Re: Title IX softball case

Date: Wed Apr 19 2000 - 16:22:11 EDT

  • Next message: "RE: Title IX softball case"

    I think you make a few good points, but you repeated a few myths and are
    still are missing the problem. You talk about the "excesses of men's
    football and basketball" in terms of "coaches, perks, and luxury
    facilities." I don't care if you cut the men's football and basketball
    budgets down to one dollar spent per player, or even to one cent per
    player, or for that matter to one mill per player, volunteer coaches,
    etc...if boys still come out to play sports in greater numbers than girls
    the college is in violation of Title IX's only active standard, the
    proportionality according to enrollment standard.

    Budget in this sense is not relevant, it is merely a distraction that the
    Women's Sports Foundation has put out there to try to focus societal
    attention away from their support of a numbers game. (Why? Americans
    don't like quotas.) I don't care how many "extras" you cut from men's
    major sports (which cutting I might be in favor of), it still has no effect
    on the numbers of athletes, which is the ONLY compliance test that is

    A good point that you make is that the law is not the problem but rather
    its application is. Where we differ is that in my judgment the
    misapplication is being committed by the Department of Education and by the
    federal court system. The school administrators aren't the ones who say
    "This school is going to be sued (or undergo an OCR inquisition) if it does
    not have numbers of male and female athletes in proportion to enrollment."
    It is true that the school administrators are the ones who make the final
    decision "Cut the men's swim team," but it is the government that forces
    them to that decision. It is Assistant Secretary Cantu who says "Cut the
    men's swim team or somehow manufacture X number of women who want to play
    sports." Since cloning female athletes is not an option, and conscripting
    them into athletics is also not a viable option, the only choice is to
    drive down the numbers of male athletes.

    > 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
    > are being met.

      This is a myth, unfortunatlely a far too common one. First of all, the
    oft-used proportionality test is a method of compliance according to a
    document called the "Policy Interpretation" issued by the Education
    Department and which can probably be found online. The
    myth that schools "can be disproportional as long as the interests are
    being met" comes from the other two tests, most notably "effective
    accommodation of interest." Unfortunately, three obstacles are
    encountered. First, the Assistant Secretary has been lax at best in
    recognizing these tests. Secondly, these tests when they are recognized by
    the Assistant Secretary are recognized ONLY INSOFAR as they lead to
    proportionality. This was confirmed by the Office of Civil Rights' Dr.
    Mary Frances O'Shea. Thirdly, federal courts have gone so far as to
    actually vacate these other two tests, in cases called Brown and Neal
    (First and Ninth Circuits, respectively). The only test that is agreed
    upon by Dr. O'Shea, Assistant Secretary Cantu, and the federal courts is
    the requirement of proportionality.

    > We must also realize that BOYS had 100% of the opportunities for 100

      I don't give a toot about a hundred years ago; I did not live a hundred
    years ago; I was born in 1978. Unless there is also some extremely potent
    medication that I don't know about that reverses aging, none of the boys in
    high school or college (that I can tell) lived a hundred years ago either.

    > 70% is still favoritism toward boys in any mathemetician's book, but
    boys --- as documented in study after study > -- see equity as a loss.

      70% is not favoritism if boys are interested in sports at a ratio of 70%
    whereas girls are interested at a ratio of 30%. The numbers do not show
    favoritism, they show result. Favoritism is a human judgment evaluation,
    not a numeric or a statistical one. You cannot sit down with a pencil and
    paper and say okay, if z sub mu is less than or equal to z sub alpha over
    two (hypothesis testing in statistics) then it is favoritism.

      You talk about a mathematician's book...sorry madam, I'm not a
    mathematician. I'm an equitician, a justician, an ethicist. I'm
    interested in what is right and wrong, what is fair and unfair, not what z
    sub mu equals.

      Boys, and I, see "equity" as a loss when it comes by destruction rather
    than addition. If I go home this summer and my house is on fire, I say,
    "Oh my goodness, I should remedy this situation" and call the fire
    department, i.e. stop the bad situation. (I don't actually use those exact
    words but you get my point!) I do not say "Oh my goodness, I should remedy
    this situation" and go get a lighter and a container of gasoline and set my
    neighbor's house ablaze, i.e. keep the situation bad for me but make it bad
    for my neighbor too so everything will be equal.

      Equity, indeed anything, can only be seen as positive when it yields
    benefit. Two people with burnt houses is not beneficial. Stopping my
    house from burning down while still allowing my neighbor's house to stay
    standing is beneficial. Girls that do not get the chance to play and boys
    who have their chances to play stolen is not beneficial. Raising up girls
    sports while still allowing the boys the chance to participate is

      That's why I, and I think the boys as well, see this twisted form of
    results "equity", or what I call "z sub mu equity" as a loss. Not only a
    loss for the boys, but for the girls too and for society in general.

    Amber V. DeWine

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 19 2000 - 16:22:36 EDT