Available from U.S

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 359 091 SO 022 751

TITLE Intercollegiate Sports (Part 2). Hearing on Title IX Impact on Women's Participation in Intercollegiate Athletics and Gender Equity before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection, and Competitiveness of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. House of Representatives, One Hundred Second Congress, Second Session. INSTITUTION United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. REPORT NO ISBN-0-16-039277-2 PUB DATE 92 NOTE 164p.; Serial No. 102-140. AVAILABLE FROM U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402. PUB TYPE Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC07 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *College Athletics; *Equal Education; Equal Opportunities (johs); *Federal Legislation; Federal Programs; Females; Government Role: Hearings; Higher Education; "Intercollegiate Cooperation; Sex Discrimination; *Sex Fairness IDENTIFIERS Congress 102nd; *Title IX Education Amendments 1972

ABSTRACT This document presents the transcript of a Congressional hearing, examining women's participation in intercollegiate athletics, gender equity, and the impact of those governing regulations on intercollegiate athletics as mandated by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The testimony of the following persens is included in the transcript: Merrily Dean Baker, Athletic Director, Michigan State University; Clarence C. Crawford, Associate Director, Education and Employment Issues, General Accounting Office; Chris Crissman. Office of Education and Employment Issues, General Accounting Office: Vivian L. Fuller. Associate Director, Intercollegiate Athleties, Indiana Uriversity of Pennsylvania; Christine H. B. Graat,'Women's Athletic Director, University of Iowa; Phyllis Howlett, Assistant Commissioner, Big Ten Conference and Chair, NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics; Lee A. McElroy, Athletic Director, California State University; Richard D. Schultz, Executive Director, National Collegiate Athletic Association; and Ellen J. Vargyas, senior counsel for education and employment, National Women's Law Center. (DB)

*********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** 4,

INTEMOLLEGIATE SPORTS rig (Part 2)

HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CeZ COMMERCE, CONSUMER PROTECTION, AND COMPETITIVENESS cIT4 OF THE

4' COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SECOND CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TITLE IX IMPACT ON WOMEN'S PARTICIPATION IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS AND GENDER EQUITY

APRIL 9, 1992

Serial No. 102-140

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION °dice o1 Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 'his document has been reproduced as reserved from tee person or organization originating it O Minor ctuoves have been made to improve reproduction Quality

Points of view or oprnions staled in this document do not necementy repretent official 0E131 position or pot,cy

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 59-428,, WASHINGTON : 1992

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington. DC 20402 ISBN0-16-039277-2 2 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY ANDCOMMERCE JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman NORMAN F. LENT, New York JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California HENRY A. WAXMAN, California MATTHEW J. RINALDO, New Jersey PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER, California EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts DON RITTER, Pennsylvania AL SWIFT, Washington THOMAS J. BLILEY,JR.,Virginia CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois JACK FIELDS, Texas MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio W.J. "BILLY" TAUZIN, Louisiana MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida RON WYDEN, Oregon DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado RALPH M. HALL, Texas JOE BARTON, Texas DENNIS E. ECKART, Ohio SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico ALEX McMILLAN, North Carolina JIM SLATTERY, Kansas J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois GERRY SIKORSKI, Minnesota CLYDE C. HOLLOWAY, Louisiana JOHN BRYANT, Texas FRED UPTON, Michigan RICK BOUCHER, Virginia JIM COOPER, Tennessee TERRY L. BRUCE, Illinois J. ROY ROWLAND, Georgia THOMAS J. MANTON, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York C. THOMAS McMILLEN, Maryland GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts PETER H. KOSTMAYER, Pennsylvania RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California CLAUDE HARRIS, Alabama JOHN S. ORLANDO,Chief of Staff ALANJ.ROTH,Chief Counsel MARGARETA.DURBIN,Minority Chief Counsel/Staff Director

COMPETITIVENESS SUBCOMMITTEE ONCOMMERCE, CONSUMER PROTECTION, AND CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois, Chairwoman ALEX McMILLAN, North Carolina PETER H. KOSTMAYER, Pennsylvania MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida RICK BOUCHER, Virginia JOE BARTON, Texas JIM COOPER, Tennessee FRED UPTON, Michigan TERRY L. BRUCE, Illinois NORMAN F. LENT, New York J. ROY ROWLAND, Georgia THOMAS J. MANTON, New York (Ex Officio( EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York C. THOMAS McMILLEN, Maryland JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (Ex Officio) DAVID SCHOOLER,Staff Director/Chief Counsel DONOVANL.GAY,Special Assistant MARY-MOORE HAMRICK,Minority Counsel

3 CONTENTS

Page Testimony of: Baker, Merrily Dean, athletic director, Michigan State University 24 Crawford, Clarence C., associate director, Education andEmployment Issues, General Accounting Office 7 Crissman, Chris, Office of Education and Employment Issues,General Accounting Office 7 Fuller, Vivian L., associate director, Intercollegiate Athletics,Indiana University of Pennsylvania 105 Grant, Christine H.B., women's athletic director, University ofIowa 97 Howlett, Phyllis, assistant commissioner, Big Ten Conference,and Chair, NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics 23 McElroy, Lee A., athletic director, California State University 108 Schultz, Richard D., executive director, National CollegiateAthletic Asso- ciation 23 Vargyas, Ellen J., senior counsel for education and employment,National Women's Law Center Material submitted for the record by: 89 Board of Education: Letter dated April 8, 1992 andaccompanying report, from Michael L. Williams to Chairwoman Collins 70 Dunk le, Margaret C., letter dated April 9, 1992 to CommerceSubcommit- tee with article entitl- ' "The Rules of the Game" 122 INTERCOLLEGIATE SPORTS

THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 1992

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, CONSUMER PROTECTION, AND COMPETITIVENESS, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., in room B-352, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cardiss Collins (chairwoman) presiding. Mrs. COLLINS. Good morning. This hearing of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection and Competitiveness will come to order. Today, our subcommittee's hearing will examine women's participation in intercollegiate athletics, gender equity, and the impact of those governing regulations on intercollegiate athletics mandated by title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Women represent about a third of college athletes, but National Collegiate Athletic Association figures estimate that women get, at most, one-quarter of athletic scholarships. Women's share of total athletic expenditures is less. Today we will see, for example, that among Division I institutions, 252 offered basketball for men and 246 offered basketball for women and that these institutions spend substantially more in operating the men's programs than they do on the women's programs. For every dollar spent on operating a women's program, institutions spend, on average, $2.75 operating the men's program. For every dollar spent on recruiting women basketball players, the institutions spend an average of $3.21 onre- cruiting men. These are substantial differences, and I hope that today an explanation can be offered accompanied by some remedial solutions. Last May, I requested the deneral Accounting Office to conduct a review of college athletic budgets and hiring. The preliminary results from their survey are disturbing. The simple finding was that at colleges and universities, other than historically black colleges and universities, minority and women hiring practices were abys- mal. The GAO report today, as does the NCAA's recent survey on gender equity, shows schools still do not carry out either the letter or the spirit of title IX which calls for equal opportunity for men and women in athletics. For example, within the men's and women's basketball programs at Division I institutions, there appear to be substantial differences in the salaries ?aid coaches in the programs. The salary of coaches in the men's programs are more than 80 percent higher than the (1)

5 2 salary of coaches in the women's programs.This., holds ue for both head coaches and assistant coaches. It should be noted that while 40 percent of the coaches .in the women's programs are men, none of the coaches in the men's programs are women, and it is possible that the aggregationof data on salary by program is covering up an even greater disparity between the salaries paid male and female coaches. I expect the data presented today by the GAO to reflect this situation. For too many years, schools have been spending more effort to find excuses not to comply with title IX than to find ways to implement the law. For example, they often try to ignore spending on football despite the fact that the law provides no such exception. They claim that football is a revenue gainer despite the fact that at most schools it isn't. They look at spending ratios based on participation rather than enrollment, an approach which is self-defeating and perpetuates unequal treatment of women. If schools had specir.I programs for male scientists or if they designated two-thirds of their academic scholarships for men, we would be outraged. We should have similar outrage with respect to sports. Finally, since the passage of title IX 20 years ago, this subcommittee demands to know just exactly what has been the 'response from the NCAA? What leadership has the NCAA demonstrated? What guidance throughout these 20 years has the NCAA given to its thousand-plus member institutions, ar I what, if any, incentives has the NCAA provided to encourage ful compliance with the dic- tates of the law? It is ironic that the NCAA will impose stiff sanctions on schools for what appear to be minor infractions, such as driving an athlete to classes at the University of Maryland, but, on the other hand, as schools openly violate both the spirit and the letter of title IX, the NCAA has no program of sanctions for these more serious violations. The failure of schools to live up to their requirements for gender equity harkens back to the original theme of our hearings. As I have said before, college athletics have unfortunately become big business. As college presidents and athletic directors develop budgets based on television revenues instead of the needs of students, the problems in college sports will persist. Mr. Alex McMillan. Mr. MCMILLAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. This is the fourth hearing held by this subcommittee exploring issues surrounding intercollegiate athletics, and today's topic, title IX and the effects on women's sports and gender equity, is certainly important. While Congress originally passed title IX in 1972, it appears that most of the major improvements inwomen's intercollegiate athletics did not take place until after further congressional legislation in 1988. It is unfortunate that these reforms were so long in coming. However, things now seem to be moving in the right direction. I would like to thank all of the witnesses for agreeing to appear before the subcommittee today and would like to welcome Vivian Fuller, who is a graduate of Federal State University in North

6 3 Carolina and previously worked at North Carolina A&T Universi- ty. Also,I would like to especially welcome Dick Schultz, the NCAA's executive director. During his tenure, the NCAA hasun- dertaken a series of reforms that have been instrumental inrestor- ing the faith of many Americans in intercollegiate athletic:: Through these reforms, the association has demonstrateda Willing- ness to examine its policies and has taken steps that are in the best interests of all student athletes. Reviewing some of these NCAA reforms for the 'record, the League Committee was established to review the NCAAenforce- ment and infractions process with many dueprocess issues to be implemented. The Presidents Commission has resulted in the presidents of the member institutions asserting their controlover the association's policies. This plan has also reduced the time demands placed on student athletes. A new Division I men's basketball tournamentrevenue distribution plan was approved which results ina more equitable distribution of money throughout the NCAA membership andnot simply to the winning teams. New freshmen academic eligibility guidelines were established to ensure that studentsare prepared for college course work and will have a reasonable chance ofgraduating in addition to competing in intercollegiate athletics, and, finally,of much interest to today s hearings, a study analyzing the expenditures for women's and men's athletic programswas conducted. The results of that study nave been widely discussed and will bepre- dented to the subcommittee today. Notwithstanding these positive steps in manyareas, the NCAA's own gender equity study indicates that disparities exist between men's and women's intercollegiate programs, and Iam pleased that Dick Schultz recognizes gender equityas an issue of simple funda- mental fairness and hope that he will takea leadership role in this area. I look forward to hearing from all of today's witnesses and focusing on ways to seek further improvement toward achieving overall gender equity. Thank you. I yield back. Mrs. COLLINS. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Tom McMil- len. Mr. MCMILLEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thankyou for holding these hearings. We have had a number of hearings on a number of issues incol- lege sportsdue process, funding for histcrically blackcolleges, and the overall situation in college sports. But I can't think ofany- thing more important than looking at the financing of collegeath- letics, revenue distribution, and particularly the distributionof funding for women's sports. It has been 20 years since Congress passed title IX, and,as we look out and look at the evidence, theoversees of college boards have only relegated a small piece of the pie towomen and women athletes. When title IX was passed, congressional intentwas clearly stated: There should be no discrimination basedon sex. But if you go down the evidence and look at it, Division I men's scholarship expenses outpace women's by almost 3 to 1. Spendingon re- 4 cruiting is 5 times greater in men'ssports. Time after time, there is evidence that the law has justnot been complied with. And it is beyond just the NCAA. It is also theOffice of Civil Rights. The Office of Civil Rights since 1972 hasonly initiated three N.views of college programs with regard to thisdiscrimination. Madam Chair, I have no doubt thatthe NCAA will come before us today and saythat they profess their loyalty to titleIX and want to comply with it, and I givecredit to Dick Schultz for trying to drag and cajole and shove manyof the institutions into the twenty-first century. But the facts are veryclear. The facts are that in 1972 Congress passed titleIX. In 1992, the NCAA is putting a gender equity committeetogether, 20 years after the law was passed. In 1978, there was a hearing ondue process and enforcement. In 1991, 13 years later,the NCAA forms a due process committee to look at those kinds ofthings. Clearly, this is too little, too late. We have got to do much, muralbetter. I think the issue here is thatthe congressional intent has too often been ignored as to what Ithink we are trying to do. When you look at college sportstoday, you understand that for the most part the winner takes all.If you make it to the final four, you get a great bonanza. It is a capitalisticenterprise, and I think when you look at all that and where we aregoing, it is very disconcerting. That is why I introduced last summerthe Collegiate Athletic Reform Act, because, among otherthings, the bill would distribute revenue differently, notbased on winning or winner takingall, but it would be based on academicparameters, it would be based on commitment to gender equity, it wouldbe based on values I believe that are part of college and universityvalues. You know, Madam Chair, thealternative, if we are not careful, I believe, is that college sports isheading down a disastrous road. Just as the Supreme Court in 1984unshackled colleges and universities to seek the greatest commercialadvantage, I do believe that there will come a day when studentathletes, the waivers of this system, will ask for the same rights,collective bargaining, they will ask for employee rights, they willask for workers' compensation. When that day comes, college sportsbecomes 100 percent a business. It will be asad day for our colleges anduniversities if this occurs. I am not here today to attack the messengerbecause I think, as I said before, Dick Schultz has probablydone more to prod his association than anyone in history.He has gotten the college presidents involved; he has established agood agenda. But quite honest- ly, if it weren't for Congresspassing this bill in 1972, we wouldn't have any compliance, any genderequity whatsoever. So the fact is, we are here for good reason.We are here to take these sports entertainment complexes which areunique in America out of any country in the world. Wehave built these sports entertainment complexes on our campuses, and we aretrying to put back educational values in those complexes. I thank the Chair once again forhaving these hearings. Mrs. COLLINS. Mr. Oxley. Mr. OXLEY. Thank you, MadamChairwoman. This is another in a series ofhearings on intercollegiate athletics, and I look forward to hearingfrom each of today's witnesses,

8 5 especially the NCAA's executive director, Richard Schultz, on whose watch I believe the NCAA has made substantial progress towards resolving the challenges facing intercollegiate athletics, which, I might add parenthetically, are not that much different from a lot of the challenges that we all face as Americansno matter what our particular background is. Today we convene to discuss title IX and gender equity. Recent events have served to increase the visibility of the gender equity issue. Within the last month, the NCAA has released its gender equity study ,and announced the creation of a new NCAA gender equity task force. As I understand it, this task force is charged with developing a proactive approach to furthering gender equity in intercollegiate athletics. For this I believe we should commend Di- rector Schultz and the entire NCAA. I hope today's hearing will make clear that the NCAA is not the bad actor many people make it out to be. The NCAA does not act on its own as an independent actor but, rather, as an extension of its member institutions. In the past, the NCAA has been greatly misunderstood, and this is totally unfair. The NCAA acts on the direction of the presidents of its member institutions, and over the last few years, armed with the Knight Commission's recommendations, the Presidents Council has taken the reins of control back from the athletic directors. The NCAA is already taking steps by providing graduate opportunities for female student athletes interested in pursuing careers in athletics administration. This is certainly a step towards ensuring women will be represented in intercollegiate sports. There are many won:en already running high-powered athletic programs. Barbara Hedges heads up the Athletic Department at the University of Washington, winner of this year's national championship in footballor at least one of them. She is capable of running any program in the country. Merrily Dean Baker, the new athletic director at Michigan State, is here with us today. I'm sure she will be successful in Michigan State, although I hope not successful enough to allow the Spartans to beat Ohio State. I'm still trying to figure out how they got a quarterback from my district, but I'll get into that later. Stanford women's basketball coach, Tara VanDerveen, can match strategy with the best minds in men's basketball, and, lest we forget, the NCAA's president is a woman, Judy Sweet. It is apparent to me that the NCAA 4 on the right track in athletics, academics, and in gender equity, and Government interfer- ence can only delay or derail the reforms now under way. Before we act, we must ask whether it is prudent to substitute our judgment for that of college and university presidents who have demonstrated a steadfast dedication to reform. I don't think it is. Clearly, if there were not some degree of gender equity we would not be here today. To the casual observer, there is a disparity between the number of men versus the Lumber of women who participate in intercollegiate athletics and the funding allocated for their respective endeavors. There is also a disparity in the number of male-versus-female coaches and administrators. Although title IX has been around since 1972, it has really only been applied to athletics since the enactment of the 1988 Civil

9 ti

6 Rights Restoration Act, and i think that is an important point to remember. Women are becoming more involved with intercollegiate athletics, and I expect that as time goes by the numberof women in coaching and athleticsadministration will grow just as athletic opportunities for women have grown. In just a few years the Presidents Council has gotten tough on academic standards for athletes, and I'm sure they can make similar progress on the gender equity issue. Madam Chairwoman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. Mrs. COLLINS. Mr. Towns. Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I commend you for bringing this issue before the subcommittee so that we can provide the level ofdiscussion and review of discriminatory policies and attitudes that this issue merits. Let me say that we must do everything reasonably possible to eradicate discrimination directed against women and women's sports programs wherever and whenever it exists. We areconfront- ed with some very thorny questions and issues. However, thefact remains, under the law we are obligated to achieve and promote equity in the administration of female and male sports programs, and there is absolutely no way around this issue if we respectthe law. We must do everything we can to tear down the wallsthat impede progress and full participation by women who desire to compete in sports programs. Since the enactment of title IX in 1972, we have not witnessed any appreciable improvement in theplight of women in intercollegiate athletics either from the provision of sckelarships,hiring of female coaches for female sports teams, hiring women forathletic director positions, or even in achieving pay parity for doing similar jobs. A classic example: coaching. Look at the salaries, look atthe differences, and you will see that there is no real commitment to correcting it. I am confident that we will benefit from the testimony we are slated to hear today, and I commend you again, Madam Chair, for providing us with this opportunity. And I would like to thank the panelists for their participation, because this inequity has gone on much too long. Let me just say one thing in terms of some comments that I have heard from time to time, that the Congress should stay out of this: "Let us police ourselves; we will take care of this if you justallow us the time to do it; you all just leave usalone." Well, let me just say to you that discrimination is wrong,and I think that the Con- gress should step up and say that it is wrong,and I think that if we refuse to do that, then we are notperforming our duties. And let me say that I am not going to defend the NCAA, because I respect its leadership. I join my colleagues in saying that Ithink Dick Schultz's heart is in the right place, I think his head is in the right place, but there are some places that he just has not been able to move, and I think it is our obligation and responsibility as Members of Congress to assist him in helping to ,make this move. What is going on is wrong, and we need to try and make it right. Madam Chair, I thank you for calling this to our attention, and I think you are th- person to provide this kind of leadership.

10 7 Thank you very much. Mrs. COLLINS. Thank you. a Our first panel will come forward, please. Theyare Mr. Clarence Crawford, who is the associate director of the Division of Education and Employment Issues for the General Accounting Office; and Mr. Richard Schultz. who is the executive director of the National Col- legiate Athletic Association. Won't you come forward, please, and whoever is accompanying you. Mr. Schultz, you are accompanied by Ms. Merrily Dean Baker, the athletic director of Michigan State University, and Ms. Phyllis Howlett, the assistant commissioner of the Big Ten Conference? Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes. Mrs. COLLINS. We welcome all of you. This subcommittee operates under the House rules of 5 minutes per person, which sometimes gets a little bit sticky, but those are the rules of the House. We have a little timer up here, and when that bell goes off, that means your 5 minutes areup, and I think all of you in sports know about those bells; they alwayscome at the inopportune time. But when that happens, we willmove on. But I want all of you, every witness here today, to understand that their full written testimony will become a part of the record. We are going to begin with Mr. Crawford. STATEMENTS OP CLARENCE C. CRAWFORD, ASSOCIATE DIREC- TOR, EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT ISSUES, GENERAL AC- COUNTING OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY CHRIS CRISSMAN; AND RICHARD D. SCHULTZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COL- LEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY MERRI- LY DEAN BAKER, ATHLETIC DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN STATE UNI- VERSITY; AND PHYLLIS HOWLETT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BIG TEN CONFERENCE, AND CHAIR, NCAA COMMITTEE ON WOMEN'S ATHLETICS Mr. CRAWFORD. Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, I'm pleased to be here today to discuss GAO's preliminary -esults from our review of selected data concerning intercollegiate athletics. You asked that we, (1) review financial data of the National Col- legiate Athletic Association and its member schools' athletic departments; (2) develop department gender and race/ethnicitypro- file data; (3) develop department compensation data by profile; and, (4) analyze profile and compensation data comparing information for historically black schools to similar information for other NCAA Division I schools. I would like to introduce Mr. Chris Crissman who is in charge of our work. I would like to summarize our gender, minority, and compensation results. We surveyed all 298 NCAA's Division I schools to develop athletic department profile and compensation data for the five selected positions: athletic director, head of women's athleticprograms, head football coach, men's head basketball coach, and women's head basketball coach. With a pledge of confidentiality,we obtained an 87 percent response rate, including 16 of 19responses

1 1 .

8 from historically black Division I schools. Ouranalysis for historically black schools is based on a maximum of 16respondents. Fur- ther, we made no attempt to adjust compensationdata to reflect experience or years of service. Finally, we did notinclude in today's testimony information on individuals who arecurrently occupying more than one of the selected positions. Among the schools responding to our questionnaire,only one school had a woman serving as the athletic directorand no women coached football or men's basketball. Women headednearly 90 percent of the women's athletic programs.However, women held about 27 percent of the women's head basketballcoaching positions at historically black schools compared toslightly more than 60 percent of like positions at other Division Ischools. All selected positions at historically black schools wereoccupied by minorities, except in one case where a white male was thewomen's head basketball coach. Turning your attention to our staff chart on theleft, you will see that minorities rarely held these positions atother Division I schools. Minority representation was highest amongmen's basketball coaches at about 14 percent. Moving to earnings,head football coaches had the highest average total compensation.$55,181 at historically black schools and $120,258 at other DivisionI schools. Our compensation chart shows that individuals athistorically black schools had lower total earnings than those inother Division I schools. As requested by your staff, we compared the averagetotal earnings for women and men who coach women'sbasketball at historically black and other DivisionIschools. Our final chart on women's basketball contains our findings. We foundthat men earned slightly more than women at historically blackschools, yet women had higher earnings than menat other Division I schools, $47,871 compared to $42,706. This concludes my testimony, and I would behappy to answer any questions that you or othermembers of the subcommittee may have. Thank you. [Testimony r.....,umes on p. 23.] [The prepared statement of Mr. Crawfordfollows:]

I 9

Statement of Clarence C. Crawford

Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss GAO's preliminaryresults from our review of selected issues involvingintercollegiate athletics. In youz request, you noted that the Subcommittee ;s concerned about numerous inquiries it received from othermembers of the Congress, state legislators, and the generalpublic. These concerns focused on certain issues related tointercollegiate athletics which annually generates over S1 billion in interstate commerce. You asked that we examine the finances of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its member schools, gender profile in schools' athletic department positions, and minority hiring within athletic departments.

Specifically, you asked that we (1) review data on the revenues and expenses of the NCAA and its member schools' athleticdepartments, (2) develop profile data on the gender and race/ethnicity of staff members in schools' athletic departments, and (3) develop compensation data by gender and race/ethnicity of staff members within athletic departments. You also asked that we analyze the profile and compensation data by comparing information for schools designated as historically black schools by the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, to similar information for the other schools in NCAA's division I.

The material I will discuss today will be included with more detail in our forthcoming report to the Subcommittee. As such, our report will contain additional information concerning the results of our efforts.

BACKGROUND

The NCAA is involved in the administration of intercollegiate athletics. Its membership consists of over 800 4-year colleges and universities.

3 10

NCAA member schools belong to one of three divisions. A school's classification is generally based on items such as the number of sports sponsored. Typically, schools with the largest number of athletic programs and facilities belong to division I and schools with smaller programs are in divisions II or III. In addition, division I schools are further subdivided into three categories, I-A, I-AA, and I-AAA, with schools that have the larger football programs generally in division I-A.

NCAA's charter allows it to study all phases of intercollegiate athletics. In this capacity, the NCAA issued reports on minority hiring and gender equity in January and March 1992, respectively. It also conducts--under contract--a survey every 4 years relating to the revenues and expenses of its member schools' athletic activities for the NCAA's three divisions.The last report was issued in October 199G and covered revenues and expenses for the 4 years ending in fiscal year 1989.

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

As agreed with your office, we used existing NCAA data sources to examine the revenues and expenses of the NCAA and its member schools. The NCAA provided revenue and expense data for the year ending August 31, 1991.

We also used the NCAA's October 1990 report to develop data on the revenues and expenses of member schools' athletic programs. We limited our use of this report's results to the 106 schools in division I-A because we were unable to aggregate the division I results and their response rate--82 percent--was the highest in division I.

We surveyed the 298 schools in the NCAA's division I to develop gender, race/ethnicity, and compensation data within their athletic departments. We mailed a questionnaire containing nine questions

II ST COPY 4 11

to the athletic director at each of these schools. We requested demographic information, including gender andrace/ethnicity data, as well as compensation data for the 1990-91 academicyear for five positions generally found in athletic departments:(1) athletic director, (2) head of women's athleticprograms, (3) head football coach, (4) men's head basketball coach, and(5) women's head basketball coach. We are performing additional analyses for individuals concurrently occupyingmore than one of these positions. Those results are not included in today'stestimony but will be included in our report.

With your concurrence, we pledged confidentialityto the schools that responded to our questionnaire to helpimprove our response rate. Eighty-seven percent of the schools (259) answeredat least one question, including 16 of the 19 historicallyblack schools in division I.

Our analysis for historically black schoolsis based on a maximum of 16 schools. Therefore, caution must be exercised in using these results because of the limited number ofschools. Wn will provide for the record a summary detailing thenumber of valid responses for each income item analyzed for the 259schools, including ranges between the minimum and maximum amountscited. The ranges for some income items were extremely wide. This should be considered in evaluating the averages cited.

We made no attempt to adjust the compensationdata we received to reflect issues such as an individual'sexperience in athletics, years of service in a particular position, sizeof the school, or size of the athletic programs. In addition, we did not verify respondents' answers.

I 12

MAJOR REVENUES AND EXPENSES OF THE NCAA AND ITS MEMBER SCHOOLS

NCAA's Revenues and Expenses

The NCAA reported that it had revenuesof $152.5 million and million expenses of $151.3 million,resulting in a surplus of $1.2 for the year ending August 31,1991.

fees--primarily for broadcasting Table 1 shows that television rights--was the NCAA's major revenue source:$118.5 million or nearly 78 percent of the total.Revenues of $20.8 million from as its annual basketball sports championship activities--such tournament--followed, providing about 14percent of total revenue.

Table 1: NCAA's Revenues

Percent Source Amount (millions) 77.7 Television $118.5 13.6 Championships 20.8 I I 3.5 Royalties 5.3 3.0 General 4.6 0.9 Publishing 1.4 0.7 Grants 1.0 0.4 Communications .6 1 0.2 Visitors center .3 100.0 Total $152.5

The majority of the NCAA's expenses($79.2 million) were for the redistribution of revenues to memberschools for activities such as grants-in-aid and sports sponsorships. The next largest expense category, as shown in table 2, wasto support its championship activities ($32.3 million).

/ 6 BEST GUY MUM 13

Table 2: NCAA's Expenses.

.....-..---, Category Amount (millions) Percent Distribution to $79.2 52.3 members Championships 32.3' 21.4 National office 22.0 14.5 Membership services 15.9° 10.5 Committees 1.9 1.3 Total $151.3 100.0

'Of this amount, $25.7 million was paid directly tomember schools for team transportation and per-diem expenses inconjunction with their participation in NCAA championships.

°Of this amount, $3.5 million was spent for scholarships,youth programs, and catastrophic insurance for allstudent-athletes.

Member Schools' Revenues and Expenses

The NCAA's 106 division I-A member schools averaged$9.7 million in revenues and $9.6 million in expenses forfiscal year 1989. Fifty- five percent of these schools reported a surplus, 40percent reported a deficit, and 5 percent reported a balanced budget.

Ticket sales was the largest source of revenue, accountingfor 35 percent of revenues at division I-A schools. '"able 3 shows the schools' revenue by source for fiscal year 1989.

17 14

Table 3: Division I-A Schools' Revenues

Source Percent Ticket sales 35.0 Contributions 15.0 Bowls, tournaments, 14.0 and television Guarantees i options 8.0 Direct government 5.0 support I Student activity 4.0 fees

1 Other student 3.0 assessments All other sources 16.0 Total 100.0

Salaries and wages, including fringe benefits, was the largest single expense for division I-A schools, accounting for 23 percent of operating expenses for fiscal year 1989. Table 4 shows the schools' expenses by category.

'able 4: Division I-A Schools' Expenses

Category Percent Salaries and wages 23.0 Grants -in -aid 17.0 Team and other travel 10.0 Guarantees and options 7.0 Equipment and supplies 4.0 All other sources 39.0 Total 100.0 ......

ET COPY AVAILABLE 15

GENDER PROFILE

questionnaire, only one woman Among the schools responding to our in division I served as athleticdirector, and no women coached football or men's basketball. Figure 1 shows that women were more frequently represented as the head ofwomen's programs. However, this figure also shows that womencomprised a lower percentage (abc_t 27 percent versus 64 percent)of women's head basketball coaches at historically black schoolscompared to the other division I schools.

of Herds of Women's P o r 17s and F .ure It Women as a Pe centa.e Women's Head Basketball Coaches

Owlet wood. Propmem

Athletic 14114n

r---1 lascaNy MICA 5CNOS 1111 Other Sand.

10 16

MINORITY PROFILE

Among the schools responding to our questionnaire, athletic department positions at historically black schools were occupied by minorities, except at one division I school where a white male was the women's head basketball coach. However, as shown in figure 2, minorities rarely held these positions at other division I schools. Men's head basketball coach was the position most frequently held b' minurities- -about 14 percent of the positions.

Figure 2: Minorities as a Percentage of Staff for Selected Athletic Positions at the Other Division I Schools

SO P4rosol

Alh1,4114 P044114:41

The NCAA found similar results in its study on minority hiring.

2 0 17

AVERAGE COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY PERSONNEL IN SELECTED ATHLETIC POSITIONS

I would like to summarize informationfor the five selected athletic positions we surveyed atdivision I schools, based on responses we received from our questionnaire.

The average mounts cited for each income itemwe discuss is the average amount received by those personsreceiving such income. Except for base salary, many schoolsreported that not all persons holding these positions receivedany additional school benefits or outside income. This is particularly true for historicallyblack schools, where there was only a smallnumber of athletic parsonnel re( 'wing any additional school benefitsor outside income.

Base Salaries

At historically black schools, headfootball coaches had the highest average base salary--$49,522--whileathletic directors at the other division I schools had thehighest average base salary of $82,355. Table 5 shows that individuals occupyingthe five athletic positions at historically blackschools earned a lower average base salary than those individuals inthe similar positions at the other schools.

21 18

Salaries for SelectedAthletic Positions at Table 5: Average Base Historically Black andOther $ hools

Average base salary Athletic position' Historically black Other schools schools h $82,355 Athletic director $49,117 48,694 33,289 Head of women's programs 77,511 49,522 Head football coach 71,151 44,290 Men's head basketball coach 40,482 30,602 Women's head basketball coach received a responding schools thatsaid their staff 'The number of (in consecutive order) base salary for thefive athletic positions 16, and 15; and at black schools were10, 3,12, at historically 153, 228, and 215. the other divisionI schools 134, 120,

Additional School Benefits schools, additional school benefitsin division I For those earning benefits--$19,968 and head football coacheshad the highest black and other divisionI schools, $25,568--at historically represent items such asclub respectively. These benefits can Table 6 shows thatindividuals memberships and housingassistance. head football coach,and occupying the head ofwomen's programs, historically black schools coach positions at men's head basketball those in similar earned less additionalschool benefits than However, athletic positions at the otherdivision I schools. at historicallyblack directors and women'shead basketball coaches additional school benefitsthan those at schools had higher average the other schools.

2 2 19

Table 6: Average Additional. School Benefits for Selected Athletic Positions at Historically Black and Other Schools

Athletic position' Average additional school benefits Historically black Other schools schools Athletic director $8,000 $7,367 Head of women's 0 3,359 programs Head football coach 19,968 25,568 Men's head 12,425 20,162 basketball coach Women's head 7,737 4,943 basketball coach

'The number of responding schools that said their staff received additional school benefits for the five athletic positions (in consecutive order) at historically black schools were 2, 0,3, 5, and 3; and at the other division I schools 97, 65, 119, 182, and 136.

°There were no individuals in this position receiving such income.

Outside Income

Men's head basketball coaches had the highest average income for those receiving income from sources outside the schools, ranging from $5,000 at historically black schools to $39,338 at the other division I schools. Table 7 shows that individuals occupying the five athletic positions at historically black schools had lower average outside earnings than those in similar positions at the other schools.

11 20

Selected Athletic Positions at Table 7: Average Outside Income for Historically Black and OtherSchools

Average outside income Athletic position'position' Historically black Other schools schools b $15,890 Athletic director b 3,783 Head of women's programs 32,835 Head football coach $4,000 39,338 Men's head 5,000 basketball coach b 6,651 Women's head basketball coach i

schools that said their staffreceived The number of responding consecutive outside income for the fiveathletic positions (in were 0,0, 2,3, and 0; and at order) at historically black schools 91. the other division Ischools 22, 9, 97, 155, and income. `There were no individuals inthis position receiving such

Total Income

compensation, Head football coaches hadthe highest average total regardless of the income source: $55,181 at historically black Table 8 shows schools and $120,258 at theother division schools. that individuals occupyingthe five athletic positions at historically black schools hadlower average total compensation than those in similar positionsat the other schools.

rMY AVAL.f4a.I Pm E

2,4 Table 8: Average Total Compensation for. Selected Athletic Posit/ono at Historically Black and Other Schools

...... Athletic position* Average total compensation --_.1 Historically black Other schools schools Athletic director $50,717 $89,115 Head of women's 33,875 50,205 programs Head football coach 55,181 120,258 Men's head 49,110 114,993 basketball coach Women's head 32,150 46,005 basketball coach

'The number of responding schools combined to determine the average total compensation received for the five athletic positions (in consecutive ordor) at historically black schools were 10, 2, 12, 16, and 15; and at the other division I schools 122, 113, 130, 203, and 191.

Comparative Compensation for. Women and Men Coachina Women's Basketball

As requested by your office, we also compared the earnings for women and men who coach women's basketball at historically black and the other division I schools. We found that men had earned slightly more in average total compensation ($32,331) than women ($31,651) at historically black schools. However, women had a higher average total compensation ($47,871) than men ($42,706) at the other division I schools. Table 9 shows these results.

4,t)4"-N 22

Women and Men_Coaching Tablej: comparison of Compensation for Wonit02s Basketball

...... -.... Average compensation at Average compensation at Income other schools category historically black schools Menb Women' Men' Women' $42,495 $36,725 Base salary $31,526 $30,266 5,018 4,795 Additional 500 11,356 benefits c 6,471 7,018 Outside income 47,871 42,706 1 Total 31,651 32,331 earnings' for women and men coaching 'The number of responding schools order) women's basketball for eachincome category (in consecutive 1, 0, and4for women; and at historically blackschools were 4, 11,2, 0, and 11 for men. 'The number of responding schoolsfor women and men coaching income category (in consecutiveorder) women's basketball for each 122 for at the other division Ischools were 140, 90, 61, and women; and 75, 46, 30,and 69 for mon. income. `There were no individuals inthis position receiving such As a result, the °Each of the income categories areaverages. numbers cited cannot be addedtogether in determining the average total earnings.

Director of We would like to thank Mr.Richard Schultz, Executive study. the NCAA, and his staff fortheir cooperation during our to our Also, we want to thank thedivision I schools that responded survey.

