In Clash Over Title IX Debate, Wielgus Says “Move On”; College Sports Council Leader Says That Would Be Irresponsible

Editor's Note: On September 15, Chuck Wielgus published an editorial in the NCAA News saying that it's time to "move on" from the debate over the impact of Title IX on men's Olympic sports. Instead, he advocated engaging college presidents and ADs on the role of intercollegiate sports in the education process. He also advocated having the US Olympic Committee — a largely dysfunctional organization paralyzed by its own internal disputes — aact as "an influencer" in trying to save Olympic sports at the college level.

Eric Pearson, Executive Director of the College Sports Council, took strong exception to Wielgus's "move on" suggestion in a letter dated September 23, arguing that now is the time for strong, principled leadership.

Here is the full text of the comments by the two executive directors: — Phillip Whitten

USOC Should Redirect Title IX Debate
By Chuck Wielgus
USA Swimming

For the past year, there has been a major public debate over Title IX and college athletics. Title IX supporters have extolled its virtues and passionately lobbied for Title IX to remain untouched. Others have talked with equal passion about the unintended consequences of the law, and while acknowledging the significance to women's sports, they have voiced concerns about the decline of several men's sports at the college level, notably gymnastics, swimming, track and wrestling.

A commission appointed by the Department of Education carefully studied the issue, giving both sides plenty of opportunity to identify concerns and offer solutions. As often happens with emotionally charged issues, there was much public posturing and active political lobbying brought into the mix. Though some changes were recommended, there is little doubt that Title IX is going to remain essentially intact and that it will continue to play an important role in decisions relating to the future of college athletics. The review was fair and well-run, and we should accept the decision and move on. For some, of course, the debate and the political lobbying will continue.

Despite the recent dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the College Wrestling Coaches Association, which was joined by several other groups, there are those who seem intent on continuing the fight.

Meanwhile, we continue to see Olympic sports programs being dropped. St. John's University (New York) has dropped programs, and California State University, Fresno, and Ball State University are considering doing likewise. No doubt there are other programs at other schools being considered for elimination. Those of us who work to support Olympic sports have many reasons to remain concerned.

The continued loss of collegiate gymnastics, swimming, track and wrestling programs is going to negatively affect the future performance of the U.S. Olympic Team, especially our men. Those four sports may be considered minor, nonrevenue sports at the collegiate level, but in the Olympic world these are marquis sports. When talking to potential sponsors for swimming, we have at times used the analogy that what Duke basketball is to college basketball, USA Swimming is to the Olympics.

We can make all the arguments we want about what good students most swimmers are and about how these are just the kind of student-athletes that colleges and universities should be looking to support. The fact remains, however, that these arguments, while laudable, usually fall on deaf ears. We need look no further than to recent conference realignment efforts to realize that at the NCAA Division I level, the motivation of schools and their athletics departments is most often driven by money, market share and revenue opportunities.

It is easy to complain about the current state of college athletics, but nothing is going to change until we successfully shift the debate away from Title IX and onto what should be the real role and purpose of college sports. We must engage college presidents and athletics directors, as well as trustees, elected officials and the general public in a serious discussion about what college athletics should be.

NCAA President Myles Brand and college presidents seem to be stepping up their involvement, and this may be an opportune time for the USOC to establish itself as an effective influencer and to redefine its own role with college athletics.

The USOC must first acknowledge that for several of its most high-profile, medal-winning sports, college athletics plays a critical role in the athlete development pipeline. In fact, the existence of Olympic sports programs at the college level is what separates the U.S. Olympic Team from every other Olympic team in the world. The opportunity to participate in college athletics is a real motivating force for many high-school athletes. Keeping talented athletes involved between the ages of 18 and 22 is critically important because so many athletes are maturing both physically and mentally during this period of their lives.

It is especially noteworthy that colleges and universities employ many of our finest coaches, and this benefits the development of our Olympic sports in unquestionable ways. The simple fact is that those schools that employ professional coaches and offer varsity competition for Olympic sports are playing a vital role in the development of Olympians.

The USOC always has acknowledged the importance of NCAA sports, and there have been some efforts to enhance the relationship. Liaison committees exist to discuss and explore issues, many NGBs have NCAA representation on their boards, and there have been grant programs to NCAA conferences and schools for the purpose of supporting Olympic sports programs. While worthwhile, these efforts are insufficient.

The USOC needs to embrace a greater commitment and adopt a long-term strategy that seeks to promote the importance of supporting and expanding the existence of quality Olympic sports programs at NCAA institutions. As a starting point, the USOC could:

* Designate a senior staff member who possesses the background and credibility to effectively communicate with college presidents, athletics directors and trustees. The thrust of this initiative should be to open and maintain effective lines of communication for the purpose of advancing support for Olympic sport programs, and ensuring that athletes have the broadest possible opportunities to participate and to excel.

* Activate a program that assesses the standing of collegiate Olympic sports programs and identifies programs that might be endangered, or better, where opportunities exist to establish new programs.

* Use the U.S. Olympian alumni group as a volunteer work force to mobilize athletics alumni groups and boosters in order to generate increased support for Olympic sports programs at individual schools.

* Create and aggressively promote an awards program that recognizes the role of NCAA schools in the development of Olympic athletes.

Developing and implementing strategies around these concepts would bring real substance to the USOC role in relation to the NCAA and intercollegiate athletics. This is an opportunity to shift the USOC away from what has been a passive approach, and actively move the organization forward. This is the kind of positioning and leadership effort needed to foster important long-term support to some of America's most successful Olympic sports programs. For the "new" USOC to emerge as a purposeful organization, this is but one way to consider a new relevancy.

Now Is the Time for Strong, Principled Leadership, Not Appeasement
By Eric Pearson
College Sports Council

September 23, 2003

Mr. Chuck Wielgus
Executive Director
USA Swimming

Dear Mr. Wielgus,

I have recently read your letter published in the NCAA news September 15, 2003. You have written that we should all "move on" and shift the debate away from Title IX. In other words, we should just stop our campaign to educate the public about the unfair and unreasonable set of regulations that govern Title IX. Unfortunately, because you have chosen to directly and very publicly criticize the efforts of the many good people in College Sports Council (CSC) I have no option but to respectfully respond to your attack.

In January 2002, our coalition of coaches, parents, athletes, and alumni launched a legal and public relations campaign against the three part test that regulates Title IX compliance. Since that time, there has been increased media attention focused on the unintended consequences of Title IX.

In response to the pressure created by our suit, the Bush Administration set up a commission to evaluate Title IX. There was overwhelming support among the commissioners for common sense reform to curb the ongoing discrimination against male athletes caused by Title IX. Unfortunately, the Administration chose to completely ignore its own commission's recommendations and did nothing.

Now emboldened by the inaction of the Bush Administration, gender quota advocates are pushing hard for the enforcement of the three part test in high schools. In order to achieve proportionality in scholastic sports programs over 1 million male athletes will need to be eliminated. This is unacceptable, and the CSC will work hard to prevent this nightmarish scenario from ever becoming a reality.

In addition to the looming crisis in scholastic sports, there remains the ongoing injustice of roster management in collegiate programs. This morally reprehensible practice forces coaches to discriminate against male athlete to the benefit of no one.

Roster management is the NCAA's "dirty little secret" and exists only as a method to comply with proportionality. Any veteran coach will tell you that these scholar athletes that they are forced to cut are often the most appreciative of the opportunity just to participate. Whatever professions they may choose- business, medicine, law, or academia- they credit the lessons learned through sports for helping them achieve success.

These "walk-on" athletes are not likely to become Olympians so you may not feel it is your responsibility to fight for them. However, the CSC places the highest value on these "not quite elite" athletes. We recognize that their participation in sports is a net benefit to society.

I agree with your suggestion that we must challenge leaders in academia to reassert the educational value of college sports for student athletes. The CSC will gladly take up that cause. However, if we are sincere about actually saving athletic opportunities, we cannot ignore the pressure that proportionality puts on athletic directors. With student enrollment ratios increasingly leaning towards more females on campus, all you have to do is make a few mathematical calculations to see that there will not be any room for Olympic sports programs as long as proportionality remains as the measure for compliance. Therefore, it is senseless to have any debate about saving Olympic sports on college campuses without including the impact of Title IX.

We may not see a decline in athlete performance at the Olympic Games during your tenure at USA Swimming, but without question a crisis is looming on the horizon as we lose opportunities for men and consequently shrink the pool of future coaches and athletes. At this moment in time, following your advice to "move on" from the Title IX debate would be not only irresponsible but, more significantly, a betrayal of the dreams of the many children who are just now learning to swim and hoping some day to compete in college. Now more than ever is the time for strong, principled leadership, not for appeasement of the gender quota advocates inside the NCAA.

Respectfully,
Eric Pearson
Executive Director
College Sports Council
www.savingsports.org

Name*

Email*

Welcome to our community. We invite you to join our discussion. Our community guidelines are simple: be respectful and constructive, keep on topic, and support your fellow commenters. Commenting signifies that you agree to our Terms of Use