<p>
LOL. SS, be sure to remember to march backwards.</p>
<p>I find it interesting that if marching or pep band is provided for men's sports,it must be provided equally for woman's sports. However, I rarely see such equality. I am wondering if colleges aren't aware of this little known requirements.</p>
<p>quote
Quote:
A Division I school cannot field teams to compete in Division III. </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>it says</p>
<p>(A Division III school) may sponsor 1 male and/or 1 female sport in Division I (excluding football and basketball) and </p>
<p>(A Division III school) institution may belong to Division I in any sport which the only NCAA championship is the national collegiate championship.</p>
<p>There are also a few hockey programs that are the only Division I sport at an otherwise Division III institution as well.</p>
<p>I can't find the specifics on the fan requirement right this minute, but I know I've read that the one of the differences between Division I and Division III schools is that Division I schools are supposed to have the dual mission of providing fan (i.e. student) entertainment as well as participant development, whereas Division III is only required to stress participant development.</p>
<p>It has been used to block Division 1 stop schools who don't have their own facilities for hockey from fielding at Division 1 team.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I find it interesting that if marching or pep band is provided for men's sports,it must be provided equally for woman's sports. However, I rarely see such equality. I am wondering if colleges aren't aware of this little known requirements.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This may explain why the marching bands and pep bands at many colleges are student-run organizations, not college-sponsored organizations. If the band is a student-run organization, the college is merely giving it permission to perform at whatever sports events the band itself chooses to attend. The band is not a service that the college is providing.</p>
<p>The survey method of Title IX compliance will probably serve to be the most popular method of compliance for schools that want to minimize the changes to their athletic offerengs.</p>
<p>This can be a bad thing. If you construct a survey strategically, you can prove anything. If you ask questions in such a way that women would reply negatively (they don't want to join a team) and men affirmitively, you can defend a larger imbalance of programs.</p>
<p>You can also manipulate the population surveyed to get a similar distortion. If you divide a school into traditional (18-25 year old) undergrad day students, special program students (nursing, 6-year pharm-d, etc.), grad students, non-traditional students (night school/internet students who may never step on campus), etc. and exclude certain segments because they don't traditionally participate in sports (especially night/internet student) from the survey, you may find the participation level between the sexes varies as certain excluded populations may be overwhelmingly male or female. So the schools can use this method to manipulate the results.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the lawyers and statisticians have made trying to do a reasonable thing (promote all students being able to enjoy varsity athletics) to do into an utter mess. </p>
<p>And I'm afraid that this type of (lawyer and statistician) thinking may be aiding school administration in generating these ridiculous results.</p>
<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>Title IX does cover the choirs. And if the school consistently spends more money per chorister on male rather than female choristers, gives them better uniforms, more coaching and gives them more scholarships relative to the interest expressed on campus, all based on gender, they are out-of-compliance, and should be penalized.</p>
<p>Doesn't happen, though.</p>
<p>I haven't read this whole thread, but I must comment. I only have "girls" and title IX will be a big advantage for us, but I hate the fact that it is still around. I think it has outlasted it's usefulness. Just like "Unions". </p>
<p>There was a time and place when each was needed. Not anymore.</p>
<p>hmmm.... at our hs, marching band, pep band (smaller, for away games) and girl cheerleaders pretty much appear only at the football games. Girl cheerleaders I have seen at boys b-ball. I can't swear the cheerleaders have never been to a girl's game, but I don't think the athletes want them. Title IX violation! I did notice that this year the league had a fixed weekly cross country schedule with the boys races first followed by the girls races. Same schedule every week! I definitely notice and thought that this was "unfair" but it never occurred to me to file a lawsuit.</p>
<p>I'm also a little fuzzy about surveying college students about their interest in participating in varsity sports. Don't colleges recruit varsity athletes? Aren't the preferences for participation already made? If you survey the members of the soccer team you will find great interest. If a girl is interested in participating in a varsity sport in 2006 wouldn't she be attending a college that offers her sport?</p>
<p>(1) This kind of reaction to Title IX issues is hardly new. There is a rash of stories like this every year.</p>
<p>(2) Mom22: Unfortunately, I highly doubt Title IX has "outlived its usefulness". If you think women's athletic budgets -- not only at the college level, but also at the high school level -- would survive repeal of Title IX, you have another think coming. </p>
<p>(3) The whole structure may be heavy-handed, but it has been a remarkably successful piece of social engineering: Women and girls have athletic opportunities our mothers never dreamed of, and their participation and skill rates have increased enormously in a couple of decades. And I think that's a good thing, despite never having been able to interest my daughter in sports in the least.</p>
<p>(4) And, yes, in most cases, this is about football. And, yes, what happens is that blue-collar men's sports like wrestling and track/xcountry get held hostage. Because it's way easier to make headcount or teamcount proportional than it is to make dollars proportional if the school has any kind of competitive football program.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I definitely notice and thought that this was "unfair" but it never occurred to me to file a lawsuit.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Go ahead. It's free money.</p>