This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions that you or other membersof the Subcommittee may have.

et g'FircnrT v!. v.9 n

4,0 23 Mrs. COLLINS. Mr. Schultz. STATEMENT OF RICHARD D. SCHULTZ Mr. ScHtmrz. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee. Ms. Howlett and I appreciate the opportunity toappear here today and offer some association comments on the all-important subject of gender equity. We feel that this will, withouta doubt, be one of the very primary issues not only in the NCAA but in other areas during the next year or so. We feel that these hearings do provide a very important function in providing an opportunity to take a look at how athletic interests are being represented,areas that need to be improved, and one of the items thatwe think is very important is to determine really what the role of a private association is in providing leadership and direction for members of its association who are the ones that really have to directly deal with this. I am going to ask Ms. Howlett first to summarizesome of the findings on the gender equity study, and then after she does this, I will make some following statements on where we are and whatv.,a intend to do. STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS HOWLETT Ms. Howtxrr. Thank you. The NCAA, as you well understand, initiateda gender equity study which dealt with the 1990-91 association membership. Itwas conducted by the research staff of the NCAA and was conducted at the request of the National Association of Collegiate Women Ath- letic Administrators. The purpose was to analyze expenditures for men's and women's athletics programs at NCAA member institutions. As stated in the summary, an underlying assumption of the survey was that gender equity is a moral as well as a legal mandate or an imperative, and athletics administratorswere asked to analyze the data in that context. The summary disclosed that although female enrollmentwas, on average, equal to or slightly greater than that of males, participation of males in intercollegiate athletics exceeded females by ratios of about 2 to 1. As to scholarships assistance, institutions, onaver- age, made assistance available in dollars to about the same ratio as participationthat is, 2 to 1. In terms of spending in generalon male and female teams, spending for men's programs significantly exceeded the ratio of Division I, but in Divisions II and III recruiting expenses for male student athletes exceeded those for female student athletes by a very wide margin. I believe that without too much doubt, spending for football, for which there is no comparable women's sport and in which there is comparatively very large average squad size, contributed greatly to the spending disparities. As to coachingand we Wffdtrataus0 the General Accounting Office has developed perhaps more cotnprehensive data thanwe soughtwe found, on average, while the ratio of coaches to participants was about equal for men's and women's teams, salaries for

7 24 coaches of women's teams laggedbehind those for men's teams in all divisions. Much has been said in the pressin recent weeks about the extent to which the survey summarydemonstrates failure by some of our institutions to conformwith the requirements of title IX.As we stated in thepreface to the summary, the study wasnot taken with a view to measuring title IXcompliance, and indeed much of the data is either not relevant tosuch an analysis or requires an imperfect measure of the averageconformity to title IX. If I were to summarize the resultsin title IX terms, I would say the survey appears to suggest in somerespects that, such as provision of scholarship assistance, acomplete understanding of what the law currently requires, but italso suggests that we have a long way to go in achievingoverall compliance with law, not tospeak of embracing the simple moral imperativeof fairness and the provision of opportunity. Mr. SCHULTZ. It is my understandingthat I am also supposed to introduce Merrily Dean Baker, whois a member of our staff, and we are very pleasedthat she was just recently namedthe director of athletics at Michigan StateUniversity. Merrily. STATEMENT OF MERRILY DEAN BAKER Ms. BAKER. Thank you, Dick. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman andmembers of the committee. I am Merrily Dean Baker, and Icurrently serve as assistant executive director of administration withthe NCAA. As Dick just indicated, I will be leaving that positionshortly to assume new duties as director of athleticsat Michigan State Universityin East Lan- sing, Michigan, and in so doingwill join Barbara Hedges at the University of Washington as one of only two womenwho have been afforded an opportunity to serve in theposition of director of athletics at a Division I institution. While at the NCAA, my responsibilitieshave included a rather broad range of diversity. In addition tofocusing on women's issues in intercollegiate athletics, myresponsibilities have also included administration of several youth sports programsin the NCAA, with which I know the chairwomanis very familiar, the National Youth Sports Program that is oneof those programs. I also am responsible for NCAA drug educationand drug testing programs, post-graduate scholarship programs, thecomprehensive NCAA research programs, conference grant program,and NCAA committees. Hopefully, all of those activities, incombination with my previous experience as acollegiate coach and for several years as anad- ministrator of women's programs atboth Princeton University and the University of Minnesota willenable me to have the necessary diversity of experience in order todeal with the very complex and increasingly complex job of administeringintercollegiate athletics programs at a majoruniversity. Certainly I know that my job will beeasier due to the leadership of Dr. John DiBiaggio, MichiganState University's president, who is a very enlightened educatorand a vigorous participant in the 25 Knight Commissionas it moves forward with its agenda, lookingat reform currently underprocess inside the NCAA Association. It has been a privilege towork at the NCAA during thetime when the association, under theleadership of Dick Schultz, has begun the process of directingthe attention of the membershipto the many unsolved problemsin the area of gender equity. Ithas been said before, and I willsay it quickly again: I regard gender equity in intercollegiate athleticsto be nothing short ofa moral imperative, and I hope that thepublication of the gender equity study recently released will beaccepted for what I think it is,and that is a signal that the NCAAis prepared to address thisissue head on and to provide theleadership to help its members do well. so as Madam Chairwoman, I would liketo congratulate and commend you and members of the subcommitteefor taking the time to review these important issues andprovide important leadership in helping to move the agenda forward.Much has been accomplished, but much more needs to bedone. Gender equity isachievable across this great land, and the subcommittee'sinterest helps to assure that we will continue tomove forward together and with unified commitment. a Thank you. Mrs. COLLINS. Mr. Schultz. Mr. SCHULTZ. I will try to brieflysummarize. At our press conference severalweeks ago when we announced the gender equitysurvey, President Judy Sweet made thestate- ment that this is merely the firststep in an intensified effort by our association to assist our members in ties for women student athletes. improving the opportuni- Also at that press conference,we announced the formation ofa task force, and I said at thattime that we are not interestedin a task force to tell us what theproblems are; we know whatthe problems are. We wanta task force that will be very creative,we want a task force that will bemade up of people with divergent opinions and concerns about genderequity, and we want them to help us provide solutions andanswers to how we as an association and how our member institutionscan move forward and be very productive in dealing with thesegender equity issues. We also have asked the PresidentsCommission, and they have agreed to move gender equityforward on their agenda. It isone that they had slated for 1993, andat this last meeting last week they appointed Judith Albino,the president of the Universityof Colorado System, to headup their gender equity committee, and she also will serve on our task force, so that there will be closeliai- son between our task force and the PresidentsCommission. We feel this is very important, becauseif this task force feels thatthere is legislation that shouldgo forward that would help create situations within the association to advancegender equity on a fast track, then we want to be ina position to have strong support for that legislatively not only from theNCAA Council but also from Presidents Commission. the We can talk about gender equity,and we can talk about making it soluble and something thatwe all want, and I have a personal commitment to that and to theimprovement of opportunities for

(Th 1_, t) minorities not only in coachingbut in every other respect.We can challenge in actually carryingthis out is talk about it, but the find going to be a difficult onesimply because of the situation we higher education in todaywhen it comes to finances. I don't think that thesimple solution should be to say,"OK, Ath- letic Department, it's yourresponsibility; fund all theseprograms." I think there has to be acommitment to gender equityoutside of well. I would hate to see programsdras- the athletic department as but for tically cut and opportunitiesminimized not only for women achieve gender equity whenI think that this com- men also just to far more sources. I thinkinstitutions mitment has to come from perhaps have to make a commitmentto help fund these programs, States, perhaps even theFederal Government, tomake sure that this happens, and these are someof the things we want ourtask force to look at. We hopethat they can come up andcreate some very successfulsolutions. association, I As an association, as theexecutive director of that very, very proactivein dealing with want to be sure that we are before, we view it this particular situation,and, as you have heard situation but a moral obligation aswell. I'm not just as a financial I think our PresidentsCommis- committed to seeing that happen, that we can sion is committed to seeingthat happen, and we hope move ahead. Thank you for the opportunityto make these comments. [Testimony resumes on p. 58.] [The attachment to theprepared statement of Mr.Schultz follows:] 27

NCAA GENDER-EQUITY STUDY

In January 1991. the NCAA:omncil reviewed aresolution subm:tted by the National Association of Ccllegiate Women Athletic Adainistrators (NACWAA) re- questing. among other things. that the NCAA undertake a study c: analyze expenditures for women's and men's athletics programs. The Council forwarded the resolution to the NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics for review and rec- °emendations. After review by this committee at its February 1991 meeting. staff members developed a draft survey form, which conformed to the specifica- tions of the NACWAA request. and submitted it to the Council. An ad hoc group of Council and Committee on Women's Athletics members reviewed the draft and modified it to ensure its appropriateness for all divisions. Ultimately. three separate forms were developed. each designed specifically for one of the three NCAA membership divisions. The differences in the data collected for each of the three divisions were determined by ad hoc commictee members from each of the three divisions. These fora* were sent to the chief executive officers of the NCAA member institutions with a cover letter explaining the gen- esis and purpose of the study over the signatures of Richard D. Schultz. NCAA executive director: Judith M.Sweet. NCAA president: and R. Gerald Turner. chair of the NCAA Prisidents Commission. The forms were mailed 14. 1991. and a return date of July 12. 1991. was requested. A good many potential respondents asked for an extension of this deadline. On August 19. 1991. a follow-up letter was sent to the institutions that had not responded.

Usable questionnaires were received from 646 institutions. with the following breakdown:

I-A 96/106 92.4 percent I-AA 72/89 80.9 percent I-AAA 83/103 80.6 percent II 166/21$ 76.2 percent III 227/331 66.6 percent

Csiinsarlissingiramacaxas.

Upon receipt in the national office. the completed forms were given extensive review utilizing guidelines developed for the review. Among the guidelines were procedures for dealing with the following:

1. EgsathusLiseis Calls were made to those institutions whose surveys con- tained omissions. In some cases, the data were simply unavailable. In those cases. the data were coded as 'missing' values.

2. Two or more responses for one item Thera were occasions. especially in the rang. of practice times, when two or more responses mast adequately described the situation at a member institution. Telephone contact was made to try to ascertain the cost common time.

3. csalziarLauaraa& Coaches are often involved in core than one sport. Frequently. institutions were able to allocate amounts of salaries to each sport: when this was not possible. the salary was simply divided by the number of sports and allocated among the sports on an equal basis. This was the approach utilized where the coaches' responsibilities involved two or more teams of one gender or where they involved teams of each gender.

li,ctfi7.',71:7. r m141414 4

r) A 28

Cross country and track were so often combined in these areas that. after futile attempts to separate them. they ware finally left as reported. The result is that expenditures for cross country. as reported here. are probably un- derestimated and the expenditures for track and field are probably overes. t:mated. Totals. which report average by Institution. reflect expenditures for both sports. and ara, therefore. not distorted.

Analtzis. The data were keyed in 11 files and transferred from tape into a Paradox database. From Paradox, the SAS library of statistical packages was used to Compile the descriptive statistics. In mach case. the statistics were first run on a sport-by-sport basis: i.e.. datafrom all institutions reporting sponsorship of a given sport were added together and means were computedfor that sport. For the institutional averages, each institution's data in given category (e.g.. men's scholarships) were summed;these sums were then combined to produce a grand total. The grand total was divided by the number of institutions reporting to yield an average perinstitution.

If three or fewer institutions reported data in agiven sport. those data were omitted from the tables. This occurred most often with regard to salary information.

Discussion.

The data can be evaluated from a variety of perspectives,and for that reason. care has been taken to avoid offering conclusions orcommentary thereon. One such perspective is the view that gender equity inintercollegiate athletics represents a coral and not just a legal imperative,and that responsible administrators should analyze the data in that context, askingthemselves if men and women student-athletes are indeed treated equally.

It must be noted, in this regard, that the data offer only apartial view of gender equity in intercollegiate athletics. They do not, for example, lend themselves to qualitative analysis: for example. they do not show whether one team receives new uniforms everythree years. whileanother team's uniforms are replaced every year: or whether teams havecomparable lodgings when they poli- travel off campus. Equally important. perhaps. the data do not reflect cies and practices on any individual campus. but merely show averagequantita- tive data by NCAA divisional,category of institution.

The data can alao be analyzed, in terms of some of the requirementsof Title IX as currently interpreted bykregulation and Federalpolicies. In general. Title IX currently requires tAet athletics financial assistancebe allocated in proportion to the number °Anals and female participantsin intercollegiate athletics, that all other benhfits accorded participants beequivalent. and a that the athletics interests Aid abilities of enrolled womenstudents be accommodated to the same degree sect those of men.

Because the study was not designed with a view to measuringTitle IX compliance, much of the data is either not relevant tosuch an analysis or represents an imperfect measure of average conformity toTitle IX. Certain of the data, however, may give a rough lindication of the extent towhich NCAA members have responded on average to somei.of the, requirements of the statute,specifically vith reference to the relative provision of athletic*financial assistance end coaching assistance to sale and femalestudent - athletes. as well as It is again provision of equivalent competitive opportunities inlike sports. emphasized. however. that these quantitative data represent.even in these instances. only a limited measure on average ofconformity to Title IX.

Finally. it is important again to recognize that the averagescontained in the charts that follow do not represent an ideal againstwhich an institution can individual cense of gender measure itself-- either in terms of law or one's equity - rather. they represent only quantitative averagesof certain current conditions at reporting institutions. .

3 2 BEST Ciii]PV 29

. 47 t ' i'' 4,, A, A1- 2 '5- : 1,1 _ ' - - 7. ..; 1...-ecit".t - 2 1.1 ;:.,; . ,1: t z T «4:-" -2.,:,..k., -.., .:- - a i 1% %.,7'.r ':r .iV.4*" 5 - t1 g 1

'_' -. : --' --' --' -. : -*: i7: 71 7. -. .' .1 "-' --' -. ." I-I t 2' 22r.tt= ':. F::PI,°, i, I .1 f:

'. 21 2* ::: 7: t F. ii .rz: :-; il2? il,E F, E 2

s. .7... r: .7: .., ... ..*: .* :.v: .: ..0 411, r. i.: ,... 5. 7. wt. oo 4.4 . .. :1 ..,.. a zi:.2 7. 2 1:.:. IsEiEF:EiiiiliF.::: /3 . i ::. 1.::: : i ::: :;i .:i .*: " """ 22 "' ''""""' 4" 5 ' .. 3 3 2 r. * 4 4 = 3 .1 4 4 ;; ; ; .2 A .:. - ...... ,.. ...: .. 3 . : :1 t13" 2 411 ..1 :22t222 22222.122222222:2 Z. r. ri g F. Z 2r:r:: E.I: 2;iZi' 7: irt t r i E "v1 - ,. 1. g ,

; r ,- . I 713." E i -- .. e i- i' : - z -. i 22: .3225 3 I-:: 2 2 . . Z. 'Z. 2 22.Z 32 t C.:lit1:iii '12"- Is a 1 Is g.2I.! 3. 322 ;1 ;;-t' ..,. 1:. 'a w . r, ::: E,... F. i " ii Cer3 r. r.2.. ::. F. .... ::;.2 .f. 1 f.. F., ...2 Ei'.' .r.r.

59-428 0 92 - 2 ' amnia I 11911ALL MANI 4.11311311$1, 63117168111, IMAMS I11K11141441442111 11141611:112111 31114118. 24141.1 111 111119/117111111110 .ii, Vo44/4. t. 1...' WWI AM 100141101'I 42144.4416444 7 '19414.6. .m,414No. 144.144 11 44411An. loseedellNo. Vo.34 8444.4144A 114461,44 Ifweor of Avorno 141.14, A 0141146 . 1121$444441 44 ...... 1111. 11 1 Ise 13.4 .47 -.Maw All..- 1 11 3. Ach1 ..... 414 11.4614.17 11.411.14 11 Cott..18.171.11 00.44MI. 148.992 11 44464 '4114.111 141/.44 Mayo 141.91 11.37 Jt 01.1431 144414Cr Csot 14if 3.11 '..17 1 II. 2. 1.147.34 4.104. 13.1 7. 1111 7. $167.091 $11.175 40.4 .9' 17. 47 l''''' $: ..'.11141 ..-"' $41 ! 47444.1'' 171 1144444114141411.414, 01/1 )4.11 60.64 13.1) 11.1 111.7 1400.91 $111.4 4100: 114 . . s c;.'.. It golf114-164211.4i141441 CISCO 46 141...11 3031 4.3.41? 111111e11111E 43.64 0.717.67 0.117.06 13.6 9.14 II.)13.07 118.14144.29 . . 419.69 ."114 v . "7....'42ii .....mi..., .' *Aft.144244 1444.12 row. 143 4 13. 1.13.11 1.141.41 10.4014.42 11.10k 1.7.74 14.331.4 10.1111.34 113.016310026.:'1'111r1"111111117L27.3343i.t.:117e17.121 8111.011 11.04 '11,1 01 ,4017 16 .311114$ 11 1.16 4.017.11 13.611 CH 11.1 0. 19.6110.1II.) 18.0111.11 021.371114.711 110.14113.141 111. . './.," 1111 TOW..114441 1 8.11 . 6. 19.66 6.43 ISM 22 13.53 11.1 133.1 . 2 $144.72 814 . - . . 44111.111440/061144.4 Truk 2 4.)8.$$ 11.0 17.72 0 11 11. P. 111111MINIMINIENRIMIMEIIMMT. $14.111 t' ' -1 'i 01414laroolio4 7614 1 01.1 41 IllarIMIEMIME .7 11 42 1119' mremerimmunemrmr 11141 IMI!!! IT Al'51...... :.z.:: . - "; ' A 4 14, ;''...111111115r WE! 11FMIEK/F77tliagglicarl!..i.. , %Aiwa- "7 . `.. 11111T1111T14441.41111 *I 44 71 I Pt MITE 41.1 141.4 ' 61. 1111Mr=1.1111.21r 116.1 118.1 -P1111111nr" . r ' \liCa91".,. Pa ..Ml.h, . ON.. 7441fb...... 1 am...... oftelf, owl Avulffvvrii ....1...... Illier= . ... vv. a 2. I. . ma.v.vm.Atb ...... ' 0.. vJ 1406:0,4%r7Ariore,q'r, n 'Ill FS r F,4; 1 ..- . DIVI1100 1 MULL COMM DATA. RATIOS, S . 311 INIT121721014 ZAALL.2 ...... -...--,... AA ..... nt Volunteer Delo , C.d..'1Mon.1 1626 C419,1100 I..1 61C4411111.4 (0....'.)C...8.. ,4144t2 CHelles Wee's) 0611661 1$6416.0A ...... Wet. 91 11444.21 2 1161e4et. Net so) ints1141199111to 93ouoRee1.d. .1 11411/Settnell111114 ASO... SONS 'S 9 feteest 11444661new'. ~el 044 I M 0.3 r 0. . w 0.03 . r 0.12 .421 11.11 '';11 104061 7.6. 064.04.11 Illellaelle 4161111.e ,p ...lilt0.36 0.03 0.42 1.21Mee 0.11 0.020.01 0.020.02 0.610.06 0.110.310.4110 In 0.01 0010.01 0.070.1 7. '1St* tell*meta Soehey MEW11111NIMIEIMI 3.21E 0.23re 0.17 0.020.01 0.230.00 0.21Ire 110.21 01 0.11O. AO se; MEM' . 2.23 .' 1111EIWP 4.16 4tbell ...Elf 6.4 I $.21 :40:1111111 -4,' t-seItiftelAlenel13 07 0.11 0.02 0.01 0.06 . 1 0.01 was al ... 0.410 0111E11111EINE 0 .31 0.10 .. -0.01 '9. 0.61 4 CAP Ie. 11.. 100% ME 0.1711111E111E 0.00 0.1 0.41r re 0.0 O. 11.1414411', EMIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIMIENEf1e Mr ROM MI Me Oft 0.00 0.13S0.17 0.11 0 OS 0.4 0.17 0.7041 kite.t..... 1.111MerrEelrellrellif1001.112111ffirereME 0.37l 0.0 S. 7.1111 0.01 I ..., 0. ill.% tedt.4.1. 2.11111111ENIEWEINENEE. 041 Oat0.11 0.01 .6.00 e.ot0.0e O.I.0.14 re ..n llrERE ei,A !EMIR I."4 1.".1,°.11.61...a. T.." .4111EMSnanirr Me,re 0.21 111ff % 0.21 00, 0.12 0.000.21111r 0.00 ...r0.00 oto 111111S1111nrere1111112511111MIIE .. ler 2.04 0. 0.01 0.32 0.01 0.00 . . 0. *1140 411 0.17 Eae stet Vol. 96 i 042 ...MEMO. 041 0 o.a i trAi ...oar,bar 17 Ille 1f 7 I. S. ' 111. 1. x"1.00 V4'2'` 121111171310L AVISAG 90.4 S BEST44 110 COPY MIME 12 0 31 MEW 2.11 2 0 6 2 0 I7 0.2 1.2 2.30 33 , :.. .. ,...-.., I °MALL COAAINO WAIM M . 171 lour:tut:me v, . MIN'S MO NONINV$ smilomAmmo.Kid 04.1144 Oase (14.14.41 AlmIceisload Coach. 111.4 110...m.$) Avairtia ConblaN Auiltest Coact..IN414.0 Avers'. 0m111444 Asti/Simi11041041Cusilwia 0000001141.41.411/1440411 .11 ,e I 1 Vn,' 114.124111,111 110,11/111,140 112.1411/1.111 ". 011. 1 1 Cr.. Comas,' $11,1110111,010 $11.170111.124 111.11141.14. .4411/1/ $11.7$ lfetbal1MO/Fiselas Matey 111.914 121,402 1111.411 ' 11.91I/ I Tub..au1t141.1.1444a1 ' 111.114111.041 111.141 191.711113.11 0411.1y1n111.tle 117.911 111324 120.194 I /1 11441 ' 1, I44. Noakey $41.941 144.111 ,. , 14.111't ., La .1 119.014 111.111 14.917 $17.151 , )1_, 1(014 . 11.411 . ,. 31.1141 . ..1 114.114111.491 111.1411112.017 111.119 .4.:' ' _ .1.0l151an.. 117.111$11,19) 111.074111.115 1174940.00.01 tie -..- ) 441a4eat/N411.4 aaaaa ball 111.111114.99/ $14.1110129.444 $14.111129.711 .1 . 1 0 ' J ' q4c"19 J ... stet 7.10 01.210$1.14' ittrA ' . 5 0 .211153ri- fen11. 1211.1711 I` $30.11) ^ ,.., , , :-...... 044r ,- ,- + ', a Fitt ' L"' - ... J .- 13 j INSTITUTIONAL¶l, co*3Iu3unlIli AMAMI 1113,147 Ay 1141,1401 11$1.11 .....z..A./ , WILD. IS'S AND 904110.1 01'1$100 16 PARTICIPANTS. GRANT EXPENSES. RATIOS. N of Port cipanteA eeeeee Humber AVA(01, Scholeiship Expenses 99 INSTITUTIONS Ratio ofPerticlpante Mole to Female Scholorahlp lopRatio of Male to Feaal NUMMIM III W 54 ...... 11/2°70.11 SPORTS Men 37.01 Woven 17.74 Mtn 094.7113 Women 369.014 rerticlPento 2.09:1 Scholar 1.37:1 6. 9191 961ee4etb1l 15.38 13.19 5122.119 $109.309 $27.544 1.21:11.11:1 1.12:1 .93:1 11 99 roe. Country 15.12 11.1$ 1.10 125.56409.4911 53.41) 2.59:1 2 77 1 94 22F161 7Fenclnit Foothill Hockey 117.03 22.75 I9.16 S797.986 $114.313 2191 4259 yanimIceelf 15.1711.61 13.45 9.49 $48.737111.052 $67.6511517.7911 1 1.11:1 44,1 .72:1.17:1 1113 4Licroeee Ice Hockoy 40.4729.01 25.75 $156.696172.044 $15.111 1.51.1 2.52.1 Co3 5 551411na3910114 14.0010.11 11.20 1.4 141.550$10.111 031.960$11.011 12.75:1 41:1 1.07:1.60:1 7244 715u:1nning21Soccer 28.7729.11 2).4423.34 254.957 $15.441$41.101 1.22:11.23:1 1.12:1 .16:1 0187 $9Ii Indoor/Outdornnle Track 44.6311.57 29.11 9.613273.645 214.106537.665 $79.611$52.940 1.30:11.70:1 1.06:1 .71:1 10 1 111 .terolleyball Polo 26.0021.50 13.11 $11.460019.394 $14.471 1.63:1 15:1 44 9 9. reitlinghet 60.3331.30 70.12 $34.125120.175 $74.5115 1.30;1 1.36:1 4i TOTALINSTITUTIONAL 190014111711 (469te1112AVLIAG PER 114771TUT1011.BEST Hen 6, erTypir"1.551 372.95 /71F 129.111 $1.191.1111 iroleen- 6.153 2501.246 Retie - 12.49:1 05:1 3.16:1

