All NACDA Members
Gender Equity and the Future
(Tuesday, June 7 --9:30-10:30 a.m.)
First of all, good morning. Great session, Cheryl. Gender Equity in the Future was talked about at our Mid- Winter Meetings in terms of organizing the program and particularly, today's session, on how we could best approach the broad and general topic of gender equity and make it something that was specific and something that you come out with a feeling of a little bit of a grasp. Along with that concept, we were very fortunate to attract Susan Bradshaw. I'm not going to go through her complete bio. You'll get a feel for that when you hear her speak. She's with the University of Texas System Office. She specializes in litigation, employment matters, civil rights and on and on. She has an expertise in a great many areas.
Prior to coming to the University of Texas, she had practiced privately and she isa graduate of the University of Minnesota. She's also a graduate of the University of Texas School of Law. Oval did a great job in terms ofhis recruiting questions and I thought he capitalized that process. I would share with you that I think Susan Bradshaw comes with a complete package. She has a lot of answers to our questions and again, we're very fortunate to have Susan Bradshaw with us.
Good morning. Since this is about change, it's a change of values, I'd like to start with a disclaimer and that is that my group, when learning about Title IX was the "lawyer group". Therefore, I speak about this as an attorney and that's how I got into it and learned about it. If I'm not a moralist about this, it's because I came through it as an attorney. I do have to tell my favorite lawyer joke and then we can move on. I think it's appropriate for this part of Florida. Two people were talking. A question was raised, "What is the difference between a lawyer and a carp?" The person who was asked the question said, "Well, that's very easy. One is a scum-sucking bottom feeder and the other one is a fish." My group can kid itself to some degree.
When I think about this talk and, particularly, after following the talk about diversity, I think we should all have a unique number for this session, put it together as part of a course in your Sociology Departments because it truly is a study of our society attempting to implement some changes. Like any of those types of changes, they're difficult and they're hard to deal with because we are talking about changing deeply seeded, long-held values concerning rather profound things. For example, the role of men and women in our culture. For you, the value of sports, questions concerning money. What are you supposed to be doing? These are all questions being raised by the whole issue of gender equity more than any other force.
For you, though, gender equity is not an abstraction and it's not an intellectual or academic exercise. Youlre going to be called upon to use every skill, every talent, every attribute that you have to engage in the process of being the stewards of change. Legally, right now, only two areas of the country are bound to follow the notion of strict gender equity .Those of you who live in the First Circuit and in the Tenth Circuit are the two areas in the country where court cases have made some very radical changes in the approach that's been traditionally taken to Title IX. However, those of you who do not live in those two circuits are affected by this and in the long-term will end up having to follow something very similar to what's already been decided in those two circuits. My own personal opinion is that it will be modified somewhat over time. The paradigm or the model is out there and we'll talk about that later.
You who are involved in athletics are the chief executive officers. You have to have skills of consummate diplomacy. You have to have skills of consummate fund raising. I hope there are a lot of fund raisers here learning how to do that this week. You have to have a high tolerance for ambiguity .You have to be the big picture person as these changes take place and you are asked to hold the tension of competing value systems. On the one hand, you are going to be looked to, for the most part, to somehow pay for these changes. That means that you have to be very skilled business people. You have to maximize the income derived or the revenue generated by those sports in your schools. If not, you're going to be out there beating the bushes for money to support the athletic programs. On the one hand, you're going to focus those energies on what you do as a business and you're going to be focused on the bottom line. You'll be asking yourself, where do I fmd money in these times of lessening cash flowing into the universities to implement these rather expensive changes that are supposed to be taking place. So, you're doing that, but you're also being asked to promote or hold a value that says the value of sports is for people to be able to participate. Not necessarily, even to win, but to participate, at least for awhile. Those are
antithetical, in some cases. They cause you to have to balance and hold conflicting notions in your head and to back off the idea that the value of a sport is really how much revenue it produces or how much that team wins. It's going to be a transition period and you're going to be asked to be very mature and hold those conflicts while you work through it and they're going to be very difficult in certain cases.
Hopefully, for you, the situation can come gradually and with you in the driver's seat. Get yourself a goal. Haye a plan. Because when it occurs that you are not the one who starts implementing the changes, when it occurs that you are sued, you are in a very difficult position to try to affect the changes in an orderly way and feel like you're in control of your program. The University of Texas at Austin was sued on July 2, 1992. That was the 2Oth anniversary of the passage of Title IX and,
Jlike many parts of the lawsuit, it was calculated for maximum effect. A lot has changed since then. At the time of the lawsuit, the University of Texas at Austin had what was considered one of the premier women's programs in the United States. It was somewhat of a shock that we had been sued over something that no one ever heard of before, except what was coming out of the NCAA called gender equity. No one knew about substantial proportionality and, certainly, had ever thought that it would be a controlling and determining task of compliance with Title IX. There was a real surprise factor in the lawsuit and for some people, a sense of being betrayed. How could this happen? How could they do this to us? We worked hard to try to get the women's program up and running.
At the time the lawsuit was filed, the university had approximately 50,000 students. The undergraduate enrollment of men to women was 53 percent men and 47 percent women. The intercollegiate athletic program was unique in one sense. It was one of four in the United States that had both men and women's department. Men offered eight sports and women offered seven sports. The women's program had been created as an entirety in the mid '70s. It had started out with eight sports and dropped gymnastics twice. There were approximately 325 men participating in intercollegiate athletics and 95 women bringing us to what was the critical number and issue in the lawsuit, a ratio of77 to 23 percent participation.
The program are fully scholarshiped up to the amount allowed by the NCAA and all of the teams competed at the Division I-A level. In the year that the lawsuit was brought, the funds expended by the men's department were about $11 million, the funds for the women were approximately $4 million. The focus of the lawsuit was on the notion of substantial proportionality .That gets translated through the complicated Title IX regulations and policy manual as the question of, you as a university , are fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of both your male and female athletes. As I said, earlier, most people prior to that time said that this notion of proportionality was never raised. The lawsuit was complicated by the fact that the one and only women's athletic director that the University of Texas at Austin had, after 17 years, had left the university about eight months prior to the filing of the lawsuit. It put the university in a difficult position. It created some real issues in terms of who's got more information, the university or the women's athletic director, about what's going on. Donna Lopiano came on board as the expert for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit at the time it was filed.
We were on a learning curve. At the time, the decision was made mainly by the attorneys that we thought we were in compliance. It was unheard of for me, as a lawyer, to say you bring the lawsuit and you win. There's got to be some sort of contest and it was not imaginable to me that if your numbers were off, you would lose. It seemed to me that there had to be an interpretation of the law that would not bring an absolutely literal meaning to this notion of proportionality .There had to be something that was more subtle and nuance in the way that the courts and the Office of Civil Rights would take a look at this issue.
The strict proportionality test is really the first prong of a three-part test that is found, not in the regulations to Title IX, but in what is called the Policy Interpretation, which was written in 1978. As you know, Title VII has had a checkered past and hard time getting going. It wasn't until 1988 that the U .S. Supreme Court determined that Title IX was applicable institution wide as opposed to only to those programs that actually receive federal funds. Since most of you don't get any state money or school money, many athletic departments were not subject to Title IX for quite a while. I always found it unfair to say that we had a history of 20 years of non-compliance when it really was not clear until 1988 that Title IX, with all of its myriad interpretations, applied.
Title IX had a sketchy enforcement history out of the Office of Civil Rights and there's never been a situation where an institution had its federal funds cut off by the Office of Civil Rights. If you had a prior fmding from the Office of Civil Rights, don't count on it. Things are changing radically in the Office of Civil Rights right now in terms of enforcement of Title IX and there's going to be a much more similar approach taken to it that is now coming out of the courts. There are going to be some changes in the way they take looks at the issues of gender equity .
We naively thought that gender equity was something that the NCAA was dealing with and there was going to be some room for us to maneuver and negotiate in dealing with the defense of the lawsuit. Early on, there was a discussion concerning the notion of challenging the fundamental validity of this proportionality statistic. That is, challenging the reasonableness of this interpretation given by the Office of Civil Rights about how things were supposed to be. Someone somewhere may do this and this is where change may emerge in the equation. I personally wonder at the validity of a statistic that says males and females at the college level have the same interest in sports, or says rather, but for invidious gender discrimination, men and women would have the same ability and interest in athletics. I don't think that's true. I'm not going to get into that now. It's hard to challenge it, but the courts that dealt with it simply gave lip service deference to that notion that was the appropriate statistic. If a harder look is taken at this, the appropriate statistic to use is analogous to the ones used to deal with discrimination coming out of the work force concerning sex or race discrimination. In those situations, courts use statistics from a more meaningful pool. Eventually, the more meaningful pool for determining what your college participation levels for male and female should be would be premised more from what's coming out of high school.
That brings up the other major shock to us in dealing with the lawsuit. That was, as written, Title IX is an anti- discrimination statute. You can't discriminate, but by its own terms, by the legal terms in the actual statute, it is not an affirmative action statute. It says, you can't take preferential treatment based on statistical differences. That seemed very clear to us. If you are going to be creating a preference based upon gender, it would be in violation of the law. That's not what Title IX was about. Well, that's not the way the courts have read it and those two rulings that cam~ut of Brown University and Colorado State University have in essence, transformed Title IX from an anti-discrimination law to an affirmative action law mandating that you, as college administrators, take affirmative steps to undo past wrong. They are essentially, locating the onus of change at the far end of the system as opposed to really starting it at the primary and secondary school level sections of the educational system. I think that is done in part because institutions of higher education are perceived to have, if not more money, more ways to get money and because individual female athletes seek to be on scholarship to the same level that men are at the universities.
When we were trying to detennine how we were going to defend this lawsuit, we looked at the question were we equally and effectively accommodating the female and male athletes in our school. You do the three-part test. You take a look and see what your numbers are and if your numbers don't have what is called substantial proportionality, you're in trouble. No one knows what substantial proportionality is. We know what it's not. Anything beyond five percent differential, that is, if the women's participation rate and t~eir enrollment rate vary more than five percent, you are going to be subject to scrutiny. That seems to be where the lines are drawn. That drops you to the second and the only defense that is allowed by the courts at this time and that is, the second prong of this test, which says, can you, as an institution, prove to us that you have been following and tracking the development of women's sports and trying to meet the needs as they manifest themselves in what's being played at the high school levels and what's being requested by the students on your campus.
I submit that few, if any, institutions of higher education, had read Title IX when it was fIrst implemented in the '70s to require them to engage in that type of tracking of what was happening or "not happening" in women's athletics at the high school level. In Texas, for example, the university interscholastically had just made soccer a championship-flight sport. So, this was a long process of about 10 years to get there. Ideally, under Title IX, the universities should have been watching what was going on at the school level understanding that there was a creation of a pool now of adequate soccer players. If your numbers were off, if you had an under-represented sex, you should be watching what's happening and begin to adjust and adapt to the changes occurring at that level. We did not have those documents. We did not have soccer. There had not been requests for soccer by the women's soccer sports level clubs. We also did not have women's fast pitch softball, which was becoming more popular and had begun to played at the high school level. It had not reached critical mass, but it was getting there. That was the fact situation surrounding our second defense. We didn't have the wherewithal to show that there were non-discriminatory reasons for the differences in the ratios. The law assumes that any difference is based upon discrimination and puts the burden on the university to prove a negative. Very difficult, but it's impossible if you haven't been keeping track of what's going on or attempting to measure change over time in the under-represented sex in terms of development sports.
So, we could not rely on the second prong. That left the university with the third prong, which is a difficult defense. That is to prove that the current program effectively accommodates the interests and abilities of the students. How do you do that? What can you do? The policy manual lists about five things to look at to determine if you're doing this. Theyare similar to what I just discussed. They ask you to look at what's going on at the high school level. They ask you to look at what's going on at your club sport level. They say to take a survey of your student body to determine whether there are
unmet needs or unmet interests out there. As a part of our defense, the university went to the Alamo. It hired a professional survey firm to do a survey of its undergraduate student body. We did this, even though it was a flawed defense. Flawed because the athletes in our study body were not really too relevant to the athletic program. The athletic program had always held out to be recruiting elite athletes only. They wanted to be perceived as trying to be top flight programs. On deposition the women's athletic director stated that it didn't really matter to her what the survey said. It was irrelevant to how she was going to run her program because anybody who was on campus and not recruited to participate in intercollegiate athletics wasn't good enough to play on her teams. There is one problem with the survey. It's not relevant to what the actuality is in your athletic department. It was not what I wanted to hear, but it's what came out.
The other problem with the survey that was raised by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit was that because schools don't offer sports, women athletes self-select away from institutions that don't offer their programs and, therefore, the study is flawed from the beginning. That, to me, was a naive approach to the whole issue because, as of right now, most places do not havt women walk-on athletes in great numbers who are in the student body willing to come out and participate in intercollegiate athletics. That may change over time. It better change over time if we are going to come into compliance, but as of right now, there are many more male walk-on athletes than female athletes.
It was also stated at one point that the particular part of the policy interpretation that suggested that you do a survey of your student body was intended for either high schools or very small schools that did, in fact, draw their student-athletes from their student body. We went ahead and did the survey and it turned out to be interesting as all surveys have in this area. The California State System did a survey. All show a drop-offin participation ofwomen in athletics from high schoc to college, a rather radical drop. We devised this questionnaire to try to get a hold of whether there was interest and the ability .How do you judge ability? Do you have the right to control the ability level in your program ? These are unanswered questions.
The Texas lawsuit was different from all the other lawsuits except the one from Colgate, which was only a district COt case. Texas was not cutting any programs for women. It did not have athletes who were interested and had the ability to
play at the collegiate level there on campus. This was an effort to say, strictly, you must create teams based on numbers ai so, the whole question interest and ability level is much more difficult to address when you are being told to simply create teams as opposed to reinstate teams. It's a question that is still not answered, yet. Although the Office of Civil Rights hel( meeting and went over that as one of the areas of change.
The Texas survey reflected 23 percent of the women on campus had an interest in collegiate athletics. That mirrored tI 23 percent we had in our participation rate. While this was going on, it was interesting to look at the demographics of how people participate and how women in particular participate in sports. For example, intramural participation was higher, bul was higher because women participated in aerobics in massive numbers. The interest in participation in the sports falls off you move into competitive team sports. Women are much more interested at a certain point if they are participating in clul sports to play club tennis, club golf, etc., but the interest in competitive team clubs at Texas was not high except for the
women's soccer team.
While we were doing this survey, the first decision out of Brown University came down It was very ominous for us in terms of our defense in the lawsuit. Brown University had not attacked the validity of strict proportionality. They had not said that statistic is meaningless, it's the wrong statistic. Rather, Brown University had argued that you need to take a surve) of your student body and accommodate the needs that are reflected in proportions that are indicated in that survey. In other words, you survey your student body and if23 percent of the women are interested in intercollegiate athletics, then you accommodate 23 percent. You don't go strictly by an enrollment figure Well, the First Circuit Court of Appeals completel: blew that out and said that would needlessly complicate an already overly, numerically complicated approach to life They
have an obligation to remedy past discrimination. We are in the Golden Rule, to make right the wrong.
Title IX is in right now. That's what the First Circuit did.
