In praise of Title IX and the positive effect of sports in women's lives

I meant to post this some time ago. One of the most remarkably successful, albeit controversial pieces of legislation in recent history. Born of the Nixon Administration, of all places. I submit to you: Title IX.-

Coaches are famous for saying "I don't want to hear about the labor pains, just show me the baby".

Now -- some firty years later -- we are able to look back on both the labor pains and the growth of the the child. Much of the change, as it was occurring, was accompanied by significant episodes of grinding and gnashing of teeth and a whole lot of sound and fury, which in the end, signified nothing.

Warts and all -- on balance and in hindsight -- I believe that Title IX has had more positive effects on society in general and on the movement to assimilate and advance women from the kitchen to the workplace specifically -- with far less of the deleterious negative social side-effects -- than the advancement of the radical feminist agenda.

There, I said it. And I'm not taking it back.

Thank you Title IX.
Thank you Sports.
Thank you former President Nixon.

I guess that whole "Sports as a metaphor for Life" mantra has some practical uses after all. ;)

Making Sports a Metaphor for Life
http://www.middlebury.edu/giving/difference/impact2/impact/Foote

Often during a team practice on Kohn Field, Missy Foote, head coach of the women's lacrosse team, will stop play for what she calls a "Green Mountain moment," a brief pause in practice to appreciate the dramatic backdrop just east of their field. Now into her 32nd year at Middlebury, Coach Foote has had numerous moments like these. She has forged lifelong bonds with many of the approximately 360 student-athletes she has mentored at the College during her tenure.

"As coaches, we try to make sports a metaphor for life," she explains. "Through athletics, we grow highly functioning, committed adults. For me, this maturation process is incredibly rewarding to see and play a part in."

Over the years, Foote has witnessed significant changes in the athletics program at Middlebury. These differences are most evident in the advancements in the athletic opportunities available to female students.

When Foote came to Middlebury, Title IX was still in its infancy. As she recalls, there was only one locker room for all women-the general public, students, and visiting teams alike. The facilities have improved and "the emphasis on athletics and the role it plays in a woman's life has changed remarkably," says Coach Foote. "Now well after Title IX, there is nothing holding back our females. They can achieve anything they want, which is a great transition to have witnessed."

Coach Foote weighs her success as a coach not in the number of titles her team achieves or her overall record, but rather in the role she plays in launching players into their lives beyond Middlebury.

The deep connections that develop on the field are the bonds that unite Middlebury athletes and keep them "invested in each other's joys and sorrows years after graduation," Foote explains. She regularly attends the weddings of her athletes and christenings of their children, and provides advice to many former students who are now coaching on their own. She also participates in marathons with her former athletes. "There's nothing like helping each other come into the finish to reaffirm the strong relationships we built at the College," Coach Foote says. "These are lifelong friendships and a support group that is ever expanding...bonds that define my coaching career at Middlebury."

That's what it's all about!!

---


from Wikipedia:

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a United States law, enacted on June 23, 1972.

In 2002 it was renamed the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, in honor of its principal author Congresswoman Mink, but is most commonly known simply as Title IX.

The law states that

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."
—United States Code Section 20, [1]

Hi Charles,

We would love to share with you an article that we just posted on our own blog! "9 Title IX Facts Every Athlete Should Know" (http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com/2011/08/07/9-title-ix-facts-every-athlete-should-know/) would be an interesting story for your readers to check out and discuss on your blog.

Either way, I hope you continue putting out great content through your blog. It has been a sincere pleasure to read.

Thanks

Larry Dignan  

--------

Created in 1972 as a way of providing equal opportunities for education and athletics regardless of gender, Title IX has gotten a lot of attention in recent years — both positive and negative — from teachers, students, administrators and parents. While most people probably have an opinion one way or another, many may not know the facts behind the act, nor really understand how it is applied to colleges and secondary schools. Many, even the student athletes whom it directly affects, may be quite surprised to learn more than a few of the facts we've collected here. Some may have to reconsider just how they look at what it's really doing to nurture equality in the higher education system.

1. Many schools still don't abide by the Title IX law

   While Title IX has helped women gain access to a wide range of athletic programs and scholarships, there are still many schools out there who don't abide — or try to skirt some of its policies. Perhaps more distressing is that schools violating Title IX often face little or no legal action. Investigations are often drug out over years, and rarely result in any kind of meaningful penalties. One investigation at USC has gone on for over 12 years now, with no sign of resolution in sight. Even more troubling? Investigations are often conducted by the schools themselves, giving them little to no incentive to report any problems they do find. Though to be fair, some are quite willing to fix issues if they are pointed out.

