Female equility,

[Craig]

First of all, I agree with Swords, Title IX is communist in nature.

What definition of 'communism' are you using here?

As to the rest of your argument: "It's a private institution, so they should be able to do what they want." If I agree with that at face vaule, then universities would still have to comply with government wishes because those universities get some form of money from the local, state, or federal government, and therefore have to abide by those rules.

Also, If I have a private company, by your rationale I should be able to hire whomever I want. If it is just white males between the ages of 25 and 42 then I should be able to tell all other applicants: "Sorry, you don't fit my desired age, sex, and racial profile for employees." That stance is obviously against the law and against the principles of equal opportunity.

The thing that gets most people upset about Title IX is that in it's application it has hurt smaller men's sports. (Wrestling and men's fencing have taken a brunt of it.) Limiting the discussion of Title IX to this one facet ignores all of the other good things that have resulted from it's enactment. (Examples include a lower drop-out rate for high-school and college mothers, increasing opportunities for women in math and science, increased overall participation in sports.)

Check out http://www.ed.gov/pubs/TitleIX/ for a more holistic view of Title IX and it's impacts.

Cheers,
Craig

[Craig]

Come, come--you can't have it both ways; either you advocate that prior interest already existed (your professor) but that interest was stifled by the lack of opportunity, OR you advocate that prior interest did not already exist because the lack of opportunity killed it.
The lack of opportunity is a single element and cannot be made to supoort both arguements. Make up your mind.

Ah, but it can be that circular. Let's look at this as a 'market' for a 'new product'. In a general adoption curve for any new product you have your "Early Adopter", "Early Majority", "Late Majority", and "Straggler". (See the book "Crossing the Chasm" for in depth discussion on the adoption curve as it applies to technology products.)

The Early Adopter is your visionary, they see the potential and have a pent-up demand for the new 'product'. This is your group of people who had the prior interest but lacked the opportunity.

The Early and Late Majorities are those people that haven't really thought about the 'product' because it did not exist (there was no opportunity.) Now that there is an opportunity and they know people who are taking advantage of it, interest is generated. This majority needs to see the product and have some role models. They need to have their Early Adopter friends/collegues show them that the way things were isn't the way things will always be.

So, prior interest (by your visionaries/early adopters) was stifled by the lack of opportunity. Once the opportunity was demonstrated to be real, it altered accepted perception of that opportunity and led to increased demand.

You can look at the growth of women's sabre as another example. There was a small amount of demand for WS, but no opportunity (defined by USFA sponsored national championships, FIE recognition, Olympic recognition). Once the USFA offered the opportunity, the early adopters for Women's Sabre led the field. Once other fencers saw that the opportunity was there, more interest in that sport developed and you have a growth curve within the US and internationally for WS.

Cheers,
Craig

[135711]

Originally posted by edew
What a lot of people don't realize is that the revenue that football and basketball programs make do not go back directly to the university. It goes to feed the voracious appetite of the athletic department. At the same time, the athletic department continues to drain the college in terms of using scholarships, in terms of using facilities (stadiums and such as paid by the general university funds, but the income derived from sports held at said stadiums go to the athletic department, who then gets to pay coaches and assistant coaches the millions of $$ that professors don't ever see), in terms of using academic benefits like tutoring centers, etc.

If the athletic department is willing to include their income/expsnse statements as part of the college/university, you'll quickly see that the big sports, specifically football, will be wiped out. Minor sports like fencing do very little to the budgets of most universities.

When I was in college, at UCSB, we didn't have a football program, because of two reasons: it was not so popular (couldn't recruit top players and no one was interested in watching it) and it was a financial drain.

College sports are a pain in the neck: it's the football/basketball thing. It doesn't do anything for universities except tailgate beer parties; frat parties; some real gross-outs, so I really and truly believe FENCING should be the sport of the day for colleges and highschools and universities. It's competition at a different level.

[Crin Dalmeiier]

Originally posted by Inquartata
From It's Not a Sport, by George Carlin.

"Another reason hockey is not a sport is that it’s not played with a ball. Anything not played with a ball can’t be a sport. Tap dancing isn’t a sport. I rest my case. "

Okay, so, um, this seriously contradicts itself. What this is saying is that because it is not played with a ball, it is not a sport. So, one can naturally assume that this has a flipside. Since it is so set in stone and such a...juvenile rule, this rule must also mean that if it does utilize a ball, it is a sport.

Okay. What sports use a ball? Billiards. Golf. Lacrosse. Field Hockey.

I don't understand the rules to field hockey, however. It's a sport in my opinion, however, because there's, as you said, risk of physical injury, a basic set of rules, goals scored, a ball utilized, and teams. So what if they use sticks? It's part of the uniform. It's handball--which IS a sport, by the way--played with sticks. I've not seen much of it in the midwest, but it's a viable sport on the east coast. Lacrosse is a much more organized, aerial version of handball--with sticks.