TAILLL Coochm. Mood Catch., Mod Alwaiacmic Criach.o 000(040K IA COACNIOG DATA. RATIOS. N A 000000 nt Colchos Grad... Asst.". Graduate A.sioten 93 INSTITUTIONS it.Volunteor Coach. Asat VolunIof Coaches Voile of WW1 AND 1001471.81$ 44(IN.'.) lilt....' 44 (NW.) No....) Coach.. le(Hen's1 r Co..),.. (Wooen/o) M F M (Mn'..) 7 (uoenM 1 el F Participant.to Coricheal 111.61.11/Sftio11 110170 M011. 100 Fulia10 0) 1.65MIPMF6,7,174r 0.01 0.21 710*Por 0.15 0.41 16awbot 0 0 00. Nu4b4r 0.12 0.31 proobrrt 0.00 0 06 Ouabor 0.11 10.69-1 3.16.1 M 1.76117 24:1 r 414.1.1.11 1001 67% 1.41 0.00 0.50 1.4) 0.13 0.01 0.01 0 50 0.37 0.01 0 05 0.07 1411cIngC.... Guatry 70%WA /0S24% 0.4)0.41 0.060.00 0.400.22 00.0$ 20 0.000.10 0.00 0.100.11 0.000.08 0.170.12 0.000.0) 0.200.10 0.000.05 1) 42.16 44:4 4/ 61,1 21.1 166041144/414 114884, 1001 1 6.65 0.00 0.00 0.61 1.116 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.06,1 1.00:4 Cy...AtticaGolf 1001 $61 41%74 0.740.14\ 0.000:04 0.410.07 0.320.14 0.220.06 0.040.00 0.100.0) 0.010.12 0.090.01 0.00 0.000.05 0.020.07 10.40.1 47.51:1 90:1 5.6).17.14:1 Ice llockopIC OOOOO 1000160% 100% 1.507.21 0.000.00 0.00 1.00 0.420.54 00.00 00 0.00 0.25 0.110.17 0.000.00 0 00, 0 0 ,) 14.1 11 44 1 111611141 1001 Oft II 0 0.101.10 0.00 0.001.00 0.00 0.00 0.110.00 0.000.00 0.1)0.00 0.700.44 0.000.11 0.001 11 0.000.1) 5 44.46.41,1 0.60.11.2111 Casein*$4.41t 1001 073 321418% 0.761.14 0.110.00 0.501.04 0.200.42 0.410.12 0.040.04 0.210.11 0.170.27 0.010.20 0.040.00 00.14 05 0.010.00 II 1211 1 011,1 9 WI7.10,1 '11.4M.. 644.4.40.4644141. Troth 1001 1110 41 11 0.401.71 0.020.11 0.141.17 0.400.17 0.1$0.42 0.050.00 0.110.10 0.11 0.060.07 0.010.00 0.100.01 0.050.04 11.16114.11,1 11.17,1 1611 41464.4V61147h.11 14144 1001 4 0.440.1 0.00 0.36 0.59 0.110.12 0.00 0.10 0.26 0.000.00 0.00 0.01 0.0) 16.17:110.71,1 1.14,1 Otor ling 1001 1161 4. 1 116 000 114 0 ll100 I0 00 000 100110 0 40 1001001110 00 7.06,16.5111 4.1111 INSTITUTIONAL AVUAG II 8 47 46 17 115 250100111 0 46 1 42 2 611 4 111 0 16 0 44 I II 2 04 0 0 0 51 0 46 11.24:1 10.77:1, 4 5 .0 r at oiv PEST VT'n r"!!!MIE ac o 0 n Of 044.10 0000000 nts ond vo unto.... 46 A DIVISION 1.6 COACHING SALARIES. N - 91 INSTITUTIONS T 1<1 Aulctant Altaletent ACM6 AND 90140146 010615 ANead eeeeee Coeches Sege Olen.)Were AHead Coach.. Ilickeen.e1 Were lase Average Coablned Coach*.(Men's) A eeeeee Coabined Ildoeen.elCoeches aaaaaa 11/s4t44.11.3496012 543.4665116.9114 $20,701$45.147 --telclii.----_ 536.011$95.1155 IIILLItt-- 519.957546.064$1/.174 geeingrout Country $11,106522.113 $14.412$12.161 $24,311 51.10/ 59.51159.111 FootballField Hockey $911.429 $24.497 $419.651 511,561 51.617 ColtCyIce Hockey 1ne 553.591$21.140527./72 532.111522.677 559.40)520.254 $111.191 Lectoilae $35.204 $24.451 526.549 50 59.241 $0 SoccerSH2LIURifle $31.095517.570$14,111 $21.660$11,200 59.211 $19.492$19.710 510.1)1$16.191 TennisSul..).; 126.612527.026 527.1102525,590 $11.511$22.101 510.145519.247 WaterVolleyballIndoor/Outdeo: Tel. Thick $32.7111$24.621532.406 $21.200$27.941 519.022$14.214534,076 524.026517,659 OtherWressISAII 234M0$32.102 022.342 114.1164$12.112 $14.000 TOTALINSTITUTIONAL COACH'S; 111111$1 AWRACI TER ?ANTICIPANT )6e40104 mer Inetleution). Men 2196.191 2206.106 51.162.711 2124.212 Ho.. 57,501.30 $116.1117 F3 ' I 4. "is prItny /RI.% 7 IL11/.-.2 MEN'S AND VORIS'S DIVISION I.AA PARTICIPANTS. GRANT EXPENSES. RATIOS. 9 - )2 INSTITUTIONS of Particip.ntoA ****** Nuilbor Aver.aa Scholatahip Exp... Ratio ofParticipant. 11.1. to fe.ale S holarallip Erg,Ratio of MaIe to Fas.le NUMMIM 9 360913 Mtn 90999 M. No,. PS(tiCIPergt 5 hol.f4hip 1 12:1 E.g. 61 72 2214 ****** ball11/Softb411 15.11)0.20 11.3117.36 291.129250.776 311.60529.605 1.11.11.74:1 1 20 I 67 660ro. C y 11.54 11.07 219.552 519.993 1.2):1 .99 1 4 21 5Fancin6 Field Nockay 25.25 27.10 1.70 SO 571.776 SO 2.52:1 61 69 Footbell 16.1611.0 1.4 5464./66 317.425 510.419 1.30.1 .69.1 3 11Gy140o92 Ice 12.6 12.27 219.600 247.004 1.03:1 .40 I ID 6 121..actoolie 61116Ice 140tksy 19.1027.44 24.115 5150.165 213.471 370.996 1.36:1 7411 3) 145occet Skiing 26.91 22.36 250.660 915.411 1 20'1 1 4) 1 6710 41T6m91.10561261196 10.0)24.21 21.90 9.19 319.732319.627 522.713542.499 1.09111.11:1 .17:1.93:1 411 471,91160.11201oloor/Out400r Vital Polo Track 14.66 23.2212.54 441.026 941.711546.727 1.0:1 1 02.1 20 4 6006e9 WristIln, 29.6572.50 16.20 211.090347.000 946.209 2 0011 .72;1 INSTITUTIONAL AV/PAC 252.16 109.42 3722.12 3229.145 2.10:1 I 2 19 1 40 r TOTAL VICHARftlet (Avoteri) UR tHstinvool 3.. - 4.1)1 Mogen .. 4.491 Ittlo 0 92: tJ ovolszow 14A 01.1.611 21101,111120. c001ilo71. 0.111101114 AND WALL 611010112160 117114716. 77 1662110710111 11044e7 la 11.61A/2:0Z Ouabtr 1C10LA1I0111 AI '10.11Ave. N..Aver444 4..44 INN. 4( 44.04 Muabot A MEN'S AM 1000101.2 II/Softball AIIwrH Mea 1.00 /111.041 1.11 lk AthlotIts14.71 0 10.7)014 Mtn rol 00.14Cent. Wooin 44.11 7440 $31.11) 1.p 40044) 311.111 A...... lc011//11KOn 11 407 0.7 woewn_ $1.71) 107 I/ccult/AI woewn_ 32.743 Cress...... 6 CattAtgv 6611 14IS 1).10 1.65 11.06 1.11 11.311 1.1$ 12.07 1111 10.40 1.001 31.46 7.04 $106.1164$10.01 341.11110.001 IIV0I0 311) II Ill 101 113/IQ 311 III 149! 714141.014 0..1 1 0.00 0.001.11 0.00 21.10 0.00 II 1 11.4111.1C /II 10 110.017St III $111 13 00100.1411 111 $2.;41fl 011 elf6001) 10 1 61.04 /.01 4.4) 4.40 13.1111.1 110/.131 04.111 lit 10 7.If1.9/ 4.110.08 11 314.911.30 7.30 31.1)11.00 11.1/11.0/ 011.111111.411 810.911711.111 1111110 73.111 1116 . 11)119110 $3.114 1111 11141.I0 Notkey 1.61 130 4.11 4.00 14./0 14.91 1$1.161077.107 114.606 11).01) 2/.113 31.11/ 4, $1.111. /tear131164 11 4. $.11 1.41 19.11 11.24 614.101 3)).6/ 11.1/11 51.016 1/1 11.114 TGARIS 1.S.13 1.13 I t JI 1.111.61. 141.44 11.4113.11 10.9411.17 110.1/1311.161 010.160$11.70) 11.117 $111 $1.111 1110 111 41.171 Writer0.1196411Iladaer/00149ar 7.1. Tr 1.6 6147.1) 11.31 11.11 1.11 19./1 Wet10.4/ 014.1)) 2/1.146611.201 31./11 03.130$1.4$9 111III 01.1$0$1.410 Othar0reat11146 11 1.14.7 644 11.4) 1.27 7.11 33.0)11141 31.80 340.171$10.4)) 222.014 $1.11/ 120IA/ $1417 im101ernowALA4I0AC4 ' 011.04 SS 611141.131 36.011 1113.1 141.61 2418.444 $176.1111 010.101 $0.2:4 111.114 Su, 101 716.114 TOTAL.166 ..... gauntry (A .. ) 6.06211190 fVLL ATMLAT)CI GIANT 114410 7.61116 InatltatI6001, I $4.776 Out el ot01.1 11.61/ f 1 ...... non. - 111.113 1. - 111.113 r r. A A rl xmaz_LI Nome 41.04 AsolstsntCoechee DIVISION I.AA COACHING DATA. RATIOS. N - 72 INSTITUTIONS AsslotentCotchos Crodoete Assistant Grade.. A ****** ....Asst. Vol... Coaches Asst. Coaches Vol... Ratio ef MIPS AMO YOKO'S Nrcent(0...'.)Coach. Ilielsom.o/Coach. (Man't) ( (.1 Coaches Olen's)M F Coechas (voaso.111 M V M (Mon../ F (Nosoo.a)H F Partici ....Mto C.I.A..' I £P0403 04.0. 100% fovesnoMIMFFootle 72% 0.115 Noddy 0.00 0.08 Notts O.)) 0.49 eyobtr 0.00 0.06 Muslim 0.19 0.47 0.00 0 1 bit_ 001 10 1$.1 t 11.1 IIIesolell/Softb011 11 1000 ilt 1.2) 0.00 0.25 1.11 0.60 0.00 0.01 0.50 0.11 0 00 0.1 0 II 1 61(1 4 1061 C,.. Coontry 100% 94% 0.40 0.01 0.12 0.07 0.14 0.04 0.010 00 00.11 00 0.140.7S 0.000.01 0.210 00 0 000.11 11 10.1 7 16.1 4 04.10 /6.1 11e14f ttttt Ileek4y 1009 100% 231. 0.50 0.00 0.000.50 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0 07 0 14 t It 1 Coltfeoilell 100% 00% 2)0 0.014.23 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.021.89 0 050 00 0.00 0.00 0.100.60 0.000.00, 0.00 0.00 4.24)14.44.1 7.1011 Cylee lotley 40. 1009100% 45 1.240.00 9.000.00 0.05 0.55 0.000.33 0.000 00 0 14 0.18 0.330.00 0.00 0 00 0 00 1.10.11.5).1 01.1 Lee 00000liflo 100% 100 1.30 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0 00 0 08 0 00 II 91,1 10 071 1Sktlo% 100% 210 0.71 0.00 0.5/ 0 0.32 0.00 0 00 0.94 0.11 -t- 0.00 0.71 0 00 11 40)1 10.20.1 Tennis4.212741n. 117%81% 22130 0.150.41 0.230.05 00.71 II 0.000.1) 0.040.70 0.030.10 0.110.20 0.110.1) 0.060.11 0.00 0.0)0.11 0 010.0) 0.21,10.4311 4.14,18.41.1 VolleyballI ttttt /Outdoor Track 100% 48%249 0,7) 0.13 0.140.38 0.240.33 0.41 0.03 00.15 00 0.2)0.15 0.31 n 06A 00.15 II 00.11 01 11.41(1 10.11.14 2011 reolislIntMotet fele 100% 1)% 589 0.014.00. 1.000.00 1.20 1.20 0.241.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.142 50_ 40.00 00 1.00 0.00 11 7915.07(1 4.10.3 Other 0 49 11 II 1 12 11.1 0 0 .Costt.lniINSTITUTIONAL/N[1ACR Moto. gto not teivttelelttt the. Seclote full (Ind past tIso 01.49$ BEST COPY MAE 41.3% 11.11 0 )2 1.84 1.81 1 79 stduste sssiltsnt. and volun ttttt . C 21 0 49 1.24 2.22 0 11 0 41 -. DIVISION I.AA COACHING SALARIES. N - 71 INSTITUTIONS IMILL-12 AsAiatent Adeiatant MIN'S AND WOMAN'S AverageMem* C0001*. lame (Ken.)$.16,9 AvocemeHeed Coaches BO. (bloamn.$) $696r9 Am.:., Combined SelarteeCoachesDien'.) Ameiese Combined 5.1leomen.e,Coaches esebellnottlellaaaaa ball MOTS 229.0)9954.907 5/5.131$10.700. 359.015514.911 529.176$11.110 CrossFencint Country 011.110011.181 914.141Shill 314.954 521.195 57.690 Football11.11 Hoeky 6$7.219 $55.19) 9171.959 511.953 CyeneaticeColt 312,665911.911 $21.493331.049 52.157 SO 912.511 L4C,O.S4Ice HocUey 516.419$43.36$ 915.741 $30.696514.450 $7.110 C, Soccdc54194411101e 717,40 317.942 97.397 53.705 TommieSytmetne 911.710921.505 915.171110.795 $13.169 $0.232 513.919914.131 MOO V.41.VolleybellIndoor/Outdoor Pole Tuck 921.639 $11.419911.391 917.119 $11.111 OtherYr0691191 043.532726.600 019.603 3731.470916.549 111.161 TOTALIIISTITMOKSL COACHING tummss AVIAMCE rti PAIIUSIPANI IAr6f$A19 Nil Witl.ti. , Meh $213.413 S110.401 $1,996.13 $273.144 V.... 91.71).30 791.726 BE:7 prç T j Ln7-aABLE 010111011 IAAA PARTICIPANTS. GRANT EXPENSES. RATIOS. N IALLL-LI 12 INSTITUTIONS NUMSER NEWS AND WOMEN'S of Port Av..'ciponte /lusher Av aaaaa Scholarship Expenoss Ratio1.1.11CIPOptdParticipants of Hal. to Fooalo ScbolarohlsScholarship Zoo.Exp.Ratio of lisle to Fronsla M 72 H 5611asaba13/Softba11 MITI Moo 30.17 Moan 12.6315.62 $150.214Mon 560.196 VOVOn 5123.291 539.310 1.15:11.91:1 2.0411.22:1 13 71 76Croso711800kotba115Fencing Country 13.7511.5/14.54 7.909.97 530.179525.520 520.175$22.993 1.76:11.17:1 11.11:1 12:1 7 (Div.11) 13 FootballField Nock, -- 87.65 21.31 $232.511 551.176 1 (0)1.111/ 75 173olf soltidivItioall 10.24 1.06 519.479 524.511 1.27:1 .27:1.75.1 73 70yanastica Ice Hockoy 29.9616.00 12.43 5112.4116512.540 146.126 1.29:1 14 361fleIL.o000.I 35.71 6.111 21.50 5.67 $11.125366.916 549.606 $4.075 1.21:11.25:1 2.73:11.35:1 71 3 21 2Skiing Soccer 24.6611.31 21.5424.50 566.945561.713 352.311554.910 I. IN: 1.75:1 1.1801.12:1 6 7614 7970941a31561168184 11.4710.31 10.1711.11 525.164517.71111 526.474$31.611 1.02.11.07:1 .95:1.98:1 44 1 72Voll699.11144 IndooriOutdoor Track 17.9127.41 11.4119.73 561.107534.155 556.117$52.501 1.56:11.19:1 1 .6111 11:1 1711 6toorVreotlini Polo 22.4120.82 546.756111.111 5 501har INSTITUTIONAL AVERAC4 160.11- 11.22 12.0126.21 542E646 616.151 $311.224325.012 1.75:11.46:1 1 181.70:1 PFT P7PY AVAIT.71, TOTAL ENROLLMENT I ggg 1 PIA INSTITUTION. Nan 2.554 Noalin - 2.927 g - 0.97 1 401'011 ...... 1 .1..1'0 (It'll - ..... J...0 110'10 . 0.....1 11'111 111.111 1113I11 11'11IS 111 rtft ...... t..1 1114.1 '011.11.1or1e 52141.11.1.v 7101 IMOW 1tt...11 .1T in." ..... oot. 11g101414U101 tot /III lilt 110.111 I'll 1.01 MIMI .1. AlilllICI s . 1111sol'IS 411111./.'111 11111 tr11 ilili11.1 4 it 1101 JOS 111.11 014, 115'111 111111 f'Ot 611011 1"all Mit.tCI S 11.1 Otte it'It It, It tC1111 ttl'CIC Wig 11'11 MIallialliI'll t 101 100tost 11 114'01*vet 4.1.111swill 11.01 It It'll l'll 0011ttiltWI IA'S 1'1 1111 41*1WC , 11 ...,, ,..,... , titIs... 1,01t 101111 1il'411 StIt' II 40.01 00111 1't 1'1 II 1111 ,Wit 4011 46 .0114.11111 (It'll40I111 I1.0 Ill 11'010'01 '1 WO 0.1111 tttEl $ 11'1WI / 00:141SO 414 Illf MC 10(11WI It 101111 It'lll111111 1111 O1 'CI /11 l'Il I'S ill It WI vg olg000 .fl II111 Ill tttt ICI001111 111 10'1111111S 411111'11 I1111E01 WI 111, Irt CO 111 01 ' ICI 1'1 It MC dm . St'lt 41(11$1 OS'S 8111 t ...... 01,1110...qt 10.1111'10 Ili .0.'111101'/4 111'11 It'll.. II trli trl Cos 11 1( 1 6.1 4 II 11'1WO it... pt., %Is. tott scot itrcs'let $1,111.1900114 1111$11091'11 toWI /1 iv/ 1111 /1111".' I'll 11'11 iiii111111 MIIIIM "11 1111N2 t1 11.01M 0.5 111'11 . . 110 CC 11110 1111 Irtt MI" 1104.001/1101.0 . 'WM ..4./ 014 141! 110001 $10111 Min I11 110110 11.01MON WV 111101 11...... 11.2.A1 It.I.ft oletoV 00 ...... 11 .1010 ...... 5 ...2 otos. 10.01..0,1 01 popPofty.IIoS11111111161,1 .1101.11 amion11111.'0 II11100pop/oy (.5.111115 tP1I1111113SI C8 isaalr, 0 111011III mantas' orr 001111i010 'strum trourson arm rryt 00111III0 Trill"! Neat Need As4latent DIVISION I AAA 4441stant COACHING DATA, NATION. N . 1) INSTITUTIONS IL.11 Graduate Alit. Coaches Volunteer Alit. Coaches Voluntaer Na o of AMC WNW ' P6rcentCoaches(Nina) Ilfoom'sCoachesPercent M (Men's)Coaches I170oen's1N Co4cheo f Graduate Coach. 11 N 0 Assieten (Men'e1 Coach. m Number AS/14[0A141066.9.4 r (9.0.0mus 2 (Wes n.$)M r Patti tpente 00000tasebell21oftball 44411 WWI e 100% 4754 1.341.36 . 0.0'0.0r 0.470.16 Nun 0.90.47 0.590.24 r 0.010.00 0.000.02 0.230.07 0.340.59 0.000.01 0.000.16 0.110.)4 1.77:19 41:1 r c..cm 3.81:17.71:. A Cross Country 17% 2517 0.670.10 0.000.03 0.500.17 0.250.11 0.000.11 0.00.02 0.000.06 0.00 0.670.22 00.02 0' 0.000.09 0.000.06 5.61:14.73:1 4.46:16.41:1 ftb.-aml11416fenclail hockey 00000 isionel loot 92 0.0. 0.01 0.92 0.66 0.0' 0.06 0.01 0 94 0.00 0.00 0.13 10.21:1 9.11,1 OY4nGolf 100%Dim% 10't 4341 0.00.17.11 0.00.0' 0.290.00 0.430.00 0.130.01 0.0'0.00 0.00 0.140.00 0.310.07 0.00 0.000.04 0.00 9.64:14.64:1 4.11:17.20:1 LacrosseIce Nockoy 1W.V.100% 110 1.061.41 0.00 1.6. 0.110.29 0.00 0.00 0.0. 0.690.29 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 11.59119.82:1 (1.11:1 SklingIttfle 100%1001 0.121.0 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 9.17:16.14,1 24.50.10.62,1 S411401011Soccer 100% 14% 10 7 0.110.1 0.620.50 0.240.4) 0.000.15 0.000.01 0.050.04 0.010.04 0.130.11 0.090.00 0.160.14 0.030.04 10.86:1 7.04:1 7.11110.64.1 In1eor2OutdilerTennis frock 100% ea% la 7 0.110.1 0.340.10 0.140.10 0.030.23 0.050.0t 0.140.0, 0.070.01 0.200.11 0 0300 001 0.0910./4110.01 7.94,0 4.22.12.411/ Water0.11.471611 Pole 100% 11% 21 0.351.20 0.21 0.29 0.000.12 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.450.12 0.010.00 0.11OM 0.10 9.1161/7.14.1 6.0311 OthorWrestling 100% 14 0.651.41 1.57 1.0, 0.241.7. 0.0'1.0 1.00 1.0 0.741.31 0.0'0.00 1.30 0.0' 1.46.00.10:1 1.7111 Gi INSTITUTIONAL'Coaching figures411140 ere not 4gu0ea1onclas: they Include full and part tie.. raduote aaaaaaa nts and volunte4ra. 114.59N PEST COPY nwinlE 21.21 7.6 0.20 2.10 2.) 1.51 0.06 0.34 0.66 2.21 0.1' 0.61 0.52 12.11:1 11.90:1 62 LL1121.11 DIVISION 1 AAA COACHING SALARIES. N Wend Conch.. 61 INSTITUTIONS A6s1stantConchs. SSSSS tontConchs NEWS ANO WHIM'S SPORTS "LIU 027.222 A SSSSSS In. (W000n'.1 1.3..Y 312.527 Auegost Cootned Selorlts 0461 $17.026 Ayor64o Cnoinod $41,101------Ild000n.61 3S.251 Ilmeltotall6.6.1.11/Sottal1 $65.114 $9.111 134.055 $7.627 364.151 $6.110 426.967 54.930 GregoP1611Fermin. Country Nockory $4.01] $14.616 $5.221 Coltftlyoult1111viaionil $11.730 $1.114 36.310 $16.726 12.110 »y SSSSSSIce Notk6y co $25.111$11.751 $17.506 120.150 So 26.66 lAccoose6101 $14.611 12.072 120.164 $7.206 SLIM. SoccerS6t1nr $14.007120.576 114.126$17.71$ $5.023$5.1112 $4.43$5.54 SlalmtInA1 aaaaa /Outdoor Track $16.616 31.611 $15.219$10.411 $11.232 36.766 $12.02 34.034 IdstittVol14YR*11 Polo 317.43$111.417 116.171 /10.144 31.120 16.111 4=911.9Otkee r 311.616314.411 310.1112 $6.04433.112 16.02 yowl.INSTITUTIONAL COACHING tIrrprrt AVSRACt 313 fAIITICIPAR (Averflas ill 166tItutIonl. Mon $165.74, $1111.514 41.712.16 $101.155 Woven - $1.526.16 $61.121 45

1 saaiazAthisa. Total Total

a. Number of full athletics grants- 11.11 in -aid awarded in 1990-91 =tau & l 112-154.1

b. Humber of partial ethlatice grants. ziaL 5191.491 11.11 190.67Q in-aid awarded in 1990.91

c. Number of athletics grants-in. 1.01 LL.111 2.11 aid extended to tba fifth year S.-1.211 in 1990-91

2. Prciramanduts. Hon w

a. Total expenditures for athletics progress 041 277 9195.014 b. Sources of revenue for athletics programs (check all that apply): Pernint.

(1) Cate receipts

(2) Student activity fans (athletics fee) 11.1

(1) Student activity feed (not related to 11..1 12.1 athletics)

(4) Guarantees and option. received 1Ll. Ala

(2) Contributions from alumni and others ALA 11.4

(4) Distributions from conference or ocher 11.1 organisations for bowl games. tournaments. television

(7) Direct state or other government support

1. cdunbi.n.sastsitnnsItsusisxLAtsit.

a. List the sunbet of full-time coaches (those caceivins bonafics):

Men's program: 1,21 Women's program: 2,11

U. List the number of part -time coaches:

Nat's program: 141 Women's presras:

c. List the number of graduate aoistanto:

Ken's props.: 1,,01 $100411.1 program: Las

d. Number of certified athletics training staff availaOle to progress:

Nen's program: 1,S1 W00411.11 program: 1.A1

4 duallgraLilk..1.1imlinilICSAJAUALLATideALILAL111/1/aAl=101

Mon' WOMAIS: 1.111 Ratio: 2,1211. lairami...tautnasa.

Perticipatios Grants-Ix-aid 21111 Total expenditures 24111

BEST t,i77,/ ..n Fr 7 65 WILL 111 Nuobec atAversie 01,11110N II 11012.562CIIC 11291101$15.Musket N . 166 at INSTITUTIONSAverso NuisherConcocts of AV.r.C. Number ofAvetreoe Oparatina Arecs(1 Oparat)ngAvorga Atcr4211221 Auersie PrtrultIns 00222244 1.01411/Softba1lMINIS 4140 6031E45 itOST$ acttclpents 04.43 11.11 flictlx1p67ts Ildoson.62 14.51 Scheduled14.1.0 46.62 Sch4duledNomen61Cantast 36.41 Expenses(19in'S2 221.217 (904.4'4)Expenses 512.7111 1.2Z-.9.)-Costs 51 .631 (W...... ) Costs 5442 Stemles6124111 Country 11.6314.94 11.40 9.74 27.29 7.40 16.46 7.45 539,640 50.352 225.661 54.614 55.196 1243 52.145 $321 71614reoc145 Moc84y 21.11 16.37 51.014 5447 Colt16411.11 11.1461.55 1 14 13.0210.51 10.17 1113.0114 57.594 07.0,4 510.51! 5514 $406 0yell1441041It. Noctoy 13.1417.10 12.41 31.00 1.50 11.12 $115.104 51,1121 511.424 121,741 1300 51.115 (lf143.ime". 141.41 1./1 24.10 5.00 11.00 9.13 10.0012.25 510.1114411.121 521.641 26.56/ 11115611 52445210 Socc4251.1161 24.5412.00 10.54 1.47 11.14 4.42 14.10 1.62 512.921021.114 520.519 51.541 51.341 3266 311/$147 5411mo1os941414 10.0011.24 111.21 1.93 11.3112 15 II12.14 20 514.415011.140 214.412 $4.5201 11113716 11.180 1747 Volloybelllodoor/Outdoor Track 12.31121.41 12.1121.35 24.5013.45 25.9414.02 514.041 57.744 314.7311$11.940 1700$120 31.214 5774 60452114/4.1.4 Polo 2/.4023.3P 17.4114.00 517.614519,574 51.27356.121 0144,INS9ITU2104441 AVCIAGE 162 0421.12 2916 II51 129 II 12.31 111 29 16.70 $190 410 3/.211 SY) 294 35.790 SI, 190 $9 elt 1 ('' k) 0 (-. '4 010011I011 II {TORS 111101110 UMW, No III INGT1M10141 A041.04 7.12.&...1.1 A0.(00 (Cont.1 / 0,8.10 MN'S 0240 100911111'3 Aut. CoathaaNo. of 441. Aut. Coat lusNo. of Male MaleSs lint*. Asat. of Coobtoo4 MaleSs 1.11.4 Assu. of Coselos1 Asst.No. ofCoaches fuel. Aut.No. Coachesof foul. foul*31 Cosbtuol /4m11,4 aaaaa1441 Comb lost f llesketull1 /3.010.11 1.47I. I 0.310.26 110.5957.047 09.111132.141 0.030.00 0.420.00 31.300 011 51 1..313 1/4441agCM., O0.00r, 1.35 0.22 04.024 54.215 0.02 0 0990 57.000 13.70212.111 0.101eet341111414 114.04y 0.010.93 0.0040.00 100.420 31.900 0.000.01 0 00 04.00. Glsoutics3t 11.447 1.711.00 0.47 130.137 33.000 $1.001 0.000.001 0.500.25 27.047 141111M1014iscress 0.000.110.07 0.000.44.0.00 33.00003.012 34.525 0.000.14 0.33 32.33 HO. 14004140111141 11.430.73 0.410.37 37.69734.917 32.13030.140 0.140.00 0.420.110 II 16.494 13.10111.44 7uels 0.11 0.10 111.511011.913 35.57132.1144 0.120.00 00.01 15 24.001 05.09317.14 I 114101taitalul144149erfOu14eet Pals 1 trace 4.309.110.71 0.4)11.21 33.73001.500 31.123 0,000.00 0.30 30.14 OtheroroatIlag 434 4.04 14.41731.004E 0.00 GO 0 43 11.f 14117111/110NAL 400.444 BEST C2PY AVAILARI 4.441.11 1.51 111.07 010.044 01.000 0 14 1 19 14 569 311.011 C 1 111 D19131011 11 0111611110MT Of 4111311CS 0143 COACIIKS ILLLS-14 N - 166 INSTITUTIONS 11 STATUS rr11.0 1644061 irr 59. 11.689.1 16.711.1 1.4 V.4164 mAsselvii 16 ti 11.7 ft* 10.1 0 0 100.0 11.4 011 13.413.1 44.166.1 to4.owi0wa400166616 Tr011 14644 11.17031. 46.174.1(6.4 llo 414 ell MS11 04.171.0 7 0 74.0 11 61 33 P !,0.1 COPY AMIABLE 410111100 II 4117341141137 011 5141.IITIC4 NM COMM.. P 134 I 110011 1C4414 Mir, Ir 104041111 411.004-110.440 Sao 000.134.110 314.300.714.444 114.000114.1141 $31 000-133.1114 $11.4117 IP 110.000334.1114 1 110 030114 Ott 101 000114 411 111 000SIt III 040 000 11 1e4 140 000 (0oe's) 11 141.11 1114.e) (11.4.1 1 1000 el 3 566113.111...412/11111.11e.t.a C7 ma mem I16I 7 6 I 10011 11 1 113I 14 (0441 I I/ 11 3 11651 I I 11 1 %if 4446111414 16041m4 L11904.Deem. e 0.44el141 40 41.1401.kkkkk 111E4 4 4.10 0 1 4I 21 -1.616A 444.11. 4I 1 4 0 0.11.13.114100/044.44 14.4411 13 1 141 Ins.e16.4 Polo CST CPV L =

O A_ O 0 0 -9 4.4 4,4IP NNITIAti AS3 'we 11.0.9 .11'0 0.1. IS20 C. 1'00 iiiillCI icor/1'11 (00 ',01 ellly $$$$$$$$ lomos 01 OOOOOO a OOOOO 0100 30 OOOOO 11 011 WIG . a 001 - a A 01 000 '0 II 11.1.1 71..1...... 1.1 PM. 1110 711014.0.0.1111 '1,1 4.1. Ellaillii101'0111 Mal41'11CE11 440 - 0.111 04 - . . 11'0 11'01re1 1 OOOOO .0 0 001 14'0$ 4 . . .IIII 00 ..11.II ..... 19 CO0 III 1440 IOC111.11 I1 101'0041'00 4(411 .- . 41111105 - I . II IC00 1411001.11 OOOOOOOOOO w0/041.0 .4 91 4 te 14 10'0$ CC 0 (Wit 0 11 04 . a 04MO . a. 41010'11 ell'AIC1'11 1001., my 0 0111 II0 00II 101.0tIS 0.1 00011$111.011 0440$ . a a 11 .001 a . 0 01'01 4'11 Ef',1Sett 6.010S30320 001 0 001 ((('41 4$ (01'4$ 00010 00010 - -. . 4010 . a. 100'1 It 0 11 111 104 ill. 0 illMill"001 00'10 10 et0'01 001 - . 4001011 . a. . ,0.41 111'10 0010011.11( 410 11 I 44 fit IS 1,1'00 1114 - a C4 . . /0'1 11 4 10'0 111'0 10 a 04 . a (1.14 00.4 0 00. CI0 10 It 140 I1'1111'11 [IS101'41 '(0 10SO - a . 4401 - . .3 00'00011'01 1111'01III'CI OOOOO 3 .14 01,0 40 00 0 10'11firt.(lt 141'11$ICI lit 0401 a. 414((I .- . Wit1 0'000.0 T04101/1100.11 0010e I.. 4 1.01 0 tut lllll04003 0 iv 0.04re ./ 001117033 .011 ..11.1 000. OOOOO . ee 20111, llllll es segenm 1/102 40111 (700.103) 031M 000 1100 sea) $0011.0112f01 itt . N '001140 01/10141.0141 111 00151410 rrirr, 0331.13 Jo Awns Ian --1- 1411.1-3.1 016111014 III StC4TAtICIIIC fItIN$11. PI Tot41 3a1a03 III TotalINSTITUTION/ Salary (Cont..' ) Total Solgy Total S. l..3 MOO 0110 .0114.1 SKIM falaty1N00.0)N04141 (00.00.0)Ital.ry 4o43oa U.S. CasMHe. .0 Kola 21400.01 Met. CotkeeHo t halo(0441004) of 1611(Moo.) f Ilfo.....01I7 Nolo 401Ho. f Cochfoul* (044'0) 4.114. t (6...0me) Coosho teo.) 0.14 .0 Ionsi IMon.al SO .0As 044.00.0) 14.111* 110.0.10.11So401.11/ ...... 11 4 I1.10 II 0.300.14 $6.701$4.411 10.1110/.140 0 010.00 0 Yo 11.110 14.143$1.40 1644141121'11.:-.-ILTI t a 0.440.14 0.1110.13 31.2101/.1)) 11.01/31.413 0.000.04 00.13 11 01.10031.116 $1.0411.10) 1441.il sotkey 3 1 1.01 0.04 1)1.100 $3.010 0 00 0 II 83.6i. 0.17 A 0 t 0.011 0.11 $1.170. $1.412 0.0)0.00 0.000 0 11.11. 104TeeOmaa 164040 0I h 1.141.4) 0.12 34./4256.1146 SI 101 0.00 0.10 33.101 1111210 t ft 0.360.)) 0.610.17 $4.444 $3.311 0.100.00 0 11 $3.00 14.71. 11...141foetalji.1tU' t t 0.10.07 0.400. 41 11.014$3.1611 II31.014 Of 0.100.00 0.110.10 11.044 01.1013.71 .40.4.20.440*oaf1 14.414 t t 0 1.1/0.11 0.070.11 16.1411.131 16.01711.044 0.140.0) 0.400.11 $4.01 141) 14.61$1.11 a 41140011 0010 t I t r.I00.40 0.1/ 31.01611.17) $1.411 00.10 00 0 14 $1.000 Dthore ...10041111. f 0.410.11 0.34 $1.46161.410 S0.01/ 0.140.00 0 4$ 11.00 $2.21 1=1131.1mlacatastiala0-1111101170T104AL .00010.440 MUM 1- 711.000.00.001 off .?-ttalII-Loolo-taAtia-tausallfa$1.400.10.000-44.4f 10.24 1.44 ,- 711.000. .4.640 -1l.001 040.04 17.101 fa$1.000.10.020-41.611.222scau,.L.,,, ...... 0.401 3.20 00...... 1 lo31.1.000 40 000010.01 34.16) $10.31 10.071.041010.000441 1.61/010.**0 Ja141.0011.0111.0 PIPPY AVAILABLE 6'111.10.9.1L15...1066'1'.418.111.000 20.000.00.011 J-241.000. ''11.210 0-t- 117.000.10.000311,000'10.0000)1. -6713 /3 3.141.000 kkkkk r-/./0 55

NCAA FACT SHEET

TITLS IX Of Tie IDUCATIOM NOICROKENTS Of1972

Title IX:

Title IX represents the principal legislative statement on gender equity that is applicable to theconduct of intercollegiate athletics. statute, enacted by Congress in 1972, This prohibits discrimination on the basisof sex in any education program or activity receivingFederal financial assistance.

In 1986, reacting to a Supreme Court decisionlimiting application of the statute to those educationprograms actually receiving Federal assistance, Congress passed a further law making itclear that Title IX applies to all operations of a higher education institution,any part of which receives Federal financial assistance.

Basic Requirements:

The regulation and policies of the Department ofEducation implementing Title IX require (1) that athleticsfinancial assistance be allocated in proportion to the numbers of maleand female participants In intercollegiate athletics. (2) that all other benefits,opportunities and treatment afforded participants of eachsex be equivalent, and (3) that the athletics interests and abilities ofwomen be accommodated to the same degree as those of man vita respect to the number ofparticipation opportunities, team competitive levels and selection of sportsoffered. Departures from these requirements are permitted if Justifiedby factors determined by the Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to benondiscriminatory.

Athletics Financial Assistance:

With respect to athletics financialassistance, the test of compliance is financial proportionality. The total amounts of athletics aid awarded to the members of each sex must besubstantially proportionate to the numbers of participants of that sex in theintercollegiate athletics program.

If the percentage of athletics aid awardedto each sex is not the same as the percentage of participants of thatsex, the determination whether substantial proportionality has been achievedis made by performing statistical tests. If the amounts awarded are substantiallyproportionate, or it any disparity can be explained bynondiscriminatory facto.s, the institution is found in compliance. Only aid based wholly or partly on athletics ability is included in the proportionalitycalculation.

Other Athletics Program Areas:

For all athletics program components otherthan financial aid, the basic test of compliance is equivalence-- the availability, quality and kinds of benefits, opportunities and treatment affordedthe members of each sex must

rry7 t ,;,,:-.Va 0Ai r 56

Justified by factors be equal or equal in effect, unless disparities are Although financial measures are used as determined to be nondiscriminatory. expenditures and budgetary means of ing equivalency in many whether an institution is allocations, in and of themselves, do not determine in compliance.

The following factors have been Identified byOCR as nondiscrlmina- unique toil considerations that may Justify departuresfrom equivalency: aspects of particular sports (but not includingthe capacity to produce revenue), special circltances of a temporary nature,special event affirmative action. management needs of spoc tor sports and voluntary

Accommodation of Athletics In wrests oad Abilities: of interests In log compliance with respect to accommodation and abilities, OCR examines whether n institution(I) provides participation opportunities (positions on teams) to male and female studentsin numbers (2) can show a substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments, o. responsive to the history and continuing practice of program expansion developing interests and abilities of the 'underrepresentedsex,' or (3) can demonstrate that the athletics interests and abilities of itsstudents of that The sex have been equivalently fully and effectiv*Iyaccommodated. participation opportunities provided must be at equivalentlyadvanced demonstrate a history competitive levels, or the institution must be able to warranted by developing and practice of upgrading competitive opportunities as Abilities.

Treetsest of Football:

Football is not treated sep ly from other parts of the intercollegiate athletics program. With respect to financial aid, the large number of athletes needed for a football team normallyincr he number of male participants in the overall program and thereforeincr c he amount of financial aid to be allocated to men under the proportionalitytest.

With respect to other athletics program components,certain special requirements of particular sports. including specificallyfootball, are recognized as nondiscriminatory differences just .tng departures from equivalency in such areas as medical services, es anent, facilities required for competition, maintenance of those facilities,special event management needs related to crowd else and special publicityrequirements.

offering With respect to accommodation of interests and abilities, football ordinarily incr. the number of participatic4 opportunities provided to men and therefore also is likely toincrease the number that must athletics interests and be offered to women to accommodate equivalently their abilities.

Program-Wide Assessment:

The appraisal of whether an institution hassatisfied the both requirements of Title IX is made on program-vide basis. This is true of

C'7 C.: a ri r""7:'171rrr+Vi 5P- IVI 53

NCAA GENDEI EQUITY SURVEY FACT SHEET

The Stud,: The gender-equity study,conducted leans of a confidential survey of NCAA 'ember institutions in the second half of MI, was authorised by the NCAA Council in response to request by the National Association of Collegthte Woman Athletic Administrators. The study was administered by the NCAA Committee oil Women's Athletics.

Purpose: The principal purpose of the study was to analyse expenditures for 'omen's and men's athletics program by institutionsin each of the *CAA's membership divisions. The survey was not developed with a vie, to determining conformity by NCAA members with the Federal regulations and policies issued under Title IX. Some of the data may be useful. however, in attempting to assess compliance by NCAA member institutions on average to current Title IX requirements related to the subjects of the survey.

Data Collection and Compilation: Usable survey responses,relating to the academic year 1990-91, were received from 646 institutions. Response rates ranged from over 92 percent in Division I-A to about 69 percent in Division III. Survey questions varied from division to division. !espouse data were caviled by the *CAA research staff.

Football: The sport of football had a dramatic effect on the ratios measured by the survey. It is a major revenue-producing sport for which no comparable 'omen's sport exists. It generates revenues that provide a financial nucleus for all sea's and .omen's intercollegiate programs.

Thenumber of individuals who participate, salaries for highly visible coaching staff, and the required equipment and maintenance to protect the participants and safely accommodate fans also require expenses that Orem the ratios for recruiting, coaching and operating costs. Operating expenses, for example, substantially exceed ge operating costs for all other men's and women's sports combined in Divisions I and II.

The number of athletics grants-in-aid permitted for this sport inflates the amount of soney spent on scholarships for men. The ratio of scholarship expenditures for NU and limn, however, is comparable to the ratio of male and female participants in intercollegiate athletics.

Institutional Enrollment: In Division I, average total enrollment vas divided in 1990-91 almost equally between men and women students, but in Division II, average enrollment of women was proportionately slightly higher (53.5 percent). Enrollment data were not collected in Division III.

Athletic, Participation: The timber of male participants in intercollegiate athletics programs exceeded female participants on average by 2.24 to 1 in Division I, 2.11 to 1 in Division II, and 1.17 to 1 in Division III.

we 54

for male student- athletes Scholarshios: DivisionI scholarshipexpenses averaged about $849,000 per institution, and forfemale student-athletes about $373,000, a ratio of 2.28 to 1. The ratio in Division II was slightly less (2.15 to 1), with male and female scholarship expensesaveraging $320,000 and scholarship expense $149,000, respectively. In each division, the naleffenalo participationratio, as ratiorather closely paralleledthe malelfemale required by Title I. scheduled about 10 contests Scheduling: On average, Division I institutions In general, a comparable number per sport for their men's and women's teens. of contests on average were scheduled for sportssuch as basketball, fencing. and women's teams were lacrosse,skiing and swimming in which both men's II, except that the sponsored. Similar data werereported for Division ge number of contests for men and women wereproportionately fever. not collected. In Division III,for which data on number of contests were responses on average disclosed that practicetimes for men's and women's LOAma were scheduled between 3 and 6 p.m. withalmost exactly the same frequency. for men's In Division I,average operating expenses Operating_ Expenses: which exceeded the sports exceeded those fot women's sportsby 3.42 to 1. II. the ratio was 2.15 male/female participant ratio of 2.28 to 1; in Division participants. In to1, close to the 2.11 to 1 ratio of male to female Division III, the operating expense ratio was 2.00to 1, somewhat greater than the male - female participant ratio of 1.87 to 1. individual sports in all divisions Review of average operating expenses by sports were on average indicates that to a major extent, non-revenue-producing comparably funded between the men's and women's programs. recruiting expenses for male In Division I,av tecroitinz ErDenses: by a ratio of 4.82 student-athlete exceeded those for fetal* student-athletes to 1. These data were not to 1. The comparable ratio in Division II was 3.08 collected in Division III.

the average percentage of malecoaches for men's Coaching: In Division I, teams teams was 91.6 percent, whereas only 44.8percent of coaches for woman's other division,. were female. This information was not sought in the

Average Division I ratio of participants tofull and pert-time coaches was 11.56:1 for women and slightly better for eosin's teams than for men'steams: participant favored 12.29:1 for men. Average Division I coaching expense per the men's program -- $2,501 for men and $2,040for wawa.

coaches for men'ssports received InDivision II.26.4 percent of head 11.1 percent of bead coachesin salaries in excess of 535,000, where's only Division III women's sports earned such salaries. Average data reported in of male head coaches received disclosed a narrower difference; 30.5 percent head salaries of $31,000 or higher, compared with19.0 percent for female coaches. 57 the financial aid compliance determination and the assess ments of whether (1) Interests and abilities have been accommodated, and (2) other benefitsand opportunities have been provided, equivalently. The comparisons that determine compliance are between the programa for male and female athletes, not specific sports, particular teams or specific ci f sports (such as 'major' versus 'minor' or 'revenue-producing' versus 'non-revenue-producing' sports).

Enforcement of Title IX by OCR:

Since the 1988 clarification by Congress of the full application of Title IX to intercollegiate athletics programs, about 46 complaints involving )6 institutions have been filed with OCR. In eleven of these, violations were found and remedial action noted or ordered;in 24, no violation was found or the case was closed for other reasons; and 11 cases are still pending.

Most recently,in a letter of findings related to Brooklyn College Issued last month, CCR found that although the college was in compliance as to the award of financial assistance, it was not in compliance with several other aspects of the athletics program, including the required equal accommodation of interests and abilities of students of both sexes. Based on assurances by the college as to certain anticipated actions, however, OCR found the college to be presently fulfilling its obligations under Title IX.'

Beginning in September 1991, OCR began conducting compliance reviews of intercollegiate athletics programs as to which no complaint had been filed.

Private Title IX linforcememt:

Although the Title IX statute contains no provision for a private party to bring suit to enforce its mandate, the Supreme Court held in 1979 that such a right was to be implied. It was generally believed that available private relief would be limited to equitable remedies such as an injunction. Late last month, however, the Court issued a further decision to the effect that at least with reference to intentional violation of the statute, a private party could collect monetary damages resulting from such violation.

