An Alternate Means of Compliance with Title IX?

by **ponyboy** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:11 pm

Per law, a university can reach compliance by:

a) â€œProviding athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to student enrollment,â€

b) â€œdemonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex;" or

c) â€œfull and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of the underrepresented sex.â€

To me, a more fair system will be one that follows prong c above as poll after poll have shown that women have less interest in athletics as a group than do men. So therefore less accommodation must be made.

Has any institution ever attempted to implement such an interpretation?

by **mrydel** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:12 pm

I have often been accused of underrepresented sex but I do not think it is in the same context for what you are seeking an answer.

The main question is do you need to comply with a,b,& c or just one or two of the above? I only see one "or" which would indicate A. is a must, and then either B or C after that.

by **Stallion** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:21 pm

Yes that type of argument (ponyboys' version) has been shot down in multiple litigation over the years.

by **couch 'em** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:27 pm

Plus, as long as the rowing team can say "hey, who wants a scholarship" at orientation and get takers, there will always be "interest".

by **Water Pony** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:35 pm

I agree with Stallion. Alternative interpetions have been considered, but ultimately dismissed as an acceptable response that would avoid likely challenges. Parity is the goal and benefits must be consistent. So club sports do not equal scholarships in Division 1 sports and/or surveys of the general student population.

by **Pony4Life** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:35 pm

I have heard bowling and softball are next (one or the other). No idea which report, if either, is accurate. Bowling certainly would be cheapest, and the athletic department does love cheap.

by **d_pony** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:34 am

lacrosse and field hockey are also high on list - maybe the top two (playing fields are always a problem)

by **Water Pony** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:50 am

Remember, it is not just one or two extra women's team, e.g. lacrosse, field hockey, softball and bowlng, but the number of athletes on the team. Therefore, team roster size will be a factor. Lacrosse and field hockey would would have the largest rosters followed by softball.

Faciliites and playing field for lacrosse and field hockey would be easier to address. A new intramural field has already been identified on land south of the new Presidential Library.

by **NickSMU17** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:53 am

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6430091

by **ponyboy** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:12 am

Thanks for the replies. Does it not matter that women aren't as interested in sports as men? Or is there a punitive aspect to this, a great desire to shove an unneeded solution down our throats in order to punish us for years of abusive treatment of women?

by **Dooby** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:04 am

TCU has rifle. Seems like an easy add.

I still say, contrary to that court case that was published a year ago, that cheerleading will eventually be a "sport" for title IX purposes. I think that case was poorly argued and had bad facts.

It doesn't matter that "chicks don't like sports.". All it takes is one women to sue saying they want to play a scholarship sport and women make up more than 50% of student population and absence of evidence that funding is equal (not possible at any school with football) or that school is making strides in making things equal, the school will lose.

Oh, and as a history lesson, Title IX was added to the Civil Rights Act by southern democratic senators in an effort to make the bill so unpalatable that it wouldn't pass the Senate. So, make of that what you want.

by **Water Pony** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:14 pm

ponyboy wrote:Thanks for the replies. Does it not matter that women aren't as interested in sports as men? Or is there a punitive aspect to this, a great desire to shove an unneeded solution down our throats in order to punish us for years of abusive treatment of women?

From a legistative point of view, if there is a lack of similiar interest, it is irrelevant. The only legal position schools can take to ensure they don't violate Title IX is parity in the number of varsity sports participants.

Therefore, more women sports than men's teams.

by **CA Mustang** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:44 pm

Dooby wrote:Oh, and as a history lesson, Title IX was added to the Civil Rights Act by southern democratic senators in an effort to make the bill so unpalatable that it wouldn't pass the Senate. So, make of that what you want.

The Civi Rights Act was signed in 1964 while the educational amendement wasn't added until 1972. Not much is said about the Senate, but at least in the House the charge was led by Congresswomen from Hawaii and Oregon.

http://www.titleix.info/history/history-overview.aspx
http://www.now.org/issues/title_ix/history.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patsy_Mink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Green

by **ponyboy** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:09 am

It needs to be repealed and now as it is discriminatory.

by **docabel** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:10 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/sports/26titleix.html?scp=2&sq=katie%20thomas&st=cse

South Florida - half of CC team never ran in a race and many on roster did not know they were on the team.

Cornell - 15 of the 34 fencers on the womens team are MEN

Texas a&m - Some of the athletes counted towards the women's basketball team are MEN.

ALL legal and already annually reported to NCAA