Skip to comments.Title lX: How a Good Law Went Terribly Wrong
Posted on 06/27/2014 6:00:16 AM PDT by right-wing agnostic
A weary wrestling coach once lamented that his sport had survived the Fall of Rome, only to be vanquished by Title IX. How did an honorable equity law turn into a scorched-earth campaign against mens sports? This week is the 42nd anniversary of this famous piece of federal legislation so its an ideal time to consider what went wrong and how to set it right.
MORE Historically Black Colleges Are Becoming More White Report: California Colleges Must Do More to Combat Sexual Violence Friday's Top 6 News Stories NBC News What Happened When One Woman Had Her Picture Photoshopped In 25 Different Countries Huffington Post Ally or Enemy? Why Saudis Matter In Battling Iraq Militants NBC News Title IX was signed into law by President Nixon on June 23, 1972. In 37 momentous words, it outlawed gender discrimination in all publicly supported educational programs. Before its passage, many leading universities did not accept women and law schools and medical schools often used quotas to limit female enrollment. As for sports, female student athletes were rare and received precious little support from college athletic programs. The logic behind Title IX is the same as that behind all great civil rights legislation: In our democracy, the government may not play favorites among races or religions or between the sexes. We are all equal before the law including students in colleges and universities receiving public funds.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
It is highly debatable that it was ever honorable.
This is Time Magazine?
In our democracy, the government may not play favorites among races or religions or between the sexes.
Hey Time. America does not have a democracy. It is a representative republic... How do you not know that??
Another thing that should be pointed out is that there are sports like hockey, lacrosse and soccer that will never become Varsity sports because of Title IX.. Ask a AD at any college asking why they don’t have these sports and they will tell you flat out TITLE IX. I like her recommnedation of just exempting football from the law as their is no equivalent sport for women.
I was n athletic teen girl and a competing gymnast in high school a few years prior to title ix...All I wish is that we could have gotten equal gym time with the guys ... we got 2 hours on Tues & Thursday.
What women sports makes money?
I’m calling bs on your bs call.
Nowhere in the article is there a claim that all men’s sports make money. Your argument is nonsensical. Not a single title IX argument I have ever seen claims that all men’s sports make money.
I “have female athletes” - by which odd construct I assume you mean have close friends and/or family who are women athletes. But in spite of my close relationships to some women athletes, I am not blinded to the inequities of Title IX - so you are required to remove that little bit of sophistry from your argument.
You argue against a position that does not exist, and you argue something that is patently false. Your entire post is bs.
agree..I believe football and men’s basketball are the only revenuing generating sports in most universties along with maybe a womens’ basketball at some universituies with great programs (tennesee/uconn)
And how many other sports were competing for that time and space?
I’m not arguing that you are not justified in your complaint, but 4 hours/week might be double what every other sport was allocated, for all I know.
If men’s basketball had 4 hours every day - then you make a valid complaint. If, however, 27 sports were competing for gym time, and all the rest were allocated 35 minutes one day each week, your complaint is less compelling.
It’s not a case of which sports make money. The situation is far less females participate in college sports than males. Many male sports were thrown out for female sports programs only to find scant participation by females in the sports created for them.
I don’t agree with just flatly exempting football. The exemption should be gender and sport neutral.
Simply put - any sport that generates sufficient revenue to support itself, including it’s proportional overhead costs, is exempt from Title IX proportionality computations.
After all, the complaint is about institutional support, if the institution is not providing the support but, as in the case of football, the sport is providing support for other programs, then there is no reason for revenue sports to be part of the calculation.
This allows for women’s sports that generate revenue (e.g.Tenn WBB) to be removed from the equation also. So let’s assume a 50-50 general population distribution. Let’s say football, MBB and WBB all are self supporting. Then one should expect that among all the “supported” sports there is an equal distribution of men and women athletes.
If, for instance, the only self supporting sport is WBB, then there should be an equal distribution among all the remaining sports.
This is the only fair way to calculate things. In truth, one could make the argument that all self supporting sports and all the other sports that they fully support should be exempted from the equal distribution calculation - but that becomes somewhat more complicated and open to question.
Exactly. I had, among 11 my nieces and nephews, 3 who were good enough to play in college, 1 nephew, 2 nieces. One niece had several offers, but decided she didn’t want to play in college. The other niece played for one year in college, but decided she didn’t want to continue. The nephew played his 4 years in college, played in semi-pro leagues after college, and is now coaching in college.
Anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but I don’t think it is atypical.
The same way a law to stop huge corporations from dumping chemicals into rivers turned into a law that allows the government to control what you do with your own land if you have as much as a drainage ditch that runs through it.
The same way a simple law to provide for school lunches turned into a mechanism for the federal government to dictate every facet of a local school from curriculum to what type of wheelchair ramp they must install.
Basically, the overreach of government agencies with the willing assistance of liberal judges in a consorted effort to advance a radical agenda that could never make it into law by normal channels.
I was talking the gymnasts gym...where unevens, balance beam, and trampoline were...not total gym
And...gymnastics was a sport for women to compete in during that time...I think most of title ix is outlandish by trying to equalize all women’s sports
OK, thanks for that clarification; but what was the competition for that space that only allowed you 4 hours per week? Was the gym simply unused, or was it used by some other team?
It was only used by boys and girls gymnastics...boys got it 3 days a week...we got it 2 days a week...could have shared it some of that time...or had more equipment in another room
Why do you keep making arguments against non-existing positions? Nobody has ever claimed:
1) that all men’s sports make money
2) that money is not the crux of the issue.
Except your fictional debate opponent, whom you pretend is making such outlandish statements.
BUT, since we agree that it is about money, then you must surely agree with me that the revenue generating sports (which help support the women’s sports) should be exempted from the proportionality calculations. After all, how can you scream that women need better financial support, yet penalize those sports that generate a large portion of that support? (A little story about a goose that lays golden eggs comes to mind)
It also appears to me you are more interested in the goodies for your girls than you are in equitable justice.
My call of BS on your complaints has just gotten louder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.