Fusco 1

Taylor Fusco

Dr. Jerz

SEL 106-10

24 April 2018

Word Count: 1562

The Language and Regulations of Title IX are Negatively Affecting Male Athletic Participation

While the federal government’s civil rights law, Title IX, was successful in increasing the

number of female athletes, the law is decreasing male participation in some sports at the

collegiate level, such as wrestling, gymnastics, and soccer. Patrick J. McAndrews argues that

Title IX has been “disproportionately disadvantaging men” since the law was published in 1972

(111). These disadvantages men are experiencing are the elimination of male athletic teams at

colleges and universities. Educational institutions are eliminating men’s sports teams because of

the inability to comply with Title IX, due to the language of the law, as argued by McAndrews,

and the proportionality requirement of collegiate athletics, as argued by Sigelman and Wahlbeck.

However, when understanding Title IX, it is important to know that Title IX does not require

colleges and universities to provide identical athletic teams for both males and females, but equal

in opportunities as interests and abilities allow (France 85). With Title IX affecting male

participation in sports, the whole goal of the law has not been achieved. There are discrepancies

within Title IX’s guidelines that are causing negative effects on men in athletics, which in turn, is

causing the effectiveness of this civil rights law to fail.

Title IX has caused an increase in female athletic participation from 300,000 athletes in

1971, the year before the law was introduced, to 2.4 million athletes in 1997 (Harvard Law

Review 627). In the same year (1971) more than 3.7 million boys and men participated in
 Fusco 2

athletics, which then increased to 4.5 million (Rose). Title IX has hardly been seen as

“unconstitutional,” specifically because of the increase in female athletic participation. However,

with the way Title IX was written, there are loopholes in the law that have caused an elimination

of collegiate level sports and multiple lawsuits either from universities or both male and female

athletes arguing Title IX violations, due to variations in interpretations of the law. McAndrews

argues that Title IX is essentially “limitless” in its application to education because of the

confusing discourse used within the law itself (115). Because of lack of consistency when

interpreting Title IX’s language, it is difficult for high schools and universities to determine how

to set up standards that comply with Title IX’s requirements. For example, Title IX states that if

“athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, member of the

excluded sex must be allowed to try-out for the team offered unless the sport involved is a

contact sport” (34 C.F.R). The issue in interpretation of this section comes from the term

“contact sport.” According to the law, a contact sports is any sport where “the purpose or major

activity of which involves bodily contact” (34 C.F.R). Sports in this category include “hockey,

rugby, football, wrestling or any other sport that continually consists of bodily contact” (France

84). However, there are many sports that are open to interpretation such as field hockey and

lacrosse. If the limitations to this requirement were not present, it would be easy for schools to

comply with Title IX by allowing female students to try out for all sports teams and vice versa

with male students. However, in Title IX violation lawsuits, this regulation usually affects male

athletes, because defendants argue that the opposite sex has had previous, limiting opportunities

(France 84). In 2004, there have been more than three-hundred and fifty men’s teams that have

been cut from colleges and universities, mostly in gymnastics and wrestling (McAndrews 111).

These actions have provided an unfair advantage to men, especially because wrestling is seen as
 Fusco 3

a contact sport, that female athletes are not allowed to tryout and participate in. By cutting men’s

athletic teams, it is how universities comply with Title IX and their regulations, when in turn

causing limitations to male athletes.

In order to help educational institutions comply with Title IX regulations, the Office of

Civil Rights established a three-prong system, that evaluates athletic opportunities in three

aspects: proportionality, history and continuing practice, and interests and abilities. Colleges and

universities must pass in at least one these aspects or they are violating Title IX. When

examining athletic opportunities at colleges, proportionality looks at the ratio of male to female

participating in athletics to the ratio of male to female students enrolled full-time. If the ratios of

athletic participation and full-time enrollment are not equal, the college or university will

automatically violate Title IX. Proportionality “is an extremely controversial” guideline to

evaluate collegiate athletics because it ignores “differences between male and female students in

athletic interest” (Sigelman and Wahlbeck 521). With colleges and universities overlooking

athletic ability and interest, proportionality is an ineffective way to determine if a university is

complying with Title IX regulations, because a female student may be more interested in

participating in soccer compared to men, which could in turn throw off the ratio. The

proportionality requirement has also been seen as giving “female students a competitive

advantage” because if female students have less interest and ability in athletics than their male

counterparts do, it “guarantees female students proportional varsity athletic spots” (Yuracko 731-

732). Even though the proportionality requirement gives equality to female students in college

athletics, it is limiting men because if the ratio is thrown off on the female end, the university has

to make changes to male athletics. Proportionality effects an educational institution’s ability to

comply with Title IX and to provide equal opportunities for men because it bases opportunity
 Fusco 4

solely on the ratio between athletic and full-time enrollment. If the male ratio is higher than the

female, the educational institution is failing to comply with Title IX so cuts must be made

somewhere. The overall downfall of the three-prong test is that an education institution must be

in compliance with at least one of the three prongs, so it is not essential for a university to

comply with Title IX in this way. If the proportionality requirement is not met, it is up to the

second prong of history and program expansion to show that the college or university is

complying with the guidelines of Title IX. If this fails, educational institutions must rely on

athletic ability and interest to be in accordance with Title IX. Proportionality is the most

problematic aspect of this system because it gives an unfair advantage to females over males,

which in turn, cause negative effects for male athletes.

