In a meeting of like-minded people, a teleconference was held on Thursday, Dec. 19 by leaders from a number of groups resisting reform of Title IX enforcement. These speakers all told the media their positions concerning the work of the Commission on Opportunities in Athletics, which will wrap up its recommendations on Title IX by the end of January.    The speakers were a "who's-who" of those who have been battling to maintain the status quo in Title IX debate:    Jacqueline Woods, American Association of University Women - moderator  Jocelyn Samuels, National Women's Law Center  Nancy Hogshead-Makar,  Florida Coastal School of Law & Past President Women's Sports Foundation  Athena Yiamouyiannis, National Association for Girls and Women in Sports  Christine Grant, National Association of College Women Athletic Administrators  Andrew Zimbalist, Smith College    Right from the beginning, it was clear that this group of people were unified in their desire to question the work of the Commission, which was formed in June and has studied Title IX in sports for six months.    Woods opened the discussion with a false statement, that Title IX is about "addressing discrimination against girls and women in sports." Anybody who has read the law knows that sports in not mentioned in the law, nor is one specific gender noted in the statute.     From that point, the rhetoric amplified with each and every speaker and each and every question. Woods stressed that "make no mistake that Title IX is a civil rights issue," then concluded with the statement that the Commission's proposals "must not go unchallenged."    Samuels started the speeches from the selected guests by claiming that many Commission members "will make proposals to dismantle Title IX." She noted that the discussions at the Commission in Philadelphia included "radical and destructive proposals on the table." As in previous statements by women's leaders, Samuels repeated the claim that men have gained opportunities in college sports and that Title IX does not require quotas.    Hogshead-Makar touched on the favorite rallying point for these women's groups, the interest argument. She noted that the idea that girls are less interested in sports is "dangerously stereotypical and flawed and is insulting to women." She asserted that the proposals of some of the Commissioners were "flatly illegal." Playing on the rhetoric heard in the past, Hogshead-Makar said that "interest follows opportunity" and that the lower numbers of female athletes to males "reflects historical lack of opportunity."    Yiamouyiannis blasted the Commission in her speech, calling its efforts "a violation of public trust" and claiming that the process did not provide "equal access." She attacked the staff of the Commission, saying that they "continue to manipulate the process." Calling the work of the Commission "wrong and un-American," she concluded that the Commission was "used as a vehicle to push forward a predetermined outcome to weaken Title IX."    Grant claimed that the ideas discussed by Commission members would injure women athletes. She said that they would "further disadvantage female athletes," that they "display an indifference to equal opportunity for women," and that they "perpetuate stereotypes." She attacked the opening question in the Commission charter which included the word "men," saying that Title IX "was never meant to assist men in athletics." She also made bold predictions of a loss of women's sports opportunities if the ideas were implemented, including the loss of millions of opportunities and scholarship dollars.    Zimbalist, in a speech almost exactly like his testimony in the San Diego hearing, said that the problem of lost men's sports was not about Title IX, but about "endemic waste." He again called for the reduction of football scholarships to 60, and a Congressional anti-trust exemption on coaches salaries.     Next came the questions from the journalists, which was a painful process of redundancy. For each question asked, a number of the panelists chimed in, often repeating the position of the earlier speaker. In one case, the moderator asked the panelists to keep their questions shorter in order to allow for time for questions.    The first question of the speakers was from CNN/SI which asked who was behind the "rigging" of the Commission. The answer given was "Dennis Hastert and the wrestling community," OCR Director Gerald Reynolds, and OCR Deputy Assistant Secretary Lou Goldstein, called Reynolds' "right-hand man."    The next question involved whether federal changes would affect state gender-equity laws. Samuels noted that "state law is an important source of protection from women and girls and a way to address gender equity." She said that any changes in federal regulations "would violate Title IX and fundamental principles of civil rights law."    When Mark Zeigler of the San Diego Union Tribune joined the fray, he asked if the public was misinformed on the Title IX issue. Donna Lopiano of the Women's Sports Foundation, not a published speaker but offered as a person to question, jumped right in. She said that she was "always concerned about the lack of education for the rights of their daughters." She blamed the OCR itself, the fact that coaches fear retaliation if they mention Title IX and media "misinformation" for this.    Samuels claimed again that "Title IX is not the cause of the loss of opportunity" and said that the public is strongly in favor of the law, even if it means the loss of men's opportunity.  Hogshead threw in the finance position by saying that "ADs are making the decision, using Title IX as a whipping girl for a lack of financial planning."    When Erik Brady of USA Today asked Grant about the work of Bob Bowlsby, Iowa's AD, on the Commission, Grant contended that Bowlsby's proposals somehow were not based upon him having the right facts. "He would be astonished. He is dealing with a concept, not the facts," she said.    When Paul McMullen of the Baltimore Sun asked Grant if these people had challenged the composition of the Commission when it was formed in June, she said that they did, but "I don't remember who" they protested to. Judith Sweet, an NCAA employee not on the speakers list, jumped in and noted that NCAA Executive Director Cedric Dempsey sent a letter to the Department of Education seeking representatives from all divisions, and the answer was that since it had already been announced, there would be no changes.    A question from Welch Suggs of the Chronicle of Higher Education was about whether the Commission itself was confused about Title IX. At least three of the panelists cited examples of how they believe the Commissioners did not understand the topic.    When John Fuller of TheMat.com challenged Grant to prove how she came up with the stats which showed a loss for women in the future, the answer was never directly given. She said Title IX has not hurt men, once again.    Samuels jumped in with the following statement: "It is not a fight between boys and girls. We feel sympathetic to those who lost the opportunity to play. Men are just going after the wrong culprit." She claimed that there was a "common cause" with women and men's Olympic sports athletes.    Journalists asked what the next step was if the Commission asked for change. Yiamouyiannis said that there is a "danger that the Bush Administration has the authority to make radical changes by administration decisions alone. We expect that any attempt will face strong Congressional resistance." Hogshead-Makar added that she believed that any changes would be "struck down by the courts."    The last few questions featured football inquiries on football, Trent Lott and the civil right mood of the nation. Grant contended near the end that "We did not need a commission on Title IX. We needed a commission on cost containment."    When the press conference was concluded, there was a cheer from those who participated, applauding themselves and the fact that they all had done a good job preaching to their choir. It was similar to the kind of cheers that were part of the contentious San Dieg