(-- The Beacon)
By Bruce Garlinghouse
"Interested in rowing at the University of Portland?"
This was the headline to a press release posted on the University's athletics site, in order to fill the roster for their first year as a Division 1 rowing team.
This was the University of Portland women's rowing team's approach to transition from a club sport to Division 1 sport. The team, which replaced golf, was the University's solution to a Title IX problem.
Last year, the University performed an internal investigation and found they were out of compliance with Title IX, which requires universities' athletic opportunities to reflect the gender ratio.
In a surprising decision, the University chose to disband men's and women's golf programs and add women's rowing.
The move put them in compliance with Title IX, kept them out of trouble with the NCAA and restored balance to the universe.
But in the wake of the decision, the lives of 16 men's and women's golfers were drastically altered, having to choose between staying at Portland and giving up the sport they had dedicated countless hours to mastering. The result of that dedication was a scholarship. Those who stayed were able to keep their scholarship, but it was the scholarship that coerced them into taking their talents to the University of Portland and turning down other schools.
Those that left were forced to leave relationships behind and start over. For freshmen it wasn't such a big deal. Under NCAA rules they were allowed to leave and compete immediately for other teams. The only problem is those other schools had few scholarships left to give.
Six months have passed and those golfers have moved on, so you may be wondering why I continue to beat this dead horse.
Well, it is because the sport that replaced golf is a glorified club team.
With its 37 roster spots, it was an ideal choice in order to remain in compliance. But of those 37 spots, only eight are filled by rowers with previous experience. While I admit I know very little about the sport of rowing, I imagine a team looking to compete at the Division 1 level will need more than 21 percent of their team actually having competed in the sport previously.
I commend those brave women for jumping into a sport they probably knew little about. Competing in a Division 1 sport requires serious dedication and hard work. Balancing school and the sport surely wouldn't be an easy task, but the result would be nothing short of rewarding.
But, what about the rewarding experience of the 16 students that were cut short? They know their sport. They are good at their sport. Many of them were given scholarships as a result. So, why was the University forced to replace them with 29 women that simply responded to an email or wanted to try something new?
Title IX was created in order to provide women with the same athletic opportunities as men. It is a worthy cause and the action needed to be taken.
But this issue raises questions about its effectiveness. It did its job – it created more opportunities for women to compete in athletics. But was there a demand for those spots?
With only eight women having had rowed before, and the program sending a mass email to every female student in order to fill the roster, was it worth leaving 16 golfers that have dedicated countless hours to their sport out to dry in order to remain in compliance with a rule that is arguably flawed?
The golfers have moved on. Crew had its first practice a month ago. But has balance really been restored? Does Title IX really do what it was intended to fix?
Bruce Garlinghouse is a junior communications studies and philosophy major. He can be contacted at garlingh13@up.edu
