Case Study: Large vs. Small Schools
Title IX affects schools of all sizes. Most Division I-A schools, however, are not in compliance. As one examines compliance in lower divisions, I-AA, I-AAA, II, and III, schools are generally closer to compliance. For example, eight percent of Division I-A schools fulfill the proportionality test versus sixteen percent of I-AAA schools (Albert, 1997, 9C). This is not to say that all Division III schools are in compliance or all I-A schools are not, but generally that is the trend. Larger schools have a more difficult time in reaching compliance for a few reasons. First, Division I-A schools usually have big time sports such as football and basketball. These sports have enormous traveling expenses and much larger roster sizes than their Division III counterparts. As a result, Division I schools have to actually provide more female than male teams in order to reach compliance.

Since general statistics are more readily available for division I schools, the following comparisons are made between Division I-A and I-AAA schools. (As a clarification, Division I-AAA schools usually have a student enrollment of less than 6,500 and I-A schools usually have an enrollment of over 10,000 students. Many I-A schools have 20,000 or more students.) According to a recently released Gannett study, nearly half of the athletes at I-AAA schools are women (Albert, 1997, 9C). I-AAA schools' women's teams receive 38% of the athletic budget versus 19% at I-A schools. They receive 49% of athletic financial aid versus about one-third at I-A schools. I-AAA women also receive a bigger slice of the recruiting budget, 37% vs. 24% (Brady, et. al, 1997, 4C). Although these numbers do not show equity, they show that I-A schools are much farther from compliance than their smaller counterparts.

We have decided to study in depth the compliance (or lack thereof) of one Division I-A school, Syracuse University, and one Division III school, Hamilton College. We hope to paint a picture of the differences that exist between these two programs and touch on some of the main themes that are prevalent at the different levels of competition.

Hamilton

Hamilton currently seems to be in compliance with Title IX. According to the three prong test, Hamilton passes at least one prong. For the 1996-97 year, Hamilton has elevated Women's Ice Hockey to varsity status. This clearly shows "a history and continuing practice" of program expansion. As stated earlier, this type of program expansion usually assures compliance for at least three years.

In terms of proportionality, Hamilton had 46.2% women students and 42% women-athletes in 1995-96, the last year of available data. That leaves a 4.2% disparity between students and athletes. Although OCR does not publish an acceptable difference, a review of relevant cases shows that a 5% discrepancy is acceptable. The statistics for the 1996-97 year should show an even smaller discrepancy because of the addition of Women's Ice Hockey as a varsity sport.

Since Hamilton does not offer any athletic scholarships, that criteria for compliance does not apply. In terms of the "Other Program Areas" section of compliance, Hamilton does not have any major problems. Recently, Hamilton has added a full-time head coach and two full-time coaching internships for women. Also, Hamilton has responded to some complaints by making minor adjustments in the equipment and locker room areas.

Possibly Hamilton's best improvement has been the initiation of the new Booster Club Policy for the 1996-97 school year. The new policy earmarks 20% of every donation for a general fund that is used to fund underfunded sports. Obviously, most of this money goes to women's sports to offset the extra money that men's' sports are receiving.

As a result of this and the lack of major problems, Hamilton is almost certainly in Title IX compliance. The institution has set itself up nicely to stay in compliance for the long term, unless any major changes are made. For more information about Hamilton's compliance, see the Gender Equity Committee's 1996 Report.

Syracuse

Looking at the statistics, Syracuse does not appear to be close to compliance. The student body is 50.9% female and only 31.5% of the athletes are female. Of the total athletic budget, only 17.8% is spent on women's sports. The recruiting budget is almost as skewed with females only receiving 30% of the total. Females do a little better with scholarship money, but still only receive 43.3% of the total budget (Van Dusen, 1997, 4D).

The school has received a lot of press lately because of its decision to add two women's sports while cutting two men's sports. The publicity is partly due to the presence of an Olympic wrestler on the wrestling team that is to be cut effective for the 1997-98 school year. The move, however, will help Syracuse come into compliance for the short term. The second prong of showing "a history and continuing practice" of program expansion should be fulfilled with the additions of female teams. Interestingly, the athletic director has offered to reinstate wrestling if the team can raise four million dollars and gymnastics if it can raise five million. This would take care of paying for scholarships and for funding the programs, but would not make the school closer to Title IX compliance. Neither team seems likely to raise the requisite funds, however, so this might have just been a gesture by the school.

In the longer term, Syracuse will still be far from compliance even if the programs can not raise the funds. Although the disparities between participation, scholarships, and recruiting will drop, the change will not narrow the gap enough for the programs to be equitable. Syracuse's men's sports generate over 18.5 million dollars annually. Some claim that this is reason enough for the men's program to receive better treatment, but that is irrelevant to Title IX. Revenue-producing sports receive no special treatment under Title IX. Overall, Syracuse has a long way to go if it intends to comply with Title IX on a permanent basis.

Comparison

The following is a chart of information about the Hamilton and Syracuse athletic programs. It will be used to compare the two programs and to help describe some of the trends that exist at different levels of competition.

As you can see from this chart, there are some very large disparities between the Syracuse and Hamilton athletic programs. While Hamilton fulfills the proportionality prong, Syracuse is far from compliance. Although these numbers do not reflect the change that Syracuse has made effective next year, the difference will probably only be a few percentage points. The coaching salary statistics above are misleading because they do not take into account the fact that Hamilton's coaches are also paid for other jobs within the athletic department. They are useful, however, because they show that female coaches at Syracuse are paid only 57% of what the male sport coaches receive. Also, it is important to notice that the male assistants receive virtually the same as the female sport head coaches. At Hamilton, the female head coaches make 62% of what the male sport head coaches. This is clearly a compliance issue that Hamilton needs to consider in the future.

Another interesting fact is the difference in operating budgets. Although the operating budget is not divided proportionally to the percentage of female athletes at Hamilton, the disparity is relatively small at six percent. Syracuse has a disparity of 13.5%. These numbers do not necessarily mean that Hamilton and Syracuse are out of compliance, however. Remember that schools only have to provide equal amounts, quality, and suitability of equipment and supplies. This means that equipment budgets do not have to be the same for male and female athletes. If the disparity is due to more expensive equipment, such as football pads, helmets, and cleats versus shoes and sweats, then the schools can be in compliance with a disparity in their operating budget.

We know that this is not the case for Syracuse because their recruiting and scholarship money are not proportional to the male-female ratio. Hamilton does not offer athletic scholarships and does not publish other expenditures like the recruiting budgets, so it is unclear whether the disparity is equipment based.

In conclusion, Hamilton is in compliance. Syracuse will probably be in compliance for the short term because of the changes that it has made. Syracuse has to make a lot of changes in the near future, however, to reach compliance for more than a few years. Most Division I-A schools are in a similar position. In fact, most I-A schools have much worse inequities than Syracuse. Arkansas State, for example, has a female student percentage of 57, while only 22% of its athletes are female (Brady et. al, 1997, 4C). While not all small schools are free of Title IX trouble, larger Division I schools clearly have a lot more gender inequities in athletics.
Government 375: Educational Reform and Ideology