It's Time To Talk Title IX

By DJ Byrnes on January 12, 2012 at 3:20p
229 Comments
RT @LavosXII: mobute sese soko walking out of the papa johns, arms clenching several large pizza boxes, a personal pan pep under his leopard toqueA lady named Patsy Mink!!!!

It's a talk which America will never have. Nor, frankly speaking, is it a talk America could rationally have without Skip Bayless telling us where Tim Tebow fits into all of this.

Hell, just by bringing up Title IX, I've already drawn a line in the sand and accrued some people who disagree with me due to hubris alone. It's something I won't lose any sleep over though, because it's time somebody said something about the giant white elephant drinking whiskey in the corner of the "College Football Reform" room.

He's been over there all night, drinking Jack Daniels on the rocks with one eye closed, and he has been making lewd jokes to anybody unfortunate enough to listen to his ramblings. It's unseemly and it's time to deal with this louse. 

The Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act (as the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 were renamed in 2002 in honor of the Congresswoman who spearheaded its passing) is as archaic and in need of reform as some of the NCAA's ridiculous bylaws.

In a perfect world, "college sports" would be a euphemism for "intramurals". I know that alone is a hard concept for most Americans to wrap their head around, but it's true. College sports -- which basically started as glorified intramurals in the 1800's -- is something which I think has spiraled far beyond anybody's wildest dreams. We live in the era of TaxSlayerPro.com and Beef'o'Brady's pimping their brand and paying teams with bags of "swag" headlined by a $100 Fossil watch. Something called "The executive director of the Fiesta Bowl" makes north of $600,000 annually. (And let's be real here, what in the hell does the Fiesta Bowl director do all year besides pick the two best revenue generating teams from a pre-made list generated by a shadowy syndicate of computers?) We live in an era where the NCAA is just now ​getting around to putting a rule into writing which makes it "illegal" for people like Cecil Newton to seek fair compensation for his son. And this is the organization which is supposed to get itself out of this moral cesspool?

I hate using phrases like "moral cesspool" -- mainly because I'm not a beacon of morality myself -- but even casual college football fans would probably agree the term fits. So, we can go on mythicizing college athletics as "student-athletes" riding unicorns through fields of daisies or we can be adults and treat it like the billion-dollar industry it is. To bring the true reforms needed to the sport, college sports need to deal with Title IX.

The entire notion the NCAA rests its moral laurels on is the purity of the "student-athlete". In March of 2008, Terrelle Pryor and I both brought our vast academic talents to The Ohio State University. I transferred in with a rock solid 2.5 GPA. Terrelle Pryor announced his intentions to come to Ohio State on a national press conference. I drank beer at Eddie George's Mediocre & Kinda Overpriced Grille and wondered if "The University of Ohio State" was the same thing as "The Ohio State University". I'm sure Terrelle had a lot more friends and well-wishers when he came to campus than I did. And he earned that. After all, nobody was paying sixty dollars for my jersey or coming to watch me do anything. It's intrinsically impossible for the NCAA's definition "student-athlete" to exist in an environment as commercialized as college football is today. (I can't even come here without somebody peddling Alabama championship gear. I am convinced some rich Alabama troll bought all the advertising on all websites.)

So, given that, why must the elite athletes continue to bring LITERALLY billions of dollars to people -- and not be able to harvest every penny that they've earned? Especially when that sport is something physically taxing like football where the average professional career lasts 3.5 years? 

RT @Horse_ebooks: there are dark times coming,Noah Spence, a name to reckon with.

Imagine a weed growing between two cement sidewalk tiles. The weed, of course, is the BCS and the fat TV contracts which have grown out of "amateur" athletics. This weed is fueled by human greed... so it will continue to grow unless its radically attacked. The BCS rainmakers have already observed the national opinion tides shift against them, they have already tried to appease the masses by signaling they're willingness to move to a "plus one" play-off system. This would maintain their current revenue streams for at least the next 20 years. Meanwhile, the black-market behind NCAA's mirage will continue to grow. This is a system which has been around since kids were getting killed playing football. And it's going to suddenly be curtailed by an obviously out-of-touch and behind-the-times as an organization as the NCAA has consistently been proven to be? This is the equivalent of pruning the weed and asking it politely not to grow.

While people are right to be concerned with the weed, people are forgetting the sidewalk itself. The sidewalk, like Title IX, was built with good intentions in the 1970's. But time has worn on the sidewalk and it clearly needs to be widened to accommodate 21st century traffic. Nobody can fault the original makers of the sidewalk in the 1970's for not foreseeing an explosion of shitty sub-developments on the east side at the turn of the millennium.. but society has outgrown their contributions. So, why not just replace the entire sidewalk now when it's clear we need a new sidewalk? If nothing else, wouldn't it be the best way to deal with that petulant weed once and for all?

Why should the breadwinners of college athletics have to support a men's rifle team? If nobody is coming to watch women's lacrosse, then why should money from the football program go to paying scholarships to them? Whatever route in defense college sport mythologists chooses to take, it usually ends up with "Wellllllll.... then you're talking about Title IX." 

You're damn right I'm talking about Title IX. To be clear, I'm only talking about it with regards to college sports. While high school sports are becoming more commercialized by the day (all that's missing from Noah Spence's picture is a cackling UnderArmour marketing executive), at least their student bodies have to be there by law. But college is a choice. If somebody like Ohio State has built a brand over the last 50 years on the backs of people like Noah Spence to the point they can get 105,000 people to pay to watch them play Indiana, why should that money have to go to a 5.2 million dollar boathouse?

In the 9th grade, I made the freshmen basketball team but I never played. Then, like most unathletic white guys, I said to myself, "You know, I don't think I'm ever going to play in the NBA. I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time practicing basketball 2 1/2 hours a day." We all have to one day accept our own limitations or the niche of something we like. I wish I could get a scholarship for playing FIFA 12, but I can't. So why should the money generated by Noah Spence and his cohorts go to the lacrosse teams nobody pays to see so NCAA fatcats can hide behind their tax-free money train?

This doesn't mean colleges would have to abolish non-revenue generating sports, but at least they could have the choice to decide which sieve to bring aboard their ship. It may sound brutal, but it's true. It's time to remove the shroud of amateurism from college sports and treat it like adults. The McDonald's in the Servex center isn't expected to share its profits with Larry and Sandy's Cupcake Factory, so why should elite athletes have to share the money they alone generate? 

I've stated I'd like to see American football mirror the labor laws European soccer clubs use. If the Title IX swim-float shackles were removed from college sports, Ohio State could use its vast empire to open football and/or basketball academies in places like Cincinnati, Cleveland and Columbus; or even in recruiting hot-beds like Southern Florida. From there, you could train/educate the kids and provide a structured, professional environment without things like "street agents".

You could stock an entire Wal-Mart with things that have had the Ohio State logo slapped on them, so Ohio State can't pretend to have shame over something like this. To take it a step further, Universities could even have coaching/recruiting arrangements with schools, allowing high schools to taste some money from the golden financial eggs they incubate for four years. The Ohio State University is already in the academic academy business, so this idea isn't that radical. I'd also bet these college football factories could produce academies that would be a lot better than the high schools a lot of their players come from. This is, after all, about "education", right? 

Elite college sports -- aka the only kind people watch en masse -- isn't about heart or any other kindergarten adjective college sports eulogists use. It's all about like most everything in this country is about anymore: money. I think every college tradition has been trampled on and desecrated in the rush for every college to secure their seat within these new super-conferences. The NCAA allows new conference championship games and "plus one" play-offs... as if they're the ones risking bodily injury or putting in the sweat and tears. There are literally billions of dollars going into these TV contracts. Look at the money swimming around these institutions... and it's wrong to punish kids for tasting the fruit. This isn't the Garden of Eden, after all. It's only going to get worse going forward... so why not just wrangle this beast now and get it over with?

For the record, I'm okay with it all being about money. After 25 years of living in America... I'm used to it. But, instead of pretending college sports is some holy grail of morality, I'd rather treat it like and stop dressing it up. Title IX is the bedrock of the house of cards the NCAA has built, so it too must go. It has outlived its place in collegiate athletics.

None of this would stop colleges from offering scholarships, but at least it'd allow the gloves to come off about college football. Say Camron Newton would rather take $400,000 to sign with Auburn and pay his own way through his studies if he so chose? And what would stop somebody like Joe Bauserman taking scholarships from Ohio State, if that's how the University of Ohio State wanted to get pay their labor? Isn't that the American way?

229 Comments

Comments

Seth4Bucks's picture

You and I are going to have to disagree on this one.

Buckeye in Illini country's picture

+1.

Columbus to Pasadena: 35 hours.  We're on a road trip through the desert looking for strippers and cocaine... and Rose Bowl wins!

Pam's picture

Big time for me. 

Is it Saturday Yet's picture

That money has to go to the boathouse so when that female rower is finally running her gazillion dollar company she remembers to help create those same opportunities for others and puts that money back into Ohio State. Plus, rowers are crazy athletes (at least the ones I've met) and if she and some freak linebacker have a child we want him/her playing at Ohio State.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

If Title IX were eliminated and athletics programs were given greater flexibility, they wouldn't make drastic cuts to negative-revenue sports partly for reasons you suggest: it's good business to make the university as attractive as possible to talented students, future leaders, etc.

Many of us believe, however, that the university can do that very successfully without having to satisfy a rigid 50/50 standard, which often leads to counterproductive measures designed to comply with Title IX. Schools typically cut male sports rather than add new female sports to fall in line with Title IX because they can't attract enough female participants. In other cases, schools counted males who practiced with the women's fencing team as female participants.

Title IX has led to many negative unintended consequences.

Ethos's picture

lol! exactly

"What do you need water for, Sunshine?!" - Coach Coombs, if you don't love this man, you have no soul.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Title IX is one reason that schools are balking at the plan to increase scholarships by $2,000 per year: by law, the increase would have to apply to all NCAA athletes in a school's athletic program.

DJ is right: the only path to real reform is to split college athletics into two spheres - (1). fball/bball and (2). everything else.

Sphere 2 would continue to promote the traditional Platonic "student-athlete" model, while maintaining gender equity within that sphere. This model still has a very important place within the university mission, but it's simply incompatible with . . .

Sphere 2 would be a seprate track for athletes from the positive-revenue-generating sports. These athletes would still have equal access to the university's academic resources and would be expected to progress toward graduation, etc.; however, they'd have a hybrid status as students/employees of the university. Actually, it's not unusual for staff at a university to have special access to academic resources; in this case, the athletes would be even closer to regular students, but would no longer be expected to live up to the 19th century English model of student "amateurs."

We need to eliminate Title IX and the NCAA (at least as it is currently constructed). The problem is, the little schools will use the political system to fight efforts by larger schools/conference to set up a new rules making body, while propents of Title IX will use the political system to fight efforts to "reimpose the patriarchy, blah, blah."  

Buckeye in Illini country's picture

1.  All student-athletes give just as much if not more time than do basketball/ football (see wrestling).  Therefore, they also do not have time to have a side job.

2.  Should the kicker, backup QB, and starting QB get the same amount of money?

3.  Fans do not go to games because of the individual athletes on the field; they go because it is their university that they love to cheer for.  When Braxton Miller graduates/ leaves early; everyone will be just as likely to go to a game after he leaves than when he played here. 

No more than a small monthly stipend (~$1000) should go to all student-athletes, but then you face the problem of smaller schools not being able afford such an extra investment, possibly creating an uneven playing field.

Columbus to Pasadena: 35 hours.  We're on a road trip through the desert looking for strippers and cocaine... and Rose Bowl wins!

DJ Byrnes's picture

1. I give my all to Fifa 12. People don't pay to watch me play.

2. The kickers and the backup QB should get whatever their universities would want to pay for a backup QB and kicker. Alabama probably wouldn't pay very much.

3. Maybe so, but elite athletes help build the brand. Does your company not have to pay you since you're highly replaceable?

4. It's already an uneven playing field.

Californian by birth, Marionaire by the Grace of President Warren G. Harding.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

1. Economically speaking, it doesn't matter how much time one spends on an activity; it's whether other people are willing to pay for the performance/service. There are some very, very passionate art and drama students at Ohio State who might spend almost every waking hour, which is not otherwise devoted to other classwork, working on their crafts. These "starving artists" don't get paid for that time (unless they're selling artwork on the side) and why would they?

2. That's a good question. No, they probably shouldn't get the same amount of money because individual fball/bball players, as employees of the university who are also expected to progress toward graduation, should be allowed to negotiate their salaries and benefits.

3. Not many fans go to see the Akron Zips play football, buy their gear, donate to their athletic programs, etc.; yet alumni of that university are probably every bit as (emotionally) loyal to their alma mater as alumni of Ohio State. Obviously, Ohio State football has built up a much stronger tradition, following, infrastructure, etc. as compared to U. of Akron, but didn't Ohio State do that largely through the efforts of players like Harley, Horvath, Cassady, Janowicz, Griffin, etl al?      

Bucksfan's picture

A lot of this doesn't really make any sense.  Title IX has nothing to do with merchandising, and nothing to do with marketing out-of-state or giving money to high schools for recruiting purposes.

Frankly, I don't see a connection between Title IX and anything having to do with the masquerade of the "student-athlete."  If anything, Title IX enhances that  status by using revenue produced by sports to educate more people equally.

