NYT Editorial on Cal Berkeley

There's a good editorial in yesterday's New York Times about Cal-Berkeley's decision to reinstate three of the five athletic teams that had earlier been slated for termination. Addressing the argument that it was unfair of Cal not to also throw a lifeline to two men's teams, baseball and gymnastics, the Editors point out that women were, are, and will remain severely underrepresented in Cal athletics, even with two of their teams reinstated. They they go on to make the following point:

Restoring the women’s teams won’t eliminate the sports gender gap at Berkeley or expand opportunities for women. But it does show that they are trying to meet women’s interests and abilities. The benefits to young women from playing sports are well documented, in their health, psychological outlook, educational performance and future employment. Female athletes also say that sports give them a wonderful opportunity to test themselves.

When money is tight, the struggle to close the gap in athletic opportunity is even tougher. Thanks to Title IX, if something has to give, equality doesn’t go first.

Well said.

Cal Berkeley Could Restore Women's Teams

Perhaps some folks at University of California--Berkeley read our questions about the Title IX compliance problems posed by the university's decision to cut two women's teams (gymnastics and lacrosse) four months ago. As we explained in that earlier post, the decision to terminate women's teams seemed a likely violation, as women were and remained underrepresented in athletics, even factoring in the men's teams also cut. The New York Times reported this week that Cal is apparently considering reinstating some of all five teams that were cut last fall, though the athletic director, Sandy Barbour, explains that the reconsideration was motivated by the outcry by the teams' supporters, as well as pledges of financial support. She denies that this has anything to do with Title IX, though I have to believe they are reading the writing on the wall and acknowledging the fact that the cuts backed them into a corner of having to achieve proportionality. Cal is so far from proportionality, that they would have to add 50 women's opportunities and cut 80 men's opportunities, according to the Times article.

But I'm not so sure that Cal can simply unring this bell by undoing last fall's decision. After all, they weren't any closer to proportionality back then. And even restoring women's gymnastics and lacrosse, it is still far from certain that it is achieving compliance by the alternative method of demonstrating no unmet interest in women's athletics. As the Times article notes, the athletic department denied a request to elevate the women's rugby team to varsity status. If those disappointed athletes sue or complain, they would have a strong case that could produce an obligation on Cal to add them, or come into compliance some other way. Cal's decision to cut teams brought the university into a compliance spotlight, and that spotlight will be very hard to shake.