Fair Play at Chisholm University

Abstract

Chisholm University's new athletics director must reallocate the athletics budget in its entirety, balancing legal obligations with broader educational and financial goals. A committee appointed to work on this issue had failed to reach consensus due to disagreements about how to comply with Title IX, the law mandating gender parity in all educational offerings, including athletics. The athletics director has the facts organized into an optimization problem so she can systematically balance the tradeoffs and manage system demands or constraints. Excerpt UVA-QA-0789 Aug. 23, 2012 FAIR PLAY AT CHISHOLM UNIVERSITY In October 2011, a few weeks into her tenure as Chisholm University's new athletic director (AD), Juliet Burke received an e-mail from Charles Widmore, the university president. Burke was to determine a new direction for the department and to reallocate the athletics budget in its entirety. Widmore presented Burke with one clear objective: in optimizing the budget, to balance legal obligations with broader educational and financial goals. Each program came with its own mix of revenue-generating opportunities and associated costs. The potential for discord was heightened, however, by the issue of gender parity—commonly referred to by the relevant passage of the Equal Opportunity in Education Act of 1972: Title IX. Since her own days as a student-athlete 20 years prior, Burke had been well aware of the conflicting opinions on gender issues in athletics, but she was surprised that the issue remained controversial, as Widmore's e-mail made clear. Because of conflicting views about compliance requirements, a committee appointed to work on this issue had failed to reach consensus on whether funding changes were indicated. Some members argued that, given current economic conditions, income provided by men's athletic events—football in particular—was the top priority, that at best Title IX was an unfortunate constraint and at worst an unfunded mandate for marginal women's programs. Other members urged that the cart must not come before the horse, that educational goals and the school's long-standing spirit of gender equity should drive decisions more than lucrative programs or wealthy alumni. . . .