Title IX stole men’s track. Title IX caused men’s gymnastics to be cut. Title IX is unfair, sexist, and should be eliminated because gender equality has already been reached.

Sound familiar? These arguments are brought up every time budget cuts or athletic reorganization threaten a men’s sports team.

With the recent votes by the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics, those complaints are in the public eye once again.

The commission failed to pass a vote that would eliminate the proportionality requirement of Title IX, which says the number of athletes from each sex should be roughly equivalent to enrollment percentages, and the total amounts of athletic aid must be substantially proportionate to the ratio of male and female athletes. Critics of this requirement, including the National Wrestling Coaches Association, argue that this requirement creates a quota system which discriminates against men.

The focus, however, should be on the implementation of Title IX, not pitting men’s and women’s sports against each other.

The proportionality requirement is one of three options that an educational institution can choose to adhere to for Title IX compliance. The other two ask that a school show a history and continuing practice of adding women’s sports, or that a school be able to show the athletic interests and abilities of women on campus are being fully accommodated. Only one of these requirements must be proved to receive federal funding.

But many colleges feel that the proportionality requirement is the “safest” or easiest to prove. So when lower-profile men’s sports, such as swimming, wrestling or gymnastics are cut, critics cry foul, blaming Title IX, instead of looking at how dollars are spent on men’s sports.

Football and basketball are among the most popular sports at the college level. They provide a forum for school spirit, a chance to prove extraordinary athleticism and a talking point for alumni across the country. But when the men’s football team has a roster of 98, even if only half of the team receives full scholarships, money is siphoned away from other men’s sports.

Senator John Tower predicted this inequality, and in 1974 proposed an amendment that would exclude revenue-producing sports from determining a school’s Title IX compliance. The amendment failed.

Had it passed, football and all other revenue-producing athletics would be removed from the equation, leaving room for Title IX to do its job. That job is providing equal access to sports for both sexes. In light of the current controversy, this amendment should be brought back for consideration.

Editorial Board: Cavan Reagan, Amber Billings, Ayrel Clark, Charlie Weaver, Katie List