House Editorial: Title IX: Percentages over people
In the name of equality, JMU is forced to discriminate against 155 individuals
Posted on October 2, 2006

Here is a suggestion for a brand-new bumper sticker. “Title IX: Ensuring government-sanctioned discrimination since 1972.”

The federal law mandating equal treatment for male and female collegiate athletes says gender ratios in the student body must represent those of the athletic teams on the field. The law is designed to prevent discrimination — but only if it’s against the right kind of people.

Apparently, men and lower-tier sports aren’t the right kind of people.

Friday, Title IX came to visit JMU, and in its wake left Madison with 10 fewer sports, 11 fewer coaches and 144 fewer student-athletes — that’s 155 discriminated against in the name of equal treatment.

In total, JMU jettisoned seven men’s sports and three women’s sports, so that it could become Title IX compliant. JMU President Linwood Rose said the school had to obey the law and athletic director Jeff Bourne called cutting the 10 sports the most viable option.

Just don’t kill the messengers.

Title IX puts administrators in the awkward position of ranking which sports are more important than others. It puts Rose, Bourne and the rest of the Board of Visitors in the undesirable position of picking which student-athletes are better and more deserving of university sponsorship.

In JMU’s case, it was archery, cross-country, gymnastics, indoor track, outdoor track, swimming and diving and wrestling that had to go. On the women’s end, it was archery, fencing and gymnastics.

Sorry, but according to Title IX’s anti-discriminatory purpose, you’re just not as special or popular — or lucrative — as football, basketball, soccer or lacrosse.

This is why the law needs to be changed.

Instead of attaching the law to enrollment ratios, it should merely represent student-athletes. It should say men and women must have equal opportunity to compete in intercollegiate athletics, which should mean an equal number of teams, not an equal number of athletes. The reason? Football.

Friday’s ruling was passed down because JMU is so much more female (61 percent to 39 percent) and because of our 2004 I-AA national champions have the biggest team on campus, which also happens to be all male.

In order to compensate for the 63 scholarships taken by football, it takes about three women’s teams to close the gap, which translates to three men’s teams JMU can’t have.

At places like Virginia Tech or the University of Virginia, where the football team gets 85 scholarships, it makes it even harder. But you can’t cut football at those schools because they bring in so much money to the school and the athletic department. So leave football out, and to make up for the extra team, implement field hockey — an all-female sport.

Don’t penalize other athletes because of the rules of a sport they don’t play.

Make the law equal opportunity and equal team — and for once — let’s not substitute one type of discrimination for another.