EDITORIAL: Appealing for justice

Title IX's purpose remainsTitle IX's purpose remainsequal opportunity for womenTitle IX's purpose remainsequal opportunity for womenin varsity intercollegiateTitle IX's purpose remainsequal opportunity for womenin varsity intercollegiateathletics, not the creationTitle IX's purpose remainsequal opportunity for womenin varsity intercollegiateathletics, not the creationof a quota system that short-Title IX's purpose remainsequal opportunity for womenin varsity intercollegiateathletics, not the creationof a quota system that short-shrifts athletes of both sexes.Title IX's purpose remainsequal opportunity for womenin varsity intercollegiateathletics, not the creationof a quota system that short-shrifts athletes of both sexes._______________________________ The crux of U.S. District Court Judge Raymond Pettine's 1995 decision rested on the proportion of males and females in the Brown undergraduate student body, as compared to the male-female proportion of the school's varsity athletes. Currently, Brown is 48 percent male and 52 percent female. However, the ratio of men to women on athletic teams is reversed -- and in the court's view, this four-percentage-point difference represents sex discrimination. Brown President Vartan Gregorian said earlier this week that "The desire to compete cannot be manufactured or dictated." He's absolutely right. While Brown is obligated to provide an equal amount of court time, clothing and equipment to prospective female athletes, as an institution that receives federal funding, it does not and should not have to force women to take advantage of these resources. The next twists and turns of the Brown saga will be closely watched by administrators and athletes alike at colleges across the country, especially here at the University, where female athletes and coaches settled a Title IX complaint over facilities and salaries out of court last fall. The settlement didn't quiet all complaints about gender equity, though -- the baseball team is still agitating for a new locker room, while the men's ice hockey club wants varsity status. Both groups say Title IX considerations have stonewalled their requests. Although its implementation may seem like an imposition to male athletes and to athletic directors responsible for divvying up budgets equitably and filing paperwork to prove compliance with the rules, Title IX -- if adopted with its original intent -- is an absolute necessity. Anyone who has taken Social Psychology can explain why "equitable" does not mean or imply "equal," when discussing distribution of limited resources. The courts just don't seem to understand the distinction yet.