FunkyHiFi
12-08-2004, 11:50 PM
This is an issue that has affected sports at the college level in a very fundamental and quite destructive manner but it seems few people know about it. Due to whatever reason, most corporate and left-leaning news outlets don't report on it & as we know, unless a light is shined on issues such as these they continue to fester and get worse.
And while sports may seem a trivial thing to some while all these other problems exist around us, normal life still goes on and needs to be paid attention to so we can maintain a solid mental/spiritual foundation from which to battle those other larger problems ("spirit" being used in whatever way you see fit). And for many, many people sports have taught them positive life and personal lessons that no classroom could ever teach, lessons that get passed on to others in classrooms, living rooms, business offices, etc, etc.
Title IX was a law enacted in 1972 to help eliminate the academic gap between males and females by providing equal opportunities for both sexes in public schools >>> opportunities is the key word in that phrase--try to remember it as you read on. But eventually the militant feminists, people obsessed with political correctness and other narrow-minded folk twisted this law into an unfair and very unrealistic quota system.
In other words, the feminazis main weapon in their war against men is this: if a school's overall student population has, say, 60% female students, then the same school's percentage of athletes also must be 60% female. But as anyone with a half-way objective thinking process knows, many less women are as interested in sports as men are. So this seemingly fair by-the-numbers system ignores reality and is actually completely UNfair to men.
But what about all those traditionally mostly-female activities at school--why aren't THEY being forced to admit men to gain the proper male/female proportions??? Only silence on the feminazis' part and the part of the college administrators that give in to the shrill/vindictive whinings of the militant feminists & their lawyers.
The following post was copied from USAWrestling's Title IX forum because mens wrestling is one of the sports hit hard by this twisted interpretation of that law, and because it is a sport I myself am involved in. Since 1972, @414 mens college wrestling teams have been eliminated due to Title IX & this destructive practice is still going on right now. And for many other mens sports the numbers can be even higher. The forum the following post (I originated the thread itself) originated from contains lots of other infuriating information, much of it provided by one member ("BDD67") who IIRC is a lawyer himself but is also a fan of wrestling.
And now it looks like high school sports may be subjected to the same phoney quota system, a chilling thought.
"Short-n-sweet Title IX explanation?" (http://thematforums.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=40174)
USAWrestling's Title IX info page (http://www.themat.com/articles/showfaq.asp?fldAuto=21)
************************************************** **************
posted by Eric LeSher
Here is a adaptation of a great article written by someone else which does a great job of explaining it.
There are Two Title IX's
How can it be? How can Title IX be praised as the reason for all that is right in women's sports, and simultaneously be criticized as the most destructive force ever unleashed on college athletics? The answer is obvious and logical ª when it comes to sports in US schools, there are two Title IX's. Not two sides of the same coin, not good intentions accompanied by unintended consequences, but two distinct Title IX's with very different impacts. Unfortunately for our children, parents, and schools Title IX #1 is out, and Title IX #2 is in.
Title IX #1 was passed in 1972 by a congress that wanted to outlaw sex discrimination in our schools. Simply stated, less than 50 words, its passage reflected an evolving society that wanted to ensure that no doors would be closed to females in our educational programs.
Title IX #2 was created by a regulatory bureaucracy seven years later. Title IX #2 is actually a collection of regulations devised by the US Department of Education. Title IX #2's most important aspects were: 1) Unlike the vast majority of civil rights law regulations it was never presented to, debated in, or approved by congress. 2) It functions as a strict quota law.
When it came to sports, Title IX #1 was much more effective in spirit than in law. At the time legislators first debated and passed the measure, school sports were not even on their radar screens. The driving concern was the male-female academic gaps in areas like admissions and college faculty positions. But regardless of congressional intent, the idea that females should have an opportunity to experience the benefits of competitive athletics was one whose time had come. Parents, educators, and school boards implemented girls interscholastic sports programs in their local schools quickly and enthusiastically. The strongest evidence of this success is the data provided by the National Federation of State High School Associations ª 294,015 female athletic participants in US high schools in 1971, and 1,854,400 female athletic participants in 1978 (a 631% increase in 7 years).
Title IX #2 was created in 1979 by eager bureaucrats and policy advocates after, not before, this explosion in girls' high school athletics. Title IX #2 was not strongly applied during the Reagan and Bush administrations (1980-
1992). However, Clinton's Office of Civil Rights appointee Norma Cantu has a led a vigorous enforcement of Title IX #2 for the last 6 years.
