Another Title IX lawsuit Facing a budget crisis, West Chester cut a couple of sports, with most of the losses on the men's side. A feminist advocacy group sues. http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/sports/6691802.htm
Re: Another Title IX lawsuit Lawsuits are not truth, they are not even fact until a judge rules on them. Petitions are neither truth nor fact. Fact is all with which I am concerned. You have to do better than this. I expect better of you. I know you can do it. Don't give up!
Re: Re: Another Title IX lawsuit So this is a perfect example of what's going on. The school doesn't meet its 61% female quota, so it's getting sued, even though its current moves bring it closer to 61% females in athletics. West Chester has had its budget slashed, but it's still expected to add women's sports. Maybe they should cut the math department instead...
Re: Re: Re: Another Title IX lawsuit No, they should cut the Men's Studies department. Oh wait, they already did that.
Oh, yeah. The only thing they did in response to a $40M budget deficit was to trim a few sports and hurt men in the process. 1. They also added women's golf (convenient how the link was to a story that didn't mention that) to try and keep their numbers up while cutting expenses. 2. Wage freezes have happened across the system 3. Tuition has gone up. But the budget crisis for some always come down to screwing male athletes. Pity. Some numbers for the statisticians out there: Amount cut (according to AP story): $80,000 Men's share: $50,000 - 62.5 percent Women's share: $30,000 - 37.5 percent Athletic losses (last report): $523,942 Men's share: $343,799 - 65 percent Women's share: $180,143 - 35 percent
Your childishness is really trying my patience. First, it was name-calling; now, it's a sarcastic response that is completely irrelevant to the preceding discussion. Get a life.
The system is $40M in the hole. And you're whining about 50Gs in men's sports. So you can't come up with your usual argument about men's sports making money, now, huh? I love it when the straw man catches on fire. Ny response had everything to do with the topic at hand because it exposed the truth aboutthe budget situation in the SSHE and at West Chester. There are cuts all over. This is one of them. Yet it's the only one that you seem to think is an issue. Your own words. And I wonder how worried you were when it happened in April. Here are the facts, by the way: http://athletics.wcupa.edu/MLacrosse/03releases/mlx5.pdf So should I believe you, who says it's Title IX? Or the president of a university who says it's a multi-tiered problem that includes Title IX? Growing up involves seeing a wider picture, taking more into account when you examine something. So stop being so ascared of the girls.
I couldn't find it in a quick search, but remember all the bluster of how colleges are scared of adding men's sports and no one ever does it. The Sept. 1 issue of the NCAA News has announcements of the following additions: Division I - men's ice hockey and lacrosse at Robert Morris College (along with women's lacrosse and field hockey). Division II - Florida Southern College men's (and women's) swimming. Caldwell College added women's cross-country. They do not have a men's team. Division III - Stevens Institute of Technology wil reintroduce wrestling after an 11-year hiatus. Vasser will add men's (and women's) golf. William Smith will add women's golf. New Jersey City University will add men's cross country. Six men's and six women's sports coming on line in the next few years. And that's just the announcements from one issue.
I think you're missing his point a bit. West Chester made cuts that: 1. Were approximately commensurate with the amount of money being lost by each gender, according to the figures you posted. 2. Moved the school closer to the 61% quota, by cutting a men's sport and keeping the number of women's sports equal (since as you note, they added women's golf). Sounds reasonable to me...and yet the Title IX advocates are suing the school.
And this invalidates the argument for Title IX...how? How does this strengthen the opponents' argument? This latest lawsuit is a non-starter.
I think what they did was reasonable. I think the Title IX suit is pathetic. It's the victim mentality about the men carrying the brunt of the cuts that wrankles me. Especially since it took me a few Google keystrokes to figure out the deeper story. The lawsuit is rediculous. Just because I try to put things in a wider context doesn't mean I agree with one side or the other. I just try to present a more encompassing point of view to counteract the notion that Title IX is to blame for every decision. OK, back to the NCAA News. This calendar year, there have been announcements for the addition of 36 sports and the discontinuation of 26. I added the West Chester ones in there because they didn't appear. The News is not all encompassing, but it's the best place to go for straight news on things like this. These are for things that were announced since January, not put in place. Just a small snapshot: Division I has lost 11 men's sports and added two. Division I has added four women's sports and lost one. Division II has added four men's sports and lost five. Division II has added eight women's sports and lost two. Division III has added 13 men's sports and lost four. Division III has added six women's sports and lost five. Some nuggets: If it's just Title IX, why are lower division schools not losing men's sports at the same rate? The D-III men's numbers were skewed some by Hood College going co-ed and announcing they would add eight men's sports over two years. Six started this fall. But a women's school (I forget the name, but it was in Mississippi) dropped its entire atheltic program, which included four sports. So much for the no one can add men's sports and no one can drop women's sports arguments. The numbers may be off a little because of putting things in the wrong column and such. That women's school may have been D-II. But the losses are mainly at the men's Division I level, which is not news. The question is - does Title IX drive this, do rising costs of scholarships, so state budget problems or is it possible that each situation is different and includes a number of factors that lead to the decision?
I'm not sure what all the uproar is about this lawsuit. The article beineke linked stated that women made up 61% of the students, that a woman's sport had not been added in 10 years, and a woman's sport (gymnastics) got cut. In the leading lawsuit on Title IX, Brown University lost when it cut women's sports, not because it couldn't meet a "quota", but because it couldn't show a consistent expansion of opportunities for women to participate in its athletics program. I'd say the facts as alleged establish that Westchester has a similar problem. That's not a frivolous lawsuit, and I don't know why anyone is assuming it is. (BTW, I couldn't get monster's link to work, so I'm going only from The State link beineke provided).