REQUEST URGING All NFHS STATE MEMBER ASSOCIATIONS TO REJECT THE 2011-2012 NFHS WRESTLING WEIGHT CLASS CHANGES

Summary: Girls high school wrestling participation has grown steadily for the past 20 years. The number of girls participating in U.S. high school wrestling programs has grown from 804 in 1994 to 6,134 in 2009-2010. At least 14 colleges now sponsor a varsity womens wrestling program, and womens wrestling is now a recognized Olympic sport. More and more high school girls are benefiting from the invaluable lessons in courage, toughness, tenacity, and perseverance that participation in the sport of wrestling has to offer. In two states, Texas and Hawaii, separate high school wrestling leagues exist for boys and girls. In all other states, however, high school wrestling is a co-educational sport: girls who want to participate on their high school wrestling team must compete against boys. A recent development, however, now threatens the progress that girls have made in establishing themselves in high school wrestling. In April 2011, the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) approved what the NFHSs own press release describes as the most significant changes in weight classes in high school wrestling in 23 years. These new weight classes are scheduled to go into effect for the 20112012 wrestling season, which begins in November, 2011. Unfortunately, these new weight classes constitute a subtle and insidious form of discrimination that, if they are permitted to go into effect, will violate Title IX regulations by reducing opportunities for girls to participate in wrestling at the expense of increased opportunities for boys. The weight data used to determine the new weight classes were taken from 195,000 high school wrestlers, at least 97% of which were male. The methodology attempted to maximize wrestling opportunities by selecting the weight classes to be such that there would be an even distribution of these 195,000 sampled weights across the new weight classes. Because the data that was used was so heavily gender-biased in favor of male wrestlers, however, the methodology, in effect, served to maximize male participation opportunities and, in so doing, reduced female participation opportunities. The analysis failed to take into account that high school females as a group tend to weigh less than high school males. These typically lighter weights mean that females tend to be concentrated predominantly in the lower NFHS weight classes. The recent NFHS wrestling rules changes, however, targeted these lower weight classes in such a way as to make them less favorable for girls: in fact, all of the lower weight classes were raised and one of the lower weight classes was eliminated entirely. To add insult to injury, the NFHS rules changes added a weight class at the upper end of the weight spectrum, near 200 lbs. Although these weight class changes may at first glance appear to be gender-neutral, they disproportionately and adversely impact female wrestlers, thereby constituting a violation of Title IX regulations. Specifically, because a significantly higher percentage of high-school-aged girls than boys weigh less than 103 pounds, raising the lowest weight class to 106 disproportionately harms girls. A much larger proportion of lightweight girls than boys will essentially be excluded from all meaningful high school wrestling opportunities because they are not heavy enough to be competitive in the lightest weight class. 8.5% of 18-year-old girls weigh less than 103 pounds and thus would be at a significant disadvantage when competing in a 106-pound weight class. In

