Fifty Years of Title IX: How Have Women Fencers, Women Coaches, and the Sport of Fencing Fared?
Courtney Hurley's Fencing Master Thesis was accepted by United States Fencing Coaches Association in the summer of 2024. She was granted the title of Fencing Master in part because of the completion of this thesis. WFencing believes our collective Title IX history brings a relevant understanding of the history of our sport as we consider the impacts the NCAA Settlement may have on our sport. Thank you Coach Hurley for putting our NCAA history together as we prepare for change.
Fifty years on from the establishment of Title IX, this pivotal legislation ushered in an era of prohibitions against sex-based discrimination in educational environments across the United States, as mandated by federal law (Wilson, 2022). The statute ensures “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” (United States 2020).
Post-legislation, the Office of Civil Rights within the U.S. Department of Education was charged with developing policies and regulations to facilitate the enactment of Title IX. Notably, regulation 34 C.F.R. Part 106 delineates specific measures for athletic opportunities. This regulation explicates the duties of higher education institutions in several domains, including athletic benefits and opportunities. The regulation asserts that Title IX's scope extends beyond enhancing access to athletics for women; it also includes provisions for coaching, academic tutoring, and equitable treatment in the assignment and remuneration of coaches and tutors. These interpretations, alongside Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (as amended in 1972) which forbids employment discrimination based on sex, form the legal foundation for the employment and fair compensation of women coaches in collegiate fencing (Turner 2017).
This thesis will examine and scrutinize the progression (or lack thereof) of opportunities afforded to women fencers and their coaches post-Title IX -- offering a half-century perspective on the state of fencing -- with a focus on women's fencing at NCAA institutions. It will also delve into the distinct aspects of fencing under Title IX, such as the coeducational structure of the NCAA Fencing National Championships -- considering the implications of this unique structure and proposing potential remedies.
By integrating quantitative data, legislative history, and survey results, this thesis will offer a multidimensional perspective on the subject. The ensuing sections will delve into the historical context of Title IX, its implementation and effects on fencing, and a thorough review of related literature, culminating in an analysis of future directions for women in the collegiate sport of fencing.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND THE BEGINNING OF TITLE IX
Fencing Athletes & Programs. In the context of fencing, the pre-Title IX era saw limited participation from women, with estimates suggesting that women constituted only 15% of all college athletes, a figure that translates to approximately 30,000 individuals across all sports (Staurowsky, et. al., 2022). The specific impact of Title IX on fencing was notable; in 1981-82, the first year with available Title IX data, there were significantly fewer women's fencing programs and athletes compared to men's programs (NCAA 2023).
Much has been said recently about the progress of women athletes vis-a-vis Title IX but what was the state of women athletics prior to the enactment of Title IX? Prior to 1971, there was little established to either promote, govern, or advocate for girls and women athletics programs.
The first women competed in the Olympics in 1900 with 22 women competing in five sports (tennis, sailing, croquet, equestrian, and golf) (International Olympic Committee 2024). During World War II, many women joined the military and left their homes and entered the workforce. Post WWII, women believed that if they could compete successfully in the workplace, they could also compete successfully on the athletic field (Chafe 1974). Although, the first wave of feminism took place during the Women’s Suffrage movement in the early 1900s, the “second-wave of feminism” (Alexander 2020) was launched in the post WWII era when the idea of feminism catapulted to prominence in American culture and ultimately resulted, among other things, in the Equal Rights Amendment. In 1966, the Division of Girls and Women's Sports (DGWS) appointed a Commission on Intercollegiate Sports for Women (CISW) to assist in conducting intercollegiate competitions (Liu 2022). The first women competed in the Olympics in 1924. In 1969, a schedule of national championships for women’s sports was announced. Sports included were gymnastics and track and field. In 1970, Swimming and badminton were added; volleyball was added in 1970 and basketball was added in 1972. Women wanted an institutional membership organization like the NCAA. Because of this, in 1971, the CISW was replaced by the Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) which was charged to champion educational values in collegiate sports for women -- ensuring that athletic programs enhanced academic experiences (Uhlir 1982). Essentially, the AIAW emphasized participation in sport as the most important aspect and de-emphasized winning (Bell 2008).
As Title IX was enacted in 1972, affirming gender equality, AIAW's principles resonated more widely, and its influence expanded rapidly. However, the NCAA's shift towards incorporating women's athletics in the late 1970s and early 1980s, marked by strategic financial and organizational initiatives, gradually overshadowed the AIAW. For instance, the NCAA offered to pay all expenses for teams competing in a national championship, charge no additional membership fees for schools to add women’s programs, create financial aid, recruitment, and eligibility rules that were the same for women as for men, and finally, to guarantee women more television coverage (Festle 1996). The NCAA promised three million dollars to support women’s championships. The AIAW simply could not compete with the NCAA inducements and the loss of membership, income, championship sponsorship, and media rights. This forced the AIAW to close their doors on June 30, 1982 (Festle 1996).
Despite its growth and significant impact, by June 30, 1982, the AIAW was forced to dissolve -- overtaken by NCAA's more comprehensive approach. Essentially, the AIAW was an organization that focused on providing an educational approach to athletics while the NCAA assumed a more commercial approach (Bell 2022). This led to sponsorship opportunities from athletic shoe brands and college scholarships. Subsequently, this led to an increase in diversity in women’s sports as many more black girls and women were not closed out of these sports in a “pay to play” situation that was commonly found in high schools pre-NCAA (Bell 2022). Thus, by 1982, Title IX was in the exclusive domain of NCAA with respect to women’s intercollegiate athletics.
Fencing Coaches. The influence of Title IX extends beyond the athletes to include those who mentor and guide them: the coaches. Prior to Title IX, coaching opportunities for women in collegiate sports were minimal. The enactment of Title IX initiated a gradual increase in the number of female coaches across all sports -- reflecting a broader cultural shift toward gender equity in athletics. However, the progress in coaching ranks has not mirrored the growth seen in female athlete participation.
As women’s college sports came under the control of the NCAA, the women who comprised a great majority of women’s athletic directors and coaches soon found themselves pushed out of sport. They were replaced mostly by men (Lanser 2016). In 1972 when Title IX was passed, women made up over 90 percent of coaches and administrators of women’s sport (Acosta & Carpenter 2014). Many of these women were primarily Physical Education teachers and not fencing coaches, per se. According to Acosta and Carpenter (2014), by 1978, women held only 52% of the coaching jobs in collegiate fencing.
METHOD
To examine this topic, data will be collected primarily from four different sources: historical data, existing survey (conducted in Fall 2023), a new survey, and personal interviews.
Historical data. For this research, historical data was collected from multiple sources. The EADA (Equity in Athletics Data Analysis from the U.S. Department of Education) began collecting/publishing data in 2003.The EADA data includes historical information about athletic programs, athlete enrollment and participation, as well as program expenses and revenues. Official collegiate Title IX-related data before 2003 is not readily available except through the publication of several journal articles. These journal articles include intermittent historical data reports about programs and coaches in all NCAA sports including fencing. Many of these articles report data as far back as 1972 but for the most part, program participation data is available from 1982 while all other data is available from 2003.
Survey data. A survey was sent to all NCAA head coaches in the Fall of 2023 by the U.S.Fencing Coaches Association (USFCA). The primary purpose of this survey was to solicit opinions about the addition of a NCAA Women’s National Fencing Team Championships. Fifteen of 45 head coaches (33%) responded to the survey. A second survey sent by this research was sent to all NCAA head coaches (N=45); twenty-five head coaches responded for a response rate of 55%. The purpose of this survey was to not only ascertain an opinion about adding a women’s national fencing team championship but was also to get a snapshot of resources available to fencing teams. A copy of both surveys can be found in Appendix A and B.
RESULTS
Fencing Athletes & Programs. Historical participation in NCAA fencing can be determined by reviewing the data presented in a NCAA report “NCAA Sport Sponsorship and Participation Rates Report” (presented in Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 1-3). Similar data can be found in the NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates Database although the online database is not as comprehensive as the Report.
As Figures 1 and 2 show, in 1982, while there were approximately the same number of male (n=79) and female (n=76) teams, there were approximately twice the number of male athletes (n=1472) than female athletes (n=765). As time progressed, the number of men’s teams and participants decreased. For instance, in 2003, there were 39 men’s teams with 619 athletes.
While the number of women’s teams and athletes also decreased, in 2003 there were 45
teams representing 662 athletes. Beginning in 2003, the number of female athletes and teams consistently exceeded the number of male athletes and teams. By 2023, there were 34 men’s teams with 638 athletes; there were also 44 women’s teams with 763 athletes.
Title IX did not seem to have a similar effect overall in collegiate athletics that it did specifically for fencing. For instance, in 2003, there were 8,002 men’s teams with 214,464 male athletes in 19 collegiate sports while there were 8,831 women’s teams with 158,469 female athletes in 19 sports. By 2023, there were 9,241 men’s teams with 297,571 athletes and 10,682 women’s teams and 226,091 female athletes in 21 sports. In 1983, women represented 31% of collegiate athletes; by 2003, women represented 42%; by 2023, women represented 43% (NCAA). Please see Figure 3 for detailed information.
Team Resources. According to the NCAA and presented in Figures 4 and 5, since 2003, the average operating expenses and total expenses for women's teams has exceeded the operating and total expenses for men’s teams. In addition, the total expenses for women have exceeded the total expenses for the men’s teams. The definitions of Operating (or Game-day) Expenses and Total Expenses for the EADA are below:
● Operating expenses: All expenses an institution incurs attributable to home, away, and neutral-site intercollegiate athletic contests (commonly known as game-day expenses), for (A) Lodging, meals, transportation, uniforms, and equipment for coaches, team members, support staff (including, but not limited to team managers and trainers), and others; and (B) Officials.
● Total expenses: All expenses attributable to intercollegiate athletic activities. This includes appearance guarantees and options, athletically related student aid, contract services, equipment, fundraising activities, operating expenses, promotional activities, recruiting expenses, salaries and benefits, supplies, travel, and any other expenses attributable to intercollegiate athletic activities.
NCAA National Championship. Since 1996, the NCAA has sponsored only a ‘combined’ or ‘co ed’ national Fencing championships. Only two other sports share this honor: Rifle and Skiing. The difference between fencing and the other two sports is that neither men nor women have more than 40 teams. This means that neither gender could, according to NCAA rules, support a team national championship.
For fencing, while there are individual titles for each gender, there is only one team championship. That is, there is no men’s team championship and a women’s team championship. An NCAA rule for sponsorship of a national title is that there must be 40 teams represented in the sport. Figure 2 indicates that although there are more than 40 women’s teams, there are currently only 34 men’s teams. Ironically, it’s the lack of men's teams that precludes the inclusion of a women’s team championship. Since there is no separate women’s team championship, there are 10 women-only teams that have no chance of winning a team championship each year.
Surveys. As previously mentioned, a survey was sent to all NCAA head coaches in the Fall of 2023 by the USFCA. The purpose of the survey was to determine the opinion of coaches about whether to support the adding a women’s team national championship. Fifteen head coaches responded to the survey. Although three (n=3) respondents indicated that the format should remain the same as it currently is (i.e, co-ed only), six coaches indicated that adding a women’s team event to the existing combined event was “optimum” while six coaches indicated that adding a women’s event as a step toward a “Separate Men’s and Women’s Event” would be best.
As part of this research, another survey was sent in April 2024 to all NCAA head coaches (N=45). While one purpose of the survey was to determine the strength of support for adding a women’s Team National Championship, it also was to examine the equity between Men’s and Women’s Fencing Teams. Twenty-five coaches responded to the survey for a 55% response rate. Most of the responding coaches (n=17) have been in their job for more than five years. Seventeen teams represent Division I while seven are Division III schools.
Twenty-one responders coach both a men’s and women’s team (i.e., co-ed) while four coach a women’s-only team. The average men’s and women’s squads are 15 and 16, respectively. Eight (33%) of the teams offer athletically based scholarships to men and eleven (46%) offer them to women. (Please note that Ivy League, Military Academies, and Division III schools do not offer athletic scholarships). Two of the respondents indicated that not even the head coach is a paid full-time employee (one co-ed and one women’s only) while four teams (three co-ed, one women’s-only) employ several full-time employees other than coaches such as an Armorer, Trainer, and Team Operations. Many teams share support staff such as Trainers and Conditioning Coach with other teams. Many of the teams rely on part-time or volunteer staff for critical positions such as Assistant Coaches.
