16 January, 2003    Ted Leland and Cynthia Cooper, Co-Chairpersons  Commission on Opportunity in Athletics  U.S. Department of Education  400 Maryland Ave., SW         ROB-3, Room 3060  Washington, DC 20202    Dear Chairpersons Leland and Cooper:    On December 19, a teleconference was held by leaders from a number of special interest groups resisting any change and improvement of current Title IX enforcement. These speakers told the media their positions concerning the work of the Commission on Opportunities in Athletics, which included questioning the integrity and the motives of the Commissioners, the staff and the Department of Education. Included were five different talking papers, some of which provided what was claimed to be new statistical information. I heard the entire teleconference as part of the media, so I have direct knowledge of what was said.    On the next day, another of these special interest groups made a national call for people to begin harassing the Commissioners, the Commission staff, the Department of Education, the national media and the U.S. Congress concerning the work of the Commission. This was in spite of the fact that the public comment period for the work of the Commission ended November 29, 2002. They are attempting to intimidate and threaten you individually and as a group.    At the same time, this small and biased group launched a well-funded national media campaign. They are hoping that they can buy the results of the Commission's work. They are doing anything they can to make this a wider political issue rather than just concentrate on the goals and mission of the Commission. I am writing to urge you not to let their millions of special interest dollars convince you that they are representing the beliefs of the American public. Remember that they will do or say anything to keep the status quo.    I was proud to be selected as a panelist at the Colorado Springs hearing, one of the four Olympic family members who were unified in their request that Title IX enforcement be improved. These special interest groups are not only attacking your integrity, but also questioning the panelists as well. I am personally insulted by the assertions that I was not qualified to testify to you. I have been working on Title IX issues for almost a decade. If you remember my testimony (or review the transcripts), I believe that I contributed meaningful testimony that will help you in your work.    The people from the Olympic sports community are not going to ask their millions of members to send threatening e-mails to you at your personal e-mail address. We believe your time is too valuable, and we appreciate your decision to serve our nation on this Commission.     What I believe is valuable is a direct response to the literature published by the special interest groups on December 19. Much of this material is appearing in print, even though it is misleading and not accurate. I have prepared a response to this propaganda, which I hope will help you in your final hearing. Call me anytime if you have any questions.    Sincerely,    Gary Abbott  Director of Special Projects    cc: All 15 Commissioners, Rod Paige (Secretary of Education), Gerald Reynolds (Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights), Deborah Price (Commission Executive Director), Brian Jones (General Counsel), Lou Goldstein (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education for Policy)    RESPONSE TO BRIEFING PAPERS FROM THE  NATIONAL COALITION FOR WOMEN AND GIRLS IN EDUCATION    Briefing paper No. 3  Proposals Being Considered by the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics Would Further Disadvantage Female Athletes and Dismantle Title IX Protections, by Christine Grant.    In this document, Grant takes liberty with the facts and makes key assumptions that have no basis in reality. She claims that under proposals suggested in the Philadelphia Commission hearing that:  * females would lose between 3.5% and 10% of their opportunities to play sports  * there could be 578,000 to 1.4 million fewer high school opportunities for girls  * there could be 31,000 to 78,900 fewer college opportunities.    Grant starts with an assumption that all schools have a 53% female student population and that they are all achieving compliance through "strict proportionality." It is also based on no loss or gain for men and the harshest possible cut in women.    REALITY - SCHOOLS WILL NOT JUST GO OUT AND DROP WOMEN    These numbers assume that under a new formula for proportionality that colleges will ONLY drop women to reach the new numbers. There is no proof that any schools will do this. In fact, the most probable cause of action if a school has a less restrictive quota is that they will:   a. No longer eliminate walkons from the men's programs   b. No longer cut men's programs just to reach strict proportionality   c. Add back men's teams and women's teams    Since Grant allows herself to make "assumptions" in coming up with her statistics, we can do the same. We will make the much more logical assumption that colleges will NOT DROP ANY WOMEN under a new formula, because of the massive public relations disaster that will occur if the school chooses this option. It is safe to say that college presidents and athletic directors, after 30 years of supporting Title IX's goals, will not suddenly go back on their commitment to fair opportunity just because the quota percentage is changed. If Title IX enforcement becomes more fair to men, then you might expect that both men and women would protest side by side when programs are eliminated.    REALITY - SCHOOLS ARE NOT IN PROPORTION NOW, SO WE CAN'T START FROM THERE    As these special interest groups keep saying, few schools are in strict proportion. In fact, every time somebody calls proportionality a quota, they say that it is not a quota because there is an opportunity to comply from prongs two and three. When defending the quota, they embrace the other two prongs as a way to deflect criticism for the harsh cutbacks caused by it. When trying to show that there is not "gender equity," they immediately ignore the other two prongs as if they do not exist.     When manufacturing these numbers to strike fear in women athletes and their families, Grant starts with the baseline of a school currently in proportion. By assuming that all schools are in proportion, Grant counts female athletes that do not exist. It is just a numbers game. There are currently more than 57,000 more men athletes than women among NCAA schools. The fact is that for all the schools that are not in proportion now, a change in the quota standards will mean that there may not be any changes at all in the athletic department gender makeup with the proposed "wiggle room" concept.    Judith Sweet of the NCAA, in her discussion of these numbers at the NCAA Convention, was quoted in the press as calling all of these numbers a "worse case scenario." In fact, if we went by on a college-by-college basis, even assuming a college takes a "worst-case" approach and chooses to cut women, the numbers of possible cuts to women's sports will shrink considerably from Grant's "Chicken Little" scenario. And again, if you can have a "worst case," then let's look at the "best case scenario." The emphasis on counting bodies will be eliminated, and athletic departments will be able to concentrate on making sure that all student athletes are treated equally with a focus on the quality of experience provided to all athletes (not just for revenue sports and women's sports).    REALITY - HIGH SCHOOLS DO NOT USE PROPORTIONALITY SO IT DOES NOT APPLY THERE    In the testimony about high school athletics in Chicago and in the discussions in the other cities, one thing was very clear: proportionality is not the mechanism used to determine opportunity for boys and girls in high school. There seems to be a much stronger commitment by high school state associations and individual high school administrators not to cut anything while seeking fair opportunity. In fact, the high school statistics are showing growth for both boys and girls each and every year. This is something we should celebrate not mess with