Donna De Varona is a self proclaimed “35 year advocate of Title IX” and yet her recent editorial for the University of California - Berkeley’s “Daily Californian” is inaccurate and borderline ill informed. How will Title IX ever succeed if even its greatest supporters don’t fully understand the legislation?

1. She writes “In a recent interview, [Cal Athletic Director] Barbour responded to the disparity in men and women student-athlete numbers by suggesting that men at UC Berkeley are simply more interested in playing sports than women. Last year, two in every five high school girls, or 2.9 million girls nationwide, played varsity sports. If Cal, which recruits nationwide, mirrors these statistics, approximately 5,000 of its women undergraduates played varsity high school sports. I cannot believe that, of all these women athletes, only 370 (the number of female student-athletes at UC Berkeley this year) were interested in competing in intercollegiate athletics. A more likely explanation is that the opportunities for women athletes were simply not available because the damage done during the previous athletic department administration has yet to be corrected”

What an asinine argument. The third prong of Title IX compliance states that a school is Title IX compliant if “…it is fully and effectively accommodating of the interest and ability of the underrepresented gender”

You cannot simply use the entire population of females in the United States as your sample size, when there are roughly 22,000 Cal students. Title IX compliance, in this case only refers to students that are currently enrolled at Cal. Moreover she has no proof that the wide range of females at Cal are interested in continuing to play sports after high school or are even part of the female population that plays sports. She cannot speak for the entire student body of females at Cal unless she definitively knows that they are being under represented, to which she offers no evidence.

The University (if it chooses to prove its Title IX compliance via the third prong) must determine appropriate interest of its females. However, if it can be proved that men are more interested than women, then the argument of accommodating interest is a legitimate way of complying with Title IX. A web based survey is now available (from a recent new interpretation of the third prong) to determine the level of interest of student populations. I suggest if the author wants to make blanket statements about all female students at Cal that she should encourage the administration to conduct this survey.

2. “Hopefully, UC Berkeley will rededicate itself to giving our sons and our daughters genuine equal access to the lifelong rewards of collegiate athletics.”

The entire basis of her article is about expanding opportunities for women (”I have witnessed incredible progress and increased opportunities for girls and women athletes over the last four decades”), so I find it a little insulting that she throws in the “sons and daughters” comment at the end of her editorial to use as a punch line. Title IX law is written to prevent all gender discrimination not just that against females. I realize that the intent of the law is to increase participation and opportunities for women in athletics, however the legislation is written for both genders in regards to all educational institutions receiving Federal financial assistance, not just women in sports. A point that the author fails to mention as it devalues her argument.

More importantly, she uses the phrase “equal”. This is a major flaw in the general understanding of Title IX. If Cal uses the third prong, the law states “…all other benefits, opportunities, and treatments afforded sports participants are to be equivalent, but not necessarily identical” The key word is equivalent or equity. No where in Title IX law does the legislation use the word equal and to assume that equality is Title IX’s purpose is wrong. The idea is to provide men and women equitable resources and opportunities, but not necessarily equal opportunities and resources. It is absolutely reasonable for men’s and women’s sports to be disproportionately funded as long as the resources are equitable. If your “sons and daughters” are so inclined they can be afforded equitable opportunity and still be Title IX compliant.

I realize the Ms. De Varona is using her interpretation to write a persuasive argument, however for all proponents of Title IX it might be in your best interest to have an informed spokeswoman for your cause.