Nov 7, 2002 Unintended Consequences By Laurel Park :: Views- 1844

The instructor of my institutional planning course constantly reminds us that an important aspect of policy analysis is the ability to recognize unintended consequences. Policies implemented with the best of intentions can end up doing more harm than good due to unintended consequences. His favorite example is the law requiring minimum stipulated jail sentences for drug dealers. Not long after the law went into effect, prison populations began to swell to the point of overcrowding. In order to ease the overcrowding - and unable by law to decrease the sentences of the drug dealers - other prisoners were furloughed, those jailed for other more serious felonies or violent crimes. The law did indeed crack down on drug dealing, but as an unintended consequence, some violent offenders were back on the streets sooner than they should have been.



Probably the most infamous example of intended consequences in the world of college athletics is the current fallout from Title IX. Male athletes across the country are experiencing the unintended consequences of Title IX enforcement in the form of smaller rosters, less scholarship money, and in some cases eliminate of their sport. I don't think it's fair and frankly, it makes me angry. This was not the intent of Title IX, nor is it structured to disadvantage one gender in the name of creating equality for the other. I vaguely remember when Title IX was signed into law (as part of the 1972 Higher Education Acts), and witnessed the expansion of women's sports in its wake. It was not until my sophomore year of high school (1978) that Michigan held a state cross country championship for women (prior to that the girls ran in the boys race and no female state champion was officially recognized). The NCAA didn't establish a women's national cross country championship until about the same time. While most of the high schools I was familiar with offered a wide variety of girl's teams, they were considered "second fiddle" to the boy's teams.

Title IX, as written, should not result in cuts to men's athletic opportunities. Title IX does not mandate "equality," as is so often stated, but rather bans sex discrimination in schools, be it academic or athletics. The legislation states, in part, that "no person in the U.S. 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." It covers a broad scope of activities, not just athletics, and provides three avenues for university compliance (the oft-stated "proportionality rule" is the easiest to document quantitatively and thus is used most often). The basis for some of the lawsuits being filed by men's gymnastics and wrestling teams is that elimination of those teams in order to gain compliance with Title IX is, ironically, a violation of that very law! Most administrators, however, counter this argument by insisting that the cuts are made in the name of financial difficulties, not gender equality. Personally, I find that a rather flimsy excuse. I'm sure a bit of judicious budget trimming here and there could take care of the problem (for example, does the Michigan men's basketball team really need to stay in a hotel the night before a home game? Think of the savings if that practice were discontinued). It also leaves me wondering why alumni offers to help fund the teams are declined.

The individual impact of these unintended consequences hit home a couple of weeks ago, when Rich and I attended the Pre-NCAA cross-country meet in Terre Haute, IN. The morning of the meet, as Rich and I were leaving our hotel to find breakfast, we encountered a coach waiting for his team to return from their "shake-out run." We exchanged greetings and, as so often happens, found that we had several friends in common (Kevin Bacon has nothing on the world of distance running when it comes to degrees of separation). We started chatting about the meet, the teams to watch, and his team's chances. In the course of discussion he mentioned that he was being forced by administrative fiat to limit his men's roster to sixteen runners, and that next year he would be down to fourteen runners. Another school in his conference was limited to nine male runners. He related this is in a tired, defeated tone, and in fact his entire demeanor projected a sense of resignation and depression. I had the distinct impression that "it wasn't fun any more." Of course, this may have been due to other factors, but there was no doubt that the mood grew somber when the subject of team rosters and cuts came up. "I have a kid who works really hard and has potential," the coach said slowly. "But he's my 17th runner. Monday morning I have to tell this kid that he's cut." He shook his head.

I have always thought of distance running as a place where hard work means as much as talent. I can't tell you how many people I know who languished at the bottom of the depth chart in college, only to shine in post-collegiate competition. It hurts to know that, for whatever reason, there are kids who won't even have the opportunity to give it a try. Who knows how many diamonds in the rough and future superstars we'll lose through this short-sighted policy, not to mention kids who just want to try something new and be part of a team. I can't blame the coaches - they are at the mercy of their employers. But I wish the administrators who are calling the shots would think more carefully about the long-term consequences of their actions. I know so many runners who'd never come close to setting school records or qualifying for NCAA championships, yet by virtue of participating in athletics developed skills and friendships that will serve them for a lifetime. I can't help but think that Title IX has something to do with these lost opportunities, no matter how it's packaged for public consumption. It bothers me, and I see it gutting the entire reason that college athletics were introduced in the first place (surprisingly, it wasn't for financial gain but rather for the "holistic development of the student as a person") Don't get me wrong: I am grateful for Title IX, I have benefited from Title IX, and I have no doubt that it has opened doors for female athletes that would have otherwise remained nailed shut for years. But I sure don't like seeing it used to deny others. My heart aches for that 17th kid. And I hope that in the very near future, lawyers and administrators come up with a way to make sure that kids like him don't end up as the victims of unintended consequences.