order to put 8.5% of 18-year-old boys at an equivalent disadvantage, the lowest weight class would have to be raised to 124.4 pounds, which would be an unthinkable proposition. Furthermore, the lowest four new NFHS high school weight classes are 106, 113, 120, and 126. The lowest college weight class for men is 125. This means that boys have three high school weight classes in which they can wrestle as they grow into the lowest college weight class. On the other hand, the lowest college weight class for women is currently 97 pounds; the secondlowest college weight class is 105.5 pounds. How can it possibly make sense that the lowest college weight class for women is 9 pounds lower than the lowest NFHS high school weight class? Where are the women who wrestle at the lowest weight classes in college expected to get their training? Arent high school girls expected to grow? The NFHS weight classes, as currently defined, systematically deny a significant number of high school girls the opportunity to participate simply because they do not weigh enough, even though these girls weights are well within normal range and they are heavy enough that womens college wrestling teams offer weight classes corresponding to their weight. This is nonsensical. Raising the lowest high school weight class from 103 to 106 when the lowest college weight class for women is 97 and the second-lowest college weight class for women is 105.5 is not only inappropriate; it is downright hostile. It is clear from examining the NFHS weight class options rationale document that the NFHS Wrestling Rules Committee explicitly considered the appropriateness of these changes with respect to males, but there is no evidence to suggest that the committee also considered the appropriateness of these changes with respect to females. Unfortunately, the impact of these changes on females is detrimental, discriminatory, and unlawful. Because most states typically adopt NFHS rules changes by default, we have written to the NFHS pointing out the discriminatory nature of these new weight classes and requesting that the NFHS retract them. The NFHS response to this request was that we should raise our objection with our state member association, because states have discretion as to whether or not they follow NFHS rules. In fact, there is already precedent for states deviating from NFHS weight classes in the states of New York, Montana, and Michigan. New York and Montana have offered weight classes lower than the lowest NFHS weight class for many years and will continue to do so in 2011-2012. Michigan has announced that it will not be adopting the new NFHS wrestling weight classes for use in 2011-2012. We hereby urge all NFHS state member associations to follow the leads of these three states and refuse to adopt the new NFHS weight classes for use in their own states. We urge all men and women who love the sport of wrestling, who want to see it grow and thrive, and who feel strongly that the opportunity to participate in and benefit from this great sport should be open to as many high school students as possible to write to their NFHS state member association and request that the NFHS weight class changes not be adopted for use in their state. For the sake of the sport of wrestling, we urge that any future weight class changes be crafted in a manner that has as its goal the expansion of opportunities for those females and lighter weight males whose weights were not represented in the weight data that the NFHS used to determine the new weight classes. Please follow this link to find the name and address of your states NFHS member association so that you can write to them and make your requests known. A more detailed discussion of the discriminatory nature of the new weight classes is set forth in the following pages. Thank you for your interest in this matter.
2

The National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) has announced wrestling weight class changes to take effect in the 2011 - 2012 wrestling season. According to the NFHSs own announcement, these are the most significant changes in weight classes in high school wrestling in 23 years. We urge all NFHS state member associations to act immediately to explicitly reject these weight class changes for use in their member high schools. We also urge all NFHS state member associations to ask the NFHS Board of Directors to initiate an immediate review of these weight class changes with the intent of revising them to eliminate their discriminatory effect on girls. Given that these weight class changes are scheduled to go into effect during the upcoming school year, time is of the essence. NFHS state member associations must request that these weight class changes be rejected on the grounds that they discriminate against girls by increasing high school wrestling participation opportunities for boys while reducing wrestling participation opportunities for girls. These weight class changes constitute a subtle and insidious form of discrimination that will effectively exclude more than 8% of of girls from the possibility of ever having a quality high school wrestling participation opportunity. If they are permitted to go into effect, these changes will violate girls rights to equal protection under the Constitution of the United States. In addition, as a result of the Mercer vs. Duke ruling, these weight class changes will also violate Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which states that No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. These weight class changes violate Title IX under the disparate impact theory of discrimination, which focuses on the discriminatory consequences of what are on their face gender-neutral policies or practices, but which actually have a disparate and adverse affect on a protected group. The courts have sustained the use of disparate impact theory as lawful and proper exercises of agencies delegated authority, even where the challenged actions or practices do not constitute intentional discrimination and thus are not prohibited directly by the explicit language of Title IX. Under the disparate impact theory, a recipient of federal funding violates agency regulations by using a facially neutral procedure or practice that has a disparate and adverse impact on protected individuals, and such practice lacks a substantial legitimate justification. These NFHS weight class changes constitute just such a practice: on their face, they appear gender neutral, but they will actually result in disproportionately adverse consequences for female high school athletes as compared with male high school athletes. As such, they are in violation of Title IX and must not be permitted to go into effect. Table 1 shows the old and new NFHS weight classes.
Table 1. Current High School Wrestling Weight Classes vs. New Weight Classes for 2011-2012 Old New 103 106 112 113 119 120 125 126 130 132 135 138 140 145 145 152 152 160 160 171 170 189 182 215 195 220 285 285

