Title IX Meeting Turns Into Debate On Girls' Interest In Sports

[ifyousayso]

"That was the crux of a spirited discussion that led one person to pound the table and another to imply that two panelists were living with a "1950s image in their minds." reports cstv.com

The article goes on to explain, "In 2005, the Department of Education said that universities can rely solely on student surveys to gauge whether female students are interested in playing sports. Satisfying that level of interest is one of the three ways a school can comply with Title IX.

The commission has 30 days to accept comments on the subject, then could submit a report to the Department of Education, which oversees the way Title IX is implemented.

Opponents of the 2005 change say surveys should only be a part of the measuring stick to determine interest, and that surveys - particularly ones sent via e-mail - have a low response rate. The NCAA has told its schools not to rely solely on electronic surveys.

"To treat non-response as evidence of lack of interest is methodologically unsound and unfair to young women," said Jocelyn Samuels, vice president of the National Women's Law Center."


Click Here For Story (http://www.cstv.com/sports/w-baskbl/stories/051107aak.html)

[BrooklynSaints]

I'm not sure I understand the issue.

What is the survey asking ?

Are we asking college age girls who are not basketball players, if they want to play basketball ?

Are they asked do they want to watch girls basketball games?

[ifyousayso]

The way I read into this is that Colleges can send surveys to their female students in which they are asked if they are interested in playing sports. This survey can be utilized as one of three criteria in satisfying compliance with Title IX. The issue brought up by opposers to this is that not alot of people take the time to actually respond to such polls which can skew the outcomes as no answer now is proving to be a sign of non interest

This is really a crazy thing that has happened. Are surveys also sent to male students in regard to their interest in playing sports?

I cant believe this language was approved in 2005. It appears some are trying to get it changed and have 30 days to submit reasoning for doing so.

[ClayKallam]

This is complicated issue, and I think it deserves more than a knee-jerk reaction.

Due to the way Title IX has been written and interpreted, colleges are required to have equal percentages of athletes in each gender. In other words, if the student body is 53% female, then female athletes must be 53% of the total number of athletes.

This has created some serious problems at universities where females, for whatever reason, do not participate in interscholastic sports in great numbers. So if only 35% of the females participate, then the university must cut back male participation to 35% or risk losing federal funding.

This, to me, is completely unfair, because what it does is punish male athletes for female indifference -- and I think it is reasonable to say that men are more interested in sports than women. In a perfect world, maybe they wouldn't be, but I do think men are more aggressive and competitive, as a group, than women. That doesn't mean large numbers of females lack aggressiveness or competitiveness, only that in a group of 100 of each gender, it seems very likely that more men would want to play organized sports than women.

The use of Title IX to increase female participation is based on the idea that sports are a valuable part of human experience, and contribute to the development of a well-rounded person. It seems a perversion of that drive to deny athletic opportunities to men simply because not as many women, percentage-wise, are interested. Rather than create a situation where male athletes are punished, and create a backlash against women in sports, I would think it would make more sense to encourage participation by as many as possible in each gender.

Forcing a college to eliminate wrestling, or another male sport, despite significant interest in that sport, just because not enough women turned out for the swim team or the soccer team, seems horribly unfair, and 180 degrees from the original aim of the Title IX movement, which was to encourage more human beings to get involved in athletics.

[ifyousayso]

Watch this (http://www.titleix.info/content.jsp?content_KEY=1786&t=nwlc_landing.dwt)

[BrooklynSaints]

Good film, I signed the petition. I'll make sure all my Brooklyn Saints players and parents sign also.

[jonnyss]

there are a number of factors involved. a major one is the 85 football scholarships available to men. that takes a lot of women's sports to balance out: 6 1/2 women's swimming teams (or 5 1/2 women's basketball teams). has men's wrestling been cut because not enough women want swimming scholarships? or has men's wrestling been cut because football is sacred? there have been many many articles and editorials on the football issue. here's one from a random google search:

http://cbs.sportsline.com/b/page/pressbox/0,1328,5427007,00.html

[NYTraveller]

The intent of the law was clear: to increase opportunities for young women to compete and to prevent a systematic treatment of women as second class citizens in the sports world. As with many other things in our society, it is in danger of losing that clear purpose by an over- lawyerly lack of common sense and being transformed into a magical, mathematical formula. If designers of modern arenas can reduce the lines at bathrooms by increasing the number of ladies' rooms relative to mens' rooms, instead of using an overly-rigid 50/50 ratio which does not reflect social (or in this case, biological) realities, then I don't see how an attempt to inject some clearer thinking into Title IX threatens the apocalypse for women's sports.

[just4bball]

Unfortuantely, I don't think people truly understand what title IX is about. It is not about females' interest in sports so much as it is about women having the same opportunity to receive a free education (scholarships) as men. That is really what it is all about.

Title IX dictates - if 100 men receive a free education at a college due to participation in athletics then 100 women should also receive a free education due to involvement in athletics.

That is really it - it is about creating equal opportunity for education. Not increasing womens' interest in sports. Because when college is over and done your education is what is going to set you up for the remainder of your life. And women deserve that same opportunity.

[ClayKallam]

Unfortunately, this is not just about scholarships. It is about participation.

Community colleges, for example, have had to drop wrestling because not enough women went out for swimming. None of the athletes involved were on scholarship. The rule is applied rigidly, regardless of interest and without considering the values of athletics.

[jonnyss]

Unfortunately, this is not just about scholarships. It is about participation.

Community colleges, for example, have had to drop wrestling because not enough women went out for swimming. None of the athletes involved were on scholarship. The rule is applied rigidly, regardless of interest and without considering the values of athletics.

i didn't know that. can you give a reference, please? if "the rule is applied rigidly," i would be interested in investigating to see exactly who is being overly rigid: the college, the inter-community-college athletic association, the government.

[NYTraveller]

Unfortuantely, I don't think people truly understand what title IX is about. It is not about females' interest in sports so much as it is about women having the same opportunity to receive a free education (scholarships) as men. That is really what it is all about.

Title IX dictates - if 100 men receive a free education at a college due to participation in athletics then 100 women should also receive a free education due to involvement in athletics.

That is really it - it is about creating equal opportunity for education. Not increasing womens' interest in sports. Because when college is over and done your education is what is going to set you up for the remainder of your life. And women deserve that same opportunity.

I agree it was never about increasing interest, but equalizing opportunity (based on the equalprotection clause of the 14th amendment as are most civil rights initiatives); it has had the effect, though, of vastly expanding female participation in athletics.

It is not solely about guaranteeing a free education - if that was its purpose, non-scholarship sports or D3 institutions would then be exempt. The key is opportunity. The dispute is: do we gauge opportunity by a head count that is tied to the equal percentages of athletic participation of men and women based on enrollment (if 15% of male students are athletes, then 15% of female students should be athletes); or by a head count that approximates the ratio of actual enrollment (the school is 52% female and 48% male so athletes should also be divided 52-48, very similar actual results with method 1); or do we change (reduce?) these formulae after polling the population of female students to gauge interest in athletics (problems with responses and tabulations may skew the data).

What we end up with is a reluctance to increase male sports because that will blow up the numbers or scholarship policies that may not serve the best competitive interests of the game (remember the debate about whether reducing WCBB scholarships from 15 would lead to greater competitive balance as better players sought out mid level playing opportunities).

I don't think that every attempt to reform Title IX is inherently evil - the important thing is to adhere to the spirit of equal opportunity and equal treatment whatever method we adopt. And let's remember that gender politics is also mixed up with economics - a school that cuts wrestling to "comply with Title IX" may only be looking for an excuse to dump a revenue loser. The larger issue is whether our system has sufficiently degenerated to the point that revenues trump every other consideration, including education, which is, after all, is the real reason colleges exist.

[jonnyss]

Unfortunately, this is not just about scholarships. It is about participation.

Community colleges, for example, have had to drop wrestling because not enough women went out for swimming. None of the athletes involved were on scholarship. The rule is applied rigidly, regardless of interest and without considering the values of athletics.

i did find one link, on the california commission on athletics website, that includes a chart totaling all the men's and women's athletes by sport from 2000-2004.

http://www.coasports.org/equity.html

the total % of men vs women participating stayed at 66% vs 34%. the # of male athletes wrestling rose from 276 to 400. in 1992 the # of men wresting in califormia community colleges was 342, the total # of athletes was about the same as in 2004 (roughly 20,000), but the percentages were 73% men vs 27% women, so although there clearly have been a number of instances of division one colleges dropping wrestling, the california community college system, at least, has increased the % of women participating without hurting wrestling.

p.s. there are 4800 men playing football in the california community colleges, 12 x as many as wrestle. drop football and men's vs women's participation goes to 55% vs 45%. give some of those $ to women's anything and the percentages go to even.

so it may indeed be a problem with implementation, not a problem with the title ix legislation or even the regulations.

[jonnyss]

boy is this complicated! i found several web articles lamenting that title ix had even caused the demise of one football program, boston u (heavens!). but searching title ix boston u football i find

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n46_v13/ai_20083176

which notes that b.u.'s decision to drop football was primarily financial: the university spent $3 million per year on the 1-11 terriers and brought in 90 thousand in ticket sales (and no tv or bowl $).

the extra money was used on facilities for women and men, in the spirit of title ix, but title ix by no means forced the demise of b.u. football.

i'm finding in my brief research that much of the anti-title-ix rhetoric seems trumped up.

it's all about $, and it seems that universities hesitate to cross the wealthy alumni donors who love football.

[acusefan4ever]

Its a good article and its a topic that can be debated, like they said, for days.

I think that Sweet comes across in a very interesting manner. She is trying to fight for women's rights but at the same time sounds like she is saying women are lost in the woods and are clueless how to get out. She thinks that women don't think there are sports for women in college?

The other issue is that people find the one example that fits their position and tries to make it sound like every single situation is the same.

The football arguement is a joke, people just like to take a shot at easy targets. Think about it, instead of dropping wrestling they cut 10 scholarships from football....is this what Title IX is for? So now, 10 less men have scholarships, what has been accomplished? It doesn't matter where you cut from the guys its unfair for the guys to lose scholarships on behalf of Title IX. Also the Boston U football thing is another joke, if schools dropped programs only based on profit margins, women's sports would be a thing of our past.

I think the survey is a good idea. Although I love the fact that they have an answer for everything. When women didn't respond and give them the answer they were looking for they said that shouldn't be taking into consideration. I have bad news for them, if someone doesn't respond that means their interest level is average at best.

[ClayKallam]

Certainly every case is different, and every administration, and certainly things can happen in one area that don't in another ...

But here in Northern California, Diablo Valley College in Concord had to disband its successful wrestling program because there were more males participating in athletics than females, both in raw numbers and percentage. DVC, as its known, has a fairly high percentage of female students, and all of the students of both genders are commuters and many take one class a semester.

The participation level for females was lower than for males, so to conform to Title IX, the only solution was to eliminate male athletes (no scholarships are involved in any sport, including football).

I don't believe this is anyone's goal, and it certainly doesn't serve anyone's interest. I can understand the unwillingness to open a discussion of Title IX as it relates to athletics, but some adjustments need to be made. Justifying today's injustice by referring to past injustices merely leads to a cycle of recrimination and response that leads nowhere.