The Gender-Equity Q&A is intended to help athletics administrators understand institutional gender-equity and Title IX-related issues. Answers for the Q&A are provided by Christine Grant, associate professor at the University of Iowa, and Janet Judge, attorney with Verrill & Dana LLP.

Q How did the concept of proportionality in relationship to the student body male/female population originate, and why is it still being included in the "three-prong test" for gender equity when very few schools choose this as a means to measure their attempt to comply with Title IX?

A The easiest way to justify using the undergraduate population as the standard in Prong 1 is to note that athletics ability, like intelligence, is equally distributed between males and females.

That being the case, it is logical to establish the male/female undergraduate ratio at a given university as the appropriate measure for the establishment of athletics opportunities at that institution.

Lawyers in their explanation of the Prong 1 standard would stress that the Title IX standard is consistent with the essence of other civil-rights legislation in that it ensures equal access without regard to irrelevant characteristics such as race, nationality, religion and gender.

It is important to point out that institutions fully control and predetermine the male/ female student-athlete ratios on their campuses. They do so by the types of sports they offer. For example, an institution offering football in Division I can anticipate having at least 100 male student-athletes in that sport; a school adding women's golf can predict that about eight women will be on that team. The institutions also control the ratio by the depth of commitment to the recruitment of student-athletes in each sport, as well as their commitment to provide athletics scholarships. Since institutions control these factors, proportionality is the best evidence that those decisions are being made in a non-discriminatory way.

Prong 1 is necessary because there has to be a specific limit to having a "continuing practice" of expanding the opportunities for the under-represented sex (Prong 2). An institution cannot keep adding teams ad infinitum.

It is important to note again that an institution is not required to comply with Prong 1. If an institution is complying with Prong 2 (history and continuing practice of program expansion), that institution may end up complying with Prong 1 or it may finish by complying with Prong 3 (fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the under-represented sex) before it reaches proportionality.

It may be the perception of some that "few schools" aspire to comply with Prong 1. That perception is inaccurate. According to the 2004 data in the Chronicle of Higher Education database, 61 percent of the institutions in the Big Ten, Pacific-10 and Big 12 Conferences are within 5 percent of the undergraduate male/female population; and fewer than one-quarter have a greater than 7 percent point difference with the undergraduate population.

For additional gender-equity resources, including newly created video segments featuring Christine Grant and Janet Judge, visit www.ncaa.org/gender_equity.