Female equility,

[Philistine]

Originally posted by 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?
{snip}

Under your hypothetical, there would not be a problem with Title IX, and you would not have to cut the men's team. Title IX is satisfied where, with regard to the "underepresented" sex, "it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program."

--Philistine

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Philistine
Under your hypothetical, there would not be a problem with Title IX, and you would not have to cut the men's team. Title IX is satisfied where, with regard to the "underepresented" sex, "it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program."

--Philistine

That may be true in wording, but it is certainly not in practice. For example, lets say that the mens and womens teams are in perfect balance in terms of roster spots, but the mens teams all have full rosters and the womens don't (i.e., there is more interest in mens than womens). Under the current interpretation of title IX, the school is not in compliance and must cut some mens sports.

-m

[Philistine]

Originally posted by epeemike81
That may be true in wording, but it is certainly not in practice. For example, lets say that the mens and womens teams are in perfect balance in terms of roster spots, but the mens teams all have full rosters and the womens don't (i.e., there is more interest in mens than womens). Under the current interpretation of title IX, the school is not in compliance and must cut some mens sports.

Not necessarily.

The lack of full roster is not necessarily a lack of interest on behalf of women in sports--only in the sports that are currently being offered.

In your hypothetical I understand it to be something like: There are 10 men's teams and 10 women's teams. The college has a general population that is 50/50 men/women. 500 men have gone out for the men's teams, but only 100 women have gone out for the women's teams (presumably leaving the women's teams with space for more, but no further interest in those particular sports).

As I understand Title IX--if there is no further demonstrable interest by women in competing in interscholastic athletics, Title IX will not require a reduction in men's participation.

However, the more realistic scenario is that there would be interest by women in other sports, and therefore in order to be in compliance with Title IX, the school must either add additional women's sports or cut men's sports.

It's not a equality of sports thing--it's a # of athlete's thing. Thus, you can't have a college saying--"Hey look, we have a women's football team, it's not our fault if no one wanted to join...."

--Philistine

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Philistine
Not necessarily.

The lack of full roster is not necessarily a lack of interest on behalf of women in sports--only in the sports that are currently being offered.

In your hypothetical I understand it to be something like: There are 10 men's teams and 10 women's teams. The college has a general population that is 50/50 men/women. 500 men have gone out for the men's teams, but only 100 women have gone out for the women's teams (presumably leaving the women's teams with space for more, but no further interest in those particular sports).

As I understand Title IX--if there is no further demonstrable interest by women in competing in interscholastic athletics, Title IX will not require a reduction in men's participation.

However, the more realistic scenario is that there would be interest by women in other sports, and therefore in order to be in compliance with Title IX, the school must either add additional women's sports or cut men's sports.

It's not a equality of sports thing--it's a # of athlete's thing. Thus, you can't have a college saying--"Hey look, we have a women's football team, it's not our fault if no one wanted to join...."

--Philistine

Exactly. It doesn't require equal opportunity, but rather equal participation. Lets be clear: there is NO school trying to have a "womens football team" or its equivalent. the fact is, though, that womens sports have a harder time filling their rosters. thus, despite providing the same number of slots to each gender (on real teams, not "womens football", as you are suggesting), Mens sports get shafted because of higher participation. THAT is a VERY flawed system. This is the way Title IX is interpretted and applied. how you interpret it is, frankly, irrelevant, until you successfully sue somebody on those grounds.

As to the point that there may be interest in sports not currently offered, well, that is true on the mens side, too. your argument is that since women can't fill the rosters they have, they should be given more options, while the men shouldn't since they can not only fill the rosters but have tons of willing participants who didn't make the cut??? That seems rather contrary to logic.

-m

[Philistine]

Originally posted by epeemike81
Exactly. It doesn't require equal opportunity, but rather equal participation. [/i]

Kinda. It requires equal opportunity, but measures it (at least in the first instance) by equal participation. As a direct answer, it does not equate as an "equal opportunity" unfilled roster slots where there are enough participants to field a team.

Lets be clear: there is NO school trying to have a "womens football team" or its equivalent.

