One of the arguments put forth by the WMU Sports Review Committee for eliminating Men's Cross Country, Indoor Track and Field, and Outdoor Track and Field was its "greatest positive impact for Title IX considerations." Like many athletic departments across the country, WMU has improperly used Title IX in their decision to eliminate men's sports.

The 1972 Title IX Education Amendments to the Civil Rights Act prohibit gender discrimination in schools and colleges that receive federal funding. Athletics are generally considered an integral part of an institution's education program and, therefore, are covered by the law. Today, more than 170,000 women participate in intercollegiate athletics across the country, compared with fewer than 32,000 in 1971.

There are three wholly independent ways to comply with Title IX’s mandate that female students be provided equal participation opportunities. Schools may show that:

• the percentage of male and female athletes is about the same as the percentage of male and female students enrolled at the school (“Prong One or the “proportionality” prong), OR;

• they have a history and a continuing practice of expanding opportunities for the underrepresented sex, which is usually women (“Prong Two”), OR;

• they are completely and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of female athletes (Prong Three).

If a school can meet any one of these tests, it will be found to be in compliance with Title IX’s participation requirements. This three-part test has been in effect for more than two decades and has been upheld by every one of the eight federal appeals courts that has considered it.

Although the WMU Sports Review committee focused on Prong One, any one of the conditions would satisfy Title IX. In 1994-1998 the Office of Civil Rights reviewed 74 cases and 21 (28%) were found compliant under Prong One. The majority, 66%, were found compliant under Prong 3. This certainly legitimizes the use of Prong 3 for Title IX purposes.

Let's look a bit further at Prong One for WMU. Here is the data from the 2002-2003 Equity in Athletics Disclosure (EADA):

Here are my conclusions from the 2002-2003 data:

1. Title IX compliance by Prong 1 (participation in proportion to enrollment) is worse after the decision by the Board of Trustees unless athletes are double and triple counted.
2. XC/T&F athletes are the ones that benefit or suffer from the double/triple counting in EADA reporting. It makes the participation of women and men in these sports appear higher than reality.
3. For EADA reporting the cuts represent a loss of 161 participants or 27% of the EADA participants (all to save 3% of the budget.)

Let's look at another comparison from the 2002-2003 EADA report: Student aid provided to male and female athletes.

The elimination of XC/T&F and Sync Skating did almost nothing to redress the inequity between aid provided to males vs. females. In fact the change increases the gap between the average male and female grant-in-aid from 46% to 68%!!

In conclusion, the decision to eliminate XC/T&F does improve the participation proportionality reported in the EADA report, but it is exaggerated due to double and triple counting. In fact, once the synchronized skating and duplicates are removed, the proportionality is worse.

Because the both programs were run with very little student aid and with the largest number of athletes of any other program except football, there is almost no effect on the ratio of student aid between male and female. However, because the male T&F athletes count for 114 participants the gap in aid-per-participant is increased by the elimination of these 4 sports.

Compliance with Title IX by eliminating men's sports avoids the intention of the law, which is to provide participation opportunities for women, not eliminate them for men. The National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education has stated that blaming sports elimination on Equal Opportunity laws is a cop out. They contend it is an effort to simplify complex issues that include "an unwillingness to cut expenses unilaterally because of the 'arms race' to apply more resources to football and men's basketball."