Last night on Real Sports, they profiled a high school boy who plays on the girls field hockey team...

"Proponents of women's sports have for years aimed to level the playing field by providing new opportunities for young women to participate in athletics. What happens, however, when the cleat is on the other foot? Field hockey is primarily a men's sport internationally, but in America it's played almost exclusively by women. When a male seeks a spot on a women's field hockey squad because no men's team exists in his area, is he entitled under the same rules that have previously allowed females to join the football or wrestling teams? Barry Schwenk, a senior at Dennis Yarmouth H.S. in Massachusetts, is currently playing his second year on the girl's team. Despite having the support of his coach and some teammates, however, Schwenk has found it much harder to garner the support of the community."

I think this brings up a lot of interesting issues relating to Title IX and gender equity in sports. Any thoughts?

And for those who are wondering - yes, Barry does wear the little skirt, and yes he is quite cute.

(Moderator: I put this in P&R because it seems like mostly a political issue; feel free to move it to a more appropriate category.)

I get really annoyed by this kind of sensationalized press. The girls' team exists because most of the girls would never qualify for a boys' team. They have no other option. The boys have the option of their own team.

I'm sorry if Barry didn't make the boys' ice hockey team (if he tried), but the purpose of Title IX is level the field, not to create positions for kids that are either unqualified or already have options.

After seeing a "FTIX" t-shirt on a JMU lummox the other night at a restaurant, methinks that those who hold up girls' field hockey teams as an example of "discrimination" in the press are those that are also trying to eviscerate the law in related litigation.

gj

Well, I don't personally think that just because he wants to play field hockey that he had necessarily originally wanted to play ice hockey. Maybe he can't skate, but he like street hockey and wants to play an orgainzed sport. I think he should be allowed a spot on the team until there is a men's field hockey team available for him to play on. I don't think it's a discrimination issue, it's just a special case of a rule that was put in place for a good reason.

Well, well....let me FIRST say that I am thrilled to see men playing field hockey. I've been playing for years and have played internationally, and so often I get the question "You mean men play? I thought it was a girls' sport..." Meanwhile it is the third most-played sport in the WORLD after football and basketball.

I also play with women on a regular basis down where I live, but I also play on a men's team--although that means I have to travel ten hours each weekend for practice. The rules are exactly the same, which is nice and any amount of playing helps improvement.

Field hockey was first played in this country by men, and not too far from Yarmouth HS, either, before Constance Applebee popularized it at the turn of the century as an exciting activity for young ladies.

But that is a slight digression.

In an ideal situation, there would be a men's team for the lad to join. But with the general state of affairs of sports in the fall, he shouldn't hold his breath. His only option is to play on the women's team.

Two things can happen: 1) no more boys try to join up, or 2) a host of boys try to join.

In the first case, nothing happens. In the second, however, all of a sudden there is interest enough to form a boy's team, which is exactly the idea. The idea continues to grow and spread, and soon there are enough teams to form a league. It's how we have spread women's lacrosse in leaps and bounds, and the same as women's soccer and women's ice hockey over the last number of years.

I am a strong supporter of Title IX and creating and developing opportunities for athletes in school. I've spoken on the issue a number of times, and each time I make it clear that often Title IX is blamed for its mishandling by colleges. Dropping sports to come into compliance with Title IX is not really following the idea behind it. This comes from Dr. Christine Grant at Iowa, an early leader in the AIAW, the governing body of women's athletics before the NCAA stepped in, that addresses the real problems of dropping sports: "In fact, the OCR says that it will not find an institution in compliance if it increases the participation percentage for the under-represented sex by simply reducing opportunities for the over-represented sex or reducing opportunities for over-represented sex to a greater degree."

The idea is to promote participation in sports and to facilitate the activity to interested parties, not deny any opportunities.

Just to clarify, Barry does play on the boys ice hockey team. He says he joined the field hockey team as a way to practice hockey during the off-season.

[quote]Originally posted by GatorJamie:
the purpose of Title IX is level the field, not to create positions for kids that are either unqualified or already have options.

---

That's basically the conclusion Bryant Gumbel and the reporter reached, Jamie. Title IX was never meant to make everything "equal" in sports, but rather to provide opportunities for girls, who had been left out before.