As proof of the discriminatory nature of the weight class changes resulting from disparate impact, we offer the following supporting information. Additional details are also available:

1) The methodology that the NFHS used to determine the new weigh classes attempted to maximize wrestling opportunities by taking the weights of 195,000 high school wrestlers and selecting the weight classes to be such that there would be an equal number of these 195,000 sampled weights in each of the weight classes. The problem with this methodology is that the weight data was not analyzed in a gender-specific way. According to the NFHSs own participation statistics, in 2009-2010, when the 195,000 weight samples were recorded, there were 272,890 male U.S. high school wrestlers but only 6134 female wrestlers. This means that female wrestlers constituted only about 2% of the entire high school wrestling population. We do not know how many of the 195,000 weights used in the sample, if any, were from females. However, even if the weight data of every one of the 6134 female high school wrestlers had been somehow miraculously included among the data from the 195,000 total wrestlers whose weights were sampled, this would mean that only 3% of the data on which the analysis was based pertained to females and the other 97% pertained to males. Because the data that was used had such a high proportion of weight information about males relative to weight information about females, it was not statistically possible for the small number of female weight samples that may have been included in the data to influence the overall distribution of weights. The conclusions that were drawn from this analysis necessarily had the effect of favoring the population whose weight information was overrepresented, i.e., the male wrestlers. It is unfair to impose the conclusions drawn from this analysis on both males and females alike. Use of data that consisted almost exclusively of male weight samples inherently guaranteed that the resulting conclusions would maximize male participation opportunities without regard for their effect on female participation opportunities. In fact, the effect on female participation opportunities is detrimental and discriminatory. 2) The NFHSs analysis failed to take into account that high school females as a group tend to weigh less than high school males. These typically lighter weights mean that females are concentrated predominantly in the lower NFHS weight classes, or below. The recent NFHS wrestling weight class changes, however, targeted the lower weight classes in such a way as to make them less favorable for girls. In fact, all of the lower weight classes were raised and one of the lower weight classes was eliminated entirely. To add insult to injury, the NFHS added a weight class at the upper end of the weight spectrum, near 200 lbs. The result of modifying the weight classes in these ways is to reduce wrestling opportunities for girls as a group while increasing opportunities for boys. As such, these changes are detrimental, discriminatory, and unlawful. 3) Specifically, the weight class changes raised the lowest weight class by three pounds. This change is much more damaging to girls as a group than it is to boys because it reduces girls participation opportunities much more dramatically than it reduces boys participation opportunities. In fact, this change has devastating consequences for girls. It ensures that a significant proportion of lightweight girls will be excluded from quality wrestling opportunities for all or part of their high school career simply because they are not heavy enough. In essence, because the lightest weight class is so high, there is no weight class that accommodates these girls, even though their weight is well within the normal range. This consequence will be explored more fully in the following subsections:

a) Wrestlers weighing less than 103-pounds will be denied quality wrestling opportunities under the new weight class system. By way of explanation, consider that with the two pound growth allowance1 that is provided within the NFHS rules, the 106-pound class essentially has an upper limit of 108. All else being equal, the most competitive wrestlers, then, will be the ones closest to 108. As a result, a wrestler who weighs less than, say, 103 will be at a significant disadvantage in the 106 pound weight class. (103 is a reasonable choice because it is 5 pounds lower than 108, which is the upper limit of the 106-pound class after the two-pound growth allowance is given. The NFHS weight classes that have been in use for the past 23 years placed several weight classes five pounds apart from each other, e.g., 125, 130, 135, 140, thereby recognizing that a fivepound weight difference is significant enough to merit creation of a separate weight class.) A wrestler who weighs 103 will not have a good chance of winning her wrestleoffs and therefore of winning a starting spot on the team. She may be allowed to participate in practice, and she may be able to wrestle in some scrimmages, but she is not likely to be a varsity wrestler, which means she wont participate in tournaments, dual meets, or postseason competition, where she would be likely to gain the experience necessary to enable her to wrestle on a college team as well as the attention needed to be noticed by college coaches and recruiters. If some set of circumstances (illness or injury to a teammate, etc.) permits her to participate in some varsity matches, she will not be able to qualify for good seeding positions and, in general, she will always be at a disadvantage because of the disparity between her weight and that of her heavier opponents, especially in the end-of-season tournaments and other highly competitive situations that matter most. In short, she will be denied what could be described as quality wrestling opportunities as a direct consequence of her light weight relative to the weight class in which she is forced to compete. Even if her skills are so superior that she would be certain to dominate every match in which she were able to compete against another wrestler of comparable weight, there is no weight class that is light enough to ensure that she will be of comparable weight with her opponents. b) Raising the weight class to 106 disadvantages both lightweight boys and lightweight girls, but the harm inflicted on girls as a group is much greater. A higher proportion of high school girls than high school boys weigh less than 103 pounds, and many more high school girls than boys never achieve a weight higher than 103 pounds. These girls are completely deprived of quality high school wrestling opportunities. Table 2 shows the number of boys and girls, by age, that weigh 103 or less.
Table 2. Percentage of high school students who weigh 103 or less by age and gender Age 14 15 16 17
1

Girls 38.2 25.6 17.0 11.6

Boys 31.7 13.9 4.4 1.1

Section 4 Article 4 of the NFHS Rules Book says, A 2-pound growth allowance may be added to each weight class at any time after the date of certification.

18

8.5

0.3

This table shows that 31.7% of 14-year-old boys and 13.9% of 15-year-old boys weigh 103 pounds or less and therefore, as discussed above, they do not weigh enough to be competitive in the new lowest NFHS weight class. Raising the lowest weight class disadvantages lighter boys as well as girls. Indeed, many coaches from Montgomery County and beyond have cited this detrimental effect on lighter boys as a major drawback of the new weight classes, as well as a cause for concern in the event that the new weight classes may now enable wrestlers who weigh 113 pounds or so to cut down to the 106pound weight class (which becomes 108 after the two-pound allowance kicks in) and therefore be matched up against a wrestler who may weigh much less. Wrestling, unlike football or basketball, has always been a sport in which smaller athletes could compete on equal terms. As such, raising the lightest weight class is objectionable to many coaches because it reduces opportunities for smaller athletes, both male and female. While the effect of raising the lowest weight class to 106 is harmful to lighter boys, it is much more harmful for lighter girls. Table 2 illustrates that by the time that 95.6% of boys have reached the age of 16, they are heavy enough that there is a NFHS weight class in which they can be competitive. 98.9% of 17-year-old boys are heavy enough that there is a weight class in which they can be competitive; and 99.7% of 18 year-old-boys are heavy enough that there is a weight class in which they can be competitive. In other words, although some 14 and 15-year-old boys may be too light to be competitive in the lowest NFHS weight class, as these boys age, most of them gain enough weight to be competitive in at least the lowest NFHS weight class when they are upperclassmen. This is due to the fact that boys as a group tend to be heavier than girls, and they tend to have their growth spurt while in high school. Girls, on the other hand, tend to be not only lighter than boys, but to have their growth spurts earlier. 38.2% of 14-year-old girls, 25.6% of 15-year-old girls, 17% of 16-year-old girls, 11.6% of 17-year-old girls, and 8.5% of 18-year-old girls do not weigh enough to be competitive in the lowest NFHS weight class. There is no NFHS class weight class that is low enough to be appropriate for these girls. This means that 38.2 % of 14-yearold girls and 25.6% of 15-year-old girls are denied the opportunity to have the quality wrestling opportunities that they need in order to develop their wrestling skills. However, even if these girls are perseverant enough to stick with the sport through high school in the hope of eventually weighing enough to be competitive in the lightest weight class, 11.6 % of 17-year-olds and 8.5% of 18-year-olds go through their entire high school career without ever reaching a sufficiently heavy weight that would enable them to be competitive in an NFHS weight class. This is a significant proportion of girls who are completely deprived of the opportunity to have a quality wrestling participation experience in high school, all because the weight classes were designed to optimize participation opportunities for males and, by doing so, excluded the lightest 11.6% of 17year-old females and the lightest 8.5% of 18-year-old females. Because a much higher percentage of girls than boys weigh less than 103 pounds, raising the weight class to 106 pounds directly harms a significantly higher proportion of girls
6

