TITLE IX BULLSH*T??

There are 27 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Title IX is not one of them. You are correct that it is a Educational Amendment...but not amendment to the Consitution.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

no one cares about women's sports period.

look at what happened to the women's professional soccer league. it had EVERY opportunity to succeed with all the attention and sponsorship the league received after the 99 world championships. they blew that opportunity.

NO ONE CARED, NO ONE FILLED THE SEATS--not even women.

the only sports that should exist, given budget constraints, are those sports that generate interest and DOLLARS--and that goes for men's AND women's sports.

WITH all due respect, you truely must be blonde. Your analogy comparing voting to this situation is horrible. When women and african americans were allowed to vote we were opening up opportunity to EVERYBODY, not dissallowing some men to vote so that there was "equal" numbers heading to the polls to vote.

Second, I am currently a D1 athlete with no passionate opinion either way. I feel that the opporunity for more women to compete in collegiate sports is a great thing, they deserve it... but so do men. I am all for equal opportunity, but equal opportunity for everybody. When men's athletic teams are being cut from a university because they have to have equal scholarships for men and women, that takes away the opportunity for those men that want to play lacrosse at that one special university but DO NOT have the opportunity because it was taken away from the athletic department. How do you explain that? Go to a different school that has a lacrosse team? Well, now what happens when only "2nd tier" educational universities have a men's lacrosse team, then we are making some men choose between his love of sport and an education. We have taken away that opportunity for him to enjoy athletics while earning himself a top-level education.

This is just food for thought; like i said, i am completely open about this subject, but i also have not been directly affected. Title IX is fine, but perhaps it needs a bit of tweaking, and i am not one full of ideas. And to leaglly blonde, that was not meant to be an attack, if you meant something else by your analogy, please explain it.

unbiased.

and the only people in the United States that should have the opportunity to vote are people that make over $500,000 a year - which leaves you out I'm sure.

unbiased wrote:

WITH all due respect, you truely must be blonde. Your analogy comparing voting to this situation is horrible. When women and african americans were allowed to vote we were opening up opportunity to EVERYBODY, not dissallowing some men to vote so that there was "equal" numbers heading to the polls to vote.

unbiased.

You are not unbiased. Your opening statement clearly indicates that you are a sexist pig and therefore anything else you write after that is irrelevant.

The problem with the football argument is that it is circular--it presupposes that men and women have a statistically equal interest in sports. Any sentient person knows that is not the case.

Also, your first paragraph makes the original poster's point for him: Title IX (as it is being enforced) encourages women to "try for athletics" as scholarship athletes.

how does this make me biased and a "sexist" pig? did i say blonde "female/male"? no, i simply sarcastically used a commonly used stereotype about "blondes" that you began using in your title. secondly, as i stated later, i am unbiased toward the TITLE IX situation. I have not been affected and know nobody that has been directly affected by it either. So before you get all riled up on this message board, if you feel so strongly about the subject, get all riled up to your congressman or senator or athletic department to help clarify the situation to american public.

Not an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

BLONDES ARE STUPID. THROW BOULDERS ON THEM.

unbiased wrote:

how does this make me biased and a "sexist" pig? did i say blonde "female/male"? no, i simply sarcastically used a commonly used stereotype about "blondes" that you began using in your title. secondly, as i stated later, i am unbiased toward the TITLE IX situation. I have not been affected and know nobody that has been directly affected by it either. So before you get all riled up on this message board, if you feel so strongly about the subject, get all riled up to your congressman or senator or athletic department to help clarify the situation to american public.

I am not riled up about Title IX. I think it is fine the way it is. By making a statement about hair color having some relationship to the message - you indeed have stereotyped and are not worthy of intelligent people actually deciphering your message as important. I didn't even read the rest of the message you wrote - you were simply trying to be flip.

football idiot,

I like how everyone shot down your "football makes all the money" statement so you change it to "football and basketball" you still don't realize that a HUGE majority of schools lose money on basketball as well...

that is alright with me. intelligent people don't need to read what i wrote after that. when thinking about this subject intelligent people would have already battled both sides of the argument by playing devil's advocate and would already understand what i wrote. and no, i wasn't trying to be "flip" whatever that means. i was honestly just putting my two cents in for whoever wanted to hear a different side of things they could take a look and respond to it in an appropriate manner without attacking me as "unintelligent" and a "sexist pig" deeming my writing "unreadable". Some of the "dumbest" people have the smartest things to say. So before you try and get all high and mighty on everybody here, sit down, think thigns through and actually put some meat on your statements so they are worth something.

If you have something to contribute, try starting off without mentioning hair color - which you meant to be derogatory - didn't you?

legally blond wrote:

You don't "poll" people on Civil Rights and equality. You don't ask how much money they drew in the year before. You don't pretend you know how many of each gender shows up for tryouts.

Which has got what to do with Title IX proof of compliance?

From what I've read, a university has three ways to demonstrate they are complying:

- provide equal number of sport slots to match the population distribution at their school;

- prove they are providing "increasing opportunities" for females;

- prove that the number of sport slots they offer matches the demand from their school population;

Method one is a no-brainer and the choice most (all?) take.

No one has answered the question of how you prove number two and what is the defining criteria (how many sports/spots do you have to add and how often?).

How do you demonstrate compliance with number 3 if you don't poll? ESP?

Let me sum it up in one simple question:

You are the AD. You have to prove to some government type your school is in compliance with Title IX. You've got the three possible methods. How do you do it?

so wait Dumb blonde...what are the 27 amendments to the constitution...last i saw no Civil Rights Act of 1964...you're wrong so you ignore?

Asterix wrote:

females;

You are the AD. You have to prove to some government type your school is in compliance with Title IX. You've got the three possible methods. How do you do it?

It's so easy for the AD. You do number one - create equal opportunities and forget about it at the end of the day. Like it or not, that is reality.

milefan wrote:

so wait Dumb blonde...what are the 27 amendments to the constitution...last i saw no Civil Rights Act of 1964...you're wrong so you ignore?

what's wrong, no one paying enough attention to you at home these days?

did you ever stop to think i may be blonde as well? no, it was not meant to be derogatory, as i stated in a later post, it was simply a sarcastic comment using a common stereotype that you originally brought into the discussion using your name: a reference to a movie using this very same common stereotype. As the movie used it in a humorous manner, so did i. it was meant to lighten the mood of my post, since it was not made with any heated opinion.