zation and participation. The activities which would give us the most >roblems would be the areas in which strength, weight, and height are he determining factors of contest outcome. Some types of touch or lag football could be a problem and basketball and volleyball would e a problem unless departments severely modified the present rules. There is also the necessity of changing many intramural rules of eligiility, especially where fraternities and sororities are concerned since, y their very structure, most of them do not have members of the pposite sex in their organization. A second alternative to the co-recreational type program would be o open all events to anyone and having both men's organizations and he women's organizations compete in the same leagues or tournanents. Due to the strength and size factor, a great deal of opposition o this type program would be raised since it would only be a short ime until the majority of the women would withdraw from many of he currently offered intramural activities. Hopefully, we will be allowed to have the "competitive skill" ruling of the regulations and will not have to drastically revamp our total programs. A suggestion which has worked well in some institutions is hat even when a women's division and a men's division is part of the departmental program, a participant or a team, regardless of sex, may cross divisions and participate with the opposite sex division as long is that participation would not have a disruptive effect upon the program. A Call for Commitment Without Reservation This caption has resounded frequently within the last decade of change. These changes were prompted by the current economic crises affecting all educational and extracurricular programs, the supply and demand reality, and the mandate for accountability. These changing times do not permit "business as usual" if indeed the effort "to assure equality of opportunity for all citizens at all levels in pursuing their educational potential (including intramurals)" is a continuing one. Answering the question "Just how much do we (Intramural Directors, Athletic Directors, Physical Education Faculty, and others) care?" We must seek answers to each of these questions which are couched within the framework of the term commitment. Is our first concern for the development of the best possible programs of Intramurals within the Interpretations of Title IX? • Are we willing to change traditional ways in order to make way for new situations over which individual institutions or professionals have little or no control? • Are we willing and able to put time and effort into our programs which reflect the rapidly changing societal needs of citizens of all ages? The past has proven that we have faced these questions squarely and that our actions have not always been rational or effective. Unfortunately "no panic" does not mean "no action." "Business as Usual" does not mean the same as "Business as Equal," given the same resources, same program facilities, with Title IX included. As we confront the challenges provided by Title IX, let us be reminded of Robert Frost's The Road Not Taken . . . Two Roads diverged in a yellow wood, and I I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference. The "road less traveled by" has traditionally been that of men and women, boys and girls taking-too often-separate roads toward the same objectives. The history of differences is recorded and documented. Hopefully, careful students of history will not see this same difference documented in the years ahead. REFERENCES 1. AACTE Bulletin, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, D.C., Vol. XXVII, No. 9, November, 1974. 2. HEW News, Caspar W. Weinberger, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, June 18, 1974. 3. Federal Register, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, June 20, 1974, Vol. 39, No. 120, Part II. 4. UPDATE, "The Reality of Open Opportunity in HPER." Washington, D.C., October, 1974. Note: Additional interpretations and documents may be obtained from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare as they are released. 64-223 O - 76 - 15 Chapter IV TITLE IX: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR WOMEN: A SOLUTION FOR MEN Cedric Dempsey While being plagued with the rising costs in intercollegiate athletics, University and College Administrators are now confronted with an additional task, that of upgrading the opportunities for women to compete in physical activities. In most schools this has not been a selfInitiated project but instead has been directed by legal mandate. Title IX and the previously passed Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment are the legislative avenues through which present and future sex-discriminatory practices related to intercollegiate athletics will be analyzed. These federal laws do not presume to dictate specific philosophies or practices institutions must follow, but they do require that once a philosophy or practice is established, it must be applied equally regardless of sex; and, that one sex shall not receive more benefit than the other. Since Title IX of the Education Amendments became effective July 1, 1972, there has been a growing concern over its impact on intercollegiate athletics. Gwen Gregory, Director of the Civil Rights Agency Office of Policy Communication, caused a panic among leaders in men's athletics with the initial drafts of 1973 which were presented to Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Casper Wineberger. These drafts were implementing guidelines for the Title IX Amendments suggesting equal funding for women in intercollegiate athletics. From that time until the present, vested interest groups have lobbied, resolved, and compromised in an effort to avoid "destruction" of the present structure for men's athletics while seeking to provide more opportunity for women athletes. Although funding women's programs has been the focal point