Title IX vs. men’s school sports

by Walter Olson on June 29, 2014

Don’t call it quotas, call it “statistical proportionality” [Christina Hoff Sommers, Time; earlier on Title IX]

{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Richard Nieporent 06.29.14 at 11:21 am

Unfortunately as long as Title IX is the law, this will be the result. There is no way of compromising with zealots. Feminists will not accept anything less that complete equality of numbers between the sexes (They will of course accept a greater percentage of women than men because that will make women even more equal). We now have females comprising 60% of college students. Don’t hold your breath waiting to hear feminist concern about this imbalance. Rather we get demands that there be more women in the STEM fields. To paraphrase George Orwell – all sexes are equal, but one sex is more equal than the other.

2 SmallGovernmentGuy 06.29.14 at 11:57 am

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that every time the progressives strive for “fairness”, it ends in more tyranny.

3 Max Kennerly 06.29.14 at 7:40 pm

She gives exactly one example, Howard University, to support her arguments, a school apparently not sued for Title IX violations. She might as well point out that Mars is not made of cheese as proof the moon is.

“Football is a money-generating male sport with large rosters?” Football is “integral to the identity and history of colleges and universities everywhere?”

Seems somebody needs to review the Knight Commission’s work before embarrassing herself further.

4 SmallGovernmentGuy 06.29.14 at 9:38 pm

Max-

I think your primary concern should be not embarrassing yourself. Ms. Sommers cited many examples, and a quick perusal using any search engine would bring a plethora of men’s programs cut due to Title IX quotas to your screen.

What exactly is your point in quoting those two remarks about football? Is there one? The fact that football necessitates much larger rosters than ANY other sport and generates a large majority of the revenue means it should be treated differently to be fair to men.

5 John Rohan 06.30.14 at 1:07 am

The article gives the example: “if a college’s student body is 60% female, then 60% of the athletes should be female”.

But by that logic, if the student body is 60% female, isn’t that evidence of discrimination right there? Under title IX, shouldn’t every university be forced to cut it’s female or male student population until they are both 50%?

6 Melvin H. 06.30.14 at 1:42 am

And Max, in a few cases even football is now no longer immune from Title IX cuts: When Nebraska-Omaha moved up in 2011 from Division II to Division I a few years ago, the then-AD, Trev Alberts (former University of Nebraska football player) decided that UNO would have to drop a three-time defending Division II national championship wrestling team [one of the men's sports badly damaged by Title IX] and the football team to comply with Title IX demands. (While the fact that the Summit League [the conference UNO came up to from D-II] did not play football or wrestling in-conference was a factor as well, neither do they have hockey–UNO played instead in the WCHA before that conference was disbanded–and Title IX played a large part in the decisions made.)

7 cecil 06.30.14 at 9:57 am

Okay, so there’s two genders… That doesn’t mean they are evenly distributed. Why the 50/50 assumption?

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>