However, they finally came to the point that if Barry and other boys are not allowed to play on girls teams, maybe it's time to say that girls shouldn't play on boys teams either.

I don't necessarily agree with that. But it is a tricky situation.

[quote]Originally posted by Chip:
Dropping sports to come into compliance with Title IX is not really following the idea behind it.

---

Having experienced it, I can say that college football is entirely to blame for this phenomenon. College football squads are HUGE, and to make up for this, colleges are forced to drop other men's sports in order to be in compliance with Title IX.

[quote]Originally posted by conor500:
it is a tricky situation.

---

...especially when a native Floridian tries to opine on things hockey. Thanks for the clarification.

Interesting thread!

[quote]Originally posted by FootballBoy:
college football is entirely to blame for this phenomenon. College football squads are HUGE, and to make up for this, colleges are forced to drop other men's sports in order to be in compliance with Title IX.

---

You hit it, FBoy. It's especially exasperating when AD's who don't have the spine or the know-how to balance bloated budgets cut "small" men's programs, then blame the cuts on Title IX and "the girls"...

How does the accounting work for title IX? Do they count dollars spent, number of people participating or number of sports teams represented?

[quote]Originally posted by orsino4:
[QB]How does the accounting work for title IX? [QB]

---

You've hit another core problem, Orsino. I think that it varies from institution to institution, but I'd sure like to find out more.

GatorJ

p.s. it's terrific to be able to discuss this issue objectively without getting caught up in "gender wars"

My memory is fuzzy but I *think* that UCLA dropped their men's gymnastic's program--the same program that provided a few members of the medal-winning 1984 Olympic's squad--for budgetary reasons and blamed it on Title IX. The move, and especially the "justication" was widely criticized here but (the now former) AD Peter Dalis wouldn't budge. The swimming team was also axed.

It's a minefield of an issue, isn't it? I get really annoyed when reactionary men join a women's team just to provoke a "See! They discriminate!" kind of response. I don't see that in the case that started this thread, I geniunely think the kid just wanted to play. And while I think that Title IX is great in theory, and mostly in practice, I think it either needs to be tinkered with (or scrapped and replaced) by a measure that ensures uniform compliance and provisions that ensure that bloated football programs don't squash other equally valid sports for women AND men under it's steroided out feet.

Here's a good article that doesn't demonize people who support Title IX as *gasp* "radical feminists". Here's the best part: [quote]Contrary to what most people think, Title IX doesn't only deal with athletics, but it requires gender equality in all aspects of a school's operation. According to the National Federation of High Schools, female high school students outnumber males in all extracurricular activities except sports.

The Independent Women's Forum has calculated that if the courts were to require gender parity across the board, 96.4 percent of all female cheerleaders would have to turn in their pom-poms, and 35.8 percent of female choir members and 25.4 percent of female orchestra members would be cut. Thirty-three percent of female debaters would be denied the chance to compete -- all in the name of equalizing the opportunity for boys and girls in schools.

But that will happen about the same time Augusta becomes a female-only club.

---

BTW, I saw a woman's field hockey match during the 1984 Olmpyics here in Los Angeles and I loved it. Very fast paced, lots of action and scoring. But I bet their backs get really, really sore from all that bending over.

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

[quote]Having experienced it, I can say that college football is entirely to blame for this phenomenon. College football squads are HUGE, and to make up for this, colleges are forced to drop other men's sports in order to be in compliance with Title IX.

---

This is one part of the problem. Colleges are not FORCED to drop other sports. They like to pretend that they are, but no where in any legislation does it say that, and furthermore, as the OCR has stated, simply cutting sports DOES NOT (my emphasis) bring a school in compliance with Title IX.

The problem is that ADs hide behind Title IX to justify the incredible amount of spending on college football (and basketball, or baseball, or ice hockey--it varies from school to school) while dropping men's sports.

There are three criteria that can be used to judge a school's compliance with TIX: Financial Assistance, Accomodation of Athletic Interests and Abilities, and Other Program Areas.