You're subtly claiming that Title IX is anti-market, and therefore anti-American...a sentiment that a lot of people seem to have screwed up.  Title IX makes it so that the market does not discriminate based on sex.  The market about which we're talking is the hiring of employees at federally funded institutions, or preferentially offering opportunities to people based on sex.  Title IX makes it illegal for men to have an advantage over women, which is wholly moral considering we're discussing using federal funds to produce competitive market participants (people).

In other words, public universities are in the BUSINESS of taking federal and state subsidies to produce an educated work force.  It is morally reprehensible to offer free education for men, but not for women.  How much money the university makes on those men and women during their time as a student is irrelevant.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

We already knew that Title IX was inspired by good intentions (gender equity), but good intentions do not necessarily lead to good results (or the intended results), and you don't seem to have much appreciation for how Title IX actually functions - more like dysfunctions - in reality.

Also, please clarify: for decades preceding Title IX, the schools offered (athletic, but especially academic) scholarships to females, just not as many as they offered to males. So, I'm assuming that when you wrote that "it is morally reprehensible to offer free education for men, but not for women," since they've been offering "free education" to both sexes all along, that you meant that it'd be morally reprehensible if male athlectic scholarships - female athletic scholarships = some number other than zero? Btw, if we count all scholarships, including academic scholarships, in this age of 55+ percent female student bodies, we might find that the universities and other scholarship donors are doing the "morally reprehensible" thing of offering more females free educations than males. 

Bucksfan's picture

The market about which we're talking is the hiring of employees at federally funded institutions, or preferentially offering opportunities to people based on sex.  Title IX makes it illegal for men to have an advantage over women, which is wholly moral considering we're discussing using federal funds to produce competitive market participants (people).

I already answered your concern.  "More scholarships offered to men than women" constitutes an advantage.

I don't know much about your point concerning more women actually holding scholarships, and whether or not those scholarships were offered to men at the same rate.  I know that 60% or so of college students are now women, so that may have something to do with it.

slicksickle's picture

Isn't that the point being made though? Categorically, there are more male athletes than there are female athletes. 60% of the student body are women, and therefore would be holding more academic scholarships, but as athletes, even though there are more teams and participants in male sports, they have to be equal. Something doesn't add up.

klfeck's picture

It is morally reprehensible to offer free education for men, but not for women. 

 

And there is where you are wrong. Title IX is not about men versus women, it could be used to "protect" either sex. What you fail to understand, is that these "student athletes" do not receive a free education. In fact, they are hired to produce a product that the university sells. Be that the brand, the merchandise or tickets. The non revenue sports do not produce to the same extent if at all. In fact, many lose money.

Kevin

OH!!!!!

Proud parent of a Senior at The Ohio State University

DJ Byrnes's picture

Being forced to provide a women's basketball team has nothing to do with education. It's a burden which is going to get in the way of real reform. That was the point.

Californian by birth, Marionaire by the Grace of President Warren G. Harding.

Bucksfan's picture

It most certainly does if the basketball team is at a federally funded educational institution, and the participants are students.

DJ Byrnes's picture

It only matters because of title 9, which is why it needs to be reformed.

Californian by birth, Marionaire by the Grace of President Warren G. Harding.

Bucksfan's picture

You have it backwards.  Title IX exists because it matters, not the other way around.  The notions of fairness and equal opportunity were not created by Title IX.  Title IX was born out of those notions.

Pam's picture

It has everything to do with education. Title XI is an Educational Opportunity act with access to athletics as a part of it. An athletic scholarship is a educational opportunity that girls (like me) did not have access to prior to 1973.  Title XI is not just about sports.  Enrollment of women in law and medical school went up dramatically as a result of it. It isn't standing in the way of anything, it solved what was standing in the way for women of my generation.

William's picture

While women didn't receive athletic scholarships as often as they did after Title IX, lets not act like it didn't prevent universities from offering athletic scholarships to women before it was passed. Also Title IX has led to thousands of young men across the nation losing their scholarships that they justly earned. Title IX served a purpose in the 70s and 80s, now it is nothing more than reverse discrimination, just as affirmative action programs were proven to be.

Pam's picture

Bologna. Reverse discrimination can only exist on a level playing field.  Title XI is not about sports, as a matter of fact, the word sports is never mentioned.  It is about equal educational opportunites.  An athletic scholarship is an educational opportunity.  Title XI was enacted in 1973. There is no way it's purpose could be served in just 10-15 years any more than the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which Title XI is a part of, would have served it's purpose in a few years.  And just like the Civil Rights Act, Title XI is not going anywhere.  Maybe if you have a daughter one day you will understand why it is one of the most important pieces of legislation in our history.

DJ Byrnes's picture

wut is reverse discrimination

Californian by birth, Marionaire by the Grace of President Warren G. Harding.

klfeck's picture

Reverse discrimination can only exist on a level playing field

 

I call Bullshitski.

 

So little Johnny who is one of the best wrestlers in the state and has been working on his skill every day since he was 5 years old can't get a scholarship, but little Suzy who played high school golf for one year can. So if 60% of the current students are women, do we need to allow men with lower grades/SATs in while denying women who score higher ven though they worked harder? Should we make sure everything is always 50/50 no matter the reason or consequence?

Title IX is to logic what emotion is to reality.

Kevin

OH!!!!!

Proud parent of a Senior at The Ohio State University

Pam's picture

Little Suzy would not be getting a golf scholarship if she only played one year.  You are forgetting that women aren't just handed a scholarship. They actually have to be SKILLED at the sport they are playing.  You know, like the guys? Title XI is logical as long as you have a clue of what it is about.

William's picture

Wrong, actually very wrong. Look no further than our own Ohio State Women's Crew team. You don't have to have prior experience in rowing crew, but if you have the proper build they very well may offer you a scholarship, all the while our Men's team, which has been limited to a Club team because of Title IX cannot use that brand new 5.2 million dollar boathouse, they have to practice at either the RPAC or at French Field House on freaking erg machines half the time (I would know, my rommate rows crew). Also Clemson does the very same thing, as I had two friends who were both soccer goalies in high school, and because they had the proper build, but NO previous experience in rowing crew Clemson offered them scholarships to fill their quota for Title IX.

Pam's picture

William, FYI I am rarely wrong, but I am never very wrong.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

But as you avoided responding to his rebuttal, sounds like you were simply wrong this time.

Pam's picture

I wasn't wrong.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

You wrote that women "actually have to be SKILLED at the sport they are playing" and then William proved you wrong. So, if you're unwilling (or incapable) of admitting you're wrong on that point, why should we expect that you will fairly evaluate other aspects of the Title IX debate?

Pam's picture

Because William said so, he proved it? Anecdotal evidence doesn't work with me.  So one more time, I was not wrong and William didn't prove a thing.

 

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Pam, you wrote that women "have to be skilled at the sport they are playing" in order to received a scholarship. You did not write that women are usually, or very frequently, skilled at the sport. Therefore, if the anecdote is true (one exception to your "rule"), then it is not true that women HAVE to be skilled at the sport they are playing. Ergo, you were wrong. 

I could write a detailed report exploring the skill-levels of female student atletes in various sports, but that's the kind of thing I get paid money to do (not do for free). No question many, many women are very skilled at their sports, but others not so much.

Anecdotally, I was a decent high school soccer player - certainly nothing special. I doubt I would have gotten a scholarship to play for even a low-level college soccer program, but I was more interested in academics, anyway. When I used to play pick-up games with my female cousin, I completely schooled her up and down the field (or pitch, as they say in England). She wouldn't have been a bench player on my h.s. team, yet she earned a full scholarship to play soccer for a Division 1 school.

Pam's picture

Anecdotally, I was a highly SKILLED BB player in HS. I could runs circles and shoot over boys that played varsity. I could also kick a football farther than most of the boys and I swam a faster breast stroke than any guys on the men's team. My senior year, I watched as the FB and BB players with GPA's bordering on Animal House standards get athletic scholarships while my dad wrote checks for my tuition and I worked weekends so I would have spending money. I lived at home to save money. So, let's say that your "friend" got the scholarship I should have.

BTW, a woman being skilled does not mean as skilled as men in the same sport, which of course was my point so, ergo, I was right. 

 

 

Run_Fido_Run's picture

No, Pam, no. If the rowing teams at Ohio State and Clemson are offering schollies to ladies who've never participated in the sport beforehand, then it is NOT true that women HAVE to be skilled at a given sport.

Again, it might very well be the case that a great majority of women are highly skilled at the respective sports, but that's subject to research and analysis.

Assuming the veracity of the rowing examples, you were wrong on a simple point of logic. I've made similar logic errors a thousand times, myself; but if you won't admit that one mistake, how are we supposed to make any progress in this debate?

Pam's picture

Again, you are asking me to accept what you and William claim as fact.  Please provide something more than "I have a friend of a friend..........."  There will be no progress in this debate regardless because unlike everyone here, I actually have been affected by the times before Title IX. There is no debate for me.

William's picture

Pam, if you'd like I can give you the contact information for both of the girls who row at Clemson? I'm sure that having them tell you the manner in which their schollies were provided would alleviate any doubts you have?

btalbert25's picture

The problem with debates like this are we only talk about the few incidents that are deemed unfair or that cause "reverse discrimination."  So, the rowing team example is an example where Title IX sucks.  People only talk about those negatives though.  They don't talk about the 10's of thousands of positive cases that were created because of Title IX.  I think that's all Pam is trying to get across.  Maybe Title IX has caused some headaches of the decades it's been around, but for a lot students, Title IX has been a very positive thing, and continues to be today.  Maybe it could use some reform, but it really wasn't all that long ago that something like Title IX was neccessary.

William's picture

Over the past 15 years alone 1,216 men's varsity programs have been dropped nationally. Could anyone here explain to any of those men why their scholarships or programs were justly cut?

http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=1509

William's picture

Pam, on average 55% of all college students are now women. Title IX has served its purpose, it has elevated the amount to which women can now achieve higher forms of education. It now however reversely discriminates in that it is detrimental to the male populace on college campuses. 

Here is an excerpt from an article about Title IX and how it was a law with good intentions but horrible regulatory measures:

I am not speaking theoretical case, but about Title IX, the 1972 amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It banned sexual discrimination in public and private educational institutions, and one consequence – abetted by cultural change and another amendment – was an enormous and healthy leap in the number of women participating in sports.

But bureaucrats in the Office of Civil Rights, fearful that someone, somewhere might not be goose-stepping in accordance with their wishes, did exactly what the law forbade. Critics note they made use of numbers showing “imbalances” in order to fix things up. More specifically, the bureaucrats implemented a proportionality system as a criterion of compliance. Under it, the percentage of women and men in sports had to be in very close ratios to their total percentage in the student body. Get out of line and you put your federal funding at risk.

Can any non-bureaucrat consider this idea for more than a couple of minutes without seeing some of what is wrong with it? What happens if a far greater percentage of men on a campus are interested in sports than women? And if you have a budget that goes so far and no further, won’t you have to drop some men’s program to add some women’s programs that are not so much desired as mandated by a numerical formula?

Scan news accounts and commentaries on the issue, and what you find is endless evidence that this law that has done so much good has, in the hands of the regulators, done large amounts of harm as well. Some 400 men’s teams have disappeared because of it. Thousands of male athletes – mostly in such sports as wrestling, swimming and gymnastics – no longer have the opportunities they once had. One sports writer talks very sadly of the disappearance of programs that produced Olympic medal winners. And for what? To satisfy a quota system that has scant relation to the actual wishes of women to compete in athletics.

http://www.collegesportsscholarships.com/title-ix-pros-and-cons.htm

Pam's picture

So, because Title XI increased enrollment of women to %55, it no longer serves it's purpose? That's like saying if drunk driving is reduced due to stronger enforment we no longer need the laws against it.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 changed our society.  Think we still don't need it?  Look no further than our home state of Ohio where a landlord posted a "White Only" sign at the pool in the complex.  She seems mystified as to what the problem is.  Title XI has righted many wrongs in education as did the Civil Rights Act in employement and housing. You don't scrap a law because it works. It works because it is the law.

BrewstersMillions's picture

Pam,

That's pretty weak to draw a comparison to drunk driving. Its obviously not what we are talking about here and the analogy falls apart on its merits. Drunk Driving litigation is in place because it prohibits an action that is potentially fatal to participant and victim. One has nothing to do with the other. And yes, Title IX has done great things but to say it doesn't, at this point in history, need some modification at the very least is short sighted. Laws get modified. This one should be as well.

4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off

Pam's picture

Good lord. Split hairs much? It could be any law ok? The point is you still need the law even though it is achieving the goal of having the law in the first place.  There have been numerious challenges, reviews, ammendment proposals and Supreme Court cases to Title IX.  You know why it hasn't changed? Because they are still schools who are non-compliant. When everyone is in compliance, maybe they will be some modifications.  Until then, it stands. 

BrewstersMillions's picture

And in the interim, other programs are sacrificed in the name of equality. Got it. Normally I enjoy your contributions to all things 11W, but I just can't get on board with this.

4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off

Bucksfan's picture

 I just can't get on board with this.

