Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Playing by the rules

Friday, July 5, 2002 | 4:31 a.m.

THERE WAS A TIME I thought that Title IX was an unfair demand on schools, which resulted in male athletes losing athletic grants. This is exactly what happened in several universities when sports like wrestling were canceled "because of Title IX demands."

All that the law demands is that women be treated equally with men. It didn't take long for many universities to use the cancellation of male sports rather than add sports for women to meet legal demands. Many varsity sports fans, including me, saw the law as being unfair to male athletes who no longer could compete at their schools.

What the fans weren't told was that the schools were playing their own deceptive games. Schools of higher education followed the tactics often used by high schools and middle schools when facing a budget crunch. They immediately announce they are going to cancel certain sports, knowing the parents will object. Seldom do the school boards or administrators suggest cutting back on other expenses, which may save more money but cause less emotional response.

USA Today, in a recent editorial, told readers the results of Title IX and gives the following report and evaluation: "In 1972 women were routinely discriminated against in college admissions -- and barred altogether from some of the best schools. Medical and law schools imposed quotas to keep women out of classes. Outside of departments such as home economics and nursing, few professors were female.

"'Thanks to a landmark anti-discrimination law enacted 30 years ago Sunday, women now outnumber men in higher education. Even enrollment in medicine and law is nearly 50-50. Female professors are no longer an oddity.

"Yet a narrow area of the law's coverage, athletics, has become a battlefield for misinformed fans and those seeking to undermine federal enforcement of equal opportunity. They've created a myth that the law, known as Title IX, discriminates against men. The truth: If men are suffering, it's because of a school's choices, not the law ..."

Looking back to the years prior to the passage of Title IX in 1972, we had enough examples of women who could excel in many sports. I'll never forget one of Nevada's finest varsity coaches, the late Harry Paille, telling me how much he had learned about athletics from the Sun's Ruthe Deskin when she was supervising a playground. I have no doubt that the fastest runner in my family was our mother. Also my own children can look up to their mother as being an outstanding competitor as a swimmer, bowler and golfer. Soccer and softball have gained my attention because of the success of two granddaughters.

So why did it take Title IX to drag our schools, at all levels, kicking and screaming into giving girls and women equal opportunity? Probably because of guys like me who took the unequal scholarship and athletic grants provided for students as being normal or "the way it has always been." Most likely it was because we didn't give it much thought and never looked beyond our love of football, wrestling and boxing as male-only sports.

Title IX brought most of us into the real world and showed us the inequities being practiced. A few years later we began to resent the law because the schools convinced us that it was killing our favorite male contact sports. Alternatives to canceling sports were never discussed seriously or in depth. No, it was the terrible demands made by Title IX. Yeah, it's the law that was punishing athletes and fans. Now we know better.

Title IX has caused some discomfort but, out of ignorance, it was discomfort we brought upon ourselves. The law has forced large numbers of American males to wake up and blush for being so insensitive. The fairness the law has brought to our schools outweighs any pains we may have believed it brought with it.