Here is an example of well-intentioned law producing rediculous result

Parent Cafe
41

<p>SS, I , too, wish spectators were supporting women's athletics at all levels to a much higher degree but I see some inroads, some positives. Back to my infamous sample of one ;), our girls bball and volleyball teams had more fans then our boys baseball or basketball. Admittedly, they did really well but that has continued this year, admittedly when the volleyball team is doing really well again but still.... </p>

<p>But I do have to agree that women's sports have horrible attendance. A big crowd for my D this year at home will be half what it was last year, and we are a small high school! But by the time she's a senior, and they start competing for a championship against ST2's kid and condor30's kid, well... there won't be a seat open. They'll be scalping tickets and selling T-shirts.</p>

42

<p>curmudgeon:

[quote]
I don't care how they spend their money. More sports, less sports - just make it equal between the genders

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't get this attitude either, curmudgeon. </p>

<p>Why not make the argument across the board for all extracurriculars, not isolating sports equity as a category unto itself?</p>

<p>If men are disproportionately interested in athletics and women in performing arts (music and drama), but everyone has a reasonable opportunity to participate in an extracurricular activity that appeals to them (with reasonably equitable funding across activities), why isn't that enough equity?</p>

43

<p>


</p>

<p>wisteria, I was not trying to be snippy when I posted that. I thought I was explaining why I didn't think 30 years of Title IX had made up for umpteen generations of sports repression. Tennis in a dress? Un-ladylike to ride anyway but side-saddle? Women can't pole vault (as they lack upper body strength)? The list is almost endless. Give the women another generation or two and let's do the numbers again. See what we get. Y'all might be surprised.</p>

<p>The trends I see suggest that the gap is narrowing, due in large part to the increased awareness and opportunities brought on by Title IX. Finally a government program that is working , in large part as it was intended to work, and folks want to change it. I just don't see it.</p>

<p>Edit: As an aside . I was the Title IX Compliance Committee's student rep for a D1 school as a law student in the late seventies. My interest in women's sports equity issues occurred long before I had a kid who played . But it has certainly kicked into high gear. LOL.</p>

44

<p>"If men are disproportionately interested in athletics and women in performing arts (music and drama), but everyone has a reasonable opportunity to participate in an extracurricular activity that appeals to them (with reasonably equitable funding across activities), why isn't that enough equity?"</p>

<p>That would be great. Title IX says it would be great. It is one of the specific tests allowed for compliance. They don't require anything more than that opportunities (and funding) be equitably shared according to the demonstrated interest of those who wish to participate.</p>

<p>For JMU, that meant cutting 10 teams, 3 of them women. That Appalachian State game is awfully important. Go figure.</p>

45

<p>
[quote]
Hold somebody back for generations by belittling their efforts in sports and then point the finger and say "See. They don't like to play sports." Not really a model I think is fair . Do you seriously think it is? That's one reason why Title IX is there. To get past wrong-headed thinking like that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not saying women don't like to play sports. (My mom was a basketball star at her Catholic all-girls high school in the 1940s. In the 1980s, she inspired me by beating women half her age in tennis. She also beat my dad, who wasn't very happy about it.)</p>

<p>I'm saying that women like a variety of things and men like a variety of things. The balance may be different, but as long as everyone has reasonable opportunities and a reasonable share of the budget, why should we care if there are more women in drama club and fewer women on sports teams?</p>

<p>As long as colleges offer a broad menu of activities so that everyone has an opportunity to do things they enjoy (which don't cost an outrageous amount of money), why shouldn't that be good enough?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I , too, wish spectators were supporting women's athletics at all levels to a much higher degree

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And I think it is entirely misguided to encourage more students to become spectators at intercollegiate sports events, men's or women's.</p>

<p>I think students who are not competitive athletes, for whatever reason, are better off doing something than sitting in the bleachers spectating (or, as happens all too often, using the event as an excuse for a tailgating party.)</p>

<p>I know a group of students who attend a college that offered a big menu of varsity spectator sports to watch last Saturday, men's and women's. They passed all those events up in favor of a daylong hike in nearby mountains.</p>

<p>James Madison is in the heart of the beautiful Shenandoah Mountains. I think it would be healthier all around to encourage students to spend their free time hiking in the mountains rather than attending sports events as spectators.</p>

46

<p>


Do you believe men need government protection from schools denying them access to music and drama programs at the high school and college level? Do you believe that history of "denial of access" is akin to the prejudices faced by women athletes in the last .....let's say 400 years? If so, then I'd say we might need Title IX (A).</p>

