Dave Wollstadt wrote:
 
> The "problem" with Title IX is that it was enacted to expand opportunities
> for women, but that it has often been administered in such a way as to
> restrict opportunities for men. Blame football, blame society, blame
> whomever, but many people of goodwill who would wholeheartedly support
> additional opportunities for women are upset when universities seek to
> achieve "equality" by eliminating men's sports instead of adding women's
> sports. That is not so much a problem with Title IX itself, as with the way
> courts have interpreted it--demanding dollar-for-dollar equality instead of
> focusing on the goal of expanding opportunities for women.
 
Hogwash.  I can't speak to this sentiment in the case of individuals on this
list, but among those in power in university athletic departments, this isn't
true.  They were against implementing Title IX from the beginning.  This
resistance is why it ended up in the courts in the first place; very few
schools made a good faith effort to apply the law on their own.  For them to
simply say, at this juncture, "We're for Title IX in principal, just not the
way it's been applied," is like George Bush slamming afirmative action and
proclaiming to be in favor of a society of equal opportunity without ever quite
explaining why it was he voted against the Voting Rights Act at the time.  They
may be right, but they've only reached that conclusion when a gun was held to
their heads.
 
You also don't have the facts entirely straight.  The courts do not demand
dollar-for-dollar equality.  A quick look at any major athletic department's
expense ledger (well, one that breaks down costs, anyways...) will show you
this.  Care to wager that the University of Michigan spends one dollar on its
women's athletics for every dollar spent on the football program, let alone the
rest of men's athletics?  Measuring the dollar expenditures is only one of a
number of factors that the court will look at.  Another is the number of
athletes of each sex.  Another is the number of athletes that receive
scholarships.  Another is access to facilities, and their quality.
 
In other words, they look at whether a school is, in fact, expanding
opportunities for women.  Should you be upset when a school cuts a men's team
in order to fund a women's team?  That's up to you, but you haven't put
together any argument that Title IX is where you should place the blame.  Come
up with a scenario that a) expands athletic opportunities for women and b)
doesn't cut any men's sports.  Compare that to what has actually happened, and
ask yourself why these two priorities couldn't both be met.  You'll find that
no court has ever told an athletic department, "Well, you'll have to drop
wrestling."  Since they had to do a), they chose to ignore b) rather than find
another solution to the problem.
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.