The National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education held a two-way teleconference this morning to brief national media on what they felt were major flaws in the Title IX Commission's public hearing process and the radical changes to Title IX policies they feel the Commission to propose to the Education Secretary Rod Paige by January 31, 2003.    The teleconference was monitored by Jacqueline Woods, President of the American Association of Women, and was led by Jocelyn Samuels of the National Women's Law Center, Nancy Hogshead-Makar of the Florida Coastal School of Law, Athena Yiamouyiannis of the National Association for Girls and Women in Sports, Christine Grant of the National Association of College Women Athletic Administrators and Andrew Zimbalist of Smith College.    All five women made serious allegations about the groups fighting the current enforcement of Title IX and the way the Title IX Commission handled their four public hearings held throughout the U.S.    "The Commission made false allegations towards the lack of interest in athletics by women and there were flaws in the Commission's process. The number of Title IX opponents outnumbered the number of Title IX proponents by more than 2-1," Woods stated.    Actually, the Commission made no allegations about a lack of interest by women. This was one of the many misleading statements within the teleconference. One recommendation by the Commission was that interest studies be used to help figure out whether or not there was a difference in interest. In essence, it could help to expel arguments by those who want change to Title IX.    Woods told another fib in her very first sentence.    "Title IX was founded to address discrimination against girls and women in sports."    Not true, Jacqueline. Title IX was founded to curb discrimination in education. This should tell you how the rest of the hour-long teleconference went.    Woods' comments were echoed by the other speakers at the teleconference as they expanded in their media briefings.    Samuels stated that opportunities for men have increased since the inception of Title IX in 1972 and that women still face consistent inequities at all levels.    No one will argue that women did and still do, in some case, face inequities in the world. But to say that they are consistent, especially in athletics, would be an absolute lie. Opportunities for men have not increased, but the number of NCAA institutions has, which helps to skew the numbers in their favor.    Hogshead-Makar stated that the Title IX Commission's formation was "insulting to all women." She felt that the recommendations that interest tests be used to determine opportunities would maintain discrimination. "Women are rushing in to fill participation opportunities," she added.    Yiamouyiannis also felt that the Commission was not diverse enough. Only Division I Athletics Directors were included, and none from Divisions II, III and community colleges. She felt that the Commission "stacked the deck" and "manipulated the process."    Yiamouyiannis added that the Commission manipulated the process by asking biased questions to the panel members and used opponents of Title IX to undermine the meaning of the law and to help force changes.    Grant stated that Commission members had insinuated that women were less important in society and in athletics by holding the Town Hall meetings. She added that "Title IX was never meant to assist men."    Grant stated that only 42 percent of high school girls have athletic opportunities, but she changed her wording to "only 42 percent of high school girls participate in athletics" after I questioned her on the subject. I felt that was misleading, as was most every other statement in this teleconference, to tell media how many opportunities are available opposed to telling them how many women are actually participate when the opportunities are available.    At the same time, I wondered where all those women were rushing in to fill participation opportunities were at? Ask Arizona State. How many women are rushing in to fill opportunities? Probably a few after they had to place an ad to try and get women for a crew team.    Grant also stated that if Title IX were changed, women would lose 578,000 to 1.4 million high school and 31,000 to 78,000 college opportunities overall if a school were 53 percent women.    Let's face it. No one would let women lose opportunities. When asked where Grant came up with these numbers, she simply repeated the numbers, but never came up with the equation to figure them. The fact is that women are a part of athletics at all levels. They have a passion for it, and parents would never let a school, especially a high school, get rid of opportunities for their daughters to play sports.    Zimbalist used the same argument he had throughout the Commission process: that football is to blame.    "If we cut football scholarships from 85 to 60, then $750,000 would be freed. That is enough money to support two wrestling teams," Zimbalist said. "Money could also be cut by ensuring that the team does not stay at a hotel the night before a home game or by cutting the coaching staffs."    Zimbalist also said that Title IX cannot be blamed for the dropping of men's programs between 1982 and 1992 because the law was not enforced. That is interesting since many of the women on this very phone call praised Title IX for what it has done during its entire 30-year life.    How old is Title IX? 30 years or 10 years? I would like to know.    It is clear from the teleconference that the National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education recognizes that a change in the interpretation of Title IX may be near. They have used no new arguments, and repeatedly refused to listen to any other argument.    This group is unreasonable and unfair. They have told many lies. Even though nobody is in favor of getting rid of Title IX, they continue to skew our cries for true enforcement of gender equality into a Title IX hatred.    The National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education has already planned protests to help prevent changes being made to the interpretation and enforcement of Title IX.    If they really wanted to show the true side, why can't they hold a public debate between pro-change and anti-change representatives? A long debate in front of national media would offer both sides the opportunity to show who is really lying. Of course, speakers in this teleconference would never agree to that.    What is the reason? Because they know that they are wrong.    Note: The Center Circle will appear on TheMat.com on Thursdays.