Well, I'm not at Colgate, but I do have a little more info on the Title IX
ruling, courtesy of this morning's _Post-Standard_.  The original lawsuit,
which was filed by five women players in 1990, was not to force Colgate to
spend an equal amount on women's and men's hockey -- just to make the
university spend more than they were on women's, to allow the team to
upgrade to varsity status.  The decision, by US Magistrate David Hurd, was
that "Colgate unlawfully [in violation of Title IX] refused to elevate the
sport to varsity status and that the women students deserved the same
opportunities as the men."  There was a priceless quote from Hurd's written
decision that went, "The men's ice hockey players at Colgate are treated as
princes.  The women ice hockey players are treated as chimney sweeps."
Colgate has been ordered to provide a varsity women's team by the 1993-94
season.
 
This is apparently the first time Title IX has ever been used to force a
college to elevate a women's club sport to varsity status, and some
observers expect there to be a rash of similar lawsuits in the wake of this
one.  Colgate's argument was that the women's hockey team did not warrant
consideration for varsity status because of a shortage of high schools to
feed the colleges, a lack of student interest, and the fact that the NCAA
does not sponsor a women's hockey championship.  The team had filed for
varsity status four times and had been turned down each time.
 
Hurd's decision was that Colgate's main reason for denying the team varsity
status was that they felt it would cost too much, and that while Title IX
does not require equal *spending* on men's and women's sports, it does
require that schools provide equal *opportunity*, which usually means having
a comparable ratio between male and female athletes as there is in the
student population.  In other words, a school like Colgate, which has a
roughly 50-50 ratio in student enrollment, should have about the same ratio
among its athletes.  They don't -- the men have about a 2-1 advantage.  In
fairness, the _Post-Standard_ points out that an NCAA study shows US college
enrollment is pretty much split 50-50 between men and women, but the male
athletes outnumber the female athletes by a 2.24-1 ratio.
 
Colgate officials had no comment on the ruling, but of course, I do:  it's
frankly a damn good thing for college sports.  Judge Hurd was right on the
mark when he said Colgate's reasoning behind their refusal to grant the
women's team varsity status was based on economics.  I'm sure most other
colleges that deny women varsity status are using the same reasoning, and
it's blatantly unfair.  While it's true that, by and large, men's teams make
a lot more money than women's teams, that is not the women's fault, and they
do not deserve to be deprived of the opportunity to compete at a varsity
level (if there's interest in doing so) simply so that more cash can be
poured into men's programs.  I would bet that in most cases, if some of the
money that went for new locker room furniture and the like were sucked away
from certain men's athletic programs and were diverted to the women's teams,
the men wouldn't suffer too much, and the women would benefit greatly.  As
for there being a shortage of high schools to feed talented women's hockey
players to the colleges -- oh, please.  Generate a need at the college level
for athletes, and just watch the high schools start moving to fill it.
Other schools have done moderately well with their women's hockey teams
(look at the teams in the ECAC women's division), and I think with just a
little support, the Colgate women will be able to compete also.
 
This might make things ver-r-r-y interesting in the courts over the next
several years...
--
Bill Fenwick                        |  Send your HOCKEY-L poll responses to:
Cornell '86 and probably '94        |  [log in to unmask]
LET'S GO RED!!
"I am never forget the day I first meet the great Lobachevsky.
 In one word, he tells me the secret to success in mathematics -- plagiarize.
 Plagiarize!  Let no one else's work evade your eyes!
 That's why the good Lord made your eyes, so don't shade your eyes.
 Plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize!  Only be sure to call it, please,
 'Research.'"
-- Tom Lehrer, "Nicolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky"