If it’s late August, it must be Little League World Series time – and our annual reminder of why Title IX is needed, but not enough.

The disparities in treatment, support, and attention for male and female athletes begins early, and nowhere is it more obvious than in Little League.

Just consider the annual baseball and softball World Series playoff events. The Little League Softball World Series, which just wrapped up, featured 27 games, with semi-finals and the championship aired on ESPN2. That’s THREE games.

Now multiply that by 11 and you’ll have the number of Little League Baseball World Series games broadcast – and many on ESPN HD (for those keeping track, that’s every single game played in the series).

Oh, and the August 27 finals are on CBS in –– HD.

Nearly every element of these two marquis events reveals institutional and cultural sexism (yes, girls are allowed to play Little League Baseball but it is rare and in many places are discouraged from doing so). One has only to glance at the websites (here and here)  for the two World Series events to spot vastly different levels of support.

Curious about the players? The Little League Softball World Series site features team photos. The Little League Baseball World Series site lets you click down to individual players – and watch video of them in action. The level of information (want souvenir tickets?) and polish between the two sites is absurdly disparate.

This is not meant as a criticism of the softball effort (May we remember that these are 12-year-olds?), but of the blatant institutional gap. The matter is, frankly, puzzling. Why doesn’t Little League at least try – a little?

Granted, right there in the media guide, the organizational timeline points out that in 1972 after the passage of Title IX that, “Little League resists the entry of girls into the program.” In 1974, the organization decides “to allow participation by girls” (after a New Jersey Court ordered them to), but immediately creates Little League Softball – which helps to keep girls from joining baseball.

Many years have passed, but not enough has changed.

As the girls and boys of summer play out their Little League World Series dreams — dreams structured by an organization that portrays itself as a gift to youth development – isn’t it time to make gender fairness a goal?

It would be as important for the boys as it would be for the girls.

http://www.softballworldseries.com/schedule.htm

Back in April, a NYTimes/CBS News poll found that – surprise! – men and women place nearly identical value on sports opportunities for girls in high school.

Asked how important sports were for girls, 68% of men and 74% of women answered “very.” Asked about relative opportunities for girls and boys, 47% of both sexes felt girls and boys had the “same” opportunity and slightly more women — 49% vs. 45% of men – believed girls had “less” opportunity.

Both sexes, in other words, see pretty much eye to eye. They value girls’ access and recognize that it may be short of where it needs to be. If this is so, why does Title IX remain such a battlefield?

1. It’s hard to legislate cultural change. Title IX was meant to combat sexism that kept females from access to equal educational opportunities, from science classes to sports teams. The regulations, however, created a complicated web of compliance rules that require experts to interpret, keeping the average citizen from engaging around the issue of gender equity in sports. Combating unfairness has become the work of lawyers, with compliance being more about paperwork manipulation than ensuring fair play. It allows for institutional obfuscation and game-playing.
2. Title IX has become code for “Feminist Aggression.” Title IX has been portrayed as an extremist feminist weapon, a tool for taking away boy’s sports teams (rather than blaming huge football budgets), and forcing an “unnatural” level of support for female athletes. Lawsuits – by the National Women’s Law Center in November and recently by the American Sports Council – have become a form of gamesmanship (the American Sports Council claims it has a novel new legal claim never before used to battle the proportionality rule!). Instead of seeking fairness, we’re seeking wins.
3. The Persistent Myth that Women Don’t Really Like Sports as Much as Men (and they aren’t as good anyhow, so why provide the same support?) At every level, from recreational to professional, there’s belief that women are less interested and less deserving. The pervasive negative messages feed girls’ self-doubt at young ages, spurring self-censorship, and the inclination to take themselves out of contention or participation in a sport before they can face imagined rejection. It is not enough to “allow” girls to play – whether it’s Little League Baseball or soccer at recess – they must be encouraged. The result of this perceptual imbalance? The sense that “interested” boys are being denied by “uninterested” girls. This feeds a false narrative that fairness is being “forced” where it doesn’t belong.