And (IMHO) this is only because such a system would not comply with Title IX.

the fact is, though, that womens sports have a harder time filling their rosters. thus, despite providing the same number of slots to each gender (on real teams, not "womens football", as you are suggesting),

Is this actually true? I had never noticed it when I was in school (but I wasn't actually looking for it).

Mens sports get shafted because of higher participation. THAT is a VERY flawed system.

And the counterargument is that women's sports programs, prior to Title IX, were shafted (and in many cases nonexistent) and thus the paring back of programs due to financial constraints should fall more heavily on the programs that have been unfairly boosted in the past.

As to the point that there may be interest in sports not currently offered, well, that is true on the mens side, too.

Very true--and if money were no object, I'd expect there to be dozens more sports for both men and women at the collegiate level. To be fair, I'd also expect ultimately more men than women participating.

your argument is that since women can't fill the rosters they have, they should be given more options, while the men shouldn't since they can not only fill the rosters but have tons of willing participants who didn't make the cut??? That seems rather contrary to logic.

Well...it's not actually my argument, but rather me trying to explain the basis of why Title IX works on a participation basis rather than roster-slot basis--but it works out the same , so here goes:

The problem I see with working on a roster/slot basis would be that a school would have every incentive to offer women primarily high-roster sports only, with the expectation that slots would not be filled. While football may be extreme, what's to stop a school from doing something it, or (more realistically) something similar for a sport where there is some (but not a whole lot) of interest (Women's Ice Hockey for something off the top of my head)? I just see this as open to too much abuse. Also, if the inability to completely fill a roster is really the issue, why don't schools cut men's rosters rather than whole sports, since the women have shown you can still play the sport with a smaller roster.

The issue comes down to allocation of funds. Because funds are limited, it's clear that schools can't meet the full interests of men and women in intercollegiate athletics.

Title IX now requires participation proportionate to population. While this is subject to available interest, it seems that financial reality means that nobody's interests (women or men) are ever going to be fully satisfied.

What you seem to be advocating is participation proportionate to interest. E.g., X% of men are interested in intercollegiate sports compared to Y% of women. Thus, to be "fair", athletic participation should be in the ratio of X/Y (assuming equal student population). While I don't disagree, I think the difficulties in actually finding X and Y are too great.

Since you can't meet the entire demand, it seems more fair to me to base participation levels on student population. YMMV.

--Philistine

Well that turned out longer than I thought it would be

[HilandDoug]

well, if all they had to do was show up,that's not an achievement, and I can see how it would diminish things from your perspective.

[Swordsman]

Thank you, HilandDoug. Finally, a post I can follow. Those other two lost me a long time ago!!

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Philistine
Is this actually true? I had never noticed it when I was in school (but I wasn't actually looking for it).

Yes, it is actually true.

And the counterargument is that women's sports programs, prior to Title IX, were shafted (and in many cases nonexistent) and thus the paring back of programs due to financial constraints should fall more heavily on the programs that have been unfairly boosted in the past.

Bull. The solution to unequal treatment is not favoritism, its equality.

What you seem to be advocating is participation proportionate to interest. E.g., X% of men are interested in intercollegiate sports compared to Y% of women. Thus, to be "fair", athletic participation should be in the ratio of X/Y (assuming equal student population). While I don't disagree, I think the difficulties in actually finding X and Y are too great.

There are no difficulties in finding X and Y. offer equal roster spots and X and Y will determine themselves.

Since you can't meet the entire demand, it seems more fair to me to base participation levels on student population. YMMV.

That is only fair if the student population ratio is anywhere near the interest ratio. From what I have seen, it is not.

-m

[Philistine]

Originally posted by epeemike81
Yes, it is actually true.

I'm sorry, I was imprecise. What I was asking was, what was the basis for your statement? Anecdotal, or do you have a source for it? Not being belligerent, but I'm actually interested.

Since you're from U. Mass, I went to their Athletic Site to compare men's to women's rosters in sports that are the same--since there are links to men's and women's sports with the rosters of each (which actually turned out to be more of a pain in the *** than I'd hoped, as there were more sports in common than I'd thought there'd be ).

For the same sports, only two sports had more men on them than women: Soccer, which had 2 more men (24 vs. 22--which I don't consider significant) and Lacrosse which had 9 more men (34 vs. 25) which I think is fairly easily explainable as not being a sport which is traditionally a high-interest women's sport.

Outdoor track had 14 more women (67 vs. 53); Cross country had 6 more women (24 vs. 18), Basketball had one more woman (14 vs. 13), Swimming and Diving had 3 more women (27 vs. 24) and Skiing was the same (14 each).

For all the sports that men and women both do, women had 13 more filled roster slots than men. The "culprit" seems to be football. Just to see, I checked it--83 on the roster.

Bull. The solution to unequal treatment is not favoritism, its equality.

I agree. But the devil is in the details of trying to make things equal.

There are no difficulties in finding X and Y. offer equal roster spots and X and Y will determine themselves.

Assuming that there would be equal interest in the same sports between men and women. See the above.

For instance, there were apparently only 25 women with the ability and interest to play lacrosse, while apparently (from the men's team) it could support 35. What if there are 35 who have the ability and interest to fence, for example . From the schools point of view in "maximizing" its title IX compliance under your scenario, it should choose lacrosse. From the point of view of Current Title IX and maximizing the students involved in sports, it should choose fencing.

An even greater problem is how do you equate sports that aren't the same as offereing equal roster slots?

--Philistine

[HilandDoug]

Well, Michigan State actually CUT men's programs under the guise of Title IX, and added 100 slots for women's crew. It was my understanding that they had about 18 women interested in crew the first year. They also added 12 slots to the football team, and tried to slide it under the wire during the whole imbroglio. This was 1998, when Merrit Norville was hired away from Wisconsin to axe as many programs as he could. He did it at Wisc using Title IX, and after he did it for MSU, they gave HIM the axe. What really sucked was that the women at Michigan State had been petitioning for varsity status for over 20 years, and were constantly denied. The cost would have been minimal, but they never OKd it. If TItle IX REALLY worked the way it was intended, then there would still be a varsity men's fencing squad at MSU, AND a varsity women's squad. I am in favor of abolition of Title IX just so @$$H073s like Norville can't hide behind some "law" to cut men's programs. Some say there has been some good to come out of TItle IX. I say BALONEY. Any woman who would have wanted to get a program started could do it based on interest alone, and using the examples of Loch previously, would have been successful, IMHO, if interest existed. Heck, there was sufficient interest in women's varsity fencing at MSU for 20+ years, and Title IX didn't help SQUAT.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Someone wrote earlier that the outcome of title IX, carried to its extreme would be only big men´s sports (american football, baseball, basketball) and some women´s sports chosen only to comply to title IX in the easiest way possible. Which would those sports be? Is there any school that at present has adopted as system like this or similar? Since american football needs such huge teams, this would need a fair number of female teams. Cheapest solution would be - my guess:
1. softball - recycling arena
2. basketball - recycling everything
3. ping-pong - cheap (China excels in it)
4. pom-pom girls - goes with american football
5. What more?

For comparison: My home town (county population: 70000) had the 6th best american football team last year in Sweden. I went and looked at one game. Entrance fee: 2$ IIRC, no pom-pom girls, team got a few articles in the local paper that summer, but non with photos or on the 1st page of the sports part. The stands hold at least 2000, but the attendance was less than 100. This was not because of bad opposition, they was #1 in Sweden. From what little I have found about american football in Sw. papers, its players generally seem to be big strong men who have turned out to be decidedly subpar in all other sports that they have tried. Several of our national team members have been exchange students to USA, and have had a struggle to make the school team - but made the Swedish team. This is a team that has a reasonable shot at top 6 in the European Championships.

Another thing: Universities in USA, which are in parts of the country too cold for outdoor sports other than winter sports (this description matches large parts of Sweden, BTW. In Norway, the summer season is considered the doldrums between the real sports - skiiing, skating, ski jumping, etc.) what do they do with american football?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Philistine
For the same sports, only two sports had more men on them than women: Soccer, which had 2 more men (24 vs. 22--which I don't consider significant) and Lacrosse which had 9 more men (34 vs. 25) which I think is fairly easily explainable as not being a sport which is traditionally a high-interest women's sport.