of controversy and concern, it is only symptomatic of the overriding issues. It is the purpose of this article to suggest how women's intercollegiate athletic programs can be funded. These programs can be financed, but in order to do so it will be necessary for leaders in intercollegiate athletics to spearhead major cultural and economic changes in our society. Cultural Changes Historically, men and women have been judged according to different standards. Our society has established masculine and feminine roles into which men and women have been cast. As suggested by Cynthia Epstein (1969), women in the past have been judged by debilitating standards or no standards. Equality means the right to the same sanctions, fears, punishments and the same set of motivational forces within the reward structure. Allowing women to compete, to achieve, to win, and to be physical, creates turmoil in the masculinefeminine image existing in our present society. In the foreword of the anthology Masculine/Feminine (1969), Betty & Theodore Roszak succinctly presented the masculine and feminine roles accepted by our society today. He is playing masculine. She is playing feminine. He is playing masculine because she is playing feminine. She is playing feminine because he is playing masculine. He is playing the kind of man that she thinks the kind of woman she is playing ought to admire. She is playing the kind of woman that he thinks the kind of man he is playing ought to desire. If he were not playing masculine, he might well be more feminine than she is except when she is playing very feminine. If she were not playing feminine, she might well be more masculine than he is except when he is playing very masculine. So he plays harder. And she plays .. softer . . . He is becoming less and less what he wants to be. She is becoming less and less what she wants to be. But now he is more manly than ever, and she is more womanly than ever . . . The world belongs to what his masculinity has become. The reward for what his masculinity has become is power. The reward for what her femininity has become is only the security which his power can bestow upon her. If he were to yield to what her femininity has become, he would be yielding to contemptible incompetence. If she were to acquire what his masculinity has become, she would participate in intolerable coerciveness. She is stifling under the triviality of her femininity. The world is groaning beneath the terrors of his masculinity. He is playing masculine. She is playing feminine. Celeste Ulrich (1968) said that the first risk a woman faces in sport is not physical harm but that being active poses a threat to her femininity. However, there is no question that the societal image of the female "jock" is changing. The myth that athletic participation will destroy the sexual appeal of women has been refuted by Olga Korbut, Cathy Rigby, Billie Jean King, and many others who are examples of athletes who have retained their femininity. Therefore, the major problem for women lies not in physical appearance but in the expression of masculine psychological and sociological traits. Athletics attract men and women who possess leadership ability and are aggressive, achievement-oriented, dominant, and strong. In our culture these traits have not been admired in females; thus, many women have been suppressed and have felt inhibited in their search for self-fulfillment-"She is playing the kind of woman that he thinks the kind of man he is playng ought to desire . . . And she plays . . . softer . . ." The reversal is true for many men who possess strong feminine traits and interests. They have felt inhibited by societal expectations and have been forced to play a role contrary to their true feelings. "So he plays harder." Providing equal opportunity for women to compete in what has been a "man's world" is not the major question. Social acceptance is the critical issue. How long will it take for women to have the same opportunity to seek self-fulfillment through activity and not feel hreatened that they are losing their femininity? Those questions and others are deep-seated concerns for many as intercollegiate athletics for women mature to an equitable level with men. Economic Changes The influence of big business in athletics is obvious. No doubt women will find this influence to be the greatest deterrent in their quest for equal opportunity to participate. Around the simplicity which most of us want out of sports has grown a monster, a sprawling five-billion-dollar-a-year industry which pretends to cater to our love of games but instead has evolved into that one great American institution: big business. Winning, losing, playing the game all count far less than counting the money. (Shecter, 1969) Power in our society is represented by money. Athletics as a "mirror" of our society has been affected by and has responded to big business. The NCAA and the major institutions of that association have become dependent upon the dollars generated through television, bowl and tournament contests in football and basketball. Playing dates, times, and sites have all been affected by the need to balance budgets. Major athletic programs have been forced, under the pressures of rising costs, to "market" their products in a business manner, and, unfortunately, many times educational values have become secondary. With these pressures to survive financially and with athletics serving as a "mirror" of a big business society, there is little reason not to expect those influencing powers to question any change that would affect the "status-quo" of men's athletics. In the initial draft to implement Title IX, recommendations to equally fund women's athletics were presented. Obviously, this would have a disastrous effect upon men's athletics as they exist today. If these recommendations were to be carried out literally, institutions would be forced to provide equal scholarships, coaches, schedules, fa |