MN Daily Op-Ed: Norwood Teague and Title IX

Donate To GopherHole
Section2 said:
Sorry, the fact that they use a smaller ball matters because it is evidence of inequality. You are avoiding the crux of the issue, equality. You want it in some respects and not in others, always when convenient.
My view on title IX has nothing to do with "fairness" it has to do with the freedom of institutions to implement the athletic programs of their choosing. The Feds of course should not be involved.
Click to expand...

You are so full of crap. You know damn well I was responding to your comment about the size of the ball and your tying it to the discussion to Title IX. They have nothing to do with each other. You are either an idiot or you suffer from ADD/ADHD. It was also convenient for me to avoid talk of whether the earth was round or flat. Go back and talk to the rocks in your cave. They're probably tired of listening to your gibberish too.

Oh and here is a lol for you to giggle with.
 

I am not an expert in Title IX In principle, I believe it is a very good thing. However, the vagueness of the compliance is something that has bothered me for a long time.

There are multiple components in determining if your athletic department is in compliance. In a very simplistic way, they can be summarized as 1) financial (almost exclusively scholarship dollar allocation), 2) Support (things like travel, locker rooms, training staff access) and, the most challenging, 3) Participation/Opportunity.

Financial and support are areas that have been radically addressed over the years and great improvements have been made. My guess is that we have no compliance issues in either area.

But participation is the challenging part. I cut and pasted this from a Title IX Q&A page

Every institution has three options to demonstrate fairness in athletic opportunities. Schools can show that they comply with Title IX if they can demonstrate any one of the following:

a -- Substantially proportionate athletic opportunities for male and female athletes;

b -- A history and continuing practice of expanding opportunities for the under-represented sex;

c -- Full and effective accommodation of the interests and abilities of the under-represented sex. Schools do not necessarily need to offer identical sports, yet they do need to provide an equal opportunity for females to play in sports of interest.

Comments in reverse order.

c is in my opinion impossible - how do you "fully" accommodate the "interest" of all the females wanting to participate in athletics? For that matter, how can you do it for males? You can't - interests are too varied, there are "new" sports invented almost every day, and there is no objective reporting mechanism that says you "fully" meet the "interest".

b is how most universities have meet the Title IX requirements in the early years. But now, the "continuing practice" part becomes a challenge as schools just don't have the resources to fund more sports. I'm betting it's getting harder to demonstrate compliance from this clause.

a is the only objective measurement to really show you have Title IX compliance. But if your school offers a football, you struggle mightily to meet the provision. There is simply no female sport that requires 85+ participants like football. It skews all the participation numbers. That is why you have 15 players on a women's basketball team (vs 12 for men). That's why we added women's rowing - it was an existing club team with rather limited interest yet it had the ability to add lots (I believe 25 or so is a full squad of rowers) of potential female scholarship athletes. It was the one addition that I believe has the U of MN reasonably close on proportionality. I have not done any research, but my guess is that we are not exactly proportional, just "substantially" so.

But if we added any more men's sports, my guess is we would need to add more women's sports. And with the athletic budget the way it is, that simply can't happen. So in a way, Teague is being very factually - Title IX is really inhibiting the addition of new sports.

I would love to look anew at all the sports and balance what we offer based on what our current student body participates in (now or in high school). Frankly, it would likely add sports like lacrosse and subtract sports like gymnastics. I am just fine with that - times change - students interests change - and so should what we offer athletically.
 


That's the problem...on campus there are more women but in the sports...more men. If you are a school with more men on campus it is my understanding that then you can have more men in the sports. They want the percentage of male/female students to be in line with the percentage of male/female athletes.
 

Section2 said:
Sorry, the fact that they use a smaller ball matters because it is evidence of inequality. You are avoiding the crux of the issue, equality. You want it in some respects and not in others, always when convenient.
My view on title IX has nothing to do with "fairness" it has to do with the freedom of institutions to implement the athletic programs of their choosing. The Feds of course should not be involved.
Click to expand...


The bottom line section 2 is that by going to college in larger numbers...by earning more undergraduate...and increasingly more graduate degrees, women are going to rightfully call more and more of the shots in every walk of life. They are writing their own tickets by earning these degrees and educating themselves. Young men are blowing the mission by NOT getting higher education in equal numbers to their female counterparts. When the percentages of student populations start approaching 55% to 60% women vs. 45% to 40% males Title IX will most certainly reflect this ratio of women to men on our college campus settings. As women have realized that they MUST become educated, males appear to have forgotten this fact of life. As women win the war to become better educated than their male counterparts...women will also get the better jobs, start earning the better wages and have much more to say about any number of things.

Title IX is ALL ABOUT education. IF males don't seek higher education they will continue to LOSE athletic scholarships and opportunities.
Parents had best start pushing their sons to excel in the classroom BEFORE they worry about excelling on the playing fields. Parents: right now your sons are getting their butts handed to them in so many of the areas that really matter. Just look at the numbers of males enrolling in colleges with the goal of excelling, earning graduate degrees and attending class BEFORE they even think about playing a sport.

Title IX is doing nothing more than keeping score of the way that males aren't competitive enough in academic ambitions, goals and maturity. Parents: it's time to kick your son's butts and help develop their academic credentials and resumes with at least as much passion as their AAU and star-rated fantasy football recruiting high-light promotional materials. Males need to get in school and stay in school or see the Title IX scorekeepers have no choice but to provide more gender-based opportunities for college sports...college math courses...every aspect of college life for the majority of the students.

It's time for males to start going to college in search of careers and advanced degrees...start doing what needs to be done high school and college-aged males. Get to class and STAY in class. Then you might have a few more chances to play ball...
and get a decent job once the games end... Women are putting in the effort to go to college to earn degrees and maybe also play some ball. Male students need to LEARN from their female counterparts and Title IX will continue to do what Title IX was designed to do and created to do. Higher education is still about higher education...NOT playing ball... Men's Athletic Departments need to get the message out to high school kids...Jr. High School kids and parents need to educate themselves about how to motivate their sons so they don't "back away" from the competition of a college education. It would appear that the parents of the young women are doing a MUCH better job...

; 0 )
 


Men and women are not equal, they are different, and they have different interests. It is silly to expect the percentages of athletic participation to exactly mirror the gender breakdown of schools. Why would it be that way? Would you expect percentages of elementary education majors to mirror gender breakdowns? Of course not. This is silly and stupid.
 

Section2 said:
Men and women are not equal, they are different, and they have different interests. It is silly to expect the percentages of athletic participation to exactly mirror the gender breakdown of schools. Why would it be that way? Would you expect percentages of elementary education majors to mirror gender breakdowns? Of course not. This is silly and stupid.
Click to expand...


Title IX is changing with the times section2. What is...IS. All young men have to do to tilt the Title IX balance of power is to study, worry about doing their best in the class room in addition to playing so much ball and start going to college at the same percentage rate as young women. That's right, section 2, young men have it within their power to insure that they will get their equal share of the resources. All they have to do is to start refusing to be denied a college education the way young women have done. It's all about attitudes...want to...hard work...refusing to be denied. Some of the same attributes that help a kid to become a good football player carry forward into the class room. Instead of "playing in the league..." the passion to get that degree can carry a young person a VERY long way. It can transcend being on the "short-end" of the Title IX stick...

; 0 )
 

I like deuces Anti-Jamie as Football PA rants better than this one.
But both are about as worthless...
 

imthewalrus said:
Title IX is changing with the times section2. What is...IS. All young men have to do to tilt the Title IX balance of power is to study, worry about doing their best in the class room in addition to playing so much ball and start going to college at the same percentage rate as young women. That's right, section 2, young men have it within their power to insure that they will get their equal share of the resources. All they have to do is to start refusing to be denied a college education the way young women have done. It's all about attitudes...want to...hard work...refusing to be denied. Some of the same attributes that help a kid to become a good football player carry forward into the class room. Instead of "playing in the league..." the passion to get that degree can carry a young person a VERY long way. It can transcend being on the "short-end" of the Title IX stick...

; 0 )
Click to expand...

I see no "why" here, and of course 19 neglected to post a "why" either. You guys can save your breath, we understand this "is" for the time being.
 





imthewalrus said:
Title IX is changing with the times section2. What is...IS. All young men have to do to tilt the Title IX balance of power is to study, worry about doing their best in the class room in addition to playing so much ball and start going to college at the same percentage rate as young women. That's right, section 2, young men have it within their power to insure that they will get their equal share of the resources. All they have to do is to start refusing to be denied a college education the way young women have done. It's all about attitudes...want to...hard work...refusing to be denied. Some of the same attributes that help a kid to become a good football player carry forward into the class room. Instead of "playing in the league..." the passion to get that degree can carry a young person a VERY long way. It can transcend being on the "short-end" of the Title IX stick...

; 0 )
Click to expand...
So, regardless of how hard you work and what your preferred sport's value to the college is, if you're not of of the correct gender, you stand a lesser chance of playing your favorite sport for the U.
 

Section2 said:
Men and women are not equal, they are different, and they have different interests. It is silly to expect the percentages of athletic participation to exactly mirror the gender breakdown of schools. Why would it be that way? Would you expect percentages of elementary education majors to mirror gender breakdowns? Of course not. This is silly and stupid.
Click to expand...

You obviously feel passionately about this but you remind me of the story of Don Quixote. As station19 has pointed out to you way too many times Title IX is not saying that they are the same but it is saying that have equal rights/protection under that law. We all know that they are different. I personally discovered that an early age. Most of us have know that for a long time.
 



Killjoy said:
You obviously feel passionately about this but you remind me of the story of Don Quixote. As station19 has pointed out to you way too many times Title IX is not saying that they are the same but it is saying that have equal rights/protection under that law. We all know that they are different. I personally discovered that an early age. Most of us have know that for a long time.
Click to expand...

Equal protection under the law, yes! Absolutely! You lose me when that means equal athletic scholarships.
 

Section2 said:
Equal protection under the law, yes! Absolutely! You lose me when that means equal athletic scholarships.
Click to expand...
Think of it as affirmative action for women. You might be a better candidate for the job, but you're a man, so hiring you means I would have to hire a woman as well, and I can't afford to hire two people.
 

imthewalrus said:
Title IX is changing with the times section2. What is...IS. All young men have to do to tilt the Title IX balance of power is to study, worry about doing their best in the class room in addition to playing so much ball and start going to college at the same percentage rate as young women. That's right, section 2, young men have it within their power to insure that they will get their equal share of the resources. All they have to do is to start refusing to be denied a college education the way young women have done. It's all about attitudes...want to...hard work...refusing to be denied. Some of the same attributes that help a kid to become a good football player carry forward into the class room. Instead of "playing in the league..." the passion to get that degree can carry a young person a VERY long way. It can transcend being on the "short-end" of the Title IX stick...

; 0 )
Click to expand...

and Big 10 wins!
 

AO54 said:
Think of it as affirmative action for women. You might be a better candidate for the job, but you're a man, so hiring you means I would have to hire a woman as well, and I can't afford to hire two people.
Click to expand...

Is this supposed to be a counter-argument to Section2's view? Good luck!
 

AO54 said:
Think of it as affirmative action for women. You might be a better candidate for the job, but you're a man, so hiring you means I would have to hire a woman as well, and I can't afford to hire two people.
Click to expand...

That's exactly how I think about it.
 

GopherJake said:
Is this supposed to be a counter-argument to Section2's view? Good luck!
Click to expand...
Just trying to help illuminate the opposing argument, as their logic is often lost in their intentions. If you take the view we can't judge people based upon their merits as we don't trust the people judging and the historical discrimination will never be overcome, then we must come up with some regulations/quotas that discriminate based upon gender and race.
 

Section2 said:
Men and women are not equal, they are different, and they have different interests. It is silly to expect the percentages of athletic participation to exactly mirror the gender breakdown of schools. Why would it be that way? Would you expect percentages of elementary education majors to mirror gender breakdowns? Of course not. This is silly and stupid.
Click to expand...

It's not about participation. It is about sponsored/subsidized opportunities. You can field as many club sports as you like and participate to your heart's content. You can have a million guys sign up for intra-mural passing league football. Doesn't have any bearing on this.
 

badgergopher said:
It's not about participation. It is about sponsored/subsidized opportunities. You can field as many club sports as you like and participate to your heart's content. You can have a million guys sign up for intra-mural passing league football. Doesn't have any bearing on this.
Click to expand...

Club sports aren't sponsored?
 


GopherJake said:
Really? You are going with that? Weak.
Click to expand...

It is weak, I agree. It wasn't my point. It is evidence of how silly this whole thing becomes. Now it's no longer about opportunities to participate in sports, is it? When we are debating what is "sponsored" and what isn't. Or are we arguing about money? It is silly and stupid and so far out of the purview of the federal government it is outrageous. But I guess I'm the only one who feels that way.
 

