>         This is all true under the interpretation that Judge Raymond
> Pettine made last week in the case against Brown.  However, nowhere in
> the Title IX code does it explicitly say that the numbers of participants
> must be equal or proportional (nor does it say anything about athletics,
> but that's beside the point).  The Plaintiffs argued (and Pettine agreed)
> that the ratio of male to female athletes must be proportionate to the ratio
> of male to female students, based on a statement in an Office of Civil Rights
> (OCR) report.
>         But Brown argued that in the same report, the OCR stated
> that the number of "participation opportunities" for athletes should be
> proportional to the interests and abilities of the students.  Pettine also
> found that the level of interest among women at Brown is greater than the
> opportunities offered.  As you may know, Brown plans to appeal the decision.
>         The point here is that even if the numbers of men and women competing
> at a particular school are equal, the school is not necessarily in
> compliance.  If every woman at a school wants to play a sport, and the school
> only offers enough opportunities for half the women and all the interested
> men (even if there are the same number men and women playing), the women
> could conceivably bring a lawsuit against the school.
 
        All this DOES apply.
        First of all the history of it all: Title IX in its origional
form does not specifically mention athletics, but the 1984 decision in
the case of Grove City vs. Bell linked title IX to collegiate athletics,
and this was further stated in the Civil Rights Act of 1988.
        That basically said that if ANYONE at the University received
money from the federal gov't that the ENTIRE University had to comply.
SO, if some guy received a $5.00 grant for a chemistry experiment, then
the whole University had to offer the equal rights deal.
 
        If the NCAA does decide to crack down on your institution there
is a three pronged test that is generally used
        1) the college is required to show that its male and female students
participate in intercollegiate sport in proportion to their
representation in the student body.
        2) If one gender is underrepresented, the college must show a
continuing history of expanding opportunities for that gender
Simply cutting men's sports will not suffice here)
        3) School must prove that it has meet the athletic "interests and
abilities" of the underrepresented gender.
 
        Sorry all for the non-hockey content, but this is EXTREMELY
important, especially for women's hockey, and fully understanding Title
IX is important. Not only from a hockey perspective, but almost everyone
on this list has one school in particular that they hold dear, and Title
IX will have a radical effect on it's athletic department. In many cases
it could even effect the hockey team in adverse ways. Title IX is THE
single HOTTEST issue anywhere in college athletics today and it radically
effects the landscape of college athletics and will continue to do so for
a good many years. Full knoledge of its meaning and implications is
quintessentail to a fuller understanding of the prsent state of your state
U, its athletic department, and it's hockey team. It is an issue that
will not go away for quite a while.
        Especially now that for the next five months there are no
specific games to focus our attention on, broader issues are more timely.
Title IX is the broadest issue and effects the ENTIRE world of college
athletics. It cannot be ignored.
        Knowing which schools have a long way to go to comply can also
benefit the women's hockey clubs at those universities, who can push the
promotion of their sport to fill the gap.
        As a Sports Management major here at UMass, we look deep into the
business side of athletics. While strikes and lockouts mark a professional
discussion, Title IX, more than anything else, controls a college debate.
It can halt the expansion of the men's hockey program at many schools,
and boost the women's so for that reason I say that it is relevant to
this list, even if it seems to be overly beaurcratic.
        I'd rather talk about Brendan Morrison too, but he won't play for
another five months.
 
Leigh
[log in to unmask]
Who's counting down the days until October, and reminds you that the
opinions above are my own and not those of the organizations that I work for.