There has been various threads on this and other boards related to Title Ix and ramifications there of.

Fox news reported tonight that Marquette has disbanded its male wrestling team because on it inability to find a matching number of female atheletes. This is occuring inspite of the fact that Marquette has had a major Div 1 team since I can remember, and has always payed it own way, never taking University money.

Marquette has joined with Yale and one other University and filed a federal suit challenging the way Title IX has been handled.

I don''t know what you all think, but I'm all for the suit and the insanity that IX has become.







Keep'em moving Colonel, a man that eloquent has to be saved.

I don't know what's going on at Marquette and Yale, but the word "insanity" is a "crazy" way to describe Title IX. My opinion of Title IX, in a nutshell, is that my beautiful, intelligent, athletic daughters will have the same opportunity as boys to earn athletic scholarships to college. Period.

The problem with Title IX is that football kills men's sports. A&M and every other school has to provide more women sport's than men's to make up for the football scholarships. Fringe men sports get the shaft. In the Big 12 in the last two years several schools have lost men's programs (like Kansas and their men's tennis team that's been around for 50+ years).

For Title IX to work, I think you have to take out football or only count half the scholarships against it. Otherwise, you get nearly a 2 to 1 ratio of women's to men's sports.

That's nice spin firstrow, but why should my tax dollars be used to subsidize your daughters' educations?

In the old days, each collegiate athletic event existed because there was enough interest at each school to support it. Now we have programs for the sake of having programs, and eliminate some in which there is actual interest to keep the numbers balanced.

"Insane" is an appropriate term for this situation.

2 wrongs never make a right. unless it's 2 135 degree turns to the left, then that makes a right. period.

[This message has been edited by Adam Ag 98 (edited 2/21/2002).]

[This message has been edited by Adam Ag 98 (edited 2/21/2002).]

Firstrowcenter, are you saying that if you had both a son and a daughter and the son was a better student and a better athlete, you would have no problem with the daughter getting a free ride just because she’s female even though your son was more deserving of a scholarship?

Title IX is obviously a very liberal plan stating that you get the same money for scholarships to fund women’s underwater basket weaving, women’s croquet and women’s badminton that draws a total of 19 fans per year as you spend on money for football scholarships that draw 480,000 per year and basically pays for all other sports.

To me, Title IX and affirmative action make no sense. I will always oppose universities showing ANY preference for giving scholarships based on a person’s gender, race, creed, religion, etc. Title IX goes against that.

Out.

Damn, how many politicians are on this thread, anyway?

local...88

quote:

---

that's nice spin firstrow, but why should my tax dollars be used to subsidize your daughters' educations?

---

Tax dollars aren't in question here. Athletic scholarships are not provided by the taxpayers, but rather by donors to organizations like the 12th Man. Nice inflamatory response, but totally offbase.


General

The problem with Title IX, as with most liberal policies, is not in the idea, it is in the implementation of said idea. Title IX simply mandates that women be given equal opportunity. That has generally been evaluated by comparing the ratio of male/female athletes at random U to the ratio of male/female students at random U. It is worth noting that the last listing I saw of compliance #'s showed West Point as being the most compliant. Of course, West Point is like 88% male, or so it was that particular year.

If random U has an even 50/50 split for the student body as a whole, and it has 400 total athletes, then it should have 200 men and 200 women according to Title IX. Well, it's never nearly that easy. There are all sorts of interpretations, and every agenda is different. Why should a baseball player count the same as a women's basketball player? Some would want to count all 36 baseball players individually even though they are only splitting 11.67 scholarships between them. Women's hoops eats up 14 ships for 14 players, btw. Then there are those that seek to limit walkons to football, as an example, because ... hell I don't know. That is an absolutely baseless idea to me since there is no scholarship money going to a walkon, it can't possibly be argued that Rudy denied a woman the right to play her sport.

The fact that Marquette and Yale cut a mens sport is their own fault. IMO, they have no basis for a lawsuit. When A&M has faced the need to balance the scales, we've added additional sports, such as soccer and equestrian. The fact that other U's decide that an acceptable way to balance the scales is to cut a mens sport, as if reducing the denominator in the equation is somehow a good solution, is a reflection on that U's poor management of its athletic program. What is funny to me is that we now see ultraliberal Yale running around whining about what was originally praised as a landmark law by the left. Why? Because, again like most liberal policies, it was put into place without any clear idea as to how it would really work. I don't even think Title IX was written with any means of measurment. It was written to feel good, and now it has become a nightmare for those that actually have to live by it.


