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.
I can explain how it went wrong with 4 letters:
They chose to interpret equal opportunity as equal head count and that screwed up everything.
Can anybody tell me what is wrong with women’s beach volleyball.
Seems like a foolish allocation of time and resources all the way around. No talent or ability can be properly developed and honed only 3 days/week, let alone 2!
Seems both groups would have been better served by daily access, with more thought given to available times. It sounds like somebody decided the gym was only available for 2 hours of the 24.
Too bad you got the short end of an already short stick.
I didn’t “scream that womens sports need better finacial support” I’m happy with the way it is now. I’ve been involved coaching sports for over 30 years (male and female) I recall very well what female college sports was like before Title 9.
You argue like a fart in a hot skillet - it’s hard to keep up with your changing arguments.
OK - so you like it the way it is now. So you are OK with boys who are eager and able to compete at the college level being denied a chance because of the current proportionality evaluation methods?
You like the rigid insistence that there be proportionally as many women athletes as men, when women, proportionally, are less interested in competitive sports? We should continue to deny the eager male athlete to hold a spot for a reluctant female athlete? You’re OK with that?
Are you truly interested in equity, justice and fair-play? Or are you just focused on more opportunity for women athletes (of which you produced 4) and male athletes be damned?
Do you disagree with a football exemption - even though football likely paid your daughters’ scholarships and funded their sports?
Nobody here, or in the article, has expressed a desire to return to what it was like before Title IX - so your recollection of what that was like, is irrelevant in this discussion. It is not simply a matter of “like it is now, or like it was back then”.
When more than half of the college wrestling programs are terminated because of Title IX, it is clear there is something wrong with what’s going on...but since you have 4 girls, you probably can’t be bothered to care.
To paraphrase you, I’ve noticed that all the strong advocates of Title IX as it is, have no boys in wrestling.
No female athletes in your family?
Please don’t ask me questions I have already answered in previous posts to you; it is an insult to me, and conveys your intellectual laziness.
I despise the grab for personal advantage disguised as “equality and justice”. Whether or not I, or you, or anybody else has “x group” in their family has no bearing on what is fair and right in any argument.
You appear to be more focused on getting all the goodies you can for your family than you are on what is right - and worse, you insult me by assuming that I have a similarly warped sense of justice.
If it is just, it is just for all, not just better for your daughters. If it’s unjust, it is unjust for all, and if you and your daughters benefit, you participate in the injustice.
You smugly (and ignorantly) pull out you “4 daughters” card as proof of your superior moral authority, when it truth, what this seems to show is your willingness to screw over others in order to benefit you and yours. There is ZERO moral authority in that position.
Why do you continue to respond to the direct question I have asked twice? - and here thrice - do you support the idea of exempting revenue generating sports, like football, from the proportionate participation calculations for Title IX compliance?
Your anecdotal claim that “they are out there” does not constitute a fact - and honest analysis consistently proves otherwise.
You call my argument nonsensical - yet more than half of the wrestling programs in the country have been eliminated - so my argument is not only not nonsensical, it is established fact.
You seem to be making the claim that colleges are willing to cut men’s sports, just so they don’t have to have more women athletes....and you call my argument nonsensical!
Your solution: “just add more females” is akin to the liberal minimum wage argument - “Just raise the minimum wage to eliminate poverty”.
I KNOW you love the football money, you have shown that you are all about getting yours. But do you have enough of a sense of justice to exempt football, which generates so much money to fund those opportunities for females, from the calculations?
Of course I do not support exepting football. Remember who fought Title 9 the hardest! I never said anything about wanting fairness or being moral. There is a system set up now where female athletes can get financial help to go to school. This is FAR better than it was before title 9! Is it perfect? No but it doesn’t have to be. Flame on this is one I like!
Well, at least you are honest enough to admit you simply want the goodies without regard to fairness or morality. You are perfectly content to leech off your football host, as long as you get yours. Why are you on a conservative board? You behave like a liberal.
You say it is FAR better than it was before Title IX - is it FAR better for the wrestler who lost his scholarship when wrestling was cut? How is he any different than your daughter? Is she somehow more worthy of a scholarship because of her plumbing?
You are perfectly willing to visit injustice on others in order that your pets can continue to suck the system.
Somehow, you think football’s resistance to Title IX justifies it not being exempt? They had a valid argument then and they do now - THEY provide the money that everybody else needs. How can you claim they are being sexist when they are carrying the load? Oh,that’s right, you don’t care about fair, as long as you get more.
Anyhow - you disgust me. Anyone who cares nothing about fairness or morality (although you used those terms I’m sure, when fighting for Title IX), but is only interested in getting what you didn’t earn from those who did, is no better than a welfare queen.
What will you do when the pendulum swings and your arguments are used against you? “It’s better for me, so screw you!” My only hope is that your daughter loses her scholarship and you have to foot the bill, and the new wrestling coach can laugh at you and say, “It’s WAY better for us now!” And when you whine about no money for women, he will say, “You want more money for women? Just go out and get it! It’s out there, I work with it every day.”
Nope - it’s not about me, it’s about what’s right. I’m not wishing bad on anyone’s child - unless you wouldn’t pick up the tab for your own daughter.
What “other side” are you talking about? The boys who had nothing to do with whatever happened to the girls in the past? Those boys? You get satisfaction seeing that “other side” feeling the pain? Don’t you think those boys are somebody’s children?
You think in groups and demographics - because girls had it tough years ago, boys today, who had nothing to do with what happened before, must pay the price, so the girls today can benefit - and that somehow “evens it out”. Your attitude perpetuates injustice.
And you tell me to lighten up.
I hope you seek help with these anger issues you have. Yes I’m still pistsed off at the football folks that fought against title 9 and still do because most of them are still around. That’s my problem. I can deal with it. Maybe try tennis next time?
I’ve got no anger problems - I just don’t like folks who fight for handouts at the expense of others, and don’t give a dang about morality or fairness...as long as they get their cut of the pie. So I don’t like you.
Like all liberals, you bad mouth the very people you depend on for your handouts - you love that “sweet football money” but you hat the football folks. Hmmmmm - you’re a peach, you are.
It was never a good law.
It was not a “good law”, it was evil from the word go.