<p>The fixed schedule might be unfair, or it might be something the athletes prefer to help plan for parent attendance and the like. Usually the better slot is the later one, because you're more likely to have fans.</p>
<p>30 years ago at my h.s. (which was actually two high schools in one -- all-girls & all-boys seperate administrations sharing one facility,) there were seperate cheering squads for boys & girls teams. The boys' squad was the elite squad. The best girls made that squad, had better uniforms, more cheering opportunities, etc. They had a varsity & JV division. The girls' squad didn't get to do much because the only sport to cheer for was a 15 member girl's basketball team. (To serve over 400 girls) Track was added later, but I've yet to see cheerleaders at track meets.</p>
<p>I'm curious as to why cheerleading isn't considered a sport for Title IX purposes. It requires athleticism & coaching. Teams travel to compete. Scholarhship money is awarded.</p>
<p>Njres notes,"at our hs, marching band, pep band (smaller, for away games) and girl cheerleaders pretty much appear only at the football games. Girl cheerleaders I have seen at boys b-ball. I can't swear the cheerleaders have never been to a girl's game, but I don't think the athletes want them. Title IX violation!"</p>
<p>Response: Yes, I have seen this time and again at our high school and now in the college that my daughter attends. The marching band is given college credit, and the hs band is given high school credit, but neither one is sponsoring any scholarships, if this makes a difference. </p>
<p>I also believe that I have never seen the marching band at any events other than football in high school and both football and basketball in college. I think schools do this for football because there aren't as many games as that of other sports. However, if this is a violation then probably almost every high school and college is violating this. Hmm. maybe I can make a living suing all the high schools and colleges in the country.</p>
<p>Sadly, if someone actually started these lawsuits, it would probably cause most high schools to eliminate marching band due to the liabilities involved. Colleges would probably do the same thing.</p>
<p>goaliedad: You can solve the problem of survey bias by having one standard survey that would be approved by NCAA, The Women's Sports Foundation, and Play Fair. (Just examples of organizations that cover a broad spectrum of Title IX opinions. There might be better choices.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sadly, if someone actually started these lawsuits, it would probably cause most high schools to eliminate marching band due to the liabilities involved. Colleges would probably do the same thing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yup. Just as Title IX lawsuits have led to men's sports programs being cut.</p>
<p>YEA!!</p>
<p>While we're at it we should repeal their right to vote!!!!! </p>
<p>Then we can start working on making the basketball team 5 white guys again....</p>
<p>Alot of things happen in life that one segment of society simply DOESN'T like. Blame is assigned for changes that help a group of people some don't want to help.</p>
<p>I am thankful title IX exists and I appreicate what it's done for women. I have a S and a D. I grew up when girls weren't allowed to sweat, and guess what, it wasn't that long ago. While my D remained a daisy picker for her short sports life, I would defend to my death her right to seek the same atheletic opportunities available for my S. He would support it too. </p>
<p>If it was just about who watches, let's put a NASCAR track at each school and race every weekend. College sports aren't about who watches, they're about who plays.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...I would defend to my death her right to seek the same atheletic opportunities available for my S.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>She has that right. No need to go to your grave fighting for it. But should your son's opportunities be limited because more boys seek these opportunities & radical advocacy groups just don't like that?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Blame is assigned for changes that help a group of people some don't want to help.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have never met anyone who didn't want to help girls have equal opportunity. Have you?</p>
<p>I have met (and read comments from on this thread) people who have no problem hurting boys by eliminating their opportunities. Out of some angry "It's about time they knew what it's like!" mentality. I am simply astounded.</p>
<p>I'm a win-win proponent. I think in most situations, reasonable people can find ways to serve everyone's needs.</p>
<p>"more boys seek these opportunities & radical advocacy groups just don't like that?"</p>
<p>You know women didn't use to want to vote either waaay back when. And Blacks, well they never thought about using the front door.</p>
<p>SS,</p>
<p>please read your statement from the previous post. Then look at the growth of women involved in sport since the introduction of 9. Until an avenue was available to them OF COURSE the numbers would be down. Count your state's girls youth soccer teams in the 70's and compare that to now. Is there a difference? </p>
<p>I'm just sad you see as a radical idea in the creation of opportunity for young girls to play a sport. </p>
<p>And my son's opportunities to play a sport aren't limited by 9. He found new sports to try and enjoy. </p>
<p>The times.. the times... they are a changin..:)</p>
<p>Why does creation of opportunity for girls have to go hand-in-hand with destruction of opportunity for boys?</p>
<p>You can't have read my posts if you believe I don't support new opportunities for girls.</p>
<p>Yes (to Opie's post). That's why the "survey" approach is controversial, too. When title IX began to be enforced, there was very little demand for women's sports, but absolutely no money. Now there's a fair amount of money, and growing demand. Demand follows the money, but not immediately -- it takes years to develop an athlete.</p>
<p>"I'm a win-win proponent"</p>
<p>Then shouldn't your ire be directed at administration that chooses to cut rather then enhance the opportunities? </p>
<p>You've tried to defend your point basically by saying girls aren't really interested in sport anyways at least as much as boys are. That's not win win. </p>
<p>Administrations have used this legislation to simply cut non-revenue sports. It's given them an out they've hoped for.</p>