Court removes previous administration's Title IX standards

• Manhattan Buckeye

  Current administration (at least Biden) lauds the ruling:
  
  http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/21/on-title-ix-how-will-the-recent-change-affect-college-sports/
  
  The issue is the clarification of one of the prongs of the previous "3 prong test" by the Clinton administration (which in practice was simply one prong -being the proportionality of athletic participation matched to gender (i.e. a quota)), to include a survey to determine interest. As a result of the ruling the clarification of one of the prongs has disappeared, so universities will go back to relying on the proportionality prong to avoid lawsuits. Expect more men's sports to be cut.
  
  Terrible policy IMO, if a potential athlete can't be bothered to fill out a survey, how would that athlete deal with the sacrifice and effort required by the sport?
• Belly35

  

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: Current administration (at least Biden) lauds the ruling:
  
  http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/21/on-title-ix-how-will-the-recent-change-affect-college-sports/
  
  The issue is the clarification of one of the prongs of the previous "3 prong test" by the Clinton administration (which in practice was simply one prong -being the proportionality of athletic participation matched to gender (i.e. a quota)), to include a survey to determine interest. As a result of the ruling the clarification of one of the prongs has disappeared, so universities will go back to relying on the proportionality prong to avoid lawsuits. Expect more men's sports to be cut.
  
  Terrible policy IMO, if a potential athlete can't be bothered to fill out a survey, how would that athlete deal with the sacrifice and effort required by the sport?

  I know that we don't share the same views at times.
  However Title IX has been a interesting topic for me over the years.
  Let me explain: In my spare time I help high school athlete and their parents with the preperation for college. Clearhouse, ACT Testing, Communication between Coaches and Athlete, Colleges that Fit the skill level, that type of stuff...free advice. I have been able to get 10-12 kids into college with good finanical support.
  
  Title IX being the proportionality of athletic participation matched to gender ....is racist
  Before everyone jumps let me explain: If having to qualify individual based only on gender for athletic participation = scholarship money (gender vs gender) and not include race IS THAT A racist practice.
  Question: Is gender included as a race?
  
  I was all for Title IX it help my daughter get a better scholarship. I took advantage of the opportunity but I didn’t think Title IX was right based only on gender.
  Because it left out race ....you should not have just gender as an issue of participation athletes for scholarship funding.
  
  I'm all for Title IX in one way but not in some other ways and really ...Really a bag of mixed feeling on Title IX....for me.....
  I have seen good college program in mens sport dropped because of Title IX and that does not set very good with me also. So I hope you can see the feeling about Title IX I have.
  
  What your opinion? I'm interested to know how others feel also.
• I Wear Pants

  Wait, so you think Title IX should discriminate on gender as well as race?
  
  Title IX is appalling and is completely responsible for the poor state of many niche (non basketball or football) sports in the collegiate arena. Soccer and wrestling come to mind.
  
  We should not cater to or discriminate against anyone. Everyone should have an equal footing.
• Sykotyk

  

  The problem that Title IX imposes is that the main revenue sport (football) requires for more participation than other sports (most of which can offer the sport for each gender). Schools cater to the sport that makes them the most money (even though the purpose of the school is education), thereby requiring them to have more women's teams than men's teams because women's football is an impossibility right now.
  
  And rather than add more women's sports, most schools feel it's easy to maintain the revenue by simply axing men's sports.
  
  Sykotyk
• 2quik4u

  

  football shouldn't be counted
• Belly35

  

  I Wear Pants wrote: Wait, so you think Title IX should discriminate on gender as well as race?
  
  Title IX is appalling and is completely responsible for the poor state of many niche (non basketball or football) sports in the collegiate arena. Soccer and wrestling come to mind.
  
  We should not cater to or discriminate against anyone. Everyone should have an equal footing.

  NO! If your going to use gender vs gender then your going to also use race vs race.... What defines as race ( just color or is gender part of the equation)
• I Wear Pants

  I don't get what you're saying. Are you saying that discriminating based on your gender is the same as discriminating based on race?
• Footwedge

  Let the girls put on some pads and hit the gridiron. Nothin better than seeing females throwing forearm shivers and cross body blocks.
• Sonofanump

  2quik4u wrote: football shouldn't be counted

  Let me extend this further. Scholarships for non-revenue self sustaining athletic teams should be equal. Exempt the following sports: Football, Men's & Women's basketball, hockey (if self sustaining) & women's volleyball. If the reasoning is public money is used, the have it be for those sports that actually cost money to sustain.
• 2quik4u

  

  womens basketball is self sustaining?
• NNN

  

  You're referring to the Tower Amendment, which was proposed in a separate bill from the original act that included Title IX. Basically, it would exempt revenue sports (football and men's basketball) from being counted against the numbers balance.
  
  Obviously, it didn't pass; that should be obvious since we're still discussing it 35 years later.
• Sykotyk

  

  2quik4u, it'd be a school-to-school determination.
  
  OSU might have 10 teams that self-sustain in a given year, Ashland may only have 2. It'd be up to the schools.
  
  The trouble is that it's self-propagating. Schools with sports that aren't popular to the local patrons will be required to the proportionality, and would have to axe more mens teams if they have football. Thereby causing even more trouble. This will wreak havoc on the lower scholarship schools, which might not be a bad thing if they go non-scholarship.
  
  Sykotyk
• Sonofanump

  Sonofanump wrote:

  2quik4u wrote: football shouldn't be counted

  Let me extend this further. Scholarships for non-revenue self sustaining athletic teams should be equal. Exempt the following sports: Football, Men's & Women's basketball, hockey (if self sustaining) & women's volleyball. If the reasoning is public money is used, the have it be for those sports that actually cost money to sustain.

  Let me extend this even further. Make those that are normally self sustaining exempt across the board for all divisions.