This presents the problem of interest: if the afore mentioned proportion of 55 percent female student body does not does not show a proportional amount of interest, while the 45 percent male students show a greater interest than the females, the male students will not be afforded the opportunity to participate because the numbers will show that the women students are underrepresented
Opportunity was taken from men who wanted to play just to satisfy a quota. .
Is this really happening? In the case of Chalenor v. Univ. of North Dakota, filed by members of the eliminated Univ. of North Dakota wrestling team, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by the lower court to throw out the case. The lower court ruled that "UND has not violated Title IX by eliminating its wrestling program since men are still substantially overrepresented within the university's athletic programs." The court sited numerous cases in which the elimination of men's sports opportunity was permitted (TheMat.com). What was neglected to be mentioned was that the school boosted a larger percentage of female students that year, yet the number of female athletes was not proportional to the enrollment rate. "Colleges have dropped more than 400 men's athletic teams in order to produce precise proportionality between men's and women's enrollments and men's and women's rates of participation in athletics" (Will). .
This once empowering law for women has now become a hobbling block for male athletes. According to the NCAA's Gender Equity report, over the last 10 yrs., an average of 30 male athletes have been lost per college campus each year, compared to only gaining 7 female athletes. Does that sound like providing equal opportunity? It sounds like men are getting the short end of the stick. .
What can be done to curb this downward spiral that the male athlete has fallen into? The way schools budget their athletic funds would be a good place to start.