2. No school has ever lost federal funding for violating Title IX

   Since 1972, when Title IX was enacted, not a single case of discrimination against female (or male) athletes was referred to the justice department for further investigation or repercussions. Not one. That doesn't mean that there has been no discrimination — between 2002 and 2006 alone, there were 416 complaints filed with the Office for Civil Rights — just that there are few (if any) cases where schools have been forced into compliance. This brings into question its effectiveness at providing equality.

3. Women are not inherently less interested in playing sports than men

   Many who argue against Title IX claim that women are simply less interested in sports than their male counterparts. Since the act went into effect in 1972, female participation in college-level sports has increased 403%. Today, 43% of college athletes are women, and many more say they would participate if their schools offered programs in their sport of choice.

4. For every new dollar going into college athletics at the Division I and II levels of college athletics, male sports receive 65 cents. Female sports receive 35 cents

   Just as women only make 77 cents for every dollar men do, their sports haven't attained equal funding, either. Women's sports programs at Division I and II schools are given almost half of what men's programs are. This means half the money for facilities, programs, recruitment and scholarships. With women making up 56% of all undergrads in college and 43% of athletes, that's a pretty startling discrepancy.

5. Title IX hasn't radically changed how college athletic programs are managed

   While 53% of the students at Division I schools are women, female athletes in Division I receive just 32% of the funds to recruit new athletes, 37% of total athletics expenditures, 45% of total athletic scholarships and 44% of the opportunities to play intercollegiate sports. While that's far better than in 1972, it still doesn't adequately support many of the athletic programs underrepresented students are interested in. Big ticket sports like basketball and football still dominate the majority of resources in nearly every college athletics department — to the detriment of both female and male sports.

6. Title IX doesn't only apply to athletics or females

   Title IX actually applies to all aspects of federally-funded education programs and activities for both men and women. It prohibits sexual harassment, discrimination in admissions and housing and helps ensure that people of both sexes have access to higher education, career services, safe learning environments and appropriate technology. Athletics is only one facet of the act, which is much broader in its scope than most people are aware.

7. Title IX doesn't force schools to cut men's athletic programs

   While some schools may choose to cut men's athletic programs to comply with Title IX, the legislation does not require this kind of action. There are actually multiple ways that schools can meet its tenets, and not all require the proportionality test (matching the percentage of male and female students to the availability of athletic programs, scholarships and funding) to be strictly enforced. They can also comply through showing a history and continuing practice of expanding athletic programs in response to the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex. Schools can also qualify if their present athletic programs are broad enough to meet the underrepresented sex's interests. Issues with Title IX are usually only investigated if there have been claims of denial of participation opportunities in athletics.

8. There are fewer female coaches today than there were in 1972

   Title IX hasn't spurred progress in gaining equality for every facet of athletics, as some might think. In 2008, only 43% of coaches of women's teams were women. In 1972, that number was over 90%. The problem is two-fold. On one hand, there simply aren't enough women going into coaching to fill all the available positions. On the other, those that do are often bullied and discriminated against, causing them to change careers or leave college coaching altogether. The Title IX legislation that's meant to protect them? It often doesn't do much at all. Just ask the female coaches at Ball State University.

9. The majority of Americans support Title IX

   Despite the large number of those who grumble about Title IX on the web or in the media, the majority of Americans still support this act. How many? Recent surveys put it at about 82% in favor, across all political parties, cultural and age groups. Only 14% believe that the law should be repealed. Whether or not everyone agrees that Title IX legislation is the best way to help women get into sports, it's clear that people today value female athletic participation. This makes it all the more important to help ladies get the equal opportunities they deserve to play.

----

At U of I, Title IX is toothless
BY DARREN SWAN AND EVAN SWAN
DEC 11, 2007
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=73245

Athletes feel wrath of Title IX fallout
On June 16, 2006, Fresno State University varsity wrestler Sean Carlson was living what he called the high life.

Having grown up in Fresno, he was used to the non-nirvana-like weather of central California.

Carlson was vigorously training during the unruly hot summer for his junior season on the team with a starting spot all but assured -- he had no worries.

