For the last week of December, we’re re-posting some of our favorite posts from 2011. Originally cross-posted at Ms.
————————
The New York Times has a fascinating 3-minute video on “roster management”, sent in by Emma M.H. The term refers to manipulating Title IX rules in order to appear like you’re following them when you’re not. Title IX is an amendment to the U.S. Civil Rights Act that requires that all schools allocate their resources to men and women in proportion to their interest and enrollment. It is most famous for what it required of college athletics, and this is what this story is about.
As the article explains, schools demonstrate compliance with Title IX:
…by showing that the number of female athletes is in proportion to overall female enrollment, by demonstrating a history of expanding opportunities for women, or by proving that they are meeting the athletic interests and abilities of their female students.
Once implemented, women responded enthusiastically to the new opportunities. But spectators and donors are less interested in women’s sports, it turns out. And so colleges have found various ways to resist Title IX rules, including simple non-compliance.
In this case, the strategy is to put men on women’s teams and then report them as female athletes.
Case in point: This is Cornell’s women’s fencing team:
It turns out, 15 of the 34 team members are men:
The men don’t actually compete, they are simply “practice players” (helping the women improve due to their greater speed and strength, says the coach).
The basketball team has a similar strategy. A number of males practice with the team and then are reported to the authorities as female players.
Revealing that this is an attempt to manipulate Title IX rules and not a simple weird way of accounting for athletes, the five female coxswain’s on the men’s rowing team is reported not as male, but as female.
So there you have it. Despite Title IX, these schools are finding ways to continue to spend a disproportionate amount of money on male athletes. According to the Department of Education, this is well within the law.
Other sneaky moves documented in the article:
Quinnipiac University in Connecticut had violated Title IX by engaging in several questionable practices, including requiring that women cross-country runners join the indoor and outdoor track teams so they could be counted three times. The judge found earlier that Quinnipiac had been padding women’s rosters by counting players, then cutting them a few weeks later.
…
At the University of South Florida, more than half of the 71 women on the cross-country roster failed to run a race in 2009. Asked about it, a few laughed and said they did not know they were on the team.
Sarah Till, who graduated from South Florida in 2009, was a more extreme case. She said that she quit and returned her track scholarship in her sophomore year, but her name was listed on the rosters of all three squads through her junior year.
…
The University of California, Irvine, is among at least five California universities that sponsor women’s indoor track teams despite a mild climate and a dearth of indoor facilities. Those universities do not offer men’s indoor track.
Last year, an investigation by the Office for Civil Rights concluded that Irvine was not complying with Title IX because its indoor track team was essentially a ruse. It competed in just one meet per year and several women on the roster “vigorously stated” that they were not on the team.
Read the article and watch the video here.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 36
Anonymous — May 31, 2011
How does pretending women's rosters are larger equate to spending more money on them?
From the quote, "If a college is 30% female, Title IX requires that 30% of its sports funding be spent on women’s sports teams."
If that's true, it seems like the California Universities could just burn budget flying a single women's team around on a private jet, or other swanky facilities, rather than trying to count people multiple times. Could someone explain what the actual regulation is?
(I'm unable to view the video, so I am relying on the text here - this may well be explained in the source)
:[ — May 31, 2011
I'm curious as to why society has not integrated sexes in sports yet. Maybe Chapter IX should have been aiming for that jurisdiction so their wouldn't be any of this "separate but equal" bull shit.
Kenny — May 31, 2011
I think this post is rather misleading, or at best, very confusing. Your clarifying comment, Gwen, explaining what the requirements of Title IX are, seems to conflict entirely with the initial statement that if 30% of a college's athletes are female, then 30% of their athletic funding be spend on women's sports teams. I don't see anything in the 3-prong test about proportions of athletic funding. Perhaps I'm just being stupid, but I totally do not understand how this works.
While expressing humility and ignorance about this, I nevertheless want to say that I don't think it makes any sense for the proportion of a school's women's sports athletic funding to be required to match the portion female enrollment in the school as a whole. For one thing, there is no women's football, the biggest sport, so if that requirement were truly enforced, it would seriously disadvantage the other men's sports, because people care about football---and while I totally support giving women all the athletic opportunities that men have, you can't make people care about women's sports, and it doesn't make sense to act like you can. And now that many colleges are approaching female enrollments of 70%, that makes the requirement of equal proportions impossible, if a school has football.
