Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Zebra

Senator Birch Bayh Title IX author died today at 91

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Zebra said:

There is an issue with the regulations around this law an how the legal fees are funneled back to the lawyers for more Title IX lawsuits. That part of it has nothing to do with equality it has to do with a money making racket similar to what is now happening with California's Prop 65. 

I agree.  There are all kinds of issues. My point was just that a law that mandates opportunities for girls/women to play sports is a good law.  But when that law allows for compliance by eliminating opportunities instead of increasing them, then it's a bad law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, boconnell said:

I agree.  There are all kinds of issues. My point was just that a law that mandates opportunities for girls/women to play sports is a good law.  But when that law allows for compliance by eliminating opportunities instead of increasing them, then it's a bad law.

How do you fix that though? Title IX has increased women's sports teams hasn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, russelscout said:

How do you fix that though? Title IX has increased women's sports teams hasn't it?

How bout cutting down scholarships in football?  It would give more parity in the sport and I don't think they need 85 scholarships anyway, or however many there are.  Wouldn't that open up more for both men and women? Cut down football from 85 to 65 and open up more for other teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BHawk91 said:

How bout cutting down scholarships in football?  It would give more parity in the sport and I don't think they need 85 scholarships anyway, or however many there are.  Wouldn't that open up more for both men and women? Cut down football from 85 to 65 and open up more for other teams.

I agree that should happen, but it never will. Football is a cash cow for a lot of teams. What school is going to be cool with allocating less resources to the one sport that brings in the most revenue? And yes I realize not everyone is making money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, russelscout said:

I agree that should happen, but it never will. Football is a cash cow for a lot of teams. What school is going to be cool with allocating less resources to the one sport that brings in the most revenue? And yes I realize not everyone is making money.

I agree it will never happen because football brings in the too much money and the NCAA is only about making money now.  However, it might help some of those schools that currently have issues bringing in money even in football.  If Alabama can only have 20 5 star recruits now instead of 35, well those guys have to go somewhere.  And I know the 5 stars would just go to another big school but it would trickle down when you hit the 3 and 4 star recruits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BHawk91 said:

I agree it will never happen because football brings in the too much money and the NCAA is only about making money now.  However, it might help some of those schools that currently have issues bringing in money even in football.  If Alabama can only have 20 5 star recruits now instead of 35, well those guys have to go somewhere.  And I know the 5 stars would just go to another big school but it would trickle down when you hit the 3 and 4 star recruits. 

I don't disagree at all. However, no one outside of wrestling and a few other mens sports are thinking "how can we reform football?" It should be done, but even in state funded colleges, capitalism reigns supreme. Thats why wrestling needs to find a way to make itself economically viable within that system. It is the only way to guarantee its continuation... Well unless you were at UNO. It didn't matter there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birch died. The next thing he knew he was standing in front of the Pearly Gates. A distressed angel, wearing a shabby diplomat's suit says "I'm sorry, Senator Bayh, but we're only allowing Mormons in at this time due to unmet quotas". Bayh, distressed, replied "****. What am I supposed to do?". The angel looks up and says "Have you heard of Edinboro?".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, russelscout said:

I get what you are saying, but we really are not that far removed from a huge cultural shift; a time when women never worked, didn't have right to fill out a credit app without a man, and main responsibility was to get married and have kids. That is a huge difference and it will take time to change. There are girls who shoot hoops and play sports, but you are right, it is less. However, we have not completely abandoned those traditional roles of the past either. It may take some time, but it is happening.  

If you believe that sports are important for health and education of our youth, then you should want that for both sides. I know I want that for my daughter someday, for both health and the education standpoint. 

Also men are not entering elementary education or nursing at a high rate, but I can tell you from experience(my wife is a teacher) when it is time to hire someone, and its between a male and a woman at elementary ed, the male gets the job 90% of the time. There is more of an opportunity there for men, men just don't want to take it. Incentivize them and pay more, then I bet you would see more men.

Health and education of youth is not the same as creating equal opportunities (to mean equal numbers based on gender) to compete at the collegiate level.

Edited by jchapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jchapman said:

Health and education of youth is not the same as creating equal opportunities (based on gender) to compete at the collegiate level.

As far as the law is concerned it most certainly is. Collegiate sports are an extension of our education system. It is there for the benefit of our kids health and education. What do you believe sports are for? The law is stated as:

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.

Edited by russelscout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

College wrestling — like nearly all of college sports — only exists because others are forced to subsidize it.  College sports are subsidized by taxpayers, students, and, at some schools, football or basketball fans. Both women and men subsidize college sports.

