I thought Title IX was supposed to increase the athletic opportunities for women...Colorado State University decided to add a women's water polo team as their 16th sport to meet NCAA requirements and meet the minimum Title IX requirements, but look a little closer, to quote from an article in the local paper: "And up to 12 members of the current women's swim team can pull double duty as water polo players. The current women's swim coach will coach the polo team." So really few new female athletes will be added to the athletic department. Is this common practice for universities trying to demonstrate title IX compliance? Do universities that have both a women's cross country team and a track team get to double count all the distance runners even though it's the same athletes participating in each sport (and reduces the number of scholarships required to field two teams)? Here's the whole article:
http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/ ... 57103.html
This is typical of the NCAA. They count the numbers 3 times in many schools for participation, yet give the coach one budget line for the whole year and pay him/her as if they only worked one season too, instead of the whole year, usually way less then the offensive line coach gets too.
There was controversy at a Bay Area DII school a few years ago after coaches recruited P.E. students to come out for one race in order to boost the size of the women's roster. Although this sounds nefarious, I can't blame the coach at the time, a woman who coached both teams, who could barely field a women's team. They bascially wouldn't cut anyone and still they had trouble fielding a squad.
A lot of the problem comes from the requirement for equity rather than equality in balancing programs between genders. (i.e., Numbers in athletics must mirror the gender percentages of the student body... with a lot more women than men now at many schools, this leaves AD's desparate to raise the numbers for females, females who may not necessarily be interested in competing) The government had the opportunity to remedy this a few months ago but decided not to rock the boat. It is all absurd and degenerates quickly into hot-button political issues.
This issue is so politically charged that it seems impossible to have a rational discussion over both its positive and its negative ramifications. Unfortunately, the latter are painfully real--proof, once again, of the inescapable reality of the law of unintended consequences.
I'd first like to say I agree whole heartedly with the principle of title IX. There are many excellent female athletes competing in the NCAA.
Because Football takes up so many scholarships, womens teams are watered down with crappy athletes so the numbers are equal.
I go to a Big Ten school, do you know how our crew team recruits? The first few weeks of classes they go around asking athletic looking girls if they'd like to row and be on full scholarship!!!! Many of our womens soccer players DONT LIKE TO PLAY SOCCER and smoke dope all the time-they get drug tested-they just dont care!!! The problem with it is that it makes it much easier to for women to suceed than men.
Womens Track teams give full rides to pretty good female athletes while all-american males are getting 30%. There was a female discus thrower on my team that "didnt really know how to throw the discus" and she was on a large scholarship! She couldn't throw 80 feet! THIS IS INSANE!!!!
I'm sure its not this way in every program or at every school but it is more common than we'd all like to think.
Many of us have lost sight of the goals of title IX, many AD's are just concerned with the bottom line.
Title IX is bullcrap anyhow as it applies to college sports. It was driven by a bunch of men-hating women who want to stick it to the men. Sorry, but I thought I'd cut to the chase here. It is bull$hit. Women do not participate in sports in the numbers men do. They never will. Now, I think there was room for improvement. I'm happy that we have women's soccer in almost all colleges now. Softball too. But to expect equal numbers is crazy. Football never should have been included in the equation. Title IX has killed off many great men's programs: UCLA swimming and diving, Notre Dame wrestling, several baseball and track programs, etc.
Agree with BV -- Title IX has really done much more harm than good.
The main result of Title IX is that there are about 250 awful D1 women's college basketball programs (from a total of about 300 or so); meanwhile, sports like wrestling and, yes, track and field have been cut for men.
I'm all for women having opportunities to play sports, but the fact is that the law (as it currently stands) is so rigid that it has led to all kinds of terrible and unintended consequences.
fact: the D1 school that my daughter goes to has an excellent track program with many nationally qualifying female athletes. But the track team has huge numbers (to fill Title IX requirements) because ANYONE can walk onto the team, get all the cool gear, call themselves a varsity athlete, and have absolutely no competitive abilities. They'll compete in a few home meets at a level commensurate with any average HS team, and the University gets credit for the female body. Title IX really is a joke.