That's because you still don't know the facts: http://www.aauw.org/act/laf/library/athleticStatistics.cfm

 

baddogmaine's picture

What real reform? How much money does an English Literature department produce for a university? How much money does a school radio station produce for a university? How much money does the average football program produce for a universiy? (Triuck question - most college football teams lose huge amounts.) Universities lose money on most of their programs, if money is defined as self-supporting. Programs are provided anyway because they add to the university experience. Schools can choose to offer no varsity sports at all and still be places that students want to attend. What programs schools offer are up to its trustees. What Title IX says is that schools can not offer money-losing oportunities just to one gender.

I live in Portland, Maine. We have a Div 3 campus of the University of Maine system. University of Southern Maine has a woman's basketball team. No scholarships, just young women who like Portland or like USM and want to play basketball. Until last year when the streak finally stopped the active longest streak of consecutive years with 20 or more wins in collegiate baskeball, men's or women's, any division, was University of Southern Maine. It was over 20 years.  Every year a squad of women who might never play basketball again were part of something really really special.

Without Title IX this would never have happened. Thank you Title IX!!!!!

M Man's picture

There are lots of problems with Title IX.  There have always been problems with Titlie IX.  Like, all of the mens gymnastics, wrestling and baseball teams that have been scrificed on the altar of "euquality."

But I gather that you are opposing Title IX because it will (and it WILL) be a stumbling block to a new scheme to start paying athletes in the biggest mens football and basketball programs, along the lines of Joe Nocera's idiotic and preposterous proposal in last week's New York Times Sunday Magazine.

And that I will not agree with.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

What's the problem with Title IX if you believe that all student athletes (bball/fball versus athletes in negative-revenue sports) should be treated the same? Under that assumption, the sacrificial altar of equality is not much of a stumbling block, is it?

M Man's picture

What do you mean, "all student athletes ... should be treated the same..."?

I think all football players should be treated the same; they might not be, if some harebrained pay-for-play scheme comes into being.  Wherein Braxton Miller gets a deal for $120,000 a year while others (would there still be walkons?!?) got $20,000.  I suppose they'd be protected by the new NCAA salary cap and the NCAA Players Union and the NCAA Players Legal Defense Fund and ... oh, God this is giving me a headache.

I think it is false utopianism to imagine that we have to fund womens ice hockey and womens field hockey and competitive dance teams and mens lacrosse in any set governmentally-imposed percentages.  Particularly when the creative accounting with those percentages requires a school to shut down its mens fencing team after 98 years, just to get the numbers right for federal regulators.

I think womens sports ought to be encouraged, on their own merits.  I don't want to see womens sports get second class treatment but I think it is insane for the government to tell universities how to run athletic departments.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

On one hand, these are government funded institutions, so it's quite understandable that they can make whatever rules they want if they're funding them. However, the vast majority of funding comes from the State Government, not the Feds, so I'm not sure why the Feds can decide the rules.

Always be weary of government funding. Once you take a single dime, the government will claim dominion over your decisions. It happened to universities, it happened to the banks, it happens to businesses across the country all the time. Even if it's just a subsidized small business loan, you can bet there are strings attached.

Bucksfan's picture

Ohio State is a PUBLIC school!  It wouldn't even exist without federal startup money (Morrill-Lincoln Act, anyone?!)  Flash forward, the biggest reason it is climbing in the national rankings is because of the increasing federal dollars going into the research being done at the school.

Your view on public education is so mind-bogglingly off base I don't know where to begin.  This is an Ohio State University blog, you have Buckeye in your handle.  Without public funding, there would be no Ohio State University.  There would be no Buckeye sports.

William's picture

Actually the reason we are jumping up national rankings has little to do with federal aid we get but much more with our private-industry funded research. Ford has hevaily funded our mechanical engineering, and GE has been integral in the development of our AARL (Aeronautical and Astronautical Research Labs.)

Bucksfan's picture

You're wrong, William.  Just like you've been wrong about a lot of things here.  Ohio State is like 2nd in industry-sponsored research.  There's no where to go but down there.  

I'm talking medical research.  An increase of about 20% in dollars during an era where NIH funding has been stagnant...it's almost unheard of.

http://medical-schools.findthebest.com/q/52/2883/How-much-NIH-National-I...

William's picture

You're right, completely left out the Medical Center in my statement. The NIH has provided a huge boost in the funding of our Medical Center.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

You missed my point Bucksfan. I was distinguishing between state and federal funding. The Morrill Acts simply gave federal land to the states to establish universities (it really should have been the state's land to begin with). But the VAST majority of funding comes from the state government. In fact, for the majority of Ohio State's history, funding was almost exclusively from the state and private donors. My point was that Title IX was a federal provision. It's a gross intrusion into state and local affairs. If the majority of funding was federal, then I'd have no problem with Title IX being enforced. It should be up to the taxpayers/voters of each state to decide how their universities operate. A senator in California should not be able to introduce a bill to tell us Ohioans how to operate their university funded with their own tax money.

Pam's picture

Title XI is a federal provision because it is part of the Civil Rights Act. Is fair housing and employment a gross intrusion into state and local affairs?

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

Umm. Yes. Just as a federal law prohibiting gay marriage would be a gross intrusion into state affairs. Employment, education, housing, marriage, criminal law, etc... These are all issues the Constitution is silent on, and thus were meant to be left to the states.

Bucksfan's picture

Again, read some history, buddy.  Morril Act.  Your "gross intrusion" is the reason Ohio State University exists in the first place.

William's picture

Do you mean the Morrill Land Grant Acts of 1862, and 1890? There's no such thing as the Morrill-Lincoln Act. The first act was passed by Lincoln, but his name was never on the bill or act, only Justin Morrill's is, and he wasn't even the man who came up with the idea. That would be Jonathan Turner and Lymann Trumbull.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

Touche William. You'll notice I said "Morrill Acts" and not "Morrill-Lincoln Act" in my response.

William's picture

My post was in response to Bucksfan, he had Morrill-Lincoln Acts written, but quickly edited his post. Too quick for me haha.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

Giving a state it's land back isn't quite a gross intrusion. Claiming domain over it in the first place is.

Read some history? Ok. If you want to talk history and debate Constitutional Law with me dude, then feel free to send me a private message, because you already demonstrated a lack of knowledge in the difference between state and federal funding with your first reply.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

I don't have to click that link to know that you're referring to the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment, which has absolutely no relevance to the argument. The takings clause deals with the federal government's power of eminent domain over property already owned by states or private individuals. In the early days of the country, the Northwest and Louisiana Territories were owned by the federal government, and as each state was admitted to the Union, the federal government disposed of much of that land to each new state and to private individuals. Once land disposal was complete, the absolute right of property was transferred to either the state or individual. Generally, the state or individual had to provide some compensation to the federal government in return for the land. Under the Morrill Acts, the federal government ceded ownership of certain lands to the states for the purpose of erecting universities. This transfer was free of charge (for lack of a better term) so long as they were used for this purpose. However, once the transfer was complete, the federal government no longer had any control over the land, and absolute ownership was given to the respective state, and the states were responsible for funding the institution and running it as they see fit. The "contract" said the states would transfer ownership of certain lands to the states for free if they used those lands for education. That "contract" NEVER stated that the federal government would retain dominion over the operations of the educational institution. I can guarantee you that if there were strings attached in the deal (i.e. the Feds retaining control of the operations of the university), the states would not have agreed to take the land.

Bucksfan's picture

No, it was merely a Constitutional argument in the face of your statement that it is a "gross intrusion" for the government to take land unjustly.  It's most certainly not a gross intrusion, since it is a right protected in the Constitution.  The land grant acts would fall under that right...the dedication of land for public use.  You can think of it as a subsidy.

The rest of what you write in your essay is a waste of time.  Ohio State's requirement to follow Title IX has to do with funding it accepts TODAY, not the Morrill Acts.  I was using the Morrill Acts as an argument against your notion of "gross intrusion."  I think you're just sort of wandering aimlessly in this debate.  

Federal money is a characteristic of our flagship PUBLIC university of Ohio that they are more than happy to accept.  More money = more research = better educated students = more educated public = better economy for the state = more money for the college...etc., etc.

William's picture

Really this whole discussion of the Fifth Amendment, the "Takings Clause" and the use of eminent domain is complete BS in the first place. If anything eminent domain is possibly one of the most ridiculously unconstitutional powers possible, yet of course it is continuously used. Considering the men who penned the Constitution, the Federalists, always voiced a man's right to life, liberty and property, the fact that eminent domain is even allowed is hypocritical in its very nature. Of course they opposed such amendments but you can thank fools like Jefferson and the rest of his party for the inclusion of such a power.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

"It's most certainly not a gross intrusion, since it is a right protected in the Constitution."

And you just demonstrated how little you know about Constitutional Law. The right is not absolute, and the eminent domain is arguably the most challenged federal power in the Constituion. There are literally hundreds of cases each year of private property owners challenging the takings clause in regards to the governments confiscation of their land. And once again, you're missing the point. The Fifth Amendment has nothing to do with this. You know nothing of the Constitution.

 

Bucksfan's picture

You know nothing of the Constitution.

That may be true, but not according to anything you've presented in your argument.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Pam, no, they're not a gross intrusions - like Title IX, they're provisions that were well-intended, did some good (especially in the early stages), but which haven't gotten much bang for their bucks (keep in mind that policies/programs require investments from taxpayers and other sources).

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Thanks for the clarification. So, you mainly oppose fball and/or bball players being able to negotiate for different packages, with stars being paid more than 3rd string long snappers, etc.? That's a compelling position. I'm not sure yet where I stand on "equality" within those sports.

But you do seem to be in favor of treating positive-revenue-generating sports differently than the money-losers. At a minimum, without the burden of artifical one-size-fits-all Title IX "equity" requirements, schools might make some modest cuts to the money-losing sports (without having to make corresponding cuts elsewhere), but only inasmuch as such moves would make them more (holistically, not just athletically) competitive, help them further their larger missions, etc.

If that's what you meant, then you can hold that position and still favor a continuation of the NCAA status-quo: NCAA fball and bball players remain "student-athletes" with all the same opportunities and restrictions; it's just that there are now a little fewer women's lacross players and men's fencers. 

I don't agree, but NCAA status-quo is better than NCAA status-quo + Title IX.  

klfeck's picture

When OSU starts a female beach volleyball league I am sure it will be a revenue sport.......

 

Maybe we could require season ticket holders to buy womens gymnastics tickets when they bought football tickets. UC used to force its basketball season ticket holders to buy season tickets to their miserable football team.

Kevin

OH!!!!!

Proud parent of a Senior at The Ohio State University

Poison nuts's picture

Frightens me how many points we agree on M Man...

"Death created time to grow the things that it would kill" - Detective Rustin Cohle.

M Man's picture

Financially, our two programs are almost indistinguishable.  Brian Cook at MGoBlog had a close look at the overall budget numbers for one year and figured that the difference between The Ohio State University and the University of Michigan's annual athletic department gross revenues (OSU had more) boiled down to the fact that OSU has advertising in the 'Shoe and Michigan had none in the Big House.  Almost to the dollar.

I don't wish to disrespect women's athletics as it may be protected by Title IX.  Not at Michigan, not at OSU.  I really want to see the universites actively promote womens sports for the general good.  But the formulaic world of Title IX requires all institutions to adhere to false numbers that might not fit individual programs or even modern realities.

As others have said -- if we were debating how to dole out taxpayer funds, then yes some rigid standards of equality ought to apply.  But when we are talking about self-sustaining athletic departments like Michigan and OSU that essentially pay for all of the other non-revenue sports and indeed funnel large amounts of money into the university's general fund, then those programs need to be treated differently, at least if you want them to remain as revenue-generators.

One other thing.  I just wrote "revenue generators," and not "profit makers."  I hate it when critics talk about the "profits" from college athletics.  Athletic departments are non-profit enterprises.  Most run at a real loss, and need donors or general fund revenues to back them up.  As rich as OSU and Michigan are, they too need donors to support capital improvements.  To the exent that football, basketball and hockey "make" any money, it is all plowed back to exactly what we want to fund; the non-revenue sports and the general funds.

It is really easy for somebody to say that Jared Sullinger or Denard Robinson deserve to share in collegiate sports revenue, and that they should be 'paid' before NCAA tournament officials, or the University, or a millionaire coach from Florida, or a bowl committee.  But that's wrong.  If you are campaigning for payments to star players, you are really saying, "let's take (some) money away from womens gymnastics and give it to the guys who fill the big stadiums."

bahamamaui's picture

DJ:

You talk about colleges running developmental programs.  I think that you are close to being right....  University athletics often serves as a minor league for profession sports and I think that this is wrong.  Even more so, colleges shouldn't be operating their own minor leagues.  The pro level organization should be running the farm system.

What I find interesting is that 'Professional Baseball' has figured out a way to fund and operate an entire industry of minor/developmental leagues - outside of the University system.  

Sure, there are situations where college baseball may be 'better' (developing the player - not the person, etc), but it gives the athelte (not the student athlete) a vehicle to peddle their skill.  There are athletes who chose to jump straight from high school into professional baseball -- some end up in the majors quickly, some take years (and may have been better served playing University baseball).

Anyway, the point that I am trying to make is that MLB funds and operates this, why hasn't the NFL?

 

btalbert25's picture

That is kind of the key here.  The NFL will not sink money into a minor league because they don't have to.  The NCAA and the schools themselves aren't likely to want this either.  The overall quality of the game would take a hit.  Also, since farm teams typically take place in a city that is near a professional franchise, perhaps Columbus or Austin or one of these other big cities would have a farm team where better football could compete for some attention.

Granted, teams like Ohio State, Texas, Florida etc are always going to have high ratings and be extremely popular, but for football viewing on the weekend, or to go watch a game on the weekend your choices were a high school on Friday, Ohio State Saturday , and the Browns/Bengals on Sunday.  A farm team wouldn't impact the NFL so much, but could possibly take some attention away from college football.  Especially, if a farm team had Andrew Luck, Honey Badger, and Blackmon all on the same team. 

I think a  minor league is a great idea, it won't cure everything but it'd be a good start.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

In the event that the NFL successfully competed against college football by setting up their own minor leagues, would that be a net positive in terms of the university's larger academic missions. The faculty club snobs will sometimes complain that big time fball/bball are ruining their universities, but maybe they should be careful what they wish for . . . small-time football at the college level might not be so good for them, either.  

Buckeye Chuck's picture

What I find interesting is that 'Professional Baseball' has figured out a way to fund and operate an entire industry of minor/developmental leagues - outside of the University system. 

There's a reason for this, which is that professional baseball, including a system of free minor leagues, existed prior to the development of major intercollegiate sports; whereas both football and basketball emerged into the public eye first as college sports and only later in their professional forms. The notion that college was a normal part of the career track never grew up around baseball, nor did the misguided moralism that led to the NBA banning high schoolers from their draft, while the majority of fans and media cheered it on.

The "problem" here, such as it is, comes from the tension between two facts: football and men's basketball are major moneymakers, and running an athletic program is at best a sideline to the primary mission of a university. As long as schools are competing in sports and giving out athletic scholarships, there's no question that fairness demands equal opportunity for both men and women (and let's be real: the mere fact that we spend a few weeks every fall wondering which freshman Buckeyes might be redshirted is proof that you don't need 85 football scholarships to field a team). But simply saying "we need minor leagues in football and basketball" isn't an answer either: college sports are part of American culture at this point, and minor leagues can't directly replace college football and basketball because even if you have the same type of player in those leagues, you can't replicate the fan identification, tribalism, loyalty, continuity with the past etc. that makes something like the Buckeyes what they are.

I think the answer in the long run is to have a truly professional system for 18-22 year olds that is somehow branded with the university names, in order to preserve a sense of continuity. But I doubt something like that can ever exactly mirror what we have now in college sports.

The most "loud mouth, disrespect" poster on 11W.

William's picture

Tell the thousands of student-athletes who have lost scholarships or had to transfer schools because of their programs being cut to satisfy Title IX's ridiculous mandates, that it is a just piece of legislation. Through its measures to create equality it only has created controversy and can honestly be considered reverse discrimination, just like affirmative action programs.

NW Buckeye's picture

DJ, you are too young to remember the way it used to be before T9.  One could say that it has outlived it's effectiveness, but I would not want to back track one inch if it brought us any closer to the way it used to be.  I am the father of 3 boys, and have personally experienced much frustration because of T9.  Yet, I recognize it has been a positive influence on the world of scholastic sports.  Yes, schools have done crazy things to comply with T9 (my son's collegiate track team spent many hours recruiting female students to participate).  I coached at our local HS and saw first hand the jockeying that had to be done in order to comply.  Without the opportunities presented by equal numbers at the college level it would have been next to impossible to implement real change at the HS level.  You can try to mess with T9 if you wish, but you could be embarking on a very slippery slope. 

Most of the pressure to mess with T9 is coming from fans like you who just want college football to be what you imagine it could be.  The more you want to make it like professional sports the more it will be like professional sports.  The only real professional minor league system we have to compare it to in this country is minor league baseball - and that pales in comparison to collegiate sports.  Heck, even the college baseball championships have much better fan support than any minor league playoffs, and the competition level is much better in the minor leagues. 

You want to compare it more towards what the soccer machine in Europe.  My own belief is that the only reason soccer has been so popular in Europe is that they have never had a scholastic sports system like what we enjoy in this country.  Who's to say what system is better?  I know that I much prefer our system, and of the kids we have hosted as exchange students at our HS most really like our scholastic sports. 

Call me a purest if you will , but I still prefer college sports being amateur in their nature.  I recognize the need for change.  Yet, I would not want to give up any of the progress we have experienced since T9 was implemented.  (and I have not been a staunch supporter of this legislation).   

Buckeye in Illini country's picture

+1

Columbus to Pasadena: 35 hours.  We're on a road trip through the desert looking for strippers and cocaine... and Rose Bowl wins!

DJ Byrnes's picture

What about elite college football is amateur? The multi-million dollar facilities and coaches? The stadiums filled with tens of thousands of people? The billion dollar tv contracts? The bloody knuckled recruiting process? What is still amateur about college football?

Everybody says they want "amateurism"... but judging by attendance numbers at even D-1AA schools... it would seem they want their "amateurs" to be as talented as possible. 

These kids are risking SEVERE AND PERMANENT bodily harm for nothing more than our sheer entertainment... and they're not entitled to harvest every penny their hard-work has earned them because of a rule that was drafted in a room with a "putdown jar" in the 1970's? Please.

Californian by birth, Marionaire by the Grace of President Warren G. Harding.

Kalamazoo Steve's picture

While I'm not a huge fan of any institution being forced to do anything, these football players don't HAVE to risk injury. They can turn down playing a sport and pay for school like most students do. Them playing a sport that can harm them is voluntary. So that arguement is weak. DJ, no one is paying to watch you play FIFA, but no one is forcing you to play. You don't like not being paid? Don't play.

Poison nuts's picture

Word.

"Death created time to grow the things that it would kill" - Detective Rustin Cohle.

NW Buckeye's picture

You make it all sound so simple.  Yes, college athletics are still amateur by nature.  I realize we have been and are terribly close to crossing the line, but paying athletes as you propose will definitely push us over that line.  And, please, don't give me the risking severe and permanent bodily harm for nothing more than our sheer entertainment crap.  Everyone who steps on to an athletic field or court risks permanent and severe injury - amateur, intramural, HS, PeeWee, Little League, etc.  I can reference deaths and catastrophic injury at every level of sport.  Participants risk injury because they get a thrill out of playing the game.  And, maybe that is why we pack the stadiums the way we do.  It is a kick to see athletes playing the game for the thrill of playing it.  Give me a college or HS game any day compared to any pro sport.  The thrill is still there.  The moment they become professionals there is a general perception that it now is something much different than sport.  Maybe it is just a facade that college athletics are still that way, but it still holds the attention of many. 

And, you present your argument as though the players just all get the short end of the stick.  Well, there are a lot of factors that go into filling a collegiate stadium.  You can argue that it is the players who fill the stands.  Well, lets look at the UFL - lots of talented big names play.  Salaries are minimal (much less than annual tuition at virtually any college) and they are lucky to draw 20,000 per game.  What do you suppose they are missing?  Maybe it's large alumni groups.  Or maybe it's brand awareness.  The kind of brand awareness only a huge institution with lots of backers can generate.  You can easily see that the players alone can not draw the crowds that D1 schools generate. 

And, for every player who is starting consistently making a big name for themselves there are at least 5 who are happy to just participate and be a part of the team.  Some take their 4 year scholarship and put it to good work and are happy.  Others walk on just for the thrill of participating.

It is a delicate apple cart that actually fills the stadiums.  Brand, tradition, alumni, players, all figure in.  Tip the tables in any one direction and no telling what may happen to the apple cart.  I perhaps can see increasing monthly stipends for players to some minimal level, but the careless system you suggest would surely muck up college football and just give us another NFL.  Yuck. 

Bucksfan's picture

Nice post, NW.  I have a story, too.  My mom graduated high school in 1974.  At that time, she was the only person to ever start on the school's varsity volleyball team as a freshman (6' tall at age 15).  She was considered probably the best volleyball player in the city.  However, she basically had no shot at college coming from a poor family with average grades.  If she was born 30 years later, she may have had her pick of any program in the nation, or at the very least, a free education at a small school.  Despite Title IX going into effect in 1972, women's college volleyball, and the scholarships that would become available, had yet to manifest into a large scale.  The NCAA didn't have its first women's volleyball national championship until 1981, and (according to wikipedia) the first ever women's college volleyball championship held by a different organization wasn't until 1971.

Hard to imagine how new that is, considering volleyball is easily a top-5 sport amongst women.

It's obvious that some posters here are not quite aware of what it used to be like before Title IX.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

It's times like these I am reminded of Bastiat and "that which is unseen".

There's no doubt that many have benefitted from Title IX. But at what cost? For every female volleyball scholarship given, there's a male inner city sprinter denied a track scholarship. I have a friend who was a phenomenal sprinter. Only ran track his senior season, but he was impressive. His potential was off the charts. The only way he was going to be able to afford college was with a scholarship. Kentucky wanted him badly for track. Rich Brooks wanted him to walk-on the football team and give kick-returning a shot, but wasn't about to offer a scholarship (this was June of 2005 and he had already offered all his scholarships anyway). As it happens, the track team at UK had cut a few scholarships that year (guess why). My friend did not get an offer. He never went to college. And he stocks shelves at a Target now.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Exactly, if we wanted to fight one PC argument with another, we might suggest that Title IX is an opportunity for mostly affluent white women, the majority of whom would have gone to college even if they hadn't won a scholarship to get free educations on the backs of young black males who generate all the revenue that pays for the white ladies' schollies, while other young black males who weren't quite good enough to win a scholarship in the much more competitive "market" for male athletic scholarships never make it to college. But it wouldn't be fair play those kinds of cards now, would it?  

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

I didn't want to say it, but since Run_Fido brought it up, I will confirm it and stand by his statement: the VAST majority of female college athletes come from upper-middle class white families. Think about it. Lacrosse, volleyball, field hockey, soccer, ice hockey, rowing, rifle, softball, cross country, fencing, etc... I had the statistics on this at one time. I'll see if I can dig them up. Might need to go through my old college folders.

southbymidwest's picture

Excuse me? So, if I understand your comment correctly, the men on the golf, fencing, lacrosse, swim/dive, tennis and pistol and rifle teams are full of underpriveledged young black males who would have never have received a college education without their schollies?  I somehow think not. Hate to break it to you, but not all of the young women on athletic scholarships at OSU are affluent. OR white women.  

Reality is, if any underpriveledged kid really wants to go to college, their best option/best chance to go to college would be to hit the books and get a merit scholarship with needs testing thrown in.

And since when is it more important to give a male an athletic scholarship over a female, as has been insinuated by other posters? Do you somehow think they don't work as hard? Go ahead and tell yourselves that that, or that they don't want it as much as guys do, that they don't train year round, and that schools have to beg young women to join their teams. You obviously haven't been around girls' club or high school teams. Or the women's lacrosse team.

One more thing-save for football and basketball, most non-revenue teams do not give out full scholarships. Even the best player on the team gets a partial scholarship. A team of 35 might only have 12 scholarships funded. That means that many team members get quarter scholarships.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

I was being somewhat cheeky. But, you're right, the scholarships for male lacrosse players are also supported by the revenues generated by fball and bball players/stars, who are majority African-American, many from low-to-moderate income households.

Still, if we're talking about the margins, then Title IX is probably a better deal for affluent white female athletes than it is for poor black male athletes. Title IX puts schools in a position where they cannot cut female athletic scholarships at all; often they must add them to make the numbers work, while cutting male sports, including track & field and baseball, which are usually sizable teams (whereas golf, pistol/rifle, etc. have small teams).

To be fair, of course, this racial aspect shouldn't be overblown, in part for reasons you point out (some female athletes aren't white and/or affluent). Then again, it's kind of a joke when opponents of Title IX are lectured on how the female synchronized swimmer, whose dad is a corporate lawyer and mom is a college professor, shouldn't be discriminated against by not being given a full-ride to do water ballet.       

Bucksfan's picture

Sorry, but you have no idea what color my skin is, so how is it that you're making an assumption that your inner city black friend didn't get a scholarship to college because some white suburban female did?  What if he didn't get a scholarship because some inner city black female did?

Your argument is pathetic at best.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

I was engaging in hyperbole. But regardless of skin color, the point stands. For every scholarship a woman gets, it's one less scholarship a guy gets. The shame of my example is that my friend potentially had a future in football or track. Very few female athletes have a future in their sport beyond college.

And let's get real. How many inner-city schools offer fencing, field hockey, golf, gymnastics, ice hockey, lacrosse, pistol, rifle, rowing, synchronized swimming, competitive cheerleading, or tennis? Most don't even have volleyball, softball, or swimming teams.

And I did compete in a non-revenue sport. And I have multiple friends who will be at the Olympic trials this year for track. A few have scored sponsorships (the equivalent of professional track). And guess what? Not a single one of them was on full scholarship while at Ohio State. But I know one rower personally that's on full-scholarship. Not surprisingly, she went to a boarding school in Connecticut. So one of my friends, a former Big Ten champ in track, is heading to the Olympic trials, coming from a middle class household certainly needed as much scholarship money as possible after his dad died when he was 14, and yet the girl from a Connecticut boarding school gets the full scholarship for rowing and not him for track. Yeah, sounds about right.

Bucksfan's picture

Ok, you want to get real?  Let's get real.