We still believed at that time that there was one outstanding circuit court that had not decided the Colorado State case.
happening in college athletics. Let's take a real look at money be used by law as a defense in a Title IX case. Money is abso sports and trying to run your program. One of the more clever money ,not as a basis of the claim itself, because, as you know
put the management of the men's athletic department on trial. They used the lawsuit to discover, through the legal process, budgets for 20 years, everything that had to do about financing. Then, they were attempting to say that you can't come in here and tell us that money isn't available to do this because we're going to show you how you have mismanaged your men's department. They went for the most high profile, most embarrassing approach to dealing with the money part. I don't know whether all of you could expect the same thing, were you sued. I expect you would get a variation on the theme. Again, I think Texas' situation was different because it had separate men's and women's departments which created a nightmarish situation. They didn't have the same systems of accounting. That was going to be used as a basis for saying you can't use money. We can show you how you can do this better.
One of the favorite things the plaintiffs did was to talk about the excesses of football. Outfitting, tackling dummies and dealing with donor cars, excesses they perceived to be in football. This really highlighted the rather unique position that football takes and now, more and more, men's basketball, into a huge money making situation. Football is unique. It's a business that's supposed to be nestled in academia. There's a lot of inherent conflict there. Keeping football in the pie. Keeping football in its numbers within the scope of the law creates a real difficulty because it's like dealing with apples and oranges. The point of it all is that football is not constitutionally excluded from civil rights or from Title IX and it stays in the mix. It creates the problems you have with all the numbers and the money and, at Texas, the anger, the history of anger that drove the lawsuit about feeling that they got excess things and women didn't get enough. Hopefully, that won't be present if you aren't doing this kind of thing in your own schools.
The case was legally set for an argument on a motion for summary judgement. That meant no trial. The plaintiff went in and said, we've got a lay down, we win, our cards are all aces and there's no way this can be beat. Just before that argument was to be made, the court in the Tenth Circuit issued its decision in the Colorado case. If anything, it affirmed the approach taken by the tenth circuit. That approach was clearly going to be adopted by the trial court judge in Austin. He made it obvious in a number of ways that he rejected an effort to try to have a more complex nuanced approach to this whole issue of what is effective accommodation of interests and abilities that the university was going to try to make. The university was going to mimic the Brown decision and say we think you need to take a closer look at this and see whether you actually have real interest and unmet interest on campus or whether you have just desire that can't play at the level we want to play.
The judge made that very apparent. He himself had been a walk-on swimmer for the University of Texas at Austin. He was aware of things. When we left the courtroom, it was decided that another attack had to be taken. He also said that he was going to carry the motion for summary judgement through trial. I had, personally, hoped that he would rule on their motion for summary judgement, which would make for a rather clean and totally question of appeal. We could take it up on this issue, is this regulation reasonable? We wouldn't have to go through the agony of a very public trial that would have the men's department on trial as opposed to Title IX.
There were many factors involved with the decision that was made to eventually mediate the lawsuit. One of the things that you will face, or perhaps already face, is the whole issue of politically correct. That was a big factor in this. This was a very difficult situation when you have, on one hand, alumni and big boosters of the athletic men's programs making their voices heard concerning selling out the program, killing football. One the other hand, we have a very feminist governor in Texas, Ann Richards, who is not shy in letting her views be known on certain things. We now have two female regents on the Board of Regents for the university system who are also very vocal on what they want and what should happen. What caused us to go ahead and settle this lawsuit instead of a very difficult trial was to try to stop the polarization that was taking place over it. When you engage in this remedial scheme that has been instituted in the Civil Rights Laws, you create an either or situation that leads to a lot of negativity , a lot of polarization, a lot of hostility .It's an unfortunate remedy. I wish I were brilliant enough to come up with something that would mediate this whole situation in a way that didn't say, I can have it and you can't. But, so far, under Title IX, the way that it has worked out, that's the kind of format that's being used.
The courts are saying if you need to get to substantial proportionality, you have options. The options are not so enviable in many ways. One, of course, is to simply cut men's teams. The university made a commitment to the men's athletic
department that it would not do that as a part of any sort of settlement or remedy of the situation. What will occur, I'm sure, because it's the only other option to deal with, is to begin to cap participation of male athletes on certain teams. I suspect that all of you who make money from football will protect football. Even those of you who do make money playing football, are well aware that football seems to drive the alumni bus in terms of contributions. The lack of a winning football team may
effect contributions somewhat, but the lack of any football team had radical effects on what happens with your development efforts. So, you're not going to cut football.
