In re the Title IX conversation between Amber and Herb:
The problem is NOT Title IX, but its unethical application by lazy school
administrators. I have deposed MANY, MANY school administrators who do not
have the slightest clue about what Title IX requires but who jump at quick
fixes to avoid litigation. Administrators are also too afraid to confront
the
excesses of men's football and basketball. Instead of cutting men's minor
sports, they should cut the number of coaches, perks, and luxury facilities
for
so-called men's "major sports."
The "proportionality test" is not a requirement in the law or the
regulations.
It is actually a "safe harbor" for schools. Schools that are proportional
do
not have to worry. They can be disproportional as long as the interests
are
being met.
As for meeting everyone's interests.....that is not realistic given the
public's adamant stances against the real estate taxes that fund public
schools. Schools cannot afford to add sports without cutting somewhere.
We
must also realize that BOYS had 100% of the opportunities for 100 years.
When
girls were finally allowed in the gym door, schools had 2 choices:
increase
spending and add girls' sports or keep spending level and cut from boys'
programs. Boys who have had 100% of the pie see any cut as "unfair" when
in
realilty they still have about 70%. 70% is still favoritism toward boys in
any
mathemetician's book, but boys --- as documented in study after study --
see
equity as a loss.
Kristen Galles, Equity Legal and Title IX litigator
kgalles@erols.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 19 2000 - 10:24:16 EDT