There is a D-1 school in the East with a small number of female Track and Field athletes. In compliance meets the coach had soccer players and basketball players come to meets to fill out the roster. A scholarship distance runner that I had coached in high school said that she competed under different names in the same meet in the high jump and shot put. She called it "knocking the bar off" and "dropping the shot" knowing fully well that she could not even attempt to do those events. She said that the officials were disgusted at this travesty.
I'm really disturbed with what's being mentioned here. I really had no clue that American universities were doing this kind of thing. It sounds like the whole system is in desperate need of an overhaul. Another bad side effect of this is that the truly worthy female and male athletes in the smaller sports are brought down by these rules. There must be a better way to keep things fair and avoid this craziness.
>There is a D-1 school in the East with a small
>number of female Track and Field athletes. In
>compliance meets the coach had soccer players and
>basketball players come to meets to fill out the
Is that school Stony Brook? It sounds like something that coach would do.
GH, there is a fine line there. I didn't mean to cross it, and I don't believe I did. I'm a huge fan of women's sports -- and women, too! My sister was a fine athlete, and I attend many women's sporting events. I'm a Tennessee fan, and of we have a great women's athletics program, of which I'm very proud. On Fridays before football games, I'm always at the Lady Vol soccer match. And need I mention our basketball and track programs?
But I have to stand by my original post regarding Title IX. Even if it means I get the boot from here.
Title IX is both the best and worst thing that has happened to college athletics. Best because it ended the male monopoly and opened up the whole world of women's athletics to competitors and fans alike. Worst because the adminstrative bureaucracy it engendered has become a showcase of how to defy common sense. There is NO DOUBT that Title IX mandates are killing men's programs in several sports at many universities... it just cannot be logically argued that this is not the situation. But, also, there are lots of other factors killing college athletics, too.
The mania for national powerhouse D-1 football and basketball, even in areas where big time programs cannot possibly be maintained, is another killer.
And so is the whole idea of purely athletic scholarships! I'm not against athletes getting financial aid, but, to be sane, the aid needs to be based on a combination of factors with athletics as a part of the mix. A previous post maintains that it is absurd for an 80 ft. discus thrower to be a scholarship athlete and I wholeheartedly agree, but it is equally absurd for an 850 SAT kid to gain admittance to an elite school based on being a world class athlete!
I know a national level wt. man who was a very capable student (about a 3.6 gpa through 11th grade) but gave up studying completely as a senior once he attained a level of athletic performance that would guarantee scholarship offers. He cruised through his senior year with all "C" grades never doubting (correctly) that major colleges would admit him over literally thousands of better motivated students and pay his way through school as well! Obviously there is a lot more wrong with the system than the badly flawed Title IX agenda.
When I was in high school, the boys had nine sports and the girls had none. They played an exhibition powder puff football game and had a track and field day. A group called the GAA (Girls Athletic Association) organized a girls' state cross country championship when I was a senior and the (boys) state high school athletic association sought a court injunction to prevent it! (They were unsuccessful, by the way). My stepdaughter plays three sports (out of ten that she can choose from). The difference between her opportunities and my female classmate's opportunities is simply this: Title IX. I think the problem is a complete lack of interest by the NCAA in non-revenue sports (i.e. everything except men's football and basketball). I attended a division III school where I played 3 sports and where 50% of the students play a varsity sport. We had sports for women in 1882. Interestingly, my alma mater is thinking of withdrawing from the NCAA.
As any good Human Resources Manager will tell you it is not the offender's intent that matters, it is the offendee that determines whether harassment (or misogyny in general) exists. Ergo BV's comments are over the line and should not be 'stood' by (hint, hint). That said, and as my daughter IS on a partial scholarship to compete, I will say that while 'some' of BV's comments ARE irrefutable, on the other hand, Title IX IS the best thing that's ever happened for women's sports in America. The problem is the lack of common sense that EITHER side shows in its enforcement. And the reason is simple - people love to sue.
