Title IX, but different

[KShan5[PrFC]]

I know there was already a Ttile IX thread, but this is somewhat of a variation. I just have one question:

Why is the US government paying for collegiate sports?

The third string QB will more then likely do less good for the countyr then the captain of the economics team.

[Philistine]

Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
I know there was already a Ttile IX thread, but this is somewhat of a variation. I just have one question:

Why is the US government paying for collegiate sports?
{snip}

It's not.

The Federal funding that Title IX refers to is ALL funding--not funding tied into the specific program (e.g. athletic, academic, extracurricular) which is affected by Title IX.

--Philistine

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Thank you, I thought it had to be something like that. But now couldn't the US find a way to make sure trhat their money went to something more important then the sports?

[Inquartata]

Attaching strings to money is one of the surest ways to be deafened by screams of "States rights!" and "It's our tax money to begin with!" and the like. The Feds would love to target their spending a lot more, but there're only so many battles they're willing to fight at once...

[KShan5[PrFC]]

True, and I am conservative/libertarian, and I don't think the government should give money to schools at all.

But, if the government is just going to give money away don;t they have the right to control were it goes? They could just pull funding and the schools would not have that money at all. So why not say take it as we want you too or don't take it at all?

[oiuyt]

Kevin- That's the point. That's exactly what the government is doing with Title IX. The requirement that is being made is that any institution receiving government money cannot violate the guidelines given (in this case they cannot discriminate by giving unequal opportunities to people based on gender, etc.). Not only is this a requirement for the schools when spending the money given to them by the government, but a requirement that NONE of their money be used in such a way.

-B:)

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Thanks for clarifying.

[Swordsman]

And it don't stop there. One college (Hillsdale, in Michigan) decided that they wanted to teach what THEY wanted to teach - not all the required crap that the government makes schools teach. When they said that they were going to drop all the required courses they didn't like, the government threatened to take away funds. Hillsdale said, "Okay". So then the government told them that they wouldn't only be cut off from federal funds, they couldn't accept students with federal money - scholarships, grants, loans, etc.

Sickening.

KShan, I'm right with you - the government has plenty of better things to spend their money on, than every little gripe and moan that every single special interest group has, plus money-wasting programs, plus giving bundles of cash out to - or sometimes shoving it down the throats of - groups that aren't grateful in the slightest and just waste it.

{ENDRANT}

By the way - Private First Class in what?

[oiuyt]

PrFC refers to his club, Providence Fencing Club. There are several other PrFC members on the board, some with the notation, possibly some without.

The Hillsdale story is more than a bit off from what happened. Hillsdale has never received (directly) government funding. In 1975 the US government decided that indirect funding (via students recieving federal funding which went to the schools) constituted federal funding for schools. This then meant that colleges and universities with federal funded students needed to comply with the same regulations as schools that recieved the moeny directly. The regulations in question were filing of forms that document applicant and student demographics split by gender and race. A letter went out to EVERY institution of higher learning in the country at the same time (in 1975) requiring such forms to be filled out. Hillsdale refused citing the fact that they don't (and didn't) receive federal funding directly. The courts have ruled that the indirect funding consitutes federal funding and therefore schools which enroll federal funded students must comply (as the fed. governement had claimed). Hillsdale decided to not accept students with federal funding.

The issue was NOT required courses or how those courses were taught. The issue that caused the court cases and subsequent policy change at Hillsdale was on filing requirements and a philosophical stand on how much influence/interference/control the federal government should have over a private college. At no point in time did Hillsdale directly take government funding.

-B :)