When is Title IX going to be deemed unconstitutional

legally blonde wrote:

maybe is men hadn't denied women access to sports for let's see...200 years, then the government wouldn't have intervened to 'take away' and equal out what they had...

there's a though!

Your writing defintely matches your name.

The women's steeplechase became an Olympic Event (non-demonstration) in 2008; we will only have true equality when women are allowed to compete in the decathlon.

legally blonde wrote:

maybe is men hadn't denied women access to sports for let's see...200 years, then the government wouldn't have intervened to 'take away' and equal out what they had...

there's a though!

Why is it ok to punish a male going into college now for the wrongs inflicted by SOMEONE ELSE in the past? That is wrong too.

pole vaulterrrr wrote:

The women's steeplechase became an Olympic Event (non-demonstration) in 2008; we will only have true equality when women are allowed to compete in the decathlon.

And when women are allowed to compete in the same distance XC race as the men.

M.C. Confusing wrote:

Actually 56 would be a reasonable number. Because 56 is the travel roster limit for every single BCS conference, and most of the other conferences as well. Basically if you arent in the top 56 you arent on the team. Sort of like how you can only run 7 guys at Regionals and Nationals. You can only bring 56 football players with you. The fact that this means in all realities there are NINETEEN football players on the PRACTICE SQUAD with FULL RIDES is ridiculous.

so is it safe to assume that you would like the NCAA to limit cross country / distance running scholarships, for men and for women, to 7 (for each gender)?

i just want to know where the constitution comes into this. what provision of the constitution did you have in mind?

10K XC wrote:

And when women are allowed to compete in the same distance XC race as the men.

That's just silly. Everybody knows if a woman runs more than 8 kilometers her ovaries will explode.

kaitainen wrote:

i just want to know where the constitution comes into this. what provision of the constitution did you have in mind?

I think they were referring to Equal Protection. Obviously you are not going to argue for Separate but Equal are you? Segregationists would like that.

SaImon wrote:

Title IX is such an obvious example of knee-jerk politics devoid of actual justice and compassion.

Women need to be given the opportunity to play collegiate sports. What about all the men who do not have this opportunity because their sport is not football?

Men do have opportunities. Not being good enough to make the team is not same as not having the opportunity. You might just have to go to a different school.

One of the problems with Title IX, that the first poster is experiencing, is that there are not enough NCAA sanctioned sports that women actually want to play. If colleges offered competitive dance and cheerleading, there would be a lot more women participating in athletics, and coaches wouldn't need to be combing the halls for women to fill out their crew/softball/track/archery/whatever rosters.

DontpunishthePresent wrote:

I think they were referring to Equal Protection. Obviously you are not going to argue for Separate but Equal are you? Segregationists would like that.

segregationists? actually a fitting concept because you (probably inadvertently) highlight the problem with reliance on the equal protection clause - we are not talking about race-based discrimination. we are talking about gender based discrimination.

so please tell us how the supreme court determines whether a law that facially treats women and men differently violates the equal protection clause. (bonus points if you can also distinguish that standard from the standard for race based discrimination).

(wikipedia is far from perfect, but it does provide a decent starting point:

)

legally blonde wrote:

maybe is men hadn't denied women access to sports for let's see...200 years, then the government wouldn't have intervened to 'take away' and equal out what they had...

there's a though!

yeah! now maybe we should take away some of your rights because of how white people enslaved african-americans for so long

Wendell Gee wrote:

SaImon wrote:

Title IX is such an obvious example of knee-jerk politics devoid of actual justice and compassion.

Women need to be given the opportunity to play collegiate sports. What about all the men who do not have this opportunity because their sport is not football?

Men do have opportunities. Not being good enough to make the team is not same as not having the opportunity. You might just have to go to a different school.

Almost every school has more women's teams than men's. If you are a guy competing in any of these women-only sports (e.g. CC at Deleware), you do not have the same opportunity as women.

You have the opportunity to play sports. There number of spots open to athletes is proportionate to the number of students from each gender at your school.

Is a college that offers track but not football discriminating against football players? How about one that offers cross country but not cross country skiing?

kaitainen wrote:

M.C. Confusing wrote:

Actually 56 would be a reasonable number. Because 56 is the travel roster limit for every single BCS conference, and most of the other conferences as well. Basically if you arent in the top 56 you arent on the team. Sort of like how you can only run 7 guys at Regionals and Nationals. You can only bring 56 football players with you. The fact that this means in all realities there are NINETEEN football players on the PRACTICE SQUAD with FULL RIDES is ridiculous.

so is it safe to assume that you would like the NCAA to limit cross country / distance running scholarships, for men and for women, to 7 (for each gender)?

Just in case you're wondering the limit for the entire track/cross country program is 12.6 for men and 18 for women. So anyone giving out close to 7 for cross country is not trying to have an overall track program (such as Oklahoma State).

professore wrote:

Remember women only got the right to vote in 1920 and still only make $.80 on the dollar.

That is really misleading. Women in similar situations as men (similar educations, working for the same amount of time, and have worked continuously) actually make slightly more than their male counterparts.

This is a dumb thread. As many qualms as I might have about Title IX implementation, it is never going to be declared unconstitutional. That would be asking the Supreme Court to rule that equal opportunity violates the equal protection clause.

Better ways exist to change the stupid thing. For example, instead of making "sports" an area that is guarenteed equal opportunity, you could make it a more inclusive category such as "extra-curricular opportunities." That way participation in things like singing groups, campus newspaper, etc. are taken into account as well. Nothing sacred about sports.

10K XC wrote:

pole vaulterrrr wrote:

The women's steeplechase became an Olympic Event (non-demonstration) in 2008; we will only have true equality when women are allowed to compete in the decathlon.

And when women are allowed to compete in the same distance XC race as the men.

why can't men compete in the same distances as women? As an 800 guy, I'd be better at the 6k than 10k.

kaitainen wrote:

so is it safe to assume that you would like the NCAA to limit cross country / distance running scholarships, for men and for women, to 7 (for each gender)?

Yup...and give them separate scholarships from track, since most programs (the ones that dont use all 12 track scholarships on cross country) usually end up with only 2-4 cross country scholarships. This would be an INCREASE for most colleges.