Application to Athletics Program Reductioms:

Early last month, OCR circulated a draft memorandum to postsecondary institutions, warning of potential inadvertent violations of the Title IX statute that could result from budget- related reductions in the scope of the overall intercollegiate athletics program. Risks in this regard appear principally to relate to the requirement that the athletics interests and abilities of women students be accommodated to the same degree as those of men -- requirement that would apply equally both before and after the program reduction. e

IFr,-14 L/ b :1,1 58 Mrs. COLLINS. Mr. Schultz, since the passageof title IX 20 years ago, can you tell us exactlywhat NCAA has been doing for its member institutions to assure compliancewith the Federal law beside a newly formed task force? Mr. SCHULTZ. I really can't confidentlyaddress what has happened in the prior 15 years; I can talk aboutwhat has taken place in the last 41/2 years. I think up untilabout 4 years ago, basically the position of the NCAA. was to try toprovide information to the member institutions that would explain tothem what their responsibilities were as far as title IX is concerned.I don't think there was a strong effort on the partof the association to say it is important that you do this, that we aregoing to try to move this forward. I think probably the Grove Citylawsuit stymied a lot of those efforts on the part of a lot of peopleuntil the Restoration Act in 1988. In the last 4 years I think we havemade a real effort to provide direction and leadership for our members.The gender equity, the formation of the Women's Committee onAthletics, some special programs not only for women at ourNational Office and via scholarships but also for ethnic minorities toprovide opportunities and leadership, and a constant reminder bymyself and others that this is an important issue and has to be on thefront burner, not on the back burner. Mrs. COLLINS. In describing your surveydata, you keep comparing spending ratios for men's and women's sportsto participation ratios. Isn't the focus on participationratios rather than enrollment ratios self-defeating? In other words,isn't is possible or likely that if schools spend based upon participationrates they will per- petrate those ratios rather than improvethem? Mr. SCHULTZ. Do you want to address that? Mrs. COLLINS. Ms. Baker. Ms. BAKER. I think that becomes,Madam Chairwoman, one of the critical issues that needs to be resolvedprobably by the Office of Civil Rights in terms of interpretation ontitle IX. We have reached the point where weneed to know is that law going to be based upon enrollment orcontrived participation figures within intercollegiateathletics. That has not been determined. I think gender equity, as Mr. Schultand Ms. Howlett and I have been addressing it, goes well beyond thelegal requirements of title IX. They become the minimums, if youwill. Gender equity is a much larger issue than that. But certainly if we are going to look atthe larger issue, then we must look at participation figures.If an institution is 50 percent male and 50 percent female in its undergraduatestudent representation, then certainly all programsshould be equally available to both sexes, in my opinion. Mrs. COLLINS. Is that your opinion also, Mr.Schultz? Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes. J: think that the lawitself, the interpretation of it, has lent a fair amount of confusion,because when it comes to financial aid, participation seems to bethe measure, and when we talk about opportunities, enrollment seemsto be t ie measure, and I think this is an issue that needs tobe clarified, and I think it has been a point of confusion for some time. 59 I would like to reemphasize the point that Ms. Baker made in that we feel that title IX and gender equity, while they are synony- mous in some respects, are really two separate issues. It is ourfeel- ing that an institution could be in compliance with title IX and there still could be a tremendous variable in gender equity. Mrs. COLLINS. Mr. Crissman, did you do any figures on recruitment? Mr. CRISSMAN. No, we didn't, Madam Chairwoman. We basically looked at the compensation level for the positions within the athletic department. We did not get into such things as recruiting. The NCAA study in that respect was much more comprehensive than ours. Mrs. COLLINS. Tell me for the record what your statement says on recruitment, Mr. Schultz. Mr. SCHULTZ. Basically, to put it in very simplistic terms, there are substantially more dollars spent for the recruiting of maleath- letes than woman athletes. Mrs. COLLINS. Why? Mr. SCHULTZ. I don't know that there is a specific reason for that. I don't think there is necessarily an answer that you can pin- point and say this is a specific reason. I think probably the number of participants adds up to that. If you take a look at the sports, the big differences are in football and basketball. The other sports seem to be fairly comparable in recruiting expenses, and I think it goes back and reflects what we hate seen in this country in that football and basketball have been the major sports and that is where the major emphasis is placed, and I'm not saying that that is the way it should be, but I think that is part of the reason. Mrs. COLLINS. Could one of the reasons be that those are the sports that the networks are very interested in having and therefore more money comes to the schools? Mr. SCHULTZ. I think the fact that they are substantial revenue producers is one of the reasons. I'm not sure what part television plays in that today during the season. Mrs. COLLINS. I don't think the networks would want it if they couldn't show it on their screens and people wouldn't be sitting in front of their screens looking at it. Mr. ScHmirz. I think we have to point out that there is a substantial difference between in-season network television and championship network television. Since 1984 and the antitrust regulations that were passed down, the dollar value for in-season television has gone down dramatically, and I think that most institutions are more concerned about hcw many Two* show up for the games than they are necessarily the dol',. ! c-nrn television. Well, uoesn't it follow that if a team is on televi- sio.1, such . 'erhaps Duke, and people in some other parts of the country a... :. t as familiar with that basketball team, wouldn't that generate the kind of attendance that Duke might be interested in having? Mr. SCHULTZ. I think what it does is generate an awareness of the program aryl helps them in their recruitment process rather than the attendance process, but I think they are very interested in 60 having it from the standpoint of the fact that young men and women in California know about Duke and, when they are recruiting not only athletes but students, that there is an awareness that would not exist if it were not for the television exposure. Mrs. COLLINS. My time has expired. Mr. McMillan. Mr. MCMILLAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I think what we are talking about isn't some conscious policy by the institution to discriminate in a case like that, it has to do with interest level. I don't know how Duke funds their scholarship program. I think the University of North Carolina basically funds its scholarship programs through contributions. Contributions are related to interest, and certain sports generate more interest than others. Do we take those factors into account in analyzing these statistics? Mr. SCHULTZ. No, there wasn't an attempt to do that. These are just dollar amounts that were submitted. Mr. MCMILLAN. Well, doesn't that have a big impact on emphasis? Mr. SCHULTZ. It goes back to emphasis and what emphasis an institution places on a program. Whether it is an athletic program or whether it is an academic program will probably be reflected in the budget. Mr. MCMILLAN. But the educational foundation at the University of North Carolina is going to have a much more difficult time raising scholarship money for lacrosse than it does for basketball Mr. SCHULTZ. That is true. Mr. MCMILLAN. And what concerns me generally about surveys, whether they are within an institution in terms of disparities from one sport to an^'..er or among all institutions, are we looking at, say, UVA and Yale in the same light in terms of comparable compensation? Mr. SCHULTZ. Are you talking about for scholarships? Mr. MCMILLAN. Well, I am thinking at this point about compensation for coaches. Mr. SCHULTZ. Well, there is a substantial difference. Having been in both the Big Ten and the Ivy League and the ACC, there is a substantial difference in compensation between Ivy League coaches and ACC or Big Ten coaches. Mr. MCMILLAN. Are the surveys we are making taking into account the reasons why there are differences? Mr. SCHULTZ. No. Mr. MCMILLAN. Should they? Mr. SCHULTZ. That would be a very elaborate study and would be one that at some point in time might be of use. Mr. MCMILLAN. I just can't see that we can totally ignore the fact that some people have a more intense interest in an aggressive sports program in one sport or another or one gender or another than other institutions so the sheer comparability from one school to the next may not be valid unless you take that into some kind of consideration. Mr. SCHULTZ. I think that one of the things that probably the task force will be looking at and I know that athletic directors and 61 presidents will be looking at will be, is the dollar spent on recruiting actually needed, or are there excess dollars spent on recruiting, and can some of those dollars be diverted to other areas without damaging that popular program. There are many people that feel that there is an excess and that the same thing can be achieved for less dollars, making those dollars available in other areas, and I think recruiting in itself is something that not only this committee but others interested in cost reduction will be taking a very hard look at. Mr. MCMILLAN. Most of the compensation disparities arise not because someone sits back and says we are going to try to depress the compensation for women coaches and athletic directors,it arises out of competition for talent for producing a winning program. You know, Dean Smith may make more than the coach of the women's basketball team at North Carolina not because someone sat around and said we are going to pay the women's team less, it is a case of interest and competition over a long period of time, and I don't know how we are going to get around that. If I can make this slightly personal, should the head coach of the Virginia women's basketball team that went to the NCAA finals and the head coach of the men's team that won the NIT be paid the same amount? Mr. SCHULTZ. I think if they have comparable experience and comparable success, they should. Mr. MCMILLAN. Even though the interest in women's basketball may be different than that in men's basketball? Mr. SCHULTZ. In the example that you use, at the present time there probably isn't much difference in interest. Mr. MCMI-LAN. Maybe I used the wrong example. I could say the same about Stanford probably. Mrs. COLLINS. We are going to have another round. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. McMillen of Maryland. Mr. MCMILLEN. Thank you. The gentleman from North Carolina was referring to precisely the point I was getting at, that we are talking about a marketplace I mean these are businesses, supply and demand. That is exactly the values that we are not trying to promote on college campuses In the testimony it was mentioned it was the failure of the university community to resist powerful special interests as the reason why we haven't had gender equity in our sports today. Dick, in your testimony you say there is a practical limit at which institutions can :)ave money coming from basketball and football and going to other programs, that many of them are operating in operating deficits. Let me point out that the University of Texas just hired a football coach, Coach Mackevick, for $1 million a year. Now the Uni- versity of Texas presumably is able to do this because they are able to put women's programs second class, they get their students to pay fees when many times the students can't go to the games, they are playing in publicly built stadiums, and when a booster snakes tax deduction to the University of Texas sports program the Feder- al Government is picking up a third or a quarter of that; that iq a tax expenditure that helps subsidize the system.

59-428 0 - 92 - 3 t_Cl 62 The bottom line is, when I look at that, I say yes, whycouldn't you pay that coach $50,000 and put$950,000 into women's sports? How would you answer that? Mr. SCHULTZ. I'm not sure what Mr. Mackevick'scompensation package is. I would be greatly surprised if it is $1 millionfrom the University of Texas. I would probably assume itis more like $100,000 from the University of Texas and a televisioncontract from somebody outside and other situations likethat. That is usually the way those compensation packages are puttogether. Mr. MCMILLEN. But it is $1 million going to that coachthat could go to the system. There areplenty of other examples I could give you, but there is $1 million going tothat coach. I think the point is made. I mean there is really no justification for it. The reasonwhy schools are operating at operating losses is because youhave a rigged system; a few get rich, a few get poor. Another point I would like to make: Dick, you havesaid many times that you don't believe in Federal intervention.Would you, by definition, say title IX is Federal intervention? Is Mr. Scrwurz. Well, title IX is something that applies toall of education and all of higher education. Mr. MCMILLEN. But you would say it is Federalintervention? Mr. SCHULTZ. It is Federal regulation, yes. Mr. MCMILLEN. Has title IX been good? Mr. SCHULTZ. I think it has. Mr. MCMILLEN. Would gender equity in college sportshave occurred without it? Mr. SCHULTZ. I don't know. I think that is difficult to say.I think that it probably would not be as far as it is todayhad there not been some Mr. MCMILLEN. So you could clearly say thatbecause of Federal intervention we have at least a pittance of genderequity? Mr. SCHULTZ. That is probably correct. Mr. MCMILLEN. OK. Do you control all of your revenuesof your member institutions? Does the NCAA? Mr. SCHULTZ. No. The other revenue we control iswhat is developed from our championships. Mr. MCMILLEN. What don't you control? Mr. SCHULTZ. We don't control ball games, in-seasontelevision, gate receipts, radio Mr. l'ilcIALEN. Football? Mr. ScHuurz. Of any of those sports. Mr. MCMILLEN. Football revenues? Mr. SCHULTZ. No, we don't control any football revenues. Mr. MCMILLEN. Why is that the case? Whydon't you control those revenues? Mr. SCHULTZ. The NCAA has never controlled anyin-season revenues. The only revenue thatthe NCAA was involved with was television, in-season television, from about, I guess,the late 1950's or so until 1984. Mr. MCMILLEN. Was the loss of control related tothe 1984 Su- preme Court decision? Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes. Mr. MCMILLEN. In other words, that fragmentationof college television revenues resulted because of the 1984decision?

C 63 Mr. SCHULTZ. As far as football is concerned. The NCAA was never involved in in-season basketball television. Mr. MCMILLEN. Does it make it difficult for you to promote gender equity when you don't have full control? I think that is important for the record. Mr. SCHULTZ. Well, I'm not sure that gender equity ties into the football television, because that money was just returned to the institutions. Mr. MCMILLEN. It is all part of the pot of money, isn't it? It is part of what the GAO is looking at in terms of the kind of gender equity that is occurring. The point I am making is that the 1984 decision, the fragmenta- tion of college revenues, is exactly the reason why you can't achieve gender equity. You don't have control. Until you get control back and have a whole new revenue distribution pie, that is exactly the purpose of the legislation we have introduced. And, as I said before, I think you are doing a wonder -ul job trying to push this system. I think you are not empowered to get control of it. I mean you are not going to be able to buck the interests that say, "I want to pay this coach $1 million." Let me ask you another question. Are you afraid of an athlete who is going to take this system to court and say, "I am a laborer; I want employee rights; I want workmen's compensation; I want to be able to collective bargain; I don't want to be impeded in my ability to go the pros"? Are you afraid of an athlete taking a system to court? Mr. SCHULTZ. Not at the present time, because the athlete has the right to leave school any time they want to. Mr. MCMILLEN. Can the athlete have collective bargaining? Could they collectively bargain? Mr. SCHULTZ. With the institution? Mr. MCMILLEN. With the NCAA. Mr. SCHULTZ. No. Mr. MCMILLEN. Can they have an agent? Mr. ScHuurz. No. Mr. MCMILLEN. Can they have representation? Mr. SCHULTZ. They can. Under new legislation they do have the right to some negotiation. Mr. MCMILLEN. Are they covered by Workers' Compensation? Mr. SCHULTZ. No, they are not an employee. Mr. MCMILLEN. Yet a coach can make $1 million in the system, but the athlete takes an extra $25 from the school and the athlete may very well go on probation. Mr. SCHULTZ. Of course, I have some concern about salaries that people are making, but I think it is a stretch to start comparing coaches' salaries with athletes, because those coaches that are earning those salaries, most of them were one-time athletes, they have paid their dues, both men and women, they have received their education, and they have been in the job force. Mr. MCMILLEN. I certainly don't want to deny anybody their right in a normal marketplace, but if you want to go to a normal marketplace and make this a marketplace, then let's open it all up, let's have athletes have the right to bargain, let's have a full- fledged business, let the IRS come in, let's regulate it as a business, 64 let's make it a business. I mean why do we operate as arigged system when we don't comply with titleIX, we don't do lots of things we are supposed to do? I mean either we aregoing to be colleges and universities or we are going to be abusiness, but you can't be half-way. Thank you. Mrs. COLLINS. There is a vote on the floor of the Houseof Repre- sentatives, and therefore we are going to recess for 10minutes. [Brief recess.] Mrs. COLLINS. This hearing will come to order. Mr. Towns. Mr. TowNs. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. First of all, Ms. Baker, let me congratulate you asthe new athletic director, and I'm certain that the programs atMichigan State University are in good hands, so we won't worry aboutthem too much, but those other universities we feel we mustbe concerned about. Ms. BAKER. Thank you. Mr. TOWNS. Let me just say, Mr. Schultz, I have atremendous amount of respect for you, and I think that yourcommitment and dedication are truly there; there are no ifs, ands, orbuts in my mind about that: But I want to follow up on a questionthat my colleague, Congressman McMillen, raised in reference totitle IX being Federal intervention, and I also look upon thefact of the student athlete's right to know. There was a lot of concernabout that, and then after we moved forward with it, Imink at the next NCAA meeting, the next convention, a lot of changes were proposed. So what I am saying is that sometimes I think onthis end we have to help you get everybody's attention. I knowthat sometimes you say, well, the FederalGovernment should not be involved in it, and I listen to you and I hear you, but, at the sametime, when you look at-how long this has been going on, and whenI listen to the statistics that are put forth by GAO, and then I listen to comments that are being made, and then when you look atthe salariesI mean you just sort of keeplooking, and you just keep looking, and one would say that if there is noFederal intervention at all and nobody here is saying anything, how long do youthink it would take to correct this? Mr. SCHULTZ. I think there is a difference between, I guess,how you would interpret Federalintervention, whether you consider legislation to be intervention or hearings like this and pressure being intervention. I don't view hearings such asthis or the concerns of the Congress regardingwhat goes on in any area of higher education as being intervention. I feel that that is a pressureand that is good and sometimes that helps us get thingsgoing. We have talked about title IX and that law perhapsbeing Feder- al intervention, and I guess we could reverse that alittle bit and say that if that is a sample ofFederal intervention, has it really been successful as we look at the charts and review thenumbers? I guess the point I would like to make is than. I like the pressure; I want all the help I can get to make changes.I think the Presi- dents Commission feels the same way. I think in this respectthe Knight Commission has been very, very importantbecause it has

9 i 65 been another resource, another pressure point, another areaof concern, but many times when laws arepassed they are intended for one thing and they end up havingother impacts, and I just feel that the pressure is good, I would like to see that change come,because if the change takes place from thepeople who are involved it will be the right change and the appropriate change, andthey will be able to deal with those issues without encumbrances.Sometimes Federal legislation creates more expense and moreencumbrances than we sometimes realize. Mr. Tow Ns. On that note, how has that happened with titleIX? Has it happened with title IX in terms of the fact. thatsometimes we move in the wrong direction orthe wrong outcome? Mr. SCHULTZ. Well, I think the jury is still out whether titleIX; has been effective. I think the legislation is certainlythere, but without the 1988 legislation, the original legislation wouldhave been fairly effective because of Supreme Court rulings, andI think the jury is still out as to whether that legislation iseffective. I think the commitment that we want to make is that we want to meet those standards and we want to see genderequity whether the law is enforced by OCR or whether it isn't enforcedby OCR. Mr. MCMILLEN. Would the gentleman yield for 10 seconds? Mr. TOWNS. I would be happy to yield to my colleague. Mr. MCMILLEN. I think the only unintended consequencehas been the noncompliance with title IX. I mean that hasbeen the fact. Mr. TOWNS. I agree. I think that is the real issue. Let me just tell you what my problem really is here, andI feel somewhat frustrated to a degree, and that is why I amhappy, Madam Chair, that you are really moving on some of theseissues. I think that you are committed, I really do, but you reallyhave a very difficult task because youdon't have the purse strings to be able to sort of put people in place. When you look at thesalaries just reported here, in reference to the salaries betweenfemale coaches, and then when you take that to black femalecoaches, then the situation gets worse. I know that you have tried to do some things, but I justthink that under the present structure I don't think any of uswill see it during our lifetime if we just let it go as business as usual. Mr. SCHULTZ. Well, let me ask you this. In what other areaof our society does Congress legislate whatsalaries should be outside of the Federal Government? I think when we get intosituations where we are going to try to legislate people's incomes, then we are probably moving away from one of the basic tenets on which this country was founded. Mr. Tow Ns. We do have a minimum wage law. Mr. SCHULTZ. I know we do. Mr. TOWNS. Maybe we might have to apply it here with women. Mr. MCMILLEN. Would the gentleman yield on that?Almost every State universitya lot ofthem have statutory limits on what they can pay their professors and their presidents and thelike. That is just part of being a public institution. Mr. TOWNS. Of course. Mr. SCHULTZ. Again, I will come back to the point that youad- dress about the University of Texas. I think you wouldprobably -0

66 find the salary the University provides is probably within those statutory limits. Again, the inference was made that all those other dollars would go into resolving other issues. I guess I would take exception to that. It is just like somebody saying ifyou make a contribution of $3 million from a private donor to women's athleticsor men's athletics that you are taking money away from the rest of the university. I don't agree with that. I think a person provides support and provides money because they have a special interest, and if that interest wasn't there they would not automatically give that to the engineering department, and I think we have to keep that in mind. Intercollegiate athletics are very popular, andsome sports are very popular, and some sports are going to receivemore support from the private sector than others, and that is something thatwe have to realize exists, and that many times is reflected in compensation. Now the Presidents Commission, through legislation, has finally put themselves in a position where, if they want to control those salaries and those outside sources of income, theyare going to have the right to do that, because under current legislation, in advance of any outside compensation directly related to intercollegiate athletics, that coach or athletic director will have to have thatap- proved in advance by the president; that has not existed in the past. That would lead to television contracts, to shoe contracts, whatever those sources are. So some of the concerns that you are talking about have been recognized. We are attempting to deal with those ina way that is legitimate knowing also that that probably will be tested by the courts at some point in time. Mr. Tow Ns. Madam Chair, I know my time has expired, and I hope to get another round. Mrs. COLLINS. We are going to have another round. Mr. TowNs. Yes. I disagree with a lot of that, but anyway go ahead. Mrs. COLLINS. Well, the gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Schultz, my principal concern throughout the subcommittee hearingsand this is the fourth onehas beena concern for the education of the student athlete. Recently I calledupon the NCAA Presidents Commission, which you just mentioned, to considerpro- posals requiring schools to present their hiringprograms and their proposals to deal with minority hiring in title 13( compliance. Inow understand the Presidents Commission has establisheda subcommittee to investigate these very concerns, and according toyour testimony the NCAA Administrative Committee has establisheda gender equity task force. My question to you is, after 20 years of title IX legislation, for example, and after 86 years of the NCAA's existence, howcan you convince those of us in Congress that the NCAA is committed to bringing about these reforms? Mr. ScFaturz. I'm not sure that I will convinceyou. The only thing I can do is give you my own personal commitment to that. I think our presidents are committed to that. I thinka lot of our administrators are committed to that, and I think that thingsare in motion to deal with these issues, and I think that with the mecha- 67 nism in place we probably have the ability to deal with those as fast as anyone can, and I'm hopeful that you will see some progress. Mrs. COLLINS. I suppose one of the things I wanted to hear you say is that there were some kinds of actionsthat this newly formed study group is going to be looking at. Can you tell us any kinds of actions that are likely to be considered? Mr. SCHULTZ. Well, the charge of the committee will be to come up with solutions to solve the gendcr equityproblems that we have recognized in our study. We are not in a position to announce the entire task force as yet, but I can give you an example or I can give you the names of some people who havealready agreed to serve on that, and I think you will see that we are going to have good divergent representation, that the interests and the concernq,will be raised. Chris Voles, the women's athletic director at Minnesota, who is a representative of the National Association of Collegiate Women Athletic Administrators; I mentioned Judith Albino, the president of the Colorado system; she will be representing the Presidents Commission; Phyllis Howlett, who is chair of the NCAA Women's Commission; Donna Lopiano, recertly named executive director of the Women's Sports Foundation: Ellen Vargyas, who will testify later today, representing the National Women's Law Center; Judy Sweet, the current president of the NCAA; in addition to that, we will have representation from the Knight Commission and others, a female coach, a male coach, a womanathlete; we hope that it will be a very divergent group and that they will meet head on the challenges that are out there in solving these problems. Mrs. COLLINS. Ms. Howlett, representing the Women's Commis- sion, have you thought about any kinds of sanctions that might be imposed if there is not more equity? Ms. HOWLETT. It would be premature to indicate any sanctions, but I think that the one thing that we said at the announcement of the survey was that everything has to be on the table if we are really going to attack the problem, and I think that we will have access to the entire system because we have tohave the full plate in order to know what we are going to do about it. Mrs. COLLINS. Well, let me suggest some possible sanctions to you. It would seem to me that in order to getthe kind of equity that the law addresses, perhaps some schools could be put on probation if they have not complied, that there could be restrictions on their appear-nce in post-season championship games, that possibly there coup: be some allocating of revenues from the NCAA to a tournament using title IX compliance as one of the criteria. I think these kinds of sanctions would help to get us where we want to go, and I think anything absent those kinds of what I consider to be tough sanctions would really not help to resolve the situation that we are in 20 years after title IX. Ms. How Lorr. Those are good suggestions. Mrs. COLLINS. So I hope that when you are considering these things that those are some of the kinds of sanctions you will consider. Would you agree that a school that spends considerably more money recruiting men and women in violation of titleIX should be 68 subject to those sanctions at least as harsh as the NCAA poses on breaking its recruiting ruleseither of the three of you? Well, Mr. Schultz, it looks like you got selected. Mr. SCHULTZ. Sanctions are determined by the members themselves. This is true with enforcement sanctions, it is true ofany sanction that we have on the NCAA. So I think that one of the challenges of this task force will be to determine what issues should be put forward legislatively, and we hope that we can fast- track at least that part of it so that they can meet the August 15 deadline that we have for January legislation. Mrs. Coums. Do you nave any rules on how schools ought to spend their money from the NCAA basketball tournaments? Mr. SCHULTZ. No. The only restriction that is placed has to do with academic support, and there was $25,000 last year, there will be $30,000 this year, that has to go for academic supportprograms for athletes. Other than that, we don't attempt to tell them how to spend the revenue that comes from those championships. Mrs. Coums. Whcm we discuss spending on women's sports,we find that colleges have to find some new sources of revenue, and I think that you have made that pretty clear to us, because there is a practical limit at most institutions of the extent to which we can expect football and basketball to provide the funds. Why can't the NCAA do more to control costs of these sports? I mean is there such a thing as a practical number of foctball scholarships or a practical number of coaches? Mr. SCHULTZ. These have been addressed somewhat in legislation that took place in 1991 reducing the size of coaching staffs, reducing scholarships. Part of that action was reversed at this lastcon- vention relating to scholarships for women's sports, and that, I think, was the first attempt by some of the members to take a look at gender equity and be sure that women's scholarships were not cut until we could really see what the big picture was. But there have been reductions in coaching staffs, and I think that one of the ways that we are going to probably be able to resolve, if we are ever able to resolve, the participation differences is to place some restrictions on the number of participants in some of these key sports. Mrs. COLLINS. And if you placed restrictions on some of those, if you put some kind of limits on spending, would there be more money available for women? Mr. SCHULTZ. Any time you can save money in one area, it makes more dollars available in another area. Mrs. CowNs. I just wonder why nobody has thought about that until now. thinMr. SCHULTZ. k I think a lot of people have thought about it, but I Mrs. COLLINS. Well, why haven't they done anything about it? Mr. SCHULTZ. That is the answer. There is alwaysa reluctance to cut individually. This is why they usually come back with national legislation to try to do that. Mrs. COLLINS. I-IONV many women are members of NCAA? Mr. SCHULTZ. How many women? Mrs. COLLINS. Yes. 69 Mr. SCHULTZ. I couldn't giveyou that number off the top of my head. Mrs. COLLINS. Do you think it isabout 50 percent women and 50 percent men? Mr. SCHULTZ. Well, we know whatthe ratio is in athletes; it is about 1 to 3. If you are talking aboutcoaches and administrators and others, I don't have that atmy fingertips. Mrs. COLLINS. I just wonder, if it isbecause it is such a male dominated thing, is that thereason why women have been short- changed for these 20 years? Mr. SCHULTZ. Weil, we have only hadwomen athletics in the NCAA for 10 years, soyou can excuse the first 10 years with that. Mrs. COLLINS. Mr. McMillen. Mr. MCMILLAN. I would just liketo comment that women only got started 10 years ago, theyare making much more rapid progress than men. Mrs. COLLINS. That is becausewe are smarter. Mr. MCMILLAN. I learned thata long time agothe first day of school, every time I go homeat night. We need to hold a hearing on it. I have a letter, Madam Chairwoman,addressed to you from Mi- chael L. Williams, assistant secretaryfor civil rights at the Depart- ment of Education, who was invited toappear here today and could not, and I would like to ask unanimousconsent to make this part of the record. Mrs. COLLINS. Without objection, it isso ordered. [Testimony resumes on p. 84.] [The letter and attachments follow:]

46 70

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL. RIGHTS THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

APR - 8 02

Ponorable Cardiss Collins Chairwoman Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection and Competitiveness House Committee on Energy and Commerce House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Madam Chairwoman:

I commend you for holding hearings on Thursday, April 9, to discuss equal opportunity for women in intercollegiate sports.

While I would have preferred to testify at the April 9 hearing, so that the Subcommittee would have the opportunity to obtain a complete picture of the Title IX issue and current enforcement activities, I look forward to appearing before the Subcommittee at some future date. As you know, I have met with Subcommittee staff recently and would like to share with you an overview of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforcement activities of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

In December 1990, I issued OCR's National Enforcement Strategy (NES), a plan designed to focus our limited discretionary resources on high priority education' equity issues recognized by Congress, parents, students, educators and other interested parties. The responsibility of colleges and universities to ensure equal athletic opportunity for students was named one of the seven high priority 1991-92 NES issues (see attached).

As a result, in 1991 OCR initiated six compliance reviews, or 15 percent of the total reviews for the year, in this area and others are planned for 1992. Our efforts are especially significant in light of the fact that in only three of the preceding ten years did OCR initiate more intercollegiate athletic compliance reviews -- eight in 1983, 1984 and 1988 -- and further, because few complaints alleging sex discrimination in intercollegiate athletics are filed with OCR. In 1991, OCR received only nine intercollegiate athletic complaints out of a total of 3,800 complaints.

I believe that equal opportunity for women in intercollegiate sports is a significant educational issue, despite the relatively low number of complaints received by OCR, and I have directed my staff to be aggressive in the provision of outreach technical assistance. OCR has participated in numerous seminars, conferences and workshops showing university

400 MARYLAND AVE. SW WASHINGTON. D.0 202021100

e 7 71

Page 2 - Honorable C.ardiss Collins

officials how to comply with Title IX. We have updated, revised and reprinted 15,000 copies of a 1988 OCR publication entitled 'Equal Opportunities in Intercollegiate Athletics.- Revisions to the Athletics Investigator Manual issued in April 1990 are currently under consideration to take into account recent OCR investigator experiences and concerns raised by interested parties.

I will soon issue guidance explaining how institutions may avoid conflicts with Title IX when grappling with the fiscal concerns that may lead to the termination of sports teams.

Again, I look forward to testifying on this most important issue of equal opportunity for women in athletics and OCR's enforcement and technical assistance outreachactivities.I request that this letter be entered into the hearing record.

Sincerely,

1/4/, ichael L. illiams Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

cc:J. Alex McMillan

0 7) 72

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF THL ASSISTA ter SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

I INTRODUCTION

Universal access to public education is more fundamentally an expression of our deeply shared commitment to opportunity to - of our view that individual merit will prevail if given an equal chance . .. The challenge of the past has been to break down the barriers to that opporturtuy.It is a task that is not yer finished.

Vice President George Bush July 28, 1987

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR)is first and foremost an enforcementagency Its' primary purpose, mission and roleis to ensure thatrecipientsof Federalfinancial assistance do not discriminate against Americans students, faculty or other individuals on the basis of race, color, national origin. sex, handicap and age.

Education is the vehicle by which Americans have made real their dreams for a better life W.E.B. Du Bois wrote, 'Education and work are the levers to uplift a people. Work alone will not do it unless inspired by the rirk, ideas and guided by intelligence.'Uplift - - both individually and as a Nation depends upon nothing more than educating the American people. And itis through educationthat we will be best positionedto improve the standards of living of American families, protect and defend democratic liberties at home and abroad, and strengthen the moral fibre of our nation.

OCR's role is straightforward, but extremely important - - to enforce the civil rights laws and to assist recipients to cc mply with those laws. OCR must become a moreeffective and visible agency; it must set clear priorities, develop and disseminate policy on the crucal civil rights issues, and strengthenits compliance, enforcement and technical assistance activities.

Yet, at this juncture, OCR fires a critical situation in terms of accomplishingits mission Regular complaint tempts have increased so significantly over each of the pastthree years that comp imeengatices now consume almost all of OCR's resources.This increase shows no sip of tagering off; complaint receipts now exceed any previouslevel in the agency's history.

It is a tribute to OCR's staff that the agency has maintained such an excellentrecord in complaint investigations. Since 1986, OCR has met more than 90% of the timeframes for complaints filed with the office. In 198$, 1989, and 1990, OCR has met 95% or moreof its complaint promising time frames.OCR is perhaps the only Federal civil rights enforcement agency where an individual can expect, and will get, a pit; .ptresolution or his or her complaint.

0 3 IJ 73

Page 2 - OCR Enforcement Strategy

This national enforcement srategy builds on such accomplishmentsof the past. As in the past, OCR will continue to investigate complaints consistent with the agency'stime frames. The thrust of this document, however, is to describeOCR's goals for a more comprehensive and balanced enforcement strategy to supplement,and complement. OCR's complaint investigation program.This will enable OCR to focus its available resources on many important issues that do not usually arise through complaintsand to initiate investigations of broader impact thanare found Ir. most complaint allegations. Key aspects of the enforcement strategy are:

I) integrating OCR's compliance reviewprogram into a comprehensive and well-coordinated program of policy development, staff training,compliance reviews, technical assistance and policy dissemination.

2) Monitoring corrective-action plans will be givena new emphasis and very high priority. Monitoring is not an optional activity andmust be carried out where compliance problems hare been found. On-site monitoringwill be encouraged, where needed, and complaint and compliancereview investigations will be tracked through OCR's automatedsystems until all monitoring activities are completed. Corrective-action plans and monitoring will also be addressed as a priority through OCR'sQuality Review Program.

3) Restructuring OCR to more effectively accomplish its mission. Specific organizational and staffing realignments will be carried outto increase staff resources In OCR's regional offices and to realign thegeographic boundaries of some regional offices to enable them tocarry out a more balanced program.

II. HIGH PRIORITY ISSUES (FY 1991 and FY 1992)

The issues listed below will receive special emphasis because ofa growing concern that 'the practices of some educational institutions severely nhibit the provisionof equal educational owortunities in violation of the civil rights statutes.

FY 1991 PRIORITY ISSUES

I. Equal Educational Opponuniiies for National Origin Minority and Native-American Studenu Who are Limited - English Proficient

2. Ability Grouping That Results in Segregation on the Basis of Race and National Origin

3. Racial Harassment in Educational Institutions

1 0 0

L'iZSI C2.71 -11,drfilluIts, ;MI F 74

Page 3 - OCR EnforcementStrategy

Provide Equal EducationalOpportunities to 4. Responsibilities of School Systems to Pregnant Students Special Ed-zation and RelatedServicesforCertain S. Appropriate identification for Handicaps Student Populations; e.g.,'CrackBabies' and Homeless Children With in Athletics Programs 6. Discrimination on the Basis of See in Admissions Program; and inthe Provision of 7. Discrimination on the Basis of Race Financial Assistance toUndergraduate and Graduate Students disseminating policy statements OCR will also give priorityin FY 1991 to developing and importance. Educational Choiceand AttentionDeficit on two other issuesof national willcontinue.to define the Disorder (ADD). On the issueof Educational Choice, OCR of school systems and Stateagencies that are implementing, or civil rights responsibilities of Educational plans.Because of the variety and scope planning to implement, Choice to be onacase-by-case Choice plans across the nation,these polio. issuances will continue basis tailored to the speciricproposal. interested persons are concernedabout students who ha..e Finally, many parents and other Deficit Disorder (ADD), andwhetherit:5 been dizjnosed as havingAttention widely publicize; Section 504.In FY 1991, OCR will handicapping condition under is a handicapping condition on policy on ADD, under whichOCR analyses whether ADD a case-by-case basis. FY1992 PRIORITY ISSUES Students in Special EducationClose:. I. Over Inclusion of Minority

2. Saual Harassment of Students Practices That Result in theIllegalRe- 3. StuddsVozuferand School Assignment my's:114oneMinority Students in the Admission ofStudents to Graduate and 4. Discrtmlnation on the Basis of Age Professional School: and National Origin inStudds Discipline S. Discrimination on the Basis of Race and Women to Panicipatein Math and Science 6. Equal Opportunity for Minorities Coupes

1 0 i 75

Page 4 - OCR Enforcement Strategy

For an example of how the enforcement strategy can work.see the proposed activities to be accomplished for the high priority issue ofEqual Educational Opportunities for National Origin Minority and Native-American Srudeius Whoare Limned- English Proficient.

o Develop a deflattive policy statement- ,regarding the responsibilities of recipients under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

o Develop investigative guidance for regional staff to followin investigating complaints or conducting compliance reviews, including model Investigative plans.

o Widely publicize the policy to Interested groups, i.e.,representattvesfrom the educational and civil rights community; and stronglyencourage recipients to develop and disseminate internal policieson the itme.

o Provide technical assistance and policy workshops to recipientsto assist them in the development of such policies.

o Provide training/policy implementation workshopson investigative strategies and the application of the policy guidance to keyOCR regional legal, sr pervisory aut. investigative staff.

o Initiate a nationwide compliance review program.

o Publicize the results of key OCR investigations on the Issue,including summaries of the issues examined, evkience gathered,findings reached, and corrective action obtained, where appropriate.

o Carry out follow-up activities related to implementation of the enforcement strategy. Many of these follow-up efforts would carry over into thenext fiscal year and Include activities such as:

moaltoring corrective action plans;

revhing policy documents and model investigative plans in light of the lessoms learned; and

identifying additional compliance review or other activities to be koaducted based on a review of the overall results of the year's activities.

o Work closely with other offices in the Department ( e.g.,tbe Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs (OBEMLA),Office of

1.02 76

Page 5 - OCR Enforcement Strategy

Elementary and Secondary Education) to coordinate Departmental resources in developing research and other programs, and to coordinate technical assistance activities.