On average, twelve men and thirteen women competed or traveled with their team in 2024 to competitions which spanned an average of 8 days for both men and women with the lowest being four days and highest of 12 days. On average, men fenced about 15 bouts while women fenced about 19 bouts at each competition with the highest being 60 bouts and the lowest of three. As far as the feelings about adding a women’s team National Championship title to the current structure, twenty coaches (83%) indicated they would support the move, four coaches (16%) said they are “not sure”, and one coach indicated that they would not support it (see Figure 6). Those coaches who indicated a lack of definitive support for the addition of a women’s team championship, were primarily concerned about the impact on their men’s fencing team if a women’s event was added (given that men cannot add a separate event since they do not have 40 men’s teams). In other words, they would only support the addition of a women’s event if a men’s event could also be added; otherwise, they prefer the current co-ed structure. Some of the more notable comments can be found in Table 3.
Most coaches expressed they are not under significant pressure with respect to Title IX compliance for their team. The most common statement was that they are required to “maintain equity” between their men’s and women’s squads. These mostly revolve around team sizes. Several respondents indicated they are asked to be sure that the number of female athletes exceeds the number of male athletes. One of the women’s-only teams indicated they are asked to maintain a “large” number of female athletes to help the department maintain Title IX compliance. Some of the more notable comments can be found in Table 4.
Fencing Coaches. As previously stated, in 1972 women made up over 90 percent of coaches and administrators of women’s sport (Acosta and Carpenter 2014); by 1978, women held 52% of the coaching jobs in collegiate fencing. As indicated in Figure 7, in 1982, women held only 34.7% of collegiate coaching positions Acosta and Carpenter (2014). By 1990, women coaches represented only 29%. Unfortunately, this percentage kept declining. By 2004, women held only 10% of all coaching positions in collegiate fencing. From there, the numbers temporarily took a more favorable turn for women fencing coaches. By 2014, women coaches represented 29% of all collegiate fencing coaches (Acosta and Carpenter 2014). Unfortunately, by 2024, only 18% of collegiate fencing coaches were women. In 2024, seven out of 44 (or 16%) head collegiate fencing coaches were women; when you add assistant coaches, women represented 18.6% of all collegiate fencing coaches (school websites).
1.4%
Overall, in 2020, Bradford, et. al, reported that there were 209 women fencing coaches (or 21.4%) in the U.S. as represented by the members in the United States Fencing Coaches Association (USFCA). Based on the Report Card guidelines published by Tucker Center for
Research on Girls and Women in Sports at the University of Minnesota (Silva-Breen, et. al. 2022), fencing, in general, received a Report Card grade of an F. An F or failing grade is awarded to sports where women coaches represent 24% or less of coaches in the sport (Tucker 2020). NCAA fencing fared no better; also receiving an F with only three women (8.3%) head coaches for Men’s Teams, seven women (15.2%) head coaches of Women’s teams, and 19 women (20.2%) Assistant Coaches of Men’s Teams. The only passing score was for women Assistant Coaches for Women’s teams (n=29, 28.7%) for a grade of C- (Bradford, et. al. 2020). In 2022, women represented 17% (five out of 29 Division I schools) of head coaches in NCAA fencing. This earned them a grade of F based on the TIDES Report Card (Silva-Breen, et. al. 2022).
As of 2023, there had been no teams with female head coaches to win an NCAA National Fencing Championship title. This is not surprising given the percentage of women coaches in fencing is low at the collegiate level. For the 2023-24 season, there are seven female head coaches (Harvard, Stanford, Cornell, Temple, Air Force (interim), Cleveland State University, and Brandeis) in the 45 NCAA collegiate fencing teams for a 15% representation. Two of these teams (Cornell, Temple) are women-only teams and one (Brandeis) is a Division III team. There are currently 17 female (18%) NCAA fencing Assistant /Associate Coaches; five of these women coach for a women-only team. For the first time, in March 2024, the first team coached by a women’s head coach won the NCAA National Team Championship (Congratulations, Coach Daria Schneider at Harvard!).
