Although the position of wrestling and the other sports will be significantly affected by any findings and recommendations of the Commission, it would be short-sighted and foolish to ignore what the U.S. Supreme Court did on December 2.      By granting certiorari to the affirmative action cases challenging the admissions process at the University of Michigan, the Supreme Court has, potentially, put in play all affirmative action, reverse discrimination and quota policies.  Depending on how the Court decides, the effect on Title IX could be significant.    First, some history.  Most will recall that the former Director of the Office of Civil Rights, Norma Cantu, began a process to review and clarify the structure for enforcing Title IX.  The clarification process resulted in a document that was just as unsatisfactory as the original and resulted in no changes whatsoever.  However, what is forgotten is the sequence of events that led Ms. Cantu into that process in the first place.    The sequence of events began with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Adarand Constructors v. Pena (1995).  There the court held that in the process of letting contracts, states and municipalities could not use racial preferences except where doing so provided a remedy for past discrimination.  The concept of remedial affirmative action is one that took hold for a few years.  Left unsaid was the basis for determining past discrimination that would be sufficient to impose a remedy of affirmative action.  Also left unsaid was whether such a remedy could only be imposed by a court or whether such a remedy could be voluntarily adopted by a state agency and applied to itself.  Every unanswered question left an opportunity for the Executive branch to find loopholes.    Following Adarand the former President (isn't the word "former" wonderful?) made his famous statement with respect to affirmative action:  "Mend it, don't end it," he said. That started the process of finding loopholes in order to water down the Supreme Court's holding.  Following quickly after Adarand, too, were the Hearings of the House Committee at which Ms. Cantu was questioned as to the enforcement guidelines of the Office of Civil Rights.  As a result of the perspicacity of the House Majority Chief Deputy Whip, now House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Ms. Cantu produced her "Clarification".    It is instructive to remember the sequence.  The Republicans took over the majority in Congress in January, 1995.  The Supreme Court decided Adarand in June, 1995.  The Hearings occurred in 1995.  The Cantu clarification was issued in 1996.  That was a heady year, but, the effort came to naught because the Executive Branch was able to find the loopholes and stretch them, so that little if anything changed.  The "reverse discrimination" pro-quota bureaucracy won.    Since then the Supreme Court has been relatively silent on the issue of affirmative action, but as Finley Peter Dunne said:  "The Supreme Court reads the election returns."      The stars could align again.  Now, after the Republicans have, again, won a majority in both houses of Congress, there is an opportunity to answer some questions left unanswered by Adarand.  There is also, hopefully, an Executive Branch that will not be so willing to search out and stretch for every loophole in order to maintain the status quo.  Maybe the Executive Branch will, instead, "end it, not mend it."    The Supreme Court has it within its power to write a broad and a strong opinion that will affect not only reverse discrimination in college admissions offices, but also affect reverse discrimination in college athletics offices, parading as Title IX "proportionality" or "gender equity".  Therefore, I believe that the Presidential Commission will slow down its process until the Court decides the cases it has, probably June, 2003.  (If it does not wait until the Supreme Court decides those cases, it runs the risk of its findings being rendered irrelevant shortly after they are made.)     Now that the Commission hearings are over, it would certainly be in the interests of the College Sports Community, together with their partners, to join in with other victims of discrimination, and commission an Amicus brief to the Supreme Court.  There is more at stake than there appears.       Dan Kinsella is an attorney in Chicago and a partner is the law firm of Rooks Pitts.  He has written three Amicus briefs opposing the quotas of the "proportionality" rule:  Kelley v. University of Illinois (7th Cir.); Cohen v. Brown University (U.S. Supreme Court); Boulahanis v. Illinois State University (7th Cir.).