As of 8:10am this morning one of the finer programs in the country is lost due to "budgetary" problems.
No one saw it coming and they just recently signed some top level recruits that gave them one of the top 3 recruiting classes in the country.
Parents
Former Member
Look, I hear you, but there has to be a better solution to the "male privilege" or minority under-achievement problem than cutting women's sports.
1. Who said anything about cutting women's sports?
2. You really don't know anything about Title IX. B/c traditionally schools had dedicated more money to their male students, Title IX was passed to eliminate that gap.
So if you cut a program designed for women and take that funding and apply it to a program for men, you'd be in severe risk of getting sued for non-compliance.
I don't buy your argument that the 1970s goals have already already implemented. They're really not. That's why we're still seeing new women's sports all the time.
We see new women's sports all the time b/c schools are required to have the same number of male and female athletes. When schools get threatened suit or fines for non-compliance, they add female sports and cut male sports in order to say, "Look... we're trying!!!"
Your social agenda is great. But let's find some different targets for change besides women's sports.
Find where I put a target on women's sports.
Try.
There's a difference btw, "Instead of adding yet another female sport that will satisfy a dozen women, let's put the money into something that female students have stated they want more of, will serve more students AND will have a long-term public benefit" vs. "slash and burn women's sports".
Why can't you go pick on men's sports to support your social agenda?
My "agenda" is my profession: to serve my students. All of them, regardless of age, race, gender, religion, social class or creed.
Hardly an agenda. :rolleyes:
Look, I hear you, but there has to be a better solution to the "male privilege" or minority under-achievement problem than cutting women's sports.
1. Who said anything about cutting women's sports?
2. You really don't know anything about Title IX. B/c traditionally schools had dedicated more money to their male students, Title IX was passed to eliminate that gap.
So if you cut a program designed for women and take that funding and apply it to a program for men, you'd be in severe risk of getting sued for non-compliance.
I don't buy your argument that the 1970s goals have already already implemented. They're really not. That's why we're still seeing new women's sports all the time.
We see new women's sports all the time b/c schools are required to have the same number of male and female athletes. When schools get threatened suit or fines for non-compliance, they add female sports and cut male sports in order to say, "Look... we're trying!!!"
Your social agenda is great. But let's find some different targets for change besides women's sports.
Find where I put a target on women's sports.
Try.
There's a difference btw, "Instead of adding yet another female sport that will satisfy a dozen women, let's put the money into something that female students have stated they want more of, will serve more students AND will have a long-term public benefit" vs. "slash and burn women's sports".
Why can't you go pick on men's sports to support your social agenda?
My "agenda" is my profession: to serve my students. All of them, regardless of age, race, gender, religion, social class or creed.
Hardly an agenda. :rolleyes:
