Univ. of New Hampshire is getting rid of its women's rowing. The official line is that it has to get rid of some sports so that it can get into compliance with Title IX. Really is that it is doing a big budget cut. I wonder if this is the first women's team to be axed becasue of Title IX.
I don't understand how Title IX can possibly be used for what seems to me to be a really cheap blow to many girls. Rowing is a somewhat expensive sport, lots of coaches, lots of equipment.
Parents
Former Member
Originally posted by GoRedFoxes
Where are the 'feel goods' out there, talking about how important Title IX is, in creating an equal environment for men and women? I'd expect alittle Title IX support from our Canadien bretheren.
No one seems to be ragging Title IX . . . the debate seems to be over big sports/dumb jocks, etc. Nothing attacking the legislation.
Moreover, the debate over preferred treatment/lowered academic abilities seems to focus on Div. I or II schools. I don't think that DIII schools (non-scholarship) have the same issues (though they face the same stereotypes) and it is the rare DIII program that has any revenue generation.
But I digress from the query . . .
That's my guess as to why there are no "feel goods" (which seems to be offered in the pejorative) jumping into the discussion . . .
Originally posted by GoRedFoxes
Where are the 'feel goods' out there, talking about how important Title IX is, in creating an equal environment for men and women? I'd expect alittle Title IX support from our Canadien bretheren.
No one seems to be ragging Title IX . . . the debate seems to be over big sports/dumb jocks, etc. Nothing attacking the legislation.
Moreover, the debate over preferred treatment/lowered academic abilities seems to focus on Div. I or II schools. I don't think that DIII schools (non-scholarship) have the same issues (though they face the same stereotypes) and it is the rare DIII program that has any revenue generation.
But I digress from the query . . .
That's my guess as to why there are no "feel goods" (which seems to be offered in the pejorative) jumping into the discussion . . .
