by schools changing affiliation and misleading raw number
* “Where men’s opportunities have been cut, Title IX is not the reason” - Nobody says that Title IX is the only reason men’s teams have been cut. That is inaccurate. However, it is also inaccurate to claim that Title IX was never the reason for dropped men’s programs. Some colleges, such as Bucknell and Marquette, have provided the truth that proportionality was the main reason for dropping men’s teams. Many other colleges have indicated that Title IX was one of a number of factors in their decision.
Since Samuels cites wrestling, let’s challenge her assertions about that sport. “Declining interest” is not accurate, as wrestling has continued to grow on the high school and youth levels for more than a decade. “Liability considerations” is not accurate, as there is no documentation that a single wrestling program was ever dropped for this reason. “Poor performance” is not a fair reason to drop any program, especially since nobody is cutting women’s teams for this reason. If a school changes its leadership or increases its support, losing teams can become winning teams.
*“Women are not less interested in sports than men” - This discussion becomes one-sided, as Samuels and her supporters refuse to permit any method to measure interest. When there is no true accepted method to evaluate interest, then her assertion is meaningless. The use of “proven participation,” the actual participation statistics for sports, clearly indicates that more men are active in sports than women. (This could include varsity, club and intramural sports on all levels). These facts are not acceptable to Samuels. The use of interest studies (which also consistently indicate that males express more interest) are also not acceptable to Samuels. Without a measuring tool for interest, this line of reasoning is only used to inflame emotions and pit people against each other. Samuels uses interest as if it is a value judgement, which it is not nor should ever be.
Briefing paper No. 2
Title IX Commission - Inequities in the Process, by Athena Yiamouyiannis
In her opening statement, Yiamouyiannis indicates that she believes that the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics has “operated with bias” and that the Commissioners, staff and others “violate the public trust, undermine the public’s belief in good government and create the reality and perception of a prejudiced examination of the issues.” These strong allegations are not supported by any specific facts, just opinions and innuendo that in some cases are potentially slanderous.
Consider these assertions made in this briefing paper:
* Appointments to the Commission - Yiamouyiannis claims that the composition of the Commission is “not balanced” and represents those who have something to gain from “weakening Title IX.”
Certainly it is true that neither Div. II, Div. III, JC and high school professionals were included in the Commission. Those that seek changes to Title IX enforcement would certainly have embraced people with this perspective. At all of the excluded levels (except high school), the number of men athletes have been reduced considerably.
However, this fact should not exclude those selected from serving with honor and distinction. In fact, a Commission should not be selected to “represent” any organization. She implies that because a person is involved with a Div. I college (at this time), that he or she can not be open minded or intelligent enough to be fair. They also imply that they can not understand the issues of a Div. II, III, junior college or high school program.
The commission was exposed to perspectives from these levels through the panelist process, with specific panels created and individuals selected to discuss those areas.
In fact, the biggest problem with the selection of the Commission was the decision to place a current and former president of a special interest group, the Women’s Sports Foundation, on the Commission. Both of these individuals were repeatedly quoted in the media as having pre-determined positions on the issues under review, well before all of the testimony was provided.
If placing Women’s Sports Foundation leaders on the Commission is acceptable, then there certainly should have also been leaders from any of the affected men’s sports. That did not happen. In addition, no leaders from the Olympic movement were included either. If there was any imbalance on the Commission, it was tilted towards those that agree with Yiamouyiannis.
* Bias in the selection of panelists - To start, Yiamouyiannis claims that 31 panelists were “opponents” of Title IX and were “against” the law. In fact, not a single panelist called for the elimination of Title IX. How she determines who is for or against Title IX is not explained at all. Certainly, there were some panelists who expressed concerns with some of the aspects of the law’s interpretation and enforcement. These are valid perspectives, as the mission of the Commission is to review the entire issue. Just because panelists do not agree with the opinions of Yiamouyiannis does not make them “opponents” of Title IX.
