Title IX Hurdles

(Ed. note: We occasionally accept guest op-eds at 538 Refugees. In this case, it is from one of our right-leaning commenters. In the interest of fostering bi-partisanship, we present an article from regular commenter parksie555. — Mr. Universe)

by Jim Parks

This is my first article on 538 Refugees, so go easy, lefties. It’s a little bit of a change of pace from discussion of Obama, budgets, and health care. The best way to describe it would be the “unintended consequences of government overreach.”

Title IX hurdles

The story begins a few days ago when I opened my morning paper, the Wilmington News-Journal, and the lede in the sports section is about the University of Delaware dropping men’s track and field and men’s cross country, effective after this season. The News-Journal quotes athletic director Bernard Muir:

We explored every avenue in search of alternatives to this action. After weighing several possibilities, we concluded that this plan is our most viable. We found ourselves facing two options: Either we had to continue the periodic expansion of programming for women in order to be responsive to their interest and ability, or adjust the current offerings to provide equitable and substantially proportionate participation opportunities for our men and women. Continued expansion of our Athletics program is not feasible in this financial climate, and given that reality, the University made the only decision it could.

The article said that UD currently has a student body that is 58% female, and that in order to meet the proportionality guideline of the three prong test, these sports must be dropped.

Delaware's Graduating Class of a Century Ago

Delaware has competed in men’s track and field meets for a hundred years—literally. The first meet was in 1911. It has not been a glamorous program—just kids getting a chance to compete at the next level beyond high school. The program has always had outstanding student athletes—not majoring in such garbage as “Recreational Studies” like many in more renowned athletic programs. And the program has provided a large proportion of coaches for local high school and middle school teams; the News-Journal quotes a local coach who estimates that 25% of the high school track and cross country coaches in the state are alumni of the UD track and cross country programs. In short, the program clearly illustrates what college sports should be all about.

I don’t think that the cuts are for budgetary reasons; the entire cross country budget costs less than that for a single roster spot on the basketball team, according to the article. It is hard for me to imagine that these two sports are budget busters at a major state university.

So what went wrong here? Is it a legitimate role of the federal government to decide who should and shouldn’t get a chance to play college sports? Are the problems related to Title IX implementation and interpretation an issue that Congress needs to address, even with all the other issues our nation faces? Have the problems caused by Title IX now outweighed the benefits that Title IX has wrought?

I would argue that this is an excellent cautionary tale for those that feel more government regulation is a solution for many of society’s problems.

What say you, fellow Refugees?

Jim Parks is a process control engineer with a large chemical company. He is a lifetime Delawarean. A big baseball fan, board wargamer, and a bit of a military history buff, he considers himself politically an endangered species: an elephant in Delaware, philosophically aligned with the upstate faction of the party.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

78 Responses to Title IX Hurdles

  1. Mr. Universe says:

    Good article Mr. Parks.

    Not an unfamiliar argument. I’ve am on record with similar complaints against the Americans With Disabilities Act. There have been instances where hiking facilities have been rejected or hampered from Government monies because it didn’t address disability issues (despite the fact that the disabled are generally not involved in hiking). The same argument has also been made in regards to affirmative action.

    The regulation is meant to level the playing field and end discriminatory practice. There will, inevitably, be some cases where it is over-reach. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is necessary to compensate for past inadequacies. I don’t know about the Delaware track team in particular. My guess is there is a move to make their sport more inclusive.

    I’ve never been a fan of correcting a wrong with another wrong; particularly when it involves me or my offspring bearing the burden of a competing wrong that may have been incurred by people or generations whom I’ve never met. Why is that my fault?

    But it is what it is. Equity is a good thing. I guess sacrifice is the least I can do. Perhaps Dr. King’s dream will one day be just regarded as a foregone conclusion.

  2. shortchain says:

    Good article, Parksie.

    What you are seeing is a game of political chicken. When a lower level of the political arena chafes under the budget they’ve been handed by a higher level, they will frequently pick a popular program under their control and threaten to cut it, citing budget reasons.

    Public universities in this country are under siege, being forced to absorb budget cuts year-on-year. They can’t raise tuition in order to avoid a shortfall. Hence they’ll play this game. Title IX is just an excuse.

    Of course, sometimes they win, getting more money, which is why they play the game, but often everybody loses — just like in the actual game of chicken.

    There are many examples in which federal regulations require strange, and, in the end, self-defeating, modifications to public projects. For example, in our city, a proposal was made to add a scenic stairway, which would have allowed panoramic views. Very nice. Except that, due to federal regulations, it turned out that it would have to have an elevator or ramps for ADA-required access. The whole project was scrapped, because there was insufficient money to pay for that.

    Was this a bad result? In a sense, sure. But does that mean that all ADA requirements should be scrapped? Probably not.

    Here’s the rest of the story. The local government could have requested, and very likely obtained, a waiver for this particular project. They chose not to. Why? Because they were feuding with higher-level government over funding, and wanted to use this example as ammunition.

    The real problem isn’t necessarily the federal regulations, although that is certainly true in some cases. But beyond the federal regulations is all the paperwork. The forms that need to be filed will bury a project. That’s the thing that needs to be reformed. Ask anybody who has to fill them in, and they’ll tell you — there are a million forms, and they’re so confusing you can’t fill them in without expert help, which you can’t get from the agencies, typically, because they don’t have the expertise. The people who created the forms are gone or off creating new forms, and nobody else knows what the boxes mean.

    I sincerely hope that Obama is serious about reforming regulations. The paperwork is a place his administration could do something on.

  3. Mainer says:

    Parksie very well done as expected. I think you are also looking at a broader issue than might be at first evident. There are unfortunatly way too many schools that have used Title 9 as a scape goat for broader programming and resource allocation issues. I went and did a little digging at UD sports blog sites and offer just one link of what is more likely going on than a pure Title 9 issue.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jeff_pearlman/01/20/delaware.cross.country/index.html

    My U Maine hs faced similar issues but to date has not gone down the road of blaming Title 9 to hide football and basketball funding issues. Title 9 can of course be over enforced just as any law can be but I don’t think that is the issue here any more than it has been in a number of instances. I have been a school administrator and fought with these issues and they can be dealt with. They can not be dealt with when one or more programs are sucking the economic life out of the entire program and scape goating a program that is just trying to keep things in perspective.

