National Collegiate Athletic Association |
CommentMarch 15, 1999
Guest editorial -- NCAA's commitment to Title IX still strong
By Cedric W. Dempsey The outcome of a recent court case has left some people with the erroneous impression that the NCAA is not committed to complying with Title IX.
I want to be absolutely clear on this point: The NCAA supports Title IX, both in spirit and in practice. That was the reality before the Supreme Court ruled on Smith v. NCAA, and it will be the reality in the future. These are not empty words. The NCAA has made steady and consistent progress toward providing more opportunities for women, for administrators and student-athletes alike. It is true that at the NCAA's highest decision-making level, there is a shortage of female representation. Only 30 percent of the members of the three presidential boards are women. Even so, that figure doubles the percentage of female CEOs in the overall NCAA membership (15.8 percent). At the Management Council level, however, the picture is more encouraging. Of the 73 individuals currently serving on the three Management Councils, 56.2 percent are male and 43.8 percent are female (in Division III, in fact, females currently outnumber males on the Management Council). Compare that with where we were 10 years ago when 73.8 percent of the members of the Divisions I, II and III Steering Committees were male. Progress also is evident with regard to championships participation. The most recent annual report to the Association shows that a total of 35,739 student-athletes competed in NCAA men's and women's championships in 1996-97. Of that number, 19,984 (55.9 percent) took part in men's championships while 15,755 (44.1 percent) competed in women's championships. Based on changes in championships brackets for 1998-99, the percentage of females participating will increase to 47 percent, placing NCAA championships participation within 5 percent of the female student population of the membership. It is important to note that 10 years ago, men had 64.8 percent of NCAA championship opportunities, compared to 35.2 percent for women. While much work remains to be done, I am proud of the progress that the NCAA has made for female student-athletes. I also am confident that the remaining gender gap will continue to shrink as women's emerging sports take on full championship status. There is other evidence of the NCAA's progress with regard to gender equity. The percentage of female administrators at the national office is on the rise. The Association has sponsored Title IX seminars, developed resource material, conducted studies to measure progress and called for renewed efforts on the part of the membership to comply. The NCAA sponsors scholarships, internships and conducts a fellows program in an effort to get more women and minorities involved in athletics administration. Despite all of this, I know that many people wonder why the NCAA took the position it did in the Smith case. Why did the NCAA claim that it is not a recipient of federal funds and is therefore not directly governed by Title IX? How can the NCAA ask the membership to comply with Title IX and then ask for itself to be exempt from the law? Like other federal laws of this sort, Title IX does not apply to everyone. It does not apply to corporations, to most associations or to private citizens. Had we acquiesced on the primary point raised in Smith v. NCAA, we actually could have compromised our ability to make continued gender-equity progress. Although the courts have consistently supported the Title IX enforcement policy established by the Office for Civil Rights, they have been less enthusiastic about quotas meant to strengthen affirmative action plans. In a number of cases, courts have ruled that such quotas constitute "reverse discrimination" and have ordered an end to the practice. The truth is that our position is enhanced in all ways if we can continue to make progress on our own. Not only will women gain from greater representation, the NCAA will benefit from arriving at equity through a philosophy of fairness rather than an attitude of obligation. I do not know of any topic in college athletics that brings emotions to the surface more quickly than Title IX. I have been assailed by people from all perspectives on this issue. It is absolutely impossible to engage this topic without frustrating or even angering somebody. I cannot promise anybody that any given action in this area will be popular. But the decisions of the NCAA Executive Committee cannot be based on what is popular. Rather, that group must be concerned with what is best for this Association and those it serves. This is an enormously complicated matter, and I ask for your patience and support as we work our way though it. As we progress together, please look at our record and accept my complete commitment to an Association in which equity is the norm. Cedric W. Dempsey is president of the NCAA. Comment -- Recruiting promises are running on empty
BY RICK BURNS
I made a scholarship offer to a young woman in early December, giving her a deadline of January 4. On January 4, she called me and accepted the offer. The letter of intent, I told her, would be sent about February 1 to be returned in overnight mail on the signing date. (I don't understand why the signing date is in February rather than, say, October. That alone would solve a lot of problems). I made it clear that this was my pledge to her and she in turn was making an absolute commitment to me. She said she understood and agreed to the offer. When the letter of intent was not returned in overnight mail after the signing date, I called her and left a message. Her club coach called me that night to explain that as a result of her participation in a recent tournament, she had received several offers and was now "confused" about where to attend school. I asked the club coach if he had told other coaches that she had made a commitment. He assured me that he had. I asked him why he simply didn't tell her that the right thing to do was honor her commitment. He hedged, then replied that she was "only 17 and this was a quandary for her." Change of direction Later that night, the young woman's mother called me and told me she was going to attend another school. I asked the mother if she realized that her daughter had made a commitment to attend Drury College. She said she did, but that she felt I had "pressured her" and that she had just received another offer from a school (that was really her first choice) where a coach had just been hired. I asked her if the other coach knew she had made a verbal commitment and she said that he definitely did and that this was, in fact, discussed. I called the other coach and confronted him with the knowledge that the girl's mother and club coach had both told me he was aware of her commitment to me, but that he had still offered her a scholarship. He neither admitted nor denied that