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

Parent Cafe
61

<p>"wisteria, you are talking about a battle between sport and art at college that I am unwilling to engage in. "</p>

<p>And then there's high school. We had to beg for money to send our Science Olympiad team to states, while football hogs all the money.</p>

62

<p>
[quote]

And then there's high school. We had to beg for money to send our Science Olympiad team to states, while football hogs all the money.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ah, don't get me started. Then there's the pittance of a stipend paid to the debate coach (who spends many weekends on the road with the team at frequent out-of-town two-day tournaments) compared to the stipends for the sports team coaches. (And of course, the parents carpool the kids to the tournaments while the school sends the athletes wherever they need to go in school buses.)</p>

63

<p>And trust me, the only reason HS bands get any money is that halftime at a football game would be very boring without it. LOL</p>

64

<p>I am certainly by no means knowledgable about Title IX. My question is simple: if schools provide equal opportunities for girls based on student interest, such as sign up sheets , polls etc. but the female students do not elect to participate in numbers equal to that of boys, does that mean that the school must cancel the sport as JMU has done?</p>

<p>What happens if ,theoretically, no females or males want to participate in varsity sports? Does this mean that the school can't have any sports?</p>

65

<p>TaxGuy: my understanding is that Title IX is satisfied via proportional funding. If you have a school that is 70% male (say, a tech school), then you can give 70% (plus/minus 5%) of your athletic funding to men's sports. You can also satisfy this requirement by funding athletics in proportion to the interest of the students - so either you satisfy everyone's interests, or you proportionally leave kids without funding.</p>

66

<p>StickerShock, your argument has a few logical/legal flaws. The main one is that athletics is inherently segregated by gender. I cannot compete on a football team; however, a man can compete in the drama club and access health services. The issue comes when you have one service that is open to men but not women. Men eat more in the dining halls - should they be charged more? The argument can work any way you want it to, but, when you're talking about something that is not inherently segregated by gender, then gender becomes a proxy. At least at state schools, any distinctions made by gender (i.e. who pays more tuition, more for a meal plan) must be narrowly tailored to meet a state interest - and your plan does not pass Constitutional muster. </p>

<p>There was an article in the NYT recently saying that women are not as interested as men in the sciences. Common myth. Look at the STATISTICS. More women than men earn bachelor's degrees in chemistry and the masters has reached gender parity. Likewise, you have yet to present a single statistic which states that women are less willing than men to engage in competitive sports. You've cited proxies for this - i.e. athletic activity - but that is not competitive, funded collegiate sports. Sorry.</p>

67

<p>The spending need not be proportional--just the participation. BTW I think that fee for athletics at JMU is WAY too high--almost 1/3 of total instate tuition and fees. Did the students get to vote on it?</p>

68

<p>I'll pick on another stumbling block in Title IX -- the NCAA.</p>

<p>A Division I school cannot field teams to compete in Division III. Now this may not sound like much of a problem for starting up a new sports team if they can take a few years of getting schellacked. However, there are more requirements than playing at the top level. </p>

<p>Division I sports are supposed to be oriented towards fan enjoyment as well as player development, which means that the facility at which a school hosts a competition must be set up for significant fan attendance. So now, you've got to make sure you have adequate field/arena/court space available for all the teams (womens/mens) that participate in varsity sport. </p>

<p>This is one of the reasons Penn State does not field Division 1 hockey teams (they kill everyone in ACHA club hockey though). </p>

<p>If your school has 1 large arena, you've got to balance mens and womens basketball (because they have to have equal playing facilities) plus gymnastics and volleyball.</p>

<p>Scheduling this venue for mens and womens events equally becomes a nightmare, but the school is required to use a facility that supports a large fan base to participate in Division I sports, so you can't schlep off gymnastics to a small gym that seats 100 people.</p>

<p>And honestly, most Division I athletes aren't there for the crowds. And they'd much rather play in a small venue than not have a team at all, but that isn't an option for most Division I sports.</p>

<p>Division III doesn't have those fan attendance requirements, so many hockey programs work out of rinks that seat less than 1000 people. Fewer impediments to starting sports programs means an easier time starting up womens programs. </p>

<p>Just another unseen impediment to womens sports.</p>

69

<p>Having a S that wrestles at a D3 school has given me the chance to do my fair share of research in T9. The surveys mini talks so glowingly about are OK with the Feds. The problem is, according to many people I have spoken with at schools that have had wrestling on the chopping block is that if a school threatens to use that route, they have been warned that various T9 support groups are standing by to start the lawsuit against it. No University wants to foot the bill for that. So don't look for it to happen.</p>

<p>And as far as aries point on being on football, the couple of times there have girls on NCAA wrestling teams, they count as MEN. Explain the sense in that. </p>