  4. Bartbuster says:

    So what went wrong here?

    Nothing is wrong here. Universities receiving federal funds (aka almost all of them) are required by law to provide equal opportunities for men and women. I’m not sure why anyone would think there is something wrong with that. If you do see it as a serious problem you could always move to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. I’m quite certain that Title IX is not a factor over there.

  5. Monotreme says:

    Good article. None of us are immune from the Law of Unintended Consequences.

    However, I do see a problem in that if we went to the opposite extreme (i.e. a strict business model) then most schools would have huge, rich football and men’s basketball programs and nothing else. These programs subsidize other sports programs. For example, Mrs. Monotreme and I are avid women’s basketball fans, but we have no problem finding seats at the game — which we attend for free. Meanwhile, the men’s college team is sold out.

  6. Bartbuster says:

    I’m pretty sure that the university can still field a men’s track team if it’s willing to give up all federal funding. So the problem here is not government overreach, the problem here is a university that isn’t willing to make the sacrifices needed to discriminate against women.

  7. It does seem as if the program is being used as a political football (or should I say track and field?), rather than sincerely about Title IX. As you noted, something about it doesn’t quite pass the smell test.

  8. Bart DePalma says:

    Tyranny of good intentions.

  9. Bartbuster says:

    Tyranny of good intentions.

    What tyranny? If the university wants to discriminate against women, all it has to do is lose all federal funding. There is no tyranny in that.

  10. NotImpressed says:

    You make a good point, Bartbuster. Most of the people who don’t like Title 9 also don’t like federal money going to schools. So they should solve both issues at once.

    Title 9 does not require anyone to do anything. It only says you need to have gender equity in school sports, if and only if you want Federal money. Most of the people who want to discriminate in schools sports on the basis of sex ALSO don’t like having the Feds spend money on schools. So give up the Federal money. Then be as sexist as you want. Where’s the problem?

    The problem, apparently, is that they don’t want other schools taking advantage of Federal money and teaching their girls well. If might, after all, put bad ideas into the heads of the womenfolk.

  11. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    I think many are missing at least PART of the point.

    Which ISN’T about a money shortage due to Title IX. It’s about participation rates. For UD to meet the participation rate otherwise, they COULD ADD more women’s sports.

    The SI article obliquely makes that observation by talking about 103 footballers. What if they cut back on a QB, a couple of RB’s, maybe a lineman or two? To where they carrying, say, 85 in football. Would the quality of the program decrease? Probably not. The disparity would diminish between the Male and Female sides.

    For Parksie (and congrats on a good article. I KNOW there are reasonable conservative thinkers), I would ask “What if you were a female athlete who wanted to go to UD and were told there was no room? Would you think the shoe would fit as tightly? In looking at “fairness” issues ALWAYS place yourself in the opposition role. If it don’t feel right there, the point is made.

    Like a divorce, if the assets and liabilities are divided down the middle so well that you don’t care WHICH half you would get, THAT’S fair. Anything else is not.

    As has been stated. ANY entity, states, cities, universities that would rather opt out of such Federal programs can easily do so by opting out of receiving Federal largess. The Constitution says that a citizen shall expect full rights of citizenship ANYWHERE in this country, so the matter of shifting such fairness control back to state level does not apply.

  12. parksie555 says:

    Bartbuster, et al – Is discrimination against women playing college sports in 2011 really a problem our government needs to solve? Can you honestly tell me that any woman that wants to participate in collegiate athletics faces a serious obstacle due to a lack of offered programs?

    The problem I have is that the law tries to make the male-female ratio in the sports programs equivalent to the ratio in the student body at large – using a sledgehammer to drive in a screw, IMHO. A good idea, just the wrong approach.

    And ‘Treme, Mainer – I would agree that there are other factors in play but the budget for these sports is so small that I just can’t see a financial angle. To me there is no question that Title IX is the major factor in the decision to drop these two sports.

  13. parksie555 says:

    BTW Mainer – thanks for the Pearlman link. He was a freshman the year after I graduated. Remember reading his “Pearl’s Jam” column in the UD student paper. I was close to following the same path he did as a walk-on in cross country as a freshman but quickly realized the chemical engineering curriculum at Delaware was going to be tough enough for me as it was…

  14. Bart DePalma says:

    NotImpressed says: Title 9 does not require anyone to do anything. It only says you need to have gender equity in school sports, if and only if you want Federal money

    True enough. You take the government’s money, you sell your freedom.

  15. mclever says:

    Ah! Parksie’s a ChemE! No wonder he’s got a good brain on his conservative shoulders. 🙂

    Good article, Parksie. I would suggest that this isn’t so much an issue of “government overreach” as it is one of crafting legislation that doesn’t progress with the times. Thirty years ago, Title IX was a huge deal, and probably necessary to give women’s/girl’s programs the necessary leg-up. It needed to be blunt, rigid, and stubborn. It needed to be a sledgehammer.

    But now that most schools offer ~50-50 in programs, the law should probably be re-examined. Perhaps we can downgrade from the sledge hammer to an adze. I do not think the law should be scrapped entirely, lest we fall back to inequality, but there are pockets of irrationality that should be addressed. Things like, should cheerleading count as a sport? Why or why not? (There are some pretty compelling arguments around cheerleading in particular.) Or, instead of linking it strictly to proportionality of the student body, maybe 50-50 is good enough, or maybe they can allow some exemptions/leeway at schools that have majority female populations.

    I don’t know what the answers are, but I am aware that there are some issues with the way Title IX is being implemented. From my own experiences, I believe there is sufficient pressure against girls’ programs to keep the law in place. (If push came to shove, the girls’ athletic programs would be the first cut, right after music and art.) But, I agree that the law probably merits revision where there are obvious flaws in practice.

