News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
July 20, 2005
As an organization, the National Collegiate Athletic Association has taken a fairly aggressive stand in recent months in favor of gender equity and women’s sports, condemning the U.S. Education Department for issuing rules that are widely viewed as weakening the enforcement of Title IX, the law that bars sex discrimination at educational institutions that receive federal aid.
But when it comes to the pocketbooks of individual institutions and concerns about competitive balance, it seems, principles have a way of bending a bit.
One hundred sixteen colleges in Division I, nearly a third of the total number, have voted to override a NCAA rule change that would raise the number of scholarships colleges can offer to athletes in various women’s sports. Because more than 100 institutions voted to override the legislation, it is suspended unless and until the Division I Board of Directors approves the measure (or portions of it) again at its meeting next month. If the board were to endorse its earlier decision, the NCAA’s members would then vote on it at their January convention.
The NCAA said in a news release last week that this is the first time since the NCAA adopted a new governance structure in 1997 that a vote by a representative body had been overridden.
In April, the Division I Board of Directors, which is made up of college presidents, approved legislation that increased the number of scholarships that Division I programs can offer in four women’s sports: gymnastics (from 12 to 14), soccer (12 to 14), track and field (18 to 20) , and volleyball (12 to 13). The changes were scheduled to take effect in August 2006.
But the change was not uniformly popular. Although advocates for women’s sports supported it because it would add opportunities for women to participate in Division I sports, offering more scholarships is expensive (at a time when costs are outpacing revenues for many if not most Division I sports programs).
And NCAA rules changes that allow colleges to spend more money are always controversial in Division I because of the great range of sports programs at that competitive level, which include behemoth programs with $80 million budgets and 30 teams (many of which are in Division I-A) and those with budgets one-fifth the size and fewer than half as many teams, which tend to be in Divisions I-AA and I-AAA (which play big-time basketball but play football a notch down from the biggest programs or not at all)..
Smaller, less-wealthy sports programs often fear that changes that allow more spending will allow the bigger, wealthier programs to snag more of the best athletes for themselves, widening an already sizable gap in competitiveness between the haves and the have-nots. An NCAA spokesman confirmed that all 116 votes to override the increase in sports scholarships were from colleges in Divisions I-AA or I-AAA.
Although Division I-AA and I-AAA institutions outnumber the Division I-A institutions by about two to one, 11 of the 18 members of the Division I Board of Directors represent the biggest-time universities. So the attempted override represents a rare (successful, for now) attempt by the majority to impose its will on the most powerful institutions.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
When I contemplate the issues and effects of Title IX, I find myself at ends with my stance on the regulation of this legislation. In many ways, I think Title IX is similar to affirmative action. The Supreme Court underwent a difficult time reaching a decision as to whether or not educational institutions could in a way, racially discriminate. Is it fair to allow minorities opportunities that they probably would never be given if the goverment did not see to it that certain opportunities (in this case, admission to schools) were provided? What are the guidelines or requirements for minorities to be eligible for these special provisions? In the end, the Supreme Court reached a very split, abstract decision. Title IX is no different. Why should females (minorities) be allowed to receive the opportunity for scholarships while athletic programs across the country are starting to cut male athletic programs? How many special provisions should be made to allow females to receive athletic opportunites? As a female student-athlete on a full athletic scholarship to a Division I university, I come from a unique position. Personally, if the full athletic scholarship was not offered to me, I would have had to rely on my academics to award me scholarship funding for college. I probably would not have attended the university I am currently enrolled. In my experiences and endeavors as a student-athlete, I can not describe how much I have personally flourished and matured through the opportunities made available to me. I consider myself extremely fortunate to now be a double-major student, expecting to attend law school upon graduation, and actively involved in community and school activities. If it were not for Title IX, I do not know where I would be today. I understand that there are many complicated issues and surrounding Title IX, and many university presidents must be mindful that they are in charge of a “business.” However, I strongly believe that the NCAA Board of Directors and all those involved in the negoitation process need to first remember the student-athletes, both male and female, who are simply looking for the best possible way to fully reach their athletic and academic potentials. We need to put the politics aside, and remember the student-athletes, and see to it that both are equally provided the same treatment, funding, and opportunity to excel.
carrie, student-athlete at DePaul University, at 8:40 pm EDT on July 20, 2005
This is an issue of competitive equity, not gender equity. Volleyball is one sport that should be singled out for an additonal scholarship with recent rule changes and addition of a libero position. However, the other additions are only to balance the football scholarship scales at the BCS institutions. Bite the bullet and decrease the maximum football scholarships to balance the opportunities for all.
Cindy, at 8:41 pm EDT on July 20, 2005
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
UCLA Development is inviting applications for an Assistant Director, Parent Program. see job
Posting Description: The University of Colorado Denver seeks an Assistant Professor to work in the ... see job
Position Summary: The Assistant Professor in the area of Child Clinical Psychology will be expected to ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Posting Description: A full-time PRA position is available in the Department of Pathology at UCD. The ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Eastern Kentucky University, located in Richmond, Madison County, Kentucky near the Heart of the Bluegrass, is a ... see job
Georgia Gwinnett College, the 35th member of the University System of Georgia, is a premier 21st century four-year liberal ... see job
Job Description: The Campus Director of Financial Aid is responsible for the direction and coordination of all activities ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Does anyone know if the votes of the universities on this issue are recorded and published?
chris b, at 8:29 am EDT on July 20, 2005