21 Comments

Opportunity!

Mostly a MALE cheerleader squads for the womens/girls programs!

Can we pronounce role reversal for WendyM!???

But they like the players, are of course DIFFERENT!

Your main link is broken. [Fixed now — W.O.]

I dunno, there’s something special about cheerleaders and the girls basketball team that should be encouraged.

Shouldn’t the parent who are pushing for cheerleaders at girls sporting event also be insisting that cheerleading squad be 50% male?

Strangely enough, many colleges do not consider cheerleading to be a sport in terms of compliance with Title IX.

Cheerleading at that level is a pretty tough and athletic pursuit – it ought to be considered a sport. If it were, perhaps we’d still have men’s swim teams at UCLA and Louisville or a men’s baseball team at Providence College.

Small correction: University of Louisville did NOT cut its men’s swimming program.

But they were considering it in the late ’90s.

One of the few non-rage-filled comments I can ever manage to post about Title IX is, “Some genders are just more equal than others.” It doesn’t always communicate well what I’m thinking and feeling, but I think it dos well enough in this case (try to apply Title IX to cheerleading watch the fireworks!).

The level of cheerleading varies from school to school, but there are a few constants: like football the cheerleaders have to tryout, and they are on a “team” or “squad”. The members have to be athletic, agile, and there is a championship for the best team, so I would say it’s a sport, and I guess Title IX should apply. (I realize Title IX is not the answer to inequality, but it seems to be the best answer at this time.)

Colin, you should read this column at Reason Magazine for a good overview of why Title IX, as it is presently implemented, is bad for men’s sports.

I really wish more universities would give a little extra effort into proving compliance by something other than a quota.

I wish the (virtually all male) college administrators would quit blaming Title IX for the results of their own mismanagement.

Title IX has done nothing to hurt men’s sports. College sports participation among men has grown since its implementation at a far greater rate than the overall college male population. Schools were cutting men’s sports programs long before Title IX came along, they just found some other scapegoat to blame.

The proportionality thing was originally proposed and passed by men trying to legislate themselves a permanent advantage. In 1974, when it announced by the HEW, 60% of college students were men and everyone seemed to think that would remain the case.

pilight,

Sure, Title IX has NOTHING to do with it… except for the millions of dollars blown on lawsuits about it, and the sincere and strong dsire to avoid any more such lawsuits on the part of schools. That’s a real incentive, no “scapegoating” required. Go do a little research before you shoot your mouth off.

Pilight,

Title IX has everything to do with the elimination of the following men’s programs:

UCLA swimming and gymnastics
U. of Miami swimming and diving
Miami of Ohio wrestling, soccer and tennis
New Mexico wrestling, gymnastics, tennis

and countless others.

It’s not a scapegoat for universities who want to save money in the athletic budget. In some cases, outraged athletes and alumni end up raising enough money to keep the program alive, yet it gets cut anyway. Why?

The obvious answer is the threat of Title IX litigation.

I don’t believe that TitleIX has much actual effect on sports in colleges, but it has an effect on sports programs. I think the main issue is Football which is the most expensive program most colleges have, and basicly a men’s game. With or without TitleIX more men would be playing sports if football programs were shrunk are cut. TitleIX is not the enemy of men’s sports, the love of money is. Bring on the cheerleaders!

I’v done tons of research on Title IX, Deoxy. Yours apparently stopped at “The man in charge said Title IX was to to blame so it must be true”.

As for outraged alumni and athletes, how long do you think they’ll keep funding a program? A year? Three? They’ll be expecting the school to take back over before you know it and you’ll be right back where you started.

Title IX litigation? Has any university ever actually lost a Title IX case?

Title IX litigation? Has any university ever actually lost a Title IX case?

I believe L.S.U. lost a Title IX case that went to trial in the 1990s, but I don’t remember the details.

But I didn’t say litigation – I said the threat of litigation. How many Title IX suits are brought? Threatened? Settled? Avoided by eliminating men’s programs?

The easiest (and least expensive) way for a school to comply with Title IX is through the elimination of men’s opportunities.

This is especially easy when “opportunity” is not defined as the number of positions available for women, but rather the number of positions actually filled by women. The “proportionality test” has become the only means by which compliance is measured – and it’s fundamentally flawed.

“I’ve done tons of research on Title IX, Deoxy.”

BS, or you wouldn’t be saying what you said.

“Yours apparently stopped at “The man in charge said Title IX was to to blame so it must be true”.”

Since I don’t get most of my information from “the man in charge”, that couldn’t possibly be true. It sounds (from both of your posts) like you have a problm with men, though I admit that’s a bit much to get from two posts.

And the answer to your last question is “Yes.”

“I think the main issue is Football which is the most expensive program most colleges have”

Many schools MAKE money on football.

Got any more ridiculous claims?

If colleges MAKE money on football then pull the football program away from the school and let the free market work. Let colleges educate. The loss of a football program will not bring an end to higher learning.

Colin,

That’s called “the NFL”. But I agree – “Let colleges educate”! STOP TRYING TO CONTROL THEM.

Title IX litigation? Has any university ever actually lost a Title IX case?

You’ve done “tons of research” and you don’t know about the Brown case?

The Brown case was ultimately settled, no admission of guilt of course.

I’m not nearly self-lothing enough to have a problem with men. Several folks here seem to have problems with women, however.

The ultimate question is whether or not intercolegiate athletics have educational value. If so, women should have as much opportunity to participate as men. If not, universities shouldn’t be involved with it.

The ultimate question is whether or not intercolegiate athletics have educational value. If so, women should have as much opportunity to participate as men. If not, universities shouldn’t be involved with it.

One of the major problems is that it’s not the opportunity that isn’t there for women. It’s that TitleIX apparently requires equal participation. The pools from which to pull participants for men’s and women’s programs are vastly different. It’s a fact that a far higher percentage of men are interested in playing sports than women are. That’s where the law is so unfair. Equal opportunity is very different from equal participation.

“Equal opportunity is very different from equal participation.”

Quoted For Truth.

pilight,

if you can’t see how that penalizes men simply for having different interests than women, then you are beyond the point of reasonable discussion.