Column Title IX lessons continue

Advertisement

Text size: small | medium | large

By Laura Clark

Published: April 2, 2008

It was five on five last Thursday afternoon in the warm Sweet Briar classroom above the gym.
The students, all women, were competing in the old intellectual way: debate.
The subject: Title IX.
Jennifer Crispen’s Intro to the History and Culture of Women’s Sport class was focusing mainly on the athletic aspect of the broad educational legislation.
Enacted in 1972, Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in any educational program or activity receiving any type of federal financial aid.
The athletic aspect of Title IX is “the most visible face” said Crispen. As her students showed, athletics is the area most heavily challenged, researched and emotionally invoked.
When citing the ways in which Title IX has worked, the pro team pointed out connections between success on the playing field (or just being allowed to play) to success in the classroom and workplace. In the last 30 years, participation in sports has increased 400 percent (at the college level) and 800 percent (at the high school level). Male participation during this time has also increased, although not as drastically.
One of the biggest arguments against Title IX, which the con team pointed out, was that men’s programs, especially wrestling, swimming, fencing (those less-popular sports), have been cut at the college level to comply with the law. However, what the pro team was able to argue was that colleges make those choices, which are often a matter of how money is appropriated.
Think of bloated football or men’s basketball budgets.
Fact-wise, college females receive 38 percent of sports operating dollars. Although females may receive more scholarships than males, the monetary value of those scholarships is what matters, and men receive 55 percent of scholarship monies.
The con team pointed out these discrepancies as an example of how Title IX wasn’t working. One sure problem of the law is not its existence, but the way it is both interpreted and implemented.
Change takes time, said the pro team, and this law is closely tied to society’s changing perceptions of women in sports, as well as other arenas. They said Title IX is a step toward equality. In other areas of the law, like general education, women are now the majority of undergraduates in college.
But in sports, the verdict is still muddled. Yes, more women and girls have the opportunity to play sports than ever before. When it comes to college scholarships and recruiting budgets, for example, women are still on the bench.
The Title IX debate will surely continue on the larger scale. As the class drew to a close, it wasn’t clear who had won and who had lost as far as the argument, although maybe the grades will say otherwise.
The final facts: eight of the ten students played sports in high school, and four continued as Vixens.
Winning is relative to the game.

This column would have to be several pages to accurately describe Title IX while dispelling pervasive myths. Check out http://www.titleix.info for more details.

Reader Reactions

Posted by ( maer568 ) on April 09, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Really, No offense but I’d put more stock in an economic professor rather than someone as sexist as Ms. Lopiano.

Next, I didn’t say it hasn’t done a lot.  Don’t get me wrong.  I’m saying it has done a lot of harm also. 

Somehow in all of your facts, you didn’t mention how many academic scholarships go to the males? How many social worker or educational degrees? Why even the link you supplied about how it’s applied to rec programs involved women’s sports. Not only that, you’re still talking about the particulars, not that fact that they are even ALLOWED to participate.  Let’s start kicking girls out of colleges and universities to get the quota where it should be.. that’s equality according to Ms. Lopiano.  Where do you stand? 

I’d say I am completely shocked you pick biased information and then hide other shortcomings, but really I’m not.

Here’s the kicker.. would you be willing to either expand Title IX standards to education and fine arts extra curriculars in the same way as athletics? or would a girl be willing to swap athletic rights and opportunities with the boy in the seat next to her?

If your answer to either of those is ‘NO’ then Title IX, as it stands NOW, is a contradiction to the spirit and the letter of the law.

Open discrimination is not the cure to past sexism.

Posted by ( crispen ) on April 08, 2008 at 12:29 am

FACT: You have to distinguish between revenue and profit. According to Dr. Donna Lopiano, “Only 36% of all football programs make money.” Hundreds of sports, including ice hockey, women’s basketball, men’s wrestling, basketball and football, are revenue-producing. Most Divisions I programs, men’s and women’s, charge admission, and execute marketing contracts. Sports is big business. But 64% of football teams do not cover their own budgets, much less support other teams.  Statistics are drawn directly from mandatory NCAA reports.

FACT:Title IX of the Education Amendments was passed in 1972 to ensure that “"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Athletics was only a small part of the scope of the law, which was intended to equalize access to admissions, financial aid, scholarships, housing, etc. Title IX followed on the heels of civil rights legislation, and like its precursor, it has created a multitude of affirmative action cases, mostly to do with aspects of Title IX other than athletics.

When the Supreme Court in 1978 determined in the case of Bakke vs. the California Board of Regents, that race could be used in determining admissions, it set a landmark standard in interpreting affirmative action legislation that remains controversial today. Your scenario of a male denied admission to admit a female, or vice versa, is possible under the legislation, although unlikely to happen today. Some positive results of Title IX:
*In 1994, women received 38% of medical degrees, compared with 9% in 1972.
*In 1994, women earned 43% of law degrees, compared with 7% in 1972.

Using data extrapolated from the EADA reports, USA Today reported that “women get 38 percent of scholarship money, 27 percent of recruiting money and 25 percent of operating budgets” and “the number of women participating in college sports is up fourfold since 1972 and 22 percent in Division I since 1992.

And Title IX is consistently applied to recreation programs and other activities. (http://bailiwick.lib.uiowa.edu/ge/recRE.html)

A law is only reflective of those who interpret it. In 2002, there were 3,210 administrative jobs in NCAA programs that offer women’s athletics, an increase of 282 jobs since 2000. The average number of administrators per school was 5.08 in Division I, 2.52 in Division II and 2.36 in Division III. The average number of females in athletic administration in 2002 was 1.59 in Division I, 0.87 in Division II and 0.95 in Division III.

So who is making the majority of decisions?

Posted by ( maer568 ) on April 03, 2008 at 9:51 am

Here are two things that are missed.

First, while football does have a bloated budget, how many still turn a profit? If money is to be a measuring stick for equality, shouldn’t the women’s teams be expected to bring in the same amount?  Why is it they expect to be served, but offer no responsibility?  According to a USAToday survey, women’s basketball is actually the most expensive sport per player.  Also, according to Patrick Rishe, sports economists at Webster University, football increases the amount of money spent on women’s sports.

Second, and the most obvious argument for the pro team - if current Title IX standards are used to measure equality in sports, why are they not applied to the extra-curricular activities and more importantly, to general admissions at colleges and universities. Would they be willing to accept being expelled from the school so that the male/female ratio would be closer to that of the general public? Would they accept if a male with little to no academic acumen be awarded a full scholarship while they have to pay for everything just to raise the ratio of men?

Title IX was a great law, now it is simply a sexist perversion of it’s own ideals.

Post a Comment

Please Log In

Comment posting requires free registration with New Era Progress.

Already have an account? Please log in.


Tags relating to this article:

  • No tags are associated with this article.

Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:



Email This Print This AddThis Social Bookmark Button RSS Feed Add to My Yahoo!

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement