Re: FW: Title IX

Date: Tue May 09 2000 - 09:58:02 EDT

  • Next message: "Sadker report: NOT missing"

    Hi again!

     I'm sorry if my last post seemed like an attack on your organization; I
    did not mean it that way. I don't believe in ad hominem attacks as I
    believe they make the attacker look sophomoric, and I sincerely apologize
    if my point came across as an ad hominem attack. I was merely trying to
    lay background for my question which was: Why would you, in the driver's
    seat of Title IX enforcement, want to drive it toward a point where there
    will be such a backlash that will result in the complete watering down of
    the entire law instead of just the bad parts?

      Your position reflects an interesting logical issue: Either Dr. O'Shea
    and I are right in saying that eventually the participation rate has to
    meet proportionality, or you are right in saying that the other two tests
    can be used equally, and that Title IX is merely an excuse used by colleges
    to cut teams for a reason you haven't yet made clear.

      If Dr. O'Shea and I are right, then the effective solution is to abolish
    proportionality: That way, the men's teams will not need to be cut becuase
    colleges won't need to meet proportionality.

      If you are right, then the effective solution is to abolish
    proportionality: That way the colleges will not be able to scapegoat Title
    IX for their decisions.

      So we have a situation of: Either you are right or I am right -- If I
    am right the best solution is to abolish proportionality -- If you are
    right the best solution is to abolish proportionality. In EITHER CASE, as
    can be logically proven with a mid-sized truth table, the solution is to
    abolish proportionality.

      All I have been saying from the get-go on the issue of Title IX in
    athletics is to abolish proportionality; so what are we fighting and
    arguing about?!!! :)

      With that said, let me respond to a few of the points you made that I
    found intriguing:

    > Today, the number of women participating in college sports is 135,000,
    > which
    > is 4 times greater than prior to the law's enactment.

      Proportionality did not come WITH the law; it is a regulation
    manufactured AFTER the law was in force. I want to see the numbers not
    since the law's enactment but after the installation of proportionality,
    since that is the real issue.

    > Title IX is not a quota. The law prohibits quotas. The policy
    > interpretation of Title IX, which Congress approved, provides for a
    > three-part test to determine compliance.

      Two parts of which are not enforced: Dr. Mary Frances O'Shea said
    herself that the effective test is the "participation rate." I already
    quoted her on this list; I will do so again if you don't remember the

      I didn't say that Title IX was a quota; I said that proportionality was a
    quota. Please pay attention.

    > substantially proportionate athletic opportunities for male and
    > female athletes; or

    > a history and continuing practice of expanding opportunities
    > the under-represented sex; or
    > full and effective accommodation of the interests and abilities
    > of
    > the under-represented sex.

      Assume again that you're right. If there are three tests, which are
    supposed to be equally effective, then why not get rid of that one that
    causes so much controversy? This is a very interesting issue! Why are you
    fighting so hard to stop efforts to eliminate proportionality if the other
    two tests would remain in place? That leads me to believe you think that
    Title IX enforcement would be weakened if proportionality were eliminated.
    In other words, the first test is the crux of enforcement; otherwise you
    wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep it!

    > According the NCAA Gender Equity study from 1998, women have 40% of the
    > opportunities to play intercollegiate sports. 41% of athletic
    > 33% of athletic operating budgets and 30% of the dollars spent to recruit
    > new athletes.

      40% of the opportunities, or 40% of the athletes???? This is a very
    important point; not every opportunity results in fulfillment. In any
    event; so what? I don't care about numbers of athletes; I care about
    making sure everyone's interests are accommodated reasonably.

    > Colleges and universities spend far more on men's athletics as they do on
    > women. For example, between 1989 and 1997, for every new dollar spent on
    > Division I-A women athletes, two new dollars were spent on men. [Daniel
    > Fulks, Revenues and Expenses of Division I and II Intercollegiaate
    > Athletics
    > Programs: Financial Trends and Relationships -- 1997. ]

      I don't know how many times I have to tell you that my attention cannot
    be distracted! I have a mind like a VISE!! Don't tell me about spending
    on men's vs. women's programs, because it doesn't have a thing to do with
    participation rate which is the issue. Please try to stay on topic.

    > The NCAA reports that from 1992 until 1997, men's athletic budges in
    > Division I-A have increased by a whopping 139%, compared to 89% for

      Well, usually I add a cup of bleach.

      (If you're not going to stay on topic, why should I?)

    > We will continue to work in this area to ensure that women and girls get
    > the
    > equal opportunities to which they are entitled under law.

      What happens when all those wrestling sisters and wrestling moms who
    think not "Verna did this to my boy" but rather "Title IX did this to my
    boy" say "We're not going to accept this anymore" and force the total
    weakening of Title IX (including the good parts)? Will women and girls
    benefit when that happens? It's just another example of an alleged
    "feminist" working to the eventual detriment of real women and girls.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 09 2000 - 09:58:19 EDT