Ben Flickinger wrote:
 
> I believe his logic is, ok, women want to be treated equally, well, let the
> women pay for the women's sports and the men for the men's - and they can
> split the booster money and any general(federal) funding the Dept. might get.
 
This division is entirely arbitrary, and not internally consistent.  If men's
wrestling does not generate enough funds to support itself, then why does it merit a
slice of the football profits while no women's sport does?  This argument, that
men's athletics is inherently more deserving of the money, is precisely what Title
IX is meant to counter.  An athlete is an athlete.
 
> That might not pass the current Title IX law, but I don't believe that would
> be sexism on any part. They're not discriminating, they're both given equal
> opportunity, it's just more people want to see some sports than others - law
> of supply and demand by Adam Smith.
 
You might want to read more Adam Smith.  He most assuredly did not advocate letting
the law of supply and demand rule in all cases.  This is one of those cases, since
college athletics defines itself as being about the athlete and what the
participation adds to their educational experience.  It is not about the spectators,
that is simply an added element, not part of the core.
 
> I also don't necessarily agree with it. My personal beef is with Title IX
> and the cutting of men's sports. By all means women deserve to have their
> crew and field hockey teams as much as men's gymnastics and wrestling, but
> not more so and not to the point where one has to be cut for the other.
>
> And there can be competition among the sexes without it being sexist. I just
> want it to be on a level playing field, and frankly the current law, Title
> IX, creates an uneven field tilted toward the women.
 
No, it does not.  What we have is a system that was created with the slant entirely
in one direction.  We have spent up to a century, depending on the school, where the
women's sports have been cut and the men's cultivated and allowed to thrive.  That
the effects of Title IX are seen as biased in favor of women's sports is because
this tilt has existed for so long that it seems like the natural order, rather than
the the bias that it really was.  Athletic budgets are finite.  If the total dollars
involved do not increase, then adding women's sports must come at the expense of
currently existing men's sports.  Your formula takes the status quo as sacrosanct.
It views each position in men's sports as a right, rather than as a part of a budget
from which women have been excluded until very recently.  A given sports team isn't
an entitlement; welcome to a world of limited resources.
 
> Once the first women's sport is cut to make room for a male sport, I
> guarantee the courts will listen. But until then, all I can do about Title
> IX is bitch and try to stir up support for my views.
 
If a school reaches the point where they are out of Title IX balance in favor of the
women, then this might be an issue.  Go ahead and complain, but you won't get a lot
of sympathy from me.  People who beleive that life isn't fair and go on at length
about how their privileged position is being threatened tend to rub me the wrong
way.
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.