|
|
     
|
Ruling could impact Title IX proportionality interpretation - Jun 24, 2009 | 14:50:48
posted by: Marta Lawrence
Yesterday we celebrated the 37th anniversary of the adoption of Title IX. As I worked on a timeline detailing the history of the legislation, I was struck by how recent the struggle for equality has been. And, the debate continues. Just last week, a California court issued a ruling related to Title IX that could have lasting implications for universities around the country. Traditionally, judges have ruled that a school is compliant with Title IX if the proportion of female participation comes within five percent of the representative population of the school. So, in the past, if a school's population was 50 percent female and 50 percent male, the university would be seen as compliant if just 45 percent of its athletes were female. But, the ruling between the UC Davis and three female student-athletes, requires that the university come within 1.5 percent of proportionality. If it stands, the change could have a lasting impact on universities around the country. "It is a boost in the momentum toward the real goal of equality of opportunity, and not a goal of approximate equality, but real equality," Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, told the New York Times. UC Davis has 10 years to meet these new requirements. "UC Davis has a solid history of commitment to its female athletes and coaches and to expanding opportunities for women in competitive sports," Greg Warzecka, UC Davis athletics director, said in a press release. "The time frames set out in the settlement maximize the potential to add varsity opportunities for women in the future. We are continually trying to maintain our compliance efforts to give women athletes the very best access to intercollegiate athletics competition possible." What impact do you think the UC Davis ruling will have on the future composition of intercollegiate athletics?
CommentsI went to this web site to review UC-Davis' data on athletics and participation. Here are the data from that site. UC Davis has 10,092 men and 12,950 women. That is a 43.7% male/ 56.3% female ratio. Let's assume that the 1.5% tolerance is an actual 0% number. Currently, there 337 men playing sports and 340 women playing sports at UC-Davis. To achieve a 43% ratio for men relative to 340 women playing in 13 intercollegiate sports listed, one needs to cut the number of men participating in intercollegiate athletics to 263 males or increase the number of women participating to the current 337 by 101 athletes to 438. Re-stated, to maintain the same 43.7% male/ 56.3% female in the general student body, one can keep the male athletes' number the same at 337 and add 101 females, or one can keep the female athletes' number the same at 340 and cut 74 male athletes, or achieve compliance with the court's ruling over the next 10 years by some combination of cutting men's sports and adding women's sports. In light of the budget problems of the State of California, it seems that the most fiscally prudent way to achieve compliance will be to eliminate a large number of male sports. Enough is enough already. My son wanted to play soccer in the PAC 10 at ASU or U of A but guess what, they have no male soccer program but they have a femal soccer program at both schools. Where is the equal opportunity in that??? Two thoughts. What is the university doing to attract more male students? The 43.7 and 56.3 percentages are not representative of the general population. Why is it that sports, athletes are the target? What about the cheer leaders? the band?? The debate clubs?? Respectfully See you later UC Davis wrestling and other men's teams. Sorry coach Zalesky. You will be in the same boat as the hundreds of other men's teams from all over the country that got the axe in the name of gender equity. Why not make the law sport specific instead of athlete specific. How about 50% female sports to 50% male sports if the ratio is 50/50. Football requires too many players to make this a fair law to the boys who are too small to play football or basketball. You want equality? How about one basketball team, one soccer team, one swim team, one wrestling team etc. The player who wins the spot makes the team. That is the most fair way to do it. I can see the equal rights crowd crying the blues if there was a true test of equality. men's sports being dropped are not directly the result of title IX...they are dropped for several reasons which include the law about the porportion of male to female students on campus, federal funding being cut, and the cost of paying a head football coach more than the president of the united states and their 10-12 assistant coaches...over 3/4 of all football programs are functioning in the RED, so those who say football is paying for the other minor sports is not accurate... many colleges have for years tried to get around the title IX laws reguarding "equal" athletic competition for men and women and they are getting "caught" not complying with the federal law...so they blame women's sports instead of blaming the administration who chose to not follow the law or the crazy salaries being paid some programs... most colleges receiving federal funds (state institutions) pay their male coaches in the major sports of football and basketball and their assistants ten's of thousands more in salary and incentitives then their female counter parts...and most do not function in the black financially... even their budgets are much higher... do you really need 85 kids on full-rides in football when an NFL teams has only 51 players on an active roster? i.e. northwestern university is over $40,000 a year for the non-athlete...take that total times 85 full ride football players and their is money that could be used for another sport (wrestling and baseball are two programs that are cut the most). do you know that many football teams stay at a hotel the night before a HOME game and feed the athletes too...major division I football programs can have 110 kids suit up for a home game...non scholarship football players cost a program around $4000 a year alone...budget cuts come and it is the minor sports that suffer, even when the major sports are not functioning in the black... don't blame title IX if your male sport team was cut...blame the administration for poor fiscal management and not complying with the federal law... Post a Comment |
  
Experience in multiple sports is great for a developing youth. However, success breeds confidence. Bottom line should be life lessons learned.
- Jim Harshaw
   
|
