The Mother of All Title IX Threads

[Red Card]

Another Title IX thread. Yucch! But there seems to be some pro-male change coming due to the Bush administration.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/01/28/education.titleix.ap/

[Liverpool_SC]

Here is another Title-IX-is-broken article (actually editorial) in the NEW YORK TIMES!

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/opinion/28IRVI.html?todaysheadlines

The celebri-torial is written by noted liberal and author John Irving [Cider House Rules, A Prayer for Owen Meanie (became movie Simon Birch), etc.], and he endeavors to prove that it is ok to be a liberal AND still desire modification/rolling back of Title IX.

The tide is turning.

[monster]

I agree with so much that Irving says, but am amazed that he glosses over the financial aspect so easily.

[Liverpool_SC]

Originally posted by monster
I agree with so much that Irving says, but am amazed that he glosses over the financial aspect so easily.

I agree. I was really surprised at his approach: plowing through points that are normally reflex-action for pro-feminists.

I can appreciate wrestling a little, but man that sweaty-mat smell must really do something to your head if it can turn such a methodical, socially-conscious writer like Irving into a write-it-with-your-heart-on-your-sleeve advocate for a non-liberal position.

I am sure that it took a lot of guts for him to do this, knowing he will probably get a lot fewer Christmas cards and party invites in Aspen.

[monster]

Originally posted by Liverpool_SC
I agree. I was really surprised at his approach: plowing through points that are normally reflex-action for pro-feminists.

I can appreciate wrestling a little, but man that sweaty-mat smell must really do something to your head if it can turn such a methodical, socially-conscious writer like Irving into a write-it-with-your-heart-on-your-sleeve advocate for a non-liberal position.

I am sure that it took a lot of guts for him to do this, knowing he will probably get a lot fewer Christmas cards and party invites in Aspen.

He probably doesn't care. But downplaying such an obvious factor makes him about as disengenuous as some other people. That's the bigger concern and what I think hurts the NWCA position.

They chose to fight the female activists and not the football people. You can fight both. The issue is not black and white, yet so many people try to paint it that way.

I've been involved with wrestling in some capacity for close to 30 years. It's not the sweat smell, it's the mat cleaner. :D

[Liverpool_SC]

Originally posted by monster
He probably doesn't care. But downplaying such an obvious factor makes him about as disengenuous as some other people. That's the bigger concern and what I think hurts the NWCA position.

Celeb-ritorials don't usually focus on financial/fiscal issues - whether it is the environment, welfare or anything else. Their positions and apologies are almost always totally ideological.

I think that celebrities are rich/shrewd/foolish enough to know/believe that money can be found for football AND for minor sports AND fine arts AND women's/minority studies AND universal college education opportunities . . . and for anything else they throw their cap at.

[beineke]

Originally posted by monster
Downplaying such an obvious factor makes him about as disengenuous as some other people. That's the bigger concern and what I think hurts the NWCA position.


I don't think you're giving him enough credit. One thing he's done is focus attention on Marquette, a school where Title IX is the only culprit for the demise of wrestling.

That said, I disliked one point about the article. He made it sound like the 1979 interpretation was government-generated. In fact, it came largely from the athletic departments themselves. Back then, universities had a majority of male students. The AD's (foolishly) thought that they were entrenching male athletes in the majority.

[monster]

Originally posted by beineke
I don't think you're giving him enough credit. One thing he's done is focus attention on Marquette, a school where Title IX is the only culprit for the demise of wrestling.

From what I know, Marquette's wrestling team was in trouble way before that. A kid who couldn't even wrestle for my varsity (and we were not very good) started for them. This was in the early 1990s. They starved it for years and cut it when they needed to meet proportionality. So, yes it was because of Title IX, but it wasn't like they were supporting the program before that.

And picking out one program is always problematic because of the liklihood that there's more to the story. When looking at wrestling, there are far better examples of how things have happened the wrong way.

That said, I disliked one point about the article. He made it sound like the 1979 interpretation was government-generated. In fact, it came largely from the athletic departments themselves. Back then, universities had a majority of male students. The AD's (foolishly) thought that they were entrenching male athletes in the majority.

Yep. They asked for proportionality. Particularly football coaches. What goes around comes around.

[beineke]

Originally posted by monster
From what I know, Marquette's wrestling team was in trouble way before that. A kid who couldn't even wrestle for my varsity (and we were not very good) started for them. This was in the early 1990s. They starved it for years and cut it when they needed to meet proportionality.

I don't have any problem with programs being cash-starved. In a non-revenue sport, there is no reason to provide any frills. However, there is no valid reason for cutting a wrestling program that costs the school $0.

Anyway, the Title IX proposals I've read are not going to bring back men's wrestling. As I understand it, the drift from men's to women's sports will continue. However, it will proceed at a lower rate. This gives existing men's soccer programs a better chance to survive.

Starting a new men's program appears destined to remain illegal, unless the university also adds to its women's sports. In spite of the article below, it ain't likely.

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/01/17/3e282d7f3d80b

[monster]

Originally posted by beineke
I don't have any problem with programs being cash-starved. In a non-revenue sport, there is no reason to provide any frills. However, there is no valid reason for cutting a wrestling program that costs the school $0.