  16. shiloh says:

    Re: “we the people” ~ funding for sports/extra curriculars ~ high school tax levies

    ie tax levies repeatedly are not passed in a particular school district, soooo

    what gets cut ~ sports, music programs, teachers etc.

    Now you have the public school vs. private school argument ie it is interesting in the state of Ohio, Catholic high schools always seem to win the state high school football championships, etc. Having gone to a Jesuit hs myself, which went co-ed in the ’90s or else face going under ie $$$ as Bart would say:

    Life’s just not fair, deal w/it!

    In private hs’s defense, my hs as well as most other private high school’s in OH do have/offer scholarship programs for the less fortunate, but you have to meet certain academic requirements, plus if you are really, really good at a certain sport 😉 again allowances/exceptions are made.

    A couple local anecdotes: When Lebron James and his 3/4 lifetime friends, AAU basketball buddies were getting ready to attend hs, there was a big fuss when he decided to go to Akron St. Vincent/St. Mary instead of Akron Buchtel, the public school. Me thinks many arms were twisted and $$$ exchanged before this came to be. Suffice it to say many folks around Akron were sayin’ hmm.

    And several years ago there was this athlete who played football at Mogadore, but transferred to Coventry mid school year to be on their championship wrestling team as it was legal in OH to do so at the time .

    >

    Bottom line $$$ and who decides who gets what and what programs are dropped. As per usual, the rich get richer, ie college football ~ Texas, Ohio State, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Southern Cal, Oklahoma, Penn State, Michigan, Notre Dame etc. where their football programs make so much $$$ they can easily fund all the other college sports programs.

    rights and privileges ~ fair and unfair … the age old argument.

    and should college football players be paid since they are cash cows to many universities.

    >

    Supply and demand, rich vs. poor as it’s always about $$$.

    “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

    Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

    Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

    Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

    Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God.

    Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.

    Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
    ~~~~~

    but, but, but what have you done for me lately …

  17. Bartbuster says:

    Bartbuster, et al – Is discrimination against women playing college sports in 2011 really a problem our government needs to solve?

    Is a men’s track team something a university really needs? If sports are important enough for a university which receives government money, then it’s important enough for the government to make sure our money isn’t going to organizations which discriminate.

    To me there is no question that Title IX is the major factor in the decision to drop these two sports.

    To me there is no question that the university’s desire to keep receiving government funds is the major factor in the decision to drop these sports.

    After all, there is nothing stopping them from keeping the men’s track team.

  18. Bartbuster says:

    True enough. You take the government’s money, you sell your freedom.

    When you take ANYONE’s money you sell your freedom.

  19. shiloh says:

    Everything is always so black and white w/Bartles ~ no pun intended! 😉

  20. Todd Dugdale says:

    Is it a legitimate role of the federal government to decide who should and shouldn’t get a chance to play college sports?

    That’s not what is happening at all. The federal government is not telling any college or university that they can’t have an athletic programme. It seems to me that the issue comes down to not enough female students being interested in the sport. The federal government isn’t saying that a university can’t have co-ed teams, for example.

    Perhaps school desegregation in the 1960’s resulted in black athletes taking spots on teams that white students once held. This wouldn’t be an example of the federal government deciding who can play high school sports.

    What is lost here is that this legislation was enacted precisely because these educational institutions did not act in “good faith” with regard to female athletes.

    Just as with racial desegregation, schools forgot about the “equal” part of “separate but equal” and created an injustice. Not only that, they became intractable about resolving that injustice. It wasn’t a case of the “evil federal government” looking for some possible way to intrude on local public schools by blowing up some petty issue into something outrageous. There wasn’t some federal bureaucrat rubbing his hands together with glee and cackling maniacally at the opportunity to subvert local school boards’ power. I don’t recall anyone in government saying, “Finally, we have the chance to send the National Guard to elementary schools!”. The sad aspect of the whole ugly business is that, if the local school boards had been willing to make concessions (or at least false promises), they could have preserved much of that injustice. Instead, they dared the federal government to take action, and they lost.

    There was plenty of opportunity for post-secondary institutions to “do the right thing” prior to Title IX even being proposed. Instead, they picked a fight and sided with injustice. They surrendered “the benefit of a doubt”. I don’t see them as victims. They picked a fight for an ignoble cause and they lost. Are we supposed to feel sorry for an institution that chose to discriminate against female students for decades? Again, if these institutions had been willing to make marginal, sham efforts with regard to women’s’ athletics, this entire discussion would be moot.

  21. Mainer says:

    Yes Todd and if my memory serves me I think one woul find most of the case law surrounding Title 9 has been pretty cut and dried. I strongly believe that if one were to dig deeply enough into UD’s athaletic attic that one would find a number of ways that this could have been headed off. This is a smoke screen put forth by entrenched basketball and football interestes (expecially football) to keep themselves first among equals at the money through. Hell UD plays U Maine or did and neither program is or can ever expect to be a money maker. Some one is trying to build an empire and when push came to shove over resource allocation blamed it on some one else.

    Parksie I will actually get a chance to see your fair state this spring and look forward to seeing what Willimington has to offer. This has been a great and thought provoking piece as are many on here. See conservatives can get read here, maybe not agreed with so much but definetly read and appreciated.

  22. Todd Dugdale says:

    A guy gets caught with 17 stolen cars and gets sentenced to federal prison for grand theft auto. He also had a sideline making velvet paintings of Elvis, and sold car parts to buy art supplies. The prison won’t let him make his paintings while he is incarcerated.

    Is it a legitimate role of the federal government to decide who should and shouldn’t get a chance to create art? How about all of those innocent people looking for velvet Elvis paintings who won’t get the chance to own one now? Should we allow the federal government’s sheer hatred of Elvis Presley’s memory to influence one man’s creative impulses? Do we really want to live in country that places a greater value on cars than it does Elvis? Can’t we simply let the guy escape the consequences of his actions because we like Elvis, and it wasn’t our cars that were stolen?

    Obviously, this is a case of Obama putting people in prison merely because they respect the memory of Elvis Presley. It’s time to take our country back.

