Let's keep cutting men's sports. Hey.... it's the economy now, not Title IX.
I find this reasoning amusing.
John Smith
=======================================
NCAA's Brand: Don't fault Title IX for Future Cuts
Author: ASA News
Blog URL: allstudentathletes.com/.../ncaabrandtitleix
Description:
Brand expects some schools to drop men's teams in coming months because
of the economic downturn. He is urging them in advance to cite the
economy, not the law that bans sex discrimination at schools receiving
federal funds.
Whoa, there! All I said was that the conversation reminded me of that particular thread, for Heaven's sake! I was not condemning you personally! Didn't mean to offend. If you love the 50's, fantastic. More power to ya'.
Now, as to the subject of this particular thread: would you agree that Title IX is inherently evil and solely intended to propagate a liberal feminist world-view? Or would you be willing to say that the way athletic departments choose to handle Title IX (a relatively neutral attempt to even the athletic playing field) and the way they heavily favor football over any other sport is the main problem?
Honestly, before I can intelligently answer your question, I would want to thorougly review the law and the statistics. To do otherwise would amount to pure speculation on my part.
As with many laws aimed at creating opportunites for those groups previously denied opportunities, there comes what I call "unintended side effects." For example, with the equal employment opportunity laws in place, many previous bad employment practices have been nearly eradicated. The downside, however, is the cost to employers to comply with so many laws is out the roof. One could argue that such laws have a negative impact on the economy. With increased costs, employers have to make cuts somewhere and that may mean laying off employees. Also, it can mean in the whole big picture of things that the added expense of compliance makes it simply too expensive to do business and the business shuts down.
So, my position is that there needs to be a balance. There needs to be a way to create opportunity but minimize the side effects. I don't think it is a weak argument that the "unintended side effects" of Title IX may have exceeded its benefit.
I think hoping that AD's will give less scholarships for football players is unrealistic. Since the time of the gladiators, the mob has enjoyed seeing people get mauled. Those in power love to please the mob. The mob wants football and the best that can be had.
Whoa, there! All I said was that the conversation reminded me of that particular thread, for Heaven's sake! I was not condemning you personally! Didn't mean to offend. If you love the 50's, fantastic. More power to ya'.
Now, as to the subject of this particular thread: would you agree that Title IX is inherently evil and solely intended to propagate a liberal feminist world-view? Or would you be willing to say that the way athletic departments choose to handle Title IX (a relatively neutral attempt to even the athletic playing field) and the way they heavily favor football over any other sport is the main problem?
Honestly, before I can intelligently answer your question, I would want to thorougly review the law and the statistics. To do otherwise would amount to pure speculation on my part.
As with many laws aimed at creating opportunites for those groups previously denied opportunities, there comes what I call "unintended side effects." For example, with the equal employment opportunity laws in place, many previous bad employment practices have been nearly eradicated. The downside, however, is the cost to employers to comply with so many laws is out the roof. One could argue that such laws have a negative impact on the economy. With increased costs, employers have to make cuts somewhere and that may mean laying off employees. Also, it can mean in the whole big picture of things that the added expense of compliance makes it simply too expensive to do business and the business shuts down.
So, my position is that there needs to be a balance. There needs to be a way to create opportunity but minimize the side effects. I don't think it is a weak argument that the "unintended side effects" of Title IX may have exceeded its benefit.
I think hoping that AD's will give less scholarships for football players is unrealistic. Since the time of the gladiators, the mob has enjoyed seeing people get mauled. Those in power love to please the mob. The mob wants football and the best that can be had.
