Frank Deford takes on Title IX . . . .

I don't think I'm going too far in my support of the law. For the most part I try to debunk misconceptions which are very prevalent, even among people who work in athletics.

I'm not ignoring that there are seven men's teams being cut at JMU. I addressed that by saying administrators have made bad choices which are now requiring knee-jerk reactions under the guise of Title IX. Any supporter of Title IX is in favor of equal participation for ALL, not just women. People like Deford don't help the situation by blaming Title IX when opportunities for both genders are being attacked.

 

Just asking here:

Why doesn't Title IX force colleges to reflect the number of people from each gender in their enrollments (what is it, 51 percent female, 49 percent male)? Shouldn't enforcement start there?

 

I'll address both your responses here. I didn't say you are ignoring the men's sports being cut at JMU...but you glossed over it in your post just like you said DeFord glossed over things in his story.

Quibble with my wording (scholarship vs. rostered) all you want. The point is, there are Division I level male athletes whose teams are getting cut to balance the scales and women who have no business competing at the college level finding opportunities because the law doesn't take interest level into account. If you really think women are exactly as interested in athletics in this country as men, you are kidding yourself.

And I in no way took a shot at athletes like Candace Parker. I never said all women athletes are not putting in the work. Again, you are seeing the worst in anybody who disagrees with you rather than trying to understand what they are saying. That is where we get into extremes.

But the pool of quality athletes coming into college is deeper on the men's side. And that is not just history or past descrimination. That is interest. Men and women are different,whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

 

I do think that interest will increase and balance out as time goes on. We're only 35 years into having the opportunities for girls and women; less time in the societal shift of it being "cool" to be a female athlete. We're still battling stigmas such as homophobia, male machismo, fear of being seen as "unfeminine", etc.

I firmly believe that interest in sports is not determined by biology of gender - it's a societal construct, one that is thankfully changing.

 

Again, this is an internet post, Buck. I agree that I could have worded my post better, but if you are talking about numbers being used to measure out gender equity, both come into play and Cadet knows that.

And Cadet, as far as your last post, I believe it will balance out to a point. I do not believe it will be equal. Aside from nature vs. nurture arguments, which we'll never settle here, the influence of society is not totally changing. Not everybody has moved away from traditional sex roles and I'm not sure they will ever completely vanish from our society. I certainly don't know enough about psychology or sociology to say if that is good or bad, but I think it is realistic.

You also have to take the current student-athletes into account as well. Right now, the pool of athletes with the talent, interest and history of doing the work necessary to succeed is far deeper on the men's side of the equation and ignoring that is unfair to the current student-athletes.

 

And if you are talking about schools being in compliance with the law, then there are financial ramifications that involve funding and scholarships. It's not just as simple as "numbers to measure gender equity." But you knew that, too.

Part of the reason that the pool of "talent, interest and history" is deeper on the men's side is because women were denied the opportunity to participate for so long.

Ignoring THAT or, worse, marginalizing that factor is a far greater injustice, in my opinion.

 

I'm not ignoring it...just saying that the reality among the current athletes is being ignored by the law as it is currently enforced. I'm not saying throw Title IX out. I would never say that. It has done too much good and we still need it. But I do believe it is time to re-examine how it is enforced to find a better balance of changing things for the future while not ignoring the present.

 

Part of the reason the reality is the way it is, is because schools have dragged their feet for 35 years to take the easy way out: cut men's teams and blame Title IX. A stupid, short-sighted solution for everyone involved.

I certainly agree that we need to find a better balance. But enforcement is not the problem here. Compliance is.

Put the onus on the schools, not on the law.

 

I think we have to be more realistic and put the onus on both.

For example, Cadet admits the rostering of some of these women in college programs is an issue, but the only solution she is willing to offer includes unrealistic restrictions on football programs.

Football is going to have better facilities than the other sports at most schools, and there are good reasons for that. One is the revenue football brings in. Yes, most programs struggle to break even, but they do a better job than the non-revenue sports by far.

Another issue is alumni funding. In most cases, boosters have some say where their money goes. And if it can't go to football, it won't come. And that won't change in 1,000 years, much less another 35. If you really think any non-revenue sport is going to grow in popularity and interest to the level of college football, you are fooling yourself. That's not sexist. That's the reality what football is in this country.

That is also the flaw in the financial estimates of the impact of football on a college or university. Those numbers don't include the exposure football brings simply by the popularity of the sport.

It is also one of the flaws in the idea that female participation in athletics will match male participation. There just isn't an equivalent of football and women are never going to play football in the numbers that men do.

Think about it. With all the advances, has even one woman played a down of college football at a position other than kicker? I understand prejudices are part of it, but wouldn't you think one coach would find one Mia Hamm-type athlete and give her the opportunity to stand out even at the high school level. I use Hamm because she played some football, primarily as a receiver, on the youth level. I think it was middle school. She gave it up to focus on soccer, eventually moving away from her family home in Texas to go to a high school in Virginia where she could better develop her game. (See? I do know something about women's sports.)

 

DougRoberson says:
"One aspect of Title IX that's often overlooked is "proportionality" -- the example Deford uses -- is one of three measuring sticks that can be used for compliance. Any school can choose any of the three. Why everyone chooses "proportionality" is a mystery to me."

During the years Norma Cantu ran things at the Office of Civil Rights, there was a clarification issued that schools would assure compliance if they used Prong One (proportionality). That was termed "safe harbor." It's the only prong to have ever been used succesfully in a court of law. Prongs Two and Three were never deemed a "safe harbor" and fell out of favor with AD's and University Presidents because there was no clear way to defend a case with them. Therefore, the plaintiffs in most cases would use the quotas (yes, they're quotas, don't let Donna Lopiano fool you) as a basis for a lawsuit. Prongs Two and Three had nothing to stand on.

Now, with the OCR leveling the playing field (NOT weakening) on the Prongs, giving them all equal billing ... groups like the National Women's Law Center and the Women's Sports Foundations are screaming bloody murder and giving agenda-based media outlets (that means you USA Today) all these doomsday theories about how womens' sports is going to go back to the stone age.

That's bupkus.

WSF and the NWLC will always blame football, always, always, always. Proportionality is NEVER to blame, ever ever. Groups like the Independent Women's Forum is always overlooked when folks try to find a women's group to talk to about this. Give Jessica Gavora's book a read. It's common sense, but the WSF will call it "brainwashing" like D-Lo called the Chapman girl from JMU.

Another point to bring up is that football does not allow partial scholarships, where sports like wrestling have a scholarship cap at 9.9 full rides, when a starting team is 10 wrestlers. It's also a sport where you can't turn a 157-pounder into a 125-pounder, like football where you can turn a CB into a WR or a LB into a DT. There are sports that don't even have enough scholarships to support a starting team.

One suggestion might be to scale back the number of scholarships, but allow some partials on the gridiron ... but here's a novel idea, how about STUDENT LOANS!? GRANTS? Do these kids not fill these out anymore?

As to Cadet's comment:
Title IX is my "pet issue" because I owe my athletic participation, my education and my career to the law.

Cadet, bear with me for a minute. This is the type of thing that kinda is a "pet peeve" ...

Do you not attribute going to college because you did well in high school?
Do you not attribute playing athletics because you were good at it?
You see where I'm going for this.

Now, I could be off, because I don't know exactly what age demographic you fall into, but why can't some women admit hard-work and talent got them somewhere, not some law. Sure, 35 years ago, there could be some hooray's for such things, but does Kara Lawson give Title IX the credit for playing at Tennessee? Or was it her undeniable talent as a women's basketball player. Title IX doesn't give full-rides to play for Pat Summit to girls that ride the pine.

There's been a trail blazed, I'll never dispute that, but now the daughters of the Title IX generation are having kids. Will Title IX be responsible for every championship in women's sports that those girls win in history?

I also think many of these trailblazing women's athletes forget what it's like to get less than the men in regards to scholarships ... because they've totally sold out the non-rev kids that are on partial rides or athletes on non-scholarship teams (like JMU). They're in the same shoes, just fighting for a chance, and when that's taken away from the men, the WSF exclaims victory (at worst), or will be quick to correct that it had nothing to do with Title IX.

When Lamar Daniel comes calling, prepare to cut sports.

Sorry for the long rant.

 

Very nicely done. Excellent explanation of why schools focus on proportionality to stay in compliance.

 

Yes, and Martin Luther King has nothing to do with black folks being able to vote in Alabama today, nor does the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
This is argument 1A as regards any civil rights statute. The law served its purpose once, long ago, but it's achieved its goals and now we don't need it because equality of opportunity is guaranteed in perpetuity. My guess is that Cadet is smarter than that.