Full Version: Title IX and Extracurricular Activities for Girls
QUOTE
Title IX creates double standard detrimental to male athletes
By Jasen Asay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something has to be done with Title IX, and my suggestion is to burn it like it was a bra in the 1960s.
Before you put the paper down and call me a chauvinist, let me explain. I am a huge fan of women's athletics. In fact, a major reason I started playing soccer at the age of five was because my two sisters were already playing. I enjoy covering local women's teams for this newspaper.
<snip>
This past week, a commission has met behind closed doors to see what, if anything, should be done about the law.
The main problem with Title IX is that it includes football, which has up to 80 male scholarship players. It usually takes two to three extra women's teams to equal the same number of athletes. At Southern Utah University, the Thunderbirds recently added women's soccer which, along with the gymnastics program, is still not enough to create an equal balance.
<snip>
But rather than add more sports for females, many schools are cutting out successful male programs.
In the last six years, more than 350 men's athletic programs at universities -- from baseball and wrestling to gymnastics -- have been eliminated to achieve statistical balance.
Originally published Monday, December 9, 2002
Full Article: Title IX creates double standard detrimental to male athletes
By Jasen Asay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something has to be done with Title IX, and my suggestion is to burn it like it was a bra in the 1960s.
Before you put the paper down and call me a chauvinist, let me explain. I am a huge fan of women's athletics. In fact, a major reason I started playing soccer at the age of five was because my two sisters were already playing. I enjoy covering local women's teams for this newspaper.
<snip>
This past week, a commission has met behind closed doors to see what, if anything, should be done about the law.
The main problem with Title IX is that it includes football, which has up to 80 male scholarship players. It usually takes two to three extra women's teams to equal the same number of athletes. At Southern Utah University, the Thunderbirds recently added women's soccer which, along with the gymnastics program, is still not enough to create an equal balance.
<snip>
But rather than add more sports for females, many schools are cutting out successful male programs.
In the last six years, more than 350 men's athletic programs at universities -- from baseball and wrestling to gymnastics -- have been eliminated to achieve statistical balance.
Originally published Monday, December 9, 2002
Full Article: Title IX creates double standard detrimental to male athletes
From the information I have seen, Title IX seems to be very much an "Elvis never did no drugs" situation. But I want to know your thoughts on this subject.
Possible questions for debate:
1. Should it be removed?
2. If not, then why is it not completely backwards to its purpose?
3. How might you change it if you could?
4. Do you personally know of anyone that Title IX has affected, either positively or negatively?
Speak your mind.
~Pau-Goat~
Edited to remove fully copyrighted article & replace with link in accordance with forum Rules
No it should not be removed.
Before Title IX professional schools had quotas on the maximum number of women that could be allowed into a program because women would obviously take those valuable societal skills and waste them by becoming a house wife.
In terms of athletics, Title IX has played an extremely valuable role in increasing the amount of participation in women's sports.
If athletic scholarship opportunities are not reasonably balanced then federal money would be participating in a system that systematically gives more free college tuition to men then women in perpetuity.
If I would change the system I would exempt football from it (probably after further limiting the number of scholarships in college football) because to get in compliance with Title IX, schools will either have to eliminate several men's programs or get rid of football.
If football is pulled out of the system, then everybody loses, because then the athletic system would lose its cash cow and all of the programs would have to go begging for money and scholarship opportunities would be dramatically reduced.
Before Title IX professional schools had quotas on the maximum number of women that could be allowed into a program because women would obviously take those valuable societal skills and waste them by becoming a house wife.
In terms of athletics, Title IX has played an extremely valuable role in increasing the amount of participation in women's sports.
If athletic scholarship opportunities are not reasonably balanced then federal money would be participating in a system that systematically gives more free college tuition to men then women in perpetuity.
If I would change the system I would exempt football from it (probably after further limiting the number of scholarships in college football) because to get in compliance with Title IX, schools will either have to eliminate several men's programs or get rid of football.
If football is pulled out of the system, then everybody loses, because then the athletic system would lose its cash cow and all of the programs would have to go begging for money and scholarship opportunities would be dramatically reduced.
