More men want to participate in sports than women at the college level. They don't put limits on how many men can enroll in a particular class. Why is athletics so different?
Can letsrun lead the way?
More men want to participate in sports than women at the college level. They don't put limits on how many men can enroll in a particular class. Why is athletics so different?
Can letsrun lead the way?
What would suing the NCAA solve? Is Title IX an NCAA regulation? Is it related to the US law?
Nope. Title IX is a law that was passed by Congress in 1972. At the time of passage, the NCAA tried unsuccessfully to petition Congress that Title IX was illegal. Suing the NCAA will not get anything done or gather any support.
Good investigative journalism is the first step. There has to be an overwhelming amount of support to edit Title IX, and that can't happen without getting the average american educated. To the average american, any effort to change it is an attack on women. It won't stick and the right people won't take it seriously.
I think the best strategy is to writing the major newspaper and magazine journalists to look into it. If it becomes a written sports issue, popular sports TV shows will pick it up and the debate will take notice.
I would imagine you can sue the NCAA or specific schools on the implementation of title IX. Probably not a good chance of winning but I think it would be relatively easy to prove that equal numbers does not equate to equal opportunity. Football's 85 scholarships could also be proven to be too high relative to the number of hs participants (compared to track or xc). Again, you wil not likely win but I would love to see it.
I am very much against title 9 - it is a perversion of justice.
However - read the wikipedia entry - the problem is not with the actual law or statute or whatever it is. Noone could disagree with it:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...
Fine, right? Doesn't even mention sports.
The problem is with the safe harbors universities can use to prove compliance:
Prong one - Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, OR
Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex.
This is the problem - universities always choose prong one because it can be easily proven with numbers. This is what leads to axing of mens sports. Prong 2 can be expensive and hard to prove, and prong 3 is impossible to prove.
If that prong one could be re-written to be more permissive, or if prong 3 could be more easily met, then the problem would be solved.
The sad irony is that the current application was not the intention of the congress when it passed the law. Classic unintentional consequences.
Jackie Chiles wrote:
More men want to participate in sports than women at the college level.
Really?
You have any data behind your guess?
If you want to attack the law, you'd at least better have a command of facts at your disposal.
Until it affects college fball or basketball it will not matter.
agip wrote:
The problem is with the safe harbors universities can use to prove compliance:
Nice job agip. You hit the nail on the head. The other part of the problem is that universities can unfairly attribute their desire to eliminate various "minor" sports to Title IX compliance, when, in fact, it simply is due to the university's desire to hide their real reason for terminating a sport.
Douchebag DAve wrote:
Jackie Chiles wrote:More men want to participate in sports than women at the college level.
Really?
You have any data behind your guess?
If you want to attack the law, you'd at least better have a command of facts at your disposal.
Intramural participation in sports is something like 80% male. This proves it without a shadow of a doubt. Of course I personally actually like being outnumbered on the track team, but it is definitely an unfair situation.
agip wrote:
I am very much against title 9 - it is a perversion of justice.
However - read the wikipedia entry - the problem is not with the actual law or statute or whatever it is. Noone could disagree with it:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...
Fine, right? Doesn't even mention sports.
The problem is with the safe harbors universities can use to prove compliance:
Prong one - Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, OR
Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex.
This is the problem - universities always choose prong one because it can be easily proven with numbers. This is what leads to axing of mens sports. Prong 2 can be expensive and hard to prove, and prong 3 is impossible to prove.
If that prong one could be re-written to be more permissive, or if prong 3 could be more easily met, then the problem would be solved.
The sad irony is that the current application was not the intention of the congress when it passed the law. Classic unintentional consequences.
Those are excellent points. Wouldn't the unintentional consequences be reason enough to get the law changed?