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 =
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 =
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Apr 12 2002 - 15:15:36 EDT