The 30th anniversary of passage of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972, whose section Title IX transformed sport in America, was cause for both celebration and condemnation. At one end of the spectrum was Billie Jean King, who gave an impassioned defense of the legislation and appealed for an end to framing the debate in men vs. women terms; at the other end was George Will, who, writing under the headline “A Train Wreck Called Title IX,” argued that it was responsible for the demise of more than 400 men’s sports teams in American colleges.

Even the Bush administration got in the act last week by creating a new blue-ribbon panel, the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics, to evaluate the law.

The controversy over Title IX has been growing steadily, especially over the last few years as conservatives have honed in on Title IX for criticism of Big Government, as a way to attack feminism, and as another front on the "culture wars" that has marked the political right in American politics since the rise of Newt Gingrich. In their view, Title IX is a horrible example of legislation whose unintended consequences have led to the use of quotas to achieve the goals of social policy. Will, ever the astute observer of the abominations of the political left, wrote in Newsweek that Title IX was perpetrated by the "ideology-besotted Education Department." His inaccuracies and half-truths are excessive even by his knee-jerk conservative standards.

Young girls today grow up watching female athletes perform on fields and in arenas. High school and college students look upon athletic participation as a natural part of their existence; there would be an uprising of considerable severity if anyone told them they could not participate. Young men and women take this gender-neutral athletic atmosphere for granted. Star male and female athletes are just as likely to be dating or socializing with one another as cheerleaders. The older stereotypes are dead. Just ask any father if his daughter should have the opportunity to play sports; the vast majority will tell you that she has the right.

The increase in intercollegiate sports for women has also meant a growth in the number of coaching positions available to women. Initially this was substantial, but as women’s positions have become more attractive in prestige and salary, the growth in recent years has come more from men moving into the women’s programs. This has become a sore point among women coaches, as men’s sports have not correspondingly opened to them.

Over the same period, there has been phenomenal growth in athletic expenditures. During just the past five years, men’s  budgets have increased by nearly $600 million, while women’s budgets have increased by nearly $400 million. According to The Chronicle for Higher Education, funding for women’s athletics last year reached nearly $935 million dollars, while close to $1.8 billion was spent on men’s athletics. When you consider that there are three women participating for every four men, the budget ratio of almost two to one is quite striking.

These numbers reflect the continuing growth of football rosters and budgets. Donna Lopiano, president of the Women’s Sports Foundation, says that what we have seen in athletic departments is a decision that those men occupying the 70th to 100th position on the football roster are more important than the male wrestlers, runners, and swimmers whose teams have been cut. She may be right in this, but others will argue that football programs are the cash cow that supports the remainder of the athletic budgets. This is true only in a minority of institutions where football makes big money. Where football loses money, the minor sports have suffered severely.

This is the question that you can bet no one is rushing to the op-ed pages to tackle.