Feb. 19, 2003

Columbia, Mo. - Moderate changes could be on the horizon for a landmark piece of legislation. Since its creation as part of the Education Amendments in 1972, Title IX has had a profound impact on college athletics. Title IX protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. It prohibits all public and private universities that receive this funding from discriminating on the basis of sex in their intercollegiate athletics programs. Since most colleges and universities receive federal funds, most commonly through financial aid to students, nearly all must comply with Title IX.

In this, the 30th anniversary of its inception, Title IX is being examined. The Commission on Opportunity in Athletics, appointed by U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige, has spent the last seven months hearing debate from both sides, those that are satisfied with what has been accomplished, and those that think Title IX has gone too far. The Commission, co-chaired by Cynthia Cooper, the former USC all-America basketball player, and Stanford Director of Athletics Ted Leland, is made up of 15 commissioners. Ten are college coaches, administrators or athletic directors. They held "town hall" hearings earlier this year in Chicago, Atlanta, Philadelphia, San Diego and Colorado Springs. Later this month they will send a report to Secretary Paige with their recommendations on what changes, if any, should be made to Title IX.

Currently, there are three ways schools can comply with Title IX.

-Provide opportunities for males and females substantially proportionate to their respective student body enrollments;

-Consistently expand programs for the under-represented gender; or

-Show it "fully and effectively" meets the interests and abilities of the gender that is represented.

Of those three "prongs," proportionality is the one that causes the most controversy. Much of that controversy is based on the feeling held by many that proportionality is in effect a quota system. Numbers are certainly attached to compliance via this prong, making it in my opinion the least favorable option. The University of Missouri closely monitors its compliance with Title IX, choosing "prong three," or the interests and abilities prong. As we move forward in providing opportunities for female student athletes, the most important things to consider are what are the real interests of those who may attend MU, and do the abilities related to those interests reach the level for Division I athletic competition. I believe this provides the most appropriate basis for determining sport offerings at an educational institution.

My disagreement with proportionality stems specifically from situations where a sport is added only to meet a numerical requirement. In such cases, students are often recruited primarily in areas of the country or world from which the institution does not traditionally draw students, or interest may be "created" in some way on behalf of students on campus who have never before been involved in the sport. In addition, in order to fund these additional teams, many institutions must simultaneously discontinue men's sport programs. As an alternative, institutions could survey the interests and abilities of the female populations they serve, and determine if any additions are appropriate. If so, plans can be constructed in a thoughtful manner without detriment to existing viable programs.

Where there is genuine interest and the corresponding ability to compete at a high level, I am certainly an advocate of additional opportunities for female student-athletes. However, as the statistics show, the interest should be (and is currently) legitimately cultivated in girls and young women just as it has been for boys over the years. Such interest in athletics by girls continues to escalate, and MU will regularly review those interests to ensure appropriate compliance with prong three.

It is hoped that the attention currently focused on Title IX serves as a reminder that there are legitimate alternatives to proportionality that will better accomplish the original goals of this important legislation.

As always, I want to thank-you for taking the time to read this column. If you have any questions about this topic, or anything else related to Mizzou Athletics please feel free to e-mail me at aldenm@missouri.edu.