When is Title IX going to be deemed unconstitutional

You know what's NOT fair?

Not letting women play sports.

And now they want to play, and are playing in great numbers, and you worry about men?

If men want to play sports so bad, they can go play football. Plenty of opportunities there. 85 scholarships per school. Go get one.

agree, 100%

Bruinboy wrote:

If a person can get into a University and wants to participate he should be allowed to do so.

I bet support giving every kid a trophy who finishes, right? Maybe a participation award too?

Man, what pussies guys have become. Whining about being able to participate? F*** that. If you want to run, go run. No one is stopping you. You can run road races, enter open meets, run unattached. No one stops you.

Oh, that's right. You want people to pay you money to do it. You don't want to pay an entry fee, or have to pay for travel expenses. You don't want to pay for shoes or equipment. At the end of the day, you just want free stuff. You don't really want to run.

Football players and basketball players get free stuff. You know why? Because millions of people watch them play every year. You have your parents, teammates, a girlfriend (if you're lucky to have one), and some old guys who don't know what century it is - come show up to your meets. You don't deserve free stuff. You contribute nothing.

Here's my solution to the Title IX problem: Make it irrelevant. Start a running club and actually BE GOOD at what you do. Then, you'll be in demand, and you can charge whatever you want for people to see you run. Then you can use the money to pay your expenses, and then fund scholarships at the local university for the up and coming runners.

Otherwise, quit with your victim mentality and go contribute something to the planet instead of wasting bandwidth.

(I assume these were actually posted by the same person)You do realize how these statements conflict, correct? You first complain about women not being able to play sports, then you rip this guy for complaining about not being able to play. You can't have it both ways, especially when your argument centers around how many people watch you play. If you base it on that, then there should be no college sports outside of football and men's and women's basketball (even that's a stretch).

oops wrote:

(I assume these were actually posted by the same person)

You do realize how these statements conflict, correct? You first complain about women not being able to play sports, then you rip this guy for complaining about not being able to play. You can't have it both ways, especially when your argument centers around how many people watch you play. If you base it on that, then there should be no college sports outside of football and men's and women's basketball (even that's a stretch).

There's no conflict at all.

The schools make a choice of what they want to fund. They decide that they would rather fund 85 football scholarships and a bunch of women's sports rather than men's cross country.

The law says equal access: and you've got it. Men can play football, women can play other sports offered by the school. Just because YOU like to play a sport, doesn't mean the university has to offer it.

For instance: I'm sure there are women who want to compete in Gymnastics. Not EVERY school offers gymnastics. So there are some women who don't compete; they are completely free to continue gymnastics on their own if they wish. Or they can compete in a sport that is offered by the university.

Or some men want to run track. Not EVERY school offers track. So men can either play a sport that is offered, or run on their own. Their choice.

Even some women weren't happy with being placed into the NCAA's governance. Hard to please everyone.

I doubt the law itself would be overturned, but the compliance test might be. I think that the way to turn people against the Title IX compliance test would be to start forcing wider enforcement so that people see just how silly it is. Title IX applies to all university activities, not just sports. Start enforcing the strict numbers rule across all university activities. Does your mechanical engineering program have equal numbers? No? Let's file a Title IX suit! Enough of that and people will stop supporting Title IX.

I'm a woman and I think Title IX is wrong and needs to be replaced. We need the football scholarships because this is what funds everything else - the men's AND the women's teams. However, to count those 85 scholarships against the men's quota is wrong. The quota should be a level playing field with football not included. Or, better yet - let each college decide what they want to fund - let them decide what they think is important. If they want to give all of their athletic scholarships to women or men - so be it.

But this choice exists even without Title IX. Of course schools are going to have some sports while others are not, but schools should be allowed to choose which sports they want to fund/cut, not be forced into it by quotas. If Title IX is removed and a college cuts a women's sport, then athletes of that sport would just have to go to a college that chooses to have it. How is this scenario different then what you are suggesting? Schools shouldn't be forced to keep certain sports just to meet a demand they may not exist.

Why exactly do the football players and basketball players deserve free stuff? The idea that they make money for their schools, outside of a handful of schools around the country is FALSE. Less than 60 NCAA football programs had surpluses last year. Out of over 400. over 200 had deficits of over a MILLION dollars, NOT counting scholarships, which, at most D1 schools add up to around a million dollars with 85 scholarships. Football is a DRAIN on the system, but has an entire system of people making money off of it (NCAA execs, Bowl execs, TV stations) that force the NCAA to prop it up at massive costs to taxpayers.