DISCUSSION
Fencing Athletes & Programs. In the last 50 years, Title IX has had a great impact on the sport of collegiate fencing. Unfortunately, the impact probably was not the impact hoped for although the possible impact could have been predicted. While the number of women’s fencing programs and athletes has grown, the growth seems to have come at the expense of men’s programs. Given that collegiate athletic budgets are not infinite, collegiate fencing (as well as similar “minor” co-ed sports) should have potentially been viewed as a zero-sum game. That is, the growth of women’s athletics would likely mean that less prestigious men’s athletic programs (i.e., not football and basketball) might be sacrificed – especially unprofitable sports teams. That is, Title IX could be a boon for women’s programs, but it could be more of a bust for men’s programs like fencing. However, given that the percentage of women sport participants in general were approximately equivalent for 2003 and 2023 (42% and 43% respectively), it seems reasonable to conclude that there was something specific about fencing in the 1980s - 1990s that led to declining participation or sponsorship by men and men’s teams in the sport. Postulations. While the exact reason why men’s collegiate fencing experienced this decline that other sports did not is likely multi-faceted. There probably is not one single reason. However, four possible reasons that may have contributed to the decline are listed and briefly explained below.
A vacuum of leadership from USA Fencing with respect to collegiate fencing at critical times.
The systematic elimination of collegiate (fencing) physical education courses.
The influx of European/Russian coaches to collegiate fencing who knew little and understood less about the dynamics and politics of collegiate sports.
Elimination/reduction/re-examination of unprofitable men’s sport programs.
While a detailed examination of these four possible causes is beyond the scope of this paper, a brief explanation of how these four postulations are intertwined is offered.
During the time that Title IX was enacted (in 1972) and subsequently enforced (1982), unprofitable men’s collegiate athletic programs were reviewed and often eliminated (Shaw 2024). Like many other collegiate sports, fencing has never been profitable. Some of the unprofitable programs were converted to women-only programs, such as at Temple University, as a reaction or response to Title IX (Shaw 2024). This likely started a cascading process of the elimination of men’s fencing programs in many schools; some of these programs were ultimately converted to women’s programs.
In 1972, fencing was overwhelmingly an adult sport; there was no organized national competitive youth circuit or participation. The general membership ranks of fencing often came from collegiate physical education classes. These physical education classes also often fed participants into varsity teams. Cardinal, Sorenson, and Cardinal (2012) report that collegiate physical education requirements existed in 97% of all college graduation requirements in the 1940s. By 2010, they report that the percentage declined to 39% of colleges. By 2022, Bailey, et. al, reported that a physical education requirement existed in only 15% of colleges. Given the historical link between physical education classes and varsity fencing, it might be expected that the reduction of fencing physical education courses would have an impact on participation in collegiate varsity fencing.
Although the first fencing Junior Olympics (Under 20 years old) was held in 1972 with 98 athletes (Wendell, 2023), it wasn’t until the 1980s and 1990s that youth fencing, for athletes between 10 years old through 19-year-olds, started to bloom around the country. This youth circuit began the first pipeline for collegiate fencers other than physical education courses. Unfortunately for fencing, the 1980s and 1990s was a critical time for collegiate fencing. The
failure to anticipate these events by USA Fencing leadership with respect to collegiate fencing during this critical time could have contributed to the participation decline. Lastly, during this time, the USSR dissolved, and many former Soviet fencers and coaches came to the USA to try their hand at capitalism. Many of them landed as collegiate fencing coaches. But not only Soviet coaches immigrated; other foreign coaches also immigrated and assumed coaching positions at local clubs and colleges. It seems that American coaches lacked the same credibility as foreign coaches even with the development of the American Fencing Academy by Maitre Jean Jacques Gillet from 1973-1984 – which was a two-year full time graduate program at Cornell University that graduated 15 students – was not sufficient to improve American coaching credibility (Wendell 2023). The current USFCA was formed in 1982 and assumed the USFCA ’s role of certifying Fencing Masters; they promptly added two new levels of coaching certification: Moniteur (Instructor) and Prevot d'Armes (History 2024). It wasn’t until 1996 that the modern USFCA developed under the leadership of Bob Scranton who initiated many reforms and innovations such as regional training clinics, an apprentice program, and a transparent certification process (History 2024).
The politics and dynamics of NCAA collegiate athletics is very specific to the United States. While some American coaches might have had some familiarity with the structure, foreign coaches most likely did not. Since they were not familiar with American culture of collegiate athletics, they may have not viewed participation as part of their job description since they were tasked primarily for recruiting and fielding a championship team.
