Soccer Star Winces as Republican Slams Title IX

I think it is ok to just describe yourself as the "user". No need to get more descriptive than that.

Very nice .

Someone needs to teach me how to do the edited quotes, my intelligence hasn't evolved enough to figure that out! :/

From the San Jose Mercury News today:

...It was no liberal Democrat but Republican President Richard Nixon who signed Title IX into law in 1972. At the time, women were facing discrimination not only in athletics but also in classrooms. Women made up only 15 percent of intercollegiate athletes and 7.5 percent of high school athletes, and only 18 percent of female high school graduates earned bachelor's degrees.

Wharton economist Betsey Stevenson did a comprehensive study measuring the return on investment in high school girls sports. She found that girls who participated in sports earned, on average, 14 to 19 percent higher wages. Female athletes also have a significantly higher chance of going to college.

Girls who play sports have higher self-esteem, get better grades, are healthier and are less likely to get pregnant as teens. Sports are part of an education, and equal access to educational programs at tax-funded schools is a basic right. Saying that giving women this right is unfair to boys is like saying voting rights legislation was unfair to whites because all those new African-American voters diluted their influence.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_20657425/mercury-news-editorial-brandi-chastain-is-right-about

First off, I am so excited I have evolved enougth to figure out the smaller quote thing!

Second, one of the problems with this statement is the fact that it is not a civil right to play a collegiate sport. Many would argue voting is .

The irony of your attempted irony about tricky Dick is the fact that LBJ (DEM) would not have been successful in putting through the civil rights legislations without those racist Republicans.....

To be a real market, women’s soccer needs to pay players enough to be a job option - enough so parents are happy Suzy skipped college and went straight into pro soccer. That’s the case for all but a very few women’s sports (Tennis, Golf and maybe beach VB off the top of my head).

We are so far from that. When there is no market for something that is where the government gets involved, otherwise - they wouldn't need to.

It’s hard to apply market principles and civil rights principles to Title IX that is neither.

Title IX is something that came about for reasons that mostly no longer exist. Getting rid of it will be as easy as getting rid of most government programs.

I would say just the opposite. Title IX is all about civil rights. It is about trying to remedy a situation where a class of citizens attending tax-supported educational institutions was structurally and systematically denied the opportunities routinely offered another class of citizens attending those same institutions. How the heck else do you define civil rights?

And I would thoroughly agree with the analogy used in the San Jose Mercury News piece. Those who have enjoyed an exclusive privilege are of course going to feel that they have lost something when another group is also granted the same privilege and has to share the same limited resources. Duh!

Here's what Title IX says. It's short and direct:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal funding.

I'm 100% with Soccerhunter on this.

If schools or their supporters don't want to comply with this requirement, let them give up all their federal funding. Or, alternatively, let them give up sports altogether on the basis sports are not really about education for those schools, but instead are about entertainment. (The President of the University of Oregon, by the way, has agreed that "big time" college sports are about entertainment and are not about education.)

As Tiffeny Milbrett said in a speech at an event I attended the other night celebrating 40 years of Title IX, "All we're asking for is the opportunity to play." There is no legitimate reason why young men as a group should have a greater opportunity to play college sports than young women as a group, at federally funded schools. If a school decides to offer young men a different menu of sports to play than it offers to young women, but with each group as a whole having an equal opportunity, then some young men (including soccer players where a school doesn't have soccer) may have a complaint, but the only legitimate complaint is against the school's decision on which sports to offer young men.

Or, does someone want to defend the position that schools receiving federal funding should be able to discriminate against women in the schools' educational activities?

Which Grove City College (PA) did (and bully for them).

Particularly in D2/D3/NAIA schools that are tuition driven or public, you've got more than half your tuition money coming from women. Why shouldn't a woman paying $20k a year have the same access to athletic opportunity as a guy paying the same tuition? Why should HER tuition money disproportionately go to subsidize HIS educational experience? (and why should my/our tax dollars? is there some public advantage to it?)

The shocking thing about Title IX is that it's so limited.

How about a school, for example, like U of Texas who doesn't need to take any student fees etc from the univeristy and can operate solely on the revenues the receive. They could effectively eliminate any and all of the sports they want, including female sports. How would that go over?

As long as the school agrees not to take federal money, it would go over fine.

I don't think it would but that is just my opinion based on all the feedback that has been layed out on this thread.

Doesn't gender discrimination occur legally at same-sex schools? College and k-12?
I believe there are some privates that don't take federal funds exactly so they can discriminate (based on gender or religion). Isn't that part of the definition of being a "private school" or "private club" like Augusta....?
I think Title IX only strictly applies at schools taking public funds and by accepting Federal Loans, Pell Grants, Work-study funds, etc. most colleges are compelled to abide by this and many other statues.

Yes.......but some have argued here that playing sport in an institution is a "civil right". If it is a civil right then it has to be protected everywhere like voting, correct?

Let's see how the Boy Scouts make out by legally discriminating.....

Having the same opportunity to play a sport and get the Same benefits as anyone else at an institution receiving federal education money is indeed a civil right, and the Boy Scouts are exempted in the law if they remain single sex. Title IX is ALL civil Rights law.

It is part of the 1972 Education Amendments to the "Civil rights act of 1964". These were later included in the "Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988"

if that isn't a civil rights law, nothing is... It includes this little tidbit:

http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm


Schools and institutions can do what they want as long as they don't take federal money . But if you want to sip the federal nectar, you have to abide by equal opportunity law. You can't get the benefits of federal money without abiding by federal civil rights law. That includes the rights of Students and employees at those institutions. When you take the money, you give up some of your own rights to self determination. It's that simple.