But the issue to determine interest is not how many are on the roster, its how many WANTED to be on the roster. I'll put good money down that for the 35 on the lax team there are at least a good 150 men who would love to make that team and want to play. For the Women? I'd assume not, or they would fill out that roster.

The "culprit" seems to be football. Just to see, I checked it--83 on the roster.

hey, I'm no big fan of collegiate football programs! see my earlier posts. also, to augment those earlier posts, a quote:
"Of the 1,200 institutions that play football, only 65 of them make money," Marilyn McNeil, athletics director at Monmouth University

I agree. But the devil is in the details of trying to make things equal.

I agree this is tough, but the solution is NOT to the pendulum model of equality. swinging the standard the other way is NOT on the path to equality.

Assuming that there would be equal interest in the same sports between men and women. See the above.

But there isn't equal interest! thats my entire point!

I'm going to close with a quote that was dug up by a friend of mine who was obsessing over this very issue:

Originally found in An NCAA Website
Against the enrollment standard what now looms as the decisive evidence was not addressed in the above-mentioned appellate decisions. It emerged at Brown's trial ended in December 1994, but even there came too late to turn the outcome. The evidence consisted of surveys of Brown students as well as national studies, all revealing that in grade and high school, in intramurals, and on college varsities, a smaller portion of female than male students wishes to compete. What rendered the evidence too late was that a First Circuit panel in 1993 had already reviewed the agency policy (on appeal by Brown from a preliminary injunction) and declined to invalidate it. That panel had merely presumed that men and women are equally interested in varsity play. Were that presumption true, then fortuitously the enrollment standard would map opportunities to interests. The agency might then parry criticism by declaring the enrollment standard a case of "no harm, no foul."

One should have thought that the presumption of equal interests would have been dropped when evidence appeared of unequal interests. But by a 2-1 majority and despite a cogent dissent by the chief judge, a new panel of the First Circuit, which heard Brown's appeal from final judgment, concluded last year that it could not revisit the rulings of its 1993 panel. It invoked the judicial equivalent of the rule that the outcome of a completed game will not be reversed because of an officiating mistake. The result was to scuttle Brown's challenge to the enrollment standard. Binding only in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island, Brown remains unpersuasive as a precedent because it relies upon a presumption now known false.

With the presumption of equal interests now exploded, in future cases the "no harm, no foul" move will not avail. The enrollment standard therefore founders via the following fatal objections: because of lesser demand for women's varsity spots, the enrollment standard establishes preferences for women whereas neither Title IX nor (as explained below) the Fourteenth Amendment allows a preference for either sex; the enrollment standard violates an express proviso in Title IX against quotas; and the enrollment standard neglects the agency's own dictate that a college must accommodate student interests. In a case against Louisiana State University, the most recent encounter with equal athletic opportunity by a federal district court, the enrollment standard and the reasoning of Brown were explicitly rejected. Finding that LSU had not offered even intramural competition in women's fast pitch softball, Judge Rebecca Doherty found LSU culpable of discrimination. But she reached that conclusion without entertaining any dubious presumptions. She considered it apparent that interests vary, and for that reason, she ruled that the enrollment standard is neither necessary nor sufficient to defeat a charge of discrimination.

-m

[oiuyt]

As long as you're citing the roster numbers for UMass you might as well give the numbers for the sports not in common.

For men only:
Baseball 37
Hockey 29
Football (as mentioned) 83
Total 149

For women only:
Crew 30
Field Hockey 18
Softball 22
Tennis 10
Indoor Track 67
Total 147

Including the 180 men and 193 women in the sports in common UMass has 329 male athletes and 340 women athletes. Does that mean that the same number (roughly) of students of each gender want to play sports at UMass? Not even close. The easiest way to see that is to look at club sport and intramural participation. Men's participation rates are MUCH higher. Yet on varsity rosters the percentages mirror that of the school, as required by title IX.