For collegiate fencing, this all seemed like an environment for a perfect storm. All of these events did happen at these times but whether they or other events contributed or combined together to form the perfect storm for collegiate fencing is unknown.
Team National Championship. As previously mentioned, the number of women participants in fencing has increased since the enactment of Title IX. Unfortunately, it seems that the growth in women’s fencing participants came at the expense of men's fencing participants. The number of men participants is about half the number as existed in 1983 (the first data available); the participation numbers for women athletes has remained approximately equivalent. Although historically, the number of women’s teams has decreased since 1983, in more recent years, the interest and participation in women’s collegiate fencing has grown. One of the possible reasons the growth in the number of women’s-only teams has not grown any more than it has is likely due to the lack of a Women's National Team Championship. Although historically, the number of women’s teams has decreased since 1983, in more recent years, the interest and participation in women’s collegiate fencing has grown. One of the possible reasons the number of women only teams has not grown any more than it has is likely due to the lack of an opportunity for women-only programs to win an NCAA Women's Team National Championship. According to USA Fencing, as many as 15 colleges and universities have expressed an interest in sponsoring a women's fencing team if there was an opportunity to compete for an NCAA Women's Team National Championship" (Suchorski 2024).
The current structure of the NCAA National Fencing Championships includes the following events: individual titles for men’s foil, women’s foil, men’s saber, women’s saber, men’s epee, women’s epee plus a combined (i.e. both genders) Team Championship. The Team Champion is determined by totaling the number of victories across all six individual events. Based on this format, it is impossible for a women’s only team to win a Team National Championship title since they only compete in three of the six individual events.
There are three NCAA sports that sponsor a combined National Championship. They are Fencing, Skiing, and Rifle (NCAA 2024). As of 2022, the sport of “Rifle” consisted of 115 male athletes on 22 teams and 168 female athletes on 26 teams. The sport of “Skiing” had 450 male athletes on 34 teams and 408 female athletes on 35 teams. Neither Rifle nor Skiing have the requisite 40 teams needed for gender-specific team national championships. Interesting, however, the sport of gymnastics includes 304 male athletes on 15 teams and 1,715 female athletes on 83 teams. It is interesting to note that the number of men’s gymnastics teams is below the requisite number of 40 needed for their own championship. Even if we look for a possible “grandfather clause” for gymnastics, we can see that in 2003, gymnastics included only 20 men’s teams. Historically, the number of men’s gymnastics teams dropped below 40 (to 33) in 1994 while men’s fencing included 45 teams (NCAA 2024). This indicates that there was no grandfather clause based on historical participation or sponsorship that gave men’s gymnastics an exception to the 40-team rule.
The survey sent to all 45 NCAA coaches revealed that most (80%) of respondents support adding a Women’s Team National Championship to the current co-ed Championship tournament structure. If implemented, this would provide for a co-ed and a women’s team national championship as well as the existing six individual title championships. A few coaches have concerns about the effect this change might ultimately have on their men’s team but for the most part, they understand the need for and importance of women’s-only teams to have their own team championship.
Team Resources Equity. Besides the women’s national championship, the coach’s survey and EADA database were reviewed to determine any discrepancies in team resources by gender. In general, since 2003, colleges have spent more per athlete on women’s collegiate fencing teams than on men’s teams. Part of the differences in expenses, based on the definition of expenses mentioned earlier, may be the number of athletic-based scholarships available to women. For instance, for Division I schools, the maximum number of (full tuition/board equivalent) athletic scholarships are 4.5 and 5 for men versus women, respectively. Other than athletic scholarships, total expenses also include items such as equipment, recruiting expenses, and travel. While it is unknown exactly how co-ed expenses are allocated between men and women’s teams in co-ed schools (such as with salaries and benefits), there is no other clear reason why a women’s team would require more resources than a men’s team.
Fencing Coaches Equity. In fencing, the data indicates that while there has been an increase in women's participation as athletes, the proportion of women in fencing coaching roles has not advanced at a comparable pace. While expanding the number of women’s fencing teams, it seems to have opened more of these new coaching opportunities to male coaches instead of expanding the opportunities for women coaches. This discrepancy highlights ongoing challenges in achieving gender parity within the coaching ranks.
