The college wrestling community is holding its breath to see if the U.S. Senate will confirm Gerald Reynolds, President Bush’s nominee for assistant secretary of the Office of Civil Rights.
What does that have to do with wrestling?
Title IX, that’s what.
The current federal interpretation of Title IX has been a major factor in schools dropping the sport, many wrestling proponents believe, to comply with male-female regulations.
A more favorable interpretation of Title IX for men’s sports is not the sole solution to wrestling’s problems. But since the “proportionality” interpretation of Title IX went into effect in 1996, 11 Division I wrestling programs have been axed. In 1980, there were 152 Division I programs; there were 87 this season.
“[A different Title IX interpretation] is important,” J Robinson, coach of defending champion Minnesota, said from the NCAA tournament, which started Thursday. “Why? Because the law hasn’t changed. I’m not sure people realize that laws don’t change, but the interpretation of the law changes.”
Since 1980, when 374 schools in all divisions had teams, college wrestling programs have been dropped dramatically. This year in Division I, Boston College and Bucknell have announced they are dropping the sport, as did Carleton College in Division III. The number of NCAA schools overall with wrestling fell to 229 this season.
Iowa State’s 197-pound Cael Sanderson, who is attempting to become the first undefeated four-time NCAA champion, is from Utah, where there are no collegiate wrestling programs. Iowa’s unbeaten 149-pound champion Mike Zadick is from Montana, where there are no NCAA Division I programs. There is no college wrestling in states such as Colorado and Kansas, where high school wrestling is strong.
Reynolds hasn’t said he would alter Title IX’s interpretation so male sports won’t be so much at risk. Such a public statement, it is believed, would hurt his nomination. Still, proponents of men’s sports are optimistic.
“The hope is that the [Bush] administration and the [federal] courts will come to the conclusion that this policy interpretation is seriously flawed and is doing more damage than good,” said University of Chicago
131