My hunch is that the initial claim about the proportions needing to be equal is incorrect, and that Gwen's clarifying comment is closer to the actual requirements, which, however, I am still very confused about.
larrycwilson — May 31, 2011
I'm surprised that anyone would expect honesty when money is concerned.
Alll — May 31, 2011
From http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/Content/Articles/Issues/Title-IX/T/Title-IX-Q--A.aspx
Does Title IX require that equal dollars be spent on men's and women's sports?
•No. The only provision that requires that the same dollars be spent (proportional to participation) is “scholarships”. Otherwise, female athletes must receive equal “treatment” and “benefits”.
•The standard is one of “quality” rather than dollars spent. For example, if a school spends $700 outfitting a male football player, it does not have to spend $700 outfitting a female lacrosse player. However, male and female athletes must be provided with the same quality uniforms, and they must be replaced under the same circumstances.
•Unequal budgets can also affect the number of athletes on a team. Insufficient funds may not permit a coach to supply the necessary equipment, uniforms and travel costs to a large number of players. Such disparities may violate Title IX.
AlgebraAB — May 31, 2011
I don't understand the motives of the universities in question. Do they really save that much money by having male "practice players" versus legitimate female players? I'm trying to decipher their motives. It seems like cost-savings is one but that seems marginal, especially considering the legal risk they're taking on if they were to be found in violation of Title IX. After all, if it was just about cost why wouldn't they get female "practice players" who didn't really participate in actual games (presumably saving money) but who were eligible on rosters.
My instinct is that they are simply having a hard time recruiting enough female players so they need to do some "creative accounting" to make things appear differently. That's merely supposition though. This problem certainly is endemic though, a quick Googling shows that a lot more schools than the ones listed here have been at risk of violating Title IX over the past several years.
Matilda — May 31, 2011
http://title-ix.blogspot.com/
Defying Title IX, Colleges Report Male Athletes as Women : Ms Magazine Blog — June 2, 2011
[...] with permission from Sociological Image; all rights [...]
Anonymous — June 2, 2011
My personal opinion here is that there has to be some better way of working this so that there is fairness to female athletes but also not one that is going to hurt the already established sports teams.
I would be in favor of integration of the sexes, except that you see pretty consistently that male athletes just perform better due to having more muscle/body size/etc. Unfortunately it's not a case of "Anything you can do, I can do better," and in the end I think it would be detrimental to female athletes who would otherwise be able to compete.
Look, I get why they're manipulating the books; at a lot of schools there are big sports teams- football, hockey, basketball, etc. They're established and already have a huge fan base, so schools want to funnel funds into them; at the same time, there has to be some restraint, though, because you really don't want all the other sports suffering because the school has one big successful sport; all that does is widen the gap. But if you don't have the numbers of people actually interested in joining your teams, there has to be another way to allow you to not be forced to compromise your main athletics goals either.
I don't have a solution, but I think there needs to be a better one. Title IX isn't bad in spirit, but I think implementation is just inviting this kind of doctoring.
Links of Great Interest: 6/3/11 — The Hathor Legacy — June 3, 2011
[...] Ara: Title IX manipulated so that schools can receive more [...]
Shady_Grady — June 3, 2011
@Michelle..and yet despite years and years and years of urging, begging and in some cases virtually drafting women to enter sports while literally preventing men from entering sports, women/girls are still not as interested in sports as men/boys.
Again, if a woman is being discriminated against by not being allowed to play a sport in college she has a case and I would support wholeheartedly. That's not what's taking place in colleges today and we all know this.
What's happening today is that men's sports are being reduced to the level of female sports-pure quotas. If X number of women are interested in sports and X+100 men are interested in sports there isn't by definition a problem of discrimination against women. But Title IX assumes that there is and so universities have every incentive to reduce the number of men playing until the ratios are equivalent.