Then, on that June day almost two years ago, just two days shy of 21st birthday, he got the call.

Carlson, who routinely puts himself through pain in a sport that requires hard work, discipline and toughness, began to cry. He was at the lowest point of his life.

His love, passion and craft were all taken away with that one phone call from a coach on the team. The Fresno State University wrestling program was cut.

“Effective immediately.”

Today, still feeling angry and depressed like many of his teammates, Carlson is able to recall exactly how he felt on that very day.

“Everyone was angry, depressed and pissed off because we didn’t get a reason of why we were cut,” said the former 125-and 133-pound wrestler. “The [athletic department] did it during the middle of summer, not considering the [incoming freshmen] or seniors who would have to go to other colleges to wrestle.”

The university promised to uphold its financial agreement with the students, with or without the program. Scholarships would be honored even if the students wrestled at a different college, Carlson said.

The Fresno State University wrestling team is just one example of the plethora of collegiate athletic programs across the country that get cut each year due to issues of compliance with Title IX, the law created to provide gender equity in education and athletics.

Nowadays the average college consists of 42 percent male and 58 percent female, the Department of Education reports.

Larry Kocher, president of the College Sports Council based in Chicago and head wrestling coach and professor at the University of Chicago, indicates much of the language in Title IX is questionable and unclear.

Title IX has three sections—known as prongs— that demonstrate how schools must comply. Universities are required to observe just one of the three prongs to be “in compliance with the law.”

Prong one mandates schools to provide athletic opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. Prong two orders schools to demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented gender. And prong three requires a school to provide full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of the underrepresented gender.

Kocher says because prong two and three contain ambiguous language, many schools employ prong one not for feasibility, but more out of convenience.

Prong one specifically targets proportionality. As long as the enrollment is proportional to the number of athletes participating in a given sport, the school is in compliance with the law.

However, there’s just one problem: Experts believe prong one is being used as a loop hole, instead of its original intention—to provide gender equity in college athletics by gender.

Traccee Passeggi, a public policy officer at the Women’s Sports Foundation in New York—founded by Billy Jean King—elaborates on prong one as the most relied on form of testing for Title IX compliance.

“There has been strong criticism that the proportionality test has been used to mandate quotas in intercollegiate athletics,” she said.

Passeggi said this is “in direct violation of the true intent of Title IX.”

However, according to Kocher, the three-prong test has turned into a quota law. Other critics, like Jim McCarthy, spokesman for the College Sports Council in Chicago, said the DOE needs to provide a clearer and more provable way that school’s can comply with prong three.

But a greater problem exists, McCarthy said, “There’s no way to prove [compliance with prong three.]”

Without clear language establishing what schools need to do to be compliant with Title IX, problems will continue to arise.

Title IX does not instruct schools to cancel programs, the Department of Education states on its Web site, but it perpetuates an easy escape to compliance. If a school’s numbers are off and subtracting 30 student athletes from the participation pool will make it right, Kocher acknowledges, they cut.

More than 450 wrestling programs have been hacked since the inception of Title IX in 1972, according to USA Wrestling, the nation’s amateur wrestling governing body.

Gary Abbott, director of special projects at USA Wrestling, told the New York Times in 2003 there were 363 NCAA wrestling teams with 7,914 wrestlers in 1982. In 2001, there were only 229 teams with fewer than 6,000 wrestlers. Nonetheless, during that time period, the number of NCAA universities grew from 787 to 1,049.

On average 200 wrestlers every year since 1972 lost their program, equating to thousands of student-athletes over the last 35 years losing a chance to participate in college and, in some cases, an opportunity at higher education altogether.

Carlson is only one name among the thousands of wrestlers who lost their sport—and passion—since in the inception of Title IX, 35 years ago.

Though Carlson still lives in sunny California, where he’s currently finishing his degree at Fresno State University, only one thing crosses his mind every day.

“I just want to get the hell out of here,” he said.

However, not even success guarantees safety for a program.

In 1994, UCLA chose to drop its men’s swimming program. The program had produced more than a dozen Olympians, more than any other school, and maybe even the greatest swimmer of all-time in Mark Spitz. His seven gold medals at the 1972 Olympics is still a world record.

Would the University of North Carolina ever drop its men’s basketball program, which produced possibly the greatest basketball of all-time in Michael Jordan?