Title IX #1 is what people understand is being applied when they see schools treating female athletes equally. It is an expression of our sense of fair play and commitment to educational excellence. Title IX #1 is the Title IX that most people want to believe is being credited when, in the media, it is connected to a female athletic success.
Title IX #2 is the law that tells schools they are going to be in the crosshairs of attorneys, outside activist groups, and federal investigators as long as they do not have equal numbers of male and female athletes. Title IX #2 is what gender-quota advocates are defending when they connect Title IX to women's athletic success.
Title IX #1 does not punish females for outnumbering males in the verbal arts (theater and debate), music (chorus, band, and orchestra), dance and the vast majority of other extracurricular activities.
Title IX #2 singles out the only major extracurricular activity where males outnumber females ª sports ª and creates an enormous financial and legal incentive to eliminate male participants.
Title IX #1 demands equal opportunities for those who demonstrate the talent and desire to excel, regardless of sex.
Title IX #2 causes state-supported colleges to eliminate male programs in sports that have hundreds of thousands of high school participants, and add programs in sports such as women's hockey, precision skating, women's rowing, and equestrian which have small or no constituencies. All to simply satisfy a quota.
Supporters of Title IX #1 would find offensive the practice of schools eliminating talented, deserving, costless, non-scholarship athletes from a team simply for the purposes of meeting a quota. Supporters of Title IX #1 would say it is senseless to decide that the number of males who will be allowed to play will be limited to the number of females who wish to play. These supporters would say that there is no difference in principle between those practices and going into a collegiate dance program that has 80% females and demanding that they drop the majority of these women so that they equal the number of men participating.
Supporters of Title IX #2 say taking teams away from boys is simply the price of equality ª and males must experience pain after a history of privilege and preference.
Title IX #1 is what congress originally intended, equal opportunity for boys and girls without mandating equal outcomes.
Title IX #2 is the abuse of males at the hands of callously indifferent gender-quota-in-sports-only advocates.
There is overwhelming evidence that Title IX #2 is wreaking havoc on collegiate and high school teams. Right now over 50% of the sports teams in our NCAA schools are female, but because males come out in greater numbers they make up 61% of the athletes. We have lost 20,000 male sports opportunities in the last decade. It is undeniable that continuing with the quota interpretation of Title IX #2 will be disastrous for the males that have not already been slashed.
It was proven in the years before Title IX #2 was created that female sports opportunities could be provided fairly without resorting to gender-quotas. We have ample evidence that a considerable amount of senseless destruction comes with gender-quotas in our school sports. We only need one Title IX. Which do we want?
And while sports may seem a trivial thing to some while all these other problems exist around us, normal life still goes on and needs to be paid attention to so we can maintain a solid mental/spiritual foundation from which to battle those other larger problems ("spirit" being used in whatever way you see fit). And for many, many people sports have taught them positive life and personal lessons that no classroom could ever teach, lessons that get passed on to others in classrooms, living rooms, business offices, etc, etc.
Title IX was a law enacted in 1972 to help eliminate the academic gap between males and females by providing equal opportunities for both sexes in public schools >>> opportunities is the key word in that phrase--try to remember it as you read on. But eventually the militant feminists, people obsessed with political correctness and other narrow-minded folk twisted this law into an unfair and very unrealistic quota system.
In other words, the feminazis main weapon in their war against men is this: if a school's overall student population has, say, 60% female students, then the same school's percentage of athletes also must be 60% female. But as anyone with a half-way objective thinking process knows, many less women are as interested in sports as men are. So this seemingly fair by-the-numbers system ignores reality and is actually completely UNfair to men.
But what about all those traditionally mostly-female activities at school--why aren't THEY being forced to admit men to gain the proper male/female proportions??? Only silence on the feminazis' part and the part of the college administrators that give in to the shrill/vindictive whinings of the militant feminists & their lawyers.
The following post was copied from USAWrestling's Title IX forum because mens wrestling is one of the sports hit hard by this twisted interpretation of that law, and because it is a sport I myself am involved in. Since 1972, @414 mens college wrestling teams have been eliminated due to Title IX & this destructive practice is still going on right now. And for many other mens sports the numbers can be even higher. The forum the following post (I originated the thread itself) originated from contains lots of other infuriating information, much of it provided by one member ("BDD67") who IIRC is a lawyer himself but is also a fan of wrestling.
And now it looks like high school sports may be subjected to the same phoney quota system, a chilling thought.
"Short-n-sweet Title IX explanation?" (http://thematforums.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=40174)
USAWrestling's Title IX info page (http://www.themat.com/articles/showfaq.asp?fldAuto=21)
************************************************** **************
posted by Eric LeSher
Here is a adaptation of a great article written by someone else which does a great job of explaining it.
