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 men’s sports? This week is the 42nd anniversary of this famous piece of federal legislation so it’s 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 ...
I can explain how it went wrong with 4 letters:
NCAA
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.
bttt
It was never a good law.
It was not a “good law”, it was evil from the word go.
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.