Bob Groseth, Northwestern University men’s swimming coach, has seen many of his athletes crowned as NCAA champions. His program is unquestionably dominant and his student athletes have been regularly commended by the Big Ten conference for their work in the classroom.

“Swimming is vulnerable with the current interpretation of Title IX,” he said. “One, it has large numbers. Two, the facilities are expensive and if a school has to reach proportionality with Title IX – it’s easier to cut a large team like men’s swimming to do so.”

Title IX does not protect programs. It gives specific discretion to the individual schools to handle their business how they see fit. Even though the most common way for schools to reach compliance is through cutting, Jocelyn Samuels, vice president for education and employment at the National Women’s Law Center, said removing programs has never been the way of getting institutions to comply with the law.

In plain English, Samuels says cutting teams is the absolute wrong way to create equality in athletic programs. “The focus of the law is to ensure equal opportunities and by adding those opportunities.”

Easier said then done.

In its 55th and last year of existence, the Oregon wrestling program welcomed back 10 letter winners in 2007-08, seven of whom competed in the 2007 Pac-10 Championships.

Athletes, like Carlson, are experiencing program cuts from another Title IX factor: highly expensive revenue generating sports.

Debbie Yow, the University of Maryland's athletic director for the last 14 years and the Atlantic Coast Conference’s first ever female athletic director, offered a correlation between Title IX and the elimination of more than 400 men's college programs over the last 35 years.

“I think that there is a connection. Actually, this is -- the reason this is such a complex issue is because there is no simple answer,” said Yow in an interview with CNN, who was recently voted by the Chronicle of Higher Education as one of the 10 most powerful people in college sports. “Others will say to you that those teams could have been saved, if their -- the expenses for the revenue sports in college athletics, like football and men's basketball, were not so high.”

Athletes at James Madison University in Virginia and the University of Oregon are going through the same situation as Carlson and his teammates went through two years ago.

James Madison over the past year cut 10 programs (seven men’s and three women’s) and flatly blamed Title IX for doing so, according to an official university statement. All together 144 students and 11 coaches will not be participating in athletics for JMU this year.

The university stated at the time that adding programs was not the best course of action the university could take.

“Any solution that would require the addition of sports beyond the current 28 teams was deemed unacceptable.”

Oregon this past year chose to reinstate its baseball team, add a competitive cheerleading team and cast away its nationally-ranked wrestling team. University officials did not offer Title IX as the reason for the cut, but, in effect, keeping the wrestling team on board would have put the school not in compliance with the law.

The Oregon wrestlers have started a campaign to save their wrestling program. Donations are pouring in, but that may not even be enough, according to McCarthy, because regulations prohibit money being designated for specific teams, and any donations would have to be matched for a women’s team.

This makes it twice as hard to save a program during a time where student-athletes are fighting uphill without a paddle.


Myths and Facts
Because the written language, interpretation and implementation of Title IX is ambiguous, here are some common misnomers people and schools alike believe to be true but aren’t. The legislation’s goal was to provide gender equity for males and females in education and athletics. However, experts say, equity for men and women is collegiate athletics is still far from reality.

Myth: Title IX is only about athletics.

Fact: Although most people who know about Title IX think it only applies to sports, but Title IX applies to every aspect of federally funded education programs. In fact, athletics is only one of 10 major areas addressed by the law. These other areas are: access to higher education, career education, education for pregnant and parenting students, employment, learning environment, math and science, sexual harassment, standardized testing, and technology.

Myth: Title IX applies only to females.

Fact: Both male and female students are protected by Title IX.

Myth: Title IX forces schools to cut men's sports.

Fact: Title IX doesn’t require a school to cut a men's sports program. The Department of Education states clearly, “Nothing in Title IX requires the cutting or reduction of teams in order to demonstrate compliance." All federal courts that have considered the question have agreed. Some schools have decided on their own to eliminate certain men's sports, but the law is flexible. There are many other ways to comply. Some schools have cut sports, like gymnastics and wrestling, rather than attempt to control bloated football and basketball budgets, which consume a whopping 72 percent of the average Division I-A school's total men's athletic operating budget. For example, San Diego State University decided to address its $2 million budget deficit by cutting its men's volleyball team instead of looking for any of the money within its $5 million football budget.

Myth: Women just aren't interested in sports.

Fact: After Title IX’s implementation, women's participation in intercollegiate sports has skyrocketed. Before Title IX, fewer than 32,000 women participated in college sports; today that number exceeds 150,000--nearly five times the pre-Title IX rate.

