Re: Title IX softball case

Date: Wed Apr 19 2000 - 10:23:51 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: Edequity Digest V1 #257"

    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
    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
    so-called men's "major sports."

    The "proportionality test" is not a requirement in the law or the
    It is actually a "safe harbor" for schools. Schools that are proportional
    not have to worry. They can be disproportional as long as the interests
    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.
    must also realize that BOYS had 100% of the opportunities for 100 years.
    girls were finally allowed in the gym door, schools had 2 choices:
    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
    realilty they still have about 70%. 70% is still favoritism toward boys in
    mathemetician's book, but boys --- as documented in study after study --
    equity as a loss.

    Kristen Galles, Equity Legal and Title IX litigator

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 19 2000 - 10:24:16 EDT