The controversy over Title IX is alive and well in collegiate athletics.
Whether it is a question about how to pay student athletes in men’s revenue sports and stay in compliance, or the age-old issue about the role that Title IX plays in the demise of men’s minor sports, the flashpoints exist.
And a new question may have emerged, after the demise of the University of Alabama-Birmingham football program. Were the requirements of Title IX a contributing factor in the demise of a men’s revenue sport?
Given all of the above, it seemed like a good time to reach out to Helen Grant, the principal of Helen Grant Consulting, LLC, a Title IX consultancy. Grant has a diverse background in intercollegiate athletics, having started her athletic career at the University of Southern Mississippi where she coached for 11 years before serving nine years as an assistant or associate athletic director. She also served two years in the Membership Services department at the NCAA, where she worked directly with the Division I Athletics Certification Program and the NCAA Title IX Workshops Planning Committee. In addition, Grant worked two years as the compliance coordinator and three years as the director of championships for the Sun Belt Conference. Finally, Grant has been a member of the NCAA Division I Management Council, Membership Subcommittee, Legislative Committee, Administrative Review Subcommittee, and the NCAA Postgraduate Awards Committee.
Question: How did you get started in collegiate athletics?
Answer: I began my career as a student-athlete at Berry College in Rome, GA, and transferred to the University of Southern Mississippi after my freshman my year at BC. Participated in basketball, volleyball, softball and tennis. Along the way I served as a student representative to the Association of Intercollegiate Athletes for Women (AIAW) governing body’s student committees, which sparked my interest in athletic administration. I coached for 11 years at USM (1980—1986 and 1986—1991). After coaching, I entered into an administrative role as assistant AD for athletic compliance and eventual became the associate AD for compliance and student services/senior woman administrator and served in those capacities for ten years. I left USM for a two-year stint at the NCAA in Membership Services and then went on to the Sun Belt Conference for a six-year stint initially as the associate commissioner for compliance (2001—2003) and then moved to director of championships (2003—2007).
Q: How did you get involved in Title IX consulting?
A: I always had a desire or set as a goal for myself to spend the last years of my athletic career as an athletic administration consultant. I thought it would be more in the area of NCAA compliance and academic support areas. However, the opportunity presented itself for me to work with Lamar Daniel, Inc. in Title IX consulting and athletic management. Lamar had decided to retire in 2009 and asked that I work with him during 2007 and 2008 and maybe take over the business for him after his retirement. Lamar did retire in 2009, and I am currently purchasing the business from him. He continued to work with me on special occasions and continues to this day assisting me and being a sounding board for difficult situations.
Q: How would you assess Title IX from a historical context?
A: Title IX, obviously, was proposed and passed at a time when the interest in sport participation for girls and women initially started its growth at the interscholastic and intercollegiate level. I emphasize interest because, as you know, girls were supposed to be mothers and homemakers and at best cheerleaders in the athletic world. We had many women who became interested in actually participating in athletics for the competitive aspect and not the social/fitness aspect. Hence, Title IX was enacted to ensure that girls and women would be given the opportunity to participate for that reason at the interscholastic, intercollegiate and the state, county and city-supported recreation program levels. It, obviously, is a federal law that is applied to any institution or agency that receives federal funding.
Q: Has it been good for women?
A: It has been fantastic for women as it has been defined and implemented over the course of its 42-year history. At the time it was passed, there were few interscholastic, intercollegiate and recreational league teams/programs for women across this country. Some regions a lot worse than others. Basically, Title IX forced those agencies that conducted competitive sports programs for boys and men to realize the growth of women’s interest in sports and the ability for women to participate in those same sport activities. This realization had to be forced by the implementation and enforcement of a federal law, which in itself was unfortunate, but necessary to initiate the formalization of competitive sports for women. Many intercollegiate institutions added women’s sports teams in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The passing of the law certainly worked.
Q: How import was the Quinnipiac decision in the evolution of Title IX?
A: The Quinnipiac decision had a positive impact on Title IX compliance and the elimination of sports, in particular women’s sports. If an institution is not complying with any of the three tests for Title IX, the elimination of a women’s sport is not going to be a good idea, even if it is for financial/facility reasons. Where I think the Quinnipiac decision fell short was that it injured the promotion of new sports being created and sponsored for women. Quinnipiac had planned to add or replace volleyball with other sports for women, one of which was the newly developed sport of acrobatics and tumbling (A&T). While the judge required the reinstatement of volleyball, an established women’s sport, the ruling included a piece that did not recognize A&T as a growing sport for women. Throughout the process of getting institutions to recognize and comply with Title IX, the NCAA has allowed its membership to petition the organization for the creation of competition and championships for many different sports for women—some older, established sports and some newly created sports. The NCAA Emerging Sports Program was established to assist institutions in complying with the Title IX Interest and Abilities component (specifically, Test 1 Proportionality), and the NCAA Committee on Women’s Athletics has oversight. Well-supported NCAA sports like rowing and bowling were once NCAA Emerging Sports. There was well-informed testimony given during the trial on the status of the sport of A&T, but it is my understanding that some well versed in Title IX specifics gave uninformed testimony that hurt the case for A&T becoming an NCAA Emerging Sport. By all accounts, it should become an Emerging Sport, and based on the participation rates at the NCAA schools that sponsor it, I feel it will become an NCAA championship sport quickly.