Myth: Title IX requires quotas against men.

Fact:Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs, which means female students must have equal opportunities to participate in educational programs, including athletics. Because Title IX allows sports teams to be segregated by gender, schools themselves decide how many participation opportunities they will give female, as compared to male, students. Title IX does not in any way require quotas; it requires that schools allocate participation opportunities for both genders in nondiscriminatory ways.

A school can meet this requirement if it can demonstrate any one of the following ways:

-The percentages of male and female athletes are substantially proportionate to the percentages of male and female students enrolled; or

-If the school has a history and continuing practice of expanding athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex; or

-If the school’s athletics program fully and effectively accommodates the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

That being said, it’s probably clearer why this is such a cloudy and misunderstood piece of legislation, providing loop holes where discrimination does occur.

*Information courtesy of Title IX.info

----

FROM THE NATIONAL REVIEW:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225402/olympian-political-correctness/todd-gallagher

August 22, 2008, 0:00 p.m.

Olympian Political Correctness
In all the Olympic hype, you won't hear about performance differences between Venus and Mars.

By Todd Gallagher

‘Can Jamaica’s Sprinters Fight Crime?” That’s the tongue-in-cheek headline of a recent Time magazine article celebrating the remarkable Olympics performances of track stars from that Caribbean nation. In the space of a few days, Usain Bolt smashed world records in the men’s 100 and 200 meters, while three Jamaican sprinters swept the medals in the women’s 100 meters.

Time’s question is amusing, but for me, the incredible accomplishments of the Jamaican track team call to mind another question that isn’t so funny to a lot of people — as I learned the hard way.

You see, I wrote a book in which I worked with professional athletes and Olympic medalists to settle a series of long-running sports debates. The questions I heard most often had to do with gender: How big is the gap between the top male and female athletes?

One of my initial findings was jarring: the women’s Olympic record in the 100 meters, set in 1988 by superstar Florence Griffith-Joyner, is virtually identical to the U.S. record for 14-year-old boys — also set in 1988, by the less heralded Curtis Johnson. The winning time of 2008 women’s gold medalist Shelly-Ann Fraser? Well over a tenth of a second slower than Johnson’s.

Nor is the 100 meters an aberration. In sport after sport, evidence shows that the top female professional athletes in the world are on par with the best American 14- and 15-year-old boys. Nearly every female Olympic record in speed, strength, and endurance events falls between the records set by the best American 14- and 15-year-old boys:

Speed/Endurance Record Times:
Distance Men’s Boys’ 14 Women’s Boys’ 15
100M 9.69 10.64 10.62 10.42
200M 19.30 21.49 21.34 20.97
400M 43.49 47.16 48.25 46.55
800M 1:42.58 1:55.9 1:53.43 1:51.03
1500M 3:32.07 4:04.1 3:53.96 3:51.5
5000M 13:05.59 15:46.8 14:40.79 14:32.8
10000M 27:05.10 32:48.0 30:17.49 31:43.2


Leaping Records (in meters):
Event Men’s Boys’ 14 Women’s Boys’ 15
High Jump 2.39 2.04 2.06 2.18
Long Jump 8.90 7.21 7.40 7.49
Pole Vault 5.95 4.72 4.91 5.33
Triple Jump 18.09 14.74 15.33 14.98

Direct competition between women and boys tends to confirm the gap: the women’s Olympic hockey team has lost to boys’ high school junior-varsity teams; the women’s Olympic soccer team has lost to club teams of 15-year-old boys, the Colorado Silver Bullets professional baseball team has lost to American Legion squads — the list goes on and on.

I was surprised that this information had never been disseminated widely, since the data I researched and the interviews I conducted didn’t take long to put together. Obviously, I’m not suggesting that any slob off the street could outrun Shelly-Ann Fraser; but if she can’t beat the time that a 14-year-old boy set 20 years ago, surely that fact should inform a number of gender-and-sports discussions: Has Title IX done enough to level the playing field for female athletes — or has it actually penalized male athletes? Should golfers like Michelle Wie receive sponsors’ exemptions to compete against men in PGA tournaments? Should Wimbledon award men and women tennis players the same prize money?

Experts in the field of gender differences in sports emphatically argue that men’s superior performance is due primarily to societal factors — if they’re even willing to concede men’s superior performance, that is.