There are Two Title IX's
How can it be? How can Title IX be praised as the reason for all that is right in women's sports, and simultaneously be criticized as the most destructive force ever unleashed on college athletics? The answer is obvious and logical ª when it comes to sports in US schools, there are two Title IX's. Not two sides of the same coin, not good intentions accompanied by unintended consequences, but two distinct Title IX's with very different impacts. Unfortunately for our children, parents, and schools Title IX #1 is out, and Title IX #2 is in.
Title IX #1 was passed in 1972 by a congress that wanted to outlaw sex discrimination in our schools. Simply stated, less than 50 words, its passage reflected an evolving society that wanted to ensure that no doors would be closed to females in our educational programs.
Title IX #2 was created by a regulatory bureaucracy seven years later. Title IX #2 is actually a collection of regulations devised by the US Department of Education. Title IX #2's most important aspects were: 1) Unlike the vast majority of civil rights law regulations it was never presented to, debated in, or approved by congress. 2) It functions as a strict quota law.
When it came to sports, Title IX #1 was much more effective in spirit than in law. At the time legislators first debated and passed the measure, school sports were not even on their radar screens. The driving concern was the male-female academic gaps in areas like admissions and college faculty positions. But regardless of congressional intent, the idea that females should have an opportunity to experience the benefits of competitive athletics was one whose time had come. Parents, educators, and school boards implemented girls interscholastic sports programs in their local schools quickly and enthusiastically. The strongest evidence of this success is the data provided by the National Federation of State High School Associations ª 294,015 female athletic participants in US high schools in 1971, and 1,854,400 female athletic participants in 1978 (a 631% increase in 7 years).
Title IX #2 was created in 1979 by eager bureaucrats and policy advocates after, not before, this explosion in girls' high school athletics. Title IX #2 was not strongly applied during the Reagan and Bush administrations (1980-
1992). However, Clinton's Office of Civil Rights appointee Norma Cantu has a led a vigorous enforcement of Title IX #2 for the last 6 years.
Title IX #1 is what people understand is being applied when they see schools treating female athletes equally. It is an expression of our sense of fair play and commitment to educational excellence. Title IX #1 is the Title IX that most people want to believe is being credited when, in the media, it is connected to a female athletic success.
Title IX #2 is the law that tells schools they are going to be in the crosshairs of attorneys, outside activist groups, and federal investigators as long as they do not have equal numbers of male and female athletes. Title IX #2 is what gender-quota advocates are defending when they connect Title IX to women's athletic success.
Title IX #1 does not punish females for outnumbering males in the verbal arts (theater and debate), music (chorus, band, and orchestra), dance and the vast majority of other extracurricular activities.
Title IX #2 singles out the only major extracurricular activity where males outnumber females ª sports ª and creates an enormous financial and legal incentive to eliminate male participants.
Title IX #1 demands equal opportunities for those who demonstrate the talent and desire to excel, regardless of sex.
Title IX #2 causes state-supported colleges to eliminate male programs in sports that have hundreds of thousands of high school participants, and add programs in sports such as women's hockey, precision skating, women's rowing, and equestrian which have small or no constituencies. All to simply satisfy a quota.
Supporters of Title IX #1 would find offensive the practice of schools eliminating talented, deserving, costless, non-scholarship athletes from a team simply for the purposes of meeting a quota. Supporters of Title IX #1 would say it is senseless to decide that the number of males who will be allowed to play will be limited to the number of females who wish to play. These supporters would say that there is no difference in principle between those practices and going into a collegiate dance program that has 80% females and demanding that they drop the majority of these women so that they equal the number of men participating.
Supporters of Title IX #2 say taking teams away from boys is simply the price of equality ª and males must experience pain after a history of privilege and preference.
Title IX #1 is what congress originally intended, equal opportunity for boys and girls without mandating equal outcomes.
Title IX #2 is the abuse of males at the hands of callously indifferent gender-quota-in-sports-only advocates.
There is overwhelming evidence that Title IX #2 is wreaking havoc on collegiate and high school teams. Right now over 50% of the sports teams in our NCAA schools are female, but because males come out in greater numbers they make up 61% of the athletes. We have lost 20,000 male sports opportunities in the last decade. It is undeniable that continuing with the quota interpretation of Title IX #2 will be disastrous for the males that have not already been slashed.
It was proven in the years before Title IX #2 was created that female sports opportunities could be provided fairly without resorting to gender-quotas. We have ample evidence that a considerable amount of senseless destruction comes with gender-quotas in our school sports. We only need one Title IX. Which do we want?