Unfortunately, Title IX is a rough tool for the task of changing hearts, minds, and attitudes. The Women’s World Cup made a potent dent in the perception of women’s athletics as “less than.” Many males sports fans were stunned to find themselves interested and entertained by a women’s sporting event (gasp!!).

The law– and labyrinthine regulations – guarantee a protracted battle. If only common sense and fairness could actually rule. But that would require seeing female and male athletes as equals.

When the NCAA decided late in 2010 to cut squash from the emerging sport list, most people didn’t notice the decision, let alone realize the profound impact on the sport moving forward. But this decision is like hitting the serve out at nine-all in the fifth.

Some background: 14 years ago the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) created an emerging sport list with the goal of having the nine original sports one day become official sponsored NCAA sports. Squash was on that list. Emerging status (only applicable to women’s sports) is bestowed on sports which the NCAA thinks have promise. The status provides for a 10-year window to build teams with the goal of reaching at least 40 college programs, the minimum required to become an official NCAA sport. As an incentive while in emerging status, colleges can count the women who play on those teams toward meeting Title IX requirements.

What’s happened? Of the nine original sports on the list, four have become “championship” sports: rowing, ice hockey, water polo and bowling. In the case of women’s squash, after the 10-year window, the NCAA granted the sport four extra years to reach the critical mass of 40 teams. Right now we’re at about 28. So in 2010, the Committee on Women’s Athletics and the NCAA Division 1 Council decided to drop the sport.

Does NCAA sponsorship really matter? Yes. Here’s why this decision hurts women’s squash:

1) Colleges now have no incentive to add squash as a varsity sport. Before the 2010 decision, colleges could add women’s varsity squash in order to fulfill Title IX requirements. Now there is no incentive – all the more so because the sport is seen as stagnant and incapable of growth.

2) Branding. With squash enthusiasts pushing for inclusion of the sport in the Olympics, one must look at how to brand the sport into being a nationally-recognized powerhouse. The NCAA brings national recognition and visibility to every sport it sponsors. Some may argue that this is in name only, but we cannot discount the importance of NCAA sponsorship and inclusion.

3) Women’s squash is not growing at the same rate as the men. During my time in college (2006-2010), the men’s College Squash Association almost doubled in size to over 60 teams. Most people when they heard about the NCAA’s decision cited this. But the men’s growth, while encouraging, is irrelevant. You need 40 varsity teams on the women’s side. If we can’t get 40 colleges to sponsor women’s varsity squash, how do we expect to get women to fill the draws at the US Nationals, National Doubles and Howe Cup? Also, why are colleges adding men’s programs, and not women’s programs? (At both club and varsity levels). Something is clearly amiss here, and must be addressed.

4) Resources (and the pipeline). One current discussion among the women: Why aren’t more female players becoming coaches or going into the administrative side of squash, at collegiate, interscholastic and national levels? The NCAA holds workshops for college athletes, including specialized ones to encourage women to become coaches and administrators. The problem? Squash athletes are not included in these workshops, because we aren’t an NCAA sport.

5) Limiting geographic and socioeconomic range of squash athletes. With squash as a recognized NCAA sport, colleges like George Washington University added programs. Division I colleges give athletic scholarships. Division III and Ivy League institutions cannot. With more Division I schools like GW adding squash, scholarships can be a tool for bringing in more diverse group of players and broadening support for the sport. Without access to NCAA status – and scholarships – women’s squash will remain an elite, Northeast game even as the men’s game reaches new audiences and players.

By Sarah Odell

Women’s squash is at a crossroads. I have written in this blog about huge strides that we have made with women’s doubles in the last year, but the women’s game as a whole — singles and doubles, professionals and amateurs — is in crisis. Women are being denied the opportunity to play, and women’s squash is in danger of becoming stagnant.