<p>Finally, the last thing that no one will speak up about in sports is cheerleeding. They want to be thought of as a sport. They are on ESPN, my D's sponsor insists their HS squad is a sport, they work "so hard". But God forbid they actually get classified as such. Then they would have regulation by the NCAA or HS governing angencies. They would have limited seasons, and maybe another 30 or 40 girls would count against T9 "proportionality" (read quota). U of MD I believe is counting them, but no one else.</p>

<p>BTW, D is a HS soph and will be participating in college athletics if she continues to improve. She has way more opportunity than S did as a wrestler. One thing many people don't realize is it is the non-scholarship male that is the #1 casualty at D1. The guy can't walk-on, because the rosters of the girls teams are too small. They literally beg girls to get on sports rosters so that the men can't just walk-on, in some cases they can't even try out for a spot.</p>

70

<p>ariesathena, your understanding of Title IX needs quite a bit of work. Check out the website I listed earlier. I've stated that interest surveys are proving women don't have an equal desire to participate in competitive sports as men. That's the voice of women calling out to you. Why won't you listen? Women's sports programs are begging for participants while men's programs are turning away walk-ons. </p>

<p>Women's programs are being added in sports like equestrian & golf. Do you know who suffers because wealthy, white women are getting these opportunities? Black men. Black men make up about 12% of the undergrads at 4 year colleges. Yet they represent 23% of all athletes. So go ahead & cut men's programs & deny opportunities for black men if it makes you feel that equity has been achieved. As long as Muffy & Buffy can still be part of the pony set & keep their golf swings solid for their country club social scene.</p>

<p>Barrons is correct that funding doesn't have to be proportional, just participation. If men's sports equipment costs more that's fine. As long as the women's equipment is of equal quality. </p>

<p>Proportionality of participation is a crock anyway. Did you know that nontraditional students count toward the proportionality test? Women make up 56% of these students & they don't have any free time to join a varsity team. 65% of undergrads with kids are women. 61% of students over 30 are women. Real life is calling.</p>

<p>Actually, you can compete on a football team. But a man can't compete on a field hockey team.</p>

71

<p>
[quote]
A Division I school cannot field teams to compete in Division III.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh? A school can be Division I in one sport and Division III in others. For instance, Johns Hopkins is Division I in lacrosse and Division III in everything else.</p>

<p>My daughter participates in a Division I sport in which there is no "significant fan attendance." Where did you find that requirement?</p>

<p>Here is a good explanation of what Title IX requires (and does not require). Some statements in previous posts are not completely accurate:
<a href="http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/rights/article.html?record=888%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/rights/article.html?record=888&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

72

<p>
[quote]
Just another unseen impediment to womens sports

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, but the impediment is placed there in a silly attempt to be equitable. If a women's gymnastic event were held in a gym with 100 seats, that would probably be about 75 more than needed to accomodate the fans. So kooky requirements might stand in the way of having a gymnastics program at all.</p>

<p>And since 1996, funding increases for women's sports don't count toward compliance with Title IX. New teams have to be added. Improving equipment, training, transportation, and services to make the existing women's teams better is not seen as a strong enough commitment to promoting women's sports opportunities.</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
Huh? A school can be Division I in one sport and Division III in others. For instance, Johns Hopkins is Division I in lacrosse and Division III in everything else.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Diane, Johns Hopkins is one of a very small number of grandfathered Division III schools with a special waiver that allows it to continue one sport as a Division I program. </p>

<p>It's an arcane waiver that is only available to about eight schools and it basically allows them to continue one sport that they were playing at a division I level back in the early 1980s even though the rest of their sports are division III.</p>

<p>In Johns Hopkins case, their single division I sport is LaCrosse. Another division III school with the waiver is RPI, which is allowed to do division I hockey.</p>

<p>It's a controversial waiver and there are periodic discussions about ending the waiver. Sen. Chuck Schumer of NY got heavily involved in lobbying the NCAA not to revoke the waiver policy in 2004.</p>

<p>In any case, the waiver does not apply to a generic division I school that gets a bee in its bonnet to offer a division III sport.</p>

<p>It just specifically applies to a very narrow class of division III schools that historically offered a single division I sport.</p>

<p>NCAA has no provisions that would allow a division I school like JMU to start up any division III teams.</p>

74

<p>So if women want to participate in equestrian and golf, they should have to pay for it themselves, while paying full freight for college, so other people can be subsidized? Don't men also have golf teams? </p>

<p>You keep telling people that they "lack understanding." Honestly, construct an argument that doesn't involve telling people that they are stupid. I've stated that universities can satisfy their Title IX requirements by using surveys. You've said that, but then somehow claim that it's a horrible, awful imposition on the universities to do this. If you want to be a knee-jerk anti-feminist, fine. (Being quite conservative myself, I hate to use that term.)</p>

<p>Women are "non-traditional" students at colleges that tend to not have heavy athletic programmes... besides, if those students don't want athletics, then the school certainly has its survey/demonstrated interest option, now doesn't it? It's also a bit much to say that most women are non-traditional students, from the fact that most non-traditional students are women. Small minority in most cases, either way... more women than men graduate high school and go onto college immediately - ergo, more traditional women than traditional men. </p>

