RE: Title IX softball case

Date: Wed Apr 12 2000 - 11:49:54 EDT

  • Next message: "Girls and computers, high-tech education"


    You said, "Why not amend the law 20 USC 1681 to say that equality under =
    this section may not be achieved by subtraction of opportunities?"

    I suspect that is where some courts are headed.

    You may have a supporter in your belief that Daniels isn't the best =
    resolution. In this article, written before Pederson was heard by the =
    5th Circuit, Thomas S. Evans makes the following statement, "I want to =
    emphasize at this point that the courts are holding that downsizing =
    men's programs so as to increase the proportion of female =
    student-athletes does not comply with prong two of the Policy =
    Interpretation." He continues to, "I recommend against an institution's =
    reliance on downsizing unless it achieves through such downsizing =
    proportionality meeting the requirements of the first prong of the =
    Policy Interpretation."

    As you pointed out, you are going to enter law. Read the article =
    yourself and reach your own conclusions as to whether this supports your =
    position. at:


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 12 2000 - 11:51:36 EDT