I’m sorry if I sound alarmist (and yes, I believe the problem can be fixed), but it is time that the women of my beloved sport come together and decide to actively press for change.

The number of women’s college teams is dwindling, as Rochester and Johns Hopkins both abolished varsity programs in the last five years. This is a problem as women represent 40% of the US Squash membership until they graduate from college, when they then represent 15%. The NCAA has not seen significant growth in the sport over the last ten years.

As a result, squash was cut from the emerging sports list at the NCAA, effective in August. While I, as a former college athlete, have ambivalent feelings about the NCAA, this is a huge blow to the sport. The NCAA bestows emerging sport status with the hopes that in a few years, it will gain enough support to become a full-fledged NCAA sport. While in the emerging category, universities may count the females engaged in that sport toward meeting Title IX proportionality rules.

While the NCAA’s decision happened with little fanfare, I discovered this week that Brown University is cutting several recruiting spots from men’s and women’s squash. The University is cutting 30 spots from admissions, beginning with the men’s and women’s squash programs, and is considering getting rid of the program altogether (there are plans to eliminate other sports teams, too). Coincidence? I think not.

Trouble in the squash world may be most pronounced at the college level, but the women’s game is struggling at the top, too – although the issues are the same.

There has been a lot written recently about Title IX—in the New York Times, the blogosphere, and, most interestingly to me, in a bunch of emails I was copied on regarding the World Doubles Championships held in Toronto, Canada on May 6-9.

The tournament was supposed to have a men’s draw of 16 teams with a $30,000 purse, and a women’s draw of eight teams with a $10,000 purse. As the tournament approached, a problem arose: there was only $7600 in prize money for the women. While there was back and forth and blame about what had gone wrong, I noticed that Title IX kept popping up in emails as the professional women grappled with whether or not to boycott the event. Two teams did withdraw from the event.

What’s striking to me is that, yes, Title IX is a U.S. law passed in 1972  (so of course female squash pros playing in Toronto did not expect it to shape the World Doubles purse). But calling upon Title IX almost forty years later highlights the frustrating fact that women still face the same old challenge: opportunity. At every level, we are still battling for the chance to play.

Filling women’s draws at national championships, as well as for local squash tournaments is never easy. But doubles can be especially difficult because appropriately-sized courts are hard to find, period, and then sometimes women aren’t even allowed to play on them. In New York City, for example, there are six doubles courts, and women are only permitted to play on four of them.

It all comes back to opportunity. It may look like women aren’t interested in playing squash – until you consider the dearth of access. This spring, after the newly created doubles league ended in New York, some men (yes, men) at the University Club of New York came to me and said that they wanted to start a women’s doubles league in New York. They hoped that by giving us courts and competition at no charge, the league would be successful enough for NY Squash to add it to doubles programming for the fall.

Well, the offer of courts at no charge was too good to pass up. I emailed everyone I knew who was female and played squash in New York. I expected to bring two teams with 10 women total to the University Club. In two days, I brought them four teams and about 25 women. There are roughly 45 women in the league. (Even I was surprised and impressed).

You see, if you give women the opportunity to play, they will come out. But opportunities in squash are beginning to shrink, not grow. We as women, especially in the sport of squash, need to make a decision: either we rally and demand or create opportunity –  or we watch this sport slip away.

In the new May/June issue of The Women’s Review of Books, I wrote about Susan Ware’s new book, Game, Set, Match: Billie Jean King and the Revolution in Women’s Sports (UNC, 2011). You can read the view here.

The book is timely, given mounting evidence that Title IX is poorly enforced (think “roster management”) and too weak (or perhaps complicated) a tool to enforce gender fairness in the face of the sports industrial complex.

Title IX was helpful. But it hasn’t solved the problems of either access or equity. In taking us back to the 1970s, the growth of women’s sports, and the example of Billie Jean King — an entrepreneurial force as well as a great tennis player — Ware may be offering a nudge. It may be time for new strategies.