47

<p>Here's an editorial in the local newspaper. As mini said, it appears the decision was primarily about preserving the football program. (Which, by the way, was national champion in division 1-AA a year or so ago.)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dnronline.com/sports_details.php?AID=6574&CHID=3%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dnronline.com/sports_details.php?AID=6574&CHID=3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I can understand why the newspaper applauds the move. I imagine alumni returning to watch football games each weekend is a major economic boon to an area that can use the boost. (Even though there are only an average of 4,000 students in the stands at an average football game, the stadium is apparently full--15,000 spectators. And they are building a new stadium, because they could accommodate more if they had space. I would guess some are alumni and some are just local community boosters.)</p>

<p>There isn't a whole lot else to generate community spirit in that neck of the Virginia woods, so there may be something to be said for promoting programs that bring people to the area. </p>

<p>But it seems to me that if it's such a great economic boost, then local businesses (the Chamber of Commerce, hotels, restaurants, etc.) should subsidize the program, not student fees.</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
Do you believe men need government protection from schools denying them access to music and drama programs at the high school and college level?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think that men (as well as women) interested in these performing arts programs have not had access to arts programs that were funded on an equal basis to sports program funding.</p>

<p>And I think they still don't have access to equally funded programs.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Do you believe that history of "denial of access" is akin to the prejudices faced by women athletes in the last .....let's say 400 years?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Women have faced greater prejudices in just getting access to higher education over the past millennia. They've caught up very quickly--they are now well over 50% of college students.</p>

<p>That's a much higher priority to me than sports. (And I attended a women's high school and a women's college that offered lots of opportunities, that certainly didn't discriminate in any way--but I just wasn't interested, despite my mom's example.)</p>

49

<p>wisteria, you are talking about a battle between sport and art at college that I am unwilling to engage in. Not because I don't have an opinion but simply because I know that like most things in life people will tend to support the side of the argument that benefits them (or their kids ) the most. After 3000 posts , at least I've learned that. ;)</p>

<p>Tip O'Neill was fond of saying "All politics are local" . My take on it is "All politics are pocketbook (with just enough few true believers to make life interesting)". I have said that given truthful answers to a series of lifestyle and income questions asked in person, I can determine how 90% of the folks I talk to will vote in presidential elections. </p>

<p>Likewise, I believe for most of what we discuss on the board, I have found very few posters who will argue against their own interests or that of their kids. In fact, it's as rare as hen's teeth. ;)</p>

50

<p>As a female athlete, I laugh whenever people tell me that I'm not interested in sports. See, sports are often definied as male sports - football but no vollyball, hockey but no ballet or ballroom dancing. Women's sports are club sports, funded by the students doing them, while men's sports are funded by the school. </p>

<p>At my high school, way back about 10 years ago, women athletes outnumbered male athletes. We were still shortchanged with resources, though - more buses for the boys (their teams were smaller but they are boys), so the girls had to drive. We weren't allowed to share a bus with them, either - so the 60-man boy's team got two buses while the 80-strong girls team got one. Men got the new, nice locker rooms in the field house - women had to change in the school restrooms.</p>

51

<p>
[quote]
wisteria, you are talking about a battle between sport and art at college that I am unwilling to engage in. Not because I don't have an opinion but simply because I know that like most things in life people will tend to support the side of the argument that benefits them (or their kids ) the most.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I just chose art as an example.</p>

<p>And I'm not thinking of immediate benefits to my kids, but to the broader academic community, and to fairness to the overwhelming majority of students (and parents) paying the bills.</p>

<p>No matter how you slice it, it simply isn't going to be economically viable to fund all student activities at the level at which varsity sports are currently funded.</p>

<p>To me, the answer is simple: if a government-funded college collects large mandatory student activity fees, then there ought to be a mechanism to make sure that those fees are broadly and fairly distributed among student activities that engage and involve all students, men AND women. </p>

<p>If that means that all varsity sports, mens and womens, become club sports, with modest college funding, I don't see why that's the end of the world. (I know kids, both male and female, who had a fabulous time on a club sport team.)</p>

52

<p>ariesathena, it is getting a little better at one high school. It took a concerted effort but we have new facilities. Still rode a school bus to the state championship game while the boys (sometimes) get charters for football but..."one crime at a time". ;)</p>

53

<p>


</p>

<p>As did I. ;) I have no axe to grind with math club , music, or marching band either. My D did all of those, too. Now that theatre nonsense.....we could certainly cut there. LOL.</p>

