Title IX scores big cool: This statement from the national advocacy nonprofit, Dads and Daughters (DADs): "Fathers nationwide are celebrating the U.S. Department of Education announcement ... that it would NOT weaken Title IX, and instead reaffirmed the current policies and regulations for Title IX, the federal law that bars gender discrimination in education -- and which led to an explosion in girls' sports."

Uncool: This statement on the Eagle Forum's Web site by right-wing activist Phyllis Schlafly: "The feminists in the Clinton Department of Education ... used Title IX to punish men by forcing colleges to abolish 171 wrestling teams and hundreds of men's teams in gymnastics, swimming, golf and even football. President Bush appointed a commission to study the distortions of Title IX, but he foolishly gave some of the commission seats to feminists, and they used the media to grandstand for their side of the controversy."

I get a big kick out of politicians who claim to ignore the polls, since we all know they watch them more closely than a parent monitors a newborn.

Logical stance

But last week's action on Title IX by the president and his Department of Education is indisputable evidence they have been watching them much more closely than they would ever comfortably admit. Despite incessant prodding from extremists who want Title IX dismantled, the president has given up this ludicrous and unpopular fight. And he's to be commended for that.

Why did he do it? Most likely because almost every parent of every daughter in America (not to mention every daughter) favors this immensely popular law. And this administration is family-friendly, remember? Because while girls have made tremendous strides in education (to the point where boys now need help) and women have made big advances in the corporate world, females still need help to fulfill their potential as athletes.

Oh yes, the whining persists. It usually goes something like this: "Women and girls are clearly not as interested in sports as men and boys, so why give them parity in spending on college sports?" Or, "So-and-So College annihilated its men's wrestling team because it was violating Title IX and not spending enough money on women's sports." What the whiners fail to consider is "So-and-So College" could easily take a minute percentage of the umpteen dollars it spends on men's football or men's basketball, and use it instead to maintain the men's wrestling team.

The decisions to kill men's teams are made by college administrators who could just as easily budget for men's sports more wisely, while complying with federal law and giving girls equal access to athletics. Similarly, arguments that girls are not inherently as competitive or as interested in athletics are laughable. Look at the soaring progress of women's professional sports.

Huge steps

The progress of female athletes since Title IX's inception is nothing short of amazing. The women's NBA drew more fans to games in its third summer of operations (1.96 million, to be exact) than the NBA did in its first 20 years. To be fair, attendance at women's professional basketball games dropped by as much as 15% between 1999 and last year, but it still far outpaces attendance at men's basketball games at this point in their professional infancy.

Besides, there are other reasons to continue to let Title IX work its magic. The Women's Sports Foundation released a survey in 1989 showing that "Girls who participate in sports are less likely to get involved with drugs, less likely to become pregnant and more likely to graduate from high school than those who do not play sports."

If I made my living complaining about women's advancement and caterwauling about the unmet needs of American males, I'd spend more time lobbying for more funds to assist young boys excel in academics, and less time carping about the drop in the number of men's college wrestling teams.