he had recruited her with knowledge of her commitment to me. He did say that "I've been on both sides of this issue" and that he felt he couldn't offer her money until he saw her play. I told him I thought he had compromised the ethics of our profession and that he lacked character. I canceled next year's match with him and hung up. I then wrote a letter to his senior woman administrator, stating exactly what happened. I have shared this incident with more than a dozen of my colleagues recently -- not to bash the other coach, but to get their opinions. Surprisingly, and disappointingly, the consensus is that this happens often and there is nothing you can do about it. Like Thomas Paine said, "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of it being right." Matter of routine It became clear to me that my situation was not an isolated incident, but rather a matter of course in what has become the ugly haze of college soccer recruiting. The supply and demand of players in women's college soccer, partially due to the influx of new programs as a result of Title IX ramifications, is terribly tilted toward the young women soccer players. Coaches have become like buzzards gradually lowering their arc, drifting ever downward in their ethos as they seek their prey. Character is being suffocated, previously kind hearts are firmly ensconced in the hard muscle of ego, and job security is being eroded by pressure to produce results. Not one of my colleagues shared my sense of anger and my feeling that we need to confront our peers in this situation (maybe because it didn't happen to them). I believe we need to directly confront the unethical behavior of our fellow coaches. At least then they will be less likely to repeat it -- and maybe a few will feel remorse and realize that there is a place where compromise ends and conviction takes over. Loss of faith Slowly, by degrees, I am losing faith in my profession. The pressure to win, especially in Division I, has now invaded even the so-called Olympic/minor/nonrevenue sports. "Here's your six-figure budget, your 12 scholarships, your new million-dollar facility, your two full-time assistants -- get results and bring glory to our school." Of course, the added bonus is that you keep your job. Is it any surprise that more and more coaches seem to be enthusiastically galloping down the golden hill of recruiting while losing regard for their sense of fair play? Our sense of integrity is being dummied down. Our code of ethics is compromised, and our spiritual and moral compasses have gone askew. Love of the game, care for players and respect for colleagues seems on the way out, sacrificed at the altar of what is becoming the ultimate measuring stick -- results. I no longer approach recruiting with a light heart. The broken-leg test (would you still choose Drury if you broke your leg the first day of training and never played a match?) seems obsolete. It's been replaced with: Come, help me win. If you disappoint me on the field of play, I'll lower or cut your scholarship and recruit someone else. Hope wanes I'm becoming less optimistic and resilient, more reticent and isolated regarding my holistic approach to my program. I have even begun to question the linking of athletics with the academy. If athletics don't have intrinsic value for our student-athletes, if the athletics experience is not co-curricular, not a significant, meaningful, educational experience, then why is it even part of higher education? I'm beginning to see that Division III has it right: Come out and play hard, enjoy your experience, finish your season and then lose yourself in the bounty of diverse experiences of college life. Division III offers a basic healthy premise: Athletes should not be treated differently from other members of the student body and athletics ability should not affect financial aid packages. Sounds congruous with most mission statements and pretty healthy to me. In the meantime, I crouch behind bullet-proof glass, furtively watching the twin barrels of ego and greed blow away the old values of ethics and fair play. One of the Greek philosophers said, "The more you know, the more you realize why things have to be the way they are." Sad. And true. Rick Burns is the soccer coach and an instructor in exercise sport science at Drury College. Opinions -- Life for officials not just a matter of working the game
Barry Mano, publisher "Normal used to mean showing up at the game, keeping to ourselves, having a pregame, working the game, getting the check, taking a shower and driving out of the parking lot. Man, things are changing! Another example, you ask? The NCAA has just made significant changes to the specifications for baseball bats. Seems they feel there is too much offense being created with the current bats; the ball comes off hot. Further, they are concerned that the 'hot balls' might do some cold, hard damage to someone's body, with a lawsuit as a result. So they have changed the rules and are going further. "The NCAA and a number of the major conferences are demanding that the bat companies sign an agreement indemnifying them and their representatives in the event such a lawsuit develops. Well, how about the umpires? Sure hope they aren't forgotten about in this turbocharged, preseason scramble for protection."
Basketball rules
Ed Bilik, secretary-rules editor Discussing the gray area in the rules when officials try to bridge the gap between the actual rule and the spirit or intent of the rule: "They're not supposed to do that. In terms of spirit and intent, I think you've got to use wise judgment, but you also have to referee in accordance with the rules. Once you don't referee in accordance with the rules and you make your own judgments on how the rule could be stretched, that's when inconsistencies arise. Usually, the official will have done the right thing, but in some instances it might not have been in accordance with the rules. "There's a parallel, but sometimes there is also a gap between the rules and what might be fair. By rule, officials should not be bridging that critical gap. They've got to make the call according to the rule. If they try to do what is fair, I can understand it, but if someone asks me if that was done in accordance with the rule, my answer would have to be no. If we could correct it, we would. Usually, the reason you can't correct it is because it's got a snowballing effect on other rules. That's the reduction fallacy. I don't care what you do, you cannot reduce everything to bare essentials. It's literally impossible to have everything covered in the rule book. Fortunately, we don't have many of those kinds of situations and they only come up on rare occasions. When they do occur, the people involved -- coaches and players -- generally understand it."
|
I experienced a discouraging situation recently during which another chunk of my faith chipped off the eroding statue of Division I athletics.