Q: Is collegiate athletics at a crossroads as far as Title IX compliance and why?
A: We are at a crossroads for women in intercollegiate athletics and for female collegiate enrollment, which has led to the growth of women in professional careers. Doors have opened up for women in professions (medical, industry, financial, technology, science/research, etc.) that did not allow women to enter, much less become top administrators (CEOs, chairman of board, and owners). The first component of Title IX, the Accommodation of Interest and Abilities of students for the underrepresented gender, has become increasingly difficult for intercollegiate athletic departments because of this continued increase of female enrollment rates. Test 1 (Proportionality), the most recognized way to comply, compares the female enrollment rate percentages to the percentage of female athletes participating in athletics. The other two tests have always been difficult to comply with because they basically require athletic departments to continue to add women’s sports (very expensive) until proportionality is reached or all sports for women are offered that are played at the interscholastic and intercollegiate level within the region the institution recruits and competes in.
Q: Are schools impacted evenly by the requirements of Title IX? Who is most impacted?
A: Overall, the schools that I have worked with are doing a great job of making their programs compliant with Title IX by adding women’s sports and providing equal services and facilities in the support areas (i.e., locker rooms, offices, academic support, athletic training, weight training, etc.). So, yes, I think that for the most part the requirements impact intercollegiate institutions pretty evenly. However, as mentioned above, the impact of complying with the first component (Interest and Abilities) has a more desperate impact on institutions with high female enrollment rates low overall enrollment rates (male and female), low female participation rates and that have football. Mostly, I see female enrollment rates of around 56 percent to 60 percent, but I have worked with schools with 65 percent and 70 percent enrollment rates. These rates make it difficult to comply with Title IX—with or without football. It is extremely disheartening to see a small school (2600 total enrollment) with 20 sports (11 for women) and low numbers in football (85) struggle to find a way to comply with Title IX. They can barely afford to fund (scholarships and operating budgets) the sports they have at a competitive level, having to add another sport should not have to be a consideration.
Q: What is the solution?
A: Now that Title IX has forced federally funded educational systems to provide equal access to sports participation opportunities for men and women by having and adding sports for women, it may be time to look at a different comparison other than female enrollment rates. Look at the statistics since the passing of Title IX in 1972—the number of teams added for women at the intercollegiate level, the number of participation opportunities added, the increased access and services for female athletes from the support areas, increased media coverage, increased coverage and attention provided by athletic training/sports medicine and strength and conditioning professionals for female sports participants and the list goes on of the increases in popularity and overall improved treatment of intercollegiate female participants. The NCAA requires each division to have a certain number of sports teams for men and women (Division 1=16, at least eight men and eight women). The sports/opportunities are in place, and the support systems are in place. This is what Title IX and subsequently joining the NCAA did for women’s athletics, BUT due to the growth overall of women in the working world and the need for a college education by those women, I do not think female enrollment rates and female participation rates should, or even can, be the mirror images of each other.
I feel the emphasis of Title IX compliance must shift to Test 3, accommodating the interest and abilities of the underrepresented gender (female students) that come from the institutions’ home state high school athletic association, general region or area from which the institution recruits students from and look at the sports offered by the teams within the geographical playing region/conference the institution’s teams compete in. Athletic conferences are now the driving forces in intercollegiate athletics, so I feel that the footprint of the institution’s athletic department should be in line with the footprint of the institutions in the conference.
Secondly, there needs to be a greater emphasis on the program areas or laundry list and ensuring that male and female student-athletes have equal access to the support areas, which include funding and facilities.
Q: If nothing is done, what will happen in collegiate athletics?
A: As it stands now, and you can imagine, not all intercollegiate institutions meet Title IX requirements. But, I do feel that Title IX has done its job, which was to introduce and add opportunities for women to compete in sport at the highest levels, just like the men. It just that based on the increased opportunities for women to attend college and enter a myriad of professional careers, I am afraid that no institution will ever be able to meet Title IX requirements in the Interest and Abilities component (Test 1, 2 or 3) if we continue to use female enrollment rates as a benchmark. I think this sends the message to our sports society that we have failed even with passing a federal law. Again, look at intercollegiate sports for women today: How can anyone say we have failed or even risk sending a message that we have failed? I also believe, as mentioned earlier, that joining the NCAA is what catapulted women’s sports into the forefront to the extent that men’s sports has always been. I think this also had an impact on the other national college sports organizations (NAIA, NJCAA) to up their game for women’s sports along with the passing of Title IX.
If nothing is done:
More and more institutions will not comply with Title IX and give up.
Institutions will continue to eliminate men’s sports for Title IX purposes and men’s and women’s sports for financial/Title IX reasons.
Because of the financial burden, budgets will be cut for men’s and women’s sports that will not allow them to be competitive and could cause a desperate impact (Title IX compliance) for men’s sports or women’s sports.
We are definitely seeing discussion of discrimination against men like we did initially when so many men’s programs (especially wrestling) were cut. Those discussions will continue to emerge and be fueled now by the fact that some institutions have numbers that actually discriminate against men, like providing more scholarship dollars for women’s sports and more budget allocations for women’s sports in some operating areas.
Continued reliance on compliance with Test 3 Accommodating Interest Abilities when they really may not do so.
