Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ConservativeStatement
“The College agrees that if, upon commencing the 2013-2014 season, it has not met 85% of its recruiting goal for women's intercollegiate sports at that time, it will halt its recruitment for men's tier II and III sports until such time as its recruitment for women's intercollegiate sports reaches at least 85% of the level outlined in this agreement..."

So, less participation by women would mean opportunities for men needs to be reduced? This is typical of liberal thought: it's not about opportunity, it is about ensuring a pie in the sky outcome.

7 posted on 10/04/2012 7:39:41 AM PDT by RobertClark (Be prepared, be polite, be professional and have a plan to kill everyone you meet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: RobertClark

I know there have been reduction and elimination of mens’ programs with Title IX included in much of the debate. Here is one column from 2011 that talks of the University of Delaware.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/sports/02gender.html?_r=0

From the column: “Rather than spend money on expanding sports for women, many universities have instead cut men’s teams in order to comply with the proportionality method. The practice is frowned upon by the Office for Civil Rights, but it is not prohibited.”


11 posted on 10/04/2012 7:46:45 AM PDT by ConservativeStatement (Obama "acted stupidly.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: RobertClark
tax the rich, feed the poor
’till there are no rich no more

You ever notice it is never ’till there are no poor no more? Same approach here.

12 posted on 10/04/2012 8:04:21 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Obama gives us the gift of downward mobility)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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