Federal law prohibiting gender discrimination in college sports said to hurt some men’s sports teams.
By: Jeff Milgram
There were no knockouts, but Tuesday night’s panel discussion at Princeton University’s McCosh Hall, dubbed the Title IX Bout, drew some blood.
The discussion got under way with the sound of the ringing of a boxing bell and the words, "Let’s get ready to rumble!"
It wasn’t exactly a fight to the finish, but the panelists used facts and figures to make their points about Title IX, the controversial 1972 federal law that prohibits gender discrimination in college sports, and its impact on intercollegiate athletics, especially on men’s teams. The law requires colleges and universities to grant equal financing and resources to male and female athletes.
Most of the more than 300 people in the audience were students. The panel was organized as part of a senior thesis by Princeton student Maura Bolger, who acted as moderator and kept the panelists to their time limits.
The full title of the panel discussion was "Title IX Bout Men’s Sports Down for the Count."
"People need to compromise," Ms. Bolger said before the event. "The effects are getting worse. The effects are going to be seen in high school teams."
Panelists said waste and mismanagement in football programs, not Title IX, was to blame for the elimination of some men’s college sports teams.
Jeff Orleans, executive director of the Council of Ivy Group Presidents since 1984 and the author of the regulations implementing Title IX, said college trustees who did not apply Title IX regulations were "stonewalling."
"Title IX provides real opportunities for all male and female athletes," Mr. Orleans said.
Football "is just enough more expensive than it needs to be to make an equitable program for men and women," Mr. Orleans said.
"The problem is people using interpretation difficulty as an excuse for non-compliance," said Donna Lopiano, executive director of the Women’s Sports Foundation and an advocate of Title IX.
Some schools have failed to implement Title IX altogether, she said, while others have misinterpreted the law to cut "lower priority" men’s teams such as water polo and wrestling to give equal athletic opportunities to women.
"The number of women’s teams has increased significantly, while the number of boys’ teams has decreased even more significantly," said Clay McEldowney, secretary-treasurer of the College Sports Council, which joined the National Wrestling Coaches Association in suing the U.S. Department of Education over Title IX.
Mr. McEldowney, a Princeton University graduate, is the former head of the Friends of Princeton Wrestling. The Friends funded the university’s men’s wrestling team in 1993, when the university officially dropped the sport, citing Title IX.
The furor over Princeton’s wrestling program shows how deeply the battle lines are drawn.
In 1993, Princeton decided to cancel the men’s varsity wrestling program, but the university had admitted wrestlers under its "jock round," which gives some preferential consideration to athletes, and the school would be liable for a breach of contract suits. The program was granted a three-year stay of execution.
The three years gave alumni enough time to get the support of the university community. Wrestling matches were held in front of Firestone Library and they were covered by The Daily Princetonian, the student newspaper.
The Princeton Alumni Weekly published a cartoon in support of the program. Three months before the termination of the program, the alumni sent out their heavyweight, Camille Paglia, an outspoken feminist, who argued that "Wrestling Is Good for Princeton University" at Whig-Clio Hall. She said that if money was the issue, Princeton should just fire a dean.
The university permitted wrestling to stay on as a club sport and the Friends of Princeton Alumni raised $1 million to fund an intercollegiate team. The term "club" was quietly dropped and the program was considered a varsity sport, although one that is entirely funded by alumni.
Mr. McEldowney and Deborah Perry, senior fellow for the Independent Women’s Forum, claimed that women show less interest in college sports than men and that colleges should consider this difference when allocating resources.
"Quite clearly, women and men do not have the same interest in a lot of things … and that translates over to sports," Mr. McEldowney said.
Ms. Lopiano thought he was missing the point.
"Title IX is not an equal-interest law," Ms. Lopiano said.
But other panelists argued that more opportunities would create a greater interest in women’s sports.
"If we provided opportunities based on perceived interest, we’d be where we were 15 years ago," said Dan Fulks, faculty athletics representative at Transylvania University in Kentucky.