Yiamouyiannis contends that too many individuals from organizations affiliated with discontinued men’s sports were included. She points out wrestling, swimming and gymnastics. She seems to forget that women also compete in wrestling, swimming and gymnastics. Two of these sports, swimming and gymnastics, currently have more females than males involved. The leaders in these sports, who work with and are concerned about fairness for BOTH genders, find fault in the current enforcement system. Yiamouyiannis represents a special interest group that cares only about half of the population.
The inclusion of individuals with a football background is very appropriate. Those seeking to retain the status quo continue to blame football for causing the loss in men’s sports opportunity. That could not be fairly evaluated with talking to experts in football. In addition, football also represents the largest sport in the nation on the high school level, with more than a million participants, making that perspective well deserved.
The claim that “no panelists represented organizations with a large number of discontinued women’s sports” is not true. Gymnastics has lost a large number of women’s sports teams in college, and Yiamouyiannis previously admits that gymnastics officials were panelists. In addition, it is not accurate to assert that women’s swimming and women’s wrestling have not benefited from Title IX, and those sports were on panels. She was just seeking sports that agree with her position.
Whether or not a school has been sued for Title IX compliance should not disqualify an individual from providing testimony. In fact, professionals who have been involved in OCR investigations and court cases concerning Title IX have specific information and experience in how the system works.
The complaint from Yiamouyiannis and others about the selection of panelists seems a little strange, since many of those complaining were panelists. Those who were speakers on the Dec. 19 teleconference were:
- Jacqueline Woods, American Association of University Women - moderator
- Jocelyn Samuels, National Women’s Law Center
- Nancy Hogshead-Makar, Florida Coastal School of Law, Past President Women’s Sports Foundation
- Athena Yiamouyiannis, National Association for Girls and Women in Sports
- Christine Grant, National Association of College Women Athletic Administrators
- Andrew Zimbalist, Smith College
Except for Woods and Hogshead-Makar, all of those speaking or their organizations were panelists. Zimbalist, Grant, Yiamouyiannis were all on a panel. Samuels was not, but was represented by fellow staff member Marcia Greenberger. In addition, Dr. Donna Lopiano of the Women’s Sports Foundation, who was not on the published press conference lineup but who participated in answering media questions, was also a panelist. Judith Sweet of the NCAA, who has also been outspoken on the topic, was also a panelist and was on the call. These facts seem to indicate that these people were given an opportunity to share their perspective with the Commission.
The rest of the Yiamouyiannis document is a litany of complaints against anything that may have differed from the stated “prejudiced” goal of protecting the status quo.
* Her complaints about the wording of the Commission’s first question were addressed in Colorado Springs. The Commission was asked to answer each question as written, but could also add additional information or perspective if it was needed for a full and fair assessment of the law.
* The complaint about the open mike speakers being on a first-come, first-served basis is ludicrous. The rules were the same for everybody, and if people who agreed with Yiamouyiannis did not sign up, that is their fault, not the Commission’s fault. If Yiamouyiannis was unhappy with the early meetings, she does not mention the San Diego meeting where a majority of open mike speakers agreed with her.
In fact, in San Diego, the Commission moved three selected individuals who agreed with Yiamouyiannis to the front of the speaker line (an actress, an NCAA employee and a politician). A number of those who disagreed with Yiamouyiannis were unable to speak in San Diego because time ran out, while some people received special treatment.
* Complaints about the hearing locations and the timing of announcements are also not compelling. Earlier she complained about the short time frame for the Commission’s work, which could explain the reason it took time to complete the details for each hearing. The complaint about the hotel cost is not relevant, as those who participated in the hearings were not required to stay at the hotel and could stay anywhere that they chose.
* Complaints about the input of OCR staff affiliated with the Commission are vague and unsubstantiated. Saying that staff involvement reduced the chance for Commissioners to do their work is wrong. Extra days were added for the Philadelphia and Washington meetings. In San Diego, Commissioners spent most of an hour discussing whether or not to adjourn early.
Briefing paper No. 4
Fiscal Responsibility, not weakening civil rights law, is key to Title IX compliance and deterring institutions from discontinuing some men’s sports teams, by Andrew Zimbalist
Zimbalist, a panelist in San Diego, offers little information in this paper that was not already included in his testimony to the Commission and the following question and answer period.