than boys, and the harm that is inflicted is devastating, because it amounts to completely depriving these girls of the opportunity to have any sort of quality high school wrestling experience. Lightweight girls are essentially shut out of quality wrestling participation opportunities simply by virtue of the fact that they dont weigh enough, even though their weights are within the normal range and even though boys whose weights place them in comparable percentiles do have wrestling opportunities. Here is another way to look at this: if the lowest weight class is raised to 106 pounds, this means that each year, approximately 8.5% of girls who graduate from high school at the age of 18 will not ever have had the opportunity to participate in high school wrestling in any meaningful way simply because they did not weigh enough. (In fact, many girls will graduate from high school at the age of 17, meaning that even more will be excluded from wrestling opportunities.) In order to exclude an equivalent proportion (8.5%) of 18-year-old boys from wrestling opportunities in this way, the lowest weight class would have to be raised to 124.4 pounds2, which would be an unthinkable proposition. c) In addition to these weight class changes being discriminatory in general to girls as a group, there are specific female wrestlers who are at risk of being personally harmed by raising the weight class to 106. These are girls who have been able to win the 103-pound weight class position on their high school teams even though they weigh substantially less than 103 pounds. Such female wrestlers, who for example might be 14 years old and weigh 99 pounds, are not anomalies in terms of their weight. In fact, CDC weight-for-age charts place a 99-pound 14-year old girl at the 30th percentile. If the NFHS weight class changes are allowed to go into effect, these girls wrestling opportunities will either be eliminated altogether or their quality will deteriorate substantially. Assuming that a 99or 100-pound girl can win her wrestle-offs, she will have to face opponents who outweigh her by 9 pounds or more. If the NFHS weight class changes are permitted to go into effect for next season, they threaten to derail what would otherwise be expected to be promising wrestling careers for these girls, all because the weight class changes were designed to maximize wrestling opportunities for boys without regard for how they eliminate wrestling opportunities for girls. These girls are perfect examples of why the decision to raise the lowest weight class to 106 pounds is detrimental for girls and must not be adopted. 4) The weight class changes removed a weight class between 103 and 145 pounds. Previously, there were seven weight classes below 145 pounds, now there are only six. This change was more damaging to girls as group than it was to boys because more girls fall into the 103145 pound weight range that is affected by this change. Table 3 shows the CDC weight-forage percentile data for high-school-aged males and females weighing between 103 and 145 pounds.
Table 3. Percentage of high school students who weigh between 103 and 145 by age and gender Age
2

Girls

Boys

According to CDC data, 8.5% of 18 year-old boys weigh 121.4 pounds or less. These boys would be at a disadvantage if forced to compete in a 124.4 pound weight class, which would be raised to 126.4 pounds with a two-pound growth allowance.