A few things to note:

– WOMEN DEMANDED ACCESS EVEN BEFORE TITLE IX — NOT BECAUSE OF THE LAW. After decades of genuflecting before Title IX and citing the stunning growth in women’s sports participation since — girls’ participation in high school sports rose 979 percent, from 294,000 to 3.17 million, between 1971 and 2009 — Ware reminds us that most of that increase happened before Title IX had taken effect in 1978.  HS participation figures, Ware says, “show that the sharp upward climb peaked in the following sports in 1977-1978: basketball, field hockey, gymnastics, swimming and diving, tennis, indoor and outdoor track and field, and volleyball.” Participation in basketball, field hockey, gymnastics and outdoor track and field that year were at “an absolute all-time high.” College follows a similar pattern.

–FEMINISTS AND FEMALE ATHLETES MUST BE ON THE SAME TEAM. In the 1970s, feminists and female athletes battled the same barriers of pay, access, and status—but generally looked past one another. While they gained from one another, they could also work at cross purposes, as athletes failed to understand their power as high-profile symbols, and well-organized feminists left athletes to figure out battle plans on their own. Sports issues ARE women’s issues.

– WOMEN’S SPORTS ARE BIGGER THAN TITLE IX.  Pinning growth of the women’s sports movement on one law is inaccurate — and politically risky. After all, critics of Title IX love to claim that women aren’t truly interested in sports, and that the law has artificially created and fueled an enterprise that wouldn’t otherwise exist.  How much better and truer to see, for example, the success of UConn Women’s basketball team not as lucky beneficiaries of a single law but as part of a forward momentum, a drive that gained power from Billie Jean King, from feminists, and from Title IX?

The U.S. Supreme Court last week remained silent in the case of a Texas cheerleader, but the message was alarmingly loud: It may be 2011, but high school girls don’t have the same rights as high school guys.

The Court declined to hear an appeal from a Texas cheerleader and her family who sued the Silsbee Independent School District for violating her rights to equal protection and free speech when she remained silent during a cheer for a basketball player whom she had accused of sexually assaulting her the previous year. Cheer him or go home, she was told.  She went home.

A federal district court dismissed the case and a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Amazingly, the reasoning seems to be that the school’s rights overrule the individual’s right to free speech.

In supporting the ruling of a federal district court, the 5^th Circuit panel reasoned that:

“In her capacity as a cheerleader, [the student] served as a mouthpiece through which [the school] could disseminate speech—namely, support for its athletic teams….Insofar as the First Amendment does not require schools to promote particular student speech, [the district] had no duty to promote [her] message by allowing her to cheer or not cheer, as she saw fit. Moreover, this act constituted substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, [she] was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering, a position she undertook voluntarily.”

Remaining silent during a single cheer for one individual player is hardly non-support for a school’s athletic teams.  Papers filed with the court by the school district suggest that what really prompted the school’s extreme reaction was the disturbance the cheerleader’s silence caused in the stands. Perhaps it was support for her? Perhaps for the player? In either case, school officials surely could have handled the situation without violating individual rights.

It’s certainly true that a Texas grand jury failed to indict the basketball player or two other two alleged assailants. But failure to indict is not a statement about guilt or innocence; it is merely an opinion on available evidence.

Under Tile IX schools must address issues of sexual violence and harassment and create safe environments for all students. Vice President Biden has made addressing sexual violence in schools a major priority. Last month the Department of Education issued new guidelines for high schools and universities and their obligations under Title IX.

The Silsbee School District needs to read those guidelines carefully. Insisting that a young woman cheer loudly in support of the very young man she has publically accused of sexually assaulting her sends chilling messages to young women (and men): Do not speak out about sexual harassment and assault. Do not challenge the system. And  – echoes of another era (or so we thought) – You women, stay in your place, cheering and supporting men, no matter what you think of them!

Pretty much patriarchy at its worst, I’d say.