What you call "warrant equity" is in practice ending men's programs for no other reason than some people can't stand to admit that women and men occasionally have different interests. Again, how is this any different from going into an engineering department, seeing that there's not a 50-50 gender ratio and then forbidding men from majoring in engineering. Do you think that's a good thing? After all if anything the engineering departments tend to be more skewed towards a particular gender than the sports departments.
As mentioned, giving the declining ratio of men in college it will be more and more difficult to reach this holy 50-50 gender ratio. I do not understand people who seek "equity" by stopping other people from participating in their chosen sport.
Carl — June 4, 2011
Maybe this is simply becuase there aren't enough female students interested in playing these sports. Amazing that this can be turned into "spending more on men", as if that's WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO ALL ALONG!!!!
Gorbachev — June 5, 2011
In my college, there was genuinely more interest among males in all sports than there was among females in any sports.
While there are dedicated female athletes, and they should be supported, what the pro-Title-IX camp (both men and women) don't want to admit is this:
Interest among women for all sports is still dwarfed by male interest in playing and watching sports.
In addition, the reason male/female teams are segregated is simple: In almost all sports, far superior natural male strength, speed and manual dexterity make top male athletes ridiculously better than female athletes. This is an unfortunate but absolutely undeniable fact of nature.
In tennis, it's an open secret that while men and women must win equivalent prizes, even the tennis stars - including the female tennis stars - admit that the mid-ranked male players are superior to almost all of the top female players; and the all-female tournaments don't display remotely the same skill.
This is not to belittle the achievements of female athletes.
Only to say this:
In the natural course of life, the interest among male humans in sport, and in the public's willingness to watch and support their competitions, if far greater than the equivalents among women.
We should support female sports as much as possible - but the upshot of the specific programs and regulations as Title IX is laid out is to deny this reality and not raise female sport to the level it should be --
but to limit sport in general.
Women still don't want to engage in sports in anything like the same numbers or with anything approaching the same general level of dedication. You can whine and complain about this all you want-- but this reality remains the case almost everywhere.
Even a 900% increase in interest among women, pushing us along towards equality, has women participating at a much lower rate, with less dedication and with still much less outside interest than the equivalents for me.
Title IX doesn't help women's sports at all. It Sanctifies a fiction. All it does is punish men for being very enthusiastic about sports, while women can't be made to be interested.
You can wish the world to be the way you want, and you can wish women and their admirers to behave the way you want, but you can't make it happen.
On the other hand, if you want to enforce an unequal equality where none exists, if you want to punish some for the biosocially programmed faults of our species-- rectifying reality by denying it--
then Title IX works wonderfully.
Not men, not women, not athletes and not spectators are served by Title IX. All the denial and self-serving ideology on Earth won't change this.
In 15 years, in 30 years, in 50 years, there will still be less female interest in sports. There will still be less interest among female athletes. There will be less obsessive dedication. There will be less outside interest in female sports. This isn't destiny. It's the result of how men and women and societies are.
Bitch and whine and complain - but title IX, especially as written, has zero chance of changing this. You can't legislate that the moon be made of cheese.
Good luck with it.
Gorbachev — June 5, 2011
It's frustrating for any ideologically-led and revolutionary doctrine to come up against reality and find itself unable to change lead into gold.
There are some things, like men/women and sports, that are unlikely to ever change. Some gender-issues aren't as easily fixed as admitting women into medical colleges.
Title IX was a mistake, especially as it was written. Some greater equity for women was clearly needed - but this current regime serves no-one.
Knee-jerk reflexively defending it, pretending this serves some noble feminist cause when it's as hollow as a balloon, and when it serves no cause at all, certainly no feminist or gender-equality one, is an error for anyone who actually cares about gender parity and equal opportunity.
People should be served according to their interests. They shouldn't be served according to what anyone thinks their interests ought to be.
Period.
And if women are less interested in sports, and therefore participate less and excel less and watch less - then so be it. You can't make society be what you want it to be.
Let people do what people want to do: Stop interfering with them.
If absolute equality and fairness are desired, then I suggest the following zones of redress are wanting:
- Not enough women are killed in the line of duty. The mortality rate for women in mining, fishing and firefighting are way too low. We need to get the mortality rates for women up, until they're on a par with men.
