ASU Men's Swimming/Diving Cut

You were also talking about larger social issues that did not manifest themselves in sports, but much further down the line. The woman/baby/day care issue is way down the line and shouldn't effect Title IX. Unlike some ppl, I am fully aware of the variety of students that attend universities. Even at elite institutions w/ "traditional" undergraduate populations, child-care is a major issue. I said it earlier, but it bears repeating: not every undergrad is btw 18-22. It's quite the position of privilege to discard such an integral part of a university community. And fyi: yes. Child-care and health services ARE a part of Title IX. That's bc Title IX encompasses more than just sports. I'm rather tired and can't respond to all the multi-quotes, before you do, make sure you read up about the full-scope of Title IX. but there's many contradictions. You say that women apparently "don't participate" in college, yet at younger levels their participation is "unparalleled." Maybe the current "unparalleled" participation will drift upward. Why should we discourage it? How are we discouraging it? Honestly? Pointing out that female participation in sports tapers off over time -- as it does w/ men, but at a much higher rate -- isn't contradictory at all. There just comes a time when after 35 years of real, tangible progress, you've got to re-assess all the issues at play. Title IX isn't limited to sports. The reason why I, as an educator, keep referring to non-sports issues is that I understand that the legislation was aimed at equal access to education, services on campus, scholarly pursuits and extra-curricular activities, all areas in which male administrators historically alloted a hellovalot more funds to male-centric activities and male-centric scholarly pursuits. It's no longer the case, or at least not as egregious, in large part due to Title IX. But I find it a tremendous waste to fund lightly participated sports in order to comply w/ out-dated legislation instead of channeling that money into programs that fit the needs of the new millenium women. Your arguments for attempting to evaluate Title IX are still based on high school boys and post-college women. No. They're not. They're based on the fact that in the 1970's, the legislation was designed to assure that women and girls got equal funding as boys; that they had equal opportunities, both curricular and extra-curricular activities. The gap for dollar-per-student spent on men and women is extremely low in 2008. In other words, Title IX has served its primary purpose. And how has there been a paradigm shift if you say women "don't participate" in college? Because their participation in intercollegiate sports has sky-rocketed as compared to 40 years ago. That's a paradigm shift. The fact that virtually every girl in this country plays a sport as a child reflects a radical paradigm shift. Forty years ago, women couldn't participate in sports b/c they were denied the opportunity. Today, they have the opportunity, and there's not nearly as much social stigma. Sounds like they need to keep working on the new sports they'd added recently to comply with the horrific "gender equity" requirements of Title IX! The only thing "horrific" about Title IX is its draconian interpretation and the gross misunderstanding by certain ppl that it can only be applied to sports. Sports gets all the attention b/c it's easy to pick on them and/or b/c it's the most obvious. Who outside of academia wants to discuss the need for a biology department to get an FTE (full-time equivalencies, i.e. permission to hire a professor) before the chemistry department b/c bio has more female majors than chem and chem is so male-dominated and the university has to comply w/ Title IX? Ask today's female undergrads -- who grew up playing sports -- what kind of services they'd like to have, and hands down they'll take anything over another women's sports team. The opportunities are there for sports. Tangible, effective leadership programs to make sure women are best equipped to bust through the glass ceiling? Too far and too few between at public schools, and one of the primary areas that private schools surpass public schools as far as service. Pre-graduate school counseling so that students know exactly what to expect and how to succeed? Ditto. THOSE are the issues students care about. Even the athletes and would-be athletes. Maybe the "unparalleled" young girls will change things. Um. They arrived at the universities almost 20 years ago! In that time, female participation in youth sports and intercollegiate sports continued to make increases. Now, it's leveling off at the university level, and not b/c of lack of opportunities. We've reached a saturation point, or we just won't have the same level of growth. If undergraduate women are not, as you assert, participating in sports but are older and having babies, :shakeshead: Wow. should they be re-distributed money that goes to women in sports? Yeah, I don't get that. And why do women athletes have to suffer for women non-athletes giving birth? Ugh, just don't know about this. And you don't know jack about Title IX, so you're on a roll. 1. Female athletes aren't suffering. They're not the ones getting their programs dropped left and right. 2. Cute how you completely ignore any of the other services mentioned and focus on "babies". Btw: ask female undergrads about these services for non-traditional students -- you know... that department that most universities dedicate several full-time staff-members to serve -- and they'll tell you they're in full support of them getting additional services. If only the general public weren't so myopic... And don't men have something to do with undergraduate women having kids? Yeah. And guess what? Health services and counseling services to them counts towards Title IX. Oh, and you only subtracted football, not other male sports. That was the point!!!!! That even w/o football, there are more male student-athletes in less sports than there are female student-athletes, despite the ladies having more opportunities to play sports. Again. Title IX was *supposed* to be about opportunities. But that confirms it. You DIDN'T read any of my post. You read what you wanted to read. You wanted to read a female-basher, so you projected that onto me, completely ignoring any reference to building leadership skills in today's students, completely ignoring any reference to building up tenure-qualifications for future female professors, completely ignoring programs designed to support women that have fallen through the cracks.

You were also talking about larger social issues that did not manifest themselves in sports, but much further down the line. The woman/baby/day care issue is way down the line and shouldn't effect Title IX. Unlike some ppl, I am fully aware of the variety of students that attend universities. Even at elite institutions w/ "traditional" undergraduate populations, child-care is a major issue. I said it earlier, but it bears repeating: not every undergrad is btw 18-22. It's quite the position of privilege to discard such an integral part of a university community. And fyi: yes. Child-care and health services ARE a part of Title IX. That's bc Title IX encompasses more than just sports. I'm rather tired and can't respond to all the multi-quotes, before you do, make sure you read up about the full-scope of Title IX. but there's many contradictions. You say that women apparently "don't participate" in college, yet at younger levels their participation is "unparalleled." Maybe the current "unparalleled" participation will drift upward. Why should we discourage it? How are we discouraging it? Honestly? Pointing out that female participation in sports tapers off over time -- as it does w/ men, but at a much higher rate -- isn't contradictory at all. There just comes a time when after 35 years of real, tangible progress, you've got to re-assess all the issues at play. Title IX isn't limited to sports. The reason why I, as an educator, keep referring to non-sports issues is that I understand that the legislation was aimed at equal access to education, services on campus, scholarly pursuits and extra-curricular activities, all areas in which male administrators historically alloted a hellovalot more funds to male-centric activities and male-centric scholarly pursuits. It's no longer the case, or at least not as egregious, in large part due to Title IX. But I find it a tremendous waste to fund lightly participated sports in order to comply w/ out-dated legislation instead of channeling that money into programs that fit the needs of the new millenium women. Your arguments for attempting to evaluate Title IX are still based on high school boys and post-college women. No. They're not. They're based on the fact that in the 1970's, the legislation was designed to assure that women and girls got equal funding as boys; that they had equal opportunities, both curricular and extra-curricular activities. The gap for dollar-per-student spent on men and women is extremely low in 2008. In other words, Title IX has served its primary purpose. And how has there been a paradigm shift if you say women "don't participate" in college? Because their participation in intercollegiate sports has sky-rocketed as compared to 40 years ago. That's a paradigm shift. The fact that virtually every girl in this country plays a sport as a child reflects a radical paradigm shift. Forty years ago, women couldn't participate in sports b/c they were denied the opportunity. Today, they have the opportunity, and there's not nearly as much social stigma. Sounds like they need to keep working on the new sports they'd added recently to comply with the horrific "gender equity" requirements of Title IX! The only thing "horrific" about Title IX is its draconian interpretation and the gross misunderstanding by certain ppl that it can only be applied to sports. Sports gets all the attention b/c it's easy to pick on them and/or b/c it's the most obvious. Who outside of academia wants to discuss the need for a biology department to get an FTE (full-time equivalencies, i.e. permission to hire a professor) before the chemistry department b/c bio has more female majors than chem and chem is so male-dominated and the university has to comply w/ Title IX? Ask today's female undergrads -- who grew up playing sports -- what kind of services they'd like to have, and hands down they'll take anything over another women's sports team. The opportunities are there for sports. Tangible, effective leadership programs to make sure women are best equipped to bust through the glass ceiling? Too far and too few between at public schools, and one of the primary areas that private schools surpass public schools as far as service. Pre-graduate school counseling so that students know exactly what to expect and how to succeed? Ditto. THOSE are the issues students care about. Even the athletes and would-be athletes. Maybe the "unparalleled" young girls will change things. Um. They arrived at the universities almost 20 years ago! In that time, female participation in youth sports and intercollegiate sports continued to make increases. Now, it's leveling off at the university level, and not b/c of lack of opportunities. We've reached a saturation point, or we just won't have the same level of growth. If undergraduate women are not, as you assert, participating in sports but are older and having babies, :shakeshead: Wow. should they be re-distributed money that goes to women in sports? Yeah, I don't get that. And why do women athletes have to suffer for women non-athletes giving birth? Ugh, just don't know about this. And you don't know jack about Title IX, so you're on a roll. 1. Female athletes aren't suffering. They're not the ones getting their programs dropped left and right. 2. Cute how you completely ignore any of the other services mentioned and focus on "babies". Btw: ask female undergrads about these services for non-traditional students -- you know... that department that most universities dedicate several full-time staff-members to serve -- and they'll tell you they're in full support of them getting additional services. If only the general public weren't so myopic... And don't men have something to do with undergraduate women having kids? Yeah. And guess what? Health services and counseling services to them counts towards Title IX. Oh, and you only subtracted football, not other male sports. That was the point!!!!! That even w/o football, there are more male student-athletes in less sports than there are female student-athletes, despite the ladies having more opportunities to play sports. Again. Title IX was *supposed* to be about opportunities. But that confirms it. You DIDN'T read any of my post. You read what you wanted to read. You wanted to read a female-basher, so you projected that onto me, completely ignoring any reference to building leadership skills in today's students, completely ignoring any reference to building up tenure-qualifications for future female professors, completely ignoring programs designed to support women that have fallen through the cracks.