New Initiatives. As a process to assist Olympic sports with building their medal pipeline and bridge from NCAA athletes to the Olympics, the USOPC initiated a Think Tank in 2020 that was established as a reaction to Covid-19 and subsequent elimination of collegiate teams. Four working groups were created to further “ideate around concepts that encourage sustainable, broad-based varsity programming” (College 2024). The composition of the Think Tank includes a collaboration across Division I athletic leaders, Team USA athletes and coaches, National Governing Body, USOPC executives, NCAA leaders, and sport industry experts. The four working groups formed were: sport sustainability, sport structure, vertical partnerships, and Paralympic inclusion. A framework with recommendations was finalized in the fall of 2021. To date, the Think Tank has developed policy recommendations for field hockey (a women’s only sport with 286 NCAA teams and 6,456 athletes in 2023; one Olympic gold medal available), men’s gymnastics (15 NCAA teams, 304 athletes in 2023; 8 Olympic gold medals available), track and field (864 men’s teams with 31,278 male athletes, 957 women’s teams with 31,475 women athletes in 2023; 48 Olympic gold medals available) and men’s volleyball (173 teams with 2,933 athletes in 2023, 1 Olympic gold medal available).
The Think Tank turns its focus to fencing (12 Olympic gold medals available) in 2024 with policy recommendations expected by December 2024. The goal of the program reviewing fencing is to determine the best and most effective way to add a women’s championship in the short run. Adding a men’s separate championship is a long-term goal. Other goals include aligning rules and competition schedules between USAFencing and the NCAA. No rationale as to the order specific sports were selected for the Sustainability Study are provided.
CONCLUSION
There is no doubt that Title IX has had a dramatic impact on collegiate sports in general and in the sport of fencing specifically. The biggest impact has been the reduction of men’s programs and participants. There has also been a growth in the number of women collegiate participants. Unfortunately, the growth in the number of women’s programs since 1996 was not matched by a growth in women’s fencing coaches. Expenses per athlete for women’s teams consistently exceeded the expenses for men’s teams – indicating that women’s teams are more expensive to operate. One of the differences between men’s and women’s teams is the number of athletic scholarships available to offer in Division I schools. Women teams can offer .5 full time equivalent scholarships more than men’s teams. Given that many Division I schools charge more than $50,000/year tuition, that likely accounts for some of the additional expenses.
A new collaborative Think Tank initiative between the NCAA and the USOPC was formed to examine and improve the pipeline between collegiate athletes to the Olympics. The Sustainability Study for fencing is scheduled to be undertaken in 2024 with recommendations expected by the end of the year. One of the short-term goals for this initiative is to advocate for a women’s team national championship; a long-term goal is to advocate for the addition of a separate men’s team national championship.
Appendix B
Survey Sent to NCAA Head Coaches in April 2024
Works Cited
Acosta, R. Vivian and Carpenter, Linda Jean (2014). “Women in Intercollegiate Sport. A Longitudinal, National Study, Thirty Seven Year Update. 1977-2014”. Unpublished manuscript. Available for downloading at www.acostacarpenter.ORG
Alexander, Kerri Lee. "Feminism: The Second Wave." National Women's History Museum, 18 June 2020, www.womenshistory.org/exhibits/feminism-second-wave.
Bailey CP, Lowry M, Napolitano M, Hoban MT, Kukich C, Perna FM. Prevalence of Physical Activity Requirements Among US Colleges/Universities Participating in the American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment II. Inquiry. 2022 Jan Dec;59:469580221087891. doi: 10.1177/00469580221087891. PMID: 35506661; PMCID: PMC9073102.
Bell, Richard C. "A History of Women in Sport Prior to Title IX." The Sport Journal, 14 Mar. 2008, thesportjournal.org/article/a-history-of-women-in-sport-prior-to-title-ix/.
Bradford, Vincent "Vinnie", Hill, Molly M., and Bourgelais, Addison M. "Representation of Women Professionals in American Fencing: 2019-2020 Report Card." WFencing, 2020.
