1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Finally, some Title IX sanity.

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by micropolitan guy, Oct 5, 2006.

  1. Justin_Rice

    Justin_Rice Well-Known Member

    What we found is generally administrators in Virginia have zero idea what they need to do to comply.

    At some point, when we had argued with enough ADs who said things like, "we have the same number of boys sports as we do girls," and "but cheerleading counts!," we gave up on those phone calls.

    We had one administrator tell us, "You can't write that, because it's going to lead to a bunch of parents filing OCR complaints!"

    If proportionality is unreachable, schools need to at least be conducting a regular interests survey and be prepared to respond to what that survey shows.

    I think if other high school reporters do the same thing we did, you'll likely find the same results: Unless your local school district has been expanding girls sports (rare these days) or conducting regular interest surveys (also rare - except in places like Kentucky, where state law mandates it), you'll find the same thing: Podunk High is not Title IX compliant, and probably doesn't know what it needs to do to be compliant.
     
  2. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Yes there are three prongs but the reality is that when these cases wind up in court proportionality is the prong the judge usually falls back on because it's the easiest to quantify.
     
  3. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    About seven years ago, putting artificial turf on one field was between $800,000 and $900,000. Most parents know that is out of reach on an existing field.

    Never bothered to ask since.

    If you build a new school in a densely populated area, turf fields can make sense because you can throw two or three on a high school plot and save yourself from buying a shit ton of acres. Acres which might be a lot more expensive than at a country school.
     
  4. Charlie Brown

    Charlie Brown Member

    Do you seriously think this was a jab at you?
     
  5. Mark2010

    Mark2010 Active Member

    Some of you call yourself journalists and can't even get a quote correctly? Sheesh!
     
  6. Here me roar

    Here me roar Guest

    Bull. Shit.
    It's not football. It's the lingering doubt that women should be involved AT ALL. It's the lingering doubt that maybe little girls need some activity, but eventually will succumb to the dick.
    Bull. Shit.
     
  7. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    I think it was oddly worded.
     
  8. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    I forget. Do you actually call yourself a journalist in spite of your habit of making ignorant statements like your one on this thread about Title IX?
     
  9. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Come on. The "meeting interest" standard is, at most, 0.01% harder to quantify than the "proportionality" standard. All you have to do is survey your students every year (and, you know, actually pay attention to the answers.) You can do that in one day.

    Schools continue to lose on proportionality because they don't even begin to make an effort to satisfy either of the other two prongs, so your point is moot. They'd lose just as easily on the other two, as well.

    But as Justin said, most schools don't have a clue what they need to do to comply with a law that's been on the books for 40 years.
     
  10. Mark2010

    Mark2010 Active Member

    Feel free to disagree. But my point is schools are dropping all sorts of men's sports --- a few revenue as well as non-revenue --- to add women's equivalents. Why should a school have a women's golf team, but not a men's golf team? Or softball and not baseball? You don't see discrimination in that? How is it equal for a school to sponsor, say, six men's sports and 17 women's sports? It certainly isn't because the women's sports are making money. The only one that comes close --- and only in a minority of instances at that --- is women's basketball.
     
  11. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Schools are also dropping men's sports, blaming Title IX and funneling the savings to the football coach's salary.
     
  12. Here me roar

    Here me roar Guest

    um, clearly, the men's non-revenue sports also don't make , you know, revenue.

    To paraphrase a famous redhead, 'You know nothing, Mark.'
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page