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.
Apparently from what little research I've done, Title IX was interpreted to extend its language to athletic opportunities. The words "athletic opportunities" ae not in the statute. Although the motivation for passing Title IX was no doubt designed to protect women from further discrimination, like equal employment opportunity laws, the language of the statute actually protects both sexes.
I think it is conceivable that a male would have a good argument that he was denied the benefit of athletic opportunities guaranteed under Title IX if he has a limited number of sports as compared to women in which to participate in at a particular academic institution. So, I would say that Title IX is not the demon.
There needs to be a policy interpretation leaning towards equal athletic opportunity, meaning that each sex has an equal number of sports in which to participate. The problem is that society, lawmakers, and judges at this moment in time don't seem inclined to be sympathetic towards males being denied opportunites.
Apparently from what little research I've done, Title IX was interpreted to extend its language to athletic opportunities. The words "athletic opportunities" ae not in the statute. Although the motivation for passing Title IX was no doubt designed to protect women from further discrimination, like equal employment opportunity laws, the language of the statute actually protects both sexes.
I think it is conceivable that a male would have a good argument that he was denied the benefit of athletic opportunities guaranteed under Title IX if he has a limited number of sports as compared to women in which to participate in at a particular academic institution. So, I would say that Title IX is not the demon.
There needs to be a policy interpretation leaning towards equal athletic opportunity, meaning that each sex has an equal number of sports in which to participate. The problem is that society, lawmakers, and judges at this moment in time don't seem inclined to be sympathetic towards males being denied opportunites.