14 15 16 17 18

52.1 61.4 67.4 70.8 71.9

57.4 65.4 62.2 53.3 44.3

While the proportions of 14-, 15-, and 16-year-old boys and girls who weigh within the 103145 pound weight range are comparable, being within 5 percentage points of each other, there is a marked disparity when comparing the weights of 17- and 18-year-old boys and girls in this weight range. Only 53.3% of 17-year-old boys and 44.3% of 18-year-old boys weigh in the 103-145 pound range, whereas 70.8% of 17-year-old girls and 71.9% of 18year-old girls fall within this weight range. Clearly, a significantly smaller proportion of high-school-aged boys than girls are negatively affected by the elimination of the participation opportunity that results from removing this lower weight class. 5) The weight class changes added a new weight class above 160 pounds. Previously, there were only four weight classes higher than 160. Now there are five. This change disproportionately benefits boys while disadvantaging girls. Table 4 shows the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) weight-for-age percentile data for high-school-aged males and females weighing 160 pounds or more.
Table 4. Percentage of high school students who weigh 160 pounds or more by age and gender Age 14 15 16 17 18 Girls 4.8 6.7 8.2 9.1 10.2 Boys 4.9 9.9 17.3 25.2 32.5

17.3% of 16-year-old boys, 25.2% of 17-year-old boys, and 32.5% of 18-year-old boys weigh more than 160 pounds. On the other hand, only 8.2%, 9.1%, and 10.2%, of girls in these same age groups weigh more than 160 pounds. This data makes it clear that a significantly higher proportion of boys than girls stand to benefit from the addition of a new weight class that is over 160 pounds. 6) The lowest four new NFHS high school weight classes are 106, 113, 120, and 126. The lowest college weight class for men is 125 pounds. This means that high school boys have three weight classes in which they can wrestle as they grow into the lowest college weight class. On the other hand, the lowest college weight class for women is currently 97 pounds; the second-lowest college weight class is 105.5 pounds. It is nonsensical that the lowest college weight class for women is 9 pounds lower than the lowest NFHS high school weight class. Where are the women who wrestle at the lowest weight classes in college expected to get their training? Arent high school girls expected to grow? The NFHS weight classes, as
8

currently defined, systematically deny a significant number of high school girls the opportunity to participate simply because they do not weigh enough, even though these girlsweights are within normal range and they are heavy enough that womens college wrestling teams offer weight classes corresponding to their weight. Raising the lowest high school weight class from 103 to 106 when the lowest college weight class for women is 97 and the second-lowest college weight class for women is 105.5 is not only inappropriate; it is downright hostile. 7) The NFHS weight class options rationale document that the NFHS Wrestling Rules Committee issued and that discusses each of the original 4 weight class change options states that the weight classes in one of the options are consistent with the 5th - 95th percentile data on weight for adolescent males aged 15-19. Clearly, the wrestling rules committee had males in mind when it considered the appropriateness of the various weight class options. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that it also had females in mind, because none of the weight class options that were considered were consistent with CDC data on weight for adolescent females. In fact, these weight classes were extremely inappropriate for females. The impact of imposing these new weight classes on girls is detrimental and discriminatory. 8) As further evidence that the new NFHS weight classes are inappropriate for females, we note that five states offer a separate, girls-only high school state wrestling championship tournament for girls at the end of their high school seasons. In all of these tournaments, the weight classes used for girls differ from the NFHS weight classes. The weight classes at these girls-only tournaments tend to start lower and be concentrated at the lower end of the NFHS weight class spectrum; they also have more lighter weight classes and fewer heavier weight classes than the new NFHS weight classes. In three states, Maine, California, and Washington, girls wrestle on boys teams in the NFHS weight classes all season, but are offered their own, separate, end-of-season, girls-only state tournament. In the two other states, Texas and Hawaii3, girls actually have their own wrestling programs separate from the boys programs. The following table (Table 5) shows the weight classes used by all five states that offer separate girls-only high school state tournaments, the old and new NFHS weight classes from Table 1, and the weight classes that the United States Girls Wrestling Association (USGWA) will use in 2012.
Table 5. Comparison of NFHS Weight Classes, Current Girls-only Tournament High School Classes, and USGWA classes for use in 2012.
Old NFHS classes New NFHS Classes Maine Girls Hawaii Girls California
3

