clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

How I (and most my classmates) really feel about Title IX

I'm a little bit concerned that some, if not all, of our readers don't quite realize when jbox and I are joking. The general tone of the blog is generally less than serious, so when jbox suggests redefining the baseball positions, for the most part, I think we can assume that he doesn't really want them to play baseball that way.

At least I don't think he does.

That being said, I was actually just playing up to the stereotypes that people have about general social issues in sports in this recent post, because I thought they were funny. Not to say those various topics weren't brought up in class, just that I took them out of context because it makes me laugh. Since my classmates may actually take a glance at this every once in a while, I thought I should stick up for them and summarize our real discussion about Title IX.

Here are the main points:

  • The only real knock against Title IX that we could properly justify is the fact that if a program like this was truly needed in our society, it would be implemented in some form in levels beyond just the educational system.

  • The argument that Title IX takes away men's programs in favor of women's is flawed. There has been a net increase in both men's and women's programs in colleges around the country since the implementation of Title IX. Men's wrestling is often held up as the martyr for the havoc that Title IX has supposedely wreaked. However, a closer look at the schools in question reveals that, in most cases, those schools were actually seeking to drop those non-revenue programs at their schools and Title IX provided the administration an easy way to do that.

  • The "proportionate system" that Richard refers to in the original comments is actually one criteria of three that a school is judged by to see if it is in compliance of Title IX and it is a part that does not need to be met. If a school can demonstrate that it is currently making an effort to increase the availability of women's programs, then it is in compliance with Title IX regardless of the proprtion of women's programs to men's programs.

  • Title IX is not meant to provide schools with the exact same sports to women as it may offer to men. Equality should not be seen as the main focus. We all can agree that men and women are different and should not be held to the same standards in all things. Equal opportunity however is something different.

  • Finally, it's obviously not a perfect system. There are lame attempts at implementing Title IX at a minority of schools that result in programs being started with absolutely no interest from the student body at all. But that kind of stuff doesn't happen a whole lot, and in those cases it's really the fault of dumbass administration misunderstanding the intent as opposed to Title IX itself.
So there. Sorry if this is dry quasi s-ociology debate type of stuff, but jbox tells me that nobody's been on the blog all weekend, so I'm like, eff it. I'll throw my actual notes from class on there.