    Yes, discrimination is illegal, but that doesn’t mean there should be actual consequences for breaking the law. I like college sports, and it wasn’t my daughter that was discriminated against, so can’t we just let this slide? I’m pretty sure that colleges will never, ever discriminate again if we would just leave them alone.

  23. NotImpressed says:

    Todd Dugdale

    Excellent analogy. Anyone who paints velvet Elvises sells their freedom. We live under tyranny.

    It has been true of children’s toys for a long time. If you choose to manufacture children’s toys, you are not free to lather them up with lead-based paint. Talk about gubbermint intrusion!! Whatever happened to liberty in America? This injustice must be rectified. If elections are not sufficient, we must rely on the second amendment. As a toymaker, I’m prevented from buying the sort of paint I want. Did you know that Hitler was a painter too? It fits together when you look at the whole picture.

  24. shiloh says:

    I’m pretty sure that colleges will never, ever discriminate again if we would just leave them alone. ie human nature.

    Bigotry/Racism will always exist as evidenced daily at political blogs, eh.

    ok, ok, that would be passive/aggressive racism lol as opposed to the real thing, Bart’s teabaggers!

  25. parksie555 says:

    Agree Mclever that the law probably just needs to be updated to reflect the current climate, come up with better ways to ensure that there is no sex based discrimination in college athletic opportunities.

    And Todd Dugdale – you say “It seems to me that the issue comes down to not enough female students being interested in the sport”. I agree with your statement 100% – so why punish the members of the UD track and field squad because not enough of the female students at UD want to play other sports? You really think this is what this law was meant to do? Do you really think it is a legitimate role of government to insist that the ratio of male athletes to female athletes must exactly match the ratio of male students to female students? Does that make a lot of sense to you? Honestly?

    I am not saying it should be #1, #2, or even #37 on a list of things our goverment needs to fix right away, but are you really going to argue that this is a good and necessary law at this point?

  26. Bartbuster says:

    but are you really going to argue that this is a good and necessary law at this point?

    Not only has it been argued, but your pro-discrimination argument has been eviscerated. This isn’t a case of the government forcing UD to end track and field, this is about UD deciding that government money is worth more than track and field. Why are you having so much trouble grasping that fact? UD can still field a men’s track team. All it has to do is forfeit government money.

  27. Todd Dugdale says:

    I think what this discussion has shown is that, if a group in engaging in discrimination, the last thing desired is federal intervention. Instead of discriminators digging in their heels, invoking “tradition”, flipping off the federal government, and relying upon conservatives to defend them, they should make voluntary changes that obviate the need for legislation.

    What would we replace Title IX with? A pinky swear from Athletic Directors not to discriminate? What, exactly, is the conservative alternative?

    Civil rights should not be a Right/Left issue. Sadly, however, it is always the Left that has to take up the cause, while the Right throws bricks and frames civil rights supporters as communists.

    If one-third of the numbers the Left brought to bear in the struggle for school desegregation had been conservatives, we never would have had armed troops escorting children into schools. Where were the conservatives willing to say, “These are my fellow American citizens, and you will treat them as you would treat me“? No, instead those conservatives either wrung their hands in despair and wished the whole thing would just go away, or they stuck up for the bigots. Look what we got from that course of action.

    If there were large numbers of conservatives knocking on the doors of college administrators 30 years ago to demand equal treatment of women, we wouldn’t have any Title IX right now. Instead, all of those conservatives waved their alumni lapel pins in support of the discriminatory policies, and ceded the moral high ground to feminists and the Left.

    Jeff, do you not see that bigots consistently hide behind conservatives and use them as human shields to perpetuate discrimination and injustice? If you really don’t want federal legislation used as a blunt instrument in anti-discrimination cases, all that you and your fellow conservatives have to do is employ a fraction of the vitriol that you expend on the Left and take on the injustice itself.

    By conservatives refusing to take on the bigots, it just makes it easier for the bigots to dismiss any criticism as “fringe”, and “commie talk”. Why do conservatives let these kind of people hide behind their good name? Why offer them refuge and strident support? Is it really just because it irritates the Left when you do that?

    The day that conservatives stand up and take on the people who would make second or third class citizens of any of us is the day that “political correctness” dies. Don’t blame the federal government for taking action when conservatives are too cowardly to resolve these things sans legal remedies.

    Federal legislation in these cases is a last-resort measure. I won’t defend it as ideal, but I sure as hell won’t pretend that the problem would have gone away on its own.

  28. shiloh says:

    Todd re: history, this is why VA, TX, MS, AL etc. ie mcdonnell, perry, barbour are trying so hard to revise/eliminate the South’s and their own racist past from the history books and continue to attempt to celebrate the South getting their butt’s kicked in the War between the States!

    Yes Virginia, contrary to George C. Scott’s screed in Patton America did lose a war as the South ie Americans surrendered at Appomattox as Patton’s grandfather and (4) great-uncles served in the confederacy and (((lost !!!)))

    Indeed the atlantic slave trade is a “proud” part of the South’s historic past, eh and revising the American text books will not change the facts. Sorry Haley, Bartles et al

    btw, p555s 1st name is Jim, not Jeffrey …

  29. parksie555 says:

    Todd, BB, I am clearly not advocating discrimination in any way. What I am saying is the law is no longer serving the purpose that was originally intended. Society has changed so much with regards to university demographics and women’s athletics that the law no longer makes sense.

    The conservative solution? Fix the law, use some common sense. Maybe get rid of the law, let the market decide. Let a smart university president somewhere use the prominence of women’s athletics at their institution be a selling point for their school. Just don’t keep jamming a stupid solution down everyone’s throat because of
    conditions thirty years ago.

  30. shiloh says:

    p555, please reread Todd Dugdale’s previous (2) posts as they apparently flew over your head …

    His sarcasm ~ I’m pretty sure that colleges will never, ever discriminate again if we would just leave them alone. ie self-regulation re: discrimination is a fool’s errand at best. Especially when conservatives, like yourself, are makin’ this suggestion knowing the long, proud history of the Republican party re: racism and equal rights/protection under the law.