54

<p>wisteria, so I can get my hands around your argument, are you saying you'd rather see all varsity sports go the way of the triceratops before seeing women's sports and men's sports be representational of their percentages at the institution? How'd we get there?</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
wisteria, so I can get my hands around your argument, are you saying you'd rather see all varsity sports go the way of the triceratops before seeing women's sports and men's sports be representational of their percentages at the institution? How'd we get there?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's not what I'm saying.</p>

<p>I'm saying that</p>

<p>(1) there's way too much money spent on college varsity athletics. For students and families that are taking out loans and working extra jobs to pay for their children's education, it just seems wrong that so much money collected from mandatory student fees is going into a peripheral activity that benefits only a very small minority of students.</p>

<p>(2) student activity money ought to be equitably distributed across a broad menu of activities that interest, engage, and involve all students</p>

<p>(3) as long as all student activities are equitably funded across the board, I don't much care about how any one particular category of activity breaks out in terms of gender equity, racial equity, etc. </p>

<p>If the chess club is mostly men, I don't necessarily think the administration has to go out of its way to ensure there's a corresponding mah-jong club that is mostly women.</p>

56

<p>
[quote]
As a female athlete, I laugh whenever people tell me that I'm not interested in sports.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nobody on this thread said any such thing. I am a female athlete. A rapidly aging one, but still plugging away. I love to play sports & watch sports. I happily drive my children of both genders to their respective sports competitions and cheer them on enthusiastically. </p>

<p>That does not change the fact that more men are interested in sports, particularly at the college level, than girls. </p>

<p>Wisteria has great ideas about letting students have free choice about what extra-curriculars interest them & then have the $$$ follow them. If women's sports get a smaller piece of the pie, but a larger piece is allotted for the drama club, so be it. I'd like to see the reaction of the athletic directors at Ohio State & Michigan when you suggest the football teams get bumped down to club level, though! </p>

<p>Just a hunch, but I'd guess that the women's health center sees a lot more action than any men's clinic on most campuses. Should funding still be equal?</p>

57

<p>Healthcare and extra curriculars? SS, do you want a mulligan on that one?</p>

58

<p>mah-jong! LOL!</p>

<p>I remember being annoyed about mandtory student fees as an undergrad commuter. I usually had to rush home, help with chronically ill mom & the general household upkeep, and get to my part-time job. Didn't get much use out of the student activity fee, that's for sure. And we didn't have many varsity sports, although I did manage the men's soccer team. At my engineering school, there were 10 men to every woman, so there were no interscholastic women's teams. It was impossible to even get women's intramural teams going.</p>

59

<p>I don't want a mulligan because I view the issues under the umbrella of meeting needs. If more women than men access health care services, or tutoring services, or job placement services, or university police escort services, or....whatever, I don't really care. Use what you need to get whatever it is you want from the college experience. I don't like the idea of beancounting and some artificially created sense of equity.</p>

60

<p>Getting back to the original title of this thread, the "ridiculous result" (cutting mens athletic sports teams) is hardly the result of Title IX law. That accusation is made by people who want to deflect attention from the actual reason for program cuts which is "reallocation of university spending" (i.e. budget shortfalls).</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with cutting programs that are out of the university's core mission when money is short. However, there is a problem with a people pointing the finger of blame at one group within the university (women who play sports) to explain why mens programs get cut when it really is a budget cutting issue.</p>

<p>In the interest of full disclosure, I too have a female athlete. And she probably plays the most expensive (per participant) sport out there. I find it interesting which schools offer womens ice hockey at a Div I level and which ones don't.</p>

<p>In Michigan, which is one of 3 states that have their own district in USA hockey (New York, Massachusettes are the other 3 - out of 11 districts - Minnesota is combined with the Dakotas), there is exactly 1 Division I team in the state. And it isn't the University of Michigan or Michigan State. It is Wayne State University, a small mostly commuter school, located in a rather questionable area of Detroit. </p>

<p>A lot of people wonder why schools like Michigan and Michigan State do not field women's ice hockey teams. The fixed cost (the rink) is already there. It then becomes a sport on par with most other women's sports (coaches, travel, uniforms, etc) as far as expenses are concerned.</p>

<p>So where do the girls who play top level hockey in Michigan go to play Division I hockey? - Away from home.</p>

<p>Now Ohio State fields a Division I womens ice hockey team. And there are barely enough girls in the state to field 1 top level high school club team and one prep school team. Go figure.</p>

<p>Point here is that there are lots of muddy areas in terms of schools sponsoring the appropriate number of womens athletic programs. And it isn't always about cost.</p>