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.
And, yet, there are a few posts on here that say Title IX is bad and the cutting of programs is due solely to its existence. If that's not what they mean, they need to communicate more clearly.
Does the end justify the means? If a law allows one specific gender to overcome what no one has argued at one time were unfair inequalities but thru its "interpretation" allows a loophole to create fewer sports for another gender can't you understand why some would think that it would be a "bad" law (again, not because it created the original oppurtunites.
An older but interesting read on this topic which touches on one aspect of this not being mentioned....here is an exerpt:
"Despite accommodations made across the country, females make up 56% of undergraduates across the country, while still only 41% of college athletes. This 15% gap translates to 59,000 male athletes who would be cut if quotas were more rigorously enforced. The result would be that every football program in the country would be eliminated; or alternatively every men’s golf, track, gymnastics, swim, water polo, and basketball team would have to be dropped.
When faced with these facts, feminists often claim that fault lies with football not Title IX. They claim that men’s football teams, often with over a hundred players and coaches with six or seven digit salaries, are to blame for the cut in other male athletic programs. Gavora demolishes this claim. She points out that the majority of Division I-A football teams earn revenue for other sports, while with the exclusion of the Connecticut basketball team, no female program turns a profit. The average NCAA women’s basketball team spends more than 10,000 dollars more per player than football teams."
www.lewrockwell.com/.../epstein12.html
And, yet, there are a few posts on here that say Title IX is bad and the cutting of programs is due solely to its existence. If that's not what they mean, they need to communicate more clearly.
Does the end justify the means? If a law allows one specific gender to overcome what no one has argued at one time were unfair inequalities but thru its "interpretation" allows a loophole to create fewer sports for another gender can't you understand why some would think that it would be a "bad" law (again, not because it created the original oppurtunites.
An older but interesting read on this topic which touches on one aspect of this not being mentioned....here is an exerpt:
"Despite accommodations made across the country, females make up 56% of undergraduates across the country, while still only 41% of college athletes. This 15% gap translates to 59,000 male athletes who would be cut if quotas were more rigorously enforced. The result would be that every football program in the country would be eliminated; or alternatively every men’s golf, track, gymnastics, swim, water polo, and basketball team would have to be dropped.
When faced with these facts, feminists often claim that fault lies with football not Title IX. They claim that men’s football teams, often with over a hundred players and coaches with six or seven digit salaries, are to blame for the cut in other male athletic programs. Gavora demolishes this claim. She points out that the majority of Division I-A football teams earn revenue for other sports, while with the exclusion of the Connecticut basketball team, no female program turns a profit. The average NCAA women’s basketball team spends more than 10,000 dollars more per player than football teams."
www.lewrockwell.com/.../epstein12.html