    Minority rights
    Women’s rights
    Gay rights

    Again, the John Birch Society was a co-sponsor of 2010 CPAC ~ Conservative Political Action Conference so much for Reps breaking away from its racist past, eh.

    ‘nuf said!

    take care, blessings

  31. Bartbuster says:

    Todd, BB, I am clearly not advocating discrimination in any way.

    Yes, you clearly are. You want to get rid of a law that was put in place to stop discrimination. Unless you just arrived from another planet, you’ve got to know that the discrimination going to return once the law is gone.

    Maybe get rid of the law, let the market decide.

    The market didn’t work prior to the law. That is why the law was passed. I can’t imagine why you think the market would work any better now. In fact, given that men’s sports tend to bring in a lot more money than women’s sports, the market pretty much guarantees a return to discrimination.

    Just don’t keep jamming a stupid solution down everyone’s throat because of
    conditions thirty years ago.

    Nothing is being jammed down anyone’s throat. Why is it so Fing difficult for you to understand that UD can keep men’s track if it walks away from government cash?

  32. Bartbuster says:

    I honestly thought that after Todd’s most recent post that you would have sense enough to admit that you’re wrong. You’re getting killed. In the proud tradition of wingnuts everywhere, it’s time to pretend you didn’t get your ass kicked and flee the scene of the beating.

  33. Mainer says:

    Ok now I shall endeavour to piss every one off.

    Parksie I would spend some time looking at the numbers out of your beloved UD. Those numbers tell me some thing is amiss. Their atheletic budget is about 24.8 Mil and I compare it to my own U of Maine at 10 to 12 Mil. We have comparable programs in a number of sports except we have a top end hockey program. We meet the NCAA standards for NCAA 1-AA by having more than 14 approved varsity programs. How does what UD just do affect that? I think if you look deeper you have a university atheletic program that is out of control and looking for scape goats. They may want to be the next Boise State but they are already more than doubling their monetary effort and don’t have a program that can hold a candle to them. It isn’t going to happen and gutting every thing else is not going to make it happen.

    The comment has been made that there are not enough female atheletes to make up the difference. If that is the case it would have to be the only program of a similar size and type to have that program. The problem is very rarely a lack of females wanting to compete but rather a lack of opportunitiesto compete. I would suggest you do some digging Jim as it appears that even the numbers being bandied about to support this killing of the mens track and CC opportunities is just an effort to hide an even wider lack of compliance. It appears that any thing not football related is being sacrificed to build a greater football empire. This has almost nothing to do with the women or Title 9 but some ones wet dreams of football glory.

    Do I have any faith that getting rid of Title 9 would some how magically result in every one doing that which is right? No I have zero faith that that would happen. The same types of aholes that made Title 9 necessary in the first place would just crawl out of the wood work and we would be right back where we started. My own coaching experience is at the high school level but I have many friends in the college coaching ranks and they almost uniformly believe that the only thing even coming close to maintaining a level playing field is still title 9.

    Title 9 might need to be updated but not by people predisposed to gut any thing federal. Leave it alone. I wonder how this might be viewed at say UConn or that Southern school with the kick ass soft ball program? I really believe Parksie that what we are seeing is just one more let the states run what they couldn’t run before and have no intention of running now.

  34. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Oh no you DIDN’T, shiloh!

    The atlantic slave trade is a “proud” part of NEW ENGLAND and the NORTHERN merchants’ historic past, at least until 1808!

    And you need to read Sen. James Webb’s book Born Fighting and learn about the Scots-Irish of the South and Appalachia. Great insight on the fact of why the common people of the South volunteered in such numbers when 98% didn’t own slaves and were harmed economically by slavery.

    AND slavery was not outlawed in the North by the Emancipation Proclamation by the Feds. It was not until the passage of Amendment XIII that slaves were freed OUTSIDE the areas in rebellion where the Proclamation was to be effected.

    Stay away from general statements!

    Blessings.

  35. BB,
    I don’t see the same ass-whipping that you see.

  36. shiloh says:

    Max

    New England yes, but also VA, SC etc. and the South was so proud of their slave trade, they fought the American Civil War !!! over state’s rights ie slavery.

    You bet’cha!

    but yes Virginia, their were slaves in northern states also.

    take care, blessings

  37. shiloh says:

    I don’t see the same ass-whipping that you see.

    What I see is some pandering!

    but, but, but I was raised a cynic/skeptic er realist …

  38. Bartbuster says:

    I don’t see the same ass-whipping that you see.

    I’m not the least bit surprised by that.

  39. Bartbuster says:

    I don’t see the same ass-whipping that you see.

    You should read Todd’s posts repeatedly until the ass-kicking becomes clear to you. If that does not happen, please let us know. I’d like to confirm that this is the moment when I can stop taking you seriously.

  40. BB,
    What I see is two people talking past each other.

    It looks to me as if parksie is arguing that perhaps Title IX is too rigidly defined, and could benefit from a more nuanced design and application. I disagree with the notion of eliminating it altogether, but that didn’t appear to be his first choice.

    On the other hand, I hear Todd’s argument as an all-or-nothing affair, that we either have Title IX as currently written or we have nothing but voluntary compliance.

    That hardly sounds like an ass-kicking to me. Now, perhaps I’m misinterpreting their positions. Todd and parksie, if I misinterpreted your positions, please let me know.

  41. Mainer says:

    I think there are two concerns here Michael and I think you have them reasonably outlined. I hate when individuals use a program they don’t like as an excuse. But it is at some point going to be necessary to revisit T-9 and bring it forward. I do not think that time is now. To do so now would most likely just mean seeing it ditched in its entirety to be replaced with nothing. That would in my estimation be a major step back for women all over the country.

    The answer? I guess leave it alone but be vigilant of wrong doings and blow the whistle when they occur but be damned careful some one isn’t trying to create a smoke screen to hide their actual wrong doings.

