Title IX: Good, Good, but..., or Bad

Started by Mr. Ypsi, December 27, 2011, 12:32:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mr. Ypsi

In response to a drift from the 'Purple Powers' thread, I'm opening this new one.

I have only sons (and a non-athletic wife, and non-athletic daughter-in-law) so have no personal stake in this argument.  But I DO think Title IX was one of the best things since, well, forever.  From NO women's sports at all when I was in school, we now have national tourneys in many, many sports.

Pretty much my ONLY reservation would be not taking football out of the equation.  Several decades after the rise of women's sports, I still see no real move towards women's football (still mostly derided as 'powderpuff football' and/or turned into a sexist fantasy: 'lingerie football' :P).  Since football has a much larger number of participants than any other sport, the result (to balance number of participants by gender) has been the dropping of many (minor :P) male teams.  (Here I DO have a personal interest: my older son was recruited by EMU as a scholarship soccer player, before they dropped the men's soccer team.)

I'm still very much a supporter of Title IX, but I'd have to go in the 'Good, but...' category.  What say you all?

Mr. Ypsi

Expanding on the previous post: is strict equality on numbers really fair?  As I understand it, athletic support (and number of participants) must equal the proportions in the student body.  But is sports participation/interest equal by gender?

Here is where I think the law breaks down.  My younger son's girlfriend (who seems likely to be daughter-in-law #2) is on the EMU cross-country team, yet is FAR less sports-obsessed than son #2.  I am truly grateful for the female posters here on d3boards.com (most are definitely WELL above the average of the male posters!), but the fact remains that 90-95% of posters are male.  Is there any evidence that anywhere near an equal number of potential athletes are female?  If not, isn't it true that female athletes are being unfairly favored over male athletes?

On balance (and considering past blatant discrimination) I strongly support Title IX.  But I do wonder if some tinkering might be in order.

AO

Would we have developed women's sports without Title IX?  is there any evidence of some great sexist collusion among administrators who tried to keep women from representing their school athletically?  Who would cut women's programs if title IX was eliminated today? 

FCGrizzliesGrad

I don't know how bad the sports scene was when Title IX was enacted (since I wasn't born yet), but currently pretty much all sports have both male and female versions. Basketball, soccer, cross country, baseball/softball, etc. all are offered to both genders. The only sports off the top of my head which are generally one gender are football, wrestling, and volleyball (of course I could be wrong)

I feel that as long as a school is reasonable and offers the opportunity for the same sports to both genders (besides sports like football which doesn't really have the female counterpart) that they don't need to use Title IX. That's not to say it should be completely done away with, but I think it's served its purpose in creating equal opportunities for females and can now be relaxed a bit to allow schools a bit more freedom to choose which sports they sponsor based on participant interest in each sport.
Football picker extraordinaire
5 titles: CCIW, NJAC
4x: ODAC:S
3x: ASC, IIAC, MIAA:S, NACC:S, NCAC, OAC:P, Nat'l
2x: HCAC, MIAC, ODAC:P, WIAC
1x: Bracket, OAC:S

Basketball
2013 WIAC Pickem Co-champ
2015 Nat'l Pickem
2017: LEC and MIAA Pickem
2019: MIAA and WIAC Pickem

Soccer
2023: Mens Pickem

smedindy

Quote from: AO on December 27, 2011, 09:05:11 AM
Would we have developed women's sports without Title IX?  is there any evidence of some great sexist collusion among administrators who tried to keep women from representing their school athletically?  Who would cut women's programs if title IX was eliminated today?

If you remember the 60's and 70's, it was bleak. My sister had no organized athletics in high school. The NCAA didn't even start sponsoring the women's basketball tournament until their hand was forced by the AIAW. Indiana had no organized high school sports for girls until 1975 and without title IX, who knows when it would have happened.

The money talked, and it would keep talking. It wasn't that long ago that a Big 12 school (Oklahoma) was seriously thinking of cutting women's hoops. Without some sort of regulation, there would always be those that would give excess largesse to football or other sports and leave the women with little or no scholarships, equipment or facilities.