Point taken. But what I was getting at is that marquette is a bad example because it had to be externally supported to survive. And that's an indication, tome at least, that they weren't high on the college's list to begin with. I'm sure there'smore to it,.i.e. more room for basketball, etc., than just proportionality. These decisions are hardly black and white.

The better example is Cal State Bakersfield where they found out they were getting cut shortly after one of their guys won nationals. That's a kick in the crotch.

My college found out we were getting cut (one of those many Division III schools that did it for cosmetic purposes) the day before we had a dual against a nationally-ranked team who we almost beat. We had two All-Americans that year, one of whom was an academic All-American as well. A guy who didn't qualify was an academic All-American and one of our best kids was hurt right before regionals .

My only point is that he uses a disengenuous example because Marquette is, in truth, not an example of a program that deserved to hang around. In my estimation, it's better off to not have a team, than to have one that can't compete.

Wrestling has been gutted and there are far better examples. And using a poor example when he minimizes the arms race angle, to me, weakens his stance.

Anyway, the Title IX proposals I've read are not going to bring back men's wrestling. As I understand it, the drift from men's to women's sports will continue. However, it will proceed at a lower rate. This gives existing men's soccer programs a better chance to survive.

Starting a new men's program appears destined to remain illegal, unless the university also adds to its women's sports. In spite of the article below, it ain't likely.

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/01/17/3e282d7f3d80b

Yep. There will just be people bitching about different things, that's all.

[beineke]

Originally posted by monster
Marquette is, in truth, not an example of a program that deserved to hang around. In my estimation, it's better off to not have a team, than to have one that can't compete.


Not sure this is an accuate description of Marquette's team ... in 2000 a couple of their wrestlers reached the NCAA Championships. That sounds legit to me.

[Paul Schmidt]

Originally posted by Liverpool_SC
Here is another Title-IX-is-broken article (actually editorial) in the NEW YORK TIMES!

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/opinion/28IRVI.html?todaysheadlines

The celebri-torial is written by noted liberal and author John Irving [Cider House Rules, A Prayer for Owen Meanie (became movie Simon Birch), etc.], and he endeavors to prove that it is ok to be a liberal AND still desire modification/rolling back of Title IX.

The tide is turning.

Anyone remember that he wrote The World According to Garp? At least in the movie version, Garp wrestled, and Irving painted a fairly harsh picture of the feminist movement. Between this and the bio, perhaps this isn't such a surprise.

[Bajoro]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/opinion/28IRVI.html?pagewanted=1&ei=1&en=ab737564f58b9b09&ex=1044761267

"Wrestling with Title IX"

The issue of Title IX and its effect on college minor sports / men's sports is discussed by the writer of Ciderhouse Rules, The World According To Garp and A Prayer For Owen Meany.

They used to say a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. Maybe now it's a wrestling fan whose team has been eliminated because of Title IX.

[K]

2 new articles in the W Post today

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63175-2003Jan29.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60168-2003Jan29.html

K

[beineke]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2003/01/30/national1406EST0647.DTL

The 50-50 proposal ended in a deadlock, with 7 votes for and 7 against ... and that was allowing only 2-3 percent "wiggle room."

However, there was one important shift in favor of men's soccer: walk-ons will no longer count against the quota.

[monster]

Originally posted by beineke
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2003/01/30/national1406EST0647.DTL

The 50-50 proposal ended in a deadlock, with 7 votes for and 7 against ... and that was allowing only 2-3 percent "wiggle room."

However, there was one important shift in favor of men's soccer: walk-ons will no longer count against the quota.

Interesting stuff. Important to remember these are just recommendations.

The issues should be budgets first, scholarships second and total athletes third, in my opinion.

Here's a great take from KC.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/5061603.htm

[sregis]

Originally posted by Paul Schmidt
Anyone remember that he wrote The World According to Garp? At least in the movie version, Garp wrestled, and Irving painted a fairly harsh picture of the feminist movement. Between this and the bio, perhaps this isn't such a surprise.

this isn't the place for literary criticism, but it should be noted that irving has made a living being generally sympathetic to such themes as feminism, rape, and sexual roles. your conclusion is barking up the wrong tree.

[beineke]

Originally posted by monster
The issues should be budgets first, scholarships second and total athletes third, in my opinion.

The problem with your linked article is that it talks about budgets without making reference to revenues. A first-rate men's college basketball coach generates revenues that justify his seven-figure salary.

Here's Jessica Gavora's stance. In the face of the actual proposals, the anti-reformists' rhetoric about "a stacked deck" looks absolutely ridiculous.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-gavora013103.asp

[FearM9]

Does anyone know if the members of the Title 9 committee are compensated for their time and travel? If so can you provide a link that would support this? Thanks.

[monster]

Originally posted by beineke
The problem with your linked article is that it talks about budgets without making reference to revenues. A first-rate men's college basketball coach generates revenues that justify his seven-figure salary.

Here's Jessica Gavora's stance. In the face of the actual proposals, the anti-reformists' rhetoric about "a stacked deck" looks absolutely ridiculous.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-gavora013103.asp

Title IX is not about individual sports. It's about making men's and women's programs meet a law, however it is interpreted - whether it is the proportionality that the men supported when it favored them or a 50-50 standard or some other interpretation.

The law doesn't say equality with respect to who brings in the most money. When football and basketball learn to share without whining, then there will be real Title IX reform.