All this is true, but it may be sagacious for everyone to click the full article and read it in it's entirety before posting. Title IX, though generally viewed simply as a sports-related issue is not. As quoted directly from the article:
So one can see that if this were the case to be fair to all concerned, the Lakers and the Cowboys would probably have a lot less fans watching.
And let's face it, a choir with mostly male members really wouldn't be all that audially appealing, now would it?
It would be like an expanded boy band but with a lot less girl members than N*SYNC.
~Pau-Goat~
If you think N*SYNC is where you put your dirty dishes... you might be worth talking to.
QUOTE
Contrary to what most people think, Title IX doesn't only deal with athletics, but it requires gender equality in all aspects of a school's operation. According to the National Federation of High Schools, female high school students outnumber males in all extracurricular activities except sports.
The Independent Women's Forum has calculated that if the courts were to require gender parity across the board, 96.4 percent of all female cheerleaders would have to turn in their pom-poms, and 35.8 percent of female choir members and 25.4 percent of female orchestra members would be cut. Thirty-three percent of female debaters would be denied the chance to compete -- all in the name of equalizing the opportunity for boys and girls in schools.
The Independent Women's Forum has calculated that if the courts were to require gender parity across the board, 96.4 percent of all female cheerleaders would have to turn in their pom-poms, and 35.8 percent of female choir members and 25.4 percent of female orchestra members would be cut. Thirty-three percent of female debaters would be denied the chance to compete -- all in the name of equalizing the opportunity for boys and girls in schools.
So one can see that if this were the case to be fair to all concerned, the Lakers and the Cowboys would probably have a lot less fans watching.
And let's face it, a choir with mostly male members really wouldn't be all that audially appealing, now would it?
It would be like an expanded boy band but with a lot less girl members than N*SYNC.
~Pau-Goat~
If you think N*SYNC is where you put your dirty dishes... you might be worth talking to.
I wanted to add my two cents in here on this since I have a personal perspective on this issue.
I was a swimmer in undergrad and I was lucky enough to get a little money for doing it. I support the goals of Title IX and I think supporting women's athletics is a good thing. I think the problem is that often, men's sports (such as swimming) are cut to form women's sports that have little to no participation.
For example, I know of one instance in particular where a men's soccer team was cut and replaced with a women's field hockey team. The field hockey team had such trouble getting enough women to play, they posted flyers around campus advertising that anyone could join the team, no matter what their experience. Now, I think that kinda thing is great for a club sport in college. I screwed around with club LAX and walked on barely knowing how to catch and throw. But this was a intercollegiate women's field hockey team. And it had replaced a men's intercollegiate soccer team, with a lot of very talented players, some on scholarship. This is not right.
As far as a solution, my only one would be to start in Middle School and High School first. Build interest in women's sports early, so that you will have experienced players by the time you get to the university level. If you have enough interest from experienced players in women's field hockey, softball or whatever, great. But don't replace an experienced men's program with a women's program full of rookies to the sport. It's not fair to anyone to do that.
I was a swimmer in undergrad and I was lucky enough to get a little money for doing it. I support the goals of Title IX and I think supporting women's athletics is a good thing. I think the problem is that often, men's sports (such as swimming) are cut to form women's sports that have little to no participation.
For example, I know of one instance in particular where a men's soccer team was cut and replaced with a women's field hockey team. The field hockey team had such trouble getting enough women to play, they posted flyers around campus advertising that anyone could join the team, no matter what their experience. Now, I think that kinda thing is great for a club sport in college. I screwed around with club LAX and walked on barely knowing how to catch and throw. But this was a intercollegiate women's field hockey team. And it had replaced a men's intercollegiate soccer team, with a lot of very talented players, some on scholarship. This is not right.
As far as a solution, my only one would be to start in Middle School and High School first. Build interest in women's sports early, so that you will have experienced players by the time you get to the university level. If you have enough interest from experienced players in women's field hockey, softball or whatever, great. But don't replace an experienced men's program with a women's program full of rookies to the sport. It's not fair to anyone to do that.