That said, UMass hasn't had (publically anyway) title IX problems or cuts for title IX reasons. Last year the school cut 7 varsity programs for budgetary purposes (the state massively cut funding for the school across the board, something about the economy being poor, go fig.... :) ). The cut teams were women's volleyball, men's and women's waterpolo, men's and women's gymnastics, men's tennis, and men's indoor track. By so doing the university saved $1.1 million. Of intersting note the men's and women's waterpolo teams and men's gymnastics teams were all nationally ranked. 136 students, including 44 on athletic scholarships were on the teams cut. Title IX ramifications was one of the considerations involved in the decision process of which sports to cut (and as can be seen by the sports list more men's spots were cut than women's) but there hasn't been any discussion that has suggested that this was a primary, or even major influence on the decisions.

-B :)

[epeemike81]

It should be noted that $1.1 mil. is $1.5 mil. less than the football team lost last year......

-m

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally posted by Swordsman
So when I see somebody wearing a letter on a nice varsity jacket that they got simply for going to band in the mornings (they don't even have to be any good, they just have to show up), it ticks me off, because it devalues my - and everybody else's - letters.

No way are you gonna say that about band lol. I may sound like the band geek defending his band, and i guess I am. Marching band takes lots of practice, and lots of times. You say you hurt yourself with track, just for the good of the team. Marvhiung band takes a mix of physical, mental, and musicianal skill. Not just, run till you have to stop. Imay be oversimplifying, but essentially that is what it is. Just like fencing takes brains and atheltic ability, band takes a third, the ability to play an instrument.

All I'm saying is that band takes a lor of time, we even have band camp, lol. I may not be breaking bones for it, but it takes ebergy out of ya, and I know for a fact that my highschool track team does not have a one week camp. So yes, band does deserve a letter. Maybe not math team, but band does.

And, the accepted norm may be that the letters are for sports. But they are for any team that competes for the school, and for math team, you have to be on varsity math, and same for debate. So, you may want them to be only for sports, but tough cookies. I mean for debate I spend coutnless nights online, staying up till around 1am. So they are for any team that competes for the school, you may want sports to have their own, but oh well.

[Swordsman]

First off, I know letters are for any team that competes for the school. I'm saying that I'd rather it not be that way. Not that recognition isn't deserved, just that it would be nicer for everybody if their recognition was more unique.

Second: Running isn't just run until you can stop. It's run until you can't run anymore. No, there isn't a whole lot of skill involved (form, but that's just muscular memorization through repetition). Fencing, soccer, those require skill. But racing requires more out of a person physically than anything else. In a fencing bout, a football game, a soccer match, it doesn't matter - if you have adequate skill, it lessens the amount of effort you have to put out. If you're Evangelista, you don't have to work all that hard to beat, say, me. But in running, effort is the sole factor that determines a win over a loss.

Third: I'm not in band, but I'm the local band groupie. As I'm dating the drum majorette (a year this past Friday - the 13th) and a whole lot of my friends are in band, I'm a bigger fan than a lot of band parents are. I know the skill it takes just to play an instrument (there's no way I ever could), not to mention marching. But I've marched before (USAFA Summer Seminar), and I've seen and been told about band camp. And the competitions I've heard described, drills and punishments in camp I've been told about, etc., don't come near a day's practice for cross country.

Fourth: We do have week long camps. I attended three, back-to-back, this summer. And those were just the high school ones. A lot of colleges host week- or month-long camps that make the high school ones look like channel surfing by comparison.

Fifth: I realize that a lot of band people are very skilled people. We even have a few on the track team. But what I said still holds true: They don't even have to be any good, they just have to show up. While many are very good, a lot of people really suck, and yet get a letter basically for showing up to practice in the mornings, and events. Rayen, if you're reading, you know I'm talking about Lutz, et al. (For the rest of you: Lutz is the last name of a really obnoxious brat who sucks at band, constantly screws around, and quit cross-country after a three weeks because he couldn't take it.) Yes, some people - Rayen - really deserve band letters (if that is the recognition to be given them). But some people only stay in the band because it's too small to be able to afford losing anyone. And yet they letter.