Article here.


Opponents' biggest problem with title IX:

The guidance proves that President Bush's statements against quotas are only rhetoric. The guidance allows colleges to continue using quotas, under the code guise of proportionality, which the liberals and feminists who run the colleges are eager to use.

Some proposed solutions to making the quotas more fair:

Walk-on athletes, who are not recruited or financed by the college, should be removed from gender comparisons, because they reflect the fact that men are far more interested in sports. Older women, who increasingly attend college but are beyond their athletically competitive years, should also be excluded.

At the very least, the Bush administration should have called for comparing the gender ratio of those who make the teams against those who tried out. If a higher percentage of women make the teams than men do, which is usually the case, then the college is probably not discriminating.

Their final argument:
It is unjust to limit the number of men in intercollegiate sports to the relative number of women in college. Discrimination should be based on opportunity rather than on equal results.

Just imagine what would happen if our military refused to enlist men unless an equal number of women enlisted.

Questions to debate:
A - Is it unjust to limit the number of men in intercollegiate sports to the relative number of women in college? With Title IX as is, does it balance the opportunities to pay for college to a level that can be called equal? How do intercollegiate sports programs figure into the mix? Shouldn't we only consider those athletes who are receiving funding for tuition? Essentially, isn't that what unequal sports scholarship opportunities do - entitle men to more chances to pay for college than women?

B - How is educational opportunity different than the military example stated above?

C - Do you have sympathy for the collegiate wrestling community, who do you blame for their demise, and what solutions could bring back college wrestling? Interesting article here
Editted to add: I was a HUGE Seton Hall wrestling fan before they were disbanded.

I have a huge problem for one reason alone with Title IX- that is the fact that women simply don't monetarily support thier sports like men do, so therefore, should not reap the benefits. Even womens sports are more watched by men. If not for men, the WNBA would cease to exist very quickly. Even at our little college here, womens volleyball and basketball, two pretty popular womens sports up here, are WAY WAY WAY more attended by men than women.

Question 1) Incredibly injust. If women want parity in thier sports programs, then go to the darn game! Natural market forces will work just fine in this area. If women want more soccor or volleyball or womens basketball or whatever, then simply buy the dang tickets and go to the game, believe me, the increased revenue will certainly make the U of your choice more susceptable to adding the popular sport of womens choice! The rest of the question to me is irrelevent- simply because womens sports are a losing proposition as long as they are not well attended.

2)Can you restate the question, not quite understanding this one

3) Yes, it appears there was a large fan base at Seton Hall, and it got screwed by this whacky law!

The statement:
"Just imagine what would happen if our military refused to enlist men unless an equal number of women enlisted."

Is it comparable to say

"Women deserve equal opportunity to earn a living in the military."
and
"Women deserve equal opportunity to get a higher education."
?


But I feel the difference between the above statements is that institutes of higher education are not as welcoming as the military.
The military will take anyone without discrimination (not including those who are medically unfit).

School of higher learning are very selective. They present everyone with the opportunity for academic scholarships. The can only offer athletic scholarships to those students for which they need athletes on teams that are present at the school. My question is that is it fair that men should have so many more opportunities to get athletic scholarships than women, thus creating an inequality in educational opportunities between genders? Just because the world is more interested in watching men play sports? Should institutes of higher learning just do away with athletic scholarships in general, be as selective as they want just as long as everyone pays for their own tuition? Or is it an educational issue - that participating in athletics endows athletes with characteristics that are desireable in the workplace and beyond? And that women should be entitled to that form of character development. Discuss....

It seems to me the number of spots availible to women in sports should be proportional to their demand, not to the number of women. As the second article states, men are simply more interested in sports and so there is a higher demand for men's sports. If schools are trying hard to recruit female athetes while turning away males, then the opportunities availible to each gender are obviously not in the correct proportion.

I think the question is more along the lines of how can we create equal chances for men and women to go to school? Ok, so women aren't as interested in sports - does that mean they shouldn't get as many scholarships as men? Maybe we need a new stipulation that women scholarships must equal men scholarships in some way. Maybe they only give men 3% of academic scholarships, and they give 97% of academic scholarships to women to create equal opportunity to get college paid for, because men are so much more likely to get athletic scholarships....

To me, the biggest problem is that college sports programs have become less and less about instilling a sense of athleticism and competition as a part of the educational experience, and more as an adjunct to, and prelude to, professional athletics. Sports programs in general should be proportional to other educational activities, and there should be equal support of women and men in terms of facilities and programs. Because certain men's sports have become huge cash cows for universities, many colleges have come to see them as necessary revenue-makers for the school - and that perceived need colors this entire debate.

The opportunity to participate in a program which can be an excellent part of one's university education should not be limited due to the number of people willing to pay to see it.

And academic standards should not be lowered for athletes.

So for your question "Is it unjust to limit the number of men in intercollegiate sports to the relative number of women in college?" I would have to say that under the surrent system, it may well be unjust - BUT, I think our entire current paradigm of college sports is wrong-headed.

Excellent point. Just because fans aren't willing to pay to watch public speaking classes doesn't mean that lawyers and politicians shouldn't learn to publicly speak.