I do not understand your point anymore.  Fencing, golf, ice hockey, lacrosse, rowing, and tennis are all upper-middle class sports that are traditionally dominated by MEN.  Anyone coming to Ohio State to play those sports 40 years ago were men.  Sports are.  These men were not underprivelaged. Therefore, economic priveladge is NOT part of this evaluation.  The university is making an investment on people who do something body-oriented outside of the classroom, who traditionally develop skills beyond what they read in a book.  They are hoping that said product eventually gives back to the school, or gets a good job, thus injecting more money back into the school (either through tax revenue or whatever).  

The school benefits society by making better, smarter people...which then, in turn, benefit the school down the road.

It has nothing to do with need-based anything.  That's not what it's about.  If that's what you want to make it about, that's fine, but it makes no sense.  You're arguing Title IX's impact on people who feel entitled to a scholarship because they need it more than someone else. And that's irrelevant....there is no direct connection.

The cynic in me says your friend should have studied harder, or out-competed the people who were vying for positions on the teams for which he's interested.  If there are less positions available for those sports because the university is investing more in women than they used to, then TOUGH.  Sack up and go win a spot.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

He did win a spot. There wasn't enough scholarship money available. Track only has a handful of scholarships which they split between about 25 guys and the other 25 or so are all walk-ons.

But I want to clarify. I'm NOT against providing an equal number of scholarships. If it's truly about the equal opportunity in education, then it should be equal number of scholarships, not equal overall spending. I would be totally cool of the law were about equal scholarship opportunity, but it has been interepreted differently to say there needs to be equal funding.

Bucksfan's picture

But, women sports still aren't even getting equal spending under the current law.  And the current law DOES state that the # of men and women participating in sports needs to be proportional to the student body at a given school.  Well, 60% of college students are women, and only 40% of college athletes are women.

The law itself already says what you want it to say.  But the implementation of that law is lacking.

http://www.aauw.org/act/laf/library/athleticStatistics.cfm

Pam's picture

I am one of those posters who does remember.  I graduated form HS in 1971. I too was tall (5'8" at 13, that was pretty tall back then) and a BB player.  Other than gym there were no organized sports for the girls nor was there a budget to pay for any.  With the help of one of our English teachers we put together a BB team and contacted other schools to start a league. Our team was winning all of our games and I was elected co-captain. We bought our uniforms and were driven to away games by our moms (most of them did not work back then and they were the only ones cheering for us from the stands). One day I complained that it wasn't fair that the boys got pep rallies and had there scores announced on the PA the next day. My coach agreed.  She set up an appointment with the principal and me and the captain wearing our uni's told him that we should have pep rallies and announcements too.  He agreed and we got them. We started getting crowds big enough that we could charge admission and start a fund.  This was 1967. Any social movement whether it is civil rights, women's rights etc. starts with the premise that the status quo is unfair. We had no other precedent to fall back on then. It just wasn't fair.

 

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Without a compelling analysis demonstrating cause-and-effect, I have no reason to believe that Title IX was a instrumental factor in increasing female participation in sports. There were many other variables at play, so it is just as likely if not more so that Title IX was more of an effect of increased female demands (including political demands) than a cause of them. Women first competed in the Olympics in the 1900 Paris Games, which was just one milestone in illustrious history of pre-Title IX women's sports. 

I could probably think of 20 other major variables that contributed to the increase in female sports participation. The late 1960s "sexual revolution" not only predated legislation like Title IX but was an impetus of such policies.

Hoody Wayes's picture

 

DJ:

You've developed an under-developed argument.

The vast expanse between the have's and have-not's in college football is - buried - by issues:

1.) Pay the players and like anybody else, they'll want more. It's inevitable...and it won't end. How do you compensate them, fully? 

2.) What about collective bargaining? The players will organize, eventually. How does playing at a state school versus playing at a private school impact the collective bargaining question? Imagine labor negotiations dragging through the regular season. How about threats of strikes, going into bowl season?

3.) Agents? Endorsements? Lawyers? All these will be fixtures within this new reality. There will be wars between players, sponsors, universities, lawyers and the courts. It's not like a pro athlete doing commercials against the wishes of his pro franchise. We're talking education and research institutions with real heritage, doing work for the betterment of society and with worldwide reputations to uphold. Endorsement deals will instigate litigation.

4.) Exactly, how is that colleges and universities mix non-profit status and paying athletes to represent them in a for-profit endeavor?

5.) Paint that picture: What's it gonna be like, having a de facto pro football team on a college campus? Where does a student stand in that panorama? How about academics?

It isn't just about paying athletes and Title IX.

 

 

 

DJ Byrnes's picture

1) You compensate them by paying market value for them. What was the price for Cam Newton, according to Cecil? $400,000? That seems fair. Athletes would be allowed to negotiate their own deals with schools and it'd be up for the schools to determine how much players are worth to them. It's not a hard concept. 

2) I'm glad the players would organize. One of the hilarious things about the NCAA is they rule over "student-athletes" who have no representation in the organization. (I think wars were fought over this.)

3) You mean regulated professionals instead of of "street agents" and bagmen? Ohio State pretty much has a professional team swagging around campus. They're not hard to find. I doubt it would be any different than the status quo. I also think you're being pretty kind to some of these football factories.

4) There are lawyers and people much smarter than me to write those laws. Ohio State is a for-profit company though, so I don't think it'd be that hard to begin with.

5) Again, Ohio State already pretty much has a professional football team on campus. 105,000 people on Saturdays. I'd doubt it'd be that much different. 

 

Californian by birth, Marionaire by the Grace of President Warren G. Harding.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

To me, it's just hypocritical. It's supposed to be equal opportunity in education, so why does the overall spending have to be equal as opposed to just the number of scholarships? If it were truly about equal opportunity in education, then the rule would be that the number of scholarships have to be equal, not the total amount spent on female athletics. And I say this as someone who competed in a non-revenue sport (track), so I understand the perspective of the female athlete.

SonOfBuckeye's picture

It's only going to get worse going forward...

So let's accelerate into the abyss?

Get rid of athletic scholarships.  Problem solved.

William's picture

Alright everyone needs to quit pushing the Ivy League doesn't provide scholarships crap, because guess what? They provide "grants" to many of their student athletes. Ryan Fitzpatrick even said that his grant was like a scholarship when he played for Harvard. So really the Ivy League is worse off in that they provide "grants" to certain athletes in certain sports, but not all of them.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

Yes, but these grants are often need-based, are sometimes "loans" instead of grants, very often do not nearly cover the entire expense, and have many various strings attached. Trust me, I took recruiting visits for track to Harvard, Penn, Cornell, and Columbia my senior year in high school.

Kalamazoo Steve's picture

D3 doesn't provide scholarships for sports. Doesn't seem to hurt Mt. Union football.

William's picture

How much does Mt. Union make off of football? Did profits from Mt. Union's football team help to fund the rebuilding of a world class library on its campus? No it didn't. By taking away scholarships from OSU's athletic programs, you are limiting their talent and potential to be great, which draws in crowds and creates revenue. Without that revenue OSU wouldn't be as great as it is, for our athletic department has made several large contributions to the university, and while I have stressed that OSU is much larger than its sport programs, its sports programs and the profit they create have helped to fund OSU's astronomical rise over the years.

Kalamazoo Steve's picture

If OSU couldn't give scholarships for sports, no one could. So the libraries @ Texas would be equal to the libraries @ Northwestern, etc.. I'm willing to bet the football facilities @ Mt. Union are better than the ones @ Wittenberg. I'm also willing to bet their educational facilities are equal. Isn't that what educational institutions are all about?

slicksickle's picture

BUT, the libraries at Texas, NU, OSU, everywhere would all be less funded and less sweet if it were not for the money given by the profiting sports programs.

KenK's picture

This is an article for "The Onion", right?  Because if it isn't DJ, this is a blatant waste of bandwidth.

Johnny Hooker: "He's not as tough as he thinks". Henry Gondorff: "Neither are we".

LouGroza's picture

Would you like a lid for your can of worms now DJ?

Maestro's picture

In this camp.  Life is full of rites of passage. 

vacuuming sucks

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Title IX opened a can of worms, too. Except the worms opened by DJ are merely rhetorical.

3cent's picture

Get rid of title9. Women's sports suck.

Is it Saturday Yet's picture

This is probably just a joke. But as someone with a daughter, a wife, a mother and friends and other relatives who are women, your comment sucks. Sports teach young people important lessons and provide them with great opportunity. Just because their skill level isn't up to par with the elite males in the country doesn't mean they are better than the vast majority of men out there. US women's soccer will also disagree. Sammy Prahalis probably ran over people who thought like you in lil' league football, and would probably do the same today. Even Craft made a rather nice comment aimed at Sammy being the number 1 PG at OSU..

DJ Byrnes's picture

I agree the original comment sucks but I do find great humor in people acting as if sports are the only vehicle for instilling a moral compass in kids. It's this kind of thinking which grows and manifests itself into situations like what happened at Penn State. It's what we get for talking about coaches having the "courage" to go for it on 4th down.

Sports are simply organized exercise activities done at certain levels for other people's entertainment. If you need to lean on them as a crutch to teach your kid(s) the proper way to live, then you're a shitty parent.

And to be clear, this isn't about men and women. This is about activities which earn their keep and those that don't. 

Californian by birth, Marionaire by the Grace of President Warren G. Harding.

Pam's picture

"This is about activities which earn their keep and those that don't."

Which has nothing to with why Title XI was enacted or why it would be scrapped.

jvd253's picture

The biggest hurdle to paying student athlestes (at least, paying them openly) has nothing to do with the ethics or merit, at least in my view.  If collegiate players are paid, the IRS may take the view that these programs are now for-profit ventures - and they must be taxed as such.  tOSU and most large programs bring in huge revenues, but would not be nearly as profitable if they weren't granted charitable status by the IRS.  I don't think we want to see 40,000 seats removed from the 'shoe to make room for luxury boxes or to have the pre-game Skull Session brought to us by Victoria's Secret, which is what tOSU would have to do to compete on the same economic platform as the Browns or Bungles.   And good luck paying student ticket prices if your starting QB is making $400,000 (payable in post-tax dollars). 

And what of issues regarding labor law, antitrust considerations for the universities, etc., which would only create a denser welter of issues?  What if the tOSU roster, or NCAA football players at large, only feel(s) it's reasonable to put their bodies through 8 games a season rather than 12?  Paying players could very well bring along with it the same labor strife we just witnessed with the NFL and NFLPA, which is fine from the perspective of the athlete, but perhaps not the audiance.  And how would these salary payments be made?  Would a Trent Richardson be able to command a higher salary than a Joe Bauserman?  If the answer is yes, would Richardson be allowed to follow the highest offer mid-season or be able to transfer after every year?  If the answer is no, the number of collegiate football teams economically able to compete at the highest level would dwindle precipitously, as many DI football programs actually operate nearly in the red without any mandated payrolls to meet. 

The upshot is that paying collegiate athletes would transform college football into a minor-league system to the NFL, which is not inherently a bad thing.  But why then maintain the facade of being associated with the sponsoring universities?  Yes, many, many people would continue to watch the Columbus Buckeys play the Ann Arbor Wolverines, but I think the majority would prefer the status quo.  For most graduates, especially those who don't live in the same city as their alma mater, watching athletics is one of the few avenues to maintain a feeling of connection with the university and serves as an impetus to contribute monetarily. 

Yes, college players may "deserve" to be paid.  But paying them will have unforseeable ramifications, many of which may not be desirable. 

"A guy from Ohio can make it in life if he works hard enough." - Wayne Woodrow Hayes

Maestro's picture

Excellent post............can of worms-ish.

vacuuming sucks

Run_Fido_Run's picture

This is an excellent comment partly because you delve into some of the possible real world complications, difficulties, and unintended consequences of making student athletes (in the revenue-positive sports) employees of the university. In contrast, the proponents of Title IX tend only to point out what that measure was intended to do (rememedy sexual discrimination, etc.), while assuming the moral high road, without unraveling how Title IX functions (or dysfunctions) in reality.

No question in my mind, we should end Title IX and the larger schools/conferences should step away from the NCAA and form a more sensible rules making body; but the matter of paying fball/bball stduent athletes as employees - with variable (negotiable) compensation packages - rather than simply significantly enhancing the scholarship packages across the board for all fball/bball athletes is a difficult question.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

And, finally, thanks DJ for having the blog-courage to raise this very important but politically-charged issue.  

SouthernBuck's picture

Bare with me here:   Let's pretend the athletes in each different sport represent different occupations. ie. Football players=Doctors(haha), Golfers=Teachers, Field Hockey Players=Admin Asst. etc. 

Our society doesn't pay doctors, teachers, and administrative assistants the same.  Why?  Because each require a certain skill set.  There aren't nearly as many people in this world with the smarts/skills to get through med school.  Does this mean doctors are better people than teachers? No, but because of a doctors specific skill set, he/she makes more money. 

College footballers are like society's doctors.  Not everyone can do it.  Not everyone can play golf or field hockey either but footballers have a particular set of skills that appeal to more of us than the set of skills required to play field hockey. (insert joke here)   

Sorry for the rant.

Maestro's picture

and doctors pay serious dues and graduate with literally sh*t tons of debt.

vacuuming sucks

NW Buckeye's picture

Not to mention the hours upon hours spent at zero or minimal wage.  I know, my niece is just completing residency and has basically been a starving college student for 10+ years.  Has a nice pile of debt to carry forward, and is thrilled to have the opportunity to be a doc. 