And it doesn't apply to many parts of society, including your example of the Boy Scouts, because the laws specifically states the law does not apply to them. Likewise single sex schools, if part of religious religious doctrine , and Military institutions. Most of the statute is the exceptions

This has become a study in constitutional law not as much soccer, so I will cease and desist. These are ideas that are better served in the political sphere where this federal nectar as you stated has run amuck and are broke.

My original statement still stands though, because of football, male SPORT opportunities are limited. Whoever's fault that is you can have your opinion.

Lastly.......if the boy scouts get sued in this recent situation, let's see how much "the law doesn't apply to them"

Oh I have no doubt they will get sued, but not under title IX for sex discrimination.

Among the specific exemptions listed is:

If they decide to accept federal money and recruit the other gender, all bets are off.

Well, you've hit all the reflexive Title IX arguments, and they've all been shot down (or shown to be seriously mis-informed). By the way, the school that decided to simply forgo federal money was Grove City College (PA).

But I'm left wondering if you think pointy football is played by some mysterious third gender. When it comes to gender equity, schools have to either increase opportunities for women, show they're meeting the needs of their students, OR (this seems to confuse folks) make sure they're providing roughly proportional opportunity for both genders. If a school wants to let 100+ guys play football AND limit opportunities for women, THEN they may decide that men's soccer can't be a part of their sports module. Obviously 600+ NCAA schools DO include men's soccer, so the barrier isn't all that high. If you're worried about proportionality, why not campaign to trim football rosters down to 53 or 80 rather than 100 (or just get a lot of signatures and raise some money in a push to add men's soccer - that works). That would provide plenty of room for a men's soccer team . . . or you can see unfairness in the existence of women's soccer teams in rare cases (I believe you found 2) where schools SAY they dropped men's soccer for Title IX reasons (was that the "real" reason, I don't know, it could be . . . my experience is Title IX is a nice law to hide behind for administrators who don't want to debate their decisions). I know one school that added football and wrestling (and women's track) to a sports module with men's & women's soccer AND was Title IX compliant. So blaming anything beyond institutional will seems a stretch . . .

The chance of Texas doing something like giving up its federal funding and eliminating women's sports, of course, is exactly zero. Can you imagine a school the size and stature of Texas giving up all the federal research grants its faculty members receive? If it did, then "bye, bye" to its faculty stars and, eventually, its stature. Schools of this size and stature, for practical purposes, are tied inextricably to Title IX -- and it's great that they are.

Texas, by the way, is a good state in its support of college women's soccer, not just from the schools, but also from fans. Four of the top 13 Division I schools in 2011 average women's soccer attendance are in Texas: Texas A&M (3), TCU (7), Texas (11), and Texas Tech (13).

I understand HatchGK simply as saying that because of football, given the requirements of Title IX and limitations on funds available for athletics, other men's sports opportunities inherently are going to be limited and this sometimes affects men's soccer. I don't understand HatchGK as saying this is good or bad, but rather stating this is the fact of the situation. I even understand HatchGK as being a supporter of Title IX -- right HatchGK?

The way I'd put it is that, in the context of funding limitations and Title IX, a lot of groups of mostly men have decided to give primacy to football in allocating men's sports opportunities at their colleges. That's a decision I don't agree with, and I doubt HatchGK agrees with it either. If some men, whose sports are negatively impacted by those decisions, don't like it, then they should go fight it out with the men who decided to give men's football primacy. Morris20, that seems to be what you're suggesting.

CPThomas........you are correct on all counts. I just don't understand why everyone couldn't see the point I was making since day one.......maybe some issues of their own, I don't know. Of course I support women's athletics, look at the advancements that have been made.

Two interesting closing points...you mentioned faculty grants as part of title 9, but if I understand the law correctly the federal money only applies to financial aid.......I may be wrong though, not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV. But I am an enthusiastic voter!

Also ironic that you mentioned The state of Texas and women's soccer, they have been fantastic with collegiate women's soccer! Men's soccer has been totally neglected.....all the youth talent there and only 2 D1mens programs that I know of.

Thanks for the summarization...seems that they will only listen to you I owe you one.

Nope, the law and the courts are pretty clear. Any federal money counts. Sip any nectar and you are in the land of the title IX Lotus Eaters.

My degree is in Astronomy and I did observations at Macdonald Observatory. If I had to guess, i would say it is funded by 100% federal money.

Buh— Bye funding.

Of course there are a great pair of D2 CONFERENCES in Texas, and one of D3's strongest men's soccer conferences (at least at the top end) as well . . . so it's not like great Texas players don't have any local choices. I would point to the extensive public outcry in response to great Texas institutions of higher ed like Texas Tech forgoing men's soccer, except there hasn't been any.

Well I hope they have an equal amount of male and female astronomers there

Well, like in all other aspects of higher Ed, there still isn't parity.

the latest posting from the observatory staff page mentions 9 women and 21 men, - so fairly similar to Texas' funding for sports. and The University's only scholar who is mentioned as winning a Nobel prize for actual work at the Observatory (or the school, for that matter) is Japan's Hideki Yukawa (male). But still, it is progress, which is what the department of Justice ultitmately demands.
When I was there 40 years ago, there were no women.

I don't dispute your facts. I guess a big so what.

I don't even care what color they are. Just let those that can play - play. The big discussion I hear these days is kids should be playing street soccer and be left alone. Well - leave them big girls alone too.

Women are doing just fine.