  42. NotImpressed says:

    Bartbuster, “The market didn’t work prior to the law. That is why the law was passed. I can’t imagine why you think the market would work any better now. In fact, given that men’s sports tend to bring in a lot more money than women’s sports, the market pretty much guarantees a return to discrimination.”

    This is a perfect description of much of our business / political climate. Change a few words, and you’re describing health care. Or food safety. Or financial regulations. Or workplace discrimination. Or child labor laws.

    The marketplace is good for some thing. It encourages efficiency. It helps to maximize profits, so it’s good for shareholders. But it is very bad in areas of the public good. And this is getting worse in an age of such effective and manipulative propaganda, i.e., advertising. Maybe it’s time to effectively regulate advertisers.

  43. Bartbuster says:

    What I see is two people talking past each other.

    Then you should read Todd’s posts a few m0re times. Parksie’s arguments is based on 2 basic points:

    1, Do we really need Title IX?
    2. I think the Market could solve this problem.

    He offers virtually nothing to support these points, he just seems to be unhappy that Title IX is forcing schools to get rid of some marginal men’s sports.

    Todd proceeds to eviscerate these 2 points, with supporting historical evidence. Todd isn’t “talking past” Parksie, Todd is crushing Parksie.

    Parksie responds to this beatdown by ignoring it and tries again to make the same 2 points:

    1. Do we really, REALLY need Title IX?
    2. I REALLY think the Market could resolve this.

    Rinse, lather, repeat.

    but that didn’t appear to be his first choice.

    Yes, that IS his first choice. The only “solution” he offered is that the Market could solve the problem (with nothing to support that claim).

  44. shiloh says:

    Maybe it’s time to effectively regulate advertisers.

    but, but, but that’s regulating free speech which is partly why wingers did well in the 2010 midterms ie they had more $$$ from outside conservative billionaire which flooded the airwaves w/misinformation to push their own selfish, bottom line interests.

    Plus they all hate Obama w/a passion, much like Bartles and went all out w.their cash explosion. But now we’re going from Title IX to Citizens United eh.

    As always, America gets what it deserves as “we” become less educated and more easily scared …

    Did I mention America survives despite itself!

    In the final analysis, America really, really did deserve (8) years of cheney/bush.

    ‘nuf said!

  45. Bartbuster says:

    The marketplace is good for some thing. It encourages efficiency. It helps to maximize profits, so it’s good for shareholders

    It’s good for short-term efficiency and profits. It’s terrible for long-term planning.

  46. shiloh says:

    Bartbuster, there may be a fine line between pandering and totally misinterpreting/misunderstanding what someone is sayin’ in their posts … or not.

    The truth is out there …

    Part of “my” problem is this topic has been discussed ad nauseam at the old 538 and elsewhere previously, as again, there’s nothing new under the sun …

  47. Mainer,

    But it is at some point going to be necessary to revisit T-9 and bring it forward. I do not think that time is now. To do so now would most likely just mean seeing it ditched in its entirety to be replaced with nothing.

    Why? What’s unique about now that makes it likely that it would be ditched rather than fixed? Are you referring to the makeup of Congress, or something else entirely?

    I guess what I’m trying to understand is whether this discussion is focused on “what should be, assuming we could pass whatever legislation we wanted” or “what we can accomplish given the current Congress.”

  48. BB,

    Parksie’s arguments is based on 2 basic points:
    1, Do we really need Title IX?
    2. I think the Market could solve this problem.

    That’s not what I inferred, but that’s why I asked for parksie to tell me if your interpretation is accurate, or mine is.

    If your interpretation is correct, then I disagree with him. If mine is correct, then Todd is arguing against a strawman.

    Todd proceeds to eviscerate these 2 points

    Not the first one. He just explained why it was needed in the first place, and why something should still be in place. He did nothing to explain why any change at all would mean a return to the bad old days. Nor, incidentally, have you. Do you allege that any change at all to Title IX would be equivalent to eliminating it?

  49. Bartbuster says:

    Not the first one.

    Yes, the first one. Parksie asked “do we need it?”, and Todd explained why we do.

    If mine is correct

    What exactly is yours?

    Do you allege that any change at all to Title IX would be equivalent to eliminating it?

    He didn’t propose any changes. Saying “we should change this” is not the same thing as proposing actual changes. He did propose to get rid of it and let the market decide, but that idea has been eviscerated.

  50. To clarify what I’m trying to do here…

    Sure, the conversation can devolve into partisan sniping. There are plenty of places on the Internet for that, though. What I would really like to see at this site, however, is discussions founded upon the things upon which we agree, without strawman reductionism. Such conversations are opportunities to learn something, and to find solutions that are better than the ones we currently have.

    As I alluded to a few days ago, the partisan sniping is akin to a food fight. It discourages the authors here from producing content that takes any time or care. Is this truly what you want?

  51. NotImpressed says:

    Bartbuster “It’s good for short-term efficiency and profits. It’s terrible for long-term planning.”

    You’re right about that. But that may be partially cultural. We currently stress each quarter’s profits. From what I read (so this is anecdotal, treat it as you will) some other nations, and other times in Europe’s past, this is / was not always so. Family-owned businesses want to leave a healthy company for the kids and grandkids. A society that values ancient thoughts thinks longer-term, and their corporations tend to plan for decades or generations, not just for months. I’m not sure if that can be said to be a function of “the market” however. Perhaps it’s about how markets operate under differing social conditions.

    To the topic of the thread: the American market, as it currently functions, can certainly NOT be trusted to correct problems of discrimination. Today, universities (unfortunately) are run as corporations. So: A) We have historical evidence that, left to themselves, American corporations discriminate. B) There is positive pressure for American corporations to engage in these sorts of activities, because it maximizes short-term profits.

    So SOME regulation is necessary, IF we are to value fair and equitable treatment (something required under our Constitution). The question is not whether we need regulations, but what those regulations should be.

  52. BB,

    He didn’t propose any changes. Saying “we should change this” is not the same thing as proposing actual changes.

    No, it’s not. But some, like mclever, started to discuss what changes might be worth making. To which he responded:

    Agree Mclever that the law probably just needs to be updated to reflect the current climate, come up with better ways to ensure that there is no sex based discrimination in college athletic opportunities.

    Sure, he also mentioned elsewhere eliminating it. Fine. That’s an easy argument to rebut. It’s also lazy and intellectually dishonest to stop there. That’s why it’s no ass-kicking in my book.

  53. Bartbuster says:

    As I alluded to a few days ago, the partisan sniping is akin to a food fight. It discourages the authors here from producing content that takes any time or care. Is this truly what you want?

    There is nothing partisan about my comments. The ideas in his article were, to be kind, deeply flawed. Should that be ignored in the interests of not hurting his feelings? From what I have seen the rightwingnuts don’t have much to offer for reasonable ideas nowadays, so I doubt it will be a big loss if they decide not to produce any content for this blog.

  54. Bartbuster says:

    No, it’s not. But some, like mclever, started to discuss what changes might be worth making. To which he responded:

    Agree Mclever that the law probably just needs to be updated to reflect the current climate, come up with better ways to ensure that there is no sex based discrimination in college athletic opportunities.

    Please point out the actual idea in that post. Saying “we need a better way” is not actually proposing a better way. It’s an empty talking point meant to convince dimwits that he’s proposing changes, when he’s really just trying to get rid of the law.

  55. Michael Weiss says:

    Saying “we need a better way” is not actually proposing a better way.

    So instead of either pressing him to propose a better way, or offering one of your own, go after the easy argument that gets us nowhere.

  56. Bartbuster says:

    So instead of either pressing him to propose a better way, or offering one of your own, go after the easy argument that gets us nowhere.

    Damn, you are Fing thick. HE’S NOT INTERESTED IN CHANGING THE LAW, HE WANTS TO GET RID OF IT. Assuming he does want to change the law, but can’t come up with any ideas, that isn’t my problem. I think the current law is probably the best solution. Why would I propose ideas that I don’t believe in just to keep some rightwingnut from looking bad?

  57. BB,

    HE’S NOT INTERESTED IN CHANGING THE LAW, HE WANTS TO GET RID OF IT.

    In other words, you are accusing him of lying when he said that “the law probably just needs to be updated to reflect the current climate”?

  58. Bartbuster says:

    In other words, you are accusing him of lying when he said that “the law probably just needs to be updated to reflect the current climate”?

    YES, I think he’s lying. I think he wants to get rid of the law, or render it toothless.

  59. Monotreme says:

    YES, I think he’s lying. I think he wants to get rid of the law, or render it toothless.

    (Monotreme slides out from under your car on a dolly.)

    Well, there’s your problem, right there. If you predicate your entire line of argument on the premise that someone is lying, then it’s not much of an argument, is it?

    I’m flashing on the Monty Python Argument Clinic bit. What you are doing, Bartbuster, to put it kindly, is abuse. That’s the room down the hall. Like Michael (who I often disagree with, BTW), I don’t want that in 538refugees. As one of the moderators, I might allow it, but with a look of displeasure on my face.

    An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

    In short, Bartbuster, quit being a jerkoff.

  60. Mule Rider says:

    “Well, there’s your problem, right there. If you predicate your entire line of argument on the premise that someone is lying, then it’s not much of an argument, is it?”

    He did the same g-damn thing to me the other day regarding subsidies. I listed farm subsidies and corn-ethanol subsidies as areas the government had overstepped into and needed to get out of, and he twisted it into me being against every single subsidy the government offers, which isn’t true.

    He’s not interested in honest debate. Just misrepresenting his ideological opponent and starting (and continuing) flame wars. He’s a liar and he’s pure scum. Although he’s quite predictable as I called him out for being the disgusting, mangy cur that he is for coming back to have the last word in our argument. He’s nothing but an animal. A nasty, smelly, mangy dog. And he doesn’t deserve the satisfaction and pleasure of being able to communicate with educated individuals such as ourselves that frequent this blog.

    Either he goes or the rest of us are going to come around a lot less.

  61. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    bb,

    back off on this one. You’re shooting your own men.

  62. shiloh says:

    MR, knowing your 538 history, I feel your pain!

  63. rjwalker says:

    I’m new here.

    >>So what went wrong here? Is it a legitimate role of the federal government to decide who should and shouldn’t get a chance to play college sports?

    When I read the article, it said that the Athletic director made the choice of which teams to cut.

    The Federal Government just said “if you’re going to spend tax payer money on athletics, you have to be fair and even-handed as to who gets the benefits.”

    Per the article, the cuts _did_ result from budget concerns, notwithstanding the authors doubts: “Continued expansion of our Athletics program is not feasible in this financial climate, and given that reality, the University made the only decision it could.”

    By the logic of the article, you could say that it is the Republican party who is choosing who gets to participate by insisting on never-ending rounds of reducing the revenues (tax cuts = revenue reduction) needed to run athletic programs at the University.
    = = = =
    When I was in high school in the 1960’s, as a guy I had my choice of trying out for at least 3 sports in each season. The gals had cheerleading (with maybe 10-12 girls on the squad, and maybe a JV squad – football was probably 45 or so, I don’t remember if we had JV football, soccer maybe 16 varsity, 16 jr varsity, cross-country maybe 15 and 15) basketball (guys had basketball- v & jv, wrestling, v&jv, swimming) and field hockey (baseball, tennis, track, spring football.)

    I’m guessing there were maybe 250 slots for guys over the year, maybe 40 for the gals.

    Title IX hasn’t decided for my high school “who should and shouldn’t get a chance to play.” It has said everyone should have a more of less equal chance to play. My town decides what sports the high school will offer through the budget decisions we make.
    = = = =
    My first daughter isn’t a jock – she didn’t try out for anything aside from a short-lived track experiment. (She was president of the student body, however.)

    My second daughter got to try out for and play soccer, track and then lacrosse. In my day, she would have been SOL as she is as bad at hoops as I am, isn’t gymnastic and can’t run fast.

    Namaste

  64. rjwalker,
    Welcome, and thanks for adding your input.