<<I feel BV's comments are very negative towards women. I'm a woman and I'm offended. I think we can discuss this issue fairly and openly without those kinds of comments.>>
The only thing I said that was arguable or in questionable taste was that Title IX is driven by men-hating women. Everything else I think is factual or is at least an opinion with some evidence behind it. I also said that Title IX has done some good and that I am a fan of women's sports.
<<As any good Human Resources Manager will tell you it is not the offender's intent that matters, it is the offendee that determines whether harassment (or misogyny in general) exists. Ergo BV's comments are over the line and should not be 'stood' by (hint, hint).>>
That is your opinion. I think we are overly sensitive and PC these days.
I can't with a clear conscience sit here and take back my comment. I won't post it online here anymore though.
"That is your opinion. I think we are overly sensitive and PC these days."
As I stated, that is not MY opinion, it is current HR policy virtually everywhere. Do you work in an institutional environment? If a woman says it is over the line, as Natasha did, she wins. You may not like it, and it has certainly been taken advantagous of by a few unscrupulous women, and it may or may not be PC, but the sooner you come to grips with this reality, the happier you will be in the long run. The pendulum has swung, gentlemen, and we had better duck as it goes by. I may not like it as the poor put upon man, but we've still got it much better than women have it in the 'real' world.
>GH, there is a fine line there. I didn't mean to
>cross it, and I don't believe I did. >>
Bill, I don't think the line is fine at all. Perhaps this is a heavy-handed analogy, but suppose you had written, "Civil Rights legislation was driven by a bunch of white-hating negroes"? Both of these great advances in societal came to be because forward-thinking members of the oppressive class finally realized the error of their ways and opened up more opportunities for all.
I'm not expert, but I believe that Title IX as written was not what we see in action today. It's the interpretation of Title IX (and what,90% of those in the role of interpteters are men?) that has been bastardized and has wreaked such havoc on men. Name for me some women--men lovers or haters--who have the juice to influence anything that happens at the NCAA-governance level.
As somebody whose life revolves around athletics I think Title IX is the worst thing that ever happened to collegiate sports. But when I step back and think like a common citizen, it's one of the great things that has ever happened. Given the choice between the landscape in 1975 and now, I'd chose now in a heartbeat. But there's a in-between that we should be at, and I hope we can get to someday.
"As any good Human Resources Manager will tell you it is not the offender's intent that matters, it is the offendee that determines whether harassment (or misogyny in general) exists."
As a longtime corporate employee, I can attest that what you've said is true, or widely accepted as true. However, as a thinking human being, I have to say that this is an utterly outrageous standard and one impossible to justify on any logical basis. If it is ONLY perception--and not original intentions--that matter, we all (every one of us) are on thin ice all the time. Perceptions and feelings and interpretations are infinitely variable, and range (by any sensible definition) from fair and objective to the utterly delusional.
"I have to say that this is an utterly outrageous standard"
Not many women will agree with you until they are the ones falsely accused of harassment. But since 98% of the harassment is still male towards female, that's few and far between. I would not characterize it as 'outrageous', but certainly it breeds paranoia. When a male says, "I like your sweater" (and means it) and the female says, "stop looking at my boobs," we've come too far, but until we males DO get our acts together (around 2250AD), that's the way it's going to be.
I hear you and will wholeheartedly acknowledge that the workplace is a vastly less offensive environment than it was 20 or more years ago. So, much genuine good has obviously come from this. But I stand by my original observation: this good has come via a set of inherently flawed and even dangerous assumptions.
>"That is your opinion. I think we are overly
>sensitive and PC these days."
As I stated,
>that is not MY opinion, it is current HR policy
>virtually everywhere. Do you work in an
Moot point anyhow. This is not an institutional environment. This is a chat room. HR does not apply here, I don't believe.
When my wife picks at me, she says, "You can't take a joke." Who is right or wrong in this situation? I'm offended sometimes, but maybe I'm the one who is too sensitive. On the other hand, maybe she goes too far sometimes. It's a matter of opinion what is acceptable and what isn't. I suppose in a corporate environment, it is different.