The third unnamed party in this lawsuit is the NCAA. They are beginning it's process of trying to cut down numbers of players and scholarships in sports. You had a very complex paradigm. What do we do here? Do we go out and cut football players to the size of our rugby team before everybody else does? It gets complicated. One option men's athletic departments will have, if they're not going to cut sports, is to start cutting offwalk-ons. For some people, this is a sad thing because the walk-on athlete is probably the closest to the classic college athlete that you can get. It's someone who has been admitted on his or her own merits. They have the academic skills they need to get into the school and they have the athletic ability to play intercollegiate sports. It is profoundly sad to me to eliminate that possibility, but that's probably what's going to happen in many cases because they have to start trimming the number of men participants in men's athletics to get to some sort of parity.
The women soccer athletes were the named plaintiffs in this lawsuit. They had been the class, the representatives of the class. If you are sued in these matters, please go ahead and get a class certified. It's much more helpful to have it be a class action. Most of the time, I would say, fight the class. This is a good case in which to have a class certified because you are not dealing then with strictly individual athletes who want individual remedies. That's what happened at Indiana University at Pennsylvania. They didn't have a class action and they were left with a very bizarre situation where they have to have field hockey when no one wants to come play it because their plaintiffs were field hockey players. Women's soccer was instituted as a varsity sport.
One of the interesting issues that had been broached during the lawsuit was the issue of ability .It brings up the questions that are fundamental to you as athletic directors and that is, how much autonomy are you going to have over your program if you are sued? So far, the courts have not been willing to listen to anybody arguing that the athletes from the club sport level are not good enough to play varsity ball at my school.
It's a very hard question. What the plaintiffs did in the lawsuit at Texas was take video tapes of these women playing soccer and sent the tapes to various coaches in the old Southwest Conference. They had these coaches provide affidavits saying this person could play on my team anytime. It creates evidence, but evidence ofwhat? If the athletic director at UT says you can have him, but I don't want him. I don't think they deserve a scholarship. I don't think they're good enough. That is going to be the hardest question in the future. In the Colgate situation, the court was very sarcastic and non- responsive to the argument that these women did not have the ability to play at the varsity level. The court said, "Well, they will. Give them four years. They've never had a chance." So, that question is still outstanding. If you have under the current interpretation of the law, if your numbers are off and if you have a women's club sport that has requested to be elevated or even not requested, but is fairly active, you may be under an obligation to elevate that particular sport to a varsity level in order to be in compliance with Title IX. Maybe more than one. Maybe, two.
Or, like Texas, you may be required to go out and simply create a fast pitch softball team. There was no fast pitch women's club sports at the University of Texas at Austin. It simply didn't exist. Most of the fast pitch is played in the park leagues in Austin and it wasn't a university sport. That's part of the agreement. By 1995, there will be a women's fast pitch softball team.
We have also agreed that within a five-year period, we will go to 44 percent women's participation rate. That's up from 23 percent. That's a massive jump to make in a five-year period. We have also agreed that the amount of scholarships for the women will never be less than two percent of their participation ratio. The university also agreed, perhaps unnecessarily, but a part of its own ethic, to agree to recruit top-flight coaches and top-flight facilities so that there's not going to be the opportunity to have a two-tiered athletic program. Some schools will have to consider this because of the fmancing involved with providing scholarships.
The money is the biggest problem. The scholarships alone are going to run over $300,000. Where is the money going to come from and how are we going to do this? These are questions still unanswered. There are many more departmental men's and women's joint fund raising activities that are going on and that are planned. I assume since we get no money for athletics from state legislature, the men's department will be required to provide more support than it already had in the past. One of the interesting arguments taken by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, was to say that the money that was generated by the men's department is not the men's athletic department money at all. It's university's funds. That money should not go to men's athletics. It should go to the President's Office and the President's Office should disperse those funds as it sees necessary. I venture to say that university presidents who start to do that may not be in office too long. But, it is something that was promoted as a way to eliminate or diminish this notion that you're taking our money to support sports that don't make money. You're taking our money to begin to build facilities for athletic contests that nobody watches. This isn't fair.
Well, that's where the changes come in because for a while, at least, the money is going to be dedicated to sports that don't produce a lot of revenue, that may be expensive and may not have high levels of spectator interest. The law is putting an obligation on all ofus to make those things happen. Whether they will over time, I don't know. I think there's going to be an incremental increase in women in athletics as the scholarships come through. I fmd that, personally, one of the things that was difficult about this situation was that although there are many of you here, in the wider world of the university, there are many demands for the money. There is a resentment in the other part of the university when discretionary funds by law are mandated to go to a very small group within the university as opposed to helping pay salaries in the College of Liberal Arts where the French/Italian teacher makes $25,000 per year. This is what's first. Legally, this is what's going on. This is what has to be done.
The university is going to go ahead and build the facilities and get the coaches. We will do a survey next year to determine how well we're doing. If we're not close enough to the 44 percent in terms of participation, we are going to have to add a third or fourth women's sport to come into compliance with Title IX voluntarily. The fallout from the settlement has not been as bad yet as people feared it might be. The athletic directors of the men's and women's departments have worked very skillfully and very hard to try to put this in place and to minimize hostility and ant!lgonism. I don't know that because the university is committed not to cutting any men's sports. We don't want the reverse discrimination lawsuits that came out of both Illinois and Drake University when their men's swimming and gymnastics teams were eliminated. Under the law right now, that's a losing argument. The men have not been able to carry much water saying that there is reverse discrimination going on. The district courts have acknowledged that this is an affirmative action statute and that's what you have. A period of compensatory discrimination preference goes on in order to compensate for prior wrongdoing, prior gender discrimination.
I can't tell you where you are right now. Only you know where you are. I read this a long time ago, it says, "Every truth passes through three stages before it's recognized. In the first, it is ridiculed. In the second, it is opposed and in the third, it is regarded as self evident. " I am not sure what is going to end up being self evident. You will be in a different world than existed in 1972 when these women's programs were created. It's a lot easier not to be on the receiving end of this lawsuit and I think that all of you need to go ahead and take a hard look, if you haven't already, at what your programs are about and what you're doing. Have a plan. Have something that acknowledges existence of this law and the changes that are coming down. In the end, it may not be, as I said earlier, that you are going to have to comply with something that is based upon enrollment ratios. But, right now, that seems to be where we're going. You must take note of that, at least. The worst thing you can do is nothing. The worst thing you can do is hope that it won't happen to you. There have to be steps taken. As people involved in the direction of these athletic departments, it's also important that you involve your presidents or your other high administrators. This is not a job for you alone. You are not supermen, although you are called upon to be. The money and the commitment and the actual change in the value system that is required by these deeply seeded attitudal changes. One of the hardest talks the president of UT at Austin had was with the women alumni boosters who were angry about the settlement. They held the most deeply felt feelings about what this was going to do to the men's program.
It's fascinating the way that the values of the culture play themselves out and how it has to change. So, involve your president. Get them in on this and don't try to do it alone. The second thing I urge very strongly is to try to work as conferences. It's impossible to have women's crew at the University of Texas at Austin. There aren't any other crew teams within 1,000 miles. You've got to work as conferences to determine what you can do that's realistic, that you can all have the same team, you can start your competition. Title IX says that you do not have to have a team if there is not a reasonable possibility of competition. Create the possibility of competition in a reasonable way for yourself through your conference. I don't know how cooperative conferences are, but in this issue you can really do yourselves a favor by working as a conference to try to create some change and bring schools along that might not necessarily want the change as fast as others. You are in for a big challenge. It's the end of the sociology hour or sociology morning and I wish you all the best of luck, I'll be around today and we can talk about it more, if you want. Thank you very much.