Opening Statement

Christine Grant
National Association of College Women Athletic Administrators

1. In brief, the Commissioners proposed setting numerical standards for proportionality that would allow variances from equal opportunity; they also proposed an interest survey and the repeal of the EADA that monitors participation numbers & athletic expenditures.

2. If implemented, these proposals would:

a. further disadvantage female athletes
b. contradict fundamental principles of Title IX and other civil rights laws
c. display an indifference toward the attainment of equal opportunities for girls & women in educational institutions
d. reveal a willingness to perpetuate stereotyping of women in the sporting arena as less interested, less talented or less important.

3. From the beginning, many have had concerns about the role of the Commission when it was revealed that the first question to be answered by the Commission was to determine if "Title IX standards for assessing equal opportunity in athletics (are) working to promote opportunities for male and female athletes?" Title IX was never meant to assist men in athletics; it was intended to help women who have been the "underrepresented gender" in sport throughout the entire 20th century.

4. The question should have been: "Are Title IX standards working to promote equal opportunity in athletics?" The answer is "Yes, but unacceptably slowly".

5. Thirty years after the passage of Title IX, girls (nationwide) have only 42% of the participation opportunities at the high school level and only 42% at the collegiate level. 42% IS NOT EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.

6. But, rather than mandating more rapid progress for girls and women in sport through stronger enforcement of Title IX, this Commission is actually considering recommendations that could decrease participation opportunities by 3.5% to 10%. This would affect female athletes at both the high school and university levels. Moreover, collegiate women would not only lose participation opportunities that are rightfully and legally theirs, but they would also potentially lose from $78 to $139 million per year in athletic scholarships. Such proposals would permanently deny women equal access to play sport and permanently deny them equal access to a free education.

7. Since the decisions of this commission have the potential to affect more than half of the population in high schools and in universities throughout the U.S.A., I believe it essential that every Commissioner who is contemplating the weakening of the three pronged test provide a publicly stated reason for doing so.

Is it for genetic reasons? That is, the belief that men are inherently more talented and interested in sport than women.

Or, is it for cultural reasons? That is, the belief that men have been more strongly encouraged to participate and therefore deserve significantly more opportunities than women.

If the objection to the test is not based on genetic or cultural reasons, then the only other reason that comes to mind is a financial reason. But that is a morally and legally indefensible reason in educational institutions.

If, by chance there is another reason, what is it?

The women in this nation deserve an answer.