Maestro's picture

Zero to minimal wage while earning money for the hospital that they are learning at.  Obviously the comparison is a reach, but the point of paying dues isn't a reach.  It's actually very appropriate IMHO.  

There is a level of acumen that any professional needs to acquire through learning, maturing physically and mentally, and honing their skills.  For most of us that is what college is for and I include college athletes in "most of us".

vacuuming sucks

DJ Byrnes's picture

Nobody pays to watch med students study. Nobody wears their jersey. There aren't billion dollar TV contracts (of which they are the SOLE entertainers) floating around their sport. 

Also, while rare in football, I assume to risk for paralyzation is even rarer in medical school.

Californian by birth, Marionaire by the Grace of President Warren G. Harding.

osukdawg76's picture

Allow me to share a story on this.

Some time ago, I was asked to be an assistant in a class on campus that focused on highly controversial topics, one of which was Title IX.  The class was two hours and we basically spent it by splitting up the people who were for it and against it into sections and allowed them to come up with their own reasons as to why it should or should not be abolished.

 

Needless to say, the class got out of hand on several occasions.  Many choice words were used when certain arguments didn't make any sense or were flat out emotion driven.  There were two girls there who had full scholarships that painted a picture of a very sob story about how they had to work so hard to get their athletic scholarship.  I have no doubt that it was, but the way they hammed it up was pretty pathetic.

 

Towards the end of the class, there was one student who hadn't spoken a word throughout the entire debate.  He was sitting on the side that was against Title IX, but he kept quiet.  I actually called on him and asked him why he hadn't said anything.  He nodded to me, stood up, and proceeded to walk around the room, handing out these forms that looked like catalogs.  I cannot for the life of me remember what sport he was involved in, but he was handing out fundraising sheets, essentially.  He got to the two girls that painted their sad story last.  One of them had the nerve to cop an attitude with him.

 

"What the hell is this that you're giving me?  I don't want this."

 

He took a deep breath and let it all out.

 

"You think you have it hard being on scholarship?  I'm on a partial scholarship, one that I'm going to lose most likely unless my teammates can help raise money to save our sport.  You know why we have to raise the money?  BECAUSE OF YOUR FUCKING TITLE NINE!"

 

Class ended at that point.

I, for one, welcome our new coaching overlords.

 

 

Bucksfan's picture

Great to know Ohio State athletic scholarships are going to kids of such high character and mature perspective (sigh for both sides of your debate).

BrewstersMillions's picture

Oh come on man. This is a charged topic and people get emotional about it, especially those directly involved in it like the students in the story here. More over, save your snide remarks for someone other than college kids. It must be scary all the way up there on your high horse.

4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off

osukdawg76's picture

Well, the way the two girls went about it wasn't the best way, I'll admit to that because they were quite bitchy throughout the class the moment someone attacked Title IX, saying that they were directly attacking them and didn't care about female athletics.

 

But, you're right.  This topic is very emotionally charged and rarely, if ever, ends well when there is a heated debate.  It's almost as bad as getting involved in an argument regarding religion or politics.

I, for one, welcome our new coaching overlords.

 

 

BrewstersMillions's picture

And that's the problem when dealing with discussions of race, gender, religion, what have you. If you take a stand against something you are deemed racist\sexist\religionis (word?) and that's generally not the case at all. I'm not anti Title IX because I'm anti-women. I'm anti-Title IX because it has more than served its purpose and is in need of a serious over haul.

4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off

Bucksfan's picture

It only looks like I'm on a high horse because the bar on this thread has been set so low.

baddogmaine's picture

Whine, whine, whine. Every law that has ever helped *someone else* get something that *i* wanted has been unfair. Title IX was and remains  necessary because left to their own the Good Old Boys who control almost every institution bigger than a glee club would still keep girls barefoot in the kitchen. In this country of freedom and equality women have no constitutional right to be treated as equals - the only right women have comes out of laws such as Title IX. Look at the US Constitition if you don't believe me. Even with the laws women earn less, get hired and promoted less, get less of so many things that men take for granted.  We have laws because humans are selfish. We have Title IX because without it few schools would offer much of anything for women.

Every student should shop for a school the way you shop for a cell phone plan. You want free minutes? you buy one plan. You want faster service? you buy a different plan. You want other bells and whistles? you buy plan #3. You want cheapest? well there you go. No one forces anyone to go to Ohio State, or anyplace else. If you know that you want to play a particular sport at a varsity level then go to a school that offers that sport. You need an athletic scholarship for that sport? go to a school that offers you one. If varsity curling is more important than learning skills you might need to go pro in after college then you're going to be unemplpyed or underemployed for the rest of your life. On the other hand, if getting skills and connections in something you might actually be able to make a living in is more important than shariong showers with other men then find a school with good prpgrams that interest you and enough athletics to help you work off your beer gut. Those are all your choices.

You want unfair? How about kids who go to bed hungry and/or have to get jobs right away to buy food anbd can't get through high school.  How about the huge numbers of public schools thar are so underfunded that they can't teach the students who do want to learn. How about the real world for huge numbers of people with more pressing concerns than a Buckeye blog.

You want unfair? How about the large numbers of public colleges committed to Div 1 football even though they lose tons of money fielding it? money that could go to basic education for all.

Backlash against men? Whine, whine, whine. There are few demagraphics on the face of the earth more priviledged than white American men. Get a clue.

btalbert25's picture

+ eleventy billion

BrewstersMillions's picture

So because someone is part of a 'privileged demographic', litigation that negatively affects them is ok? That's pretty presumptuous as well to assume all white men are privileged. I don't consider myself privileged but I'm a white guy so by your metric, I'm privileged?

What is it you are even saying here?

4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off

William's picture

Yeah what you've said makes no sense. So because I'm a white male, an act that could prevent me from getting into a school that I do qualify for academically, is fair and just because it could provide a spot to someone of a minority group who may be less qualified than I am, but because they are of a minority group that makes it just? Umm no it doesn't. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this folks. Ever heard of Regents of University of California vs. Bakke?

edit: didn't mean to post this in response to Breswter'sMillions

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

Very true William.

Let me let everyone in on a dirty little secret: there is no "equal opportunity in education". If there was, there'd be no need for standardized tests or academic records upon applying to a college. And THAT is why this whole thing is bogus to begin with.

baddogmaine's picture

Oh for goodness sake, this isn't afiormative action. Bakke has zero to do with this situation. Title IX has nothing at all to do wth whether you get into school or not. It says you you are not going to get the 973rd athletic scholarship given to a guy unless the school gives the same number to women. It is precisely because this has to be explained to supposedly intelligent, informed people that such laws are necessary - because if left to the Williams of the world it's survival of the most popular or marketable which might be consistent with the absence of explicit equality in the Constitution but in clear violation of the preamble. For those Bakke-loving lawyers in this blog.

 

 

 

William's picture

So the elimination of over 1,216 men's varsity programs in the past 15 years to comply with the ridiculous mandates in Title IX is just? Tell that to those men that lost their scholarships, and had their programs cut.

Bucksfan's picture

By that same argument, you could defend the rights of slave owners in the south in the 1850s, who lost their workforce due to civil rights.  What about them, right?  They lost their livelihood, right?

Wiliam, Title IX may have decreased the # of scholarships for men and men's sports.  But men's sports, both in # and in participation is HIGHER than women.  And it's not just a little bit higher.  60% of all collegiate sports participants are men.  60-40, William.  Men still have the advantage at going to college to play sports.

The overall education of PEOPLE by sports scholarships continues to rise.  Just because the men vs. women demographic is becoming more equal in college sports doesn't mean opportunitiy is being denied to PEOPLE as a whole.  And it still has a long way to go.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

"By that same argument, you could defend the rights of slave owners"

 

Strawman.... No... because no man has the right to own another man. That would violate that man's right natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Owning another man is not a civil right. You have rights inasmuch as they do not harm anyone or violate anyone else's rights. Owning another man is a clear violation of another man's rights, therefore it cannot be a right to own another man.

And the argument of the day was whether or not blacks were people (yes, its disgusting and racist, but Southerners did not believe blacks were actually people). If they were indeed people, they would be deserving of rights. Once society woke up and recognized that, yes, slaves are indeed people too and thus deserving of rights, the abolitionist movement grew and ultimately brought down the institution of slavery.

People get this wrong just like abortion. It's not a question of whether or not a fetus is alive. By all biological definitions (cellular mitosis and all that good stuff), it certainly is. The question if whether or not a fetus is a person and thus deserving of rights. That's the philosophical debate. There are questions of what defines a person (conciousness, awareness, communication, physical/biological dependency, etc) that are debated in regards to the debate, and it's certainly an interesting one in which I can see both sides (but I won't get into where I come down on that debate). But instead of debating the philosophical point, you have a bunch of Religious nuts (God says so!) and "Women's Rights" activists (It's our body!) going around and building strawmen to detract from the real philosophical debate, kind of like this one concerning Title IX!

BrewstersMillions's picture

Oh for God sakes Bucksfan. Really? That's the comparison you draw? You and I and William and everyone else knows damned well this isn't the same as slave owners in the 1850's. Men and Women playing sports and getting oppurtinities isn't the same as people owning other people. Get over yourself.

 

60\40. This might be a stretch here but is there anyone out there that thinks MAYBE, just MAYBE there are more male athletes at the collegiate level because there are more male athletes at the high school level? And maybe there are more male athletes at the high school level because sports tends to draw more men to it than women? Maybe there is such a discrepency because more males want to play sport than women and as the talent bottle neck tightens, more men ultimatley end up playing collegiate sports because there are simply more male participants? I know, its a huge stretch to think thats the case. Clearly it has to be sexism that creates that gap. Nothing else...like sheer numbers.

4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off

William's picture

Please stop making sense. Just because there are more male participants in high school athletics obviously doesn't mean there should be more male athletic scholarships and programs on the collegiate level. Instead we should retroactively cut scholarships, eliminate programs, and then make room for athletic programs for women, many of which don't even meet their quotas for the amount of scholarships they are allowed. (Ohio State and Clemson Women's Crew teams) It would make too much sense to keep those men's programs, as well as accomodate for the women's programs.  

Bucksfan's picture

Yes, really.  William wrote a comment in defense of those who have "lost" something as reason to oppose Title IX.  Title IX protects civil rights to a demographic.  William is not taking into account those who were "oppressed," for lack of a better term, before Title IX was enacted.  His argument sounds exactly like what southern slave owners said when they were threatened by legislation that gave equal rights to blacks.  If that's not what he means, then maybe he should re-think what he's really saying.

60/40 is not a stretch. It's actually what it is. http://www.aauw.org/act/laf/library/athleticStatistics.cfm

Yeah, there still are more male high school athletes than women.  But if you look at the statistics from around the time Title IX was enacted, there simply weren't any female sports at the high school level!  That's not because they didn't want them.  The increase in female participation in athletics in high school has soared almost 1000%.  It's almost on par with men, but still less.

So, your notion that there's "less" is true, but it is still a product of an era that Title IX was enacted to reverse.

baddogmaine's picture

And what were you telling the women who had had no scholarships at all before Title IX? What Title IX sys is that not every man who wants an athletic scholarship is going to get one. Why is that hard to live with? Not every woman does either - in a world with not enough pie to feed everyone as much as (s)he wants some get less than they want and some get much less than they want, but all are in the running. You want more scholarships for all? work to end a multi-trillion dollar war in the Middle East and reinstitute inheritance taxes.

All over the country schools are cutting theater programs, the arts, labs for science classes. Schools are cutting need-based scholarships. Athlees are not the only ones losing out. Most of us are losing out, as 40% of the country's wealth is in the hands of 1%.

What William doesn't say is that a lot of the programs cut were at lower division schols that didn't offer athletic scholarships anyway. His argument isn't about getting into school, it's about being able to play a fun but unimportant sport at the school one happens to be at. You want to play lacrosse and your school cut the program? transfer to a school that has it. Just as I, interested in a particular kind of sculpting, might have to go somplace else if my school decides to not offer it anymore.

It's a cruel unfair world William. What is bothering you is that the cruelty has become a bit more fairly distributed than you would like.

baddogmaine's picture

Yes you are priviledged. You are much less likely to be stopped by police just because of the color of your skin. If you are arrested you are less likely to be convicted. If convicted less likely to be jailed. And if tried for murder much much less likely to be sentenced to death. You are much less likely to be followed by store security because of the color of your skin. You are much less likely to get turned down for jobs you are qualified for just because of the color of your skin. Oh sure, everyone has an anecdote but on a daily basis white men have it made.

What litigation against white men is anyone talking about, nevertheless saying is OK? I am saying that schools can shut down sports teams tht are just for men. Men lacrosse players may find less of interest at some schools than at others. But at every school in the country men - as a group - have at least as many athletic oppprtunities as do women. How is this discriminating against men?

Run_Fido_Run's picture

"Whine, whine whine [about something being unfair" . . . isn't that why Title IX was enacted in the first place?

You also wrote: "Title IX was and remains necessary because left to their own the Good Old Boys who control almost every institution bigger than a glee club would still keep girls barefoot in the kitchen." So, you're suggesting that Title IX, itself, was a necesary and therefore integral factor in changing sexual roles in Western societies? Strangely enough, the numbers of barefoot girls in the kitchen had already dwindled down very considerably in the decades before Title IX appeared in the early 1970s. 