So these two were disclaimed only on the basis that they are "faggoty." Is "faggoty" even a word? Sorry if I'm drawing the wrong conclusion, but are you saying that since I play lacrosse, I am a faggot? I really hope not.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by 135711
College sports are a pain in the neck: it's the football/basketball thing. It doesn't do anything for universities except tailgate beer parties; frat parties; some real gross-outs,

That in my opinion, is enough reason to continue our support of football/basketball.

[jkormann]

Originally posted by Crin Dalmeiier
--snip--

Crin, you do realize that he was posting a rant by George Carlin.. George is against almost everything. Funny as hell, but not a guy to invite to an open-podium night at the "Sensitive People Club".

I've used my definition of 'sport' to shoot down golfers at work. "Sport: an activity in the Olympics. Everything else is a hobby."

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Crin Dalmeiier
Okay, so, um, this seriously contradicts itself. What this is saying is that because it is not played with a ball, it is not a sport. So, one can naturally assume that this has a flipside. Since it is so set in stone and such a...juvenile rule, this rule must also mean that if it does utilize a ball, it is a sport.

Okay. What sports use a ball? Billiards. Golf. Lacrosse. Field Hockey.

I don't understand the rules to field hockey, however. It's a sport in my opinion, however, because there's, as you said, risk of physical injury, a basic set of rules, goals scored, a ball utilized, and teams. So what if they use sticks? It's part of the uniform. It's handball--which IS a sport, by the way--played with sticks. I've not seen much of it in the midwest, but it's a viable sport on the east coast. Lacrosse is a much more organized, aerial version of handball--with sticks.

So these two were disclaimed only on the basis that they are "faggoty." Is "faggoty" even a word? Sorry if I'm drawing the wrong conclusion, but are you saying that since I play lacrosse, I am a faggot? I really hope not.

First of all, let me second jkormann's post.... It was a comedy routine! It is not meant to be taken seriously.

Secondly, if you are going to take it seriously, the least you could do is not commit logical flaws! an argument implies its contrapositive, not is converse. That is to say, the statement "if it doesn't use a ball, it isn't a sport." implies that "if it is a sport, it uses a ball", but it doesn't imply that "if it uses a ball, it is a sport."

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by jkormann
I've used my definition of 'sport' to shoot down golfers at work. "Sport: an activity in the Olympics. Everything else is a hobby."

So, Football isn't a sport???

And, btw, the IOC doesn't agree with you. They have both a list of Olympic sports, and a list of things they accept as sports. On that list of activities defined as sports is a HUGE range of activities, including Chess and Bridge.

-m

[jkormann]

Originally posted by epeemike81
So, Football isn't a sport???

And, btw, the IOC doesn't agree with you. They have both a list of Olympic sports, and a list of things they accept as sports. On that list of activities defined as sports is a HUGE range of activities, including Chess and Bridge.

-m

To quote George Carlin: My rules.

And no, Football isn't a sport. It's an obscenity that mirrors the American corporate mindset: 55 minutes of meetings, 2 minutes of action and most times there's still nothing done. Besides, they don't use a ball. It's an ellipsoid.

[lochinvar]

Originally posted by jkormann

<snip, mostly because I like football >
Besides, they don't use a ball. It's an ellipsoid.

Um, actually it's technically known as an "oblate spheroid".

[lochinvar]

Originally posted by webmaster
<snip>Limiting the discussion of Title IX to this one facet ignores all of the other good things that have resulted from it's enactment. (Examples include a lower drop-out rate for high-school and college mothers, increasing opportunities for women in math and science, increased overall participation in sports.)

Check out http://www.ed.gov/pubs/TitleIX/ for a more holistic view of Title IX and it's impacts.

Cheers,
Craig

I accede to your argument on lack of opportunity and it's effects; I hadn't really considered the "pump-priming" phenomenon you detail.

Not yet having had a chance to read the pubs you link to, I cannot help but wonder preliminarily if people aren't confusing correlation with causality...but I'll reserve judgement until I read it.

Regardless of the benefits accruing from Title IX--if indeed they actually accrue from it and not something else--I'm still agin it. But then, I'm agin all forms of school-supported athletics, at the high school and the collegiate level.

I don't see how athletics is related to education; I can find no good argument for having schools sponsor and pay for sports and many good arguments against the practice--not least of which is the obvious one that they are not related in any way. Sports are recreation and/or entertainment, not scholarship.

How one got tangled up with the other still mystifies me.

