I'm sorry if I haven't answered your question to your satisfaction; please
allow me to try again.
From your initial message, I understood your series of questions to be:
"What's the source for your report on the "national trend"? Over what
period? What sports? All sports? What instituions? Elementary, secondary,
post-secondary? All of them?"
I thought I replied:
"What I refer to as the national trend is inclusive of all sports at the
post-secondary level. Analysis of overall participation rates as reported
by the NCAA indicates that for every female athlete added, four male
athletes have been eliminated to satisfy the quota"
In my opinion this answered all of your questions:
Q - "What's the source for your report on the 'national trend?'"
A - "...as reported by the NCAA" would indicate that it comes from the NCAA
Participation report.
Q - "Over what period?"
A - "...to satisfy the quota" seems to me to indicate that the scope of the
issue extends from the installation of the quota known as proportionality
until the time that proportionality is eliminated (which has not yet
occurred).
Q - "What sports? All sports?"
A - "...inclusive of all sports..."
Q - "What institutions? Elementary, secondary, post-secondary? All of
them?"
A - "...at the post-secondary level."
>The three-part test -- all three parts -- is a
> valid means of addressing the inequities.
"If a school is taking action to enhance its women's program, then
certainly, that would be a consideration in allowing a school some time to
bring its **!!!PARTICIPATION RATE!!!** into compliance. But that can't go
on forever."
- Dr. Mary Frances O'Shea, Office of Civil Rights, United States
Department of Education (emphasis mine).
If she enforces the other two parts of the test then why does she give a
rat's behind about "participation rate?" None of the other two tests
consider participation rate.
Now that I've answered your questions, as best I can, why don't you try
answering mine?
1. If you are right and colleges are using proportionality as an excuse
to cut programs, wouldn't it do Title IX a great deal of good (remove the
controversy surrounding it) to eliminate proportionality?
2. If the other two tests are enforced the same as the first, then what's
wrong with eliminating just that one that is causing controversy? The
other two tests would still be in place; I would not advocate their
dismissal as well. Why are you fighting so hard to keep this one test
which in your own words can be substituted with one of the others?
3. Also please answer the logical argument:
If I am right the best solution is to abolish proportionality (i.e.
remove the numberic quota requirement). If you are right then the best
solution is to abolish proportionality (i.e. remove the college's excuse
for cutting teams and blaming it on Title IX). Either you are right or I
am right. Therefore, no matter what, the best solution is to abolish
proportionality.
Logical illustration: A = Amber is right V = Verna is right K = The
best solution is to kill proportionality
If A then K.
If V then K.
Either A or V.
Therefore, necessarily, K.
Hugs
Amber V. DeWine
your_honor@justice.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 11:01:01 EDT