Women should thank Bill Clinton

 

By: Larry Fitzgerald
Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder
Originally posted 11/08/2006 

Former President Bill Clinton is famous for many great things during his eight years as president of these United States . He obviously was the last sitting president to face impeachment, and his personal indiscretions with women opened up a generation of debate on what truly defines a sexual relationship with a woman. No way could you argue that President Clinton was not good for women during his presidency in a variety of ways.

 

Last month, the Women’s Sports Foundation Annual Awards Gala was in New York City . Billie Jean King, Jackie Joyner Kersee, Amy Alcott, Dominique Dawes, Martina Navratilova and Nykesha Sales were all honored, just to name a few. Whenever the Twin Cities decides to host the awards, I can suggest some honorees.

 

It was more than 12 years ago that I remember sitting down with Spokesman-Recorder Vice President Norma Williams and asking her to hire three passionate writers, Charles Hallman, Kwame McDonald and Mitch McDonald, to improve our total sports page coverage and give it balance and strength.

 

She did, and all three of those hires have done great work over the years through the Spokesman-Recorder in highlighting the growth and accomplishments of women in sports from high school to the professional level in this community. In fact, locally the number of women athletes continues to grow, and Hallman has become the premier writer on women’s sports in the state.

 

Evidence shows that participation in college athletics is emotionally and developmentally beneficial to women. Since the passage of Title IX in 1972, women’s athletic participation rates have increased even more rapidly than their enrollment rate. In 1972, women made up approximately 15 percent of all college athletes. In 2004-05, according to NCAA figures, the number has risen to 43 percent.

 

Give President Clinton credit for passing the Civil Rights Restoration Act by Congress and the Affirmative Support of Clinton’s OCR (Office of Civil Rights). Women’s participation began a new ascent as a result; by the last year of Clinton ’s term in office, the rate rose from 31 percent to 44 percent in Division 1. Clinton helped push higher participation ratios and increases in the area of recruitment expenditures; the women’s share in Division 1 and 1-A rose from 16 percent in 1991-92 to 30 percent in 2001-02.

 

The women’s share in Division 1-A head coaches’ salaries rose from 34 percent to 36 percent, while women’s share of scholarship spending rose from 28 percent to 41 percent. Those improvements were no accident — it was Clinton ’s OCR and bulldog approach to equality that made the difference.

 

However, this progress has been cyclical. The growing women’s and civil rights movements together, combined with the stimulus provided by Title IX, made the 1970s an extraordinarily successful decade for the growth of female sports participation. Women’s sports jumped from 15 percent of college athletics in 1971-72 to 30 percent in 1981-82.

 

When was the last time you saw a Black woman officiate a soccer game? Did you witness the World Cup last year? Or when was the last time you read about a Black female winning a golf tournament? It is clear to me that racial discrimination is very present and is a real issue in the landscape of American sports.

 

Black women athletes face a double jeopardy, discriminated against by race and gender. Black females represent less than five percent of all high school athletes and less than 10 percent of all college athletes.

 

Less than 34 percent of all college athletes are women. Male athletes receive $179 million more in athletic scholarships each year than their female counterparts. And that carries over into less spending in athletic operating budgets and recruiting budgets for female athletes.

 

That’s not right. It’s not fair, and it must change.