Is Title IX Working?
We all know the history: Title IX has been integral to the growth in women's athletics since its inception in 1972, but it has also precipitated the elimination of many non-revenue men's teams as colleges attempt to comply with the law's proportionality enforcement prong.
With the anniversary on the horizon, the debate has heated up again.
In March, the College Sports Council produced a study that "shows steep and steady declines in college athletic opportunities for men." Opponents of the law point to examples like James Madison University and Syracuse University, which both announced during the past year that they would cut men's sports to move into line with Title IX.
At the same time, proponents of the legislation continue to produce statistics showing that women's sports still lag behind men's at the college level and women's participation rates are not proportional to the percentage of women enrolled at the college level — a number that keeps growing.
The Women's Sports Foundation released a study earlier this month supporting this position and refuting the claims by opposition groups such as the CSC that men's sports are struggling. It concluded, "the significant under representation of women among college athletes often receives relatively little attention. Instead, the debate focuses on whether or not men have maintained their high participation levels, and many claim that men's athletic participation has seriously declined over time."
With arguments raging on both sides, it appears as if Title IX might be headed for a midlife crisis on this milestone birthday. Has the law outgrown its usefulness? What changes, if any, should be made to ensure that equal opportunity is preserved for all?
I don't know the intricacies of title IX, but is it okay to steal from Peter to pay Paul? Your answer will depend on who you talk to. Eliminating men's sports so women can have an opportunity to play a sport is a form of discrimination and visa versa is true also. In my opinion, if you want total equality let women and men compete together in the same sports and let the chips fall where they may. That is true equality. Since, not too many people will go for that, men's sports should not be downgraded or eliminated so that women can play sports. I understand that the money has to come from somewhere, but that is not my problem, it is the people that championed title IX that should figure it out. One last comment, they say that percentage of women that are playing college sports is not to the same proportion than that of men playing college sports with respect to their respectively enrolled population, but whoever assumed that every college female or male for case wants to play a college sport? That seems like a foolish way to measure the success of title IX and a bad assumption. It is my personal opinion that Title IX should be reformed.
There's a catch 22 in play here. If the powers that be consider Title IX no longer necessary and abolish it, womens sports could get cut dramatically since they dont pull funds into the schools.
However, the men on the 10 teams at James Madison who saw their athletic opportunities dissappear are getting a pretty raw deal.
The problem is that there are men's sports without a female equivalent that lead to an imbalance. If 10 men get basketball scholarships, it's balanced out by the womens team. However, when 75 football players get scholarships, there's no womens team providing balance.
What needs to happen is the sports with no NCAA equivalent (football, wrestling) need to have their scholarships exempt from Title IX rules. There's already an NCAA limit on them to make it fair.
I personally think its a pretty stupid comment to make for proponents of Title IX to say that equality hasn't been reached because the percentage of women playing sports compared to their enrolled population doesn't equal mens. Well no crap! There are more women enrolled in colleges period than men, so based off percentages Title IX won't be equal until there are more women's sports than men. Also most women I have ever met aren't near as interested in sports than men. The women's population on a whole could give a flying rats rear end about collegiate sports or sports in general, so why should they play them. Title IX will never reach equality because women on a whole aren't interested in playing sports to the degree men are, so therefore there will always be less of them. Men sports shouldn't be punished for that. There needs to be a substantial amount of collegiate teams available for the sports that women play (soccer and basketball for instance). If there aren't enough women to play the sport on a majority of college campus', then get rid of it, and if a woman wants to play let her try a men's team.
In the words of JOHN IRVING:
"Keep Title IX; eliminate proportionality. Play fair."
To play fair, the proportionality needs to be shifted from the percentage of women in the student body to the percentage of women participating in intramural, club and other school sponsored sports.
Ultimately, law makers face a growing health crisis from obesity among children, adolescents and young adults of both sexes. Regular participation in sports and other physical activity will be essential to address this issue. Promoting participation in intramural sports can foster physical fitness of the student body and provide a more defensible basis for greater participation of women in sports.
How about letting schools decide how they should spend their money rather than the government's telling them how to spend it?
The concept of forcing public schools to divert funding from new facilities, smaller class sizes, academic scholarships (God forbid) etc... to providing scholarships, cross country travel and highly paid coaching to non-revenue sports is absurd.
Schools should provide the opportunity for students to play non-revenue sports at the "varsity" level but it should not involve scholarships, highly paid coaches or big travel budgets.
Athletic scholarships should only be given out in a few sports. Title IX, and for that matter the government, should stay out of financial decisions made at athletic departments. The AD should answer to the university president and board of trustees. In the case of a public university, the AD should also answer to the taxpayers.
Millions and millions of dollars are spent on sports that people just don't care about. It raises tution and takes money away from the real problems facing higher education. It's a real shame, but God forbid we ask the softball team to play the sport because they love it rather than for a scholarship.
To people who think women would be treated unfairly by this plan, think again. I'm sure that female athletes love receiving full scholarships but that money has to come from somewhere. Who gets hurt? The rest of the student body gets hurt and over 50% of college students are... women. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Should universities give $25,000 a year in scholarship money to a woman who excels at the backstroke or one who excels in Cell Biology? It's such a stupid question that it shouldn't even be asked and yet Title IX says the answer must be backstroke. What a shame. What a waste.
More men participating in college sports does not necessarily mean discrimination is still happening. Disagree? Look at an elementary school choir and note that usually 90% of the participants are girls. Discrimination? No - my boys were encouraged to join. It's just that at that age more girls prefer singing while more boys prefer recorder or juggling club.
Bottom line - You minority folks out there need to quit crying every time you see numerical imbalances, whether it be in sports or the workplace. Put your emotions aside for a second and look at other possible reasons.
The entire idea of Title IX is preposterous. Everyone know College Athletics are funded by Mens Football and Basketball. It takes 85 men to field a men's football team to fund for themselves, but almost the entire womens athletics budget! Since no womens sport even approaches 85 scholarships the formula is flawed to begin with. If you exempted those 85 scholarships with the compliance of the rule, things would naturally even out.
I hate that we have to cut non revenue men's sports so that a school can support any women's sport, because none of them really help a shcool produce revenue, save tennessee's women's basketball and the like.
Just drop football. Then most of your problems are solved.
Title IX is flawed and has always been flawed. Each person deserves a fair shot, not each gender deserves a fair shot. You are grouping men and women together when this should be looked at as individuals. If men and women need equal opportunity in sports, shouldn't schools have to give equal opportunity to men and women getting in to school? The gap between the amount of men and women in college is growing so if sports need to be equal opportunity, shouldn't academics too? Title IX needs to be fixed and soon. Too many men's program (including some which compete for national titles) are being cut or already have been cut. It is ridiculous and another example of helping women when we should be helping each individual.
I find it hard to understand why college football teams need so many full scholarships (DI = 85)when the pros have only 53 players and can do quite well. Are the college powerhouses stockpiling players so that other teams cannot have them? Reduce the college number to 60 and use the "leftover money" (scholarships, travel expenses, uniforms, per diems, away game lodging, etc.) to fund other programs which do not have as many expenses (rowing, tennis, wrestling, swimming and diving, squash, cross country, track and field, field hockey, lacrosse).
I know that football brings in the money, but why do teams need so many players when only a select limited number play in each game? Do 42 (1/2 of 85) actually get into each college game? If not, then 85 if way too many for a football squad.
And, of course, make sure these are STUDENT athletes earning the scholarships. How much money is spent on tutoring/academic support services for these players?
Also, how many male basketball players never get on the court for a game? Notice the fervent cheering when the last man on the bench FINALLY gets a chance to play (for 60 seconds or so in a blowout).
All of this said, the mathematical aspect of Title IX compliance needs to be rethought. There needs to be a better way.
However, I am NOT in favor of sliding back to the era when women's sports were second rate and and an afterthought.
I have to agree that larger sports like football create a significant imbalance and perhaps the only way to solve that is to exempt them from Title IX rules. However, I don't buy the idea that the general womens population doesn't give a rats a** about sports. I played at a D-I school for 4 years and the 23 girls on my team plus the hundreds of other female athletes I met playing cared about sports a great deal. In addition to that, I ran into a considerable amount of female students that would have given anything to play collegiately but weren't good enough. So I don't think that the women don't care enough about sports argument works.
The law is too extreme and has resulted in many mens' sports, for which is significant interest, being cancelled, in order to meet this quixotical goal of equality. The idea that women are as interested in sports as are men is foolish and ignores reality. I am sick of stupid people getting stupid laws passed that hurt the majority.
I really can't improve on this statement.
"To play fair, the proportionality needs to be shifted from the percentage of women in the student body to the percentage of women participating in intramural, club and other school sponsored sports."
Title IX may be well intentioned, but it is rather flawed. Another poster made a great point that there are no women's sports equivalents to football and wrestling. Yet another pointed out that many universities have more women than men enrolled. Obviously, schools aren't going to cut football because it helps all the non revenue sports stay afloat. Hence, it should be taken out of the scholarship equation if it can be proven to support x percentage of women's non revenue sports. I would propose the same for men's basketball, hockey, or whatever program is the big draw at a given school. Perhaps this formula could keep women competing and bring back some of the non revenue men's sports that have gotten the axe.
I only have a girl , so title ix is a blessing for us to springboard into college and get some free education. Also being a coach for 17 years mostly kids in the middle school age, I agree with alot of the comments,yes it needs a reform but the problem is not the efforts made by the college's. When I was in high school from 1971-1975 my high school if you were a girl there was cheerleading and track. This same high school just started volleyball five years ago and there is no middle school volleyball period. The problem is in elementary and middle school, in Texas for volleyball there are two eighth and two seventh grade teams of 12 each, in middle school in Kentucky there is no teams at all and in florida we had 53 girls come out for 18 spots and to make it worse we only have one week of practice and only play five games and the season is over. With a state like Florida you would think the schools would offer more sports, Florida's middle schools if you are a girl you get five games of basketball, volleyball and track. Our high school just started girl's flag football but there still is no gymnastic's nor lacroose. In Florida the schools are not allowed outside coaching help so they must rely on what teachers they are staffed with which on the average only make $500 per season, the school we are to go to high school at, the golf coach is a joke and our past middle school volleyball coach just kind of got thrown in there. The title ix needs to offer more at the lower levels if they want to bring more interest for the college level. These high schools and colleges were football brings in enough money to support all the sports, men and women's combined, title ix needs a reform where not so many of there players count against them. Title ix was meant to bring more women to sports not run the men out, when we show up at some golf tournaments there is only 3-5 women in our age group and 50-75 men in the same age group, some tournaments we were the only female and had to play with the boys. The Forida lotto money was suppose to be more icing on the cake for schools but the money from the state is gone and Florida seems to now rely only on the lotto which is money the schools do not have anymore. The city and couty which is owned by the state seem to be in it for the money not for the love of the kids. My friend bought a i9sports franchise for all the kids that are not good enough for the city and county all star teams. It offered basketball, baseball, soceer and golf for beginners so all kids could play. He could not get fields or gyms , the city and county looked at him as competition and either would not allow him to use there field's and gyms or wanted so much money he could not afford them. These college's that are losing men's teams should first be given a probation period at which time a board needs to look into whether they made an effort to bring in female athletes first, if they showed a valent effort title ix should at the time work with them to bring them up to par instead of just wacking a men's program. You also need to consider some schools may not offer the course's that attrach women grad's and the men should not suffer for this if it is the case.
A simple solution:
Let the school decide where to spend it's athletic budget. If that means entire women's or men's teams get cut so be it. Those kids who want to play those sports can enroll elsewhere.
Make Title IX based on dollars spent. If a sport breaks even or makes money, it does not count. If you want to spend $150K on womens crew, go ahead and that might offset wrestling. This means that popular sports with fans that break even are exempt at a school by school basis. Tenn and UConn's women's basketball would fall in this category. Some baseball teams would, a few wrestling programs and most but not all football teams.
If some schools have more women than men enrolled, isn't that inequality in the reverse of Title IX. We need another law to keep any school from having more women than men.
What I don't see in these posts are many fair, workable solutions. Most people just want to change the formula so that football is excluded, or just scrap the law entirely.
I agree, it is sad that James Madison is cutting some mens teams, but I assume it would be just as sad to be a female on that campus and have less oportunities than your male classmates (especially when you consider that there are probably more females on the campus than males) to particpate in varsity athletics just beacause the mens' programs were established first.
Why do we feel like there is a "right" for the mens teams to exist, but not an equal "right" for womens teams? Realistically, what is the difference between a small, ignored, non-revenue men's team and a small, ignored, non-revenue womens' team? If people loved these teams so much, that are so worth saving, why don't they pay to go watch them (besides the small, devoted groups of fans obviously)?
How about this, college is for education not sports. Novel concept, huh?
The only reason colleges have sports anymore is about money. Let the real students have the scholorship money rather than give a full ride to someone who can barely read.
In my freshmen year in college at a major division 1 athletic program, I saw a women's crew team first formed in order to comply with Title IX. Posters were hung around campus looking for women to join, and seniors (who were the former club team members) went around knocking on doors of freshmen offering tryouts and SCHOLARSHIPS to women who had never even tried the sport before. Baffling. Everyone knows that men's sports bring in revenue. That is a fact, not an imbalance in equality.
I know the effects of Title IX from a first-hand perspective. I was a member of the Men's Cross Country team at Georgia Southern University before our program was cut along with a very successful Men's Swimming & Diving team. The women student-athletes felt guilty because and constantly apologized to my teammates and the swim team. Shortly after this happened, one of my teammates went into a deep depression which ultimately lead to his suicide. I am not blaming women for his death, but I am blaming the system. The purpose of college is to further your academics; not to get caught up in political affairs. Title IX must be revisited and changed to agree with today's society and standards. I am all for female athletes. I enjoy watching women's tennis, soccer, golf, etc. Make it work for both sides. Do not fault one side in favor of the other.
anybody who knows something about Title IX knows that it is about equity NOT equality
Everybody that went to a major university knew at least one female "athlete" whose varsity sport was just a hobby or something they had picked up recently. They got to play it at the varsity level because the school needed the participation for title IX (FYI, at my school it was the equestrian team). Meanwhile, guys who had played a sport their entire life had to make due in club sports because for the school to fund them would violate that law.
P.S. If you didn't know someone, it's because it was such a non-event sport that they didn't tell you or it never came up in conversation.
As a member of a division 1 women's rowing team, I see what Title IX has done for my team mates and I. It has given many of us the ability to lower our education loans while being able to participate in the sport we love. If Title IX was reformed I am pretty sure that many women's rowing teams would be cut as we are known to be a sport that was put in place to help off set football scholarships, not because of popular demand. However women's rowing does not offer as many scholarships as one might think. On a team of 40-50 athletes, maybe 10 will have full scholarships while the rest are are offered books or nothing but the opportunity to compete in division 1 athletics representing their school. From this point of view, I would hate to see Title IX go because it has given many young women the opportunity to compete and be STUDENT athletes.
However, I was also a track/ cross country athlete in high school (along with rowing. I saw how difficult it was for the guys I ran with to get scholarships as good runners while i, as a medicore runner, was getting offers from smaller division 1 schools so that they could satisfy their Title IX requirements.
