www.azcentral.com/.../20101111deer-valley-unified-school-district-title-IX-investigation.html
Why do we continue to point to lower participating numbers of women in sports to justify the assertion that society is persecuting women? I was a part of a state high school championship team in Colorado and we never cut anybody. My daughters' teams in this very school (Deer Valley) district were regional champions 11 years running. Nobody on their teams got cut. I would assert that the opportunities are there even with the good teams/schools. Is it possible that overall less women are interested in sports? Badminton would put us in compliance??? Swell.
And for what it's worth, I think Hogshead got touched out in the 84 Olympics.
Fort, it's been awhile, please educate me again.:)
I'm not arguing that what is happening today with men's (and some women's) collegiate non-revenue sports teams is a good or fair thing. I think something needs to change. But to demonize Title IX as if it is the sole cause of the problem is ignorant.
I think Title IX was a good thing, but I think there is only so much you can do with it. It can't keep the college ADs from trying to make money, nor can it dictate which sports are offered. (In fact, it makes no mention of sports at all.) It's subject to interpretation, being written as generally as it was. That's a good thing, in my opinion.
How do you map its general language into specific implementation? Does it mean you offer the same number of sports for girls as for boys? Does it mean you offer enough sports for girls that there are the same number of team positions available on the teams for girls as there are for boys? Do you offer a sport for girls, say, badminton or field hockey, just to even up the number of sports available for girls and not allow the boys to participate, even though around the world those sports are probably as popular with men as with women?
At some point you have to stop looking to Title IX to solve the problem of participation in sports by girls. If there are still apparent inequities they are probably caused by other factors.
I'm not arguing that what is happening today with men's (and some women's) collegiate non-revenue sports teams is a good or fair thing. I think something needs to change. But to demonize Title IX as if it is the sole cause of the problem is ignorant.
I think Title IX was a good thing, but I think there is only so much you can do with it. It can't keep the college ADs from trying to make money, nor can it dictate which sports are offered. (In fact, it makes no mention of sports at all.) It's subject to interpretation, being written as generally as it was. That's a good thing, in my opinion.
How do you map its general language into specific implementation? Does it mean you offer the same number of sports for girls as for boys? Does it mean you offer enough sports for girls that there are the same number of team positions available on the teams for girls as there are for boys? Do you offer a sport for girls, say, badminton or field hockey, just to even up the number of sports available for girls and not allow the boys to participate, even though around the world those sports are probably as popular with men as with women?
At some point you have to stop looking to Title IX to solve the problem of participation in sports by girls. If there are still apparent inequities they are probably caused by other factors.
