This is the first installment of Gender-Equity Q&A, a new feature addressing comtemporary issues regarding gender equity and the effects of Title IX on intercollegiate athletics. This feature will appear in the membership information section in subsequent issues of The NCAA News 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 There appears to be a trend toward dropping men's nonrevenue sports in order to achieve gender equity for women. What is the stance of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) on dropping these sports and what are the facts about this trend?

A In the 1996 Letter of Clarification, Norma Cantu, assistant secretary for civil rights, noted that the OCR has never required nor recommended institutions to eliminate or cap men's teams to comply with Title IX. In the 2003 Report of the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics, it is also clearly stated that cutting men's sports is "a disfavored practice" (Recommendation 5).

The following quote from the clarification letter supports that notion: "OCR hereby clarifies that nothing in Title IX requires the cutting or reduction of teams to demonstrate compliance with Title IX, and that the elimination of teams is a disfavored practice. Because the elimination of teams diminishes opportunities for students who are interested in participating in athletics instead of enhancing opportunities for students who have suffered from discrimination, it is contrary to the spirit of Title IX for the government to require or encourage an institution to eliminate athletic teams. Therefore, in negotiation compliance agreements, OCR's policy will be to seek remedies that do not involve the elimination of teams."

Despite the perception that men's teams are being eliminated in record numbers, the latest NCAA statistics indicate that there was a net gain of 61 men's teams between 1988 and 2002:

NCAA all divisions

Men's teams dropped and added 1988-2002

# Added teams 1,938

# Dropped teams 1,877

Net gain -61 teams

Further research, however, identified that while net gains for men's teams were made in both Divisions II and III, there was a net loss of men's teams in Division I:

Men's teams dropped and added 1988-2002

Division III

# Added 1,002

# Dropped 790

Net gain -212 teams

Division II

# Added 494

# Dropped 471

Net gain: -23 teams

Division I

# Added 442

# Dropped 616

Net Loss -174 teams

When Division I data are further analyzed, the greatest losses are found in Division I-A:

Division I-AAA -31 teams

Division I-AA -38 teams

Division I-A -109 teams

In addition, an analysis of NCAA revenues and expenses data shows that expenditures for football and men's basketball in Division I-A over the years have consumed an increasing portion of the men's athletics budget and left the men's nonrevenue sports with much smaller allocations.

Also contributing to the financial problem is the pattern of increasing deficits occurring in every division:

In an October 2004 speech entitled, "Achieving Fiscal Responsibility in Athletics," NCAA President Myles Brand noted "... if there are not concrete solutions brought forth within a reasonable time frame, financial pressures will reshape college sports in ways that will threaten the integrity of the college game and distort the collegiate model beyond recognition. It will mean lower operating budgets for every sport with a possible exception of football and men's basketball. College sports will take on the characteristics of professional sports and, with that, its place on university campuses will be lost."

It also is key to point out that there would be strong legal ramifications on any campus where football and men's basketball are the only sports protected from budgetary cutbacks.

This growing financial problem in athletics could have severe future consequences for both men's nonrevenue sports and also for the continued development of truly gender-equitable sports programs.

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