Title IX Help

thaprofessah wrote:

If equal funding and scholarships don't constitute opportunity what does? Equal # of teams? Title IX requires that, and without it schools would not have equal # of teams.

You have to understand that while YOU think that there should be and are equal opportunities for men and women to participate in sports, not everyone thinks like you. There are PLENTY of people in VERY HIGH positions in the sports world that would eliminate a lot of women's sports if they had the opportunity.

Why do schools eliminate men's sports? Funding for something that does not produce revenue.

What are bacisally all women's sports? Non-revenue producing teams.

A statement made in court by Nancy Hogshead-Makar:

Foes of Title IX are trying to assert that women are over-represented in collegiate athletics, when they point out that there are more collegiate women’s teams than men’s teams. Yet numbers of teams is irrelevant to the Title IX analysis

I think you and I are pretty much in concurrence, but you are trying to be more open minded than me haha (Keep in mind I have to be very one sided for my paper). About PLENTY of people in VERY HIGH positions, I will admitt that. But there are already laws that don't allow discriminaton. So all Title IX does is add to those laws, and create more womens' teams, less mens' teams, and HANDOUTS(not opportunities as it once did when there was outright discrimination).

Just reading some of these posts (women are inferior athletes, nobody watches them, women suck, nobody cares, etc, etc) should make it very clear that Title IX is still very much necessary. If these attitutes are representitive of the people in power in athletics, women's athletics would very much be screwed if there were not legal protection.

The gross misconception here is that college sports function in a similar fashion and on so-called "Market Principles" just as pro sports do. There are frequent bold (and unproven statements) about which sports are "revenue generating sports" and "minor sports". The purpose of college sports is not to generate revenue..at least not directly....college sports does not function like that or else the players would (and perhaps should) get paid. As naive as this concept is...the NCAA adheres to this perhaps archaic concept. From a legal stance..it is absolutely irrelevent what sports generate revenue and which do not. Statements like "noone wants to watch women's sports" reflect this lack of understanding. If you do not like the results of title IX..here are some things people can do besides whining and badmouthing women's sports

1. vote for officials who will appoint judges that will rule in favor of you ..that is taking into account "Market forces"...this may lead to DI "revenue sports" athletes to sue NCAA for back wages, health insurance, salary etc...thus destroying college sports as it is now. Also, they can outsource your job to China or India as you will not be able to justify your salsry as it is not "revenue generating"

2. give enough money to your favorite college team to continue funding non-revenue sports. I give plenty of money to my college track team which has endowed men's and women's head coach positions. the school knows if they cut either the men's OR women's team..they will lose millions of dollars from contributing alumni.

Entitled wrote:

Just reading some of these posts (women are inferior athletes, nobody watches them, women suck, nobody cares, etc, etc).

Those are all just facts. I'm not saying that women shouldn't be allowed to play sports. A scholorship isn't an opportunity, it is a handout. Schools shouldn't be forced to give scholorships.

If this is all about equal opportunity, then shouldn't every school have the same opportunities. If they are all funded by the government, they should all have the same programs. How is it possible then, that some schools have wrestling(just an example) and others don't.

There are more opportunities for girls actually.

"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."

WAIT..... ARE YOU JOKING....

High School PARTICIPATION HAS GONE UP 847%

I guess that's not really an increase in interest or participation though

and only a little over 120,000 more women participate in college sports (90%+ of whom DO NOT recieve full aide)

that's not all that many either.

http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/binary-data/WSF_ARTICLE/pdf_file/898.pdf

It's not rambling, its called an analogy and a good one for that matter. If you took the time to think for two seconds you would realize that the popularity and distribution of interest (fans/support=money)in profressional sports is practically a spitting image of college athletics. Male collegiate sports such as football and basketball tends to be more popular then the female sports. By the way court rulings can be over ruled legally blond, so go back and just apply what title IX states. Anyways IX is total shit and it is not going to last because it is cutting the sports that are simply not even envied(Wrestling, Track, XC, Swimming) these athletes were simply never guilty for the unequal distribution of funding, but lets face it football still lives and will never stopped. So basically WTF. That is why we are pissed off, so hope you understand now. It is like the police arriving to a held up convinent store after the criminal fled with all the money then while interviewing a customer who witnessed the situation they decide to take money out of his wallet and put it in the cash register so that they have equal income. SOME RUNNERS, WRESTLERS, AND SWIMMERS ARE NOW VICTIMS OF STOLEN OPPORTUNITY DESPITE WHAT THEY DID TO DESERVE THEIR EARNED SCHOLARSHIPS

what'd you do to EARN your opportunity since your sport doesn't bring in any money (same as wrestling and swimming)? if you're just going to say you 'worked hard' then you're no different from the women who were 'given' their opportunities...

AND, just for the record, Title IX DOES NOT mandate equal spending between men's and women's athletics! What planet are you all living on? Has no one been to big-time collegiate athletics (ie Big 10, Big 12, SEC)? get real, WAY more is spent on men's athletics in this country -- all the way down to Division III. It calls for equal educational OPPORTUNITY. Women are nearly 60% of collegiate athletes and get about 40% of athletic opportunities and scholarships at Division IA schools.

oops, I meant women are 60% of collegiate undergrads...

Opps Im on the basket ball team to, oh yeah so shut the f*** up

Title IX does not mandate equal spending; this is true. Yet is does mandate equal opportunity to participate, and have the bennifits of the sports. There are three ways to show that they are complying. Two ways are subjective and wont hold up in court so colleges stay away from those. The third way is to have equal spending on proportions, even though this is not fair because women don't have football.

and? your team makes money? not that it matters for Title IX...

but most sports don't make $. so using that as an excuse to whine about losing programs 'because of' Title IX gets OLD.

besides how many coaches do you need for 13 guys?

And you obviously pulled equal spending out your ass. I never put that down. Your terrible

Here a question that I will pull out of thin air. Does your femienazi team make money, if not then your a hypocrite

actually there is no 'third way that mandates equal funding.'

You're probably thinking of 'proportionality' which is ONE option that schools can use to comply with the 'effective accommodations of students interests and abilities' area of Title IX. Schools can either 1) show a 'history and continuing practice of program expansion' for women; OR 2) Show that athletic opportunities are proportional to undergrad enrollment (i.e. 60% undergrads are women, 60% of sport opps go to women -- there might be 3 schools in the country that meet this, the military schools); OR 3) show that even though you haven't added any programs and don't have proportionality, you're offering all the sports your undergrad women want (which clearly allows for the idea that women aren't as interested in sport as men).

but you can keep blaming Title IX -- that'll definitely make those who DO have the resources (hint: not the women) happy!

We have one head coach and one assitant, check it out on uncp.edu beyoutch! And there is more then 13 people so your wrong once again.

Does you malenazi team make a profit?

And we only have one head coach and one assitant, with 18 players, and here is a question for you how do you like them apples beyoutch?!

actually there is no 'third way that mandates equal funding.'

You're probably thinking of 'proportionality' which is ONE option that schools can use to comply with the 'effective accommodations of students interests and abilities' area of Title IX. Schools can either 1) show a 'history and continuing practice of program expansion' for women; OR 2) Show that athletic opportunities are proportional to undergrad enrollment (i.e. 60% undergrads are women, 60% of sport opps go to women -- there might be 3 schools in the country that meet this, the military schools); OR 3) show that even though you haven't added any programs and don't have proportionality, you're offering all the sports your undergrad women want (which clearly allows for the idea that women aren't as interested in sport as men).

but you can keep blaming Title IX -- that'll definitely make those who DO have the resources (hint: not the women) happy!

I never said anything of the nature on equal spending you thick skulled moron