  65. shiloh says:

    Welcome rj 🙂

    Again, the balance between fair and unfair ~ rights and privileges ie equal opportunity under the law in order to form a more perfect Union! in a democracy er republic.

  66. shortchain says:

    Let us observe, for the sake of accuracy, that all three parts of the state government of Delaware are currently controlled by the Democratic Party.

  67. shortchain,
    I’m having trouble seeing where you’re going with that.

  68. rjwalker says:

    @ Bart

    >>You take the government’s money, you sell your freedom.

    If you accept being a US citizen, you give up a measure of “freedom.” You can have unrestrained liberty and freedom, you know, in “countries” like Somalia.

    And taking the gov’s money doesn’t mean you give up _all_ of your freedom. In this case, for example, you give up the “freedom” of not having to treat everyone fairly.

    Being a citizen of the US, you “give up the freedom” of the majority to oppress the rights of the minority guaranteed by law.

    You haven’t given up the freedom of getting to vote. You haven’t given up your freedoms as guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

  69. Mr. Universe says:

    BartBuster

    Agree with Treme. You’re really starting to piss me off as much as Bart does. You’re welcome to discuss topics here but you can take your private little war elsewhere before I do it. I invited parksie to post to get the other side of the conversation. If you’re going to treat people in my house with disrespect, you can leave my house.

    Capice?

  70. shiloh says:

    Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a United States law enacted on June 23, 1972, Delaware’s state govt. control notwithstanding.

    Interesting Title IX came to be under that wacky, cuckoo, moderate, RINO president, Nixon who coincidentally would have no chance winning the 2012 Rep nomination for president, much like Dutch …

  71. Mainer says:

    Walker, welcome. I was in HS in the early sixties too and was trying to get a number in much the same way you presented with roughly the same proportions except I suspect in our school the numbers were worse. Almost any school with football could see such an issue. Our school had freshman, JV and Varsity football squads and fairly heavy participation in each so. With the addition of cross country and golf the guys had some like 110 or so to 10 ratio. Winter was Boys varsity basketball, JV boys bsketball, wrestling, sking and later swimming…..uh the girls had cheering and later old style rules basketball one squad. Spring the boys had track and baseball varsity and JV, I think tennis and the girls at first had bumpkus and then eventually got softball. And we wonder why Title 9 came about? I can easily point to a number of schools in my area that if they do not have football have at least as many and in some cases more girls involved than guys in atheletics. So we have made progress. Football schools still find it more difficult but I can not name a single school in this area that has an issue even with a little imbalance as long as it can be seen that they are trying to keep things some what even. Where schools run into trouble is with huge football programs and no off setting attempt to provide opportunities. I can not remember even one program that has run into trouble because they were 7% off in a seasonaly adjusted count. For a school to claim that they were already looking for an issue. I can find no reference the UD being under threat of action or even talk of it on student sites until the powers that be made it an issue. Just seems odd to me.

    I do know that there have been times where I have seen the numbers swing to the girls favor if one were to worry about the last proportional percentage point…….seems the girls pay more attention to their studies and don’t run into as many academic eligability issues as the guys…..but maybe that is just around here.

    The next thing that will be floated is to not have academic eligibility requirements for the guys because it ends up discriminating against the lazy ass types. It is rarely an issue of intelligence as there is considerable effort made to address that but extra help can rarely trump extra lazy.

  72. shortchain says:

    Michael,

    From RJ’s comment: “you could say that it is the Republican party who is choosing” (tax cuts, etc).

    While I certainly agree that the GOP is on the wrong side of pretty much every question, they don’t enter into the equation in this particular instance, except as a background perturbation.

  73. Bartbuster says:

    Well, there’s your problem, right there. If you predicate your entire line of argument on the premise that someone is lying, then it’s not much of an argument, is it?

    I’m not the one with the problem, and “he’s lying” is not my entire premise. His “argument” has been completely debunked. “He’s lying” is the explanation for why his “argument” sucked so hard.

  74. Mr. Universe says:

    I’d really like to know what the rules are on the blog.

    They are posted under their own heading on the homepage. They are also under review. We have become tired of being a platform for personal Internet vendettas. Expect modifications soon.

  75. shortchain,
    I see what you mean. Thanks.

  76. parksie555 says:

    To all – thanks for the responses and the interesting conversation.

    A couple of points:

    BB and Todd Dugdale are probably correct in that there needs to be some legislation to help enforce gender equality in college sports. Although for all their rhetoric about how the Left drives civil rights one would think they would have a little more faith in the university staff and faculty senates which after all are overwhelmingly to the left of center in their political orientation :).

    As for concrete proposals as to how to improve Title IX legislation I offer these three specific proposals:

    a) Drop football from the Title IX equality calculations. It is a special case that is very difficult to offset. However as a compensation for this change in the calculations reduce football roster sizes by some reasonable amount – say 10-15 %. And develop a regulation that forces a certain amount of equality in how football profits are spent – after all at a lot of large schools entire athletic programs are supported by football income.

    b) Change the federal funding approach from a stick to a carrot. Instead of merely threatening to remove all federal funding if requirements are not met, allocate money to support programs based on some sort of sliding scale that gives the most money to the schools with the most demonstrated equality of opportunities.

    c) Remove the so-called “first prong” (athletic participation gender distribution must match enrollment gender distribution) requirement. Even though the Title IX legislation clearly states that any of the three prongs can be used to satisfy Title IX requirements, this prong has led to by far the most controversy.

    Finally Mainer may have a very good point about other factors being in play. There were quite a few letters to the editor in the Sunday News Journal today and one speculated that the elimination of the UD mens track and field and cross country teams was in part to pave the way to move UD football to Division I.

    I think this would be a huge mistake on the part of UD (go from being a top Division I-AA program that averages about 20,000 fans/game during the regular season to a Division I also-ran), but there it is.

    Thanks again to all for the opportunity to post and the generally polite and thoughtful discussion.

  77. Pingback: A Recipe for Regulation | 538 Refugees

  78. Pingback: A Recipe for Regulation | 538 Refugees

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s