It's up to God to forgive Osama bin Laden. It's up to our military to arrange the meeting.

Sorry. I am a woman and I intensely dislike title IX.

Very few women's sports are revenue sports. They basically get a free ride and bring little if any into the athletic departments at any level.

To me, demand should dictate supply--and when spectators demand to see women's sports, then and only then should the supply of sportiing teams rise. The idea that a women's rowing or equestrian team (that very few students or former students would pay to see) have to be funded at the expense of men's tennis, golf, or soccer is ludicrous. Women who have no chance at a professional career in rowing get the funding, and men's soccer--that really might lead some to lucrative pro careers does not exist.

At the high school level, you, the taxpayer do pay for the programs for girls--and at the high school level you also find that with the exception of women's basketball at some schools, the girls teams draw small crowds and have expenses way beyond the income they generate.

"offbase" Loyal? au contraire....

While scholarships may come directly from other athletic dept. revenue or foundation funds, it is grossly naive to believe the strictures of Title IX don't strain the coffers of public institutions. Money is money, and money taken from one pot to fill another leaves a void that has to be made up somehow.

I posted this a few months ago -- here it is again...

Ironically, the current interpretation of Title IX actually violates the law's own language (to say nothing of the Constitution), which forbids gender discrimination in college programs. Cutting men's teams in the name of gender parity is gender discrimination.

Title IX is the only area of law where illegal discrimination is assumed. Any college that deviates from the feminist ideal of how the world ought to look must cut men's teams to come into line. Not only is the burden of proof inverted, but also no evidence of non-discrimination can ever suffice — only forced quotas.

The perpetrators of imagined discrimination against female athletes are unusual suspects. The same American colleges that have elevated feminist studies to college majors are said to be invidiously and hatefully discriminating against female athletes. Even The New York Times has been blamed for the lack of interest in female sports. A 1999 study out of DePauw University pointedly noted that only 6.7% of the newspaper's sports stories covered female athletes. It seems that until the day when women's basketball gets as many column inches as the New York Knicks, men's college teams must be cut.

Title IX represents the ultimate totalitarian folly. You cannot force women to take up sports or force men to watch them. The law — the real law, and not the federal policy enforcing it — simply prohibits gender discrimination. It is not a charter for crazed feminist social engineering

There are more women in this nation than there are men, so if women truly wanted equality in the spirit of Title IX the stands at women's sporting events would be full at places other than Tennessee and Connecticut.

What Nixter said....

College sports got their start when enough fans ACTUALLY WANTED TO WATCH THE COMPETION...and eventually cared enough to pay to see it.

LET THE FREE MARKET WORK!!!!

firstrow....let me see if I understand your opinion....as long as I get what I want, it doesn't matter what happens to the other side?

Texas A&M ATHLETIC scholarships are FULLY funded by the 12th Man Foundation!!

Texas A&M Class of 2001
Texas A&M Track and Field

Texas A&M ATHLETIC scholarships are FULLY funded by the 12th Man Foundation!!

Texas A&M Class of 2001
Texas A&M Track and Field

good call on the funding of our scholarships Caskinator. Isn't there a track meet this weekend in College Station? good luck

At some places the University pays for them.

College Station Relays are tomorrow (Saturday) and the Multi Festival is just now finishing.

I throw around 2-2:30 tomorrow.

Texas A&M Class of 2001
Texas A&M Track and Field

Sully97:

Damn good post!

Makes one wonder is the true purpose of "equality" is not power, rather than equality. From what I hear,it is damn hard to defend a discrimination charge.

Keep'em moving Colonel, a man that eloquent has to be saved.

wouldn't true gender equality mean that there is one team and the best players make the team?

Why all the arguments about supply and demand? If athletic departments only funded sports that made money, most schools would only have a football and men's basketball team.

I agree the implemntation of Title IX needs to be revised so that men's sports quit getting screwed. However, Title IX has offered women far more athletic opportunities then they had in the past. It could be argued that the professional women's basketball and soccer leagues wouldn't exist today without Title IX.

In 20 years...this place will be...just like LA today...
Texas Aggie '98