Two weeks ago my Metro Sports Report colleague Mark Dukes recalled two significant historical events in a column titled, “Title IX not entirely fair for males.”

One occurred in 1984, when Iowa City West athlete Amy Chu – in the absence of a girls soccer program at her school – fought for and won the right to play on the boys team. When Chu entered a game against Jefferson, Mark  remembered, the J-Hawk boys walked off in protest.

The other was the landmark 1972 Title IX ruling requiring colleges that receive federal funding to take steps to provide equal opportunities, facilities and scholarships for women – in athletics as in other arenas. It was the beginning of a tectonic shift toward greater gender balance in college and high school sports.

Noting that Chu was back at Iowa City West recently for the dedication of a new soccer field, Mark expressed his long-held view that she should not have been allowed to join the boys team, just as it wouldn’t have been right for a boy to join the girls volleyball team.

He also explained that he has “always struggled with Title IX and gender equality issues,” suggesting that gains by women in athletics have somehow resulted in fewer opportunities for men.

Mark is a thoughtful man who writes about difficult topics with a deft touch – and his support for athletic opportunities for girls and women is not in question. But I was disappointed and a little surprised to read his comments about these two watershed moments – one local and one national in their importance.

After all, what Amy Chu and others like her wanted – in sports as in other areas – was not to play on the boys team, but simply to have the same kind of opportunities they had. As Mark pointed out, the year after Chu’s bold confrontation, she was playing for the Women of Troy, as Iowa City West and other area schools introduced girls soccer programs, partly in a preemptive effort to prevent other girls from following her example.

In Mark’s words, “She essentially forced school districts around here to offer girls soccer programs perhaps sooner than they would have otherwise ...”

What was it, I wonder, that they were waiting for, if not an Amy Chu? And what was the downside of this earlier-than-expected move to add girls soccer – for the hundreds of girls who play sports in our community, or for the boys, for that matter?

This made me recall an administrative staff meeting at the college where I once worked. When an athletic department staff member presented a proposal to add a new women’s sport, the president, after reflecting for a moment, agreed that it would be a good idea because it would help satisfy the college’s Title IX quota.

I noticed, in his approval, a slight but unmistakable hint of resignation, if not resentment. “Exactly why we need Title IX,” I thought.

The “quota,” of course, refers to the controversial “third prong” of Title IX that requires colleges to offer athletic opportunities for men and women that were “substantially proportional” to the gender makeup of the student body.

This provoked an outcry from some administrators, who claimed that it simply didn’t take into account the fact that women are less interested in sports than men. Thus it had always been and always would be, they protested.

To which defenders of Title IX responded with the assertion that interest follows opportunity – a position that has gained ground steadily as participation in sports by girls and women has soared since the landmark ruling – increasing more than 450 percent at colleges and an even more astounding 940 percent at the high school level by the late-2000s.

It’s worth noting that sports participation by men and boys also increased over this time period, although by much smaller percentages, given where they started (up 19 percent among high school athletes, 31 percent among NCAA varsity athletes), and males continue to outnumber females in both college and high school sports.

The other criticism of the proportionality requirement stems from the fact that, because there is no women’s sport with as many players as football, women have been allotted slightly more scholarships than men in other sports such as basketball and soccer in order to achieve greater parity.

As Mark puts it, “If you eliminate football’s 85 scholarships from the equation, the argument can be made that women have more financial opportunities in Division I athletics than men.” Eighty-five scholarships?

This has always seemed to me a bit like saying, “If you take away the million bucks that guy made last year, he’d be a middle-class wage earner just like the rest of us.” (It also reminds me of a music professor at the college where I worked, who always said he wanted to walk up and down the sidelines at a football game with a sign saying, “Join the choir. You’ll never sit on the bench.”)

According to Mark – and others – the challenge to offer more equal opportunities for women has led to a decline in opportunities for men. As he says, “More than 170 college wrestling programs have been eliminated in the past 30 years, many of them to make way for a women’s program.”

Aside from the vagueness of this correlation, and given the fact that none of the higher-profile men’s sports have seemed to pay a price for greater equity, it seems reasonable to ask whether this is a gender balance issue or a financial one. Unless we agree that the status quo – keeping men’s programs even if it means we can’t offer opportunities for women – is acceptable, it’s hard to blame the addition of women’s programs for the loss of men’s.

You don’t have to be a parent, a grandparent or a Metro Sports Report writer to grasp the tremendous benefits to young women who participate in athletics. But here are just a few well-documented findings: Girls who play organized sports have a more positive self-image, are less likely to use alcohol or drugs, have lower rates of teen pregnancy, and are more likely to graduate from high school.

If you talk to girls about their sports, as I often do, it’s clear they are simply having boatloads of fun, making great friends, and experiencing the joys of setting and achieving goals – just as guys do and have always done through sports.

Twenty-eight years after Amy Chu staked her claim on a high school soccer field, we can be thankful that school districts and (most) students today are less threatened by the idea of girls playing on boys teams when it’s their only opportunity. Otherwise the five girls who played on the Cedar Valley Christian soccer team this spring would be like the
generations of girls before them who missed their chance, simply because their school isn’t large enough to field a girls team. That’s progress.

At the same time, with all the growth in opportunities for women since the revolution started by Title IX, the fact is that women still receive $166 million less in athletic scholarships than men, and women’s teams often continue to be at a disadvantage compared to their male counterparts in terms of facilities and scheduling.

Is that fair? I would say, “not entirely.” Not yet.