I actually forgot to make my intended point. Until such time as women complain that THEIR programs are being hurt, you won't get much sympathy from them. And I was NOT talking about this forum, I was talking about institutional sexism (collegiate programs). When females complain, people have to listen now. We men think sports are our purview (gross overgeneralization, but still basically true) and all Title IX was trying to do was show us that women's sports are inherently equal to ours. Since my daughter is an athlete my heart says that's true, but, BV, and other neanderthals like myself(!), my brain says it hasn't happened yet. gh had it right: it is the best of times; it is the worst of times. Hopefully in 20 years we'll look back at this mess and wonder what the hell was wrong with us (meaning true equality in sports has been achieved without sacrificing men's rights on the altar of egalitarianism)!
Bottom line to BV and the many like us: KWITCHERBELYAKIN.
I think this is pretty close to keep Title IX essentially intact with women having all the access to competitive sports without hurting male programs such as T&F or wrestling. Remove football numbers from the equation and I think you'll come pretty close.
Bill, I don't think the line is fine at
>all. Perhaps this is a heavy-handed analogy, but
>suppose you had written, "Civil Rights
>legislation was driven by a bunch of white-hating
>negroes"? Both of these great advances in
>societal came to be because forward-thinking
>members of the oppressive class finally realized
>the error of their ways and opened up more
>opportunities for all.
I think this makes me appear to be against Title IX altogether. I am not. When President Nixon signed Title IX into law, I don't think anybody in the nation at that time was remotely thinking about women's athletics.
Some friends and I were talking about the situation in Iraq and with the Muslims. We concluded that one reason they are 500 years behind us is because women are involved in our socitety. We have double the amount of talent that they do. We also concluded that women are better than men. Some wise-acre suggested that if women ruled the world, we wouldn't have internet chat rooms. LOL
Point is, I am a supporter of Title IX, as it was originally intended to work.
I'm not expert, but I
>believe that Title IX as written was not what we
>see in action today. It's the interpretation of
>Title IX (and what,90% of those in the role of
>interpteters are men?) that has been bastardized
>and has wreaked such havoc on men.
Yes, we all agree on this.
Name for me
>some women--men lovers or haters--who have the
>juice to influence anything that happens at the
Donna Lopiano for one. I don't think she ever dreamed that she would have been as successful with her movement. But people are too afraid to challenge her. The pols at least.
My post said that Title IX "as it applies to college sports" is "driven" by men-hating women. I didn't say that ALL of Title IX is driven by men-hating women. I am a supporter of the original intent of Title IX -- and I'm not a man-hating woman. I'm not even a woman.
And I didn't say that all women who support Title IX as it applies to college sports are men-haters. Joan Cronan, women's AD at Tennessee, never says a word about Title IX, but she probably supports it. But she doesn't "drive" the movement. She is an observer of it.
I said that this movement is "driven" by men-hating women. And I believe that. How the Donna Lopianos of the world -- the women who DRIVE Title IX as it applies to college sports -- can sit there and watch these men's program being dropped is hard to comprehend. I think they are men-hating women, these women who drive Title IX as it applies to college sports.
As somebody whose life
>revolves around athletics I think Title IX is the
>worst thing that ever happened to collegiate
>sports. But when I step back and think like a
>common citizen, it's one of the great things that
>has ever happened. Given the choice between the
>landscape in 1975 and now, I'd chose now in a
>heartbeat. But there's a in-between that we
>should be at, and I hope we can get to someday.
When my wife
>picks at me, she says, "You can't take a joke."
>Who is right or wrong in this situation? I'm
>offended sometimes, but maybe I'm the one who is
>too sensitive. On the other hand, maybe she
>goes too far sometimes. It's a matter of
>opinion what is acceptable and what isn't. I
>suppose in a corporate environment, it is
I don't remember where this came from, but it applies:
"The boys shoot the frogs in jest.
The frogs die in earnest."