[Philistine]

Originally posted by lochinvar
{snip}
Regardless of the benefits accruing from Title IX--if indeed they actually accrue from it and not something else--I'm still agin it. But then, I'm agin all forms of school-supported athletics, at the high school and the collegiate level.
{snip}

But Title IX doesn't require schools to provide support for athletics--it just says if you provide them for men, you've got to provide them for women (and vice versa).

The issue isn't so much Title IX--of which athletics is actually only an incidental part--but the Regulations governing the enforcement relating to athletics, which determine what policies would be a violation.

Title IX itself is pretty innocuous--you can't discriminate in education or programs based on sex. Hard to find much to argue against the concept.

--Philistine

[lochinvar]

You're right. I stand corrected.

I hereby offer the following revision:

I'm agin sports in school.

The entire suite of Title IX sports-affecting provisions are just my stalking-horse.

[Niceguy4186]

Title IX itself is pretty innocuous--you can't discriminate in education or programs based on sex. Hard to find much to argue against the concept.

always something to argue something about anything i'm guessing the number of female dancing students far out number the number of male dancing students...
nuff said

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Philistine
Title IX itself is pretty innocuous--you can't discriminate in education or programs based on sex. Hard to find much to argue against the concept.

Yep. Government gets its hands on a lot of promising concepts...and invariably manages to pervert, twist and screw them up beyond redemption. It's what they do best!

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Posted by craig

Also, If I have a private company, by your rationale I should be able to hire whomever I want. If it is just white males between the ages of 25 and 42 then I should be able to tell all other applicants: "Sorry, you don't fit my desired age, sex, and racial profile for employees." That stance is obviously against the law and against the principles of equal opportunity.

Maybe I hold views that are against the law. I believe that if someone is doing something out of his own pocket, he should be able to hire whomever he wants. I also believe in other things that would be "against the law", such as racial profilling. (to an extent)

[Inquartata]

You can hire anyone you want. You just can't not hire anyone you want.

In a perfect system, you would be completely right. Those who hired on the basis of, say, a racial prejudice would be depriving themselves of the abilities of one group of potential employees; other employers would snap them up and eventually gain a competitive advantage and put the irrational discriminators out of business. Alas, though, modern capitalism doesn't work perfectly, so there is a role for government in correcting systemic dysfunctions...

My, did that sound pompous enough? It's the economic training coming out...

[Crin Dalmeiier]

Oh, geez. I feel like an idiot. Sorry.

[HilandDoug]

Title IX: Hypothetically, if 500 men want to participate in funded athletics and only 100 women want to participate, would then, under Title IX, 400 men be denied participation in funded athletics? If this is correct, could these 400 men challenge Title IX as discriminatory based on sex?

Varsity Letters: Let's not lose sight of what they are. "Varsity" letters are given for achievement. Not just for achievement in athletics, but for achievement in High School. Athletes added the term "varsity" to the achievement, in my opinion, because they had to make the Varsity Squad to earn their letter. At least in my HS, no one earned a letter for a JV (Junior Varsity) sport. I was in Jazz Band in high school, and my sophomore and junior years I played guitar in the "JV" Jazz Band, which was called Jazz II. Jazz I was the "Varsity" Jazz Band, and in my Senior year, I made Jazz I with a good audition on guitar, and had to switch to bass guitar the first week. (I even learned to play the upright bass and had a ton of fun with it.) That Winter, in March of 1980, we took a perfect score at State Festival, and were the only Jazz ensemble to do so. I also got conned into learning the tenor drums for marching band (another tenor drummer!) that year. For our achievement in Jazz I, we were awarded letters in the spring. Mine meant a lot to me, especially since it was not the same letter the athletes got. It was the same orange "N" for Northville High School, but it had a few bars of music scrolled in front of it. I proudly diplayed it on my band jacket, and put the larger version on a sweater, which I still have tucked away.

Drama Club: My High School also had a seperate award for achievement on or behind stage. It wasn't a letter, although the debate team got similar letters to my band letter. (I think theirs had a pen and ink or something.) Our director gave the George Award for Excellence Behind Stage, and the Oliver Award for Onstage. Further tooting of my own horn, I was presented with an Oliver for playing Mortimer Brewster during my Senior year. in "Arsenic & Old Lace".

[Swordsman]

I understand your position completely, and I know that varsity does not have to refer only to sports. However, I am dealing with the usual conception of things: varsity and letters usually DO refer to sports, and are usually the honor awarded for outstanding achievment in sports (frequently, being on the varsity squad in a given sport).

I am by no means arguing that you should not get some sort of recognition for achievments in music, debate, drama, etc. I think, however, that they should be separate from those given for sports - and since the existing awards of varsity letters are more frequently associated with sports, I see no reason why that should be the side to change.

Also, think of it from the athlete's point of view, especially at my school: I run my butt of to fight for my spot on varsity in cross country. In track, I didn't even quite make it. Sophomore year, in