For those unaware, Title IX says, in very general terms, that women must have equal access to athletics in college as do men.
My presumption is that the Men’s football team is not considered something to which women have equal access mostly because, genetically, women tend to be smaller physically than men. Okay, fair enough. So, you form another type of team for women only. Maybe a girls’ football team. Maybe a basketball team. Whatever it is, you need to give women equal opportunities. Fine.
But what about GUYS who are smaller due to genetics and are never going to be able to make a sports team like football or basketball? Why aren’t they considered to be left out and have something set up for us folks who aren’t 6’2" 225 lbs?
Because they lack political clout. If they were to form a lobbying organization with a substantial voting block, you can bet your sweet ass that there would soon be a Title X.
It’s even worse than this. Title IX doesn’t require that women get access to sports; it only requires than men not get more than women. The cheapest and easiest way to comply is for the school to do away with a certain amount of men’s atheletics, which is what is actually occurring.
Title IX has failed on both a theoretical and a practical grounds.
small men can play soccer, cox in a rowing boat, or play some positions in rugby (one of the irish international players is 5’6’’).
or there’s archery, showjumping, 3 day eventing, field hockey, target shooting, trampolining, track and field, gymnastics, cross-country running, judo, swimming, cycling, tennis, squash, table tennis,lots of stuff.
being physically unsuited to one sport does not make you physically unsuited to all sports.
find the right one for you.
i’m 5 foot nothing, 98 llbs, not fond of ballsports and obviously a girl… i was a cox for the university boat club.
the men’s boat club.
because they had an opening, and the ladies club didn’t.
because there aren’t enough short, skinny men who want to spend their spare time screaming at 8 men while they freeze to death in a small boat.
women’s sport is not inferior to men’s in any way, it just doesn’t have the same following.
sportswomen do not lack skill, dedication or talent, they generally just lack funding and interest.
Seems perfectly fair to me. Oh, and based on the increase in the rates of women graduating with law, medical, and assorted other formerly male dominated degree programs, I’d say that it’s working.
I’m not really sure why so many conservatives have a problem with it, as it was Nixon who signed it into law. Did Bob Jones U. disband their football team over this?
Conservatives do have a big problem with women in sports, to quote Bob Novak on Crossfire “sports are a masculine activity and women are forced against their will by feminists to participate.”
The Weekly Standard had a recent cover story claiming the reason women’s sports has any following at all is because men like to look at pretty women pretending to play sports.
Screw it. Dump all university sports and make them learn. After years of post-grad work and teaching, I still wonder why “he can run fast” is reason to take scholarships away from “she can think good”.
Because the point of Title IX is not to ensure that people can be on a sports team. As december points out, it doesn’t require that there be any teams. It’s not even really about sports or colleges,or even just students. It’s about prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex at educational institutions receiving federal funds.
.
And while december may be correct that the easiest and cheapest way to eliminate any inequity is to cut men’s teams, it isn’t the only possible way. They could, for example, provide less support to the men’s teams than they currently do, freeing up money for women’s teams and let the teams make up the difference on their own. Plenty of participants (or their parents)in every sport finance their own participation in one way or another, whether by paying fees, providing their own equipment, transportation and lodging, acquiring sponsors, having fundraisers, etc. Why is this suddenly impossible for participants in certain intercollegiate sports? Why can’t the athletic budget start by giving all sports with sufficient student interest and a bility a certain basic level of support ( say a field, lockers and coaches) to build on? The colleges make the choice to do away with some men’s teams, but the law gets the blame.
I’ll start by saying my understanding of Title IX is that athletic opportunities for men and women must be proportionally equal. Basically this means that if there are 40% women on campus, 40% of all the people competing in athletics needs to be women. If not, and if the opportunities for that many are not there, the college is in trouble.
It is sort of said in this:
Having said that, and I think having that supported by the above link (I’ll find more if need by), I think many colleges are cutting men’s programs because that will automatically make the percentage of programs available to women increase. Thus, as december pointed out, this is the way most colleges are going.
irishgirl I think it is great you were able to go on a men’s team. I’m not arguing that there are other opportunities. In a round about way, you made my point. Why can’t the men’s football team be considered an athletic opportunity for women? Or any men’s sport? Why must women be given their own sports programs? If the answer is because they are generally smaller than men (NOTE: THAT IS NOT TO BE READ WOMEN ARE NOT ATHLETIC, NOR AS TALENTED NOR IN ANY WAY INFERIOR TO MEN OTHER THAN IN AVERAGE STATURE), then why aren’t the lines in sports drawn based on size, not gender?
doreen We found the same site. You pointed out that Title IX is about trying to eliminate sex discrimination. Although I think Title IX goes further in that it states that the opportunities and interests for men and women must be equal:
I return to my original point. Open all athletics to all people, and Title IX should be satisfied. If there is a cry that women aren’t really going to make the football team, my answer is that neither is 99% of the male population.