Cardinal, B. J., Sorensen, S. D., & Cardinal, M. K. (2012). Historical Perspective and Current Status of the Physical Education Graduation Requirement at American 4-Year Colleges and Universities. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83(4), 503–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2012.10599139
Chafe, W. H. (1974). The American Woman: Her Changing Social, Economic, and Political Role 1920–1970. The Journal of Human Resources. Volume 10. No. 4. 548-550. (in Liu)
"College Sports Sustainability Think Tank." United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee, USOPC,2021, www.usopc.org/collegiate-partnerships/college-sports-sustainability-think tank. Accessed 26 Apr. 2024.
"Equity in Athletics Data Analysis." Equity in Athletics Data Analysis, U.S. Department of Education, ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/compare/search. Accessed 1 Feb. 2024. Festle, M.J. (1996). Playing nice: Politics and apologies in women’s sports. New York: Columbia University Press.
"History." United States Fencing Coaches Association, USFCA, usfca.org/index.php/about us/history.Accessed 25 Apr. 2024.
International Olympic Committee, "When Did Women First Compete in the Olympic Games?" Olympics.com, International Olympic Committee,olympics.com/ioc/faq/history-and-ori gin-of-the-games/when-did-women-first-compete-in-the-olympic-games. Accessed 11 June 2024.
Lanser, D. (2016). Title IX, and how to rectify sexism entrenched in NCAA leadership.Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender, & Society, 31, 181.
Liu, Grace Chenxin. "Breaking the Barriers in Women's Fencing: Historical Roots, Title IX, and Empowerment of Women." Journal of International Women's Studies, vol. 24, no. 3, 2022, vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2909&context=jiws. Accessed 6 Mar. 2024.
NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates Report. NCAA, 29 Sept. 2023. NCAA, ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/sportpart/2023RES_SportsSponsorshipParticipation RatesReport.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb. 2024.
Shaw, Andy. Official Historian of USA Fencing. Personal interview with the author. 25 Apr. 2024.
Silva-Breen, H., LaVoi, N. M., & Boucher, C. (2022). "Head Coaches of Women's Collegiate Teams: A Comprehensive Report on NCAA Division-I Institutions 2021-22." The Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport (TIDES).
Staurowsky, E. J., C.L., Flowers, E. Busuvis, L. Darvin, & Welch, N. (2022). “50 Years of Title IX: We’re Not Done Yet,” New York, NY: Women’s Sports Foundation. © 2022, Women’s Sports Foundation, All Rights Reserved.
Suchorski, Brad. Director of Membership, Service & Growth for USA Fencing. Personal interview with the author. 25 Apr. 2024.
Turner, Kim. "The Rights of School Employee-Coaches Under Title VII and Title IX in Educational Athletic Programs." ABA Journal of Labor and Employment Law, vol. 32, 2017, pp. 230-53. American Bar Association,
www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/aba_journal_of_labor_employment_ law/v32/v32n2/turner.pdf.
Uhlir, Ann. "Political Victim: The Dream That Was the A.I.A.W." New York Times, 11 July 1982, sec. 5, p. 2, www.nytimes.com/1982/07/11/sports/political-victim-the-dream-that was-the-aiaw.html. Accessed 6 Mar. 2024.
United States, U.S. Department of Education. Requirements Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Code of Federal Regulations, 2020.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/interath.html. Accessed 10 Dec. 2023.
Wendell, Bryan. "The USA Fencing Junior Olympics: A Brief History." USA Fencing, 28 Feb. 2023, www.usafencing.org/news_article/show/1259130. Accessed 24 Apr. 2024.
Wilson, Amy. The State of Women in College Sports. NCAA, 2022. NCAA, s3.amazonaws.com/ncaaorg/inclusion/titleix/2022_State_of_Women_in_College_Sports_ Report.pdf. Accessed 2024.
Courtney Hurley is a three-time Olympian in Epee with a Bronze medal in the team event in London 2012. Courtney won the USA Fencing Senior National Championships 5 times during her career. Courtney also attended the University of Notre Dame where she was 2-time NCAA Individual Champion.
Coach Courtney is at Albuquerque's Duke Fencing Center. Before that she was at Olympian Fencing Club and the University of Incarnate Word in San Antonio. She assumed ownership of Duke City Fencing Club on August 1, 2024 where she is now also the Head Coach.
Coach Courtney recently received her Maestra certification from the United States Fencing Coaches Association (July 2024).
Comments