98 100 98

103 106 103 105 103

108 108

112 113 112 110 114

116 116 118

119 120 120 122 122

125 126 124 126

130 132 128 127 -

135 134 132 132

140 138 142 138

145 145 142 146

152 152 152 157 154

160 160 165 165

171 170 177 -

189 182 180 189

215 195 -

220 222 235

285 285 250 -

See http://matsidehawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/State-Wrestling-Girls-2011-updated-2-7.pdf

Girls Texas Girls Wash. Girls USGWA

95 -

102 103 103

108

110 112 112

116

119 119 120

125 124

128 130 128

135 133

138 140 139

148 145 146

152 154

165 160 165

171 180

185 -

215 250

285 -

Note that while both sets of NFHS weight classes (new and old) have only two weight classes below 119/120, the girls weight classes in four of the states have more: Maine and California both have 5 classes below this threshold, Hawaii has four, and Texas has three. In these states, all of the girls weight classes start well below 103, not to mention 106: the lowest weight class in Texas is 95, in California and Maine it is 98, and in Hawaii it is 100. The Washington state girls tournament uses the same weight classes as the NFHS, with the exception that it omits two of the upper weight classes, presumably because there are not sufficient female wrestlers at these heavier weights to warrant the need for these classes. In fact, while the new weight classes proposed by the NFHS include five weight classes that are 170 pounds or more, all of the girls tournaments include only two weight classes that are 170 pounds or more. NFHS state member associations are not required to subscribe to the rules that are defined by the NFHS. Many NFHS state member associations tend to adopt NFHS weight class changes by default or routinely, but such adoption is not a requirement. State associations have discretion as to whether or not they follow NFHS rules. One reason that state associations tend to comply with NFHS rules is that these associations perceive there to be negative ramifications of noncompliance. For example, states that do not follow NFHS rules for a sport are excluded from participating in the rules making process for that sport and thus would be unable to effect changes regarding that sport within the NFHS. We offer the following response to this rationale for adopting NFHS rules: 1. It must be remembered that the NFHS, as a member association, gets all of its authority from the state associations that are its members. It exists to serve its members, not vice versa. If the rules that the NFHS defines are objectionable, the state associations are not under any obligation to follow them. Similarly, each state association gets its authority from the State Board of Education and its local school systems. The state associations exist to serve all athletes, both male and female, while preserving equal opportunity, and as such they are obligated to make decisions that support that mission. 2. We agree that it would be desirable for state associations to be able to effect change within the NFHS. That is why we are urging that each state association immediately exercise its rights and responsibilities as an NFHS member by formally requesting that the NFHS Board of Directors initiate a review of the wrestling weight class changes with the intention of revising them to eliminate their discriminatory effect on girls. The NFHS has already indicated, in writing, that it would be entirely appropriate for state associations to request a review of the weight class changes by the NFHS Board. We urge state associations to do so immediately, without wasting any more time.