The underlying premise of this National Enforcement Strategy recognizes the inter- relation of all our activities, and taps into OCR's hill range of resources totackle these major education equity compliance issues.

We do not plan to complete every activity for every targeted issue. We will concentrate, however, on those activities that will result in a cohesive enforcement strategy.

!IL IMPLEMENTA770N ACTIVI77ES

Discussed below are the specific activities and methods OCR will use toimplementis overall enforcement strategy.

A. POLICY AGENDA

A priority of the OCR enforcement strategy is to developup-to-date policy documents for the high-priority issues listed above, as well as for other significant issues.To ensure these issues are addressed in a uriely manner, OCR will prepare an annualPolicy Agenda that sets forth the key policy documents to be developed and disseminated to regional staff and other interestedparties.

The Policy Agenda establishedfor FY 1990 resulted in the development of approximately 15 policy documents, several of which address OCR's highpriority issues for FY 1991. In turn, the FY 1991 Policy Agenda focuses on the highpriority issues to be addressed in the FY 1992 enforcement strategy.

Generally, policy documents will be circulated initially in draft toregional staff to obtain their comments. This will ensure that final policy documents reflectthe experiences of regional staff who investigate these issues. In addition, OCR hassought, and will continue to seek, the advice and counsel of interested personsregarding civil rights policy issues, as well as knowledgeable members of the generalpublic.

Consistent with our overall enforcement strategy, these documentswill be widely distributed to interested parties, as will future documents produced as partof the OCR Policy Agenda.

103 77

Page 6 OCR Enforcement Strategy

B. NVESTIGATIVE STRATEGIES

A significant aspect of the enforcement strategy is to ensure that OCR regional staff have the skills, knowledge and overall support needed to carry out high quality investigations.Additional assistance to regional staff with regard to the high priority issues is particularly important because of complexity of the legal and policy issues raised and the need for consistency in a national program of compliance reviews and technical assistance activities.The activities discussed below are designed to support implementation of the enforcementstrategy, especially at the regional office level.

I. Investigative Guidance

For each high priority issue, appropriateinvestigative guidance will be provided to regional office staff to supplement the policy guidance.For example, on most issues AnnotatedInvestigative Plans will be developed to provide detailed instructions related to the specifics of the investigation, including the type of data to be collected, the analytical process to be followed, and a discussion of the applicable case law and policy. Development of these Plans and their distribution to all regional offices will help to ensure consistency in the investigation of the high priority issues, and avoid having each regional nffice spend valuable staff time developing separate investigative plans for each issue.Regional offices will adapt the AnnotatedInvestigative Plan to the particular institution under rv.iev.

OCR also will identify well-developed investigative plans prepared by regional office staff on significant issues and distribute them to all regional offices.

2. Investigation Strategy Workshops

In FY 1991 OCR will initiate a series of Inv.istiption Strategy Workshops where OCR legal and policy experts will lad discussions and work sessions for regional investigators, attorneys and managers to provide them with an opportunity to discuss techniques for investigating particularly complex issues, and for analyzing the data necessary to reach a determinationof compliance or non-compliance. These sessions 'MR be held periodically to address the enforcement issues and v.ill be given funding priority from the available training funds. The first session, to be held in January 1991, will address the high priority issues for FY 1991.

The Workshops will be (=ducted by headquarters and regional staff who have expertise in the various policy and legal issues under consideration. Regional surf selected to attend the workshops will be responsible for sharing the information discussed in the workshops with their respective regional offices. Other staff experts on various issues will be identified and their names circulated OCRwide

10/2

PEST CEPY AVAILABLE 78

Page 7 OCR EnforcementStrategy

offices,and as poienual facultyforfuture resources forotherregional training/workshopactivities.

C. COMPLIANCE REVIEWPROGRAM with each Region.] In the past, OCR's compliancereview program has'been decentralized, and which issues would be sodressed within a given Office determining which recipients to directto compliance redew year. Inasmuch as OCR now has limited resources the compliancereviews selectedin the future be investigations,itis importantthat coordinated within the framework of anational OCR enforcement strategy. select most of Accordingly, for FY 1991 and subsequentyears, each Regional Office will by the Assistant Secretary its compliance reviewissues from the list of issues designated Regional offices will continue to selectthe compliance review sites, as high priority issues. within the office of the 11.puty AssistantSecretary but these selections will be coordinated OCR's limited resources will be focused oncompliance for Policy. This will ensure that that will likety have the review investigations thataddress issues of the highest priority and broadest impact within a state, region, orthe nation as a whole.

of numbers of compliance reviewinvestigations. but The goal will not be defined in terms We will make our best effort !o in terms of the most effective useof staff resources compliance review program so that comprehensi%e increasethe staff resources to the each of the compliance reviews on important civilrights issues can be carried out within complaint workload in 1W 1990 allowedOCR to devote 10 regional offices. The increased compliance review investigation compared to75c'e only 3% of Its total staff resources to for complaint investigations and relatedactivities; e.g.. of the total staff resources used review. We intend to devote the bulkof any monitoring, complainant appeals and quality of larger institutions v.111 be new resources to thecompliance review program. Reviews gathering and analysis of data and thedevelopment carried out by teams to expedite the of the letters of findings. for guidance will be developed to expeditethe preparation As notod above, investigative consistency among regional offices in the investigations on a particular issue, and to ensure information will be discussed at theInvestigation Strategy approach to ireestigitions. This completion of Workshops. Time frames may be adjusted ona caseby-case basis for the particularly complex compliance reviews.

D. MANDATORY MONITORING sufficient prionty to There have been concerns in the pastthat OCR has not given obtained from recipients pursuant toa violation monitoring corrective action agreements

105 79

Page Fl - OCR Enforcement Strategy

finding. Under this enforcement strategy, monitoring of corrective action plansis designated a mandatory activity for all regional office personnel and has thesame priority as complaint investigations.As such, monitoring activities are not to be reduced in order to carry ow any other regional activity.

Each Regional Director is directed to designate sufficient staff resourcesto monitoring activities, including on-site visits where appropriate, to ensure all correctiveaction plan agreements have been fully implemented.Regional Directors are also directed to establish internal procedures that will ensure thorough and timely monitonngactivities occur. OCR's automated case-tracking system has been modified to record all monitoring activities for each case.

Obtaining written corrective-action plans from recipients to correct violations of the statutes prior to the issuance of a formal Letter of Findings has proven to be an effective method for ensuring compliance with the civil rights laws. Our concern with this process is that the agreements we obtain always be sufficient to correct the violation, and of sufficient specificity to enable OCR to monitor their implementation. To address this con-sm, OCR will issue, in FY 1991, additional guidance on the standards required for an acceptable pre-LOF corrective action plan.

Under no circwtutances will OCR accept a plan w plan, Corrective action plans thatr.;;.1: carry over to a future date., cgs, modifying a building to make its programs accessible .' students with handicaps, must contain clear commitments on the part of the recipient. with sufficient specificity so that OCR knows exactly what, when, and where corrective actions will be initiated and completed.

Regional offices' monitoring efforts will be examined as a priority activity by the Assistant Secretary's Quality Review Team as part of its review of the overall quality of case-processing in OCR. No major changes will be made to the current pre-LOF negotiation procedures until the Team has had an opportunity to conduct its evaluation and submit its mcornmeticiatioes to the Assistant Secretary.

E. QUALITY REVIEW PROGRAM

Ensuring high quality investigations and obtaining appropriate,legally sufficient, corrective sake for vita/aborts of the civil rights laws are an integral part of this enforcement strategy. On July 11, 1990, OCR initiated a nem Quality Review Program (QRP) that recognizes the overall high quality of work produced by regional office staff. and reviewed by regi. 'al managers and legal staff. The new QRP also established an Assistant Secretary's Review Team that will conduct regular reviews of the quality of regional case-processing.Procedures to be followed by the Review Team in FY 1991 will be issued during the first quarter of FY 1991 and the Tam will begin its review 80

Page 9 - OCREnforcement Shawn activities shortly thereafter.For FY 1991. the Review Team will focus on several areas that are of high priority and important to the successof OCR's enforcement strategy. These are: plans resulting in 1.) Is OCR's practice of accepting preLOf corrective action high quality, kgallysufficient remedies to the violanons cited?

monitoring correcnve action plans 2) Art OCR's regional offices appropriately and following up with recipients who have norfulfilled their commitments.'

Manual, particularly those 3) Have revisions to OCR's Investigation Procedures related to administrative closures, resulted in bettercastprocessing efficiency.'

procedures to allow regional 4) In FY 1990, OCR modified its case-processing offices additional flexibility to investigate casesand obtain corrective action within the existing time frames. Are any additionalrevisions to the rime a frames needed?

The Review Team will review thoroughlythese issues and develop findings and recommendations prior to the end of FY 1991. TheTeam will also examine the extent in the regional to which the other componentsof the QRP are being implemented offices.

F. POLICY DEPLOYMENT ANDTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

1. Policy Preservations

OCR will initiate meetings with various interested groupsat the regional and headquarters level to provide the organizationswith information about OCR's policies and procedures related to the highpriority issues. The focus of the meetings will be to prevent violations of thecivil rights statutes by providing recipients with specific information about thelaw and OCR's policies. These could tele the form of state-wide conferenceswith state education officials and recipients to discuss practical issues related tocompliance with the civil rights laws. Regional office-spoosonsd forumsinvolving local recipient officials; college presidents, will be a top priority.Results of school superintendentsand these meetings will be thared with theDASP, who will consider the recommendations and comments in proposingmodifications to the enforcement strategy.

Die organizations will be encouraged to sharethis information with their voluntary compliance with the law. constituents in an effort to promote greater

107 81

Page 10 - OCR Enforcement Strategy

OCR will seek to obtain information and ideas from the individualsrepresenting the various organizations regarding their views about the civil rights issuesand OCR's approach to resolving them.

2. Policy Information Lint

OCR has established a Policy Information Line telephone number wherethe public may call and request a copy of any OCR policy document. Thetelephone number is (202) 732-1547. A TDD line will also be available.

3. Policy Codification

OCR has an automated Policy Codification System (PCS) that will be expanded and made readily available to interestedindividuals and organizations.The PCS contains summary information about all official OCR policy documentsissued since the Late 1960s. These summaries can be displayed ona computer screen via entry of appropriate key word codes, c, g,.Discipline, Athletics,.Actual copies of the policy documents can be obtained from a manual file once the Document Number is retrieved from the PCS summary document.Documents are either listed in the PCS as "Current Policy' or "Historical Policy.' Current Policy documents are relied upon by OCR staff in making decisions relatedto case investigations.Historical Policy documents are for policy documents thatare no.. obsr,ete, or that have been superseded by new policy. Theyare for referer:e only and cannot be used as official policy.

Currently, the PCS is available only to OCR staff through the Department's electronic communications system. By FY 1992, OCR will have the PCS available on computer diskette for use by any individual or organintion having the appropriate database software.

4. Porricipation In NationalConferences

OCR will participate in selected major conferences of national education andcoil rights organisations where there are opportunities to discuss policy and enforcement initiatives related to the high priority issues. A schedule for OCR staff participation in these conferences will be developed for FYs 1991 and1992. and clisiemintred to all OCR staff.

108: 82

Page 11 - OCR Enforcement Strategy

5. Publications to Education Agencies

OCR will routinely send letters to the head ofstate education agencies announcing significant policy announcementsor enforcement initiatives affecting numerous educational institutions within a particular state,or within the nation as a whole. These documents will provide informationto assist recipient institutions in complying with the civil rightsstatutes with regard to particular issues. 6. Publications of Findings and Recommendations

In the first quarter of FY 1992, OCR will publish,and release to interested organizations, the results of its FY 1991 enforcementstrategies, including information about the compliance review investigationsand other initiatives, summaries of letters of findings relatedto the high prionty issues, and recommendationsfor any follow-up activities.

7. Development of Technical Assistance Videos

OCR will begin if FY 1991 to work withoutside groups (e.g., educational institutions and nonprofit organizations, cable televisionnetworks, independent film and video producers) interested inproducing video materials (e.g.,public service announcements,training videos, documentaries, video conferences) rights related topics. on coil

8. Coordination Within the Department and With OtherDepartments

Most of the civil rights issues are also of highinterest to one or more of the other principal operating components (POCs) withinthe Deparnient.OCR plans to bring these high priority issues to Cie attention ofthe other POCs in a more coordinated and substantive manner than in thepast, and to invite their participation in discussions and strategy issues relatedto OCR's overall enforcement strategy. For example, OCR willmeet with the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education to discuss how theDesegregation Assistance Centers may work more closely with OCR in providing highquality technical assistance to recipients on the civil rights issues.

We also plan to ensure greater cooperationand coordination with other agencies that have an interest in civil rights enfottement,such as the Department of Justice, Health and Human Services and theEqual Employment Opportunity Commission, to look for opportunities to advancethe civil rights agenda.For example, we will explore with theDepartment of Health and Human Services curt rights issues related to homeless childrenand to *cracrliabies to determine whether these may best be addressed througha coordinated effort. 83

Page 12 - OCR Enforcement Strategy

MANAGEMENTINTI7A77VES

A. Workload Balance

During FY 1991, OCR will consider changing the geographicalstructure of several regional offices in order to address a workload imbalance with regardto the receipt of complaints.The shifting of a few states from one region to another, andsome shift of headquarters'resources to regional activities, will ensure that every region has approximately the same per staff complaint workload as every otherrepot. This will enhance each region's ability to respond to complaints across thenation, and will provide each region with similar opportunities to participatein the high priority activities that make up OCR's overall enforcement strategy.

We are also developing a plan to restructure headquartersto ensure more efficient use of headquarters'staff resources. We will continue to examine other ways to better manage OCR's total workload consistent with the concepts of a national enforcement strategy.

B. Managing the Enforcement Strategy

Responsibility for management of OCR's national enforcementstrategy has been assigned to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy (DASP). The DASP hasdeveloped an overall management plan for the enforcement strategy which has been circulatedto the Senior Staff for comments. When the management plan is issued in final,each OCR senior manager will be expected to develop a component-specific plan forimplementing the various activities within his or her area of responsibility.

IV. CONCLUSION

This is an exciting opportunity for OCR to focus its limited resources around civilrights issues of great importance and to carry out a coordinated national enforcementstrategy. Significant increases in complaint receipts or the availability of fewerresources will, of necessity, result in fewer enforcement strategy activities.Under any circumstances, however, the strategy provides OCR a framework and focus for deploying its discretionary resources, and for putting these resources to their best possibleuse.

OCR looks forward to the challenge.

1n 84 don't have a lot morequestions. There were a Mr. MCMILLAN. I that were curious to couple of points, Mr.Crawford, that you made women's bas- testimony indicatesthat women coaching me. Your higher average totalcompensation, $47,871., ketball teams had a basketball teams. than men, $42,706,coaching women s is correct. Mr. CRAWFORD. Thatwhat do you attributethat, or do you? Mr. MCMILLAN. To didn't gather otherback- Mr. CRAWFORD. Aspart of our study we finding ground information to answerthat question. That was a well. We found thatinteresting. that was curious to us as though, that in that case you Mr. MCMILLAN.Would you agree, generally, even apples and apples,comparable levels are comparinggeneralization? You aredealing with women'sbas- though it is a and I wouldn't saythe disparityI mean ketball teams in all cases, is a big dispari- if you were a man youcould say yes, $5,000 a year against that. ty, over 10 percent, are doing here weare so broadlygeneral- But I think in whatthat we it then lackscredibility, because if we izing our findings that it is competitionand in- ignore what Mr.Schultz alluded to, disparities than it is any .:rest levels that aredriving more thesedon't look at ittaking .ntent to discriminateby genderif we just going to be to- those factors into account,then I think we are tally out of sync withreality. discrimina- I would want todo everythingpossible to eliminate but if there are otherfactors in there, such as tion where it exists, in the particularsport in the intensity leveland interest level factors that exist on question relative tosomething else, those are and may explain alot of differencesthat will their own bottom and do, let's face it. exist between peopleof the same gender, in a ques- I wanted to comment onone otherthing that came up always been underthe impressionandmaybe tion to you. I have of North Carolinabasi- this is true of manyschools. The University of itsscholarships throughcontributions, not cally funds allgenerated by the sport.Any gains on revenues through revenues to fund the otherathletic programs. I generated by the sport go generators, footballand basket- mean youbasically have two cash of other sports, manyof ball, and theybasically fund a whole array generate cash, andI them women's sports,that don't themselves don't see anything wrongwith that program. interesting point, Mr.Schultz, when we weretalk- You raised an whether you shouldhave the power to, in ing about your power or throughout the NCAAand effect, regulate levelsof compensation why don't we dothat in other fields.I would asked the question Why don't we regulatethe level of compen- ask the same question. the grocery industry?Because sation in theautomobile industry or in conditions, and we that isn't our system.There are differences marketplace determinethose. let the free Maryland will say,"OK, you are hittingthe My colleague from out there." Well,it may nail on the headagain; it's a business system, but it seemsto function like a businessin a free enterprise to treat it like a alternative is worse,and if we are going me the then why don't wefix salaries onprofes- business and fix salaries, have a differencebetween pro- sional basketballplayers? And if we sports, why don't we re- fessional basketballplayers in the men's Iii 85 quire that women professional basketball players be paid the same amount? Or, for that matter, why shouldn't everybody be paid the same salary that Michael Jordan is? Mr. MCMILLEN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. MCMILLAN. Yes. Mr. MCMILLEN. I didn't say anything about fixing salaries. Mr. Schultz said that. Mr. MCMILLAN. You used the word "control" repeatedly. Mr. MCMILLEN. There is a big difference. I never made a statement that I believe that colleges and universities should fix necessarily the salaries. What I said was that there should be a revenue distribution formula based on different incentives. Mr. MCMILLAN. 1 think I have probably come to the end of my line of questioning. I think the gentleman from Maryland is push- ing at an interesting point, and that is that in a free market system out there and a free education system there are more market forces at work, there are competitive forces at work, and they drive the process. I don't know that we can really change that, that is in the nature of things, but it seems to me that what we need to do is to make certain that in that context if you preserve that competitionand, after all, that is what athletics iswe don't allow discrimination in detail to exist, and I think we have to be careful where we make that analysis and not blur too many things together, which I hear being said here, and I would be the first one not to want to tolerate discrimination, but let's don't throw out the baby with the bath water in the approaches that we take to it. One final comment. I didn't quite catch entirely those that you you have determined the committee that you will- - Mr. SCHULTZ. We have pretty much decided on the divergency that we want. In other words, we want the major women's organizations represented on that committee, and I named the ones that we had been able to contact and get affirmative responses from. The ones that we are waiting on are those that are representing a specific group like, one, athletic directors, faculty representatives, and we hope to announce that full committee, but the names that I read are those who have accepted, and I think that people who are knowledgeable realize that these are some of the very knowledgeable people when it comes to gender equity, and that is the type of person that we want to have on there. We are not looking for a committee that is going to massage this in any particular way; we want this to be a committee that is going to look at all the issues, and the initial start that we have is a dy- namic group, and we hope that they will be able to come up and agree on solutions that we can put in place to start dealing with this. Mr. MCMILLAN. Thank you very much. Mrs. COLLINS. Mr. McMillen of Maryland. Mr. MCMILLEN. Elaborating on the gentleman's comments, if we want a free market system, that is OK, but give the athletes the rights that Michael Jordan has to collectively bargain and do everything else. But it is not a free market system, it is a system where the public is subsidizing the building of the stadiums, they

59-428 0 - 92 - 4 86 are subsidizing the tax expenditures bythe donations of the boost- ers, student fees, and the like. If you want a free market system, let the bird fly out of the nest; letit be regulated, taxed, everything else that a free market system has. But I don't think that is what we want to do, andthat is what I am getting at. I'm getting at the issue of control, Dick. I really want you to be a benevolent dictator. I want you to be able to grab hold of this thing and do what you want to do. Let me ask some hypotheticals. Five years from now, ifthe ACCboth Alex and I are big fansif the ACC decides to go pey- per-view television, can you, as the executive director, stop that? Mr. SCHULTZ. Not if it is in-season television, no. Mr. MCMILLEN. You can't stop it. So they could take every one of the games that heretofore have been free and now charge my constituents $100 for the season, and you can't stop that. Is that correct? Mr. SCHULTZ. The Supreme Court ruling in 1984 established that the NCAA involvement in regular season television would violate anti-trust regulations. Mr. MCMILLEN. Right. So the point is, in 1984 there wasfrag- mentation, and you personally can't get a hold of that. So if my constituents a few years from now, because of revenue pressures, find ACC games going pay, there is nothing we can do. Another point: Let me ask you, what is the ultimate penalty that yol., would place on a school for violations atthe NCAA? Mr. SCHULTZ. I don't know if there is an ultimate penalty. Mr. MCMILLEN. What is the top? Mr. SCHULTZ. Basically, reduction in scholarships, reduction in the number of visits by prospects to the campus, not beingable to participate in the particular championship of that sport. Mr. MCMILLEN. Is that a violation of your rules? Mr. SCHULTZ. I thought you were talking about Mr. MCMILLEN. No. Is that a violation of your rules? Mr. SCHULTZ. I don't understand the question. I thought you were asking about the ultimate penalty. Mr. MCMILLEN. The penalty would be a sanction because of a violation. of your rules, the NCAA rules. Mr. SCHULTZ. That would be a violation of our rules. Mr. MCMILLEN. Not the law of the land? Mr. SCHULTZ. No. Mr. MCMILLEN. What is the ultimate penalty a school or university will face for not complying with title IX? Mr. SCHULTZ. Well, those sanctions would be established by OCR or by the regulation. Mr. MCMILLEN. Have there been any sanctions? Mr. SCHULTZ. I'm not quite sure if there have been or not. Mr. MCMILLEN. So, in other words, a school can absolutely be written off the charts if it breaks a rule of the NCAA, but if it breaks a law of the land, really, we turn our head aside. Mr. SCHULTZ. I guess that is a good point in allowing the association to control its own affairs, that we are tougher on our people than the Government is. Mr. MCMILLEN. Some parts of the Government. 113

4, 87 Are you in favor of the antitrust exemption being restored to the NCAA? Mr. SCHULTZ. I'm really not, simply because whatwe are trying to do is to cut our staff down, cut our operation down,so that we can generate as much revenue back to the member institutions. Mr. MCMILLEN. So you are on record that you wouldoppose that. Mr. SCHULTZ. For two reasons. saidMr. MCMILLEN. In 1984 you came before this r:ommittee and Mr. SCHULTZ. Not me. Mr. MCMILLEN. The NCAA executive directorcame before this committee and said we would like it. Mr. SCHULTZ. That was 1984, and I think thepurposes for maintaining that at that time were probably fine, but now weare at the point where television has expanded, and I just don't think thatwe have any place negotiating their in-season radio contracts, their television contracts. We are talking about expandingour staff dramatically in order to do that. Mr. MCMILLEN. Not necessarily. In reference to her comment about why you can't limit it,you can't tell Notre Dame to have gender equity becauseyou can't tell Notre Dame what to do with its affairs. Let me tell you what Whizzer White said back in the dissent Justice White--of that case. He argued that the NCAA's antitrust exemption fosters the goal of amateurism by spreadingrevenues among various schools and reducing financial incentives toward professionalism. Chancellor Young, a member of the Knight Com- mission, in 1984 testified in front of this committee: "The precedent has now been established that a major extracurricular activity of higher education establishes a property right that is to be regarded as a consumer product similar to those produced for profit alone. This is a new and, I submit, dangerous stage of affairs for college intercollegiate athletics." Only one thing wrong: He was talking aboutone side of the ledger. The other side of the ledger, the waiver side,was not addressed in that Supreme Court decision. I, as an athlete in college, can't go out and get my rights in the system. So my concern with all of this is, why do we have Federal intervention? Because this is the only Federal entity, this body,can overturn that Supreme Court decision, and I think we are heading down a road where it is going to make your job harder, not easier, Dick. You are going to have more of an armsrace. Schools can't keep up. Maryland can't pay a coach $1 milliona year. We can't keep up. So what we do is, we are forced to cutprograms. Guess who gets cut? Minor sports, women's sports, all the things thatwe ought to be promoting in colleges, broad-based values, educational values. We have got to build bigger stadiums, we have got to get bigger television contracts. I mean I am all for college sports, I'm a big proponent of it, but you know the greatest thing your association did was to have those women's games televised, because it showedyou the women are playing just as hard without the money as themen are playing with the money. The fact is that what we want to do is promote

_4 88 college sports, and my fear is that somewhere along the line we are going to lose even further control of that, and I think your good intentions are going to be dissipated in the process. So the reason I argue for thisand, as I said, I'm not here to slay the messenger, because I think Dick has tried to do a good job of this, but my concern is, when schools, because of financial pressures, start moving towards pay-per-view and my constituents start screaming, we have no recourse, and I think it is going to be an unfortunate day for college sports when that comes. Thank you. Mrs. COLLINS. Thank you. I'm not going.to keep this panel much longer, but I do want the GAO to explain that chart they have over there. Mr. Crawford, would you do that for the record? Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes, Ma'am. I would be happy to. What we did was focus on the five positions that the subcommittee had asked us to look atthe athletic director, the head of women's programs, the head football coach, the men's head basketball coach, and the women's head basketball coachto determine the numbers of minorities that were involved in holding each of these positions. I can give you the numbers and the percents. Essentially what you see there is that men's basketball had the highest percentage of minority coaches, close to 14 percent. This is for the academic year 1990-1991. The next highest was the women's head basketball coaches, close to 7 percent, then followed by athletic directors at 4.2 percent, and then finally head football coach at just over 1 percent. Mrs. COLLINS. So even when it comes down to minorities other than women, there is some disparity there, it would appear, in the numbers. Mr. CRAWFORD. Minorities are not represented as highly in that chart, that is correct. Mrs. COLLINS. OK. Another question quickly just for the record. Did you find that it is fact that television fees primarily for broadcasting rights were the NCAA's major revenue source, and, if so, how much was it? Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes, it was. I believe it was approaching $120 million, representing nearly 80 percent of the NCAA's revenues. Mrs. COLLINS. OK. And, finally, can you comment on the outside income for men's coaches versus women's coaches, and do the men really earn as much outside income from commercial endorsements as one may ..end to believe they do? Mr. CRAWFORD. We found that men's basketball and football coaches enjoyed the highest average outside incomes. Men's basketball was approaching $40,000, and football was approaching $32- $33,000 compared to women's head basketball coaches, whose outside income was just under $7,000-$6,600. Mrs. COLLINS. There seem to be a few inequities there. OK. We thank this panel very much for coming before us, as we do all the other panelists that will be coming in. We appreciate the insight that you have given us, particularly Mr. Schultz, in what we are trying to do here. Thank you so much. Our next panel will be Ms. Ellen J. Vargyas, the senior counsel for education and employment with the National Women's Law

115 89 Center; Ms. ChristineH.B. Grant, the women's the University of Iowa;Ms. Vivian Stringer, athletic director at ball coach at theUniversity of Iowa; Ms.head women's basket- Fullerassociate director of Vivian L. FullerDr. ana University of Pennsyvania;intercollegiate athleticsfor the Indi- McElroydirector of athletics and Mr. Lee McElroyDr.Lee at Sacramento. for the CaliforniaState University Won't you come forward,please. I thinkyou all heard me that we operate closrto the 5-minute rule say statements will bemau.> a part of the record.and that your entire Why don't we beginwith Ms. Vargyas. STATEMENTS OF ELLEN J. VARGYAS, SENIORCOUNSEL FOR EDUCATION ANDEMPLOYMENT, NATIONAI. CENTER; CHRISTINE WOMEN'S LAW H.B. GRANT, WOMEN'SATHLETIC DIREC- TOR, UNIVF 'SITYOF IOWA; VIVIAN L. RECTOR. Ii i',.:RCOLLEGIATE FULLER, ASSOCIATEDI- ATHLETICS, INDIANA OF PENNSYLVANIA; UNIVERSITY AND LEE A. McELROY.ATHLETIC DIREC- TOR, CALIFORNIASTATE UNIVERSITY Ms. VARGYAS. Thankyou very much. Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee,I commend on holding this hearing andlooking into these you portant issues, and I'm extraordinarily im- testify. deeply honored to havethe opportunityto My own backgroundis as a lawyer, and probably still the leading having litigated whatis title IX case inpost-secondary education, Haffer v. TempleUniversity, whichgave me a fascinating experience in looking at these issues,based on that I have written widely on thesubject, and I have the spoken and literally dozens of athletes, opportunity to talk to coaches, parents, otherinterested persons every year from aroundthe country, and it spective that Icome to the committee. is with thatper- It is abundantlyclear that 20 post-secondary competitive years after title IX'senactment, sistent and pervasive athletics are stillcharacterized by per- discrimination againstwomen and girls. This goes both to athletes and alsothe very important ment opportunities. area of employ- I'm not going torestate the facts from the to say that the numbers NCA's survey except half of all college are extraordinarily disturbing.More than letes are women,students are female, 30percent of college ath- which has heldconstant since approximately 1978. Less than 1 in3 athletic scholarshipdollars go to barely 1 in 5 operatingdollars, and an women, recruiting. even smaller percentage of The linkage betweenthese very depressed arships and recruitingon the one hand andexpenditures on schol- other fairly cries out.If we were to spend participation on the our recruiting dollars more than 17 percent of on women, maybe justmaybewe would find more than 1 in 3of our athletes to bewomen. I want to takea moment to look at the facts bers, 6:causewe are talking about the behind thesenum- people. We heard aboutthe lack of interesttreatment of very real can reel &I example after of women in athletics.I example ofwomen whose teamsare

11S 89 Center; Ms. Christine H.B. Grant, the women's athleticdirector at the University of Iowa; Ms. Vivian Stringer, headwomen's basketball coach at the University of Iowa; Ms. Vivian L.FullerDr. Fullerassociate director of intercollegiate athletics for theIndi- ana University of Pennsylvania;and Mr. Lee McElroyDr. Lee McElroydirector of athletics for the California StateUniversity at Sacramento. Won't you come forward, please. I think you all heard me say that we operate close to the 5-minute rule and that yourentire statements will be made a part of the record. Why don't we begin with Ms. Vargyas. STATEMENTS OF ELLEN J. VARGYAS, SENIOR COUNSELFOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT, NATIONAL WOMEN'SLAW CENTER; CHRISTINE H.B. GRANT, WOMEN'SATHLETIC DIREC- TOR, UNIVERSITY OF IOWA; VIVIAN L. FULLER,ASSOCIAlk; DI- RECTOR, INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS, INDIANAUNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; AND LEE A. McELROY,ATHLETIC DIREC- TOR, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY MS. VARGYAS. Thank you very much. Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee, Icommend you on holding this hearing andlooking into these extraordinarily important issues, and I'm deeply honored to have theopportunity to testify. My own background is as a lawyer, and having litigatedwhat is probably still the leading title IX case in post-secondaryeducation, Haffer v. Temple University, which gave me a fascinatingexperi- ence in looking at these issues,based on that I have spoken and written widely on the subject, and I have the opportunity totalk to literally dozens of athletes, coaches, parents, otherinterested persons every year from around the country,and it is with that perspective that I come to the committee. It is abundantly clear that 20 years aftertitle IX's enactment, post-secondary competitive athletics are still characterizedby per- sistent and pervasive discrimination against womenand girls. This goes both to athletes and also the veryimportant area of employment opportunities. I'm not going to restate the facts from the NCA's survey except to say that the numbers are extraordinarilydisturbing. More than half of all college students are female, 30 percent ofcollege athletes are women, which has held constant sinceapproximately 1978. Less than 1in 3 athletic scholarship dollars go to women, barely 1 in 5 operating dollars, and an even smaller percentageof recruiting. The linkage between these very depressed expenditures onschol- arships and recruiting on the one hand and participation onthe other fairly cries out. If we were to spend more than17 percent of our recruiting dollars on women,maybejust maybewe would find more than 1 in 3 of our athletes to be women. I want to take a moment to look at the facts behindthese numbers, because we are talking about the treatmentof very real people. We heard about the lack of interest of women inathletics. I can reel off example afterexample of women whose teams are

1 '0 .a

STATEMENT OF ELLEN J. VARGYAS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT, NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER My name is Ellen J. Vargyas. I am Senior Counsel for Education and Employ- ment at the National Women's Law Center, a non-profit legal organization which has worked to secure equal rights for women and girls since 1972. The effective enforcement of title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the principal Federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education, has been a top priority throughout our history. Within the title IX complex of issues, a particular and long-standing focus of the Center has been the eradication of sex discrimination in education related athletics. The Center was actively involved in the debates surrounding the promulgation of the title IX regulations, including those regarding athletics, and we brought the 40 first major post-secondary title IX case in this area, Haffer v. Temple University. Haffer successfully challenged the pervasive sex discrimination in Temple Universi- ty's intercollegiate athletic program and resulted .in a grotind-breaking settlement which significantly advanced the cause of gender-equity in athletics. Center attorneys consult widely on issues of sex discrimination in sport. We field many dozens of requests every year for information and assistance from athletes, c mches, administrators, parents and others interested in achieving sex equity in sport. We also routinely provide assistance to their attorneys and instil utional representatives. In addition, we frequently speak and write on these issues. Our background has given us a unique perspective on the problems facing girls and women in education related athletics. Itis abundantly clear that 20 years after title IX's enactment, post-secondary competitive athletics, the subject of this hearing, are still characterized by persist- ent and pervasive discrimination against women and girls. To be sure, in certain respects women and girls have made substantial progress. Of course, given the vir- tual exclusion of women and girls from athletic opportunities prior to 1072 almost any improvement would be substantial. In other respects, principally in the very important area of employment opportunities, women have actually lost considerable ground over this same time period. In any event, the bottom line is the same. Women and girls are systematically denied anything even resembling equal opportunity or equal treatment in post-secondary competitive athletics. I very much appreciate this opportunity to present my views regarding the nature of the problem as well as what needs to be done to eliminate the blight of sex discrimination from the competitive athletics programs of our Nation's colleges and universities. First, I will review the abundant evidence demonstrating the distinctly second class treatment of women and girls in competitive athletics. Second, I will address the underlying causes of these inequities which, in my view, stem directly from a failure of leadership in both the university community and government enforcement agencies to address the problem. Advocates for sex equity in athletics have long known that female athletes are relegated to an unfairly and disproportionately reduced portion of the participation opportunities, scholarships, and operating support which flow to competitive post- secondary athletics. The nationally-based NCAA Gender-Equity Survey performs a significant service by adding important, nationally-based details to the analysis. The information it contains enables us, for the first time, to fully understand the depth and breadth of gender-based inequities in higher education athletics. Let me take a moment to review the key findings. To begin with, the NCAA study confirms that women are Only 30 percent of college athletes. See Tables 1, 5, 9, 13 and 17 of the NCAA Study. This number has held constant for approximately 15 years. The most competitive colleges and univer- sitiesthose in Division I-Ahave the worst female participation rates, at 28.6 percent. See Table 5. The distribution of the tens of millions of dollars of athletic financial aid which is allocated annually to college and university athletes is similarly inequitable. While the NCAA does not provide information regarding total scholarship expenditures, it does conclusively demonstrate that female athletes get less than one in three athletic scholarship dollars. This is true in both the most competitive programs, and the less competitive Division II programs. See Table 1; p. 20. The allocation of non-scholarship resources is even less equitable. The NCAA confirms that Division I programs provide barely over one in five operating dollars to their female athletes and only 17 percent of recruitine: dollars. The most competitive programsthose in Division I-Aare again the mint inequitable. See Tables 2, 6. Division II female athletes also receive less operating support than even their reduced participation numbers would suggest. See p. 20. The linkage between the dis-

