Finally, some Title IX sanity.

LOL good point .... mostly I was just trying to gin up discussion about a project I put an ass pile of work into over the last few months!

But yes, it is a nice google doc - something that didn't exist when this thread started!

http://news.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2013/07/06/do-schools-play-fair-with-girls-sports/

 

Most of us were not on Facebook when this thread started.

 

Google docs really served as a nice tool on this project - our ancient pagination system doesn't allow you to work from home dialed in, so we did most of the reporting and initial writing in a set of shared documents.

Just the ability to work at the same time on the same file was invaluable, especially since this was mostly done in spare moments outside of the day-to-day work on the paper.

 

Said this many times before, but Title IX did far more harm than good when it comes to college sports.

We're dropping baseball, hockey, wrestling and anything else we can find in order to add women's crew or gymnastics? All the for the sake of balancing some numerical inequity caused by an 85-man football team?

 

I'd have thought field hockey parents would bitch for artificial, since that's what the state tournament is played on and what you generally see at the college level.

 

As usual, the ignorance is strong in this one.

Women's collegiate athletics were pretty much a joke before Title IX. Anybody who argues that it did more help than good at any level is demonstrating either ignorance or a complete disregard for women's athletics.

If you want to argue that it's time is past or that it is time to adapt the law to be more fair to men and women, that would be reasonable. To say it was never any good in the first place is not.

 

The problem with turf and field hockey is the TYPE of turf.

Field hockey wants the old-school fake-grass-on-concrete stuff, the kind of turf no other sport wants on their field.

 

Translated it for you, outofplace.

 

Title IX clearly corrected a great injustice in sports.

But they've got to figure out a better way to measure what is and what isn't discrimination ... something other than proportionality.

 

So Mark plays the ignorant misogynist and I get the snide?

 

FIFY

 

There are, as you know, three "prongs" that can be used in determining whether an institution is in compliance with the law. Proportionality is only one of the three.

That schools (and ignorant supporters of said schools) continue to cry over and over that they can't be in compliance without cutting men's sports is a lazy and uncreative way of trying to break a law that's been on the books for 40 years.

Get over it already and follow the law. It won't kill you.