Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dclark145

Time Magazine Article on Title IX

Recommended Posts

Did not read this article yet. (It is on my reading list tomorrow) But there was a very interesting article a few weeks back in the Chronicles of Higher Education on T9 and how the scope has been broadened to encapsulate things it was never intend to regulate or have schools responsible for handling. The biggest of which, being rape, which is now the biggest use of T9 cases on campuses and has lead to some controversial cases with schools including an incident at Occidential making headlines and even another recent case at Duke where a judge issued an injunction preventing Duke from expeling a student. (Sent via mobile)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did not read this article yet. (It is on my reading list tomorrow) But there was a very interesting article a few weeks back in the Chronicles of Higher Education on T9 and how the scope has been broadened to encapsulate things it was never intend to regulate or have schools responsible for handling. The biggest of which, being rape, which is now the biggest use of T9 cases on campuses and has lead to some controversial cases with schools including an incident at Occidential making headlines and even another recent case at Duke where a judge issued an injunction preventing Duke from expeling a student. (Sent via mobile)

 

 

I think a lot of people don't know that Title IX extends beyond just athletic departments. It really changes the dynamics of the whole campus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did not read this article yet. (It is on my reading list tomorrow) But there was a very interesting article a few weeks back in the Chronicles of Higher Education on T9 and how the scope has been broadened to encapsulate things it was never intend to regulate or have schools responsible for handling. The biggest of which, being rape, which is now the biggest use of T9 cases on campuses and has lead to some controversial cases with schools including an incident at Occidential making headlines and even another recent case at Duke where a judge issued an injunction preventing Duke from expeling a student. (Sent via mobile)

 

 

I think a lot of people don't know that Title IX extends beyond just athletic departments. It really changes the dynamics of the whole campus.[/quote]

 

This is true. Some way, some how, Men's football needs to be removed from the equation. It's a sport yes ... but more then that it's a business. And there is NO women's counter part. I don't have the numbers in front of me ... Yet, the UW Huskies pour a TON of money back into the school. Millions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, since football really is a big issue, and the money it generates is a big issue, we should require football teams to have just as many female players as male players? Most other sports have a male/female opposite but football does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Football really doesn't have an equivalent because of numbers. Football carries around 100 kids on a football team. I am not sure how many a volleyball team carries but I bet it would be closer to 20-30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I've been reading things correctly, the Judge in the Northwestern Football unionizing case recently ruled that football players are basically employees of the school. If playing football in college is now considered a job, do football players still count on the T9 balance sheet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't one-to-one for sports team it is a matter opportunities and this is judged based on rosters spots filled. This is the reason we can't have two NCAA team titles (dual and tournament) because this would make two opportunities for a team championship and thus make each wrestler count as two male athletes. (Note: a lot of individual college runners count as three college athletes between cross country, indoor, and outdoor track. )

 

Some schools actually do actually consider wrestling the volleyball balancer and try to fund the two programs equally.

 

It is interesting to note that softball and baseball are often considered comparable sports that balance each other but baseball requires many more roster spots making issues worse. Softball pitching is not considered damaging to your arm while baseball pitching is considered damaging. One college softball team can have as few as 18 athletes and only use three pitchers all season while baseball often has 40 athletes and regularly uses three pitchers every game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refuse to join any dogpile against Title IX. The faults lie within the douchebag AD's that chose to balance the sheets with cutting men's programs instead of adding women's. If anything on the men's side should be decreased it should be the number of football roster spots in order to free up funding and space for additional women's opportunities. Women's sports is NOT the enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Title IX expressly finds culpable; the contrary treatment (administration) of college teams as a result of their market values. If union football players are employees, wrestling (and others) may want to carefully look again at a financial ledger (NCAA) that ought not to be counting their money, as collected or expended by football (an entity) but rather as money collected or expended by and for individuals, students and athletes.

 

I’ve got no dog in this fight; just seems like there may have been a very unintended and very interesting sowing of the wind ….and that broom sweeps clean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was great about the article is that it was written by a woman. The argument is the same argument that male athletes have been making for nearly 40 years - but coming from a well-informed woman, the argument may have more validity and cause more people to listen. (One can only hope).

 

What the article didn't touch on was the other ways in which school can be in compliance with Title IX. Perhaps the easiest alternative compliance method to understand is that a school can be in compliance simply by offering equal opportunities to male and female athletes that have the desire to compete in athletics. For example, take a student population of 1000,where the school is 60% female and 40% male, but only 30% of females have the desire to compete in sports, and 75% of males have the desire to compete.Then the school's goal, under Title IX, should be to provide opportunities to 180 females to compete, and 300 males to compete. This way, all women desiring to compete have the opportunity, and all males desiring to compete have equal opportunity.

 

Due to funding, this may not be possible, so the school may only be able to provide an opportunity for 75% of the athletes to compete. In that case, the school must offer an opportunity to 135 females and 225 males. That way, the school is offering equal opportunities to the males and females based on the desire to compete and the budgetary constraints.

 

BUT, early on in the history of Title IX, schools realized that there were too many difficulties with compliance in the way described above because the schools would constantly be required to poll their students' interest in competing in athletes, and adding/dropping sports regularly based on a changing student body.

 

SO - school administrators found it was easier to simply assume that males and females had equal desire to compete in athletics, and offer equal opportunities based on the proportion of males-to-females in the student body.

 

The article doesnt get into any of that, which is really the heart of the issue (imho).

 

I think the intention of the law is great, and I think women should be offered the opportunity to compete in in college athletics, just as men are. But, there are more dynamics to consider than simply the "proportion of male-to-female student population." The original text of the law considered all of this, but the enforcement of the law has been flawed since day one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

flabigred - I am reminded by an essay from a few years ago by Dilbert creator Scott Adams. In it he said:

 

"It was a high hurdle, but a loophole made it easier to clear. We only needed a majority of students who said they planned to live in the dorm next year. And we had plenty of friends who were happy to plan just about anything so long as they could later change their minds."

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 3383496656

 

This is the problem with the survey system. It is fairly easy to get replies from people, both male and female, that would support the addition of sports. The problem is that many of these people would not have the ability to make these teams or would not actually go out for the teams if they were offered. Additionally, you may have 12 different sports that want to be added which can make no individual sport high in demand but the opportunity for additional sports in high demand.

 

The problem with the metrics used for T9 is that many people pick a school based on its make up and offerings prior to enrolling. It is hard for a women (or man) to say a school is not offering them an opportunity when they enrolled at the school knowing there was no opportunity for that sport. T9 treats all sports as equal without taking into consideration of the sports. If a small school has 30 women enrolling in the school that want to be on the soccer team each year they will have to make cuts. Many of these students will remain enrolled in school and not elect to transfer. The school may offer basketball, softball, and other sports but participation in those sports may be low since soccer is the preferred sport. This makes it seem, even more, that opportunities are not being provided when the opportunity is there just the students did not meet the standards required.

 

I am a big fan of T9 but there are many flaws in the application. It is important to know that students don't control a school (or rather shouldn't) but it is the board of trustees that control and shape a school and if students don't like the direction they should find alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Women's sports are not the enemy -- that's correct, the quota mongers like the NWLC and WSF that have a lot more money than the smaller men's coaches associations DEMAND and INSIST women's interest in sports is equal ... but they will never want that question to be asked directly UNLESS they want a new program at a school and can sue someone on their behalf. Most of their lawsuits aren't filed by anyone specifically, rather they file "on behalf" of women at a school who might not give two cents if there's a rowing team on campus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Women's sports are not the enemy -- that's correct, the quota mongers like the NWLC and WSF that have a lot more money than the smaller men's coaches associations DEMAND and INSIST women's interest in sports is equal ... but they will never want that question to be asked directly UNLESS they want a new program at a school and can sue someone on their behalf. Most of their lawsuits aren't filed by anyone specifically, rather they file "on behalf" of women at a school who might not give two cents if there's a rowing team on campus.