The issue is that football and revenue sports consume a great deal of money and administrators and athletics directors are cowardly and looking very short term and not long term at the entire program. The issues in Maryland right now are due to inept handling of the revenue sports.

BTW, there is men's volleyball.

AO

Quote from: smedindy on December 27, 2011, 09:44:49 AM
Quote from: AO on December 27, 2011, 09:05:11 AM
Would we have developed women's sports without Title IX?  is there any evidence of some great sexist collusion among administrators who tried to keep women from representing their school athletically?  Who would cut women's programs if title IX was eliminated today?

If you remember the 60's and 70's, it was bleak. My sister had no organized athletics in high school. The NCAA didn't even start sponsoring the women's basketball tournament until their hand was forced by the AIAW. Indiana had no organized high school sports for girls until 1975 and without title IX, who knows when it would have happened.

The money talked, and it would keep talking. It wasn't that long ago that a Big 12 school (Oklahoma) was seriously thinking of cutting women's hoops. Without some sort of regulation, there would always be those that would give excess largesse to football or other sports and leave the women with little or no scholarships, equipment or facilities.

The issue is that football and revenue sports consume a great deal of money and administrators and athletics directors are cowardly and looking very short term and not long term at the entire program. The issues in Maryland right now are due to inept handling of the revenue sports.

BTW, there is men's volleyball.
no, I don't remember the 60s or 70s.  My experience starts in the 80s and includes observing a lot of athletic programs in D3 that derive very little direct revenue from football or basketball.  These d3 programs derive their value from the interest of the students involved who choose to go to that school based partly on the existence of that team. 

Maybe the interest in football at Oklahoma was greater than the interest in women's hoops?  Does this mean that women's hoops at Oklahoma have zero value? No, but perhaps the programs costs went far and above it's real value.  The same standard should be applied to men's and women's sports.  The basketball programs for men and women at MCTC (minneapolis community and technical college) were cut a couple years ago as their value declined.   

I do not see it written anywhere in the law that "football revenues shall first be used to support less popular women's programs because it is inherently unfair that more people like watching football than all other women's sports combined"

badgerwarhawk

At Wisconsin's flag ship university the University of Wisconsin only three sports generate revenue profit and all three are men's sports (football, basketball and hockey).  Those sports not only help support all of the women's sports but also several other men's teams like rowing, wrestling, fencing, swimming/diving and track/field.  Though I don't have data to support it it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case at other universities as well. 

Title IX wasn't established because it was inherently unfair that more people liked watching football than all other women's sports combined.  Title IX was established because it was inherently unfair that male athletes were given opportunities that did not exist for female athletes.   
"Just think twice is my only advice."

AO

Quote from: badgerwarhawk on December 27, 2011, 11:10:07 AM
At Wisconsin's flag ship university the University of Wisconsin only three sports generate revenue profit and all three are men's sports (football, basketball and hockey).  Those sports not only help support all of the women's sports but also several other men's teams like rowing, wrestling, fencing, swimming/diving and track/field.  Though I don't have data to support it it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case at other universities as well. 

Title IX wasn't established because it was inherently unfair that more people liked watching football than all other women's sports combined.  Title IX was established because it was inherently unfair that male athletes were given opportunities that did not exist for female athletes.   
Are women not allowed to play football anymore?  It is the sexes themselves that are inherently unequal, not the athletic opportunities provided by the men's football or basketball teams.  The only opportunities that are denied to one sex are the opportunities reserved solely for women.   This doesn't mean that I think the women's basketball team needs to be cut. There are JV and intramural basketball teams for those that don't make the varsity cut, club teams for sports without as much student interest.  Women's teams will thrive on their own merit (and without the subsidies from the men's teams at the d1 level). 

smedindy

Athletics should not be a dollars-and-cents zero-sum game. The only value proposition is the value to the institution as a whole, to attract a wider variety of students and provide opportunities to grow, thrive and learn. No college NEEDS sports, but colleges that offer a wide variety of athletics, like other activities, thrive.

The Oklahoma situation was despicable. They shafted the team by giving it the worst facilities, practice times and basically no institutional support, because it wasn't football or baseball. Then they wanted to yank it away because it couldn't make gold out of lead.