For example, in October 2007, Eileen McDonagh of Northeastern University and Laura Pappano of Wellesley College published Playing with the Boys: Why Separate Is Not Equal in Sports. “The premise of this book, and our work,” McDonagh says, “is that sex segregation does not reflect sex differences between men and women, rather it constructs them.”

I laid out the results of my research for Pappano and asked why male athletes outpace female athletes starting at 14 and 15. She answered: “Women are told around that time that they are athletically inferior to men and that they should start acting like ladies. That’s why we see the boys making such stunning gains at that age and the girls begin to suffer.”

While no one can deny that societal factors play some role, the research makes it pretty clear that there was a simpler explanation for the gap: puberty. The Centers for Disease Control publishes growth charts for the U.S. population which reveal that boys hit their major growth spurt between the ages of 14 and 15 — precisely when the best boy athletes begin to outperform the top adult female athletes.

My interviews with female professionals and others in the world of women’s sports confirmed the importance of boys’ physical development at that age. Aaron Heifitz, the publicist for the U.S. national women’s soccer team, described how the women’s squad performs against the best youth club players in Southern California: “The boys’ 13s we can handle pretty consistently, but when the boys start really developing at 14, and especially 15, that’s when you start to see real separation and they pass even the best women’s players. They’re just bigger, stronger, and faster.”

Eileen McDonagh has suggested that gender differences don’t matter in skill-based games that don’t place a premium on size, strength, and speed — pointedly asking, during a speech at Wellesley, “Why on earth are pool and ping-pong sex segregated?” Here again, even a little research reveals that the best female performers can’t compete consistently with the best males. Ping-pong actually relies heavily on physical attributes, and the difference between male and female competitors is almost as severe as it is in tennis — where the 203rd-ranked male player soundly defeated both Serena and Venus Williams in separate exhibition sets (6-1 and 6-2, respectively). In pool, Jean Balukas — possibly the greatest female player of all time — finished in the middle of the pack in men’s events in the 1980s; and Jeanette “The Black Widow” Lee — formerly the world’s Number One female player — told me, “You would not believe the amount of men, in my world, who can wax me.”

Cathy Young, the author of Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, suggests that that failure to discuss research findings openly and honestly reflects a larger feminist agenda of “bio-denial” to promote the idea that there are no natural differences between the genders. “There’s a whole establishment that’s invested in perpetuating the notion that there are not inborn differences between the genders athletically, and that any differences can only be attributable to sociological circumstances and societal oppression. They have a clear agenda to empower women through a distorted notion of equality but these people are saying things that are completely out of touch with biological reality.”

Kurt Fischer, director of the Mind, Brain, and Education Program at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, has seen this firsthand. “I’ve been at faculty meetings where the notion that there are differences in the genders is ridiculed,” Fischer says. He adds, “[T]he first woman dean at Harvard was my dean when she got here, and when I would try to bring up studies that showed inborn gender differences she wouldn’t even allow it.”

Anyone who saw what happened to Harvard president Lawrence Summers — for even suggesting that there could be inborn gender differences — might conclude that challenging the claims of the Laura Pappanos of the world is an unnecessary headache. “When you have a large group of people with a vested interest in maintaining an agenda,” Fischer observes, “they’re going to find ways to attack anyone or anything that threatens their existence.”

The media have also obscured the facts in this debate. Young suggests a reason for this: “At most newspapers, Title IX is gospel at this point. And anything that could be seen as an argument against it is going to be ignored, attacked, or ridiculed.”

Professor Fischer was not surprised when I told him of my difficulties getting traction with my own data. “I have a colleague here in town that has a biologically based view of gender differences. She’s done a whole lot of research that shows fairly large, important differences between boys and girls in their socio-relationships at an early age. And she was prevented from publishing that at several points from people who just didn’t want to hear that point of view, regardless of the evidence.”

We almost certainly won’t hear anyone discussing controversial gender issues in all the hype surrounding the closing days of these Olympic Games. But maybe if we keep laying out the data in a calm and rational manner, we can advance the discussion beyond the biased, politically correct, opinionated nonsense that passes for serious intellectual debate on this subject.

— Todd Gallagher is the author of Andy Roddick Beat Me with a Frying Pan: Taking the Field with Pro Athletes and Olympic Legends to Settle Sports Fans’ Greatest Debates.