QUOTE(Pau-Goat @ May 14 2004, 09:08 AM)
the Lakers and the Cowboys would probably have a lot less fans watching.
And let's face it, a choir with mostly male members really wouldn't be all that audially appealing, now would it?
And let's face it, a choir with mostly male members really wouldn't be all that audially appealing, now would it?
The lakers and the Cowboys are far afield from this point. Not that I watch either for the opportuinty to see cheerleaders.
A don't know any reason why an all male choir would be by definition less appealing to listen to than an all-female one.
QUOTE
As far as a solution, my only one would be to start in Middle School and High School first. Build interest in women's sports early, so that you will have experienced players by the time you get to the university level. If you have enough interest from experienced players in women's field hockey, softball or whatever, great. But don't replace an experienced men's program with a women's program full of rookies to the sport. It's not fair to anyone to do that.
I think there is an even easier solution. Rather than force numbers matching (ala Title IX), craft legislation that provides remedies for desired women's sports programs that fail to receive sufficient support.
There is an even more generic problem (one possibly related to the situation you described) with Title IX. There really isn't a female equivalent, in terms of number of players, for football. Given the relative team size, it can take several women's teams to make up for this discrepancy. Since most other sports have a male-female participation (men's b-ball, women's b-ball, etc): the men's segment of these teams cannot be allowed, otherwise the numbers discrepancy created by football won't be overcome. This ties in with the issue you describe above--frequently viable men's programs are cut, and women's teams with low participation or interest are created, precisely because of the initial discrepancy caused by football. So, a really simple quick fix would be to exclude football from the Title IX mandates.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ May 14 2004, 05:34 PM)
So, a really simple quick fix would be to exclude football from the Title IX mandates.
I think that's a pretty good idea. Football is about the only sport that makes money anyway and for all the complaining about the perks the football team gets, if it was not for them, the others sports programs would be a dream. I know I got to swim in a great pool in college largely because of football money.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ May 14 2004, 01:34 PM)
Middle School and High School first. Build interest in women's
I think there is an even easier solution. Rather than force numbers matching (ala Title IX), craft legislation that provides remedies for desired women's sports programs that fail to receive sufficient support.
There is an even more generic problem (one possibly related to the situation you described) with Title IX. There really isn't a female equivalent, in terms of number of players, for football. Given the relative team size, it can take several women's teams to make up for this discrepancy.
I think there is an even easier solution. Rather than force numbers matching (ala Title IX), craft legislation that provides remedies for desired women's sports programs that fail to receive sufficient support.
There is an even more generic problem (one possibly related to the situation you described) with Title IX. There really isn't a female equivalent, in terms of number of players, for football. Given the relative team size, it can take several women's teams to make up for this discrepancy.
Actually, as a beneficiary of Title IX and a Div I varsity rower, I can attest to the fact that women's rowing is just as big and just as expensive as football. There were 55 girls or more on our team the four years I rowed, and the program was only growing. Each rowing shell can host 9 girls, and each shell costs $24,000 plus $250/oar x 8 oars per boat. In terms of numbers, facilities, and cost - women's rowing surely balances out football. And it paid for me to get through school, so I'm indebted to title ix forever. I hope it stays around, just like it is, ensuring my daughters will have an just an equal opportunity to get an athletic scholarship as my sons.
QUOTE(Hobbes @ May 14 2004, 01:34 PM)
Since most other sports have a male-female participation (men's b-ball, women's b-ball, etc): the men's segment of these teams cannot be allowed, otherwise the numbers discrepancy created by football won't be overcome. This ties in with the issue you describe above--frequently viable men's programs are cut, and women's teams with low participation or interest are created, precisely because of the initial discrepancy caused by football. So, a really simple quick fix would be to exclude football from the Title IX mandates.
