Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Great! Let's let America fall even further behind in science and engineering, shall we?
Telegraph Blogs (U.K.) ^ | April 16, 2009 | Stephanie Gutman

Posted on 04/16/2009 12:25:28 PM PDT by Schnucki

The Obarmy Bunch have backed off some of their more...ahem...ambitious social engineering schemes. (They now say, for instance, that, for the time being at least, they're going to stick with Don't Ask/Don't Tell, the gays-in-the-military policy that works about as well as any imperfect military personnel policy can.) So I'm not going into full panic attack mode just yet.

However, when I read in the New York Post yesterday that O'Barmy has just sent a letter to womens' groups telling them that he is musing about applying Title IX, the law that requires universities to give equal funding to men's and women's athletics to university science and engineering programs, my blood pressure spiked to a level I usually only see after downing a couple of espresso coffees.

Let me explain: Title IX was a wonderful little federal law snuck in (via the courts so nobody noticed) during the Clinton years (years which also brought us priceless additions to the legal code like the "hostile and offensive environment" sexual harassment statutes in which a business owner, however far from his workplace, could be sued for maintaining a "hostile and offensive environment" if a plaintiff -- however bonkers, and most of them were -- felt offended by something as mild as a poster on a wall or the habitual look on another worker's face.)

Title IX dictates that universities (the hatching ground for all our significant athletes, of course) shall have federal funding for things like playing fields, basketball courts, and equipment drastically slashed if it is found that they are disbursing those federal funds in a sexually unequal manner, i.e. to more boys than girls.

The problem, of course, is that many universities just had more male athletes. That's just the way things shook out. The guys went in for stuff

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: clinton; socialism; titleix

1 posted on 04/16/2009 12:25:28 PM PDT by Schnucki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Schnucki
For NSF Research Experience for Undergraduate (REU) Program (summer research programs), male physics students have to apply for spots. Female physics students are invited.
2 posted on 04/16/2009 12:39:08 PM PDT by AZLiberty (I hope Obama changes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Schnucki

How would this work? Would he force women to enroll in science and engineering programs?


3 posted on 04/16/2009 12:42:40 PM PDT by mak5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mak5

>How would this work? Would he force women to enroll in science and engineering programs?

Would it be tyrannical? (Yes.)


4 posted on 04/16/2009 12:51:15 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Schnucki

Not to be jerky, but I could have done with seeing a few more boobs in my engineering classes. And I’m not talking about the ones that result from sitting around playing too much World of Warcraft.


5 posted on 04/16/2009 12:58:29 PM PDT by domenad (In all things, in all ways, at all times, let honor guide me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mak5

If the program doesn’t comply, it gets defunded. If they can’t raise alternate funding, it shuts down. Nice, huh?


6 posted on 04/16/2009 1:01:10 PM PDT by Jack of all Trades (Bait and Switch - that's change ain't it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Schnucki
Title IX dictates that universities (the hatching ground for all our significant athletes, of course) shall have federal funding for things like playing fields, basketball courts, and equipment drastically slashed if it is found that they are disbursing those federal funds in a sexually unequal manner, i.e. to more boys than girls.

This is how it has been applied. But here's the actual text of the main part of the law:

Title IX dictates that universities (the hatching ground for all our significant athletes, of course) shall have federal funding for things like playing fields, basketball courts, and equipment drastically slashed if it is found that they are disbursing those federal funds in a sexually unequal manner, i.e. to more boys than girls.

It was not intended to be limited to athletics. What Pres. Obama proposes is well within the scope of the law. It't not a novelty.

7 posted on 04/16/2009 1:02:10 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Schnucki
Whoops. Let's try that again:

Title IX dictates that universities (the hatching ground for all our significant athletes, of course) shall have federal funding for things like playing fields, basketball courts, and equipment drastically slashed if it is found that they are disbursing those federal funds in a sexually unequal manner, i.e. to more boys than girls.

That's how it's been applied, but it's not how it was intended. Here's the actual main part of the text of the law:

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, except that:

There are some exceptions. But overall this was by no means meant to be limited to athletics. From what I read of the law (found here) this was meant to be applied within the scope that Pres. Obama proposes.

8 posted on 04/16/2009 1:05:03 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Schnucki

This smacks of central-planning that can only be found in Stalinism and Maoism.

Using quotas to establish work functions rather than letting personal ambitions, talents and the marketplace determine careers goes well beyond the intent or practice of Title IX.


9 posted on 04/16/2009 1:10:25 PM PDT by kidd (Obama: The triumph of hope over evidence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Schnucki

For once in my life, I am not totally at odds with something Obama is proposing. But (as usual) he’s going about this bass-ackwards. My sister-in-law is an engineering teacher at a top engineering school. They would LOVE to have more female students (especially my SIL, who is really a proponent of women in science) but they just don’t get as many qualified applications.

What this administration ought to do, instead of putting it on the backs of the universities, is have programs to encourage girls of middle school and high school age to be active in the sciences and think seriously about engineering and science careers. Amazingly, even after all these years, girls are still discouraged from taking science courses or doing well in them. It does no good (and much harm) to REQUIRE universities to accept women in the sciences. They need to encourage it at earlier ages, so that there will be just as many QUALIFIED female university applicants in the sciences as there are male ones. Believe me, the universities will jump at the chance to accept them then!


10 posted on 04/16/2009 1:25:01 PM PDT by Hetty_Fauxvert (Q: How many Obamas does it take to change a light bulb? A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Schnucki

When you lie down with the dogs (accept Federal funding), you get fleas.


11 posted on 04/16/2009 1:25:04 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson