On March 31, 1999, the athletics department at the University of New Mexico announced suddenly that it was eliminating men's swimming, men's gymnastics and wrestling as of June 30, 1999.

Coaches were notified only hours before the media. Student-athletes didn't know what hit them. Even though the eliminations were announced just before the end of the semester, significant support arose requesting that the sports be maintained.

Resolutions from the student senate, the Student Lettermen's Association and the Alumni Lettermen's Association backed keeping the sports. Advocates for the sports met several times with the university president, the vice-president overseeing athletics and the Board of Regents. Two of them went to the state capital in Santa Fe and talked with the governor. A multimillion dollar endowment fund was offered to be raised in order to continue the sports.

No negotiations ever were allowed. The three sports were officially eliminated June 30, 1999.

Shortly thereafter, two former intercollegiate athletes -- a New Mexico faculty member and an alumnus -- spearheaded a Title IX complaint of sexual discrimination against women in intercollegiate athletics at New Mexico. Both the university and the media have been perplexed that advocates for the retention of men's sports would have filed such a complaint on behalf of women.

The complaint was filed for several reasons:

* To set the record straight. The senior associate athletics director told the Board of Regents at a public meeting that New Mexico had no Title IX problem. This was hard to believe. The complainants felt that the Office for Civil Rights could conduct an investigation of gender and sports at New Mexico and decide whether the school's statement was true.

Unless the university understood that it had a Title IX problem, why would it consider improving athletics opportunities for women, which, by law, it is supposed to do when significant gender disproportionality exists?

* To get a plan. During the "appeal" process last year, New Mexico repeatedly was requested by the advocates to show an overall plan and criteria under which specific sports were dropped. The university had no real plan nor consistent criteria that it was following.

A plan would be helpful for coaches, student-athletes and high-school students. For example, if a plan stated that, for whatever reason, the men's track and field team was to be dropped in two years, then the student-athletes and coaches in that sport would be able to plan how to cope. High-school students interested in track and field might not bother enrolling at New Mexico.

The complainants felt that OCR might ask New Mexico to construct a plan for which it could be held accountable.

The proportionality prong

On September 27, 1999, OCR began investigating gender equity and athletics at New Mexico. Six months later, New Mexico's president signed a "commitment to resolve" letter, a corrective action agreement in which the university administration resolved that within three years, the school will be compliant with Title IX.

New Mexico has been significantly disproportionate with women in intercollegiate athletics. In fact, from more than 300 schools in the United States, New Mexico ranked 23rd worst in disproportionality. Women comprise 56.5 percent of the undergraduates and only 33 percent of the athletes, which translates to a disproportionality rate of 23.5 percent.

Basically, OCR said if New Mexico wanted to, it could gain Title IX compliance through proportionality. This, however, would require the cutting of 210 more male athletes.

OCR also gave the university the option to gain Title IX compliance by meeting the interests and abilities of women athletes on campus (the third prong of OCR's three-part test for Title IX compliance) within three years. Increasing the opportunities for women is what Title IX is all about. Not having to cut men in order to gain proportionality and Title IX compliance has both local and national importance.

Dropping men's sports has been occurring across the county, team by team. During the last several decades, almost 100 men's track and field teams have been eliminated. During the last 15 years, the number of colleges offering men's swimming has declined 25 percent. Track and field and swimming and diving are the premier U.S. Olympic sports. Many wrestling (the oldest Olympic sport) and gymnastics (one of the most glamorous Olympic sports) programs have been dropped -- some with nearly a century of history and tradition.

Title IX sounds great, and few persons would argue with its literal intent, but subsequent interpretations of Title IX have made proportionality the golden standard.

Wrestling advocates and others have been furious about how Title IX has been interpreted and applied. Many wrestling teams have been dropped in the name of Title IX. It has been viewed as promoting reverse discrimination and quota systems.

Needless to say, equally compelling arguments come from women who have been discriminated against in athletics for many decades.

Cases in the court system -- most notably that of wrestlers at California State University, Bakersfield -- have challenged Title IX without significant successes. It will be a while before the U.S. Supreme Court hears their appeal, and chances of it prevailing there don't seem overwhelming.

An alternative

The reality is that Title IX isn't going away and we must both live with and accommodate it. Increasing opportunities for women means more women's teams, which will cost money. Where does the money come from? Athletics departments, many of which are being held to balancing their own budgets, will endeavor to take money away from men's programs -- cutting men's teams -- in order to do this.

However, other ways exist to deal with this financial need. One that seems attractive is the following: If a certain amount is needed for a new women's sport, then why not use the fraction that that amount is to the total athletics teams budget and then "tax" all present sports equally? For example, if $250,000 is needed for a new women's sport and the total athletics budget is $5 million, then the needed fraction is 1/20 or 5 percent. Then tax football 5 percent of its budget, basketball 5 percent of its budget, tennis 5 percent of its budget, etc. Bingo, you've got the needed funds and no sport has been cut. In the corporate world, this happens daily.

Why isn't such a method feasible for the athletics world?

Of interest: Many men's team coaches might be in favor of a decrease in the number of teams -- because that would mean more resources for those remaining -- except when the team to be dropped is their own. One of the coaches of a sport that was recently eliminated at New Mexico thought that decreasing the number of sports was a good idea until his sport was targeted and then dropped.

So, here's a possible scenario:

* Title IX exists and we need to work with it.

* Men's teams do not need to be dropped at institutions where disproportionality for women in athletics is creating a Title IX compliance problem.

* The interests and abilities of women athletes on campus need to be met.

* As more women's teams are added, they can be funded fairly by taking from all existing teams, not cutting entire teams. This will not significantly detract from men's sports teams while simultaneously accommodating new women's sports teams.

The scenario may not be popular with coaches who might prefer teams being eliminated (as long as it's not their own). Athletics directors might not like it because they might have to field teams that aren't competitive.

However, this would benefit kids who have been and want to continue to participate in athletics.

Aren't they the group that amateur sports are really all about anyway?