Excluding football from title ix requirements would be unfair. If men's sports programs wanna complain about unequal funding, they should be complaining to the football programs that take up so much of the men's allotted funding per school. Or, they should go to a school that doesn't have a football team. There are plenty of schools cropping up that decide to use other men's sports as their cash cow, recruiting benefit and forsake football. The main point is that men and women will both have equal opportunities to go to college. If the situations is unfair, it's because the universities make it so. If enough male athletes refuse to attend schools that neglect their sport, universities will take notice and make changes, or else other universities will crop up to take advantage of the new market. Blaming Title IX for the athletic departments' poor allocation of funds is not only unfair, but a non-solution.
I'd be interested to see if programs that have more female participation (like choir and cheerleadin) have the same scholarship opportunities and amounts as football or basketball. My guess is "probably not".
I agree with Perspective on this -- it needs to be taken up with the school.
I agree with Perspective on this -- it needs to be taken up with the school.
QUOTE(jenreiautter @ May 14 2004, 11:54 AM)
I'd be interested to see if programs that have more female participation (like choir and cheerleadin) have the same scholarship opportunities and amounts as football or basketball. My guess is "probably not".
I agree with Perspective on this -- it needs to be taken up with the school.
I agree with Perspective on this -- it needs to be taken up with the school.
When checking out this information, be sure to check out whether football and basketball bring more money to the school then the choir or cheerleading teams. In most division 1 programs, the male football and basketball teams bring in more than enough to run their programs with extra money going to alternative programs such as women's soccer which at most institutions is unable to support its own program.
Title IX seems to take a micro management view of this issue. When one looks at extra-curricular activities as a whole, it seems that more women benefit than men.
It should be altered not eliminated.
On the other old thread of this- I stated my opinion as this: Capitalism baby! - If there are no female money making sports at a university, for that money to flow into other sports, than too bad so sad- buy bye.
Quarkhead had this to say:
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.
But my comment is: Isn't athletics just a new field of employment that a talented few can get a very lucrative career in? Does everybody that gets a business degree become a CEO- I bet the odds are no better than every football player getting into the NFL LOL- Athletics has now become a vocation- with some very high paid "jobs" to the talented ones that can make it in that field. The problem is, the only folks really supporting female sports through viewership, is still men!!
Where would the WNBA be without it's male viewership?
I am concerned about this issue, as I have a VERY VERY athletic daughter that will one day no doubt be looking at a scholarship to a university, perhaps in athletics. But I don't want my son's football program scrapped just because there are not enough women's programs either.
I think the real responsibility lies with the women in our culture- hey, you want more womens sports- THEN START WATCHING WOMENS SPORTS
Quarkhead had this to say:
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.
But my comment is: Isn't athletics just a new field of employment that a talented few can get a very lucrative career in? Does everybody that gets a business degree become a CEO- I bet the odds are no better than every football player getting into the NFL LOL- Athletics has now become a vocation- with some very high paid "jobs" to the talented ones that can make it in that field. The problem is, the only folks really supporting female sports through viewership, is still men!!
Where would the WNBA be without it's male viewership?
I am concerned about this issue, as I have a VERY VERY athletic daughter that will one day no doubt be looking at a scholarship to a university, perhaps in athletics. But I don't want my son's football program scrapped just because there are not enough women's programs either.
I think the real responsibility lies with the women in our culture- hey, you want more womens sports- THEN START WATCHING WOMENS SPORTS
QUOTE(Pau-Goat @ May 14 2004, 07:01 AM)
Possible questions for debate:
1. Should it be removed?
2. If not, then why is it not completely backwards to its purpose?
3. How might you change it if you could?
4. Do you personally know of anyone that Title IX has affected, either positively or negatively?
Speak your mind.
~Pau-Goat~
Edited to remove fully copyrighted article & replace with link in accordance with forum Rules
I don't believe that title IX should be changed in any way. Yes, sports like football tend to wreck havoc in terms of numbers. I believe that could be remedied by bringing back the "iron-man" player who plays on both sides of the ball. That could shrink the roster by a bit and not have players collapse on the field due to exhaustion. And why does a team need three people to kick a ball? You could also save positions by having the kicking chores done by one person, not two or even three.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.