All student athletes deserve equal opportunity to compete. I'm sorry if we poor males seem discriminated against because we can't join the women's basketball team, or the women's cross country team but the women on those teams deserve as much of a chance to compete and win as their male counterparts. Pity us. 


frank uible

Title IX represents top down social engineering, like it or not.

Gray Fox

There should be two pools.  Football should be in one and all other sports in the second.  The second pool should have all the Title IX rules.  That should last until a women's sport comes along that requires rosters as big as football.

Football is not only a "revenue" sport in D1 but apparently it is also a "revenue" sport at D3 if you consider its impact on attracting male students and tuition paying football players. :)
Fierce When Roused

jknezek

I feel it is safe to say that football will not be broken out into its own pool. Back in the 70s some congressman attempted that as an ammedment to Title IX and it was soundly defeated. It was also considered to be indefensible in terms of later court review of the original law.

There was also an attempt to exempt revenue producing sports. That too was scrapped on fears that colleges would work real hard at making sure prized programs fell under "revenue producing" by one gimmick or another.

I believe there are flaws in Title IX and am sad every time a sport disappears. However, we live in an era of limited resources and unlimited desires. Women deserve athletic opportunities at schools receiving Federal funds and I highly doubt anyone could convince me otherwise.

W&L was an all-male school until the mid-80s. Since then, it has become 50/50 gender and the school has worked hard at adding the appropriate facilities and sports for female athletes. It has been expensive, but I believe the school is better off for being co-ed, and for having those student athletes on campus. I, for one, would not have gone to a single-sex school and knew plenty of classmates that felt the same way. So I suppose you could have used our tuition to offset the costs of adding female sports!

smedindy

Frank, sometimes 'social engineering' happens for the greater good of humanity.

DGPugh

Very interesting discussion.
I remember the 60's and 70's well (graduated Highschool-'71, semi-rural Ga) we had 6 boy sports, 5 girl sports.
Played college ball (D-2, now D-1fcs, public school OVC) in the early mid 70's - we had 7 boy and 7 girl sports........

the undergraduate school my daughters graduated from (D-1, public, SEC) in this mililinium (sp) has 8 boy sports and 11 girl sports, and one sport (football) pays all the bills (War Damn Eagle)

the school my son graduated from (D-3, Private, Independent) in spring 2011 has 9 each (and the boys girl friend - to paraphrase Mr Ypsi- who seems to be hanging around a lot) plays one of the girls).... .Hawk 'em

the larger question, does title 9 do good and help female athletes ?
... no question to me...yep
has it harmed mens sports ?
...no question on certain campuses... yep. ain't no college wrestling in NCAA, mens gymnastics, et al in the deep south
do the good out weigh the bad ?
i spect yall can educate me on that, i sure ain't smart enough to know... as my girls were bothe tai kwan do'ers, karate'ers and kick boxers (thier husbands are both  kept in line)
keep the faith 
"Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes." 
Ephesians 6:11

sigma one

Good or bad?  This will go back and forth forever.  I think Title IX was "Necessary" if women were to receive relatively equal athletic treatment in colleges and universities.  One irony is that with women's enrollment in higher education significantly higher than men's, and particularly in smaller colleges and universities, colleges are starting football programs to help grow their male numbers. Equal opportunity is, on the whole, a good thing--unfortunately, in some instances at the expense of some male sports.  But these are institutional decisions.  I believe we can name a number of colleges and universities that have dropped men's sports even though, at least in my mind, they could have found a way to retain them.  The financial question is in some ways in some schools a tough nut driven, I am sorry to believe, by faculty and academic administrators' concerns about how much money is spent on athletics relative to how much is spent on academics.  And that is a hot topic some administrators don't want to tackle, opting to preserve their jobs, or at least avoid turmoil, rather than risk faculty ire by funding athletics at ever-increasing levels.  Hence, the trade off of teams, with men's teams almost always losing out.  Many think that a school will devote whatever  resources necessary to athletics; we like to believe that.  That's not the way it always works. With only so much pie to divide, well . . . .