[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 77 (Wednesday, June 12, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1009]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E1009]]



 TO AMEND THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 TO ESTABLISH A SCHOLARSHIP 
     PROGRAM TO RECOGNIZE SCHOLAR ATHLETES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JAMES A. LEACH

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 11, 2002

  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, Title IX, the Federal law passed 30 years ago 
to mandate equality of opportunity for women in intercollegiate 
athletics, is today a subject for deserved celebration on what it has 
done for women and understandable dismay for its unintended 
consequences for certain men's programs.
  The challenge from a Federal policy perspective is to strengthen the 
good Title IX has wrought, while eliminating its negative consequences.
  The good is obvious. Many more women have been given a chance to 
participate in intercollegiate athletics. But making progress is not 
the same thing as achieving full equality or advancing adequate 
opportunity. Nor is obtaining opportunity at the expense of eliminating 
it for others as positive a social goal as could otherwise be the case.
  The problem is the distinction in goals of achieving equality and 
providing opportunity. Simplistically, an institution of higher 
education can offer no athletic options or, for instance, two women's 
and two men's teams and be in compliance with Title IX. Hence, in an 
abstract setting, a school that might offer 12 men's and six women's 
teams might be considered Title IX compliant if it eliminated six men's 
programs or if it eliminated three men's and added three women's 
programs. Instead of adding and subtracting, there would be greater 
opportunity for women as well as men if such a school opted to achieve 
equality with addition alone, by offering 12 women's as well as 12 
men's programs.
  Title IX is insufficiently progressive if it is implemented with a 
subtraction mind-set. It matters where the bar is placed. The lower the 
sports offerings for men, the less opportunity provided women. In 
architecture ``less'' might in some cases be ``more,'' but when 
individual opportunity is at issue, ``more'' is better.
  Title IX is not just a doctrine of equality, but of equal 
opportunity.
  The underlying dilemma with Title IX enforcement is that it has, to 
date, underemphasized the opportunity quotient implicit in the law. The 
goal should be equality with increased opportunity.
  Just as the equalitarian nature of Title IX should be understood as a 
call for new sports openings for women, the opportunity basis of the 
law requires upgrading and reemphasizing participation in sports in the 
education process.
  There is a trend at colleges and universities that the principal 
sports experience for students is ``going to'' rather than 
``participating in'' intercollegiate athletics. What is needed is a new 
participation ethic in sports.
  Athletic Departments are not the same thing as History Departments 
but they share in common the goal of developing the judgment and 
character of the individual student. Like band and orchestra and 
debate, sports teams should be seen as student-centered, not profit-
driven.
  Unfortunately, Title IX has been used by many athletic departments as 
an excuse to cut sports programs when it should be used to upgrade the 
role of sports. For one who appreciates what Title IX has started to do 
for women, yet is dismayed for the loss of so many wrestling, 
gymnastic, swimming and other men's programs, the question is what, if 
anything, the Federal government should do.
  One option would be to mandate colleges and universities to offer 
particular programs, but such an approach has the obvious problem of 
intruding on institutional decisionmaking in potentially inappropriate 
ways. While Title IX may be considered an intrusion by some, its 
egalitarian character and purpose is socially compelling. The question 
that remains is how, from a governmental perspective, to put a greater 
emphasis on the opportunity side of the Title IX equation.
  My recommendation is 3-fold: (a) Federal and State officials and 
college administrators should use their positions to call for a greater 
emphasis on participation in sports in the education experience; (b) 
Federal guidelines should encourage colleges and universities to meet 
the Title IX egalitarian premises by adding women's teams without 
subtracting men's; (c) a new Federal scholar/athletic scholarship 
program should be established to incentivize colleges and universities 
to offer greater athletic options.
  With regard to the third recommendation, I am today introducing 
legislation titled the ``J. Dennis Hastert Scholar Athlete Act of 
2002.'' The act calls for the creation of Hastert athletic scholarships 
to be granted at the State level to men and women on an equal basis. 
Qualification criteria would include an emphasis on sports that are 
part of the Olympic Games or are not significant revenue generators at 
particular institutions.
  Sports participation helps build character, initiative, and 
leadership. This is totally independent of the growing assumption in 
colleges and universities that athletic departments must be profitable 
or at least not too expensive. It is, of course, a plus if an athletic 
department can be self-sufficient, but this should not be an overriding 
consideration. Indeed, it is remarkable how some of our larger 
universities which are at the forefront of competitive quality in 
revenue generating sports often offer far fewer athletic options than 
smaller colleges and universities which are not driven by a ticket sale 
mentality.
  Some see the current emphasis on football to be a significant 
problem. To be fair, football is expensive, but at Division I schools 
it can often pay its own way and offset losses elsewhere in athletic 
budgets. In smaller colleges and universities football is no different 
than other sports. Its revenues frequently cannot match costs. Indeed, 
to their credit, six universities in the East offer two full football 
programs, with one requiring that all participants weigh under a given 
amount. As a former participant in three college sports where fans 
often numbered less than team members, I have always been appreciative 
of administrators who understood that what matters most is love of the 
sport, not its cost.
  Wrestling is a classic. Gyms are seldom packed. Fans are appreciated, 
but those of us who made that walk with butterflies to the center of 
the mat and stared at an opponent whose arms looked thicker than tree 
trunks, understood that we wrestled for the competitive challenge and 
nothing else. Colleges and universities should support sports like 
wrestling and at the same time press to add women's sports as diverse 
as basketball, swimming, field hockey, volleyball, softball, soccer, 
crew, lacrosse, fencing, hockey, tennis, cross country, archery, track 
and field, golf, water polo and squash. What matters is growth of the 
individual: the character sport builds, not the remuneration it 
receives at the gate.
  I speak personally to this issue because in the end sport is about 
the sum effect on individuals of the values it imparts--both team 
discipline and self-reliance.
  The enemy of opportunity for those interested in participation in low 
revenue generating sports is neither football nor Title IX's call for 
gender equality. It is the assumption in too many places that sports 
are to be encouraged only if they are financially self-sufficient. But 
from a school's perspective, athletic teams should not be considered 
burdens. They provide a unique means of advertising the attributes, 
indeed the existence, of many institutions and a positive way of 
attracting students in a competitive education environment. It is in 
this context that the Hastert Scholarship program is proposed as a 
positive for schools, for students, and for the best of America's 
athletic ethic.
  In a tight budget circumstance where it is tempting for colleges to 
meet Federal gender equality guidelines with a smaller number of teams, 
the question is whether the government should step in and incentivize 
sports participation while maintaining the mandate of equal 
opportunity.
  My answer is yes.
  Title IX should be about building up without tearing down.

                          ____________________