In his discussion of “endemic waste,” Zimbalist concentrates only on men’s football, leaving out both men’s basketball and women’s basketball, sports that also have much higher expenses than other sports.
Zimbalist claims that the reduction of 25 football scholarships would solve the problems with men’s sports reductions. This does not deal with the problems caused by proportionality, especially when discussing participation. Nor does it deal with the massive male opportunity losses at non-scholarship Div. III schools, as well as schools that have no football teams, or where the scholarship levels for football are considerable lower than the Div. I maximums.
Currently, according to NCAA statistics, there are 208,866 male athletes and 150,916 female athletes in NCAA programs. However, enrollment rates are approaching 55% female and 45% male across the nation. In order to reach the gender quota, NCAA colleges will have to axe about 60,000 more men athletes, or add 60,000 more female athletes or a combination of both
There are 56,804 college football players in the NCAA. You would have to cut every single football player, then throw in all of the men ice hockey players (3,758) to get to the 60,000 level needed to be proportional.
Without cutting from football, you would have to eliminate completely most men’s sports programs: The entire total from these seven sports add up to 59,958 athletes. To be proportional, you would eliminate: Wrestling - 5,966; Swimming - 7,265; Track and Field - 20,271; Gymnastics - 367; Soccer - 18,093; Golf - 7,639; and Rifle - 357.
The U.S. Department of Education projects that males will be only 41% of college students by 2009 (an alarming fact largely ignored in this discussion). In 2009, females will need to double their numbers to 300,563 athletes to the existing 208,866 athletic opportunities for men in order to achieve proportionality. Conversely, if you hold the number of females athletes at the present 150,916 level, males will have to lost one-half of their participants (104,873) to remain proportional. Either scenario, or a midway point between them, is a disaster.
His suggestion of receiving a congressional antitrust exemption for coaches’ salaries sounds good, but has little chance of being considered. The NCAA attempted to restrict coaches salaries for assistant coaches in the past and lost a huge class-action suit costing millions. The United States is a free market society, and restricting salaries is in opposition of this basic American principle.
His discussion of excluding football from Title IX has not been suggested by any of the Commissioners in the Philadelphia meeting. The reason that this is even brought up is the effect that this large-roster sport has on the rest of the men’s sports program when used in a gender-quota system such as proportionality. If Title IX enforcement were changed to better measure “interest and abilities” then the inclusion of football would not have the negative impact that it has had on the Olympic sports.
Those that seek a better system of Title IX enforcement are not against better financial management of college sports programs. In addition, the findings of the Knight Commission are also in line with the philosophies of the Olympic sports programs. However, the fact is that even with tighter controls on college spending, men’s sports will continue to be eliminated due to pressures caused by the gender quota.
Frequently asked questions about NCAA statistics
This document is incomplete. There are many other questions that could be asked about NCAA statistics that were not included in this document. In fact, the questions selected touch upon areas that help support the positions of those who wish to keep the status quo. The document does not indicate who put together these questions, or why other questions were not included.
The fact that only four sports are targeted for sport-specific questions (wrestling, gymnastics, swimming and football) is very telling. These are the among the sports that are seeking Title IX enforcement changes.
Why is the NCAA commenting on GAO reports? The NCAA did not do this research. In its answers in this document, the NCAA only discusses the 2001 GAO report, ignoring the two previous GAO studies that provide findings that contradict the 2001 study. Again, this is showing only the information that assists those fighting for the status quo.
The questions regarding scholarships, recruiting, salaries, expenditures and revenue mostly only address the raw men vs. women comparisons. Certainly, the costs of football and basketball inflate the men’s averages, and tell little about all of the other men’s sports. There is no comparison of men vs. women within the same sport provided here, a very telling statistic about opportunity that is ignored.
Author information - Gary Abbott is the Director of Special Projects for USA Wrestling and has worked on the Title IX issue for almost a decade. He has prepared Title IX statistical reviews for the U.S. Olympic Committee as well as for USA Wrestling. Along with Title IX, the development of women’s wrestling is among his job responsibilities. Abbott served as a panelist at the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics hearing in Colorado Springs, Colo.