Susan McGee Bailey served as the Executive Director of the Wellesley Centers for Women (WCW) and a Professor of Women’s & Gender Studies and Education at Wellesley College from 1985 until January, 2011. She has conducted research on a range of gender issues in education and employment and writes and lectures on questions of women and public policy.

Last July when Federal District Court Judge Stefan Underhill found Quinnipiac University violated Title IX, in part, because it counted cheerleading as a varsity sport, most of the debate was about – you guessed it: Is cheerleading a sport?

The decision, however, also discussed the school’s “roster management” practices that made it appear that there were more female athletes than there actually were.

At the time, ESPN writer Gregg Easterbrook complained that “the decision includes a good 20 pages of hair-splitting arguments regarding how many members the school’s various teams have…” – what he found to be “ultratrivia” that made the complaint a “junk-science lawsuit.”

What Easterbrook (and others) feel is focus on minutiae, however, turns out to be a pattern of dissembling that colleges use to skirt Title IX rules. NY Times reporter Katie Thomas has done compelling reporting to reveal a practice that is nothing short of – well – widespread cheating.

What women’s college cross-country team has 75 runners on its roster? Answer: The University of South Florida. (The men’s team has nine).

Thomas interviews women who don’t even know that they are included on the rosters of women’s sports teams – as well as those who know they are included but are not required to attend practice if they don’t want to. Not attending practice is unthinkable – even for children playing recreational sports.

All this reminds us that those who sound the drumbeat of Title IX hurting men’s sports are missing the point: Despite the law, despite “progress,” many institutions are still just pretending to play fair when it comes to gender equity in sports.

We’ve known for years that Title IX is not well-enforced. But the level of dissembling that Thomas’ investigation reveals is downright embarrassing to the Office for Civil Rights and to the colleges and universities who take public dollars and tuition money — and, by the way, not just from their male students.

Campus protest, anyone?

Last week after Wheelock College freshman Claire O’Donoghue, a member of the Men’s Tennis Team (yes, you read that correctly), earned a 6-1, 6-0 victory in singles and an 8-6 win in doubles with her male partner (plus narrowly lost another match in the third set), she was named New England Collegiate Conference Rookie of the Week.

That makes O’Donohue, of East Haven, CT, the first woman to win such honors in one of the conference’s seven men’s sports.

Aside from the texts and Facebook kudos, O’Donoghue appreciates the nod — a lot. “Because it’s a men’s sport, I feel like it’s a greater honor, like I proved myself,” she said during a phone interview.

Wheelock College Athletic Director Diana Cutaia explained via e-mail why under Title IX rules three women currently play on the Wheelock Men’s Tennis Team. In short, because men have been the under-represented gender at Wheelock, she’s added sports teams to accommodate their interests. “Because we don’t offer a women’s team the NCAA allows women to participate on the men’s team,” she writes.

While Cutaia says interest in tennis among women has been great enough to consider starting a women’s team (though notes, finances, Title IX, and other matters to weigh), O’Donoghue prefers playing with the guys. “I like the team the way it is,” she says. “I like the competition.”

So why, again, can’t DIII tennis be coed? Sure, O’Donoghue says some opponents fuss when they face her.  “One guy said it was ‘degrading’ playing women,” she recalls. “It just gave me more motivation.”

O’Donoghue says many male players mistakenly expect victory just because she’s female. “They really do get mad when you beat them,” she says. “There are some people who don’t want to play girls. I just play how I know how to play. If I lose, I lose, If I win, I feel even better.”

Last week at least, she played well enough to earn some wins — and an historic honor.

Might it be time for coed college tennis in Division III? And not as a Title IX-enabled exception, but as a common sense way to promote good play and take a whack at lingering sexism?

The National Women’s Law Center filed complaints today against 12 school districts (see press release here) that are meant to be a sampling – not an exhaustive expose of who’s ignoring Title IX.

The suit is a reminder that, although Title IX opened doors of access, that it 1) didn’t do a very good job and 2) is being ignored by districts across the country.