Section2 said:
Men and women are not equal, they are different, and they have different interests. It is silly to expect the percentages of athletic participation to exactly mirror the gender breakdown of schools. Why would it be that way? Would you expect percentages of elementary education majors to mirror gender breakdowns? Of course not. This is silly and stupid.
Click to expand...

This isn't apples and oranges anymore. It is apples and red sand on Mars. Deuce, elementary majors are not a protected class. They may be an endangered species given the shortage of STEM teachers, but they are not a minority or protected class of any kind.

I think if I were you, I would stay away from the differences of any demographic. I think an argument can be made that all demographic groups have different interests other than to play football. We do not require African Americans to play football, basketball, or any other sport. We do not promote football for women on campus. We don't try to make things equal for men and women. The basis of freedom, el Deuce, is the basis of choice, which is to say free choice. There are more blacks playing football than the rest of the University population of white students. There is no legal basis of making it more balanced. So, there is no encroachment on your blessed freedom in that regard. Title doesn't protect white or black or any other demographic from earning a scholarship.

The very basis of the Title's are to protect citizens, and in this case named citizens who fit certain criteria, from being disenfranchised opportunities given an option to participate. Each women still has to earn her participation at the U. They do come with qualifications. Nobody gets handed the scholarship out of good will. That is one of the biggest myths about the women's end of the sports program. Nobody is handing out women's hockey scholarships on a first come first served basis. Quite the contrary, the women have to earn their scholarship by great performance in high school. Even if the title program was no more, there would still be limited opportunities for sports. Scholarships would not be hanging off trees like leaves in a forest. So quit sounding like the law of the land is hamstringing some kid an opportunity. It just isn't true.
 

I have no idea what you're talking about dean, and you have no idea what I'm talking about.
 

As there are more women at the University...wouldn't it be fair to have all their fees go to the women's programs...and not be forced to subsidize the men's programs. That would seem fair considering Section 2's logic. Or even better, since the implication is that women have no interest in sports, they don't have to subsidize any sports. How about this as many of the students don't have any interest in sports, why not make it so none of their fees subsidize sports. The idea that men are more interested in sports is ridiculous. Men are more interested in WATCHING sports in my world but I would say they participate in athletic endeavors in equal numbers.
 

I don't know what Dean is talking about either. And to prove a little something, S2, I'm going to give your reaction to this:

Dean S said:
There are more blacks playing football than the rest of the University population of white students. There is no legal basis of making it more balanced. So, there is no encroachment on your blessed freedom in that regard. Title doesn't protect white or black or any other demographic from earning a scholarship.
Click to expand...

Section2's reaction:

Exactly! And what a completely free and enduring transformation that has been. Government did not get involved in quotas on college teams to allow minorities to play and thrive. It took a while, but it happened organically and was earned, rather than forced. Imagine if instead of government social engineering, we allowed freedom to navigate the path to a better world. Government fails at nearly everything they do. Freedom is not perfect, but it is a far better tool, allows the people to decide and will endure far longer and far stronger.
 


CoMn said:
As there are more women at the University...wouldn't it be fair to have all their fees go to the women's programs...and not be forced to subsidize the men's programs. That would seem fair considering Section 2's logic. Or even better, since the implication is that women have no interest in sports, they don't have to subsidize any sports. How about this as many of the students don't have any interest in sports, why not make it so none of their fees subsidize sports. The idea that men are more interested in sports is ridiculous. Men are more interested in WATCHING sports in my world but I would say they participate in athletic endeavors in equal numbers.
Click to expand...

Students have the choice to attend the U or not attend. What is done with their tuition is no longer their business. Like any customer, your power lies in taking your money elsewhere. If there was great demand for the scenario you lay out, schools would do it.
 

As I understand it, Title IX is about more than just the # of scholarships. It was meant to address a hypothetical situation where the men's basketball team was flying charters to away games, and the women's basketball team had to cram the entire team into a 1979 Ford Aerostar Van with rear-wheel drive. The idea is to equalize the playing field. Is it perfect? No! Do some aspects of it seem silly? Yes! but if you took it away, I'm afraid that women's non-revenue sports would vanish a lot sooner than men's non-revenue sports.

Oh - and I propose we rename Section2 as Section8 - because this is the craziest thread I've read in ages.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom