Title IX to be applied to academics???

[Monster_Mom_22]

Yep - according to this article by Christina Hoff Summers and published in the April 14th edition of the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/13/AR2009041302119.html

What's good for women's basketball will be good for nuclear physics.

To most Americans, that statement will sound odd. To President Obama, it apparently does not. In an October letter to women's advocacy groups, he declared that Title IX, the law that requires universities to give equal funding to men's and women's athletics, had made "an enormous impact on women's opportunities and participation in sports." If pursued with "necessary attention and enforcement," the same law could make "similar, striking advances" for women in science and engineering.

The article is rather frightening - at least if you're male or have sons. The same equity standards which have forced colleges to cancel men's athletics programs because so few women are interested in sports might be applied to academic fields dominated by men. Fields like Computer Science, Engineering, and math.

How would it work?

Title IX has been interpreted to mean that if 67% of the student population is female then 67% of that's college's athletes must be female. Lack of interest is irrelevant - the only thing that matters is hitting those percentage targets. So to ensure that 67% of it's athletes are female, schools are canceling male sports.

Now apply that same standard to academics. Say you have a school with 67% females and 100 open slots in the engineering program. Under Title IX, 67 of those slots will have to be filled with women and 33 by men. What if 200 students apply - 120 men and 80 women? Interest is irrelevant so 84% of the women who applied will be admitted while only 28% of the males who applied will be admitted.

[PhantomPholly]

Yes, quotas have worked so well in the past...

[jackson Mill]

Title IX has been interpreted to mean that if 67% of the student population is female then 67% of that's college's athletes must be female. Lack of interest is irrelevant - the only thing that matters is hitting those percentage targets. So to ensure that 67% of it's athletes are female, schools are canceling male sports.


Quick correction. It is not a matter of "interest" as sports are segregated. Woman can't join a male basket ball team. no matter if they want to or not.

[Monster_Mom_22]

Quick correction. It is not a matter of "interest" as sports are segregated. Woman can't join a male basket ball team. no matter if they want to or not.

I'm well aware of that, but it is a matter of interest, because men can't join field hockey whether they want to or not, and they can't play on the women's soccer or basketball team either.

The issue is that, under Title IX, colleges have to ensure that the same percentage of females enrolled in the school are involved in college sports. In the source article, the example cited was Howard University, where 67% of the students were female but a much smaller percentage of the school's athletes were female.

The schools funding got threatened because of that gap. They added women's bowling but still their numbers didn't go up. To bring their male numbers down they canceled men's wrestling and baseball. According to the former wrestling coach quoted in the article, canceling those men's sports and adding women's bowling hasn't been enough. The school may have cancel even more men's sports to ensure that 67% of it's athletes are female.

It doesn't matter whether 67% of the students interested in college level athletics are women or not, or whether they're capable of competing at a collegiate level in those sports, what matters is that 67% of the athletes be female.

Don't get me wrong, I think Title IX gave women's sports a nudge it needed. I went to school long before Title IX was created and I can remember the disparity between men's and women's sports. But because Title IX has been interpreted to require equity based on enrollment instead of interest or ability, that nudge has come at the cost of sacrificing men's sports.

Now apply that same requirement to academics - specifically to math and science dependent fields which are generally male. If the math department has to have 67% of it's graduates be female, and there are only 100 slots in the math department, then 67 of those slots will go to women. The other 33 will be available to men. It won't matter how many women apply to the department, or what their qualifications are, just that they have 67 to fill those slots.

What do you think the net effect of that will be? Will the University continue to uphold it's high standards for admission, or, will it have two different admission processes - one for men and one for women - and each will have it's own distinct standards designed to ensure that 67 of those slots are filled by women?

Say 100 women and 100 men apply for those 100 slots. Will the best 100 be selected, no matter what sex they happen to be, or will the University select the top 67 women and then the top 33 men, irregardless of qualification, to make sure they meet the percentage targets. If the funding the department receives is hinged on meeting those percentage targets, what choice do think the department will make?

[Alone In Liberalville]

Science might be ok, but engineering will take a huge hit. While there are all sorts of initiatives to increase women in engineering already, you are only going to attract a certain few. Liberal arts colleges will love this, though (unless, of course, the opposite applies and if your percentage of men is low you also have a problem).

Overall, women outnumber men in initial admissions AND retention and have for years. I wonder if the lack of men will cause a funding problem the same way a lack of women would?

[Apatriot]

Yep - according to this article by Christina Hoff Summers and published in the April 14th edition of the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/13/AR2009041302119.html



The article is rather frightening - at least if you're male or have sons. The same equity standards which have forced colleges to cancel men's athletics programs because so few women are interested in sports might be applied to academic fields dominated by men. Fields like Computer Science, Engineering, and math.

How would it work?

Title IX has been interpreted to mean that if 67% of the student population is female then 67% of that's college's athletes must be female. Lack of interest is irrelevant - the only thing that matters is hitting those percentage targets. So to ensure that 67% of it's athletes are female, schools are canceling male sports.

Now apply that same standard to academics. Say you have a school with 67% females and 100 open slots in the engineering program. Under Title IX, 67 of those slots will have to be filled with women and 33 by men. What if 200 students apply - 120 men and 80 women? Interest is irrelevant so 84% of the women who applied will be admitted while only 28% of the males who applied will be admitted.

My question is if the opposite will also apply. Will we be closing down Colleges of education if they can't attract enough men? How about schools of home ec? Nursing?

[MrShotShot]

That makes absolutely no sense given that Title IX was passed to address inequities in athletics as they relate to funding, facilities, access, etc.

There is no inequity in this case. Women are not beging shut out of these fields. Women simply aren't interested in pursuing them. As someone who works in higher ed, when a woman is interested and qualified for admission into these fields, schools fall all over themselves to get them admitted and to provide them funding.

If you want to increase the number of women in some of these male dominated fields, it has to start at the grade school level. By the time they reach college, it's too late.

[LSBeene]

That makes absolutely no sense given that Title IX was passed to address inequities in athletics as they relate to funding, facilities, access, etc.

There is no inequity in this case. Women are not beging shut out of these fields. Women simply aren't interested in pursuing them. As someone who works in higher ed, when a woman is interested and qualified for admission into these fields, schools fall all over themselves to get them admitted and to provide them funding.



Respectfully sir, you may have misunderstood.

Title IX was not only about sports, but in education in general. I repeat, that I am respectfully trying to round out the discussion, and not being difficult.

What has really bothered me was how Title IX has been used by the feminists in academia.

The feminists have used Title IX not only to HELP women sports (which is of course good) but to decimate men's sports programs.

They started the "proportionality" litmus test, but have NEVER used it when it was to women's disadvantage - ya know, in an egalitarian manner.

So many men's sports programs have been shut down because, politically correct or not, some women (most actually) have not been as interested in sports as men.

Also, the constant demonizing of men's sports (Duke Lacrosse anyone?) with demonic overtones has been a constant whipping boy for the academic feminists.

And you know what campus / political feminists have NOT targeted? Women's Studies, women's centers, women ANYTHING.

Right now about 60% of all incoming freshmen (slightly below 60%) are women. No "crisis in education" has been sounded, but sales of Ritalin are up.

Title IX has been entirely MISused by political feminists who seem to hate all things male.

Not one feminist organization has called for MORE men to enter into fields that are heavily dominated by women, but ONLY for more women to enter fields that are dominated by men.

I could go on and on with this subject, but you get the point.

I hope I have added to the discussion.

Steven

[Rurudyne]

And the enumerated power in the Constitution for this lunacy is ... ?

[Monster_Mom_22]

And the enumerated power in the Constitution for this lunacy is ... ?

It appears that the Constitution is just an old, fancy bit of paper. Title IX was passed without Constitutional review and can and will be applied to science and math fields. And yes, as more men than women currently apply for and obtain degrees in math and science dependent fields, that means there will be two different standards - one for men and one for women - and the men's standard will be much tougher to meet.

That's equality. (insert sarcasm)

[Hatch]

Yes, quotas have worked so well in the past...
I'm still trying to figure out why athletes are pulled from school or important classes, and paid outrageous sums.

Are athletes really worth the money paid?

Is this what we feel is important for our youth??? To throw their educations under the bus in exchange for a life where they're overpaid and undereducated?

No wonder they all end up in trouble.

Let's worry more about supporting Doctors and Nurses programs.

[Rurudyne]

I was a scholarship athlete. I was not paid an outrageous sum by any alumnus. Also, scholarship funds are NOT pay (technically, universities should have to pay at least minimum wage to persons engaged in any formal activity which the school sponsors that is not a class ... mind you, federal minimum wage laws are actually unconstitutional).

[MrShotShot]

Respectfully sir, you may have misunderstood.

Title IX was not only about sports, but in education in general. I repeat, that I am respectfully trying to round out the discussion, and not being difficult.

What has really bothered me was how Title IX has been used by the feminists in academia.

The feminists have used Title IX not only to HELP women sports (which is of course good) but to decimate men's sports programs.

They started the "proportionality" litmus test, but have NEVER used it when it was to women's disadvantage - ya know, in an egalitarian manner.

So many men's sports programs have been shut down because, politically correct or not, some women (most actually) have not been as interested in sports as men.

Also, the constant demonizing of men's sports (Duke Lacrosse anyone?) with demonic overtones has been a constant whipping boy for the academic feminists.

And you know what campus / political feminists have NOT targeted? Women's Studies, women's centers, women ANYTHING.

Right now about 60% of all incoming freshmen (slightly below 60%) are women. No "crisis in education" has been sounded, but sales of Ritalin are up.

Title IX has been entirely MISused by political feminists who seem to hate all things male.

Not one feminist organization has called for MORE men to enter into fields that are heavily dominated by women, but ONLY for more women to enter fields that are dominated by men.

I could go on and on with this subject, but you get the point.

I hope I have added to the discussion.

Steven

Well that was the point I was making - there is no inequity in academics. As to how Title IX might be weilded by agenda driven individuals, I can't really comment on that. My point is that applying Title IX in this case is somewhat unfounded.

And you are correct in saying that Title IX was not about athletics - in fact athletics isn't even mentioned in the original statue - but its history of implementation as been almost entirely focused on athletics and has been touted by some as the sole reason in the rise in women's professional sports in this country.

[LSBeene]

Well that was the point I was making - there is no inequity in academics. As to how Title IX might be weilded by agenda driven individuals, I can't really comment on that. My point is that applying Title IX in this case is somewhat unfounded.

And you are correct in saying that Title IX was not about athletics - in fact athletics isn't even mentioned in the original statue - but its history of implementation as been almost entirely focused on athletics and has been touted by some as the sole reason in the rise in women's professional sports in this country.

Oh, and on that we agree - that women's sports WERE given short shrift, but because of Title IX they flowered and grew. But, as you mentioned, it was not sports that was the reason it was created - but it HAS been how it's been used.

Whole sports programs have been cut. I saw one estimation that over 20,000 sports spots for men have been cut due to fear by universities over being sued due to the "proportionality" litmus test used by feminist legal scholars.

And, right now, a man named Roy Den Hollander is suing Columbia's Women's Studies dept because of how they have no matching "men's" studies and it violates Title IX. Guess what, it's being thrown out of court as "frivilous".

The "justice" only goes one way. Not enough women's sports programs? Make more. Not enough women join? Well, the school is now exposed to litigation and can be sued, so cut the men's sports programs.

But when men try to use the same law to apply to fields heavily dominated by women, it's thrown out of court.

THAT's what I object to - equality for thee, but not for me. I guess some people are just more equal than others.

Steven

[Blue in Bama]

Saying that schools have to meet proportionality in order to be Title IX compliant is false. That is one of three ways to become compliant. The other three prongs are to either show that you have met the needs of the under-represented group or to show that you are increasing opportunities for the under-represented group.

The second prong eliminates your "lack of interest" argument. If there truly was a lack of interest, the school would be considered compliant.

Also, schools don't drop men's sports because of Title IX. Schools drop sports because of budget problems. Now, because of Title IX, that just means that more likely than not, a men's sport will be cut rather than a women's.

[LSBeene]

Saying that schools have to meet proportionality in order to be Title IX compliant is false. That is one of three ways to become compliant. The other three prongs are to either show that you have met the needs of the under-represented group or to show that you are increasing opportunities for the under-represented group.

The second prong eliminates your "lack of interest" argument. If there truly was a lack of interest, the school would be considered compliant.

Also, schools don't drop men's sports because of Title IX. Schools drop sports because of budget problems. Now, because of Title IX, that just means that more likely than not, a men's sport will be cut rather than a women's.

Dude, respectfully, you are so damn wrong. I do mean that respectfully, I'm just frsutrated.

Look, even if the school TRIES to be compliant, they can still be legally exposed and may shut down a men's sports program out of fear of a lawsuit.

Also, many Womyn's Studies programs have been declining due to a lack of interest - so the schools have made many classes mandatory (usually the 100 level) - or folded them into Sociology or somesuch.

As to a lack of proportionate funds, that's true it's used as an argument - but it's a red herring.

For years the feminists have made stereotypical attacks about male athletes (remember Duke Lacrosse?), and despite it being un-PC to say, generally men are more interested in sports.

So, WHO CARES if more men want to play sports, and more money is spent on that!? Apparently the feminists do, while they pointedly ignore that "Women's Resource Centers" and all the other female centric centers or organizations that are funded are somehow sacred cows that cannot be compared.

In other words the STUDENTS want these activities. If more women showed interest in a sport, the school would fund them. Instead of logically "getting" that, well, golly, less women want to play sports, they blame "men" (aint met the guy, but apparently he's a sexist jerk) are "oppressing" women and "denying them opportunities".

Lastly, it's economics. Men's sports are more interesting and draw bigger crowds. In other words, in many ways, they PAY FOR THEMSELVES ... but proportionality does not care about this nor take this into account.

Your statements, sir, while well meant, are about the theory, and not the actual practice and implementation of how the academic feminists have MISused this law.

And, once again, I notice that NO ONE has been able to, nor even tried to, refute the fact that all those women's centers, "Womyn's Studies Programs", or programs aimed at women, have EVER had this same litmus test applied to them.

I hope you (or others) reply, and I hope I have added to the discussion.

Steven

[Blue in Bama]

Dude, respectfully, you are so damn wrong. I do mean that respectfully, I'm just frsutrated.

Look, even if the school TRIES to be compliant, they can still be legally exposed and may shut down a men's sports program out of fear of a lawsuit.

I have NEVER heard of a school dropping a men's program because of just the threat of a lawsuit. Also, if a school is compliant, they shouldn't fear the lawsuit. Usually the lawsuit will come into play if a women's sport is dropped, but that scenario also means that the school probably became non-compliant when it dropped the sport.


Also, many Womyn's Studies programs have been declining due to a lack of interest - so the schools have made many classes mandatory (usually the 100 level) - or folded them into Sociology or somesuch.

As to a lack of proportionate funds, that's true it's used as an argument - but it's a red herring.

For years the feminists have made stereotypical attacks about male athletes (remember Duke Lacrosse?), and despite it being un-PC to say, generally men are more interested in sports.


My area of expertise is in collegiate athletics, so I can't speak about course offerings. I also fail to see how that's relevant.


So, WHO CARES if more men want to play sports, and more money is spent on that!? Apparently the feminists do, while they pointedly ignore that "Women's Resource Centers" and all the other female centric centers or organizations that are funded are somehow sacred cows that cannot be compared.

In other words the STUDENTS want these activities. If more women showed interest in a sport, the school would fund them. Instead of logically "getting" that, well, golly, less women want to play sports, they blame "men" (aint met the guy, but apparently he's a sexist jerk) are "oppressing" women and "denying them opportunities".


Do you have any idea how much money it costs to fund any type of sports program at the University level? It's not chump change. Schools aren't funding mores sports because there isn't the funding, not because there isn't the interest.

Secondly, if a school is truly meeting the interest level of its students, it is compliant! Interest level can be determined several different ways, including surveys, regional high school participation numbers, and programs offered in the region.


Lastly, it's economics. Men's sports are more interesting and draw bigger crowds. In other words, in many ways, they PAY FOR THEMSELVES ... but proportionality does not care about this nor take this into account.


College athletics aren't about entertainment or making money. They are about creating opportunities. The amount of money a program brings in shouldn't factor into whether more opportunities are provided to one gender or the other. Whether or not they are "more interesting" should also not be a factor.
Also, the only sports that pay for themselves at the collegiate level are FBS football and Division I men's basketball. Granted, there are a few exceptions to this -- premier baseball programs and women's basketball programs might also be self sufficient, but as a general rule, they aren't.


Your statements, sir, while well meant, are about the theory, and not the actual practice and implementation of how the academic feminists have MISused this law.

And, once again, I notice that NO ONE has been able to, nor even tried to, refute the fact that all those women's centers, "Womyn's Studies Programs", or programs aimed at women, have EVER had this same litmus test applied to them.

I hope you (or others) reply, and I hope I have added to the discussion.

Steven


My statements aren't about theory, they are about the LAW. If administrators are dropping men's programs because of a fear of a lawsuit, as you claim, that would be an example of an AD who didn't know what he was doing, not of the law gone awry.

In all my time working in college athletics, I have yet to meet one of these academic feminists, so I'm not sure how to respond to that. Again, I don't know what women's studies programs have to do with collegiate athletics.

[Apatriot]

I have NEVER heard of a school dropping a men's program because of just the threat of a lawsuit. Also, if a school is compliant, they shouldn't fear the lawsuit. Usually the lawsuit will come into play if a women's sport is dropped, but that scenario also means that the school probably became non-compliant when it dropped the sport.

Well, some drop teams so that the school become compliant.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2607807
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/1998/10/07/title_ix/

[Blue in Bama]

Well, some drop teams so that the school become compliant.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2607807
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/1998/10/07/title_ix/

Right. It's always the worst-case scenario when a program gets dropped. The JMU article was pretty interesting. First, they had to be way off on their proportionality, and money had to have also been a factor since they also dropped three women's sports.

[WhiteHatBobby]

The NCAA and USOC are very concerned about Title IX with Olympic sports. Gymnastics, wrestling, and swimming have been targeted most by these activists.

Now you want Title IX to be applied so boys cannot study advanced studies the way you tell them they can't play sports? Go figure . . .