A few folks have written in to ask what I think about JMU and the latest Title IX debate. To be honest, I'm frustrated as always. The level of debate — from both sides — is not much better than your average campaign ad.

When JMU and the anti-Title IX folks say, "This is all Title IX's fault," they are lying.

How do I know? Because in addition to cutting seven men's teams, JMU cut three women's teams. Cutting women's teams could not have been motivated by Title IX — in fact, that works against the very proportionality that JMU was trying to achieve. Because it cut three women's teams, it had to cut more men's teams than it otherwise would have. Clearly, Title IX was only part of the issue at JMU.

But when the pro-Title IX folks say, "This has nothing to do with Title IX," they are lying too.

JMU's student population is 60% women. Prior to the cuts, its varsity athletics were only 50% women. To achieve proportionality, something had to change. (Put aside for a moment the other two prongs.) There are only a few options:

1. Add more women's teams.

2. Cut the rosters of some big men's teams (namely football).

3. Cut some men's teams altogether.

Pro-Title IX advocates are quick to suggest #1. But adding teams costs money. Schools have limited resources. It's easy to say, "why don't you just go out and raise the money," but it's not that easy to do.

Imagine yourself as a university president. If someone gave you a check for $5 million, would you: (a) add scholarships for low-income students, (b) hire more profs to cut class size, (c) replace aging facilities, or (d) add some more women's sports?

Option (d) isn't always the best option. Putting money toward Title IX compliance means taking money from other worthy goals.

Advocates point to #2: "So just cut the football roster in half."

The problem is that at many schools, football produces the income that funds all other sports, men's and women's. If you cripple your football program, you hurt the entire athletic department. Cutting football can actually cost you money. (But see Erin's counterargument.) That money has to be made up elsewhere. Which isn't easy — see above.

The bottom line is this: In a world of limited resources, Title IX sometimes does force schools to cut men's teams. That sucks. It doesn't happen as much as the anti-Title IX folks say it does, but it happens.

We Title IX supporters need to be honest about that fact. Maybe this is simply the price of equality. But maybe we should also try to find ways to spread the cost.

(P.S. — if you want to read a rare piece of honest commentary in the media on the issue, see here.)