Anthony DeVita’s snide remarks about a column by Elliot Levy are an example of, as Mr. DeVita put it, “not doing your homework” (“Bringing football back to BU would be problematic for many reasons,” Dec. 2, pg. 10). In an attempt to look smart, which we all know is hard as a College of Communication student, Mr. DeVita spread misconception and falsehood about Title IX’s effect on sports at BU. Perhaps I can help you out with your homework, Mr. DeVita.
Mr. DeVita believes that Title IX “states that equal funds must be distributed to male and female college athletic programs.” This is just plain wrong. Perhaps Mr. DeVita missed the section of the NCAA web page where it says “the only provision that requires that the same dollars be spent proportional to participation is scholarships. Otherwise, male and female student-athletes must receive equitable ‘treatment’ and ‘benefits.'” You see, Mr. DeVita, “equitable treatment and benefits” does not mean you have to spend dollar for dollar on each program. It would be stupid to have it this way simply because some sports require more equipment than others.
Mr. DeVita also states “the total male-to-female ratio of the student athlete population must reflect the ratio of the student body as a whole.” This is somewhat true. However, the wording makes it so this “ratio” is not set in stone. It has more to do with “interest” than anything. Almost every school with Division I-A football programs carries a team of more than 100 players. A BU football team would not be so large (most certainly not 120 players as Mr. DeVita suggests). And almost every other school in Boston carries a Division I-AA football team — if they can do it, so can we.
Even more evidence of Mr. DeVita’s glaring ignorance of Title IX, is the fact that he misses the most key element of Title IX: the necessity of expansion and accommodation of interests of the underrepresented sex. Aren’t males the underrepresented sex at BU? And as for the sports program, I have a feeling there are more female athletes than male (there are 11 male sports to 12 female). So, shouldn’t Title IX work in the favor of those seeking football?
Title IX is just one of the many falsehoods that were used as justification for cutting the football program (and probably baseball). It was not the intention of the drafters of Title IX to cut male programs for female ones — it was just to make all facets of education, including sports, equitable.
The other “reasons” for cutting football are just as dubious. Attendance shouldn’t really be a factor either. I’m sure BU football came second only to hockey in average attendance. What was the average attendance of women’s field hockey? I’m sure it wasn’t 2,000. Should that program be cut due to “lack of interest?” As for the football team’s performance, it is not as cut and dry as Mr. DeVita would like it to seem. The team was torpedoed by scholarship and budget cuts. It is hard for a team without the support of the administration to compete against schools that have that support.
Could football survive at BU? It did for more than 90 years. BU has no fight song (except for the “BC sucks” one, which doesn’t work against other teams), very few traditions, and no school spirit. Perhaps football could bring some of that back. However, your comments help no one, Mr. DeVita. Perhaps instead of criticizing others for not “doing their homework” you should do yours.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