Critics like Amy Ladd, argue that Title IX has not been disadvantaging men whenever

the law was introduced, because athletic teams for boys and men have increased twenty-two

percent in high school athletics and forty-six percent for collegiate teams (Ladd 1682). For

women, it’s an even greater number. Because of the dramatic increases in athletics for both

sexes, the numbers are still at a fair ratio of two female to three male participants (Ladd 1682).

Even though the number of sports teams for men have increased, this is in sports such as lacrosse

and baseball, not men’s gymnastics and wrestling. Lacrosse and baseball are added due to the

athletic interest males have in the sports, but by cutting gymnastics and wrestling, colleges and

universities are placing limitations on those interested in such sports. Even though sports have

been added to take the place of others, there are still restrictions on male interest in the

eliminated sports (gymnastics and wrestling) because they are not offered at post-secondary

educational institutions.
 Fusco 5

An aspect that cannot be taken into consideration when examining the effects of Title IX

is football at colleges and universities. Most NCAA Division I colleges and universities focus

heavily on football because it brings in a lot of revenue for the school. For example, Texas A&M

brought in $192.6 million in revenue in the 2015-16 school year (“NCAA Finances”). The

majority of the school’s athletics budget goes towards football and ninety-one Division I schools

“spent a larger proportion of their budget on football than all of their women’s teams combined”

in 2002 (Zimmerman). When colleges and universities place a heavily emphasis on football, it

makes it difficult to comply with Title IX, so instead of decreasing the football budget, other

men’s sports teams were cut. Evaluating football’s effects on Title IX compliance is too large of

an issue in itself because of how much money the industry brings in, so it must be looked at

separately when understanding compliance issues with Title IX.

Title IX should enhance equal athletic opportunities for both males and females in high

school and collegiate sports. Title IX increased in female participation, but hurt opportunities for

male athletes in the process. In order to change the discrepancies with the language of Title IX,

the law must be repealed and amended, but the issue comes with having to amend law that was

used to change an already existing law. The first step in changing Title IX is understanding how

to interpret the confusing language of “previous limitations” and “contact sports,” along with the

idea that proportional means compliance. Next, the negative effects Title IX it has on male

athletes has to be understood, and how some of language gives advantages to females. By

disadvantaging one sex over the other, a federal civil rights law is failing at providing the

equality that was supposed to be offer through it, there for jeopardizing the future interests in

athletic participation.
 Fusco 6

Works Cited

34 C.F.R. § 160.41(b) 2018.

Francis, Leslie. "Title IX: An Incomplete Effort to Achieve Equality in Sports." Journal of

the Philosophy of Sport, vol. 43, no. 1, Mar. 2016, pp. 83-99. Academic Search Elite.

Harvard Law Review. "Cheering on Women and Girls in Sports: Using Title IX to Fight Gender

Role Oppression." Harvard Law Review, vol. 110, no. 7, May 1997, pp. 1627-1644.

Academic Search Elite.

Ladd, Amy L. “The Sports Bra, the ACL, and Title IX — The Game in Play.” Clinical

Orthopaedics and Related Research, vol. 472, no. 6, June. 2014, pp. 1681–1684.

PubMed Central.

McAndrews, Patrick J. "Keeping Score: How Universities Can Comply with Title IX without

Eliminating Men's Collegiate Athletic Programs." Brigham Young University Education

& Law Journal, vol. 2012, no. 1, Jan. 2012, pp. 111-140. Academic Search Elite.

“NCAA Finances.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 2017,

Rose, M.L. “Male Vs. Female Sports.” LIVESTRONG.COM, Leaf Group, 11 Sept. 2017.

Sigelman, Lee and Paul J. Wahlbeck. "Gender Proportionality in Intercollegiate Athletics: The

Mathematics of Title IX Compliance." Social Science Quarterly (University of Texas

Press), vol. 80, no. 3, Sept. 1999, pp. 518-538. Academic Search Elite.

Yuracko, Kimberly A. "One for You and One for Me: Is Title IX's Sex-Based Proportionality

Requirement for College Varsity Athletic Positions Defensible?" Northwestern

University Law Review, vol. 97, no. 2, Winter 2003, pp. 731-800. Academic Search

Elite.

Zimmerman, Jonathan. “Blame Football, Not Title IX.” Los Angeles Times, 9 Jan. 2014.