18 92 parities in expenditures in recruiting and scholarship dollars and the 30 percent female participation rate is particularly telling. With an equitableallocation of resources in recruiting and scholarships, female participationwould easily reach level commensurate with female undergraduate enrollment. While dramatic, the NCAA figures are devoid of human detail. Our extensive experience in working with female athletes, their coaches and advocates over the years enables us to provide these details anddemonstrate just what the NCAA numbers mean to female athletes. The following is a brief summary of what Ihear from female athletes and their coaches on an almost daily basis, pegged to the categories in the title IX athletic regulations: Many young women who want toand have demonstrated the ability topar- ticipate in varsity athletics are denied any opportunity at all to compete or are relegated to club programs which receive little or no institutional support. Thisis nearly always in the face of athletics programs which persist in maintainingtwice as many varsity athletics opportunities for their malestudents as their female students. Recently, post-secondary institutions have refused to create varsity teamsin, for example, women's ice hockey, basketball and gymnastics, despite demonstrated interest and disproportionate opportunities for male students. 34 C.F.R.106.41(cX1). The young women who are denied the opportunity to participate are also denied access to extremely valuable athletic scholarship dollars, accountingfor the discriminatorily depressed 30 percent female scholarship rate. 34 C.F.R. 106.37(c). Female athletes too often receive inferior equipment and supplies. In addition to disparities in actual athletic equipment, this includes uniformswhich are replaced on a mech slower schedule than those of their male classmates, fewer pairs of free sneakers, and the more frequent expectation that they will laundertheir own athletic clothing. 34 C.F.R. 106.41 (cX2). Female athletes often receive less favorable competition and practice times and aie assigned to the less desirable competitive andpractice facilities including locker rooms. A common problem is that women's competitions areoften scheduled as the "warm-up" event for the "more serious" men's competitions which are held at the most desirable times. 34 C.F.R. 106.41 (cX3) and (7). Female athletes often are allocated less desirable modes of travel and travel ac- commodations. There are still reports of situations where a male team flies to a certain destination while a female team from the same school takes a bus. Or, the male team arrives the night before an event sc that its members can rest andbe in prime shape for the competition while their female classmates arrive and go straightinto the competition. Female athletes are still told that because their male classmates are bigger than they are, it is only fair that the young menget more money to spend on food and are assigned fewer to a hotel room. 34 C.F.R. 106.41 (cX4). Coaches of women's teams are paid less than coaches of men's teams, see discussion below, and have significantly fewer assistant coaches than their counterparts who coach men's teams. While there are many extraordinarily dedicated and capable women and men coaching female athletes, overall female athletes do notreceive the level of coaching of their mate classmates because their institutions simplywill not pay for it. 34 C.F.R. 106.41 (5) and (6). Female athletes still encounter trainers who will tend to their needs, if at all, only after the men are taken care of. There are still too many systems inplace which allocate trainers to men's teams at a much higher rate than to women's teams regardless of the injury rates in the respective sports. Moreover,although it is now widely recognized that weight training is an important componentof their training, female athletes are typically denied equal access to weight training facilities and competent coaching. 34 C.F.R. 106.41 (c)(8). Colleges and universities spend only a small fraction on their women's teams of what they spend on their men's teams in terms of publicity and marketing. Citing lower spectator interest in women's sports, they ignore the obvious andimportant role of publicity and marketing in promoting such interest. One of the most memo- rable figures to emerge from the Haffer litigation was that over a 3 yearperiod, Temple spent 0.5 percent of its publicity expenditures on its women's teams. It was obvious why hardly anyone went to the women's competitions. Nobody knewabout them. 34 C.F.R. 106.41 (ck10). In short, in 1992-20 years after the enactment of title IXfemaleathletes still suffer from discrimination in virtually every aspect of intercollegiate athletics. The record is similarly clear regarding the very serious problems facing women in employment across-the-board in post-secondary athletics. Women have been forced out of many athletic related jobs, female employees are paidless than males, and coaches of women's teams are paid less than coaches of men's teams. Moreover, while there have been improvements in the situation of female athletes sincetitle

1 9 93

IX was passed, women who wantto work in post-secondary athleticsare actually in a worse situation than they were 20 yearsago. Carpenter and Acosta, two respected found the following: researchers from Brooklyn College, have While in 1972 women wereover 90 percent of all coaches for women's teams, by 1990 they were less than half. Unchangedwas the fact that in both years, less than 1 percent of coaches of men's teamswere women. The situation in sports administration is even worse. In 1972, over 90percent of women's programs were run bywomen. By 1990 that figure dropped to 16 percent. Moreover by 1990, only 32 percent of all administrative jobs in women'sprograms were held by women and no women at allwere involved in the administration of 30 percent of women's programs. The administratorsof men's programs were and overwhelmingly male. Less than 1 percent of are women. men's programs have ever beenrun by The recently published ACE Factbookon Women in Higher Education (American Council on Education, 1991) addsconcrete numbers to show the nature of the lems facing women in athletic administration. prob- ic year 1987-1988: ACE found the following for academ- 1. In 1,410 post-secondary institutions and 4 and 2 year institutions: surveyed, including both public andprivate There were 807 male and 75 female athletic was $42,181 and the women's was $30,120. directors. The men's median salary There were 404 male and 26 femalesports information directors. The men's median salary was $23,738 and the women'swas $19,000. Table 97. 2. In public universities and 4year colleges surveyed: There were 295 male and 16 femaleathletic directors. The men earneda median salary of $50,378 and thewomen earned $42,000. There were 215 male and 7 femalesports information directors. Themen earned a median salary of $26,156 while thewomen earned $24,720. Table 98. 3. In private universities and 4year colleges surveyed: There were 362 male and 46 femaleathletic directors. The men earneda median salary of $37,000 and thewomen earned $26,000. There were 182 male and 18 female a median $21,000 and the women earnedsports $18,191. information directors. The men earned leges surveyed: Table 99.4. In public 2 year col- There were 130 male and 11 female median salary of $39,060 and the athletic directors. The men earneda women earned $31,583. (No data was presentedon sports information directors for these schools.)Table 100, The 1992 NCAA survey also provides highlyrelevantand equally disturbing information. To begin with, it confirmsAcosta and Carpenter's findings regarding percentages of men and women coaching men's and the schools, for example, 98.6 percent of men's women's teams. In Division I 44.8 percent of women's teams teams are coached by men while only ally all of the jobs coaching men'sare coached by women. See Table 3. Men havevirtu- women's teams. teams and well over half of the jobs coaching It also demonstrates the depth of thesalary disparities facing the coaches of women's teams. (The NCAA report doesnot include data regarding salaries of male and female coaches.) For example, although it is virtually the same game, DivisionI coaches of men's basketball teamsare paid an average base salary of $71,511 while coaches of women's teams receive $39,177.Even leaving aside that theseare only base figures and do not includea substantial part of the compensation packages ceived by coaches of men's basketball re- teams, women's coaches receive only 54.7as much as the men's coaches. Yet, theseare the best paid women's head coaches. There is nothing on the women's side to compare to the average $81,574 basepay paid to Division I football coachesor even the $43,569 paid to men's ice hockey coaches. See Table 4. The disparities are not only in the highvisibility sports. Baseball head coaches (men's teams) receive an average salaryof $34,126 while softball head coaches (women's teams) are paid $21,169. Looking coaches receive more than their at other comparable teams, men's head counterparts coaching women's teams incross country, fencing, lacrosse, rifle,soccer, swimming, tennis, indoor/outdoor track, and volleyball. Only the coaches of women'sgolf, gymnastics, and skiingare paid more In this and the following categories, formation. not all institutions surveyed reported the requestedin-

1 0 (1 BEST RT; PAMP,P.7 94 than coaches of comparable men's teamsand the differences in compensation are quite small. assistant coach salaries. The mostdramatic is Similar differences are reflected in spends $75,311 in basketball where the averageDivision I men's basketball program while the comparable women's programspends in base salaries on assistant coaches confined to less than half as much, or $35,477.Again, however, the problem is not basketball. coaches, and administrators are system- It is beyond dispute that female athletes,in college and university athletics pro- atically subjected to second class treatment permitted to continue to grams. The next questionis why has this situation been date and what can be done? The problems I have just set out are notcaused by the failure of Federal law to and women in education relatedathletics or by prohibit discrimination against girls all of the the lack of availability of enforcementmechanisms. Title IX forbids nearly practices described above and with the1988 passage of the Civil RightsRestoration 1984 decision in Grove City College v.Ball, title Act reversing the Supreme Court's Federal Agency, IX's applicability to athleticsdiscrimination is well established. A Office for Civil Rights, is chargedwith the adminis- the Department of Education's in Cannon trative enforcement of title IX. Sincethe Supreme Court's 1979 decision private plaintiffs have been able torely on a private right v. University of Chicago, prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys of action to bring their own lawsuits; and as fees under the 1978 Civil Rights AttorneysFees Awards Act, 42 U.S.C. 1988; in Franklin v. Gwinnett CountyPublic Schools, of February, 1992 with its decision IX which will be the Supreme Court has justprovided a damages remedy under title applicable in most athletics discrimination cases.Why, then, has this discrimination persisted? failure of leadership in the university com- In my view, the answer stems from a of a munity which has been exacerbated bythe Office for Civil Rights' abandonment strong enforcement role and thepractical difficulties inherent inbringing private has not meaningfully addressed sexdiscrimi- litigation. The university communityit has not been forced to and becauseit has nation in competitive athletics because maintain inter- not found the will to resistthe-powerful special interests seeking to collegiate athletics as the boys' clubit has historically been. Let meaddress these issues separately. After title IX's enactment, there was anexplosion in the athletic opportunities high schools and colleges. However,by 1980 the offered to girls and women in both from its previous progress had come to anend. At the same time, OCR retreated became almost invisible on questionsof title IX en- active enforcement presence and Court's decision in Grove City Collegein 1984, forcement. Following the Supreme OCR opted out of and until the passage of the CivilRights Restoration Act in 1988, addressing athletics discrimination. any role whatsoever in after the passage of the RestorationAct, even OCR has slowly reentered the field in 1991. Nonetheless, seriousproblems declaring athletics discrimination a priorityserious player in the effort to endthe perva- remain which keep OCR from being a of 1990, it sive discrimination in post-secondaryathletics. For example, in the spring distributed a manual for its investigators to usein athletics investigations which problems confronting women in athletics.In the failed to address many of the major Center and the fall of 1990, I submitted on behalfof the National Women's Law Girls in Education a detailedcritique of the National Coalition for Women andrequests for changes. A year and ahalf later Manual and a series of very specificOCR---even including a rejectionregarding any there is still no firm answer from OCR's anal- of these matters. Yet these are veryimportant issues. A case in point is with the scholarship regulation.The title IX regula- ysis for determining compliancescholarship rate be proportionate to thefemale partici- tion requires that the female that an institution is out ofcompliance only if the pation rate. OCR takes the view female athletes differs in astatistically sig- percentage of scholarships allocated to post-sec- nificant fashion from the femaleparticipation rate. This analysis permits of thousands of dollars less ontheir female ath- ondary institutions to spend tens of statis- letes than true proportionalitywould dictate, simply because of the nature OCR does not even acknowledge the far morefundamental tical analysis. Moreover, discriminatorily reduced participation rate asthe problems inherent in using acompliance. This is in spite of the factthat the one basis for evaluating scholarshipissue concluded that schools may notrely on discrimin- court to have addressed this reduced scholarship atorily reduced female participationrates to justify similarly University, 678 F. Supp. 517, 539(E.D.Pa. 1987). OCR's rates. See Heifer v. Temple against female athletes is particularlyironic disregard of scholarship discrimination limited schol- in light of the major emphasis ithas currently placed on eliminating 95 arship programs targeted to minorities whichare narrowly tailored to redress effects of longstanding race discrimination in this country. By way of a second example, although C. R has hadpending for a number of months a draft policy guidance regarding title IX implicationsfor team cut-backsa policy guidance which could be extremely useful in addressinga major problem currently facing female athletesit is still not out. Schoolscontinue to further reduce the already discriminatorily reduced participationopportunities for young women in the name of cost-containment. OCR's problems go beyond the failure to articulateappropriate policy and very much include the resolution of complaints. Acase in point is the recent disposition of a major complaint regarding the athleticprogram of Brooklyn College of the City University of New York. The problems began duringthe investigation, when OCR failed to cooperate meaningfully with the complainingparties, appearing to work very closely instead with the institution which was the subject of thecomplaint. Indeed, a City University of New York attorney accompaniedOCR investigators on a least one interview of a witness where the witnessa City Universityemployee was not informed of the attorney's affiliation. The complaining partieswere never given anything other than general notice of interviews andwere certainly never given the opportunity to accompany the investigatorson such interviews. While OCR did ultimately find a number of violationsin Brooklyn College's program, it foundaccording to the analysis discussed abovethat althoughBrooklyn College had violated title IX by not giving female athletesequal participation opportunities, there was no violation in the allocation of scholarshipsbecause it was pro portionate to the discriminatorily reduced participationrate. As such it put its im- primatur on a system which unfairly deniedwomen many thousands of dollars of scholarship assistance. In resolving the Brooklyn College complaint, OCRaccepted assurances from Brooklyn that it would come into compliance with title IX incertain respects. Based on those assurances OCR actually found that there was no violation of thestitute although it had found many specific violations during thecourse of the inquiry. Moreover, OCR closed the case as of the date the Letter ofFindings was issued. The assurances, which accomplish relatively little, ware negotiated withoutany input at all fromor even notice tothe complaining parties.In any event, there is no mechanism in place to guarantee thateven these acsurances will actually be complied with. I am told by the complaining parties that severaldates by which time Brooklyn College had committed to take certain actions havealready lapsed without such action having been taken. The complaining parties must now struggle with thequestion of whetherand howin the absence of any delineated follow-up mechanismand the fact of a closed case, to enforce these assurances. They are not alone in facing this dilemma.The finding of no violation based on assurances given byan institution under investigation, a closed case, and no enforcement of theassurances is a common pattern and problem in OCR investigations. A second enforcement problem in the Brooklyn Collegecase is that OCR did not address any issues which arose in the 1991-92 academicyear although its Letter of Findings was issued in 1992. Because of major changes in theprogram in the 1991- 1992 academic year, principally involving the dropping offootball, much of OCR's analysiswhich is based on the facts of the 1990-1991 academicyearis no longer relevant and the assurances are even less useful than they wouldbe otIRrwise. Moreover; further demonstrating OCR's weaknessas an enforcement Agency, there are serious allegations of retaliation, occurring after the date of the OCR Letterof Findings, against certain college employees whowere involved with the complaint. Perhaps the most frustrating part of the whole episode isthat OCR views its resolution of this complaint as a major success in its enforcement effort. For all of these reasons, the great majority of potentialcomplainants in title IX athletics cases do not view OCR as a viable enforcementAgency which will thor- oughly investigate and effectively resolve their claims.At the same timeand for the same reasonscolleges and universities do not takeOCR seriously as a force requiring the eradication of sex discrimination in their athleticsprograms. The relatively little private litigation to enforce title IX,to date, has also contributed to the complacency of the university community. TheNational Women's Law Center brought the leading post-secondary title IXcase, Haffer v. Temple Universi- ty, which ultimately resulted in a highly favorable settlementfor the student-athletes Nonetheless, that experience is an object lesson regardingthe difficulties of private litigation. To begin with, it took 8 years to resolve thecase. In large part this was due to Temple's aggressive defense and itswillingness to pour substantial money into legal fees, money which it was unable to find for its women's athletics 1

96 who were extremely dedicated to the principlesin- program. The named plaintiffs, graduated by the time of the settle- volved as well as to the case, had long sincebenefit from the litigation and no re- ment. They received absolutely no concrete self- dress for the discrimination theysuffered. Most potential plaintiffs are not so lessnor should they have to be. However, unlike the problems with OCRwhich do not seem likely to be resolved in the near term, many of the problemsconfronting potential private plaintiffs have been favorably resolved by the SupremeCourt's recent decision in Franklin v. Gwin- Franklin the Court held that a monetarydamages nett County Public Schools. In all remedy is available for intentionalviolations of title IX. This includes nearly post-secondary athletics discrimination; sinceopportunities and benefits are allocated according to the athletes' gender, theresulting disparate treatment is "*Itention- al" within the meaning of the law. The damages remedy provides a importantincentive for plaintiffseven those afraid of retaliation which is an all too commonconcernto come forward because their injuries. Practically speaking, adam- there is now tangible compensation formore attractive to the barand will likely at- ages remedy also makes these cases-important, the damages remedy sends a strong tract more attorneys. Perhaps most the message to education institutionsthatfinallyit is in their self interest to end discrimination. Temple's 8 year delay strategymade sense only because Temple was assured that when a remedy was ultimatelyfashioned it would be prospective only. be held accountable for the years ofdiscrimi- The university knew that it would not the nation. Under Franklin, an institutionwill be held financially accountable to women against whom it hasdiscriminated. Franklin thus counsels that itis in an institution's interest to act promptly to eliminatediscrimination in order to limit its liability. and Even if OCR were to pursue a moreactive and aggressive enforcement policy in private litigation under Franklinmaterializes, this even if the expeineci increase responsi- still will not solve the problem. Theuniversity community must take full bility for the pervasive sex discriminationin its intercollegiate athletic programs and it must exercise the leadership toeradicate that discrimination. It has a long way to go. The few tentative stepswhich have been taken are a start but they are not nearly enough. Much has been made of the NCAAGender-Equity study. And, as I stated earlier, it certainly provides important anduseful information. But it will go fornaught unless and until college and universitypresidents across the country acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrongwith a system which intentionally sets aside extremely valuable benefits for men only. Todate, the more than two-thirds of its its key players have carefully avoideddrawing the only possible conclusion from study which is that its findings reflectdiscrimination. Meanwhile, the Knight Com- mission has acknowledged gender-equity as anissue but actually takingor even recommendinconcrete steps toward the eliminationof such discrimination ap- at best. Indeed, in its 1992 reportentitled "A Solid pears to be a peripheral concern fully satisfied with the NCAA survey, and Start", the Knight. Commission seemsof gender-equity. Recently, the NCAA did points to no other progress in the area scholarships which may be awarded to temporarily shelve a planned decrease in in female athletes but there continues tobe a very substantial gender disparity both NCAA sanctioned sports and scholarshipswhich directly contributes to the dramatic inequities detailed in its report. Inshort, there is not much out there yet to suggest a serious attack on genderdiscrimination in athletics. Eliminating this discrimination is not aparticularly complicated matter. To be disloca- sure, creating a gender-fairintercollegiate athletic system will lead to some in an era of limited resources.Ironically, tions over the short term, particularly financial bene- many of these dislocationswill actually accrue to higher education's fit since, contrary to the prevailingmythology, most competitive athletics programs lose money, even on their high profilemen's programs. But the questions here are tenable for our higher education insti- ultimately not about money. It is simply not The tutions to perpetuate a systemcharacterized by pervasive sex discrimination. challenge is clear. The question is whether ourcolleges and universities are up to the task. Mrs. COLLINS. Thank you. Ms. Grant. 97

STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE H.B. GRANT ,EN Ms. GRANT. Madam Chair, members of thesubcommittee, there are three primary points that I would like to make. One, whentitle IX was enforced in the seventies therewas phenomenal growth in the opportunities for women in sports in thisNation. When title IX was not enforced in the eighties, progresscame to a screeching halt. We have seen almostno progress in 12 years. My second point: there are rampant discriminatorypractices being exposed today, 20 years after thepassage of title IX; and, three, women will disappear from coaching and athleticadministrative positions at both the high school and collegiate levels byshortly after the turn of the century if the current trends continue. The degree of discrimination has recentlybeen exposed by the NCAA Gender Committee and this week'sChronicle of Higher Education. The data are clear: Womenare discriminated against in every quantitative area investigated. Many ofour most prestigious universities are indicted this week. We women have tried to press forprogress on our own campuses to no avail. We have tried to convince the NCAA'sPresidents Com- mission to lead the way against discrimination,to no avail. We strongly encourage the Knight Commissionto make women's issues a critical part of the new athletic model, also tono avail. My appeal to you today is to make equity forwomen in sport a priority. If you do not, women will have nowhere elseto turn. Let me share some facts. When title IXwas passed in 1972, crit- ics protested that women were simplynot interested in sport and, if they were interested, therewas no money, and forcing the issue would bankrupt men's sports. Thiswas simply not true. In public schools, girls' participation figuresexploded in the seventies from 7 percent to 35 percent by .1981, andin colleges it has soared to 30 percent, and the rates would havecontinued to grow if title IX had been continued to be enforced.The result is thatwe have many women today who would liketo participate in varsity sports but who are limited to intramuralor club sport experiences. The problem is not a lack of interest, theproblem is a lack of opportunity. Far from bankrupting men's sports, the seventiesand the eighties saw a five-fold increase in the funding levelsfor men's athletic departments in Division IA football-playing institutions;1972 expenses were $1.5 million; they rose to $7.9 million in 1989. Thatex- plosive financial growth was in starkcontrast to the stagnaticn of women's sports in the eighties. Despite the fact that women constitutea majority of the undergraduate population, they still get less thana third of all scholarships and less than one-sixth of the recruitingmoneys, and such disparities would be inconceivable if appliedto college admissions and academic scholarships. In fact, such policieswould evoke a national outcry. Our current practices in athleticsare no less a national disgrace. At universities, we havean entire change of population every 4 years approximately, and that constitutesone generation. Thus, since title IX was passedwe have had five generations of women with only limited athletic opportunities. Ina just society, the budg-

124 98 male/ ets and participation rateswould reflect the undergraduate today they experience only 30percent female ratio, but for women have forever of the athletic population.So many of our students lost their opportunity toexperience athletics and also get acollege education. There is one last critical areafor women in sport thatabsolutely must be stressed atthis committee, and that isthe predicted ex- tinction of women in coachingand administration. TitleIX has been misused to force mergersof men's and women'sathletic departments with the positionof athletic director alwaysgoing to men. Twenty years ago, more than90 percent of women'sathletic programs were administeredby women in Division I.That has plum- meted to 7 percent todayfrom90 percent. Additionally, there are now no women left atall in any administrativeposition in over 30 percent of our universities.Exactly the same pattern is seenin coaching ranks, from 90 percentto less than half. Ifthese trends continue, there will be no womenleft shortly. Mrs. COLLINS. The time ofthe gentlewoman has expired. Ms. GRANT. May I say onelast thing? Mrs. COLLINS. Of course. Ms. GRANT. As EdmundBurke reportedly said, theonly thing necessary for thetriumph of evil is for good men todo nothing. My closing appeal to you goodpeople is to do something. The prepared statement andattachment of Ms. Grant follow:] STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE H B. GRANT,WOMEN'S ATHLETIC DIRECTOR, THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA athletics the findings of the recentNCAA Gender To many of us in women's for the eq- Equity Study are no surprise. Whilethe passage of title IX offered hope uitable representation of women inintercollegiate sport, lack of title IXenforce- toward gender equity by responsibleparties have ment and absence of concern brief outline of some aspects of genderequity in stalled progress. What follows is a the events intercollegiate sport. These include pastefforts toward gender equity and the current status of gender equity;prevailing re- and forces impeding such efforts; for attain- sistant attitudes toward genderequity; and justification and a suggestion ing equity. rationale for the lack of female opportunitiesin Prior to the 1970's, the prevailing interested in sport was the erroneous conceptionthat girls and women were just not sport. educational institutions were forced tooffer After title IX was passed in 1972 and public sport opportunities for girls, thenumber of girls participating in sport at schools exploded from 7 percent in1971 to 35 percent in 1981. IX was being actively enforcedduring the At the collegiate level where title of the 1970's, women's participation in sportincreased to approximately 30 percent athletic population. and in 1983 During the 1980's, the Federaladministration did not enforce title IX City decision. Almost no progress wasmade in the it was eviscerated in the Grove for girls 1980's: in 10 years, there was lessthan a 1 percent increase in participation in collegiate women's participationfigures. in the Nation; there was no increase institutions would be The common interpretation oftitle IX was that educational equal number of teams for femalesand males regard- in compliance if they had an automatically meant that a 2-1 participa- less of the fact that football opportunitiesmales. The concept of offering more sportsto females tion ratio existed in favor of persuasive to to compensate for thedisparate numbers in football simply was never in educational institutions. those in decision-making positions90 percent of women's athletic programsat the In the early 1970's, more than those programs collegiate level were autonomousfrom the men's programs and of more than 90 percent wereheaded by women.

5 99

The Association for Intercollegiate Athletics forWomen (AIAW) was created in 1971 and was the national governing structure forcollegiate women's programs, i.e., the parallel structure to the NCAA. Because the AIAW utilized more geographicallyconfined State and regional championships as qualification routes to the nationalchampionships, women generally did not participate in the conferences established for Ten. male competition, e.g., Big" Citing a need to be cost-efficient,many institutions merged their men's and women's athletic programs at the institutional levelin the 1970's. In all instances, the position of the athletic director was given to thetop male administrator. The NCAA, having unsuccessfully attemptedto exclude athletics from title IX and later to exclude men's football and basketballfrom title IX, determined to initiate women's championships in Divisions II and III in 1980and women's championships in Division I in 1981. The move eroded the financialbase for AIAW and it was put out of business by July 1982. Women's athleticprograms in 4-year institutions were then put under the jurisdiction of the NCAAor the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA). Women's participationopportunities were significantly decreased under both of these organizationalstructures and institutions faced a significant increase in costs by placing their NCAA. women's programs within the During the takeover of the AIAW by the NCAA, men'sconferences were also moving into the area of women's athletics. Comment: A common and erroneous rationale formergers and/or takeovers at all levels was that title IX required that male and femalestudent-athletes be treated in identical fashion, especially in the realm of rules andregulations. The net result of these actions was a loss of self-determination forwomen in collegiate sport in this Nation at the institutional, conference and national levels.The 1975 interpretation issued by HEW specifically noted that title IX doesnot require that men's and women's athletics be administered by a singlestructure and in 1979 HEW Secretary Patricia Harris expressed concern about diminishingopportunities for female coaches and administrators in stating, "We would expect thatas schools amend their programs, they would do so with sensitivity and with recognition thatsuch changes should result in enhancingnot minimizingthe roleof women coaches and athletic directors, as well as women athletes, in sport programs." In the early 1970's when there was littleor no funding for women's programs, and little or no recompense for those who worked in women'sathletics, over 90 percent of the coaches and administratorswere female. The charts on the following page display the alarming trends that have developedover the past 20 years. Comment: Female directors of women'sprograms are almost extinct, yet .it is interesting to note that of the nine separate women'sprograms existing in Division I, three of these programs (Texas, Tennessee and Iowa) haveconsistently been top in the Nation in attendance at women's basketball for thepast several years. Obvious- ly, this is not a coincidence, rather it reflects, I believe,the result of well funded, well supported and well promoted programs, them. run by women who truly believe in In the last decade, Acosta and Carpenter studies haveconsistently shown that in more than 30 percent of the institutions there is noteven one woman left in an administrative position. In summary, women in administration pearing. seem to be disap- Exactly the same trend exists in the coaching ranksat both the public school and collegiate levels, in spite of the intent of title IX. Ina study by Tolliver (1991), it is predicted that no women will be coaching basketballat the public school level by 1999 in eight States. The study included data from eightStates. By 2002-3 she pre- dicts that few if any women will be left in the collegiatebasketball coaching ranks. Unfortunately, the trends detected in girls' and women'sbasketball can also be found in all other States and in all other girls' andwomen's sports; in fact, the elimination of women as coaches in other sportsmay occur sooner than in baGket- ball (see chart D on previous page). I fail to understandwhy this situation has not provoked a national outcry. Perhaps it is because few peopleknow the facts because sportswriters, who are almost exclusively male, donot see this issue as a national concern. As noted previously, when title IX was vigorously enforcedin the 1970's, progress at the high school and collegiate levels was phenomenal forwomen in sport. The sudden cessation of enforcement of title IX in the1980's, brought about by the attitude of the White House and the Grove Citydecision, caused progress in participation opportunities for women to come toa grinding halt. To be fair, it should be noted that funding for women's sports didgrow to a degree during the 1980's but

1.°r, (1D 100

an analysis of the decade will surely provethat the individual educational institutions in our Nation chose not to voluntarily increase theparticipation opportunities. The prior growth of opportunities, it would appear, hadbeen largely the result of enforced Federal legislation rather than the actions of committededucational leaders. There were two in,..ances in which significant progress inparticipation slots for women in sport was made in the 1980's;however, the progress was the result of two lawsuits. In 1987, Judge Dolliver, in overruling the lowercourt's decision to exclude football in the Washington State University case, noted that"to exclude football, an all male program, from the scope of the equal rightsamendment would only serve to perpetuate the discriminatory practices anddiminished opportunities for women" (Blair vs. Washington State University, 19871. TheUniversity was ordered to increase spending until the percentage offemale athletes compared favorably with the percentage of women undergraduates at that institution.The other landmark case was an out-of-court settlement in1988, the Haffer vs. Temple University lawsuit. In this case, participation and scholarship rates for women wereordered to be increased to approximately 43 percent. Together, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 as well asthe Temple and the Washington State University cases provided a beacon of lightthat true equal opportunity for women in sport might be the thrust of the1990's. The NCAA should be strongly commended for havingconducted the most extensive and thorough study that has ever been done onthe opportunities for women and men in collegiate sport. However, the results are even worse than many realized, eventhough this study probably painted a rosier picture than actually exists. For Division I-A, the results are especially disturbing:

lin Percent)

Female Mate

29 71 Participation 28 72 Athletic scholarships ..... 20 80 Operating budget 16 84 Recruiting budget ...... Male coaches in men's sports. more than 99 percent Male coaches in *omen's sports, 54 percent

The male/female salary discrepancies are significant in almostall instances. Comment: I would hope that the CEO's at universities willbe shocked into investigating exactly what the situation is at their own institutions.However, I am yet to be convinced that these same CEO's who failed to makevoluntary progress in the 1980's are suddenly going to be committed in the 1990's toincreasing participation rates as well as increasing funding. I hope I am wrong. It should also be very carefully noted that the NCAAdata are quantitive data for selected areas. There are dozens of other areas in which data nowmust be collected and that data collection should also include qualitative aspectsof the athletic experience. One of the unfortunate results of the institutional mergers,in which women were actually submerged, is that most of these women are notfree to speak up for progress on their own campuses. Ifthey do, they may not retain their positions. Thus, even basic inequities such as equal access tofacilities at prime times is still a problem at some major institutions in 1992. The NCAAstudy only scratched the surface of the issue; only when non-athletic personnel atthe individual institutions conduct a thorough probe will all of the discriminatorypractices be exposed. Current reaction to increasing participation opportunitiesfor girls and women elicit the same reactions that were given in 1972: I Females are just not as interested in sport as males. There are no moneys available to provide additionalparticipation slots for females and if the issue is forced, creating these opportunitieswill bankrupt sports for males. Comment: Many both in and outside of sport, confuse lowerparticipation numbers in girls' and women's sport with a lack of interest.The lack of interest is not the problem; the lack of opportunity is. For example, today atThe University of Iowa, like every other University in the country, we have many, manywomen in club

Ns 101 sports, some of which could easily be elevated to the intercollegiate level:Aikido, Fencing, Kayaking, Racquetball, Crew,Rugby, Sailing, Scuba Diving, Skiing, and Table Tennis. Obviously,there is not a lack of interest. Soccer thousands of talented Moreover, there are young women coming from the high schoolswith interest and expertise in other sports that theUniversity of Iowa currently does intercollegiate level. Were these not offer at the students. Similarly, at the publicsports available, we could enasily recruitthe female of sports in which to participate,school.level if girls had a large varietyof choices there is no question that theparticipation rates would increase in the 1990's in thesame way that they did in the 1970's. The lack of financialresources has been an ongoing excuse since budgets for men are analyzed, there 1972, yet, when over the years. has been considerable growth in thesebudgets

TOTAL EXPENSES OF MEN'S AND WOMEN'S ATHLETICS PROGRAMS, FISCAL YEARS1981-1989 'Dollar amounts in thousands]

Average expenses by NGA division Percentage of 1981 1985 1989 1989 total expenses Division IA: Men's program $4,308 $6,158 Women's program $7,882 C2 502 Division 1AA: 799 1,805 18 Men's program 1,189 1,990 Women's program 2,421 76 176 Division IAAA: 367 785 24 Men's program 631 878 Women's program 1,296 68 188 206 618 32

Further, one should understand vision I do bring in the bulk of thethat although football and men'sbasketball in Di- two sports eat up a considerable portionmoneys to fund other athletic teams, thesesame is "their" money rather than of the income and an attitudeexists that it in Division IA used 32 institutional income. On a nationalaverage, football percent of the total athletic expendituresin 1989 and men's basketball used 10 percent fora combined expenditure of 42 percent; women's sports expenditures were 18 percent. total Although the Knight Commission did - coaches to testify, the Commission invite several female administratorsand elected not to change their"one-plus-three" model (A model in which PresidentialControl focuses on creating (1) tegrity, (2) financial integrity and (3) academic in- four" model which would have independent certification) toa new "one-plus- than acknowledging the severityincluded equity as one of the fourprongs. Rather athletics, the Commission registeredof the discrimination as noted bythose in women's graph (page 14). If members of theits concern on that issue primarilyin one para- failed to appreciate the breadth Knight Commission, after hearingtestimony, and depth of discrimination, itis unlikely that great support for women will come fromother groups. Almost the same aforementioned Commission, a group which untilcriticisms can be made of the NCAAPresidents' very recently was strongly advocatinga 10 percent reduction of athletic scholarshipsfor women as well as appear that equity is far from being their highest men. Moreover, it would issues to be addressed in their priority since it is one of the last current plan for reform of intercollegiateathletics. 'Women in athletics, generally, haveyet to be convinced that the leaders educational institutions in this Nation of higher It is hardly surprising that the are truly committed to equity. NCAA has uncovered massivediscriminatory practices at individual institutionswhen the Knight Commission and Commission recently have failed to the Presidents' Even one of our more knowledgeabletake corrective action on this nationalproblem. quoted in the USA Today CEO's in the area of athleticswas recently as having stated that "for now his institutionmust. exclude football in gauging its effortsto reach equity." These sentiments by the Chancellor of the University are expressed Chair of the NCAA Presidents' of Mississippi, who is none otherthan the Past parently held by the president Commission,of Gerald Turner. A similarbelief is ap- saying in a recent press release, "Wea large, prestigious university who is notedas and, with the exclusion of football, are pleased to report that progress continues lease in March, 1992). we have essentially achieved gender equity."(Re-

59-428 0 - 92 - 5 128 102 constitute a Attitudes which exclude football inthe equity equation obviously major barrier to progress for womenin sport at the collegiate level. when a coach is penalizedbecause she/he protests Another major problem occurs at Fullerton. inequities. Such was the case thismonth at California State University but the Recently the institution haddecided to abolish the volleyball program lawsuit and obtained a preliminaryiajunction prohibit- coach, Jim Huffman, filed a judge's ruling, Huffman was ing the elimination ofvolleyball. Three days after the Article 5 of the Cali- fired. The University was found notto be in compliance with be provided on as fornia Statutes which requires"that opportunities in athletics and female students as ispracticable, and that compa- nearly an equal basis to male be offered to females to engagein athletics." rable incentives and encouragements sends a message Huffman ironically noted, "I amworried, however, that (my firing) for title IX and gender equity,you'll be fired." to coaches that if you stand up Investigators' Manual on how toevaluate the in- In 1990, the section in the OCRin sport was rewritten. As thefirst test of compli- terests and abilities of students athletic ratio to the ance, investigators wereinstructed to compare the male/female this concept male/female student ratio in thateducational institution. Although people in intercollegiate sport,it should be noted that the may be a new one to some IX guidelines which original idea was put forth as along-term goal in the 1978 title that time. Due to a massivebacklash by many in men's this author helped write at reference linking athletics, these guidelines were notadopted and unfortunately any the undergraduate women'sstudent population was re- the women's athlete ratio to As a result of that deletion,there has been no moved from the final guidelines.percentage split that we findtoday. Also eliminated movement beyond the 70/30unfortunately, was the proposal to use aper capita from these 1978 guidelines, expenditures in sport. standard when examining male/female of opportunities is I would like to present a fewthoughts on why an equal number sport. justified for girls and women in administrative positions equal pay,equal support Denying women in coaching and those professional women systems, equal incentives, etc.,is a major problem, but for that remedies will occur beforethey die. the hope continues to exist girls equal opportunities in avariety of sports at an On the other hand, denying because, in all likelihood, early age is an irreparableloss that will last a lifetime,participate in high school these girls will later lack theskill and the confidence to and beyond. and abilities Young women athletes who go on touniversities and whose interests (because they are only allocated 1/3of the athletic in sport are not accommodatedin Division I-A) have foreverlost that sporting op- slots overall and only 29 percent collegiate life portunity. The chance to participateduring their undergraduate window of competitive opportunityhas been lost to five one-time chance. This 4-year since 1972 when title IX waspassed, i.e., 20 years generations of collegiate womencollegiate populations. Hadparticipation ratios constitute five entirely differentmale/female ratios during these years, womenath- been similar to undergraduate of the letes would have enjoyed 50 percentrather than approximately 30 percent participation slots. athletes and also for theaforementioned tal- For some current female collegiate there is also the ques- ented student-athletes whofailed to gain a participation slot, scholarship tion of financial aid. Because womenreceive fewer than 1/3 of the athletes (28 percent in DivisionI-A), a young woman's opportu- moneys allocated to education may also be eliminatedunless her parents are nity to receive a college of economically wealthy enough to provide thefinancial resources. Five generations disadvantaged yet talented young womenstudent-athletes have been affected since 1972. tend to offer two free educations to youngmale The data show that universitiesfree education for a femalestudent-athlete. Is this student-athletes compared to one imagine an educational important? It most certainly is. Lookat it this way: Can you twice as institution having a policy where menannually automatically receive scholarships as women? many academic evoke a national outcry from boththose inside and Clearly, such a practice would athletic scholarship outside educational institutions.Yet the effect of our current the name of practice produces exactly the sameresult and there is no outcry. In justice, this must be changed. toward true Surely the abovz explanationis adequate justification for progress equal op --ortunity in sport. Conference, there is After considerable study by twocommittees in the Big Ten equity being debated on eachof the Big Ten cam- currently a recommendation on than 60 percent of the par- puses. The concept isthat within 5 years' time no more I n0 103 ticipants in intercollegiate athletics will be male and no fewer than 40 percent will be female at each of our Big Ten universities. In another 5 years' time, the percentage in athletic programs should reflect the undergraduate population proportions at each of the Big Ten universities. The latter goal is predicated upon making some substantial national changes in rules and regulations, primarily in order to free up moneys for equity. A vote will be taken at the Big Ten May meeting by faculty representatives and athletic administrators and, if passed, the recommendation will be forwarded io the chief executive officers for their June meeting. Although this plan necessitates yet another 10 year wait for equity for young women at our institutions, it is the first voluntary action taken by a group of major universities which attempts to assure equal participation opportunities in the foreseeable future. For that reason, if the action is passed, all those in the Big Ten universities are to be lauded for their leadership role in this area. This is one solution that could be duplicated by all in the Nation at both the public school and collegiate levels. This is a concept whose time has come.

t_ , 104

3 A Status of Women Coacnes in Selected States aIt wonn Co...set (1/r11... *Nil calming numon 01 woman cannot 111000afl to O. WOMEN'S ATHLETIC DIRECTORS notional OF VOKER'S PROGRAM 100 Toast So. On 100 Voomm 80 ...... 801 Flonat H111101. 601 Hiallg11 Y 60 WOMA 40 W *COMM .54.1 Fn 201 40

Ol 1972 74 7678 50 82 8486.68 90 lOw I.90 7 20 101v c 190 15 Div Gil go 25 0 Div Div Ili

Acosta R Carpenter 1990 19751950 19851990 19952000 By 1909 Intro well be no women strong at conhef Tolliver. 1991

0 C

STATUS OF VOA COVNIES Women's Intercollegiate Sports Coached By VVorner orMUG/ it014131'S 8.1.613ITHALL Tn.. kw. UM a FH

vs SB

BB GYM TN

SW.

