This week is the 42nd anniversary of the famous equity law Title IX. Stay tuned for the story
of what happens when bad things happen to good laws. Coming up next on the Factual Feminist.
Title IX was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on June 23, 1972. In 37 momentous words,
it outlawed gender discrimination in all publicly supported educational programs. Before its
passage, many of the nation's leading universities didn't accept women, and law schools and medical
schools they often used quotas to limit female enrollment. As for sports, female student
athletes were rare—and received precious little support from college athletic programs.
The logic behind Title IX is the same as that behind all great civil rights legislation:
in our democracy, the government may not play favorites among races or religions or between
the sexes. We are all equal before the law--including in public colleges and universities. Today
there are many formidable female athletes, and the progress of women's sports should
be celebrated. But something went wrong in the law's implementation. Because of pressure
from women's groups like the National Women's Law Center and the Women's Sports Foundation,
Title IX evolved into a rigid quota regime that dictates equal participation in sports
by both sexes—regardless of interest. Now women's groups will deny that Title IX now
requires quotas. But it does. Schools are cutting back on male teams and creating new
women's teams, not because of demand, but because they are afraid of a federal investigations.
The goal in college athletics is called "proportional representation." What that means
is that if a school has 60 percent female, then it should have 60 percent female athletes.
Look what happened at Howard University in Washington, DC. Howard's student body is 67
percent female, but women are only 44 percent of its athletes. In 2007, the Women's
Sports Foundation, a powerful Title IX advocacy group, gave Howard the grade "F" because of
this 23 percent "proportionality gap." Howard has already at that time had cut men's wrestling
and baseball and added women's bowling, but that just didn't narrow the gap. Unless it
cuts almost half of its current male athletes, it's gonna remain under a Title IX cloud and
legally vulnerable. Howard's wrestling coach Wade Hughes summed up the problem this way:
"The impact of Title IX's proportionality standard has been disastrous because . . . far
more males than females are seeking to take part in athletics." No, say the Title IX activists:
women are every bit as committed to sports as men. And they have persuaded courts that
if there are fewer women than men on college varsity teams—the only explanation is discrimination.
The factual feminist is concerned because the evidence that women, taken as a group,
are less interested in competitive sports than men is overwhelming. To give just one
example, in 2012, a group of psychologists carefully analyzed men and women's propensity
for competitive sports by studying for example, who plays intramural sports? These are recreational
games that college students can play just for the love of the game. Their finding:
only one in four (26 %) of intramural participants are women.
They also studied recreational activity in 41 public parks in 4 different states. Lots
of women were exercising, but among those playing competitive team sports, only 10 percent
were women. I am aware of no serious research that finds similar levels of interest between
men and women in competitive sports. Let's be honest, there is a fallacy in the "proportionality"
requirement. Title IX was meant to be an equal opportunity law, not a rigid quota system.
It was meant to open doors for aspiring female athletes. But because of relentless pressure
from activists groups, it ended up slamming doors to keep men out. Athletic directors
have to move heaven and earth to get enough women on their teams. Meanwhile, Title IX
quotas have all but decimated men's wrestling, swimming, diving, and gymnastic teams. Now,
these sports and others are going extinct across the college campus, for men. As one
wrestling official put it, "Our sport survived the fall of Rome, only to be conquered by
Title IX." I'm going to end by asking a direct question to the Women's Sports Foundation.
Your group gave Howard University an F because its sports profile does not match its enrollments.
There are 33% men, 67% women at Howard, yet women are only 44 percent women of its teams.
Nationally, women earn 58 percent of BA degrees. Why doesn't the diminishing number of men
on the college create a Title IX concern? The Factual Feminist gives the Women's Sports
Foundation an F for basic fairness and common sense. Let me know what you think about the
current state of Title IX. I am especially interested in suggestions on how to restore
it to its original democratic goals. If you found this video worthwhile, please subscribe
to the series, and follow me on Twitter. And remember, check your facts not your privilege.