I've looked at the statistics. Boys' high school wrestling participation is virtually identical to what it was in 1988-89, yet over 100 colleges have eliminated men's wrestling in that time. Boys' high school soccer participation has skyrocketed since 1988-89, growing by roughly 70%, yet dozens of colleges have eliminated men's soccer and only one major university has added it. http://www.ncaa.org/library/research/participation_rates/1982-2001/175-192.pdf http://www.ncaa.org/library/research/participation_rates/1982-2002/participation.pdf Beau -- it's fine for people to mention Title IX, as long as they don't lie about it.
Re: Update: Keller and Jennings vs Dorrance I've looked at the statistics. Boys' high school wrestling participation is virtually identical to what it was in 1988-89, yet over 100 colleges have eliminated men's wrestling in that time. Boys' high school soccer participation has skyrocketed since 1988-89, growing by roughly 70%, yet dozens of colleges have eliminated men's soccer and only one major university has added it. http://www.ncaa.org/library/researc...001/175-192.pdf http://www.ncaa.org/library/researc...rticipation.pdf Beau -- it's fine for people to mention Title IX, as long as they don't lie about it. Here's some "lies" for you numerista: Men's intercollegiate athletic participation rose from 220,000 in 1981-82 to 232,000 in 1998-99. Women's intercollegiate participation in 1998-99--170,000. I have difficulty with statistics, but I think that is still significantly less than men's participation. I don't contest that wrestling programs have lost 2,648 places since 1981-82. In fact, they've lost 108 team during this time period. But, if you look closely at the numbers, you'll see that 53 of those lost teams came during 1984-1988 when Title IX wasn't even being enforced because of the Grove City decision and the actions of the Reagan administration. Since 1988, only 55 teams have been dropped since Title IX gained some teeth with the Franklin v. Gwinnett decision. "Minority Views...Report" which you could access via the USA Today website or the Women's Sports Foundation page. What pro-wrestling critics of Title IX fail to consider (or perhaps what numerista might say they just "lie" about) is that during this same time period participation in FOOTBALL has gained 7,199 spots for men's participation. So, at the expense of men's minor sports, and by blaming Title IX, FOOTBALL has expanded its empire. The failure to control the excesses of football is what has forced the cuts of men's minor sports like wrestling. To think otherwise is to imply that women's sports control the athletic administration budgets of colleges and universities which I would think any rational person would realize is a ludicrous position to take. The bottom line here is that for the good of their own survival minor men's sports like wrestling (and soccer for that matter) should really align themselves with women's sports in opposition to Men's football and to a lesser, but growing extent, men's basketball. These minor men's sports should see that they really share more in common with women's sports than with football or basketball. One huge obstacle to overcome would be to divest in many implicit assumptions about the inferiority of women's sports that don't allow many to accept them as legitimate sports. To 'numerista' or any others, please (I beg you) don't come back with a 'football pays for the rest of the sports teams' argument because it just holds no water. Also 'numerista' I've been highly critical in this thread of Mr. Dure, but I never suggested that he 'lied' about anything. If it wasn't apparent to him or you or anyone on this thread, I have the utmost respect for him as a journalist (I really like reading his stuff, honest I mean it). My comments were simply meant as a plea for him (and you) to think more critically about some of these issues relative to gender. To craft an argument that men are getting shortchanged in the contemporary world of sport is to ignore the history of sports in this country and to turn a blind eye to the present condition of sport. I think many journalists (not necessarily Mr. Dure) fall victim to this tendency and the problematic effect is that these stories, which are read by hundreds of thousands of people, spread what 'numerista' might call "lies."
Re: Update: Keller and Jennings vs Dorrance I'd prefer not to derail this otherwise-interesting thread, so I'll keep this simple. GenXer claimed that "men 'losing' opportunities because of Title IX simply isn't true." This is a lie. GenXer now resorts to the "blame football" argument, which is absurd. For instance, Marquette University cut its wrestling program due to Title IX restrictions, and it doesn't even have a football team. You're welcome to say that you approve of Title IX's impact, but if you deny that it costs opportunities to male athletes, then you are a liar.
Thread split from the "Keller and Jennings vs. Dorrance" thread. Please keep this discussion civil and refrain from the histrionics that are so characteristic of Title IX discussions.
As a final response, let me just say that we're talking about Title IX in two different ways. I'm discussing it as a social issue and in your last comments you want to discuss it as an individual issue (i.e. what happened at Marquette). While I agree that it is disappointing that some minor men's sports teams have been cut at specific colleges and universities, if one looks at the entire picture of college athletics and the opportunities available to men and women, men still have greater opportunities and more economic institutional support and that can't be disputed. I don't think your calling me a liar helps your case, but undoubtedly it will get some uncritical thinkers to hop onto your bandwagon. If I can use an analogy, I think those who claim that Title IX is taking opportunities away from men is like a child who has always gotten two scoops of mash potatoes while his sibling only got one, being upset when his sibling finally challenges the parent and asks for half of the other's 2nd scoop. To give up that half of a scoop is a 'loss' in his world, but surely it isn't unfair. One needs to keep in mind that the plentitude of positions for men to play sports at the college level has been historically built on assumptions about women's indifference to sports and systematic exclusions of women from participation. To dismiss the place of football in all of this is to ignore the giant white elephant in the room! If you're really interested in this issue perhaps you might pick up a book or two by Patricia Vertinsky or Andrew Zimbalist. You can find their work via Amazon.com or other.
That certainly can be disputed. Just because men participate in greater numbers does not mean that they have greater opportunities. If you look at participation rates in walkon tryouts, club athletics, and intramurals, you'll see that male students exhibit a great deal more interest in playing competitive sports than their female counterparts. Further, in terms of the actual cost of sports (expenses minus revenues), major universities spend an awful lot more on women's sports than men's sports. Blaming football is like claiming that there is a giant pink elephant in the room! In most other extracurricular activities (dance, music, speech, theatre, literature, cultural groups, and political groups), women participate in greater numbers and receive more economic institutional support. Certainly, social pressures play a role in the interests that males and females pursue, and female athletes have had to face negative stereotypes, as have males in other domains. But Title IX is a law about whether the institutions themselves should discriminate, not whether they need to correct biases that originate elsewhere in society. Given that males do exhibit more interest in sports, shouldn't schools be free to spend more on male athletics? In any case, I'm glad to see that you're admitting that you lied when you said that males haven't lost opportunities.
A final, final response: Please at least be reasonable 'numerista'. Each of our arguments draw on different factual pieces of the puzzle that constitute this issue. For you not to address the substantive facts that I put forward, while repeatedly calling me a liar only underscores your inability to have a civil debate about the topic. To brand an opponent a 'liar' to promote your view is disingenuous. Besides, you shouldn't be so insecure about your position. Unfortunately, for those of us in my camp, we're still in the minority and operating outside of the 'powers that be' who ultimately control college athletics.
Quoted below are the parts of my last post that addressed the substantive facts that you put forward. Integrity is crucial to civil debate. You should try it.