Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dclark145

Time Magazine Article on Title IX

Recommended Posts

An important question would be something like...

 

If you answered yes to wanting to play a sport in college, please indicate the amount of time you'd allocate for training every week:

 

a) 15-20 hours per week

b) 8-15 hours per week

c) 0-8 hours per week

 

The answers would indicate:

a) varsity sport

b) club sport

c) intramural sport

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Women's wrestling doesn't do anything to save men's wrestling when the main reason wrestling programs are cut is money. T9 just makes it so the men are cut before anything is cut from the women's side.

 

You can add women's wrestling and then, assuming there are enough athletes to fill the teams, you will be left with only women's wrestling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NCAA has also not seen enough of a push from member institutions to get it as an emerging sport. The NAIA programs adding women's wrestling don't count -- one of those things where the NCAA doesn't acknowledge the NAIA exists.

 

The NAIA uses the NCAA rule book. I always find it interesting that they default to the NCAA where they have no voice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was possibly done some time ago given all the different attempts to deal with the 'unintended consequences' (I only quoted that because it's not my term) but it would be interesting to see what total amount of money is spent and brought in (hence a net cost) per student by gender - since Title IX makes no mention of sports but is an in general rule for educational institutions receiving federal funds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Women's wrestling doesn't do anything to save men's wrestling when the main reason wrestling programs are cut is money. T9 just makes it so the men are cut before anything is cut from the women's side.

 

You can add women's wrestling and then, assuming there are enough athletes to fill the teams, you will be left with only women's wrestling.

 

yes i suppose that moots the general appeal of female wrestling at least with regards to title IX.

 

still plenty of other good reasons to support women wrestlers! and in the long run it'll help making wrestling more popular, thus worth more to the universities and then less likely to be cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JB - I like your idea on the survey for all incoming full-time, potentially eligible freshman. And I believe it would be step in the right direction, and would give potentially realistic data on the true opportunities that a school needs to provide for all extracurricular activities.

 

I believe this has been done before back in the early 70s after the law was passed, but for one reason or another this method was deemed insufficient and the U.S. Courts (Supreme or Circuit, I dont remember), basically held that the only way to comply with the law was proportionality. But, perhaps, if an interested group really looks into it, they could come up with a survey method that would be acceptable and better geared to achieve the intent of the law.

 

It's been about 15 years since I comprehensively studied Title IX (I had to write a thesis and make a presentation to a panel when I was in school), so I don't remember all the details anymore. Actually, the biggest thing I remember about that presentation was my shock and fear when i realized I had been assigned to present my presentation to an all-women panel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was intrigued by Mr. Bryant’s pursuit of a working survey.

I looked around for a similar study to support his thesis.

By the way, he’s right …that WSF bunch are wearing some tough britches.

 

“Males play sports much more than females even in contemporary US” (November 28, 2012).

This research, led by Ph.D. Robert Deaner, associate professor of psychology (GVSU) supports previous questionnaire studies that have consistently shown that females’ self-reported desire to participate and excel in sports is lower than males.

http://www.gvsu.edu/gvnow/index.htm?art ... BA6635DF4F

 

Deaner said: “Much evidence indicates that men experienced an evolutionary history of physical competition, both one-on-one and in coalitions. We thus hypothesized that, compared to girls and women, boys and men will possess a greater motivational predisposition to be interested in sports, especially team sports."

…"Sports are one such area because they function as arenas of physical competition, and men have, on average, experienced greater physical competition throughout human evolutionary history,”

 

Deaner discussed Title IX: “It’s only been 40 years since Title IX was passed and, in some ways, we still have a long way to go to provide truly equitable opportunities. But our results do show that the oft-repeated claim that the sex difference in sports is ‘only a myth’ is bogus.

In reality, there is a large difference, it’s fairly easy to measure it, and there is no indication that it will be disappearing any time soon.”

 

Deaner also emphasized the continued importance of Title IX. “We certainly don’t dispute the need for Title IX or its tremendous benefits.

Our results do suggest, though, that it’s probably a mistake to base Title IX implementation on the assumption that males and females have equal sports interest, or that this could be easily achieved”

 

* In Study 1, the researchers analyzed the American Time Use Survey, in which 112,000 adults were interviewed regarding their activities during one day.

Women accounted for 51 percent of exercise (i.e., non-competitive) participations but only 24 percent of sports participations.

 

* In Study 2, the authors made systematic observations of sports and exercise at 41 public parks in four states.

Women comprised 37 percent of exercise participations but only 12 percent of sports participations.

 

* Study 3 was based on surveys of intramural sports at 34 colleges and universities. It revealed that women accounted for only 26 percent of roughly 200,000 registrations.

In addition, nine institutions provided historical intramural data, and these did not indicate that the sex difference has been diminishing.

 

These findings were published online at: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049168

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When sports are cut based on gender, isn't that actually what title IX was intended to stop, unfair treatment based on gender?

 

Title IX; 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.

 

So, in my mind, small that it may be, if a sport like wrestling is cut, because of numbers of male athletes being higher than female athletes, then a male wrestler is being denied participation on the basis of sex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thread.

 

It is a shame. It is political correctness at its worst. There should be a different safe harbor method.

The one without using football athletes does make a lot of sense.

 

It is really a shame that the SEC does not have wrestling as well as Ivy League schools Dartmouth and Yale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article and discussion. A few points.

 

1. The article goes off on some dead-ends but does well to focus on disparate interest levels. That's they key in this whole debate: the disgraceful failure of current regulations to consider whether the genders' interests are accommodated equally. It exposes what's going on for what it is: government-mandated social engineering that is not concerned at all with fairness or equality, but rather with increasing female participation in athletics, period -- even if it means cutting mens' teams to do so.

 

2. The interest prong, by the way, is how the Title IX regs should be amended and fixed. Right now, the interest prong (one of the two ways other than proportionatlity to comply with Title IX) requires "full and effective accommodation of the interests of the underrepresented sex." That makes no sense, as it requires a school to fulfill ALL female interests, even if only half or a quarter of male interests are accommodated. A more fair reading would say: "accommodation of the interests of the underrepresented sex to an extent that is at least proportional to the interests of the overrepresented sex." In other words, as long as you accommodate both genders' interests to the same degree, you're in compliance.

 

3. For now, we're stuck with the original language of the interest prong, but it should at least be made into a safe harbor by creating predictable rules where compliance is easily demonstrated. To the credit of the Dept. of Ed under the Bush Administration, they issued regs in 2005 that would do this, including a standardized email survey. It was eminently sensible, but the NCAA decided to pick the wrong side in this political dispute, and came out against the regs. Cut to 2010, by which time political control of the Executive Branch changed hands, and those 2005 regs were, predictably, rescinded.

 

4. Also in 2010, the. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights chastised the Dept. of Edudcation on this issue, and endorsed the view of considering both genders' interests, and using standardized surveys to measure interest. But that will fall on deaf ears. More politics.

 

5. Omitting football players from the head-count is not a good argument. It sounds too much like we're saying, "can't we pleeeease discriminate in just this ONE area?" Its politically untenable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this has been brought up before but nowhere does it say to provide equal opportunity- what it says (not necessarily how it's interpreted) is you have to provide equal INopportunity. You can't deny anyone an opportunity based on gender.

If you provide 10 spots for each gender and have 20 of one gender and 10 of the other asking for the opportunity- haven't you denied 10 of one gender and none of the other?

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...