Title IX Help

Title ix is frustrating as an athlete having to deal with it. And as a university it must be epic hell. I'm not saying women's sports don't deserve ALL the credit of men's sports, hell they're out there busting their asses too. But the logical and realistic point is that on an AVERAGE college campus (I don't want a ton of replys about exceptions, not the point) the men's sports will be raking in the dough and the women's teams wont. Ticket sales, sports merchandise sales, you name it, guys teams just bring home the bacon a bit more than womens. Unfortunately the University cannot reflect that, teams such as cross country are hurt EVEN more by Title ix, as the football team sweeps up all the money it needs, and the XC team taking the table scraps. If a program was to be able to separate the amount of money from mens and women's teams, or allocate money in a way that represented the outside support for the team it would be a more logical and more sound idea. The women's programs shouldn't be recieving more money because the men's football team had a better season, the men's football team should.

It goes against all supply/demand principles.

Basically, 1) Universities are forced to offer sports programs to people that aren't interested in competing and 2) The population isn't interested in watching nor supporting.

It will never work. Never. It has been years and things haven't changed. It has not increased participation or interest one bit. However, it pays for many 'marginal' athletes way through school. My hope is that it's still around when my daughter needs a 'free ticket' to college.

" men's sports will be raking in the dough and the women's teams wont. Ticket sales, sports merchandise sales, you name it, guys teams just bring home the bacon a bit more than womens"

Please cite your sources. Unless there is a media (tv) contract I find it doubtful that any program rakes in more dough than it spreads out.

As a male college coach I would not agree with you one bit. It is very much necessary. Without Title IX the chances for women to compete in sport would decrease. To say it is unfair is only because colleges and universities do not know how to enact on this so they just cut the male sports and creat a women's sport. The idea of Title IX is to create more oportunities for women to compete in sport on the college level. No where in writing does it say that you have to cut men's sport. Actually when I got my master's degree I did a paper on Title IX and its decline that it has on male sports. If male sports are getting cut at your program you may want to take a good look at the exact wording of Title IX and take your school up on it. No where in the definition or rulings of Title IX does it ever say anything about a specific gender. It only claims the under represent sex, which is usually females.

Now if you want to write a paper on how Title IX is not properly put into action by schools and you would like to talk to someone who is very educated on the subject and can see it from both view points drop your e-mail on here and I will get back to you. But to say it is UNFAIR and NO LONGER NEEDED is absolutely ludacrous.

Coach B

P.S.- and if you need advice on getting back at your school because they cut your sport and it is the over-represented sex, I can also tell you how this. Little do most know they have to still give you your scholarship not matter what school you decide to finish your education at, and if you go to a more expensive school they must make the new schools price comparable to what you were paying while you were there. (It's always nice to know the rules, so do you home work first.)

Please, spare us another rehash. The problem starts with football. If they weren't such a money-sucking sport. The only money making football teams are the ones with TV contracts or frequent bowl trippers. The rest are big money pits.

The bottom line is that all sports lose money except for those that are self-supporting though boosters.

There are still inequities along gender lines. It is impossible to challenge all the universities that give lip service to equality.

You should also point out the university employee situation that stems from Title IX. I am a white male working at a major state university and constantly was getting rejected for jobs because schools was to be PC and hire a minority and or a woman in a field -- mine -- this is dominantly white. I have no problem with equal rights, but to me, making a job public and NOT saying we are only looking for a minority and or woman is discrimination in itself. In an office of 5 people, four of which are white males, you could be more qualified than all four males and the entire applicant pool, but NCAA schools rather hire diversity as oppose to the best person for the job. I may sound bitter, but I am sure some of you have dealt with this before.

As far as Title IX...from my experience, here are some of the points that stand out...

- Women's team obviously getting more scholarships and having more sports. Check out DI tennis for example. Originally thought to be equal rights, has now turned against males. IE, counting football scholarships is stupid and because of it schools load up on women walk-ons and thus waste more money because of it.

- men's sports getting canceled. Wrestling is the first to go, men's track next.

- People not understanding the revenue system at major colleges. Bottom line, women's sports -- in excess -- are going to torpedo a lot of mid-major athletics programs before it is all said an done.

- There should be equal number men's and women's sports with equal number of scholarships, not counting football because of its size. I wouldn't use the arguement of revenue though because very few schools make a revenue off of football or any sport for that matter.

Not so fast on the marginal athlete thing. (Though I do agree that Title iX completely goes against supply-demand principles.) It's my understanding that when a new sport is added, like rowing for example, the scholarships are slowly phased in. At least that's how it worked here at Minnesota. Same with women's hockey when they added that sport. (And I would never call a college women's hockey player a marginal athlete to her face. She'd bust my skull. Good God you should see them.) Anyway, participation HAS been growing in the women's sports that become sanctioned. There are tons more girls high school hockey teams in 2006 than there were 10 years ago. (Not so sure about rowing.) And so as the scholarships get implemented, there are legit athletes being developed to take them.

