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.
There is no law that is perfect. Title IX is no exception. That people (AD's) have used it to justify cutting men's sports is unfortunate. No doubt. But to point to Title IX as the crux of the problem is short-sighted.
Someone please explain to me why the fact that football uses up most of the athletic budget at most universities is irrelevant in this argument. Football affords men with athletic opportunity. It has for years. The fact that Title IX allocates a fair portion of the remaining resources to women has resulted in the remaining men's sports suffering cuts. Nobody (but those making those decisions, I guess) is happy about that. But the blame lies squarely at the foot of AD's, a football crazed (and second-tier sports dismissive) mainly male public, and not the attempt to even the playing field for women.
Could Title IX be amended somehow? I don't know. Anything that would remove football from the equation seems dishonest as I've yet to hear any good excuse for doing so.
It's not the questioning about the effects of Title IX that make some sound sexist. It's the demonizing of Title IX and relegating its use by (mainly male) decision makers as somehow the fault of feminists or liberals that make you sound so.
There is no law that is perfect. Title IX is no exception. That people (AD's) have used it to justify cutting men's sports is unfortunate. No doubt. But to point to Title IX as the crux of the problem is short-sighted.
Someone please explain to me why the fact that football uses up most of the athletic budget at most universities is irrelevant in this argument. Football affords men with athletic opportunity. It has for years. The fact that Title IX allocates a fair portion of the remaining resources to women has resulted in the remaining men's sports suffering cuts. Nobody (but those making those decisions, I guess) is happy about that. But the blame lies squarely at the foot of AD's, a football crazed (and second-tier sports dismissive) mainly male public, and not the attempt to even the playing field for women.
Could Title IX be amended somehow? I don't know. Anything that would remove football from the equation seems dishonest as I've yet to hear any good excuse for doing so.
It's not the questioning about the effects of Title IX that make some sound sexist. It's the demonizing of Title IX and relegating its use by (mainly male) decision makers as somehow the fault of feminists or liberals that make you sound so.