 

You're correct.

 

The reality is that these are special interest groups that lobby not for opportunities but for higher wages. By using the quota system and other balancing metrics they can ensure that women's coaching salaries rise due to the increase in spending for male coaches and since many of the schools are publicly funded they know that it won't put the schools in jeopardy. I would be interested in seeing the small private schools these groups go after. It only seems to be the schools where they can leverage more in the way of women's coaching salaries.

 

Here is an article from a few years ago before the numbers really started to balloon across the board... http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/c ... ease_N.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. . . . . . .

 

This is the problem with the survey system. It is fairly easy to get replies from people, both male and female, that would support the addition of sports. The problem is that many of these people would not have the ability to make these teams or would not actually go out for the teams if they were offered. Additionally, you may have 12 different sports that want to be added which can make no individual sport high in demand but the opportunity for additional sports in high demand.

 

. . . . . . . .

 

I am a big fan of T9 but there are many flaws in the application. It is important to know that students don't control a school (or rather shouldn't) but it is the board of trustees that control and shape a school and if students don't like the direction they should find alternatives.

 

Agree completely. That was my point, but I cut myself because I was trying to write a post, not an essay. But you are exactly right, the survey system is fatally flawed. But so is the proportionality metric. They both assume too much, yet neither is accurate (or even close).

 

And, people choose schools based on opportunities. If the University of Miami started a wrestling program today and hired DT and Ruth as the co-head coaches, the interest from wrestlers across the country to attend UM would skyrocket. But, as it currently stands, the interest of the current student male population at UM to have a wrestling program is probably non-existent. the State of Florida doesnt have a single D1 wrestling program, and that's not because the interest for Florida high school wrestlers isn't there. But the Florida high school wrestlers that want to wrestle in college, go out of state - where the opportunity is.

 

Title IX should stay - but the law should be amended drastically so that it could actually achieve the goals for which it was intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interested in finding out if an orgnaization with a stake in Title IX could do a four year study of female high school students from across the United Sates, beginning with their freshman years in high school, to find out their interests in athletics as freshmen, sophomores, juniors and then seniors. Say you have even a small portion of young ladies in that group (100,000), that would be a satatistically reliable way of recording the feeling of young women as they approach the decisions to be part of a collegiae athletics program of any sort.

 

With that, I understand that many of these organizations are already choosing to ignore data that reflects some of what I am suggesting. But it would be nice to see if, say, 48% of girls entering their freshmen years in high school participate in sports, but by the end only 31% choose to and WHY they chose to continue or not continue playing (lack of availability, family issues, cost, time requirements, changing interests, et al).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggested to more than a few athletic directors to include an athletics survey as part of the orientation process. You know the part in college where you go through some tests to figure out what level courses you need? We did this at what ODU called "PREVIEW" ... was a weekend thing where we checked out the campus (once accepted), did our tests and got information about campus associations and clubs.

 

I figured a 20-30 question survey that gave the options to ALL college-bound students couldn't be viewed as measuring only one part of the population to measure interest, rather EVERYONE.

 

So you could have say 5,000 incoming freshmen (full-time, potentially eligible students, not single moms, weekend dads, etc.) and then see what the levels of interest are. Questions like "Would you consider playing a varsity sport if the opportunity existed" and "How likely are you to play intramural sports during your four years?"

 

But this wouldn't just be used for sports. It could measure interest in different departments and clubs outside of a student's chosen major.

 

"Are you interested in campus radio or newspaper"

 

Then you'd have actual data ... rather than conjecture.

 

Guess who would vehemently fight this -- you guessed it, the NLWC and WSF. I'm sure they'd find some legal loophole to find the survey was discriminatory based on the questions asked.

 

I'd love to see this idea implemented somewhere. This way, we know when students are COMING IN to a school their interests. Then you look at a 2-4-8 year cycle of interest and see where potential interest lies.

 

Needs to be administered by the DOE, not any lobbying group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...