Women In Sport: A Progress Report

Another indication of the changing times is television's coverage of women's athletic events. ABC has been the most active—and fortunate—in extending network coverage. With a $750,000 offer it won the bidding (over NBC's $450,000) to televise the King-Riggs tennis exhibition, which attracted a phenomenal audience of 59 million viewers, more than watch an NFL or NBA playoff, a Cotton or Orange Bowl. The show was a milestone in the women-in-sport movement. A black educator says, "I think women felt about Billie Jean beating Riggs the way blacks felt after Joe Louis beat Jim Braddock—pure pride." Ever sensitive to success, ABC followed King-Riggs with an hour-long special on women athletes, attracting 27 million viewers. The network's coverage of the 1974 Dinah Shore LPGA golf tournament had a larger audience than, say, the Doral men's tournament. This winter ABC is planning to televise a women's superstar competition, similar in format to the men's. The network even considered replacing Don Meredith with a woman commentator on Monday night football, but in the end settled on a player turned actor, Fred Williamson.

The climate of public opinion favors more, not less, opportunities for women. "Spite is not going to thwart this movement," says Dr. Jan Felshin of East Stroudsburg (Pa.) State College. "The day is over when you can tell women who want to take part in athletics, 'Go away, we haven't room. Men are using all the equipment and fields.' If a school finds it has a lot of men who want to compete and can't because they are not as good as the hired athletes, then it clearly needs more competitive opportunities for both men and women."

The truism that the law does not forge ahead of public opinion but, rather, follows behind seems to apply in the case of women in sport. The most formidable ally females have in their drive for better athletic programs is the Federal Government. The reason is Title IX, an adjunct to the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in education programs or activities that receive federal funds. It constitutes a considerable weapon, since nearly all schools benefit from federal grants.

Last month the Department of Health, Education and Welfare issued proposed regulations for the implementation of Title IX. These regulations are not as yet binding, and in fact are being vigorously debated and criticized by men and women alike. The most frequent complaint heard at the dozen briefings that HEW is holding across the country to explain its position is that the regulations are too general, that too much is being left to the schools for interpretation.

The lawyer overseeing HEW's transcontinental briefings, Gwen Gregory, is pleased by what she feels is constructive criticism. "We've come a long way from the ho-ho discussions of pink footballs and 300-pound women tackles," she says. "People are sitting down and seriously discussing the question of equal opportunity in sports. Men and women are asking good questions. They want to know what they have to do to comply."

The critics of the Title IX regulations have until Oct. 15 to submit written protests to HEW. Then it is likely that the section on athletics will be rewritten before being sent to President Nixon for his signature. The best guess is that Title IX regulations will not become law until September 1975. But Gregory says, "Why wait for the inevitable? Schools should make changes now. Why not be good guys and capitalize on the favorable publicity. Believe me, we're going to get the bad guys eventually."

Meanwhile, many athletic directors and their assistants are taking a wait-and-see attitude toward women's budgets. "We aren't going to jump in until we see how deep the water is," says North Carolina State's Frank Weedon. The posture of the University of Oregon athletic department is similar, but the university's president, Robert Clark, may well do something positive on behalf of women students before the law requires it.

The University of Nebraska waited just long enough for Gregory to arrive in the state before shifting its view. The annual budget for men's athletics had been upped from $3.5 to $4 million; the women were to receive $15,000 and presumably share 17 warmup suits as they had in the past. But last week Nebraska reconsidered and increased its women's budget by $45,000.

At another Big Eight school, Kansas, an increasingly accommodating, if still hesitant, attitude prevails. "Most colleges are trying to establish women's programs any way they can," says Athletic Director Clyde Walker. "That was the way men's programs began. Colleges felt their way. The necessity for women's programs is here. But the government must understand we need time."

The revolutionary and contrasting move at the University of Washington probably is due more than anything to Title IX, for the school ranks second only to MIT in dollars received from the Federal Government. It is the two-pronged pressure—from the government and coeds—that is inducing change.