Now, you could argue that opportunities for marginal athletes to compete in college do rise. When you need to fill 60 spots on a crew roster you go looking for basketball players and swimmers who couldn't quite cut it in Division 1. At Minnesota they have not taken down a single men's sport, but have reached comnpliance by adding women's soccer, rowing, and hockey. It's been a big burden financially on the department, yes, but it's a lot fairer than the way others have gone at it (compliance by subtraction).

And be careful about talking about supply-demand and interest and economics. Otherwise cross country would be toast right after men's gymnastics.

Are you suggesting that women have no interest in competing in their own sport (your 1) example)?

You'll probably have a tough time making the unfair one stick. Fairness is often arbitrary. Think about the underlying reasons of why you think it isn't fair and use those.

Can't you just google "End Title IX" and find a bunch of webpages with all the points you need and just plagiarize them? If you're going to come here and ask for help, it seems reasonable you'd try that.

Why don't you write an outline for your essay. I'm sure there are enough tools on this wen sight that would help write it for you.

Maybe this will help, a quick paper I wrote for a government class a while ago:

Rethinking Title IX

“Without Title IX, I'd be nowhere.” Cheryl Miller, Olympic Basketball star. Equality based on race, gender, or whatever is always thought of as a positive thing, but can it be taken too far? This question is one that is hotly debated among NCAA coaches, athletes, and fans now. Originally thought of as a marvelous piece of legislation that allowed women’s sports to be taken to a higher level, it is now seen as a sport killer by some. But how can a piece of legislation that laid the foundation for Mia Hamm and the U.S. Soccer team, many of the stars in the WNBA, and athletes like Cheryl Miller to succeed, be thought of as negative? To see why we must first define what Title IX is and does.

Title IX is a piece of legislation that was enacted in 1972 as part of the Education Amendments of 1972. The purpose and idea behind it was to give women an equal opportunity to participate in collegiate sports. It was to be accomplished through various changes, most notably an increase in scholarships given out to women athletes. In looking at the women’s side of it, it has been a smashing success. Participation by women in collegiate athletics has increased by four fold since it was enacted. Scholarships for women have increased from virtually non existent to having more than men in several sports in a direct comparison. The problem arises in how this legislation is enforced now. The legislation insured this progress because it required schools to show that they were complying with the legislation by ONE of the three ways:

1. Participation ratio- where the school compares the ratio of male to female students to the ratio between male and female participants in the athletics program.

2. Expansion- The school has to show that they have in the past and are actively expanding women’s sports. An example would be adding women’s soccer to the athletic program

3. Accommodation- The school accommodates the abilities and interests of the female sports.

Notice that schools have to meet one of the three compliance regulations. Instead of being enforced how it was intended, the focus has become on meeting the participation ratio and other quotas that have been established. This in turn hurts minor men’s sports because schools have to hit certain quotas in order to comply with the law. However this was not how the original piece of legislation was supposed to be enforced. This can be seen in the legislation itself which states:

“Nothing [in the law] shall be interpreted to require any educational institution to grant preferential or disparate treatment to the members of one sex on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of that sex participating in or receiving the benefits of any federally supported program or activity, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of that sex in any community, State, section, or other area.”

This clearly defines that quotas should not be used as the sole basis to comply with the legislation. However, these quotas are precisely the problem. And who pays for them? The minor men’s sports do. The legislation that set out to equalize sports is creating a larger and larger divide. This occurs because of the participation ratio that basically say that if a school has a population that is 55% women and 45% women, then the sports at the school have to represent that breakdown exactly. The problem in this is that that is not how real life works. For various reasons, in general men like to play sports more than women. Therefore there will be more men who want to participate in sports proportional to the overall percentage of men in the school, and then there will be women who want to participate. This enforcement leads to several problems.

In order for schools to comply, they have to create more women’s sports and recruit more women to play, which if they don’t want to then that is a tough task. This is a major flaw in the enforcement, because interest in kicking a soccer ball or throwing a baseball/softball is not equal along gender lines. If it was then college teams would not have to introduce little known women’s sports and then hand out full athletic scholarships to women who have never even done that sport in their life! Imagine having your whole schooling paid if you participate on the fencing team, even if you never have even seen anyone fence before. Does that smack in the face of the point of a scholarship that is supposed to be earned. That happens to reach compliance. Or they can take the easy route and cut men’s sports until they reach the magic participation ratio. Guess what route most schools take? As of 2002, 171 men’s wrestling teams, 45 men’s track teams, 80 men’s tennis teams, and men’s 70 gymnastic teams have been eliminated. They are eliminated to cut the amount of scholarships that are given to men and the amount of men’s participants. By cutting men’s sports schools can get closer to the magic ratio and quota. In addition to having to comply with participation ratios, schools also have to comply with scholarship ratios, but that is another topic to be addressed later.