CC rn

.. I 0 -oo 75 79 80 81 82 83 64 85 68 87 66 89 90 1960 5590 95 2000 5 10 2015 Sy 20024003. ylnually no women Mil torn If WW1.. ft 46.(r eatieees well wave. yrs oeneser snarl 2 yr easoges Acosta & Carpenter. 1990

131 BEST COPY AVAILABLE 105 Mrs. COLLINS. Thank you. Dr. Fuller. STATEMENT OF VIVIAN L. FULLER Ms. FULLER. Chairwoman Collins and members of the subcommittee, I have to commend you for having this series of hearings. Progress in providing opportunities for women has slowly ground to a standstill. In the 10 years following enactment of title IX, institutions took steps to add sports for women, increase the number of female participants, and provide additional opportunities for women, but we have not moved beyond those preliminary steps. If ever there was a doubt regarding the current inequity in opportunities for women in intercollegiate athletics, the NCAA. gender equity study provides concrete evidence. Despite the fact that women represent more than half 3f the students in most institutions, women student athletes are outnum- bered by men by more than two to one. Moremoney is spent on men's sports even if you exclude football from the formula. The dwindling number of female athletic administrators and coaches is of grave concern to me. The research of Linda Carpenter and Vivian Acosta documents the steep decline of women administrators and also women's decline as heads of intercollegiate athletic departments. As far as coaches, the NCAA gender equity studyre- veals that fewer than half of the head coaches of women's sports are women and that their salaries lag behind those of men. Colleges and universities must make compliance a priority. They must set equality of opportunity for women student athletes, coaches, and administrators as a goal and then establish a plan of action to address inequities that may exist on their campuses. In the area of administration, as job openings become available, institutions must make a commitment to hire women in those positions, and particularly when directors of athletics positions become vacant, institutions must consider hiring a woman for the position. Institutions also need to consider carefully the composition of their search committee. I do not think all-male search committees would be more effective because they would not focus on women in leadership positions, so I think institutions need to look at therepre- sentation of their committees. It is important for colleges to train women at lower levels of intercollegiate athletics administration, and to ensure that they have a skill they need to fill top intercollegiate athletics positions. This same concern applies to head coaches of women's sports. The NCAA gender equity study documents that most head coaches of women's sports are men. The absence of women in these positions has far-reaching effects. There are no female role models for student athletes in those sports, and women lose critical opportunities for networking and also growth and mentorship. Moreover, the near absence of women as head coaches of women's sports can lead to a general perception that there isno defined role for women in intercollegiate athletics other thanas a participant. That has a detrimental effect on a student athlete. Compliance with title IX should be in job descriptions of athletics directors just as institutions will be required to report graduation 106 rates. Universities should institute periodicallyperformance evaluations of AD's and review their progress to achievingtitle IX. I believe that there would be far more progress inachieving equality of athletic opportunities for women if athleticdirectors were held accountable for their failure to comply. When title IX is discussed, we hear concerns raised aboutthe cost of complying, but it is time for institutions to stopmaking excuses about the cost of providingopportunities for women and to focus on funding of intercollegiate athletic programs: Ifthere are not enough funds, how can these funds begenerated, and also what can be done to increasethe fund-raising equity? And again it is a question of commitment. Title IX and opportunities for women should be a pact ofthe rules of the Intercollegiate Athletic Association, theNational Asso- ciation of Intercollegiate Athletics, the National JuniorCollege As- sociation, and other small college associations. Thegender equity study is a start. A crucial and most important part isfollow-up. The NCAA and other intercollegiate athletic associationsneed to establish compliance with title IX as an association rule.Failure to set aside title IX obligations should disqualify teamsfrom participation in post-season championships or other competition events, subject them to sanctions just like they do if you violate arule. I strongly encourage the NCAA task force that will bedeveloping recommendations to propose legislation requiring institutions to comply with title IX to make title IX violations subject tothe NCAA infractions committee. [The prepared statement of Ms. Fuller follows:]

STATEMENT OP VIVIAN L. FULLER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS, INDIANA UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA Chairwoman Collins and members of the Subcommittee, I am Vivian L.Fuller and the Associate Director of Intercollegiate Athletics at Indiana Universityof Pennsylvania, a position I have held since July 1987. Previously, I was AssistantDi- rector of Athletics and Assistant Professor of Health, PhysicalEducation, and Recreation at North Carolina A&T State University in Greensboro, NorthCarolina. I have made numerous professional presentations on issues facing womenin intercollegiate athletics and I appreciate this opportunity to testify concerning titleIX, women's participation in intercollegiate athletics, and problems facing femaleathletic administrators. My sense is that progress in providing opportunities for women has slowly ground to a standstill. In the 10 years following enactment of title IX,institutions took steps to add sports for women, increase the number of femaleparticipants, and provide additional opportunities for women. But we have not moved beyondthose preliminary steps. If ever the- was a doubt regarding the current inequality of opportunity for women in inter collegiate athletics, the NCAA genderequity study provides concrete evidence. Despite the fact that women represent more than halfof the undergraduate enrollment at most institutions, women student-athletes areout- numbered by men by more than two to one. More money is spent onmen's sports than on women's sports. This statement holds true even when expenses forfootball are not considered. The emphasis on men's sportsis reflected in scholarship expenditures for male student-athletes (even if that percentage is proportionate topartici- pation and therefore technically is in compliance with the title IXregulation), operating and recruiting expenditures for men's sports, and compensationof coaches of men a sports. Of grave concern to me and to my colleagues is the dwindling number offemale athletic administrators and coaches. While the NCAA gender equitystudy did not provide data concerning athletic administrators, the research and studies of Linda Carpenter and Vivian Acosta, the latter of whom I believe is scheduled totestify before you this morning, vividly document the steep decline in femaleheads of intercollegiate athletics departments. As for coaches, the NCAA gender equitystudy

rs. 107 reveals that fewer than half of the head coaches of women's sports are women and that salaries for coaches of women's sports lag behind those of men. While many justifications can be offered to explain the data and while legal tech- nicians can debate the legal ramifications, one fact remainsmuch progress is needed before gender equity in intercollegiate athletics is achieved. Colleges and universities must make compliance with title IX a priority. They must set equality of opportunity for womenstudent-athletes, coaches, and adminis- tratorsas a goal, and then establish a plan of action to address inequalities that may exist on their campuses. Compliance with title IX, is a fluid process that requires constant monitoring and assessment, and therefore requires a commitment on the part of the higher education community. In administration, as openings become available, institutions need to target key positions at all levels for women. Women should not be limited to traditional positions in higher education, such as assistant or associate director of athletic: oras- sistant or dean of areas customarily reserved for women (e.q., dean of students, nursing, or home economics). In particular, when director of athletics positions become vacant, institutions should consider hiring a woman for the job. If institutions are serious about equality of opportunity, they need to conside- carefully the composition of their search committees. All-male search committees may be less likely to focus on female candidates than a search committee with equal representation of men and women. One point that frequently is overlooked in the title IX debate is the need to train women administrators at lower levels of intercollegiate athletics administration to ensure that women administrators have the skills they need to fill top intercollegiate athletics administrative positions. While women may know about coaching sports, budgeting, and managing departments, they may be less knowledgeable in areas such as fundraising. Experience is essential, and colleges and universities need to set as a priority the training of women intercollegiate athletics administrators in all areas of administration. This same concern applies to head coaches of women's sports. The NCAA gender equity study documents that, in most cases, head coaches of women's sports are men. The absence of women in these positions has far-reaching effectsthere are no female role models for student-athletes in those sports, and women lose critical opportunities for networking and for receiving the benefits of mentoring. Moreover, the near absence of women as head coaches of women's sports can lead to thegener- al perception that there is no defined role for women in athletics, other than as participants. Institutions need to include training and mentoring of staff members in their performance evaluations. If directors of athletics are held responsible for making sure that this kind of training is being done, they are more likely to regardit as a priority and to make certain their staff members are trained. In fact, compliance with title IX should be in the job description of every director of intercollegiate athletics, just as the reporting of graduation rates will be required of institutions. Colleges and universities should institute periodic performance evaluation of directors of athletics and review their progress towards achieving compliance with title IX. I believe that there would be far more progress in achieving equality of athletic opportunity for women if top intercollegiate athletics administrators were held accountable for their failure to comply. Inevitably, when title IX is discussed, we hear concerns raised about the cost of complying. It is time for institutions to stop making excuses about the cost of providing opportunities for women student-athletes and to focus on how to fund intercollegiate athletic programs. If additional funding beyond the existing intercollegiate athletics budget is not available through generated revenue or special multi- purpose discretionary funds, then the emphasis must be on increased fundraising. Again, it is a question of commitment. If institutions place compliance v ith title IX high on their list of priorities, then the question of funding becomes one of "how will we do it?", not "it's not possible". Moving from the individual institutional perspective, institutions need to identify title IX and opportunities for women in sports as a priority in the rules of the athletic associations in which they participate. The gender equity study released last month by the NCAA is a start. Follow-up is critical. The NCAA and other intercollegiate athletics organizations need to establish compliance with title IX as an association rule. Failure to satisfy title IX obligations should disqualify teams from participating in post-season championship competition or subject them to other sanctions. In releasing the results of the gender equity study, NCAA Executive Director Dick Schultz announced the creation of a task force, composed of men and women who hold distinct points of view on the issue, to develop recommendations on how 108 the NCAA should proceed. I strongly encourage the NCAA task force to propose legislation requiring institutions to comply with title IX and to make title IX violations subject to the NCAA enforcement program, just like other NCAA rules violations. These concerns take me back to my initial thesis that institutions must make gender equity and compliance with title IX a priority. They must identify specific steps they will take to move toward providing equal athletic opportunity for women on their individual campuses. The Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights ("OCR") can assist in this effort by actively enforcing title IX and by providing more specific guidance as to what title IX requires and what institutions must do to comply. OCR has taken a step in this direction by circulating its draft memorandum to college presidents concerning the title IX implications of eliminating women's sports. OCR needs to continue this public education process and clearly define what institutions must do. The more institutions understand what title IX requires, the greater their ability to comply with the law, and the fewer their excuses for not doing so. Chairwoman Collins, I commend you and the members of this subcommittee for '- -'e these hearings and focusing attention on this important issue that affects fui `-q'f of our Nation's student population. Whether they wish to compete in intercoite6....athletics, intramurals, or club sports, women constitute about half of the undergraduate student population. They should not be denied the opportunities that are available to their male counterparts. And female athletic administrators and coaches should not be rarities on campus. Title IX is on the books. With greater institutional commitment, combined with increased government enforcement, equal athletic opportunity can be realized. Thank you for the opportunity to present my views this morning. I would be glad to answer any questions you or subcommittee members may have. Mrs. COLLINS Thank you. Dr. McElroy. STATEMENT OF LEE A. McELROY Mr. MCELROY. Thank you, Chairwoman Collins, and I would like to also commend the committee for taking this yeoman effort to in. vestigate and look into the practices of intercollegiate athletics. You have gotten a tremendous amount of information, and I'm not going to be redundant here with many of the statistics that my colleagues have brought forth. I would like to say, however, that the problem of gender equity is one that is pervasive in our society. I saw yesterday in one news account that at USC the Women, Men, and Media Project concluded that the role of women in the media has declined significantly over the last few years, and this was done by a woman, Nancy Woodhall, who was the co-author of that project. Ms. Grant mentioned that since 1972, 90 percent of the women's coaches in intercollegiate athletics has declined to about 42 percent at present. Clearly we have a problem, and my job as an athletic director and one who has been on three different campuses all with different missionsone, a Division I school, the University of Hous- ton in the Southwest Conference; another here in this city, UDC, an historically black university; and now at a predominatelywhite campus in Sacramento that is new to Division II have seentitle IX practiced in entirely unique settings, and it has given me as one applying the practice a pretty good perspective on how it should be employed. I would like to stay away, again, from the background and the history because you people have that and my colleagues have done a tremendous job with it, and we need to forward on it. One of the things that has to change, I think is attitudes, and how do you change those attitudes? I was just at an athletic direc-

3 5 109 tors meeting in Minneapolis at the Final Four. Dick Schultzwas there. We had a member of the Knight Commission, Maureen Devlin, who also presented; she was there and dida wonderful job. One of the comments that came up, whichwe often hear from athletic directors, is, "I'm not opposed to gender equity, but how do I pay for it?" There is a declining resource not only in athletics but also in higher education, and we have a problem. We have got to comply with gender equity, and the resourcesare shrinking. Donna Lopiano has advocated a unilateral disarmament of the resources in order to deal with gender equity. In my view, I don't think that will accomplish very much. What I dopropose are a few recommendations that I think we should follow in order to change the next 20 years, because if we continue atour present rate, as Ms. Grant has pointed out, we won't haveany women or any coaches or any women administrators in college athletics, and that would be a disservice to this country and to intercollegiate athletics. I think, again, the certification process in athletics is moving for- w,rd; the gender equity compliance should be a part of it: Simply, ii u don't comply with gender equity, you don't become certified; if you are not certified, you won't be able to participate,you won't be involved in championships, you will haveyour name in a light that doesn't look particularly good. Dick Schultz and the task force are to be commended. Irecom- mend a gender equity foundation; they seem to be moving toward that, again, to bring people from outside of athletics to address the issue. We are a microcosm of the society, and ifwe are going to resolve the problem we are going to need some help. Apparently we haven't been able to do it ourselves. The institutions have to begin to take athletic participation by women seriously. Again, as many of my colleagues have outlined today, the campus has not taken it seriously, they have not investigated it seriously, and when they have they have found cleverways to get around the ruling. We must cease that practice. Institutions have to look at the next 5 years, the next 210years, in terms of the leadership of women, and that has to bemore than just an appointment in a key position in a major organization. There are some very able women, there issome very able talent that is going undisclosed and is not being represented, andwe need to use it appropriately in order to turn the problem around in the next 20 years. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement, of Mr. McElroy follows:]

STATEMENT OF LEE A. MCELROY, ATHLETIC DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY The debate regarding gender equity in intercollegiate athletics has escalatedas a result of recent court decisions and the NCAA Gender-Equity Study. These two events highlight the complexity of gender equity in intercollegiate athletics. In the remarks outlined below, I am hopeful the members of the Subcommitteeon Com- merce, Consumer Protection and Competitiveness will consider the future direction of gender equity and apply the recommendations towarda new model based on vision, leadership, and creative strategies. The gender equity issue has generated an ambiguous and disjointedpurpose which has led to deception and practices of sexism. Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments Act called for institutions of higher education to provide equal athletic opportunities for women. During the tenure of title IX, athletic administrators mis-

r": 110 interpreted and abused the law. My experience as an athletics administrator a` three institutions involved three divergent perspectives on gender equity and title I.X. Why has this occurred? The NCAA and institutions of higher education failed to meet the needs of women sports due to the rapidity of social change and the application of broad policy to a unique environment that required sensitivity, adaptability and diversity. Confronta- tional and contentious procedures were engaged to "correct" the problem while maintaining the status quo of intercollegiate athletics. The results of the previous 20 years of title IX interpretation produced confusion, chaos, and ethical deficits not to mention the fiscal crisis and denial of quality athletic participation for women. The continuation of the standard operating procedures for intercollegiate athletics in the treatment of gender equity must be eliminated. We must employ bold initiatives that take into consideration fiscal reality, football participation, historical perspective, and future direction. Currently, there exist models of excellence that deserve review and a formation of an alliance to establish a new order for gender equity. In the States of Washington and Minnesota, the Women's Sports Foundation and numerous institutions of high education, the opportunity to build a new model for gender equity in the 21st century is present. In sum, the next 20 years must include expanded resources, vision, leadership, ethical standards, creativity, and a proactive alliance to provide intercollegiate athletics with a model that promotes gender equity in an enthusiastic and successful environment. To accomplish the above, I recommend: 1. Each institution should be mandated to file an annual gender equity plan that is assessed and reviewed each year. 2. A national Gender Equity Foundation be form. d immediately to influence policy and initiate recommendations. 3. Gender equity in intercollegiate athletics should be woven with institutional gender equity policy. 4. Gender equity become a measure of NCAA Certification procedures. 5. Institutions should be provided assistance in the operation of gender equity by the proposed Gender Equity Foundation. 6. The Olympic Committee and other external sports bodies should assist intercollegiate athletics in the refinement of gender equity. 7. Employment and program practices should encourage gender balance with targeted goals. 8. Exnand athletic opportunities for female student-athletes with specific goals. 9. Soficit corporate involvement to market and promote gender equity. 10. The media should consistently address gender equity issues. Mrs. COLLINS. Thank you very much. On May 17, 1991, the assistant secretary of education for the Office of Civil Rights indicated that four compliance reviews were scheduled for 1991. This number was increased to a total of 7, 6 universities and 1 school district. However, when one considers that there are 10 regional offices nationwide, that number wouldn't seem to account for even each regional office conducting a single compliance review. Also, for all 10 regional offices in fiscal year 1984, there were 336 nonsupervisory equal opportunity specialists, and in fiscal year 1992 there were 320. These persons handle all kinds of complaints and what-have-you. The question is, do you think that there is adequate monitoring being done by the Office of Civil Rights, and do you think there are sufficient numbers of compliance reviews being conducted by OCR? Ms. Vargyas. Ms. VARGYAS. Madam Chairwoman, in my opinion, OCR is a large part of the problem. It has to do both with compliance reviews and complaints, it has to do with the standards they set or don't set, it has to do with absolutely no follow-up. Let me give you an example. A major complaint was filed just over a year ago dealing with Brooklyn College, which is part of the City University of New York system. It took OCR well over a year to investigate and come to a 137 111 conclusion regarding that complaint. During the investigation,ir- regularities occurred. One example is that the OCR investigators took a City University attorney with them to interviewa coach, did not inform the coach of the identity of that attorney, and thenput that coach at enormous risk during that interview. In any event, finally, about 14 months after they started theinvestigation, they negotiated with Brooklyn College what they call assurances. In other words, they found a series of violations, took these, quote, assurances from Brooklyn College, did noteven consult with the complaining parties, and basedon the assurances found no violation, even though they had founda number of violations had occurred, and closed the complaint. I think it was Valentine's Day, actually, that thiscame out. To date, Brooklyn College has failed to meet at least two dates that it promised to take actions by. The complaining partiesare trying to figure out how to get OCR back into a case which they closedbased on assurances they negotiated without even asking the complaining parties. The saddest part of the whole episode is that OCR views thisas a major success. The compliance reviews are few and far between. OCR applies, in my judgment, several seriously flawed policy analyses of title IX, and then this is an example of a major complaint which they undertook. OCR, again, in my judgment, is part ofthe problem. Mrs. COLLINS. Ms. Grant, do you agree that OCR is part of the problem? Ms. GRANT. Absolutely. I think in the 1980's theywere not funded and therefore they were not allowed to enforce title IX,and they have not yet really established what the standardsare, which I think ought to be based on enrollment and alsoon the history of expansion, and, believe me, every university in this country could expand today if it wanted to. When we were talking this morning with the NCAA abouttheir responsibilities, most definitely they can do quitea few things to help the equity situation. But every individual university inthis country in the eighties and in the nineties has thepower to move quickly toward equity if they so wish. They have voluntarilynot chosen to do so, and that is when OCR has got to step in anden- force title IX. Mrs. CowNs. What would be your recommendationsto the Office of Civil Rights regarding their current enforcementproce- dures, Dr. Fuller? Ms. FULLER. The first thing I would suggest to OCR is that they have clearer guidelines of what should be done. Iagree with both of these women on follow-up, andas far as the procedures that they are using, they have to be changed. The other thing is,OCR has not taken significant steps to implement title IX, andit is almost like show cost of funding: "If there isa problem, you contact us, and we will do something," and there isno follow-up, and I agree, I think OCR is part of the problem. Mrs. COLLINS. Do you agree, Dr. McElroy? Mr. MCELROY. Yes, I do, and for the samereason that Vivian just outlined, and that is interpretation and consistency. IfOCR comes in and has an idea of what they are looking for, I think they

I 3 8

4. 112 do a much better job. Oftentimes they are looking for the wrong things, and so they come out with the wrong output. Mrs. COLLINS. How would you suggest they refocus their efforts? Mr. MCELROY. One of the things isand maybe Christine or Ms. Vargyas or Vivian have had some contact with OCRyou never hear from OCR until, quote, there is a complaint, and I think part of the training process and part of the educational part of it should occur prior to that so that we understand what is going on from their end and they understand what is going on from our end. Ms. Vargyas talked about the assurances side. If someone is going to cleverly not comply with ,title IX and the people who are there to enforce it are going to agree with them, obviously there is a problem when they go in. The landscape has changed dramatically in intercollegiate athletics for women and intercollegiate athletics generally, and I don't know if there has been any kind of input on their part with regard to training and education. Mrs. COLLINS. Thank you. Ms. FULLER. If I could add to that, the other point with OCR is that the guidelines that were written initially have not been changed since they were written in the seventies, and at some point those guidelines have to be evaluated to make that institutions, OCR, and also NCAA are on the same page when it comes to complying with title IX, and right now they are not, they are all polarized as to what compliance means. Ms. VARGYAS. If I may add one further thing, OCR put out about 2 years ago a manual for its investigators, not through the Federal Register process, this is an internal document, which is fairly con- troversial, at least among people who believe that OCR should be enforcing title IX. Over 11 /2 years ago, on behalf of the National Co- alition for Women and Girls in Education, my own organization, the Women's Sports Foundation, the National Association for Girls and Women in Sports, I submitted a detailed analysis and critique of that manual, asked for a series of specific changes, and made ourselves available to meet with OCR to work with OCR. Concerns ranged from statistical analyses in determining compliance with these tolerate large numerical differences in scholarships, the whole participation question about how an institution can justify a 30 percent participation rate, and so forth. I have yet to receive, 11/2 years later, any definitive response from OCR. They haven't even told me, "Thank you, but no thanks, we don't agree with you;" it is still sitting there. This is the extent of their interest and commitment to this issue; it is simply not there. Mrs. COLLINS. Mr. McMillan. Mr. McMILLAN. Did some of your criticism focus on the complaint process? Dr. McElroy mentioned that the only response seems to come to complaints, and yet I gather that there are not a lot of complaints. What is the reason for that? It is a lack of awareness of the process? Is it that no one anticipates an adequate response? Or how would you characterize it? Most of the testimony has tended to focus on kind of a top-down control approach as opposed to a reactive approach to complaints, and that is the reason for my question, to see if there is something missing there that perhaps you could enlighten us about. 19 113 Ms. VARGYAS. I think you raise somevery important points. The analysis that we did, because it dealt with OCR's interpretationof policy, did not approach procedure so much, how they do it, it dealt with some disagreements we had about their interpretation of title IX meant, getting to some of the issues which have been here. I don't advocate particularly increased OCR compliance reviews unless and until OCR takes positions which actuallyare going to enforce title IX, and, again, let me giveyou an example in the scholarship participation issue. One of the major problems which has been identified is this 30 percent female participation. OCR currently takes the view that scholarships should be pegged topar- ticipation, and, even .if there is a discriminatorily reduced participation rate, you are still OK on scholarships if it is thesame rate. Now everyone has ignored the factnoteveryone but those who have discussed itthe one court in this country to address the issue, which was in the Haffer litigation thatmy office brought, held that you cannot justify discriminatorily reduced scholarships based on discriminatorily reduced participation. Itseems to me nothing much more than common sense. Ifwomen are at 30 percent participation because the school has cut women's teams, because it has refused to make women's club teams into varsity teams, the school can't then turn around and say, "Well, hey, I'm OK on scholarships because I have 30 percent scholarships.' Now this is OCR's position, and something that isvery troubling to me about the NCAA position is, they adopt this whole-hog. Theysay, "We're fine on scholarships," and then they try and avoid theparticipation question, which is in many ways the linchpin question. In the Brooklyn College complaint, OCR actually found participation discrimination but refused to find scholarship discrimination because the scholarship percentage was close to the participation percentage. I have no interest in advocating that OCRgo around the country and tell schools that they are' not in violation of the statute because their scholarship rates are the same as their discriminatorily reduced participation rates. That doesn't help advance the cause, and, in my judgment, it doesn't enforce title IX. Ms. GRANT. May I add to that? Mr. McMILLAN. Yes, Ma'am. Ms. GRANT. I totally concur with the comments. What has happened nationwide at the collegiate level is thatwe have been stuck around 30 percent participation since 1980that is for the last 12 yearsand the institutions are sitting back and saying, "We're in compliance with title IX; we are meeting our scholarship responsibilities," because you are getting scholarshipmoney close to that, and that is why I said OCR has got to be pushed to thecorner on stipulating that the standard in 1992 will be basedon the enrollment, not on a discriminatory participation limited opportunity. At the University of Iowa, we have 11 club sports forwomen. We could today elevate some of those sports immediately to varsity status if we so wished, and so can any university in our country. Mr. McMILLAN. On that point though, what generates the cash at the University of Iowa? Obviously football. MS. GRANT. Yes. Mr. MCMILLAN. Basketball? Ms. GRANT. Right. 140 114 Mr. MCMILLAN. Does wrestling? Ms. GRANT. A little. Mr. MCMILLAN. Probably the best wrestling school in the country, but does it generate cash? Ms. GRANT. It does not meet all of its expenditures, but it does generate cash. Mr. MCMILLAN. Does it make money? MS. GRANT. No. Mr. MCMILLAN. You subsidize it? Ms. GRANT. Yes. Mr. Mc MILAN. Is that based on participation? Ms. GRANT. It is based on the needs of each sport, men's and women's sports. But the whole theory of subsidization Mr. Mc MILIAN. My point in saying that is that you probably make a conscious decision to support that sport, for whatever the reasons are, and they obviously have been there for a long time because you have a long-standing tradition in that sport. It may receive an inordinate amount of emphasis compared to some other school. But how would you come in there and say that because of that you are discriminating and maybe you don't have a certain women's sport that is now a club sport because you argue that you are distorted in your emphasis on wrestling? Ms. GRANT. I think if I were in professional sports I would have no problem with your thesis and assumptions, none at all. I have a problem when we are talking about educational institutions, because at the University of Iowa, and probably every university, our College of Liberal Arts has never supported itself and never ever will support itself, but it is an integral part of our university that is funded from elsewhere in the university. The same concept applies to our intercollegiate athletic program. The money that comes in is not football's, it is not men's basketball's, it is the institution's money. It is up to the institution to determine where that money will be given, where it will be allocated, and I think that is what our institutions have been guilty of not doing, they have not been making the hard decisions of, where do we want our money to go in order to provide equal opportunity in an educational institution? Mr. McMILLAN. But there are differing patterns though. I was pursuing this a little with Mr. Schultz. Is a lot of your scholarship money at the University of Iowa generated by contributions, or isit generated by the revenue produced by the sport itself? Ms. GRANT. By both, and women's athletics also contribute by way of gate receipts and also contribute by way ofcontributions. Mr. McMILLAN. Would those funds go into the same pool, or would you draw a distinction between contributions for scholarship A as opposed to the revenue produced by the sport? Ms. GRANT. What our university tends to do is to put it into a pot and then the president's office determines where the allocations will be made. Mrs. COLLINS. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. McMillen of Maryland. Mr. Mc MILLEN. I think, with all due respect to the gentleman from North Carolina, we keep going back to the point of making money. You know, Christian Laettner made a lot of moneyfor 1 4 1 115 Duke University, but he personally didn't makea lot of money. If you want to go make money, then let's turn them into businesses, but they are not businesses. I meanwe just can't continue to use business argument~ when we are not dealing with businesses.If you want to use Easiness arguments, make them businesses; let the IRS come in and do the whole thing. It is analogous to saying, well, what makesa profit in a university? The bookstore maybe, maybe the royaltyarea where are new inventions and so forth. That is analogous to saying,well, then all the endowment should go there, because it is the onlyplace that is making money at the campus. Butwe don't do that, we are promoting colleges and universities, and that is whywe, the Federal Gov- ernment, and government invests $160, billionevery year, more money than any country except Denmark per capita, and the fact is, we are promoting colleges and universit;',s;we have got to get back to that theme. The basic problem that I have is that I don't thinktitle IX will be complied with in this current structure. It isimpossible. I mean as you related, there are just too many systemic problems;you need a systemic change. The presidents don't really havecontrol of this program. The NCAA's own budgetthere is onlyone president on the committee that looks at the NCAA's budget. The fact is, if you want to get control,you are going to have to put the money back in a pot, and that is whatmy legislation does. I hope that you will go look at itso that women will understand that if they want gender equity they havegot to change the struc- tures. You just can't have more policemen and expect thatyou are going to have compliance; it won't work;you will get part of the way, but you won't get enough of the way. What I try to do is, I try to put the presidents backin cont....a of this. They are in control of everything else; why shouldn'tthey be in control of the athletic department? I want to put themoney in a pot. And I am for big-time sports. I don't thinkyou need to have 100 scholarships for football when the NFL gets by with44 players. I don't think you need 14 football coaches. I thinkyou can spread that revenue around and still have the players playingjust as hard. Remember, kids played justas hard 50 years ago as they do today; there has been no change; the playersare playing just as hard. The fact is, we adults have piledmoney under this and we have corrupted the system. So I think it is important thatwe develop a whole new model, and I think if we don't the courts will do it, because thecourts will make it into a business eventually. Let me ask you, would youagree with that premise? Do you think we are going to get title IX just by addingmore policemen title IX compliance? Ms. VARGYAS. Well, I agree that is going to bevery hard to get the whole way, but we have just been givena very important new policeman, if you will, with the Supreme Court's decisionin Febru- ary in the Franklin case which now provides money damages for intentional violations of title IX, and Ican tell you that, certainly from an advocate's perspective, OCR is not theway to go, that is not going to accomplish anything, but there is goingto be, I am nearly certain, a very substantial increase in litigation.

142 116 Mr. MCMILLEN. That is an awfuladversarial way to do it, though, isn't it? Ms. VARGYAS. It is a very adversarial , y,and money is going to end up being spent in verynonproductive fashions, but that is what is going to happen. I mean, infact, an obje^.t lesson of that was Temple. There were nodamages, but Temple ended up spending over $700,000 in plaintiffs'attorneys' fees, which didn't even begin to talk about what they spent ontheir own program. Mr. McMILLEN. You were nodding.What was your thought on that? Mr. MCELROY. I was just saying, it seemsto me unproductive, given the state of higher educationand the state of college athletics right now in terms of theshrinking resources that you alluded to, to go that route because no onewins. To me, if we look at a new model, whether it is through your bill or someother model, when we take intoconsideration the entire athletic program, notjust those programs that generate revenue,because as you well know, and you all have heard from DickSchultz, 70 percentor maybe it is 75 percent nowof the DivisionI athletic programs are in the red. Mr. MCMILLEN. And they are in thered because there is an arms race. They have got tobuild a bigger stadium; they have to pay coaches more money. You can't keep upwith the Joneses. If you are Notre Dame, you arein great shape. Mr. MCELROY. There are about 15 or20 schools that are in that category. Mr. Mc MILLEN. If you are an historicallyblack college, you are getting left out. 41, Mr. MCELROY. Cal-State atSacramento is nowhere near that league. Mr. MCMILLEN. And another issue is,this is just going down to the high schools. We are having revenuesgoing into high schools. What problems we see in colleges today we aregoing to see in high schools tomorrowsneaker contractsfor coaches, the whole thing. The fact is, we are the only country inthe world that built sports entertainment complexes on our colleges andhigh school campuses, only one; everyoneelse divorced it. So if you are a greatathlete, you have got to go to theclub after school in France and Russia.In America, it is all molded together. Furthermore, itis the pathway to the pros. If youwant to become a pro basketball player, youhave got to go through this system. It is screwy. Why don't wehave alternatives? Why don't we have a route outsideof our colleges and universities? I mean the one thing Americans are worryingabout more than anything else, in the frustration that is lashing outat this institution, is that we are not number one as acountry, we are losing our economic edge, and here we are sitting around,letting sports entertainment complexes destroy lots of goodwill. Do you know that over half ofthe major institutions in this country have been sanctioned bythe NCAA, their athletic department; it is front-page news. Do youthink people want to support that university when that happens?No, because it is an athletic factory. So we are putting thistremendous investment in higher education, and we are seeing itdepreciated, depreciated daily, by 13 6

117 these problems in college sports. Why? Becausewe have a "winner take all" mentality on our collegecampuses, and it is going to get worse. We are going to be driving to pay-per-view, we are going to have more of that, we are going to have adversarialrelationships with women's sports; I think it is heading downa road that is very deleterious not only for this country but it is heading downa road that is deleterious for college sports. Mr. MCELROY. Mr. McMillen, if Imay add to that, I agree with you totally. In 1984 when the Bursiaga decision was handed down, at the time many people thought it wasa boon for college athlet- icsthe free market will take over, it will bea lot of money there, and those who really deserve themoney in the marketplace will receive it. Well, the reverse happened. The marketwas cluttered, the money shrunk dramatically, and it has not been good,and if we don't do something to get a new model you are going to have the Notre Dames and other institutions in this countrysaying, "I've got mine, forget about the rest of us," and thatwill be a sad day in America. Mr. MCMILLEN. If the chairwoman will indulgeme for 10 more seconds, the problem is, if the NCAAgoes too far in any of these things, these schools will bail out, they will form theirown basketball conference. That is exactly what the CFA did. Theyare bound by certain walls that, if they go too far, they willrun for the money, and so you have an inability to reform internally, because if they get too aggressive, schools will bolt. They willsay, "Let's have Notre Dame and Duke; we will haveour own basketball association," just like they did in football. Mr. MCELROY. But, if you are advocating, if there issome kind of structure that the university and not the athleticprogram will have to comply with and respond toagain,some new systemic way of dealing with the revenues that are consistently shrinking because, after all, as more institutions have problems, whoare they going to play? Mr. MCMILLEN. That is right. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mrs. COLLINS. The time of the gentleman has expired. Certain sports were deemed contact sports by title IXregulation, 34 CFR, section 106.41(b). The definition is open-ended,so that certain jurisdictions have deemed baseballa contact sport. Title IX regulations are viewed as neutral on whether to require schoolsto field a co-ed team in a contact sport. Doany of you or all of you believe that this is another example of howsex discrimination is allowed to prevail? Let's start down here and go thisway. Mr. MCELROY. Well, again, as I alluded to earlier,Ms. Collins, the situation with OCR and also with title IX hasto be with education, and that is an indication, inmy view, of something that can't be enforced. I don't know ifmy colleagues on the panel would agree with me here, but defining contact in terms of whetheror not there is male participation and whetheror not there are co-ed teams seems to me to be ridiculous. The other issue is, can the increase in participation forwomen in your programis the department making a tremendous effort in

144 118 order to meet that, and that is nothappening, and however you try to get around it, however youtry the OCR, it is not working. Mrs. COLLINS. Dr. Fuller. Ms. FULLER. The other issue thatI think we need to consider specifically with OCR is that there are nospecific guidelines and we cloud the issue more when we tryto use definition of terms to evaluate or justify why actions arebeing taken. Mrs. COLLINS. Ms. Grant. Ms. GRANT. I think single-sex teamsfor the foreseeable future would be the best avenue of approachfor young women. I'm not ruling out coeducation teams wherethey really are honest coeducational teams, but at the current timeit seems to me we need to increase our participation for young women,and single-sex teams is the way I would recommend. Mrs. COLLINS. Ms. Vargyas. Ms. VARGYAS. I absolutely concurwith that. I think, in fact, the only time you see the discussionof coeducational teams is when the school is really trying to limitwomen's opportunities. You see that more in the secondary school areathan you do in post-secondary, and of course allthe same problems we are talkingabout here in ?ost-secondary exist in thesecondary school system. in fact, Temple at one point, to usethat example again, tried to defend its discriminatory practicesarguing that even though the men's teams were called the men's teams,they were reallymy word, not theirsthe people's teams,that in spite of the fact that they were called the men's teams,that the literature said teams for men only, that no women had everbeen on these teams, and that they had never previously, prior tothe litigation, announced this policy, nonetheless these teams werereally everybody's teams and that therefore they could notbe held to be discriminating against anyone. Mrs. COLLINS. Ms. Vargyas, do youthink there has been sufficient case law in the area of title IXclearly defining equal opportunity? Ms. VARGYAS. No, I do not. WhileI would love to have a more cooperative approach than litigation todevelop the law and develop the responsibilities, tobe perfectly honest I can't see anyalter- natives, and it would be nice, again, towait for schools to do what they are supposed to do, I don't thinkthey are going to, and I pre- dict a very significant increase inlitigation over the short term. Mrs. COLLINS. Do you know of anyinstitutions forfeiting Federal financial assiAance due to noncompliancewith title IX? Ms. VARGYAS. OCR has neverdefunded an institution based on noncompliance with title IX, not in 20 years. Mrs. COLLINS. And you are shaking yourhead, Ms. Grant. You don't know of any either? Ms. GRANT. No. Mrs. COLLINS. You have all outlinedthe problems, and the other panel outlined them too, and you haveall said what college administrators and athletic departmentsought to do. What do you think the NCAA should do? What kindof actions or sanctions might be appropriate? Why don't we start with you,Ms. Vargyas, and come down the line.

145 119 Ms. VARGYAS. I think the NCAA has totreat sex discrimination every bit as seriously, probably more seriously, thanexactly the kinds of violations that youwere addressing earlier. They get in all sorts of trouble -for spending a few dollarson a recruit that they are not supposed to, but nobody says boo when they spendless than 20 pero:nt of their overall recruitingmoney on women, and they say, "Well, women just aren'tinterested; we can't find the women." Unless and until this becomesa death penalty kind of a sanction from the NCAAyou know, the study ise step forward, it is a good thing to have, it should have been done 20years ago, but, again, I commend the NCAA for doing it, I think it isimportant, but that is not going to solve the problem, because anybody whoknows anything about women's athletics foundno new information in that study; what it gave us was nationally-basedfigures, which was useful and important, but there is reallyno news in that study. Mrs. COLLINS. Ms. Grant, what doyou think the NCAA should do to make sure we have greater gender equity? Ms. GRANT. The NCAA is experimenting rightnow with a certification program. It would seem tome that is the ideal avenue to make equity a part of the certificationprocess, and an institution's inability to meet the equity standard shouldpossibly mean expul- sion from the NCAA. I think that wouldsend a very strong message. Mrs. COLLINS. Dr. Fuller. Ms. FULLER. I agree totally with that. There are three things that I think the NCAAshould do: (1) if an institution fails to comply with title IX, thenthe institution is not eligible for any championships; (2) I thinkthat title IX should become a part of the enforcementprogram; and a third aspect would be certification. We do it for all otherprograms; use that as a governing agency and start enforcing the law. Mrs. COLLINS. Dr. McElroy. Mr. MCELROY. I also would like to supportChristine's and Viv- ian's idea of including gender equity inthe certification process. The certification process is already there. One of the things that we talked aboutat the athletic directors meeting on Sunday was that it is not officialbut that it is under the, quote, fiscal integrity subtopic, andeveryone says, "Well, where are we going to get theresources to do that?" I think it should be one of the ingredientsor components of certification. The other issue is education. We have donea tremendous job in this country, in my view,.of educating thepublic about drugs and substance abuse. I think thesame thing needs to be done with gender equity. There needs to bea public relations/marketing tool put forth not only for intercollegiate athletics butfor the post-secondary, as Ms. Vargyas has outlined, andsociety in general, because young women have opportunities, and they shouldbe expanded and taken advantage of, and at this pointthey aren't. Mrs. COLLINS. Which leads to anotherquestion: What can we do to generate more interest in women's sports?Would your only answer beand I think you would say nothat the networksgive more coverage to women's sports? That would certainly behelpful, would it not? 148 120 MS. VARGYAS. Absolutely. I defer toDr. Grant on this, who has been working in this area for yearsand knows how to run a successful and popular program. Mrs. COLLINS. Dr. Grant, what can we do togenerate more interest in women's sports? Ms. GRANT. One thing we could do is,if we adopt Representative McMillen's bill and we give back to theNCAA the ability to negoti- ate television contracts, we couldrestrict the number of times that institutions are actually on television andmake that more equitable than it currently is, which I thinkis a very good thing, because it is the haves who are getting moreand more television coverage, and I would like to see other schools gettelevision coverage. The other thing that could be done is,if the NCAA is negotiating the television coverage, they can benegotiating for women's coverage at the same time asthey are negotiating for men's coverage, and if we are cutting back for the men,the women can fit very nicely into the free slots. Right now, womencannot get on television because the men are on all thetime, and there are only 24 hours a day. Actually, we have less television coveragetoday than we had 12 years ago,significantly less. Mrs. COLLINS. What do you think, Dr.McElroy, that the Congress should do in this situation to get greaterparticipation and try to reach some kind of gender equity? Mr. MCELROY. Well, you folks have done atremendous job of col- lecting data, analyzing the situation, andcoming up with alternatives through your continued discussionsand debate in hearings. Apparently we are moving to an areawhere there are going to have to be specific guidelines and goals,and it appears as though, listening to the testimony and also listeningto many of my colleagues today, that some form of directallocation is going to have to be put forth for women. Therewill have to be participation levels that go beyond 30 percent,obviously, because for 20 years that hasn't worked, isn't working, and wearen't complying with it. There will also need to be some considerationof how the football question is dealt with. I thought it wasinteresting that on the day that the gender equity study wasreleased the member of the Presi- dents Commission said, "Well, we wouldbe OK, except you can't include football," and I thought, well, we aretrying to get away from that, move in a new direction,bring leadership and vision, and here we are again getting aroundcompliance. So we have got to come up with strictguidelines. I don't like the words "affirmative action," but I think wehave to have specificity with regard to how resources are going tobe allocated for women's sports. Mrs. COLLINS. Dr. Fuller. Ms. FULLER. I agree totally. Mrs. COLLINS. Ms. Grant? Ms. GRANT. I really don't have anything toadd to that. Mrs. COLLINS. But you did mentionsomething about approaches that Mr. McMillen of Maryland had. Ms. GRANT. With regard to the television? Mrs. COLLINS. Well, what Congressshould do to try to make sure that NCAA and the universities andthe presidentsthat every-

4 121 body understands that there issome seriousness about gender equity in athletics. Ms. GRANT. I think the Congresscan make a deal with the NCAA with regard to getting the antitrust 5-yearexperimental period and put some stipulations on that for equity andalso for equity in coverage. It can be done if the NCAA has the controlof the negotiations. Mrs. COLLINS. Ms. Vargyas. Ms. VARGYAS. One addition I would add is, Isaw that Michael Williams declined to come. I would subpoena MichaelWilliams if he won't voluntarily come and ask him what is goingon in the Office for Civil Rights and why that office is not enforcingthe law. There are many, many issues there. I step away from a lot of the issues that Mr. McMillen raises.I simply don't have the expertise to addressa lot of the broader questions. But insofar as gender equity is concerned, thelaws, I think, are there. In my judgment, it isa matter of enforcement, it is a matter of leadership, it is a matter of will, andone very concrete thing the Congress can do is put some heaton OCR. Mrs. COLLINS. In all fairness to Mr. Williams, I understandthat he did not decline to come. However, hewas nct able to come today, and he is going to be coming forth in anotherhearing that we will hold. Ms. VARGYAS. Then that is an excellent step forward. Thatis ter- rific. Mrs. COLLINS. Thank you very much. I thank all ofyou for being with us today. There may be one or two questions thatwe have that will help to complete our record, and if that is thecase we will send them to you in writing and ask thatyou send responses within 5 working days of the timeyou receive them. Thank you very much for coming forward. We appreciateit. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:06 p.m., the subcommitteewas adjourned.] [The following material was received for the record:]

14S 122

Margaret C. Dunk le 1223 Girard Street, NW Washington, DC 20009

April 9. 1992 Donovan Gay Professional Staff Member Subcommittee on Commerce,Consumer Protection and Competitiveness Commerce Committee US Congress Ford House Of Bee BuildingRoom 3rd and D Streets, SW 112 151 Washington, DC 20515 Dear Donovan:

As we discussed, enclosed isThe Rules of the Game What for Athletic Programs for Title IX Means inclusion in the hearing record.The Rules of the Game summarizes, inas plain English as possible, the athletics provisions in the Title IX regulation,the Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Interpretation, and two key courtcases. Let me know if 1 can be offurther assistance. Sincerely,

149 What Title IX Meaas for Athletic Programs The Rules of the Game elementaryTitle IX of the & secondary Education schools Amendments that receive of 1972 federal is money.the federal And lawthat thatincludes outlaws just aboutsex discrimination every educational in colleges, institution universitie., in the country. and Margaret C. Kunkle by Title IX issue, and now the debateAthletic is becoming opportunities evenThe for more 1988women intense passage and girls of has the always :,evil Rightsbeen Restoration Act restored hottest GENERALATI PROVISIONSfiflicy,VRTICIP,N I ION ORPOR ICNI I II S courtsIXinstitution coversIXIn canMarchin a school -wide awardcase of 1992.coverage calledandmoney college the Franklin damages ofU.S. civilsports. Supremev rights ifGwinnett an institutionlaws Court County and gave violatesmade Public new clear Title muscleSchools: that IX, Talc to now. Title The -whether1175 Itegidetlea the selaction Sart Adeport. key area and in levels determining if equal nth-oPportimity exists for women is theof convention interests and effectively abilities of .00Inenoklale bolt, sexes." OpportunitiesAthletic Participation & Treatment. TheOpportunities; This Rules rulebook of the FinancialGameis based(NCAA) Andcovers on documented Aid;a the 1992the 1975and three study Benefits,regulation. massive major by the athletic athletic National Title inequities. CollegiateIX areas: Athletic Association The lutionwith1979 this of Athletics athleticprovision interests Polley olTilleThee Interpretation andIX: thefactorsabilities, determi- determine the compliance Says:sulecommensurate undergraduate with students. the proportidd-b(la the 19111 fe- settlement d Here r. Tem.. aresummancsEducation'sthe the1979 final Athletics such word. Office as thisPolicy for arc Civil Interpretation helpful, Rights, the andstatute, issued two the key by regulation thecourt U.S cases. Departmentand the courts of While foethepetition.selection increasedcourt ordereddeports. participation the and universityIn the Blowy. opp.octunities levels Washington to dcorn allow State University. pie University,proximatelytheen'sspecific percentage sports increases thethat12 touniversity areof 15 infemale expectedper participation cent agreed athletes by to 1991increase into Inrum- kir FourteenthinformationsettlementsTemple amendment, haveUniversityabout already two the (broughtimpon- imposed PennsylvaniaTitle titIXunder toughercasesa provides Equalthe standards, 1988Equal Rightsa floor. settlement Protection Amendment notthis a guide ceiling. ofclause and llafferincludes Title of v. the Because court decisions and DETERMININGuntil female participation ATHLETIC reached I level INTERESTS AND ABILITIES theChroniclewiderIX,, Equityoral the the state's ofLaws 1937Higher anti dreirion Education dnennimation inThis Wait (June roadv lawWatt:import 21. andmap 1939) haval to underTitleStole Rights IX Universitythe andAntoiditient). title athletics "A (hmughtGuide was to first published in the "whetherlentThe opportunity1975 the Repletion selection canna ofA Sarikeysporta for area women end In levels J0011,0114 is it equal nth. theof ...Fennvun interests and ettestively abilities oetuelleneniIleof both wets." nsnen a sporting 4. hance' OrUse is it this breaking guide. the to giveTule tourIX rules' at hind or college the Tale IX tea It a giving theirImesterestsThe 1979 choosing.by and non-diserimitutocy Athletksabilttiellof At the PolicyfernakColkges same dal laterperation methodslime, may male theredetermine Mb- of Says the athletic in- kgistestudentspressedties. They athletes. capable athleticmust he Finally,of interestscompetingresponsive these ofin tomethods lettered.female the ex- L of ) cor,Tight Margmet C Punkle 1986. 19/19.1992 itsformanccmethods of women's mustand the take athletic nationally into interestsaccount increesing teamand abili- per-ley- womencannot have the effect of disadvanlagind '51 leticTheLEVELS 1975 Regulation OF COMPETITIONA Sari: key area in determining if equal ath-opportunity exists for women is theof competition interests and effectively abilities of accommodate both scses " TheANDSELECTION 1975 CONTACT Regulation OF CollegesSayst SPORTSSPORTS) do not (INCLUDING have to Integrate SEPARATEtheir TEAMS wrestlii4, mitts, ice hockey. football, has. The"whether 1979 the Athletics selection Policyof sports Interpretation and levels Says: foeteams womenIsteams not"based provide forand women men.on exactly competitive Collegesand themen same mayif team skill" womersports selection or the teamcontact").majorketbotl, in activity and If othera collegeof whichsports has involves"the only purpose a men'sbodily or sport, women must be allowed to reflectcompetitiveticipatetinily for the Individual athletic team schedulesfemaleabilitiesColleges athletes of ;hatfemale most equally to providepar.stu. both equal in intercollegiate athletics. and 01,90, ofmodated"have competition been by fully the is assessed andpresent effectivityIn addition. (athletic)by examining aceorn. equal Oro opportunity in levels Thesport 1979is Atbleeks Policy Interpretation "contact sport" (such as boxing, Says: musttry out also foe sponsork unless a it women'sis team if ath contact sport. dents.ways,lion is assessed by anyEqual of the opportunity following in levels of compeer "advanceden's Idles;proportionlearns or competitiveprovide to thosefemale(1)1f, opportunities- provided athletesover all, gamewithmalt in all,schedules for worn. limitedIsmaelsponsormen's team andfor a women'swomen therein s Contact is ContactKano sufficientteam sport.historically ((athletic Sports. interest it must copse. Ifbeen alsoand college sponsor, estcatty andsustain been ability limited. a amongviable there intercollegiatefemale a sunktentic oppoaunitiesstudents Inter. athletic to for women have histori. rollment:"substantiallyion onrumunities proportionate" for female(2)(1) If,If students intercolleeiatein to colleges their areen. where athletic women partkipa "have tothetory women competitiveand continuing as warranted opportunmes practice (2)by lithethew of college available"de unrading vrioPtni earn demonatate a -his tvOsta. sableabilityson intercollegiateamong a men's female team studentsathletic inN.-CONC. team. to sustain I Sports. a If a college soon- non-contact sport, II mate)activelyskilllearn, to team."and be on selectedwomen a single do for integratednot . have "suffictent Imalefe . or to compete beenresponsiveProgramshowtercollegiaa and are a "history underrepresentedexpansion to athletes," the and developing whichcontinuing the is among demosstrablycollege interest practice tn. canand of sports,orintramuralathletic otherwise Ifabilities. there teams developis noto intercollegiate"reasonableColleges intercollegiate do expects. status,not have to upgrade Club or continuingktes,derrepresentedabilities" and of the women practice institution among students; of intercollegiate(3) programcannot If (in or colleges show caps! nth. awhere women are "un competmon,livelygions.""institution'shoe of encourage intercollegiateColleges however, normal themay development becompetition competitivewhen required overall of "toin such alit.re- theac. I interestsstun") the andcollege abilities can demonstrate of women students that the regionletie opportunities have been (forhistorically women) limited." within that 1.04, ro .2 EST C33 AMICABLE a ponsmitiesThe 1975 Regulationfor athleticColleges seise:Ambits. Says mud Novick to pin2 reasonable op. femalekits may or award enatelthktts separate who financial participate aid ore to Thestudentsportion 1979 to theparticipating Athletics number Policyof matein athletics. Interpretationand female Col Says:single sea learnt Illon. dividing basisathlete,.number substantially the of Proportionality total male amount and Collegesproportional female of is athletic measuredmustintercollegiate to awardaidthe by athletic assistance thesestudentssuch"legitimate. as: higher at public nengisennsinatorycosts areInstitutions not causedI. Higher (but factors." by only suchtuition if costs for out-of.state ASSESSING OVERALL EQUALITY REGARDING totalparticipant,available amount for in men of athletics; athletic by the 121aidnumber evellabledividing of male the to maleasdiscriminatory providing teams or less schoolgiving recruiting preference policies support or topractices instate for fe- 3.) kticThe ATHLETIC1975 Regulation PARTICIPATION ASays: key area in determining OPPORTUNITIES if equal athopportunity exists for women is of competitionthe interests effectively and abilities accommodate of both sexes " criminatoryresult..pantswomen in athletics,by athleticthe number Theand aid: following131 of comparing feirrte is an pinKr enamel< the of non -dis - developingaboutcostfemale. concerns): scholarships but anot program male. or that students (such arc appropriateI. a"Reasonable becausephasing forinof professional decisions" The 1979 Athletic.whether PolicytheOverall selection Interpretation compliance of sports with and Titlelevels IX prowe Says: Men 130Athletic$120.000 Athletes Aid in - An average of years)scholarships for "Participants" in intercollegiate athlet- new spon uner roar catstams terrninedand regarding abilities by meeting engraining.of female(I) the If students aathletic college's isinter. sle policies are "disci., lion's"malebed"stantial disparitiesprogram and female enough as between athletes in(3) and the If anyofin treatment themselvesthe individual instau of dtspanbes to are "sub- whole": and Women $2,000.....Athletic$80.000 per athletic inAid scholarship 11Cdpateaslobo/sallyics coachingarc athletes sponsoredin leantand who equipment; practices regularly athletic std support, regularlyreceive other activi-Irish-such par- natory in language(211( or effect". there are "substantial and mouth. opportunddeny (women Y." students] equality of athletic portionate number Collegesof athletic do scholarships not have to provide c pro- 12,00040 Athletes per athletic - An average scholarship of who"oantmoants."kjuredties; he andisfinancialathletes are includedwho adlin arepractice.continue alsoon alma countedto deism:nine mane lists. Ya- soIn- "participant" cart be elusive. hosedhescholarshipsfor ofmen equal on and athletic dollar forwomen, men abilityvalue and Ifnor (most athletes women do often. individual also have need receive to financial aid nut herentlythesince definitionEachKey all ofdisadvantageto individual thesethis of determination"participant" cnteria is counted female Conte does isonly athletes intoassuring once.not play in even that womenfurathleticbased awarding aid). toil inand not it men is substantiallynonathletic analyzed ire if the separately proportionalaid awardeddiffer from for in If the procedures and stoma soh"iftotedif he the fromor on participant she (toffee unlawful plays v more Agorasdivannsvnalnsn." Inthan discussing (for one women) sport. thenscholarships, re the court Temple Unireetay that ablytheir showscholarshipstentp,rrtn for thatipmion this the aid forrule., disparities must womenA then collegebe applied.anda are proporlion can menthe Justify resultif it can ofunequal average cetvedtentagepercentagepliancethe un .....by inof females scholarshipsoty athleticof femalecannot arescholarship athletes claimthe even saw Tote andthough funds IS the son, per.there 1 kl) The GENERAL1175 Regulationl;FAFFI PROVISIONS Says: IS. ()P1'()Itl'UNI"i'll,s. 1N1) 1131..V,FNIF.N'r FUNDING tunitietforroustgime members athletics"provide include of or each equalboth clubs areastunes." athktic orOverall. intramural as: Equal opportunity Accommo-colleges °ppm.- sports that operate intercolle Kportunitymg:talon); tutoring: travel equipment to assignmentand receive pet diemandcoaching and wankel: allowances. pay and of uhedubcoachesscadem op- byen'sThe Title and1975 IX. men's Regulation However. athletics "theSays: are Equalfailure not requiredaggregate to pro- c xpendituies for WOO, intusvide programsequal necessary opportunity may fuads" be considered for for women. women's in assess. tablet. thettlemdatighawk the ion athletic as of well sports interestsso andmale levels students and of ablaut comae. (Including of services:hes:and tutor.:medical publiCRY:housing locker and and trainingroom and dining other and facilities facilities factors.other facili andand The Counsel1979 Athletics stating thatPolicy "revenueproduangA rulinginterpretation by the Department's General Says: Ihovertrry). TempleIn agreed settling that a lawsuit the wom (Hoffer v. Temp!, llae mileopportunities.not1979 necessarily athletes. Athletic. andThat identical) Policy treatment is. overallSchools Interpretation athletic to athleticfermate must benefits. provide pro-and "equivalent" (but Saym ballparticulardiscrimination, programs. spona"oecur Collegesthese "unique most most often aspect,meet in foot. any of sectionmeritTitlespoons" IXunder andof and the thedo football Policy lawnot qualifyis areInterpretztton.cited not forinIn exemptthe specialthe comment 1970's, fromtreat several Congressional at- en's shareseasonpmtmost10 per events. areas.of centcompetition expenditures coaching. ofAdditionally. their is pamemationand woulddetermined access equity be within em in byrate homepost non. in - terminingmustandwarns the be must negligible.overall equivalency be "equaleffect Important ofor are anyequal factors differences tri effect" in de- availability. oftosportspecific themen'srelated sante programs extentto needs special they of women'sand 2.meet "Leptanately temporary these program, needs circum- sexnciaral factors'' thoseexcludetempts attempts were revenueproducing" made faded to amend sports. Title IX All to financial standards recruitmentbee.quality and and treatment kindsof student of benefits,The athletes Policy important- and latenweietion the identifies the duceThesemenlstances activityoverall differences (such equalitythat as result fluctuations cannot. of fromathletic reamhowever. oppostuni.in needs)recruit. re- The EQUIPMENT1975 Regulation Says: AND"The SUPPLIESprovision of equipment and sup equalprovisionportunitua"other opportunities of factors" supportof female in in services each determining students area as are haveunportant whetherspelled equal athleticor on- The sriterie for evatimona kerbsllNormapetaivety for women. games)(ouch events ne However.for men'.3. women's The footfall different calms and and for costs men's hassup- of managing corn Theoverallplus" 1979 is compliance listed Athletics as a underfactor Policy Talein determiningInterpretation IX Says: treatment.out innondiscnrninaturywomen's detail benefits. in leansthe Policyand ifColleges theyfactors."oppon Interpretation "are unit cansuch the les Justify ofresultas a differencesof In she inlentilneutralport spectator of for eventand women's collegesappeal." management athletic cannot events must"lima hetheto errse,po generalsportare not specific limited equipment to uniforms. and supplies."Equipment other apparel. mum, and supplies include but equipment and supplies. equipmentmaneas the and multi replacement,and y. amount.suppliesEquivalence suitability.and availability mainie is measured of by such factors andplay,or athleitc Ilse the nature activities" ofand equipment. upkeepI. "Unique of injury facilities) aspects rates. of particular spans such as rules of specificallythatovercome womenhave limitedeffects permits (Section ofathletic histoncalvoluntary4. "VoluntaryNnisipation conditions aflumative affirmative by ' the I of the regulation actions to weightbone! training equipment " devices. and conditioning and r While football cannot he used to justify see action 1 -4 L overallTheSCHEDULING hint"1975 compliance is Regulation listed asunder Says: It"Scheduling Ile IX of garnet and factor in determining pracice 111The the 1979 number Athletic. of competitive PolicyEquivalence Interpretation events. is measured the Say.: by mach futon andthe timeopportunities of day practices for preseason are scheduled. and post. 7114COACHES'coaches" *975 Revelation is PAYlisted as AND Sp:a "Assignmentfactor ASSIGNMENT in deiermin. and compensation of payMs ofor sea: other make compensation"; "distinctions or to result rtes ofto TRAVELhertime andof day knich games AND of arepractice PERscheduled, ofroortunitwi. DIEM the num. ALLOWANCES season competition legesSulstateemploymentins overallwombs thatcannot jobs compliance onlyhaveprovisions cannot or policies men be under ofclassikrt only.that, the Title regulation onAlso, as theIX Thecol-ha. similarresponsibility,weektowages men thatto working who WONK11 requires perform and conditions). thatthat equal equalare is performed Sowerskill. work effort, than (that under waits and is, plianceedThe as a underfactor inTitle determining IX."Travel overall and per com- diem allowance"1975 isRegulation list- Says: equivalentcoachesdiscnnunatolyThe 1979 denies quality,Aihkeic female nature, Policy athletesThis ormoon Interpretation availabilitycoaching applies of to matinees chore pay or assignment of Says: conditionsworkingrenewal. conditions, experience, of employment. and"Nondiscriminatory other terms and factors" which coaching duties. furnishedasThe the 1979 modes during Athletics of travel,transportation. PolicyEquivalence length Interprelation'Says: of stayhousing is measured he. by such factors allowances,fore and after and competitive dining arrangements. events, per diem dentscriminationtion,to that VIIcoaches arereceived of notthe in adversely areCivilemployment. by protectedmate Rights athletes.affected, Act from even and (In sexby if theeddi. Tine stu-dia. Equal includemightpervised.sport.perience, affect the the rangethe numbertheand compensation andnumber the nature amain...atlevel of of adobes.perticipsnts of competition. coaches coaches ex- ia tab aIf OPPORTUNITYAND ACADEMIC TO RECEIVE TUTORING COACHING suchequivalenceprovisionsPay Act, factors as of well is uTitle determinedtraining. as IX.) byRegarding the expenence byemployment compering assignment and of coaches, compensation."korof"these circumstances.differencesworking or similar conditions, in differencesskid, Further, justify effort,they differencesthere may. representresponsibility mayin spea- nil.be in The dedeterminingacademic1975 IX. Regulation tutoring" overail Says: iscon listed"Opportunity phance as under to Ti.receive coaching and NOW in otherlengthbyOarsfessional professional cnmpanng of of coaches. contracts,standing. quslakations, such equivalence conditionsRegarding factors and isas ofdeterminedconverse. paypro- contract rate, highachievementWSW%"unique salary." situaions""such as an to outstandingin justify which on a abnormallycoach record pos. of relative'erminedThe 1979 availability by Athletics examining of Policy Regardingfull-time such Interpretationitems coaches. coaching, as the equivalence Sam is de- itemsknee isache determined availability b yRegardingof e tutoring, xamining andacademic such the tutoring. equiv.. plc thecoach'nototepart-time university teamsassistants. ratio and aukas agreed assistant the Inas men'ssettling favorahk to coaches.provide team,. troffer an mom- and athlete.v. Tem. grad nalprocedures assistance. and critena for obtaining tuto- .5 ki2) .1 !I 1.1 Ilse 1975tutors"TUTORS' Regulation is hued PAY as Says:a factor AND"Armgrinient in determiningASSIGNMENT ,rail compensdlion of Theoverall 1979 alhleti, Athletic, compliame Policy under Interpretation Idle IX Say.: determined by such factors as hourly rate, HOUSING AND DINING FACILITIES AND SERVICES andtutordetermined other qualtheattons, qualifications by comminna training.RetardingRegarding such expenenee. factors compensation, assignment. as equivalence equivalence isis andpupil otherment, loads. 'ems and conditions of employ. qualifications, eapcnence, The determiningties1975 and Regulation services" overall"Provision Samis compliance listed as of a housingunder (actor Ti, in and dining raCtil LOCKER ROOMS AND OTHER FACILITIES Thetie IX. 1973 Athletics PolicyEquivalence Interpretation is measured Says: by such factors rooms, the maintenance of practice and The underfactorand1975 CompelMve RegulationinTitle determining IX facilities' Says:"Provisions overall compliance of locker rooms, practice is listed as a of useties:as ofthe thepractice quality, availability andavailabiloy, competitive and quality and exclusivity faciliof locker eventsofCompetitive facilities for facilities; practice and and the competitive preparation alThe the ties,of1979 quality, use the Athleticsof availability availability,practice Policy Equivalenceand and and competitive Interpretationquality e xclusivity is of measured locker facile Say.: by such factors rooms:events.ofcompetitive facilitiesthe maintenance forfacilities, practice ofand practiceand the competitivepreparation and The miningPUBLICITY1975 Regulation overall compliance "Publicity"Say.: under is listed Title as IX. a factor in deter MEDICAL AND TRAINING FACILITIES AND SERVICES asThe the 1979 availability Athletics and Policy qualityEquivalence Interpretation of spoils is measured tn. Says: by such factors devices.'verity. In settlingthe university agreed to hue r: Temple Ifni full TideinfacilitiesThe determining 1975IX and Regulation services'' overall Says:complianceTheMisted "provision as a underfactor of medical and training holyformation Hyresources. of personnel,publications and the access and quantity other to otherand promotional qua! put, lionKS.time resources.as employee well as to to provide promote sufficient wortierisathlei promo- I G 0 'armeeusistancea.The the 1979 availability coverage, healthAthletic. of accident medicalthe PolicyEquivalence andpersonnel Inlerpretatton intory Is measuredand in Says by such factors availability and lionsfacilitiesquality of of athleticand weight the In availabilitytraining nem and and conditioning qualifica The RECRUITMENT1975 Regilmica Say.:Recruitment of athletes is one of he ASSESSING THE OVERALL EQUALITY OF ATHLETIC determiningopportunities."other factors" if women that have can equal be considered athletic in pateThe mustBENEFITS,ISTSathletics "provideRegulation or clubs equal OPPORTUNITIESor OverSays: intramural athletic all. colleges opponunity sports that operate AND intercolle- TREATMENT portunityint;Won): travel equipment to and receive per and diemcoaching supplies; allowances; and schedule acadern- op. factor"Ittic.recruitinentThe 19T11 that oftenAthletics affectspractices PolicyThe provision Policy a. Interpmtation an Interpretation "otherof op- dentifies ath- Say.: resourcesnitres to recruit". available ifequivalently the for financial recruitment and adequate other are to meet the femaledatingtunitiesfor members me asinclude wellathletic of as bothsuch male interests sexesareas students "as:and Equal Accommo- abilities(including oppor- of services;hes,andk tutoring; tutors; medical housing alugnMent locker and androoms training anddining and pay facilities reedit'es otherof coaches facile andand opportunitiesment--thatedportunity for recruitment. to'enema. milen. d and coaches andresources femaleEquivalence method of athletes provid women'sof recruit- is measured by reviewing athletesdifferencesneeds"ingtreatment of effect"have the in benefits. a women'sofon "thsproponionately female the recruitment opporturdses, program,prospective of and women. andstudent if limit- Thethe selection 19711 Atiskticaof sports andPolicyOverall k vela Interpretation compliance of compe. with Says: Title TX's pro- and groupingservices; teamspublicity; into and "major" other and factors. "mt- O teams have "substantially equal opportu areminedices.visions opportunities. by regarding examIntna athletic and i; treatment benefits. is servedeter. diacnminatory in language or effect '; college's pulkies exemptionnor" sport,sports it fornot "revenueproducina"permissibleFootball There must is no be treated as s part of the ADMINISTRATIVEskivedamongThe 1115 thein Regulation dein-mans"other facto." AdministrativeSays: AND i Witwomen can SUPPORT be have con- and support SERVICES Kmiec, are di:paritiesgramanddispunitesif there female as are arebetween athktes"substantial "substantial inthe the treatment and institution's enough unjustified" of to "mak pro.and whole": and if any individual fromruledStatedertotal Title athletic cakulationa thatUniveairy. IX. football Also, program, theon forcould elate participation not ant v.separately, Waaninadonbe excluded oppor- un- ate Supreme Court Theingml 1971 athletic Athletics opportunities. Polidy Interpretation Says: equalityof themselveswhalecompared of Compansonsathletic to to deny the opportunity." women's The(women am men% not students)program madeprogram spori an as a a whole most be Amendmenttheeludenooevenuetunities. scope football, scholarships, of funds,would the an allmate (taste(only saying and serve Equalprogram, distnbutionthat: to Pecnctu "ToRights from ex- of andoverall'Mod-inihninitthltiw female to provisionan athleticathletes." and of program eknaitiopportunelyThe Policy supportcan affect Interpretationto makpro- the state, that the edmontane!,LB tothe men's relative and and amountckrscal women's Equivalence assistanceof programs administrative. proud.is measured by such factors comparedby-sport. individual to individual men's women's teams teams.are not opportunitiesate discriminatory for women." practices and diminish fir? copyright 0 Margaret C. Dunkle 1986, 1989, 1992 .7 C 3 4

ISBN 0-16-039277-2 9 0 0 0 0

II I 9780160 9 d7471