People dont seem to comprehend this because they arent told about it on television every other day. Perhaps it will help if it is repeated(although I doubt it)

M.C. Confusing wrote:

Why exactly do the football players and basketball players deserve free stuff? The idea that they make money for their schools, outside of a handful of schools around the country is FALSE. Less than 60 NCAA football programs had surpluses last year. Out of over 400. over 200 had deficits of over a MILLION dollars, NOT counting scholarships, which, at most D1 schools add up to around a million dollars with 85 scholarships. Football is a DRAIN on the system, but has an entire system of people making money off of it (NCAA execs, Bowl execs, TV stations) that force the NCAA to prop it up at massive costs to taxpayers.

I think this is a football issue, not a women's issue. Don't blame title ix for the conspiracy between the NCAA and NFL. If the NFL wasn't so cheap, they would create a semi-professional league like MLB and the players who are really good coming out of high school would play in those leagues. Instead, the NCAA is a minor professional league and the schools are allowed to have 85 scholarships. Why not cut down the number of scholarships significantly and then you wouldn't have a problem with the minor sports like men's xc.

I went to a D1 school with no football team so the men's and women's sports were (and are) balanced completely equally. There are 7 men's and 7 women's teams. Why shouldn't there be equality like this? The O.P. is arguing like he wants all opportunity for women to be demolished. Remember women only got the right to vote in 1920 and still only make $.80 on the dollar.

The largest problem with the NCAA system, especially with football and basketball, is that the scholarships given to these athletes take away academic spots from people who deserve them. A lot of the football and basketball players don't even go to class (they have note and test takers) and don't care about graduation. I would much rather teach a male xc runner (distance runners tend to be above the curve and graduate) than a football player. That seems to me to be the biggest discrimination -- giving free rides to athletes from major sports who never intend to graduate and taking away spots from academically qualified students who would contribute to the greater overall atmosphere of the academic community.

Title IX doesnt make it "fair" because if a school wanted to only fund football or men's basketball they can't chose to do so.

Wipe the slate clean and let the schools chose what they want to fund. If that's the end of women's sports and men's non-revenue sports then we'll all have to adopt the European club system and make a go of it best we can.

professore wrote:

The O.P. is arguing like he wants all opportunity for women to be demolished. Remember women only got the right to vote in 1920 and still only make $.80 on the dollar.

The O.P. wasn't arguing to take anything away from women. He's not even advocating for more scholarships for men. He's advocating for men having the opportunity to compete. How does it help women to limit the number of people that can run on a cross country team?

I'm not sure why women getting the right to vote only 90 years ago is relevant to anything. Any woman denied a right to vote because of this would be older than 112 years old now. Do we really need to do something for women to compensate for something that happened to their great - great grandmothers?

As for the $.80 on the dollar, you do realize that they aren't comparing the same jobs, right? Women tend to take time off for kids at a far greater rate than men. When they re-enter the job market, they tend to make less money than if they had not taken time off. Women tend to seek part time jobs at a far greater rate than men. Women are less likely to take jobs that require a lot of strength or are dangerous. Those jobs tend to pay more, all other things being equal.

It's been illegal for over 40 years to discriminate on the basis of gender.

a. Compliance will be assessed in any one of the following ways:

(1) Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or

(2) Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of that sex; or

(3) Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion such as that cited above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.

Doesn't that third option render a lot of this debate irrelevant?

God forbid, the man may have to look at a different school. He has the OPPORTUNITY to participate at any school. Just because he's not good enough to make the team at his school doesn't mean Title IX is to blame. There is always going to be some cutoff beyond which athletes are not accepted.

Now, I agree that football disproportionately uses up slots and that needs to be accounted for. The first step is cutting from 85 down to a more reasonable number. 66 would be a good start. I know, 3 for every position on the field is extreme, but they MIGHT be able to pull it off.

Finally, every school that cuts a team and blames Title IX is blatantly LYING. It's a money issue pure and simple. If it were not, they would just ADD a woman's sport instead. After all, Title IX is about providing opportunities, not reducing them. In fact, quite often what you'll see is cutting several sports at once, including a woman's sport.

straight outta title ix wrote:

a. Compliance will be assessed in any one of the following ways:

(1) Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or

(2) Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of that sex; or

(3) Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion such as that cited above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.

Doesn't that third option render a lot of this debate irrelevant?

I believe that it's more difficult for universities to prove compliance with option 3. I think Title IX would be a lot fairer if option 3 was the standard for compliance.

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?

Women have the opportunities now. Why keep men from playing because there are not girls to match their roster number? News flash: MEN and WOMEN have different interests!

No one is complaining that women constitute 1% of Engineering majors. The opportunity is available to them; they just do not want it. Same for most men with Nursing or Education majors.

Should we make a short-sighted and arbitrary law that requires equal participation in these majors? NO! By God, the opportunity is all anyone cares about!

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!