Title IX is a piece of legislation that had good intentions when it started. As time has passed, the enforcement and compliance with Title IX has been altered so that it no longer is carried out the way it was intended. Instead of promoting equality in sports among both genders, it now hurts both genders. Men’s sports are being cut left and right in order to obtain compliance. This is doing nothing for women’s sports as the original intent of the legislation would be to increase the number of women’s sports, not cut men’s. However this does not occur. The legislation needs to be rethought and tweaked in order to accomplish the goal that it originally had, to help BOTH men and women. Both genders opportunities should be brought up to a higher level. They should not be dropped to a lower level to become equal. The solution is complex but in looking at the situation one key element sticks out that is a roadblock to reaching the ideals that the legislation originally had. That element is football, and in the next essay we will see what solutions can be brought about by addressing this one issue.

When the IRS comes for your money, they don't ask whether your kids are boys or girls. They take it regardless.

So what's the problem about giving that same money back out equally?

Of course Title IX no longer necessary, and it’s certainly un-American. I mean, there are no instances of women being discriminated against in this day and age, and the idea of equal protection being codified into law runs counter to the was we do things in America. For example, white people get sentenced to death at a lower rate than black people; that’s not because of discrimination, it’s just because a black life is worth less than a white one – just ask the insurance companies, they’ll back that up. Likewise, women get paid less than men for the same work because women are inherently lazy. Your own mom will tell you she doesn’t even lift a finger around the house, much less at work.

Even when some wacko feminazis have argued that the Constitution has some sort of “equal protection” clause, the Supreme Court has shown them they’re wrong. Oregon tried to limit the number of hours women could work, and the court said it was OK because women must "rest upon and look to (men) for protection" and "to protect (women) from the greed as well as the passion of man." Just in 1997, a jury had convicted a judge of violating the civil rights of five women by raping, sexually assaulting and harassing the women. An appeals court overruled the jury. Now, courts have ruled that it is a violation a person's civil rights to be beaten by a police officer, but the appeals court said there was nothing in the Constitution that would put this judge on notice that it is just as wrong to rape a woman. And if there’s no problem with raping a woman, why in the hell should we make some sort of guarantee that they be treated the same as men? I mean, do you want judges running around raping men?

So if your track team has been killed off, or you’re worried that it will be, blame women. It’s all their fault – they passed the law, they defended the law, and most of all they made the decisions to cut sports. Blame the women that have a clear majority in Congress, the women who are making male university presidents an endangered species, and most of all blame all those damn female athletic directors.

Now football, don’t you touch football. It keeps the whole athletic department profitable, and we know they make money. Well, the NCAA said in 2003 that only 6% of athletic departments are profitable if you take away state and school subsidies, but what does the NCAA know about college sports? And if you spend more on football, you get a great rate of return – $1 in revenue for every $1 spent! Of course, spending changes have no impact on win-loss records. Or on alumni donations. Or on the academic quality of incoming students. But dammit, we gotta have a big-time football team! So spend away!

The whole problem with Title IX is that women are clearly inferior athletes and do not deserve equal opportunity on the playing fields. Let them have all the club sports they want, but save the real university funding for the big boys.

good stuff - I think the solution to title 9 is to reword it so that is says "parallel" sport (meaning sports where men and women both compete must be equal) as in same number of scholarship, etc.

and non-parallel sports like football have to be taken out of the equation for the very reasons you just pointed out. and schools should also be discouraged if not outright forbidden to only have a sports program for one gender if a parallel sport exists = like Missouri State can't just have women track and CC. Since Mens track and CC does exist as a recognized NCAA sport they must offer it for both sexes. Since there is not currently a parellel sport for men's football - women's football or flag football scholarships do not have to be offered ------that is until it becomes an NCAA recognized sport.

Hey Coach B,

My email is:

cam_sully@yahoo.com

To everyone else; Plain and simple, Title IX is illogical. I'll get back on later and put up some talking points but I got to leave.

PS. This site is awesome haha, I don't even have to do research now thanks to the guy who posted a short paper. But I still will cuz I don't want to be ignorant on the subject.

jerrry wrote:

and non-parallel sports like football have to be taken out of the equation for the very reasons you just pointed out.

From a legal perspective, this is a very good idea. Women are women, men are men, and football players are neither. They are super-men, more masculine than average men, so they obviously don't count in any sort of summation of the sexes. Their balls alone are larger than the entire heads of most male distance runners. Also, they shouldn't be required to meet academic requirements, go to class, or even be enrolled in the university.

Isn't it obvious... wrote:

The whole problem with Title IX is that women are clearly inferior athletes and do not deserve equal opportunity on the playing fields. Let them have all the club sports they want, but save the real university funding for the big boys.

I think the NCAA is stating that runners are clearly inferior athletes to football players and do not deserve equal opportunity on the playing fields. Let the runners have all the club sports they want, but save the real university funding for the football big boys.

Don't fault the women for sharing their money and placing value on all sports.

That is a beautiful essay.