> 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.
 
Sorry Ben, but the civil rights laws of this country are more important than
the "laws of supply and demand by Adam Smith".  I love how classical
economists try to turn every issue into an economic issue.  This is a LEGAL
and ETHICAL issue, not an economic one.  One economic theory I learned about
in labor economics stated the following on the subject of race-based
employment discrimination:
 
By intentionally excluding black workers from the labor pool, an employer
would decrease the size of his potential labor pool, thus increasing his
costs and decreasing the quality of his work force.  Therefore, employment
discrimination based on race doesn't really exist and anti-discrimination
laws and policies are not neccessary.  (I'm not making this up, folks)
 
This is the problem with examining all issues based on economic theories of
supply and demand.  Economists assume that everyone makes decisions without
regard to race, sex, color, ect.  They assume that people make decisions
only on economic concerns.  This is certainly not true, as I demonstrated in
the above example.  Some employers would exclude all minorities from hiring
consideration if it wasn't illegal, no matter what it cost them in economic
terms.
 
Athletic departments would NEVER have started women's sports without a kick
in the butt from the government and the courts.  Why?  Because college
athletic departments are filled with ex-athletes who were born and raised in
a culture that discouraged women from participating in athletics.  When they
were playing sports, girls and women were expected to adhere to certain
stereotypes that society laid out for them.  That meant no competitive
sports.  I'm not saying all AD's are bad people or are all sexist, but they
are all a product of their environment.  And that environment was not
inclusive to women when it came to playing sports (high school or college).
 
Just like we needed a massive Civil Rights movement in the 1960's to get rid
of segregation and the bogus "seperate but equal" doctrine, we need
initiatives like Title IX to open doors to women in athletics.  I'm not
saying that Title IX doesn't need some improvement or adjustment (it
certainly does), but the basic principles it embraces are good for college
sports and society as a whole.  Sorry this got so long.
 
Brian
(GO SIOUX, WCHA 4-PEAT IN 2000!!!)
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.