Given all that, I think it’s ridiculous for wrestling fans to feel victimized because they’re not being forcefully subsidized enough. 

Lacrosse is in the same environment wrestling is in, yet it’s thriving. Maybe the wrestling community should stop feeling sorry for itself and instead try to figure out what it can do better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Katie said:

College wrestling — like nearly all of college sports — only exists because others are forced to subsidize it.  College sports are subsidized by taxpayers, students, and, at some schools, football or basketball fans. Both women and men subsidize college sports.

Given all that, I think it’s ridiculous for wrestling fans to feel victimized because they’re not being forcefully subsidized enough. 

Lacrosse is in the same environment wrestling is in, yet it’s thriving. Maybe the wrestling community should stop feeling sorry for itself and instead try to figure out what it can do better.

 

Well put!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Providing opportunities is encouragement.

Not necessarily true. I can give everybody the opportunity to eat liver and onions but very few will be encouraged to do so. Also talking away someones else's opportunity to avoid legal entanglements is not encouraging anybody and that is exactly what happened for more than 20 years. It still is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Katie said:

 

Lacrosse is in the same environment wrestling is in, yet it’s thriving.

In part because it is much easier to add both Men's and Women's teams at the same time thus avoiding proportionality lawsuits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, russelscout said:

As far as the law is concerned it most certainly is. Collegiate sports are an extension of our education system. It is there for the benefit of our kids health and education. What do you believe sports are for? The law is stated as:

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.

But there is discrimination.  Less talented athletes are cut, or not permitted to participate, at the highest levels.  I had a friend in high school who was not allowed to participate on the gymnastics team, based solely on his gender.  If there was no discrimination, there would me no gender based teams and no roster limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zebra said:

Not necessarily true. I can give everybody the opportunity to eat liver and onions but very few will be encouraged to do so. 

Yes, but if the culture tells people that they don't belong eating liver and onions and they biological would be against eating liver and onions, you can almost guarantee that they will not. Especially if all the liver and onions were made for one kind of person and not the other kind. This is part of the problem. Maybe you think we should be just be ok with them not eating it, because we pretty much talked them out of liver and onions from the beginning, but I don't think so. Maybe there is a process we need to go through before we can make people realize the liver and onions is a good thing or a way we could plate it to make it more palatable. I think its something we should encourage for everyone not just liver and onion fans. 

Thats enough of that metaphor. 

I don't think its right to allocate all this money to male sports just because boys are naturally rambunctious and not have something for women to. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jchapman said:

But there is discrimination.  Less talented athletes are cut, or not permitted to participate, at the highest levels.  I had a friend in high school who was not allowed to participate on the gymnastics team, based solely on his gender.  If there was no discrimination, there would me no gender based teams and no roster limits.

If you were to just accommodate talented men wouldn't change the fact that you are allocating more tax payer dollers for educational resources towards men than you are women. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, russelscout said:

Yes, but if the culture tells people that they don't belong eating liver and onions and they biological would be against eating liver and onions, you can almost guarantee that they will not. Especially if all the liver and onions were made for one kind of person and not the other kind. This is part of the problem. Maybe you think we should be just be ok with them not eating it, because we pretty much talked them out of liver and onions from the beginning, but I don't think so. Maybe there is a process we need to go through before we can make people realize the liver and onions is a good thing or a way we could plate it to make it more palatable. I think its something we should encourage for everyone not just liver and onion fans. 

Thats enough of that metaphor. 

I don't think its right to allocate all this money to male sports just because boys are naturally rambunctious and not have something for women to. 

 

To deny or justify what has happened (and sometimes still happening) to Men's wrestling in part because of Title IX is delusional. It is not the sole reason but it has been a significant contributing factor.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, russelscout said:

If you were to just accommodate talented men wouldn't change the fact that you are allocating more tax payer dollers for educational resources towards men than you are women. 

Correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jchapman said:

But there is discrimination.  Less talented athletes are cut, or not permitted to participate, at the highest levels.  I had a friend in high school who was not allowed to participate on the gymnastics team, based solely on his gender.  If there was no discrimination, there would me no gender based teams and no roster limits.

That's an insane leap based on a misunderstanding of discrimination. Discrimination based on talent is perfectly acceptable under Title IX for competitive sports. Title IX is simply meant to make sure that there are a fair amount of opportunity for both genders to compete if they want to.

Was there only a women's gymnastics team? If so, your friend was potentially discriminated against based on gender. Guess what law gives him legal recourse to address that...Title IX. Title IX does not just protect women. It protects all genders from discrimination. Now, because women started off so behind when the law was passed, most of its applications have been to protect opportunities for women. But as women increasingly close the gap, you will start to see a higher percentage of cases involving discrimination of men.

Did Title IX have an impact on college wrestling? Definitely. It gave administrations an easy way to cut a bunch of money pit sports and funnel the money to their bigger programs. That's an unfortunate loophole in the law. However, Title IX has done great things for college sports, opening up way more opportunities for women, and that has an amazing effect on society at large. It also is an important factor in protecting people from discrimination in non-athletic areas. If you're going to be mad at someone, you should be mad at the direction of U.S. universities in general. They are increasingly run like businesses which leads to bad incentives that miss the point of having higher education in the first place. You should also be critical of state governments cutting funding to public universities. That has a major effect because the universities become over-reliant on tuition for funding and therefore prioritize ventures with the potential to draw students like luxury dorm renovations and student amenities and huge football and basketball budgets instead of paying good wages to professors and staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Zebra said:

To deny or justify what has happened (and sometimes still happening) to Men's wrestling in part because of Title IX is delusional. It is not the sole reason but it has been a significant contributing factor.   

Title IX plays a part in the loss of college wrestling. However you cannot change the law to allow an unequal distribution of tax payer dollars to fix it. That would be sexist, and I am disturbed that some can see that as an non-issue.

The problem is that collegiate athletics were started and developed at a time where there was absolutely no concern for the equal treatment of women in the education system. We were happy to sit by an allow tax payer dollars to go toward a system created by men, for men, with no consideration for what that means for our society as a whole and how that affects the opposite sex. That cannot continue. Now here comes a law that fixes it, and a niche sport like ours gets all upset because we get axed when we can no longer take advantage of a sexist system that once propagated wrestling. 

You want to fight for wrestling? Support the growth of programs. Fight for women's wrestling. Pay $150 dollars to flo, go to duals, donate to clubs, whatever. But do not defend the old system that could never and should never survive in the 21st century. It is ludicrous to think that Title IX is the problem here because it is not at all. Did it create some undesired consequences? Yes, it most certainly did, but it is a small price to pay to guarantee equal treatment for the other half of the population in this country.

Edited by russelscout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, qc8223 said:

That's an insane leap based on a misunderstanding of discrimination. Discrimination based on talent is perfectly acceptable under Title IX for competitive sports. Title IX is simply meant to make sure that there are a fair amount of opportunity for both genders to compete if they want to.

Was there only a women's gymnastics team? If so, your friend was potentially discriminated against based on gender. Guess what law gives him legal recourse to address that...Title IX. Title IX does not just protect women. It protects all genders from discrimination. Now, because women started off so behind when the law was passed, most of its applications have been to protect opportunities for women. But as women increasingly close the gap, you will start to see a higher percentage of cases involving discrimination of men.

Did Title IX have an impact on college wrestling? Definitely. It gave administrations an easy way to cut a bunch of money pit sports and funnel the money to their bigger programs. That's an unfortunate loophole in the law. However, Title IX has done great things for college sports, opening up way more opportunities for women, and that has an amazing effect on society at large. It also is an important factor in protecting people from discrimination in non-athletic areas. If you're going to be mad at someone, you should be mad at the direction of U.S. universities in general. They are increasingly run like businesses which leads to bad incentives that miss the point of having higher education in the first place. You should also be critical of state governments cutting funding to public universities. That has a major effect because the universities become over-reliant on tuition for funding and therefore prioritize ventures with the potential to draw students like luxury dorm renovations and student amenities and huge football and basketball budgets instead of paying good wages to professors and staff.

Out of likes, but I like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Zebra said:

Not necessarily true. I can give everybody the opportunity to eat liver and onions but very few will be encouraged to do so. Also talking away someones else's opportunity to avoid legal entanglements is not encouraging anybody and that is exactly what happened for more than 20 years. It still is. 

Female participation in collegiate sports has skyrocketed and Title IX is a big part of that.  You are certainly mistaken that it is not encouraging anyone.  IMO, the manner in which most schools have chosen to comply with Title IX is  the contention most people have with Title IX.  Fair is fair, for males and females.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Female participation in collegiate sports has skyrocketed and Title IX is a big part of that.  You are certainly mistaken that it is not encouraging anyone.  IMO, the manner in which most schools have chosen to comply with Title IX is  the contention most people have with Title IX.  Fair is fair, for males and females.  

I never said, nor did I imply, that opportunity could not create encouragement just the blanket nature of the item I quoted. Nor do I think that opportunity can be "forced". In some cases I believe it has been and to the detriment of those who would have been otherwise willing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×