We should probably get rid of any other rules and laws that fight discrimination while we’re at it. Since we all know that racism has ended in this country, we can eliminate all laws protecting minorities. :rolleyes: Sarcasm aside, the average US male is 5.9, 180ish pounds, while the average US female is 5.4, 150ish pounds. In many sports, a 5 inch or a 20% weight advantage are huge advantages.
For the record, Title IX is not a quota system. Most schools who are in compliance spend substantially less on women’s athletics than they do on men’s. What they do do, is provide the necessary resources where there is a sufficient demand. It’s also not specifically about athletics; it’s about equality in educational institutions which receive federal funding. Athletics was just one of many areas in which our institutes of higher learning discriminated against women, and are therefore covered by Title IX.
Prior to Title IX, a US swimmer won two olympic gold medals, but couldn’t get a swimming scholarship to any of our universities, because they didn’t exist for one of the genders. Care to guess the gender of the swimmer?
The First Circuit Court probably said it best: “interest and ability rarely develop in a vacuum; they evolve as a function of opportunity and experience.” Title IX is about giving them that opportunity, in all aspects of a higher education.
I personally wouldn’t have a problem if all sports were open to all people- provided that they were actually open to all people from the earliest levels, with divisions based on size if anything. But they’re not.
Nope, but the audience that some men’s sports have doesn’t in itself justify not funding women’s sports to the same extent as men’s.
If I buy a ticket to the basketball game because I like to see basketball and support the basketball team, should the money from the sale of my ticket be distributed partially to the basketball team and partially to the field hockey team?
It wouldn’t take the elimination of all racism to justify eliminating laws protecting minorities. These laws aren’t free. They both help and harm minorities. There is considerable evidence that African American advancement slowed down after the passage of the civil rights legislation passed during the 1960’s. The facts and figures are laid out in America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible by Stephan Thernstrom and Abigail Thernstrom.
Okay, but how many olympic (american) football players do you know? None? Then why do we have scholorships for football players if it isn’t an olympic sport? Scholorships <> olympic event.
Is figure skating a scholorship sport for colleges? A quick google search turns up nothing that I can see. Should Sasha Cohen be up in arms about that? I’m guessing since there aren’t any for men either, the answer is she shouldn’t since it is equal for both men and women. However, Title IX isn’t about making the same sports available for both men and women. It is about making the opportunities equal. If someone picks a sport for which there are no athletic scholorships, why is that the fault of the college?
Said DMC
Please tell me where, anywhere, I suggested we get rid of laws which fight discrimination. Please. I’m pointing out the inconsistency of separating men and women because of gender size differences when, in fact, more than likely at least half the men are below average. (I don’t know the distribution of size, so it is impossible to say which group (below average or above average) has more members. If anyone knows the median, please post it!).
As you point out, anyone below average is at a very distinct disadvantage for both women and men. Apparently, though, only above average women are entitled to equality in college athletics. Anyone below average, men and women, aren’t allowed. Sounds fair, huh?
Good question- answer in my view is it depends. There’s a big difference between a college basketball team selling tickets at $5 a pop and running a snack bar to raise money, and one that is essentially a minor league basketball team with employees who are paid in free tuition rather than cash. In the latter case, it’s as much a business as any other run by the college (bookstore, cafeteria, etc), and presumably makes a profit. Why should that profit remain with the team rather than going into the general budget ? And if it doesn’t make a profit, or if the profit has to remain with the team, why bother? What good does it do for the college as a whole to earn a million dollars a year from TV rights for the basketball team if it has to spend a million a year on the team ?
Good question- answer in my view is it depends. There’s a big difference between a college basketball team selling tickets at $5 a pop and running a snack bar to raise money, and one that is essentially a minor league basketball team with employees who are paid in free tuition rather than cash. In the latter case, it’s as much a business as any other run by the college (bookstore, cafeteria, etc), and presumably makes a profit. Why should that profit remain with the team rather than going into the general budget ? And if it doesn’t make a profit, or if the profit has to remain with the team, why bother? What good does it do for the college as a whole to earn a million dollars a year from TV rights for the basketball team if it has to spend a million a year on the team ?
But the separation by sex is not caused by Title IX at all. In fact, if the school has only a men’s golf team, Title IX requires that women be allowed to try out. Title IX merely allows the historical sex separation to continue, and doesn’t require that the “excluded sex” be allowed to try out for contact sports.I see nothing in Title IX that would prevent teams from being divided by size differences as long as both men and women have an equal opportunity to try out and are equally eligible for any scholarships.. Not necessarily make the team, but try out. Not get teh scholarship but be eligible And that’s where the difference is between the smaller size men and women. The smaller men at least have the opportunity to try out for the football team, whether they do or not. The 6’2", 225 lb women don’t even get that opportunity .
You pointed out that Title IX is about trying to eliminate sex discrimination. Although I think Title IX goes further in that it states that the opportunities and interests for men and women must be equal: