If Homecoming 2001 is to be remembered for something, it will be the lack of sporting events. Losing to Amherst will be hard to recall - or rather, differentiate - from a decade of losses. But the fact that only two teams, make that two males teams, participated in Homecoming might leave a lasting impression.
While the noticeable absence of female athletes at Homecoming was the result of scheduling, it nonetheless begs the question of how Title IX affects Tufts. While athletic administrators and coaches - both male and female - rightfully praise Tufts for its proactive stance toward meeting Title IX, there are still areas which can improve.
Title IX, passed by the US government in 1972, states that "No person in the US shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aid."
For years, this meant little to most colleges. But by the 80's and 90's colleges and universities were slowly beginning to realize they had a law to abide by, and they got to work making their athletic programs equal, or at least giving the appearance that they were equal.
In understandable English, the bill requires schools receiving government funding -Tufts does - to meet the standards on a program-wide basis. Tufts must ensure that participation opportunities for male and female students are substantially proportionate to the ratio of gender enrollment.
"Tufts has always been a step ahead in this department," assistant athletic director Branwen Smith-King said. "As a coach, I have felt lucky to be here. I have always been treated just like my male peers. I give a lot of credit to [Athletic Director] Bill [Gehling]. Tufts, from the top down, has made athletics great for everybody."
In many ways, Smith-King is on the mark. Since Tufts is roughly 53-47 in favor of women in its enrollment, the opportunities to participate in sports must be within five percent of that ratio. Court cases support this five percent difference, and the courts also define opportunities to participate as the number of participants.
In 2000-2001, there were 521 male athletes in 12 sports, compared to 484 females on 14 teams, a difference of 37. This discrepancy means Tufts has a ratio of roughly 51.5 % men to 48.5% women, four percent away from the overall ratio.
The major discrepancy is a result of the football team's size of 73 members.
While Tufts' participation falls inside the 5% benchmark, it's more than just numbers for Gehling.
"We have been moving closer to equal each year," the AD said. "This isn't just about following the law. We're committed to having equal athletic programs."
There are other program areas that Title IX forces colleges to comply with, and for the most part, Tufts again acts as a vanguard in this respect. More than most schools, Tufts provides gender equity in equipment, scheduling of games and practices, travel allowances, locker rooms, medical training facilities, publicity, and recruitment.
There are some items on the list that do not apply, and others that, athletes might argue, Tufts does not meet. For instance, some women are disappointed with the quality of their locker room; still, it's in no worse shape than the men's. And while some athletes do not feel their sport is publicized, this has less
to do with gender than it does with the size and popularity of the sport.
But there is one aspect of the list where a disparity emerges. The 12 men's teams have 29 assistant coaches, while the 14 women's sports have only 18, meaning that women do not receive equal access to coaches.
Assistant coaches can be misleading, though, since Gehling insists that he gives the same budget to head coaches to hire their staff. Some coaches may use all the money to hire one assistant, while others will spread it among many coaches.
"We strive very hard to provide equal support," Gehling said.
Again, though, the problem can largely be attributed to football, where head coach Bill Samko has eight assistants.
"What sport equals football?" Smith-King asked. "None. But it's a tradition, and women have unique sports like field hockey."
Both statements are true, but does that mean that a sport that has a disproportionate number of participants, assistant coaches, and funding should be swept under the rug because it's always played on Thanksgiving?
Smith-King, field hockey and lacrosse coach Carol Rappoli, and women's basketball coach Janice Savitz are all pleased with the fair treatment of women at Tufts. But just because coaches aren't complaining doesn't mean Tufts shouldn't continue to strive for equality.
And while Gehling and his predecessor Rocky Carzo deserve considerable credit for bringing Tufts to the point of near equity, that should not enable the University to forget about the few missing details.
Of course, cutting the football program is not the answer. Smith-King makes the point that colleges that have cut their male wrestling programs or gymnastics programs to meet Title IX requirements are not doing their jobs.
"We shouldn't cut men's programs to meet gender equity," she said. "We should be creative to increase women's sports."
Around five years ago, the Athletic Department conducted a comprehensive look at the overall program's compliance to Title IX. It is beginning a similar process now, and when it does, it should look into putting more money into the women's basketball or softball programs to boost participation or create jayvee squads. The same can be argued for the volleyball or fencing teams, which are two sports without male counterparts, but fill fewer than 40 roster spots. The Athletic Department, especially Gehling and Smith-King, has the creativity to come up with the ideas. It just needs the funds and the incentive to put them into place.
"If there is any question of my desire for equal programs, just know that I was the women's soccer coach," Gehling said.