Unfortunately, it all comes down to money and the ability to pay for non-revenue mens sports when most women's sports are also non revenue but required to be funded. And while I am gratefule that I will be able to complete my undergraduate degree with minimal costs to myself, I feel that something in Title IX needs to be changed for the benfit of all athletes.
Title ix doesn't demand a proportionality test for compliance, but most colleges seem to bow to that standard. I can only assume they won't take the chance on being perceived as sexist, lack the intestinal fortitude to challenge the feds, or are using Title ix as a convenient excuse to cut the athletic budget. Where the needs of the women athletes are being met, and the opportunity is there for any women who wants to play in sports, Title ix says that that is sufficient, yet virtually no college takes that approach, and instead they choose to cut the non-revenue men's sports.
It's definitely time to scrap Title IX. People are so concerned with making sure the same proportion of boys and girls play sports, but they don't realized that men and women are different from a physiological and psychological standpoint. The simple truth is that more boys than girls play sports not because of opportunity, but because males are more agressive, comptetive, physical etc. Title IX has had great success, but at this point championship men's teams are being disbanded so girls who have never played a sport in their life and are somewhat indifferent towards them can start playing. It's as if there was a rule requiring there to be an equal number of men and women in singing or ballet class.
Title IX is the biggest joke around. I love watching women play sports I have no problem with that I go to all my schools softball games, women's soccer and basketball games. I go to a lot of the women's tennis matches and water polo games also. I have been to track and field also where the women and men have their meets together. I also though go to a lot of the men's games. It is not fair that men at my school do not have the chance to play soccer at the NCAA level. The intnet of the title IX is good the wording though is not fair. To say there is not enough money in the budget for at least most of the big school is a joke as often times the men's football coach is fired and the contract is bought out only to hire a new coaches who is getting paid more than the previous coaches. How a football eam gets 85 scholarships and baseball only get 11 is an entire other problem in budgeting. The intrest though among men to play in a sport and women to play in sport should be how they determine how many men sports you have and how many women sports you have if you are going to keep title IX. Because just because there are say 60% women at the school an 40% men at the school does not mean that the ration is same of who wants to play sports and would actually try out and not just go to school because they got a scholarship.
Title IX was great in concept, horrible in execution. I love the proponents' argument that women have a lower participation in sports at the collegiate level as a % of students. Gee, REALLY? That's because far more men play sports growing up than women as a % of the population. Blame genes or their parents. Don't punish collegiate athletes.
Further, women don't have a sport like football that has 100+ athletes on the team.
Schools won't drop women's sports if Title IX is abolished, even if those sports aren't revenue producing. The backlash from feminazis would be too fierce, and most people believe in providing more sporting opportunities than less.
Title IX, however, does exactly the opposite. It has forced many schools to cut programs that should have been supported only to comply with this anachronistic and outdated trash piece of legislation.
Title IX is about politics and only politics. It has nothing to do with providing women with better opportunities. Some people just wanted to get their name on a piece of legislation so they could claim they were "doing right" by the women in America.
Frankly, anybody who signed this legislation should be banned from ever making an important decision again.
If women are so interested in sports, why do they not go watch more womens sports, support them and create there own payroll. I go to football games at a ACC school and see half the 60,000 people there are female, and for basketball half of the 10,000. I've been to a few womens sports games, basketball, volleyball, and never seen more than 500 people there total. I am not insinuating that all sports should pay for themselves, but paying out $400,000 a year in scholarships to a womans sports team that has to ask people to join and probibally has a net loss in revenue for the year does not make much sense, when you have to cut a mens sports team that may break even and has to have tryouts because there are so many people who want to be on the team and only so many spots it.
Every time I see another men's wrestling team disappear I say screw title IX.
Do you have a topic worth venting about? Send your suggestions here.