Commentary by Niki Urquidi, Swimming World College Intern.
Looking at college teams around the country, you’ll notice a mix between co-ed and women-only teams. While some schools do not have a men’s team by choice, many collegiate men’s teams are being cut due to Title IX – an important piece of the Education Amendments Act of 1972.
Many people hear banter regarding Title IX but don’t truly understand its implications. What exactly is Title IX, and how does it affect the structure of college swimming?
Photo Courtesy: Kenyon College Athletics
What is Title IX?
According to the NCAA, Title IX is an amendment enforced upon all college activities that implies the following:
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
This rule is taken very seriously by all public and private colleges that receive – and wish to continue receiving – federal funds, as it is endorsed by the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education.
The misconception behind Title IX is that it requires an equal amount of money to be spent on both men’s and women’s sports teams within the college. Instead, the amendment only requires that equal dollars be spent on scholarships available but calls for equal “treatment” and “benefits” for both male and female student-athletes.
Photo Courtesy: Molly Zilch
Why was Title IX created?
Prior to the establishment of Title IX in 1972, very few opportunities existed for female collegiate athletes. College athletics were run by a National Collegiate Athletic Association that had not yet provided any scholarships for women’s sports teams, nor did they hold championship seasons.
Due to this lack of support, only 30,000 women were able to participate in collegiate athletics in 1972, while 170,000 men competed for their respective colleges.
Therefore, Title IX focused less on money allotment for college teams and more on equal quality and opportunity for both male and female athletes. This included such resources as locker rooms, medical treatment, training, coaching, practice times, travel and per diem allowances, equipment, practice facilities, tutoring and recruitment. These improvements enhanced the quality of women’s athletics in college.
In order to improve opportunity for female athletes, scholarships were to be given on an equal basis “so that if 40 percent of a school’s athletic scholarships were awarded to women, 40 percent of the scholarship budget was also earmarked for women.”
These advancements through the Title IX amendment proved successful, as the number of female high school athletes has risen from 295,000 to over 2.6 million and the number of female college athletes has risen from 30,000 to currently over 150,000.
Photo Courtesy: UCLA Bruins Athletics
How does Title IX affect college swimming?
Although having many benefits, Title IX has also garnered much antipathy.
Many colleges are forced to cut the smaller men’s teams, as fewer resources can be allocated to them due to the burgeoning budgets required by the larger football and basketball teams. This particular issue affects sports with smaller participation, such as tennis, soccer and swimming.
Schools – such as UCLA and the University of Miami, Florida – whose football teams dominate their athletic resources have been forced to cut men’s swimming. These cuts lead many to believe this decrease in men’s opportunities end up proving contrary to what the Title IX amendment set out to correct years ago.
Kevin Weissman, in a guest editorial of Swimming World Magazine, explores reasons and statistics that show the detrimental effects Title IX has had on the men’s swimming community, including fewer scholarship opportunities and less participation opportunities.
Photo Courtesy: Brian Jenkins – UVM Athletics
While Title IX has led to much opportunity for women, the effects on men’s swimming have seemed less than favorable. While Title IX came about during a time when female athletes were overlooked and deserved a chance to showcase their talents at a higher level, some of the repercussions decades down the road have proved to be detrimental to some men’s programs and thus the larger swimming world.
Women’s athletic opportunities should be protected – but at what cost? Do you think Title IX has weaknesses that should be addressed, or should it stay as is?
Commentary: All research was conducted by the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of Swimming World Magazine nor its staff.
That’s something
This is a ridiculous question
Is it?
Rick Waldock. It is
Of course it has helped. Isn’t it really athletic departments cutting funding that’s the problem??
Athletic departments must comply with Title IX, which results in fewer opportunities for men in minor sports.
Yea but they can decide what programs get what money.
Where’s my eye roll emoji?
I’m tired of people blaming Title IX and women’s sports for the decline of men’s minor sports like swimming. AD’s, who are almost all men, are the ones making the decisions as to how athletic funds are used. They choose to allocate more funds to football and men’s basketball, and also choose not to fund other men’s sports to pay for the increased funding.
But those AD’s almost always say Title IX is the reason for the cuts to men’s sports. I have yet to see the money from those cut sports reflected in an increase to women’s sports funding. Instead, I often see an increase in funding to football/men’s basketball, like in salary increases to coaches of those sports.
ADs make funding decisions to comply with Title IX. Major football and men’s basketball programs provide the vast majority of funding for all of the other sports, and football requires a large number of scholarships and has no female sport equivalent. It should not be included in the funding formula. That would go a long way to allowing a more equitable split of the funding between male/female sports teams. It’s all about the flawed Title IX.
When Title IX was enacted, football coaches said it would be the “death” of college football. Instead, football is bigger than ever, with cuts made to men’s minor sports to feed the “beast”. Men’s basketball is almost as bad.
Title IX isn’t flawed. The way the money’s spent by AD’s is what’s flawed.
But don’t take my word for it. Contact former swimmer and gold medalist Nancy Hogshead-Maker. She can give you the facts and figures better than anyone.
Diane Pavelin “The Beast” pays for all of the other sports. It is the flaw in Title IX that requires football to be included in the formula. If we revise Title IX to exclude football, there would be a much more equitable split of the funding.
That’s a tired argument that has been shot down many times. As I said, go ask Nancy Hogshead-Maker. She has the facts to prove that wrong, as well as a lot of other myths about Title IX.
Better yet, check it out for yourself-
Title IX obviously needs to be revised to ensure the “equal opportunities “ it was designed to protect. It is currently having a disastrous effect on D1 men’s swimming programs across the country. These men are being denied the opportunity to participate in varsity swimming, while their female counterparts are thriving. That’s clearly not “equal opportunity “. Perhaps we should allow these men to compete on the women’s team, just as women swam on men’s teams before they had women’s teams? Men could compete directly against women on an equal playing field to earn scholarships designated for “women’s swimming. That seems like a reasonable and equitable alternative if a men’s team is eliminated by Title IX. Or just revise it.
It’d be great if they’d figure a way to account for football. Football is why other men’s sports have been pulled.
Make women’s football mandatory
Take football out of the equation – problems solved !