<p>Want to talk black men? Go ahead. Try citing GRADUATION rates of black men vis-a-vis white women and then we'll talk. Might be beneficial for most of them to go to college for the education so they can get a diploma. </p>

<p>StickerShock, I really wonder about your biases. You don't state them upfront, but you so clearly are incredibly, knee-jerk biased that it's stunning.</p>

75

<p>


</p>

<p>Next -what sport do men compete in on a NCAA level level that requires "more expensive equipment" for a single player than women's sports require? (Not facilities, equipment.) Hockey vs Hockey. Track vs track. Softball vs baseball. Field hockey vs. Football. Oh, so it is about football. Why didn't you say so? Can't have that, can we? Jeez.</p>

76

<p>BTW I love high school and college football. Unlike Wisteria I gained a lot by being around during the heyday of my college's football and men's basketball team as a spectator. I enjoyed the rah-rah. (I still attend some Women's Bball games as I have for 30 years. They are doing just fine.) And I do think students should support each other and go to their fellow students plays and concerts and games and meets. Walks in the mountains are great but you are only in UG once. Soak it all in. Blink twice and you are fifty.</p>

77

<p>wisteria,</p>

<p>I didn't realize that about Division I versus Division III. Living in the same state as Johns Hopkins and having toured there during one of our college search seasons, I thought this was unremarkable.</p>

<p>Thanks for the correction. Is this spelled out anywhere on the NCAA web site?</p>

78

<p>
[quote]
It's also a bit much to say that most women are non-traditional students, from the fact that most non-traditional students are women.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never said that. I think you have reading comprehension problems. </p>

<p>
[quote]
...the school certainly has its survey/demonstrated interest option, now doesn't it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The problem with the survey is not that the results don't prove a disparity in interest levels among men & women. The surveys are not a burden. I never said that. You are the first person bringing up the idea of a burden. The problem is that when colleges try to use these results to show compliance, an advocacy group files a law suit. What college can deal with constant legal pressure from nuisance groups? The quickest fix is to cut a men's team.</p>

<p>I've followed the issue for over 30 years. I've lived it. I have children whose athletic opportunities are impacted by Title IX. If you followed the trends, you would see traditionally wealthy white sports being added for women. And traditionally blue collar sports for men being cut. </p>

<p>curmudgeon, I encourage you to explore the website & links I posted. All the data is there. Even data on the very small number of women at all-women's colleges who participate in competitive sports. The numbers are small, and you can't argue that men are eating a big piece of the athletic pie at these schools. Most women hang up their competitive sports equipment when they are in college. And it's not because they have no outlet.</p>

<p>Re: proportionality of funding -- I used equipment costs as an example. Yes, football is the obvious big budget eater. But the cost differences could also be in travel (i.e.: some women's teams might have to travel much farther for competitions than men's teams, so costs would be greater.) </p>

<p>If you think I'm pushing for the return of the Cleavers, well, I don't know what to say. You're absolutely wrong, but I guess you are entitled to that opinion of me. I don't see "sports abuses" in our society anymore. In my town and at my kids' schools, there is equal opportunity & funding for boys & girls sports. It's the law. In fact, TitleIX will not allow booster clubs to favor boys sports over girls, even if the football families raise all the $$$$. I think that's a great provision to fix an obvious loophole. If you have experience that is different than mine, then report it! The law is on the side of protecting girls from being slighted.</p>

79

<p>A couple comments on Title IX.</p>

<p>There are many ways a school can show they are compliance with Title IX ... the ratio of women athletes to students ... the ratio of spending on women's athletics (less severe than the previous at they consider the cost of each sport (football being the black hole of money) ... being below a balanced ratio of athletes to students but making progress towards that ratio (for example, BU just added women's hockey and got closer to the student ratio) ... and surveys of opportunities matching interests. The burden of proof is on the school and it gets tougher as they move towards using surveys to prove compliance. There may well be other tests that a school can use.</p>

<p>FYI - title IX applies to all student programs at a school ... both sexes must be given an opportunity to participate in sports, music, theatre, etc. For most non-sport activities having, for example, one co-ed band meets the standard (and I would assume if such an activity has lopsided particiaption that is defended by the survey approach ... we had open tryouts and 10% of the applicants were men and the choir is 10% men). Sports is somewhat unique in creating separate men's and women's teams ... there have been attempts to claim that having one basketball team at State U open to men and women meets Title IX requirements (a chance for all) but that has been shot down and in cases where the typical physical differences matter there should be separate opportunities for both men and women.</p>

80

<p>3togo brings up a great point to remember: Title IX is not just about sports. So why isn't a big fuss made when only 10% of a choir is men? Have "choir abuses" been perpetrated upon men for generations? Will the tide change if we insist on 50/50 gender make-ups of the nation's choirs?</p>

<p>I think I've found a crusade to launch....</p>