10

3. It is inexcusable for the state associations to take the path of least resistance and go along with NFHS rules when doing so will result in a violation of Title IX regulations. 4. It is instructive that at least two states, New York and Montana, have not complied with NFHS wrestling weight class rules for many years. Both of these states have a weight class below the old 103 pound weight class: New York has a 96 pound class and Montana has a 98 pound class. While it is true that neither of these state associations has a representative on the NFHS wrestling rules committee, it is certainly not the case that these associations are unable to effect change within the NFHS. In fact, the Executive director of New York States NFHS member association, Ms. Nina van Erk, is the President of the NFHS. It seems questionable that these state associations are suffering from questions regarding their competency or expertise as a result of their deviation from NFHS rules. The examples of New York and Montana seem to suggest that any dire consequences that NFHS state member associations predict will ensue as a result of deviating from NFHS rules may be overstated. 5. Even more instructive is the fact that the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) has announced that it will not be adopting the recently-announced NFHS wrestling weight class changes. The MHSAA Council voted to maintain the current weightclass structure of 103, 112, 119, 125, 130, 135, 140, 145, 152, 160, 171, 189, 215 and 285 pounds; and will study the new Federation structure of 106, 113, 120, 126, 132, 138, 145, 152, 160, 170, 182, 195, 220 and 285 pounds during the coming 2011-2012 school year. Therefore, not only is there precedent in the form of New York and Montana deviating from NFHS weight classes in the past; there is now additional precedent in the form of MHSAA refusing to adopt the new NFHS weight classes for the upcoming 2011-2012 wrestling season. 6. While NFHS state member associations may contend that deviating from the national standard would negatively impact their states student athletes, we contend the opposite: conforming to the national standard in the form of these new weight classes would negatively impact each states female athletes. Deviation from the NFHS rules is imperative in order to provide equal protection for these girls. Rejecting the NFHS weight class changes and keeping the weight classes as they have been for many years is in the best interest of all high school athletes. New York and Montana have stood their ground for years and deviated from the NFHS weight classes by offering an additional low weight class. Michigan has voted not to adopt the new NFHS weight classes for use next year. All other states can and should also reject these new weight classes, because the discrimination that would result from their adoption is not only contrary to their missions; it is unlawful. It is worth pointing out that a three-part test is used to assess whether an institution is in compliance with Title IX regulations: (1) whether the athletic participation opportunities for males and females are substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments, (2) whether the institution has a history and continuing practice of expansion of athletic programs for the underrepresented sex, or (3) whether the recipient has fully and effectively accommodated the interests and abilities of its female students, even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports. Adoption of the new weight classes, which would
11

reduce overall wrestling opportunities for females as a class (thereby contradicting part two of the test) and which would remove an existing wrestling opportunity from current lightweight female wrestlers (thereby contradicting part three of the test), would make it challenging for NFHS state member associations to assert that they are meeting Title IX regulations through compliance with the second or third options above. To protect the interests of girls who are currently participating in wrestling and who may want to participate in wrestling in the future, NFHS state member associations must not adopt these NFHS weight classes. No weight class changes should be adopted unless they are crafted in a manner that preserves equality of opportunity and that has as its goal the expansion of wrestling opportunities allincluding those females and lighter-weight males whose weights were not represented in the weight data that the NFHS used to determine the new weight classes.

12

References [1] http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=5159 [2]http://www.wrestlingusa.com/02%20wusa%20web%20root/PDF/56%20Feb/22%20ne ws.pdf [3] http://www.nfhs.org/Participation/SportSearch.aspx [4] http://www.gazette.net/gazettecms/story.php?id=3018 [5] http://www.cowrestling.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8389 [6] http://www.illinoismatmen.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37806 [7] http://www.mdwrestling.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=25390 [8] http://www.sungazette.com/page/content.detail/id/563414/New-high-school-weightclasses-change-wrestling.html?nav=5017 [9] http://www.scribd.com/doc/56876490/Wrestling-Complaint-Equal-Protect-Violation [10]http://www.mhsaa.com/News/PressReleases/tabid/224/articleType/ArticleView/articl eId/295/Spring-Representative-Council-Meeting-Recap.aspx [11] http://matsidehawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/State-Wrestling-Girls-2011updated-2-7.pdf [12]http://www.cifstate.org/sports/regional/girls_wrestling/StateHandbookJan142011.pdf [13] http://www.usgwa.com/events/info.php?file=me1 [14] http://amarillo.com/sports/high-school-sports/2011-02-27/girls-state-wrestlingchampionship-results [15] http://www.wiaa.com/subcontent.aspx?SecID=319 [16] http://www.usgwa.com/ [17]http://www.themat.com/section.php?section_id=5&page=ranking_details&RankingID =1310 [18] http://www.themat.com/section.php?section_id=5&page=college_women [19] Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.

13