The NWLC argues that only 41 percent of HS athletes are girls – even though girls make up half of the student population – suggesting uneven access to teams in high school.

While grumblers may complain that “girls aren’t interested in sports” that is simply nonsense. More often, they are shut out, steered away or bowled over by obstructive school bureaucracies. (For a previous FGN post by Hannah Ritchie, a Texas high school student who filed – and won – her Title IX complaint, click here.)

The National Women’s Law Center filing is a reminder that while Title IX did increase access (although it did not demand equality) that it hasn’t even accomplished the essential goal of equal opportunity.

One of the most cited stats related to Title IX is that girls’ high school sports participation has risen 979 percent between 1971 and 2009 (according to the National Federation of State High School Associations).

But what is not made clear is that the increase – from 294,000 to 3.71 million – merely puts girls BELOW where boys HS sports participation was in 1971 (that’s was 3.66 million).

And now? There are 4.45 million boys playing HS sports.

Just because we see a lot more girls out there on the fields and in the gyms, doesn’t mean we’re there yet. Progress? Absolutely. But done? Not at all.

The lawsuit, however, also points out an even more troubling reality about Title IX: It’s too complicated for the average person to spot and draw attention to violations. (Here’s one that was missed).

The very fact that we need the NWLC to take up this cause reveals why Title IX — terrific as it was in taking many girls from no access to some access — is a limited tool for seeking fair treatment.

Yes, we need it. But it’s not enough.

Often in the blur of sports headlines – one breathless item launched into circulation after another – we don’t get a chance to reflect. Sport, after all, tells us about ourselves, individually and collectively. Here’s thinking about four recent items:

SERENA on SI: The buzz around Jon Wertheim’s cover story on Serena Williams is  all about his contention that she is the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time). Sure, that’s provocative, BUT another Wertheim observation may have more real relevance: He noted that while Serena has been criticized for outside interests and not focusing enough on tennis (skipping tournaments, fashion interests) he offers that “Serena’s approach to scheduling and ‘outside interests’ made a lot of sense in retrospect.” Perhaps, he argues, this is why she’s going strong while many peers are burnt out or retired. The takeaway: Could doing a little less – whether for youth athletes or pros like Serena – be the key to physical and mental longevity? Is this how you stay good and keep the joy? BTW, good job, SI putting Serena on the cover caught in a real action shot.

The Prez at WNBA: When President Obama took daughter Sasha and a friend to the Washington Mystics vs. the Tulsa Shock last Sunday, he became the first sitting president to attend a WNBA game. Yes, it made a nice photo and wasn’t big news, but the symbolic value of POTUS bringing his daughter to see the women’s game was watershed. The takeaway: Women’s athletic events are as compelling and entertaining as men’s athletic events and having Obama in the front row made that potent point. And BTW, note that Mystics owner is Sheila Johnson. Yet another reminder that sport is political.

WPS Restructure: News that the WPS was de-centralizing and pushing more duties down to the team level is the move of a league trying to manage a tough and competitive economic reality that many sports teams face. Sure it was disruptive this season to have a team fold and now this. But credit the league for being nimble enough to change course — and it may not be all bad. The takeaway: One of WUSA’s problems was that teams were too interdependent financially. Perhaps more team control will build a stronger local identity and following. The challenge falls to the teams: Find those hometown boosters and build a compelling franchise.

Study Says: The passage of Title IX in 1972 created a natural data set that Betsey Stevenson at UPenn’s Wharton School has had a ball dissecting. The fact that all across the country schools started offering sports for girls and a generation of females suddenly started playing high school sports has allowed her – nearly 40 years later – to measure the effect. The takeway: Yes, sports do matter off the field. Results show Title IX responsible for a spike in women’s educational attainment, full-time employment – and entry into male-dominated fields like law and accounting. (Get study here; read Sunday thought piece in The Boston Globe).

Photo from WNBA.com