The ratio of aid must be substantially proportionate to the ratio of male Student-Athletes (SAs) to female SAs. (that's easy)

Secondly, interest must be established. There are three prongs, so to speak, to judge this:
1.Whether the intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments.

2.Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interests and abilities of that sex.

3.Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.

Thus, a school that has recently added or has in motion a plan for adding a sport is considered to be in compliance with part 2. Say State University added women's soccer last year and has hired a coach for women's golf, to begin in two years' hence, then they have met #2 and #3.

Finally, Other Program Areas include everything from Athletic Training time and staffing to equipment to field usage to tutor services--and a lot more than that, but you get the idea.

How a school chooses to allocate its budget is up to it. For example, a school can have football, basketball and lacrosse for men. Scholarship sizes (not including walkons) account for 85 in football, 13 in basketball, and 12.69 in lacrosse (the largest men's spring sport). Now, there are typically 132 men on the football team (47 do not get any aid), 15 on basketball (2 do not get aid) and 40 for lacrosse (the ~13 scholarships are often divided) for a total of 111 scholarships and 187 SAs. To balance that, there should be about 187 female student athletes. Take volleyball (12 scholarships, 14 SAs), field hockey (12/24), soccer (12/22), basketball (15/16), softball (12/18), lacrosse (12/24), rowing (20/50), women's golf (6/10) and women's tennis (8/12). That's 9 teams, 109 scholarships and 190 SAs. See the problem?

I've argued for the longest time that by taking five scholarships away from the football allotment and capping rosters to 120 people, that (5/12) addition can completely meet the scholarship and roster requirements for: (all men's teams) fencing, golf, rifle, tennis, volleyball, and water polo. Make it seven scholarships and you can add men's gymnastics and skiing. Reduction of five (seven) scholarships and capping the rosters would not only provide opportunities for the football players on the fringes of the team anyway to possibly play at another one of the 117 schools that sponsor 1-A football, thus increasing the parity in that sport and giving teams that are typically NOT in the BCS a chance to earn more money for the departments and down the road perhaps continue to push for a playoff, AND provide opportunities for athletes to continue participating in their sports, some of which are typically not America's strongest entries internationally (another bonus).

In any case, school need to stand up and take accountability for the INTENT of Title IX and not hide behind it. Sports are about building so many things, including (among many other things) teamwork, individual growth, personal achievement, alumni participation, and opportunities.

Oh and by the way, one's backs aren't as sore as one might think. You get conditioned to it, playing day after day.

[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
[QB] I bet their backs get really, really sore from all that bending over. [QB]

---

I can help with that...

Field hockey is a blast. At my catholic high school, boys only had gym class with boys and girls only had gym class with girls. I was surprised when our overly macho gym teacher had us play field hockey for several weeks. We had so much fun we wondered why it was only a girls' sport in area schools.

While I was going to school there, I really wanted to play volleyball. But there was no boys program. We petitioned for a team to no avail. When I asked to simply practice with the girls team I was flat out rejected. But I never thought there was anything I could do about it. By the time I was graduating college, I found out my old high school started a boys volleyball team.

Point being that new sports programs don't just pop up. Athletes and parents have to push for it to happen. I really doubt that this kid was out to make a Title IX statement. He just wanted to play. Hopefully this is just the start of new programs developing in his area to promote the sport.

Chip,

Wow! Thanks for the Title IX outline. As an attorney and an amateur sports economics geek, that analysis makes me all tingly inside. I've printed it out for further reference as I follow the UCLA gymnastics case.

Thanks also to those of you who have played field hockey and have added the wisdom of your own experience. Though I love sports, I was never a jock (don't tell anyone, they'll take away my lesbian card ), so I became a bandie.

Geez, I got on this board to talk smack, and I actually learn something every day!

GatorJ

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: GatorJamie ]

I agree, Chip. The statistics are great, although I got a little confused towards the end (the math-ish part, not your fault).

On the show, they interviewed a lot of parents of the girls on Barry's team, and they want him out of there. That's gotta be hard, to not even have the support of your teammates' parents. Mostly, they made it into a safety thing, saying he was too big and strong to play against girls.

(Yes, GJ, I am trying to bait you with that one...)