- There are too few women doing agricultural work, sewage maintenance and delivery work. Not all delivery work requires heavy lifting. Women should be obliged to enter these lines of work in order to bring further gender parity.
- There are too many female dance instructors. A moratorium on female participation in dance should be called, until there are as many male as female dance instructors.
- No more female sportscasters. They dominate the field. I suggest a scholarship and hiring quota system to make sure men are hired in equal numbers.
We could go on about this all day - but if Title IX is to be even remotely fair, then we'll need to take this philosophy to its *fair* conclusion.
I would suggest the setting up of pro sports leagues staffed by women, with regional conferences and teams, and if the public don't want to pay to see female baseball players - they should be made to.
With this philosophy, it'll be easy enough to just force society to oblige and I'm sure it'll all work out nicely.
If people don't like it - make them. It's in the spirit if Title IX.
Aeon Blue — December 27, 2011
To counter some of the claims that women just aren't as interested in sports, I'd like to share a story I read in The Hidden Life of Girls: Games of Stance, Status, and Exclusion which might explain at least a little of why that may be true. (The story, by the way, is almost incidental to the main goal of the research, which was to observe young girl's social interactions at school.) In the school where this study took place, the boys were given the soccer field at recess and the girls were forced to play on asphault. After a miniature feminist revolution carried out by disgruntled ten year olds, the girls were given fair turns on the field - but were eventually chased off by the boys, who discouraged them from using it by chasing the girls down and pinching their nipples. Teachers assumed the boys had the right to the field, and even after the principle intervened, the boys found a way to maintain the status quo. It's one story, but I figure if it happened there at Anywhere Middle School, it's happening all over the country in ways just as subtle.
I also don't see how the average woman could participate in sports when she is ritually separated from her body at the onset of puberty, or earlier. The last time I remember enjoying sports was when I was a child and still lived in my body and enjoyed using it, before I had to disassociate myself from it. If my body's value was determined by whether it was fuckable or even hypothetically fuckable to the men that ogled it, if it was something I had to constantly protect from being violated, then I couldn't have risked believing that my body was me or allowed my consciousness to occupy it. I imagine that kind of traumatic separation isn't something most men are forced to go through.
Sarah Jessica — December 28, 2011
t's frustrating for any ideologically-led and revolutionary doctrine to
come up against reality and find itself unable to change lead into gold.
Hi,guys. My friends told me aboutwWw,
richsingleclub– c 0 /m. She told me
it is the best place to meet rich man and hot lady whoever you want. I have
tried. It is fantastic. You wanna get laid tonight? Come in and give it a shot,
you will find someone you like there. Have fun! You may find me there! ;)
Pfomby — December 28, 2011
On a related note, this article about boys competing - and winning and setting records - on girls' high school swim teams has irked me since I read it. Surely there's a better solution?
http://tinyurl.com/bvtlrwh
selkie — December 30, 2011
Football really is the 800 pound gorilla of college athletics- it consumes a huge amount of resources, involves a huge number of players, and if you look at all NCAA divisions maybe 20% of those programs will run a surplus in a given year. I'm a woman, and I was a college athlete in a couple of non-revenue sports- swimming and track & field. I've watched a lot of D1 men's swim teams and other non-revenue teams get cut over the years in the name of Title IX, and hate how those men's programs have vanished in order to keep football program rosters at 90+ at the college level, since it's obviously so critical that each football squad can keep four different punters and two long snap specialists for a program that will run a $4 million+ deficit this year. (University of Maryland, I'm talking to you.)
So if counting the guys on the practice squad for the women's fencing or basketball team means that in turn, the Title IX numbers work out to save the men's wrestling or tennis team, then, hey as squirrely as the rules sound, I feel like it works out for the greater good for all athletes in question.
cheap bras — January 29, 2012
Amazing write-up! This could aid plenty of people find out more about this particular issue. Are you keen to integrate video clips coupled with these? It would absolutely help out. Your conclusion was spot on and thanks to you; I probably won’t have to describe everything to my pals. I can simply direct them here!