Women do have a consitutional right to be treated equally in the United States, as the Constution has been amended 27 times. Believe it or not, women managed to achieve tremendous gains in American history between 1789 and the introduction of Title IX.

I couldn't make any sense out the last four paragraphs of your comment.

Pam's picture

"Strangely enough, the numbers of barefoot girls in the kitchen had already dwindled down very considerably in the decades before Title IX appeared in the early 1970s. "

The 50's and 60's? Good grief, watch Mad Men if you want to get an accurate portrayal of how women were treated back then.  I already know since I lived it.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Pam, you're citing a fictionalized drama as an historical source? Cool enough. A couple quick points:

Just to clarify the logic (the following numbers are not intended to reflect the actual numbers by any means): If 70-percent of women between the ages of 18 and 25 were "barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen" in 1950; but twenty years later, only 50-percent of that demographic fell into that category, would we attribute any of that shift to the enactment of Title IX?

I certainly can't speak for you, but dozens of women in my family had cast aside the barefoot and pregnant yoke long before the early 1970s rolled around.

Pam's picture

Yes, it is a very accurate portrayal of the that time.  As I said, I know that because I lived it. 

Run_Fido_Run's picture

You're ducking the (main) question again: if the types of stereotyipcal gender roles as portrayed in Mad Men (barefoot and pregrant) had decreased in frequency among women between the ages of 18-25 in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, would we attribute any of that shift to Title IX?

Since you might not answer, I'll save us some time: obviously, it's impossible for legislation that was enacted in 1973 to have had an impact on shifting gender roles in the 40s, 50s, 60s.

I thought that was a fairly straightforward, non-controversial point. If we can agree on it, we can move on to the next step.

Bucksfan's picture

She wasn't saying that, Fido.  She was saying for you to look at a portrayal how women were TREATED.  As in, treated at home and IN THE WORKPLACE.  And by treated in the workplace, I'm saying treated as objects in their secretarial, low glass ceiling jobs.  One of the themes of the show was the advancement of one of the female characters beyond a secretarial role...illustrating the gender revolution of the 1960s.  If things were hunky dory in the 1950's and 1960s regarding the treatment of women, why wasn't the first NCAA women's volleyball championship played in 1950 instead of 1981?

Run_Fido_Run's picture

I'm glad that you responded, thanks Bucksfan. Okay, I already sort of knew how some women were treated in the past - and I agree . . . 

Women made tremendous progress in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, before Title IX (and when men stood in their ways, they forced men to make some progress, too). What reasons do we have to believe that Title IX was much of factor at all in the continuation of trends that were well underway prior to its enactment.

Women first participated in the 1900 Paris Olympic games. The history of womens sports in first half of the 20th century is illustrious. When women ran into obstacles, they tried to, and often succeeded in, busting them down. The trend toward increased physical activity in general and sports participation in particular among women was on a steady positive arc before Title IX. In some respects, it's almost selling pre-Title IX women athletes short by suggesting that they needed Big Government to make opportunities for them.

For purposes of my argument, the positive contribution of Title IX might very well be a drop in the bucket, for all we know. But since it was enacted with good intentions, people simply assume it was effective. So, please trace for the cause-and-effect of Title IX --> female empowerment.    

Pam's picture

In those hunky dory days, "stewardesses" were automatically fired at age 30. Women could legally be asked if they were married, pregnant, planning to become pregnant and how old they were in job interviews. My mom couldn't get a credit card in in own name. She was turned down for a mortgage because she was divorced and yes, they actually told her that without a husband to support her (she ahd a job!) they couldn't take the chance.  I remember her sitting in the car with her head on the steering wheel sobbing.  Mad Men nails it.

BrewstersMillions's picture

And in that world, where most anyone would be ashamed to have played a part in, title IX and similar litigation makes sense. Am I so naive to think we have come a little farther as a people that stuff like that would not happen anymore with or without litigation saying it can or can not happen? The sob stories you give are examples of an era where entire mindests and psyches were shaped by people who thought those things were right. Do sexists or racists or biggots still exist? Of course. That sort of backward thinking will never die. Are things that way anymore? You tell me. I can assure you no women has gotten denied a credit card or mortgage because she doesn't have a man around in the last few decades. So times change. Laws change with the times. This edict (T9) isn't an ageless one because the evils is sought to root out are not nearly as prevelent as they were in the past. People are still stupid, that won't ever go away but stuff that happened to you or your mother just doesn't happen any more Pam.

4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off

Bucksfan's picture

Am I so naive to think we have come a little farther as a people that stuff like that would not happen anymore with or without litigation saying it can or can not happen?

Uh, have you read DJ's article or any of the messages on this thread?!  Jeez, Louise!

BrewstersMillions's picture

Oh so Pam's examples of women getting mortgages and credit cards declined (the one's I'm asking about because of the one's she is talking about) still happen? Come on son.

4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off

Bucksfan's picture

I'm saying if you don't enact legislation making those kinds of things illegal, then YES...son!

BrewstersMillions's picture

Well I guess I have a more progressive opinion about where we are as a people then.

4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off

Bucksfan's picture

No, you said it yourself...naive.

BrewstersMillions's picture

Eloquent in its brevity.

4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off

Pam's picture

You have a more progressive opinion because you have no context. For you it has always been this way. You can't know how far you've come without knowing where you started. Fair credit laws are the status quo NOW and how business is done. You can't possibly imagine a scenario where a bank would tell a woman she couldn't get a loan simply because she was a woman. Thank God. The benefit of great social change is seeing the next generation accept it as the way things are.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

You obviously don't understand capitalism. A lender is going to lend money to anyone with a high probability of being able to pay it back. It doesn't matter if they're black, white, green, yellow, male, female, transgender, gay, straight, christian, muslim, jew, atheist, etc, etc.. That's how lenders make money. The more people they can lend to with a high probability of paying the money back, the richer they become.

Bucksfan's picture

The more you tell me I don't understand something, the more I'm encouraged that I definitely understand it.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

Here's the thing. I know you're wrong. Why? Because if such laws were repealed, and banks really were turning down women for mortgages and credit cards on the basis of their being female, then I would open my own lending firm and lend to them. So you're wrong.

Bucksfan's picture

Great.  Good luck.

Pam's picture

My mother had a JOB. She was denied a mortgage because they didn't think she could pay it back without a husband. That is not capitalism. That is discrimination based on sex. They had no other reason to deny her. And now thankfully, they can't which is why I have owned two homes since my divorce and why I cried at the closings remembering my mom in the car.

BrewstersMillions's picture

Yep, we've resorted to tear jerking memory stories to make our points. I look forward to this thread in December on the 11W 12 days of 11W feature for 2012. This one stirred up a hornets nest.

 

Good day folks.

4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off

Pam's picture

And the tear jerking stories about the thousands upon thousands of male being denied an athletic scholarship are NOT to make a point?

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

"they didn't think she could pay it back without a husband"

And there it is. They didn't think her income would be sufficient. Seems more like an economic reason than a case of gender discrimination. You think people are cold enough to deny themselves an opportunity to make money just because they don't like women? In a society as greedy as ours, no businessman is going to turn down an opportunity to make a buck. I'm not denying that some of this discrimination probably occured 60-70 years ago, but it certainly did not happen from the 1980's onward, and it certainly would not happen today even in the absence of protective legislation, and whether or not protective legislation is the reason for this no longer occuring is highly doubtful.

Bucksfan's picture

You need a course on "cause and effect."

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

You need lessons in reason and logic, as well as money and banking.

IF, a person can't get a mortgage, THEN it obviously means the banks hate that person. It can't possibly have anything to do with their credit rating, income, debt/equity ratio, or the amount of the mortgage they request.

SINCE the banks hate certain people, let's enact a law making sure pretty much anyone can get a mortgage!

 

Fast-forward to 2008..... DERP!

Bucksfan's picture

Again, a course on "cause and effect" would do you well.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

And what is with your reliance on legislation to cure all social ills of society? Even if there were no laws saying you can't deny someone a credit card on the basis of sex, and you really think that women won't be able to get credit cards or mortgages, then you can rectify the situation by starting your own lending firm. You'll have an entire segment of the market cornered (women) and you'll make money hand over fist.

Bucksfan's picture

And what is with your reliance on the market to cure all social inequalities?  The market doesn't make black people white, it doesn't make women men, it doesn't turn Jews into Christians, it doesn't make gay people straight.  The market doesn't stop oppression.  It enhances it.

William's picture

Please tell anyone who has moved from Eastern Europe to the United States that free market methods, and capitalism enhance oppression. That's one of the dumbest statements I've ever seen, and several statements that I have made are pretty damn dumb.

Bucksfan's picture

Well, add another one to your own list.

William's picture

You seriously believe that free market principles lead to more oppression than command economy principles? 

Bucksfan's picture

If you use race, sex, sexual orientation, or creed as the basis behind which you hire or don't hire, you give a loan or don't give a loan, you sell a house or don't sell a house, then YES.  And it really wasn't that long ago when that was happening.  The only thing keeping it from happening is the threat of lawsuits.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

You really think people refused to do business with women before protective legislation simply because they were women?

You believe businessmen would deny doing business with such a large segment of the population? Ever heard of "soap operas"? Do you know how they came about?

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

"The market doesn't stop oppression.  It enhances it."

Really? So why was Jackie Robsinson broke the color barrier decades before Civil Rights Legislation? Hint: because he was one of the best at what he did. Branch Rickey wanted to win, and Jackie could help him do that. Did people not eat peanut butter just because it's inventor was black? Did building designers refuse to use Alexander Miles' automatic elevator system in their building designs because he was black?

Bucksfan's picture

Did Jackie Robinson's career in the Majors keep Rosa Parks from sitting in the front seats of busses?  Oh, I didn't realize he was THAT important!  Wow, you really showed me!

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

No... Jim Crow laws are what made it illegal for Miss Parks to sit in the front anyway. Jim Crow laws were passed by legislators and enforced by local governments.

Bucksfan's picture

There's only one way to undo a law.  That's with another law.  Which is what happened.  Cause. Effect.  Take a course.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

So government should get credit for solving problems created by government?

Sweet. I'm going to set my house on fire and then everyone can give me credit after I put it out. I just hope they don't remember that I'm the one who started it in the first place.

Bucksfan's picture

No, this isn't a matter of credit.  The voters enacted those laws.  This is a democracy.  You blame "government" but the government and the laws are made by the "market participants," i.e. the voters.

Pam's picture

It doesn't happen anymore because it is illegal.

William's picture

Pam, his point is that you don't need such archaic legislation anymore. It doesn't happen now because it limits the profits of the bank. The way you and Bucksfan speak about our society, its as if you have no hope for any social progress unless it is enforced through legislation. It's a shame that we can no longer expect people to be fair and equitable in our society, and ony believe that equality can now in the 21st century be achieved through such archaic legislation as Title IX.

Bucksfan's picture

If you are gay, you can get a marriage license in how many states?  There is a 5-10% population demographic that could be added to the markets of weddings, divorce, parenting, home-owning, health care, and everything in between.  There is lots of money in gay marriage.  Why is it still illegal in so many places?

Equal rights legislation isn't archaic.  That's because the market doesn't solve everything as you and EgoBuckeye like to believe.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

Laws banning gay marriage aren't "the market" dummy. That's the government. The government in many states has banned gay marriage, not the market. In a purely free market society, marriage would be a completely private contract between two individuals absent any interference from government (like a business contract).

Bucksfan's picture

First of all, the VOTERS passed those laws, not the legislators.  But according to you, the market will ALWAYS act in accordance with what makes money.  Gay marriage will make a lot of people a lot of money.  

If voters are the participants in a market, why would they ever pass a rule to limit themselves from making money in that market?  Hmm...

Point is...the market didn't solve the problem of discrimination against gays.  It actually didn't really play the role that you think it should have.  Your solution to society's problems is flawed.  Accept it.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

You're missing the point. The voters passed those laws, yes, but once it's a law, it is enforced by government. Government is not the market. If you have to pass a law preventing something, then by definition you are admitting that it would happen if people were allowed to do it. The fact that a law was passed to prevent it is an admission that it would indeed happen in the absence of government interference (i.e. the free market).

Bucksfan's picture

I figured out your problem.  You don't want to live in modern America.  You want to live alone by a river and trade spices with boats that are hand-made of reeds that float by.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

Last post. I'm done with you. I've successfully refuted everything you've said and yet you continue to prove to me that you don't get it. You don't seem to understand the difference between law/government and the market. Markets exist in the absence of government. If a law must be made banning something, then it's an outright admission that such a thing would happen in the absence of government. That's why drugs are illegal. And even though they are illegal, there's still a market for them.

Bucksfan's picture

And there's still a market for men's college football and men's college basketball in spite of Title IX.  And in spite of Title IX, they are more popular than ever in the history of either sport, make more money than ever in the history of either sport, and fund more scholarships for PEOPLE (not just men, but women), than ever before.  So, Title IX did nothing to impinge the market that makes ALL college sports possible as far as anyone can tell.

Bucksfan's picture

The fact that a law was passed to prevent it is an admission that it would indeed happen in the absence of government interference (i.e. the free market).

Then you'd have to agree that if you didn't pass Title IX, men would even further continue to dominate the amount of free education sponsored by federal funding given to students, which would thereby continue to stratify men and women, and that you'd actually need a law to prevent that from happening because the market is pointing you in a direction opposite of equal rights.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Pam, I don't want to get in trouble here by asking about your age. But your mom had those experiences in what decade - the 50s, 60s? Title IX was enacted in 1973 and didn't really get into full swing until a few years after that. Society in general and sexual rights/roles in particular were undergoing major shifts in the postwar decades - Title IX gets how much credit for those shifts?

baddogmaine's picture

We can debate many things but constitiutional protection for women is not one of them. An Equal Rights Amendment was circulated in the 1970s and failed. Women are better off now than they were 100 years ago, but all of that is statute-based, not constitutional; and because of loopholes and intentional disregard for the law women remain second class in almost every way status can be measured. Give me one reason why you, a male (I presume) would rather be a woman for the rest of your life.

What Martin Luther King said 40 years ago remains true today: we can not make others like us but we can stop them from hurting us. Probably little I say here will make any misogynist care any more about the plight of women, but I can and will defend the laws that try to level the playing field in a world of men demanding special treatment. Demanding what is not available to women is special treatment.

You can twist the world all you want but white American men have been and will remain one of the most priviledged demagraphics on the planet. White American men don't need Title IX - they need a lesson in reality.

FYI, I am a white American male. So find something other than racism or misogyny to throw at me.

Bucksfan's picture

Demanding what is not available to women is special treatment.

Game, set, match.

BrewstersMillions's picture

Are you accusing someone HERE of being a Misogynist? I have a feeling you are since you said " Probably little I say here will make any misogynist care any more about the plight of women, but I can and will defend the laws that try to level the playing field in a world of men demanding special treatment" and people who oppose your point of view are, well, HERE. If my hypothesis holds true, and you are in fact saying what I think you are saying, you have resorted to the proverbial 'race card' in an argument-I disagree with Title IX, therefore I am a sexist pig. If I'm right, and I hope I'm not, I bid you good day sir as I can not continue to engage you in a conversation when you resort to tactics such as those.

Again, I'm asking if your accusing someone on this forum of being a misogynist, not assuming that you are.

4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Has anyone thrown "racism or misogyny" at you? Please cite examples.

In the year 2012, women are second-class citizens - are you for real? In an age when college enrollment is 55+ percent female? When the current male unemployment rate is roughly two percentrage points higher than the female unemployment rate? When proper adjustments are made (comparing apples to apples) female employment salaries have reached parity (if not exceeded) male salaries. 

Women have long been treated equally under the Constitution. I think what you're getting at is that you think men are creeps (where have we heard that before?), that constitutional equality is not enough to achieve the "equity" that you believe is appropriate; hence, it is necessary to pass statutes to compel men to do things like allow women to join previously male-only social clubs, etc.?

Btw, it does not help your argument whatsoever to interject race into it.  

Bucksfan's picture

Women only earn about 77 cents on the dollar compared to men.

We're talking college athletic participation.  Spending on men's collegiate sports is still higher than women, despite Title IX, and of all college athletes, 60% are men, even though 60% of all college students are women...again, despite Title IX.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Bucksfan, I was responding to the commenter above who stated that women were "second class" citizens. When you compare like job/experience/hours-worked/etc. to like job/experience/hours-worked/etc., studies show that women earn roughly the same as men. But, yes, a male construction worker, who logs 52 hours a week, will make more than a female part-time clerk at Target.

College athletes > college athletes on scholarship. A school with 60/40 male/female ratio for athletic scholarships would be in deep trouble - you know, because of Title IX. For example, self-funded club sports is another matter.

Pam's picture

Roughly is not the same as equal. Why are you comparing a full time skilled laborer to a part time retail employee? That doesn't  make sense. How about comparing what a FEMALE skilled laborer makes to the the male skilled laborer?

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Thanks, Pam, yes that was my point: compare a female skilled laborer to a male skilled laborer, both working the same hours with the same levels of experiences, etc. (apples to apples comparison) and the will make the same amount.

When you see headlines that scream "Women make only 77 cents on the dollar comared to men!" it's because they're taking every male and female in the workforce and treating them all as the same. Well, men tend to work longer hours and/or are less likely to take off extended time for leave (e.g., childbirth), take more dangerous jobs, not be teachers and social workers (just kidding), etc. It's a tremendous sign of social progress that men and women earn the same for the same types of work now.

baddogmaine's picture

First of all studies show beyond question that when jobs are not covered by laws outlawing disparate treament women are paid less for the same work on average. Second, women are frequesntly not hired for jobs considered "male." Third, women are not promoted when men in their situation are.

What does a professional woman baskeball player make? What does a professional woman soccer player make? Until recently prize money at tennis majors was less for women than men. Women in the workforce are not treated equally as men and there really is no credible argument otherwise,

 

 

Run_Fido_Run's picture

1. The studies to which you refer do not "show" any such thing. 2. Men are sometimes not hired for jobs considered "female" and/or by female-run firms/organizations that hire mostly women and, at this point, with male unemployment around 2 percentage points higher than female unemployment, I wouldn't assume that this phenomenon is much less rare than what you describe. 3. Apples to apples, women are promoted just as rapidly as are men, if not even faster (e.g., single male "workaholic" in his late twenties v. single-female workaholic in her late twenties; it's a blessing in our economy that many women choose to step in and out of the workforce to give birth and care for infants, but such factors do effect rates of promotion and appropriately so). 

Pro female basketball players are not doing the same job as pro male basketball players; same in soccer. A female banker is doing the same job as a male banker. Did I need explain?

Your arguments are the ones that are not credible, but if you must subscribe to myths, so be it.  

baddogmaine's picture

Believe what you want. Name one "female" job other than stripper or prostitute that pays more than a "male" job. Denying the glass ceiling in emplyment for women is like denying climate change. Your statements about professional sports are bizarre if not delusional. As Shakespeare put it: you doth protest too much. The data is what it is, and that people pretend otherwise is why Title IX is necessary. If you are opposed to Title IX the best thing you could do for your cause is get universities to voluntarily provide in the university environment the equality that is lacking in the employment marketplace. How we could measure voluntary compliance in the face of the mandatory requirements of Title IX is admittedly problematic, but the more people sound like Gordon Gee the more certain it is that Title IX will remain necessary.

Bucksfan's picture

When you compare like job/experience/hours-worked/etc. to like job/experience/hours-worked/etc., studies show that women earn roughly the same as men. But, yes, a male construction worker, who logs 52 hours a week, will make more than a female part-time clerk at Target.

WOW, just WOW.  Read different books.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

I did. I read the methodologically rigorous studies/books. I'll leave you to the methodologically flawed "studies" that were written to promote political agendas.

Bucksfan's picture

Fine, don't read different books.  Read more books.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

I've forgotten about more books that I once read than you've read books in toto. I've even read some of the major works in feminist theory. I'm very familiar with your arguments - they're just weak.   

Run_Fido_Run's picture

Seriously, Pam? I need to read more and different kinds of books? Because I'm sure you're better educated than I am? Please explain.  

William's picture

Fido, just stop. They're going to remain stalwart in their archaic views. You can't even reason wth some people who believe that a command economy doesn't oppress more than a free market does. 

baddogmaine's picture

 

 

Women have long been treated equally under the Constitution.

 

 

No they're not! That people know so little about our Constitution is approaching terrifying! Women are NOT equal under the Constitution. Read it!!!!!

DJ Byrnes's picture

As a privileged white male (redundant, i know) in America who agrees with your post... it's not about any of this. It's about the money.

College sports isn't some church league where Randy and Suzy take their kid to make sure they grow up "well rounded." It's evolved into a multi-billion dollar business. There are countries receiving Federal tax dollars with less restrictions than Title-IX puts on schools. What right does anybody have to tell Ohio State what sports teams it wants to pay for?

It's especially shameful considering the kids risking their livelihoods the most, which they are given what we know about chronic football injuries now -- the kids playing BIG TIME FOOTBALL -- getting money taken from them for things like boathouses. Obviously, TITLE IX didn't single-handily create that boathouse, but it's at the bedrock the obstacle of any true, lasting reform which obviously needs to be brought into college football immediately.

It's something that came to be originally in 1972. How many things from 1972 are still rolling around today? 

Californian by birth, Marionaire by the Grace of President Warren G. Harding.

baddogmaine's picture

The Constitution is still around, though some peole such as John Yee think it is quaint. Just because a law is old doesn't  mean that it is wrong or redundent. I firmly support updating Title IX, to close the loopholes found by universitries trying to avoid it. But that it is not perfect does not mean that it is no longer needed.

In an informal way Ohio State is subject to "the social contract" which says that in exchange for being part of a society we choose to be a part of we give up the opportunity to completely define for ourselves our actions. In a more formal way Ohio State is part of a nation of laws. Few seriously rejects the concept of a rule of laws. The question is what principles underlie our laws. Equal opportunity is one I feel is a non-negotiable.

 

That sports is a multi-billion dolar business is why Title IX is needed. If all that is at stake is pennies then we might toss the coins in the air and not worry where they land. (Might.) With the amounts at stake - and with power brokers not ready to provide equal opportunity voluntarily - we need lws to ensure that resources get fairly distributed. There are countries with fewer laws than apply to Title iX. If you like your chances of living a happy life there then try it. It's not the number of laws, it's what they accomplish. In the US we have laws accomplishing equal opportunity for people who would not get it otherwise. Thank you Title IX.

If OSU feels that too many strings are attached to its athletic dollars it can put less into sports and more into academics. To that extent it is a free country. I will join with you in arguing that the NCAA is outdated and needs to be reformed. But that's another matter.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

I believe there's a pragmatic solution to this. Being a libertarian, I wish that Ohio State would have emulated Cornell and MIT by going private (they seem to be doing pretty well for themselves) thus preventing the government from being able to dictate what the school does, but things are what they are, and for better or worse, Ohio State is a public institution that must comply with the laws handed down from our masters. That being said, I would be completely okay with a law that stated the number of scholarships must be equal. If it is truly about education and equality of access to the student-athlete experience, then the number of scholarships should be of main concern, NOT the overall budget as it is interpreted now. I'd be completely ok with the number of scholarships being equal.

Bucksfan's picture

Cornell doesn't offer athletic scholarships.  MIT doesn't even have sports.

Bucksfan's picture

And regarding private schools.  It seems you have a misguided view of that, too.  Private schools aren't immune to Title IX.  That's because private schools, including Cornell, receive federal funding, too.  Additionally, being a private school wouldn't necessarily even change the university's mission to dedicate themselves to be a beacon of equality and morality.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Sept11/TitleIX.html

Seems Cornell feels the same way as I do.

TheHumbleBuckeye's picture

"wouldn't necessarily even change the university's mission to dedicate themselves to be a beacon of equality and morality."

Morality, eh? Now you're approaching the one subject upon which I will hang you by your own balls by the time we're done. You want to talk fairness and equality within the governmental sphere of influence, that's fine. You want to get into morality? Don't go there son.

Rules of morality 101: any action taken in which an individual party did not have a choice cannot be moral or immoral. You cannot have morality without choice.

Universities that adhere to Title IX are not moral or immoral. They are amoral, reactive to the rules, absent of any moral choice. They have to act in the manner they do due to the threat of force. The same goes for any individual following any sort of "positive law" in the United States. Funding welfare via your income taxes does not make you moral or immoral. You had no choice in the matter. It is an amoral action. Had you not paid your taxes, you would go to jail. You paid them by force.

You want to keep going dude?

 

Bucksfan's picture

The choice to give women access to the same opportunities as men is a moral choice.  That choice was made, whether it was by legislators, or by people who elected them...the fact remains that our society, as it's designed, chose in favor of women's rights.  It's not some sort of higher power where no one has a choice.  The decision was fully made by choice.

I can go indefinitely.  Can you?

Morality, eh? Now you're approaching the one subject upon which I will hang you by your own balls by the time we're done. You want to talk fairness and equality within the governmental sphere of influence, that's fine. You want to get into morality? Don't go there son.

Grow up.

baddogmaine's picture

Rules of morality 101: any action taken in which an individual party did not have a choice cannot be moral or immoral. You cannot have morality without choice.

So child pornography is not immoral because you had no choice in whether such laws were enacted or not? You are neither moral nor immoral in refraining from not stealing from your neighbor, you're just a helpless observer of laws? The reality is that each of us has a moral code, and it is based on fundamental personal beliefs, not laws. Observing laws might be part of our moral code, but our code is not defined by those laws.

For instance, my moral code says that in carrying on a non-personal discussion about an issue that I think is important to society I try to argue logically and not resort to name-calling (dude? son?) No law tells me to do that, just my own view of how the world will work best.

Universities, though not people (even if the United States Supreme Court thinks so), can have codes of conduct. Probably all do. Probably most most universities include in their codes treating women students equally as male students. If they enforced their codes they would be moral, according to your standards (and mine). By not enforcing their own self-adopted codes they are not moral. I'm not sure what your point is Humblebuckeye, I don't think you are defending it very well. Though if you'd like me to understand you please try again.

Denny's picture

This thread, OMG^max so much.

I like that you're going out on limbs, DJ. It's what WGMFH would want.

Taquitos.