Langer and the White House

[zooropa]

Re: Langer and the White House

That chart is garbage, as it is high school sports. I did mention high school wrestling participation as well. We are talking about college here not high school.

College? You want to talk college?

In 2011 there were 38k more men participating in NCAA athletics than there were in 2002. There were 32k more women.

Please explain how Title IX is denying men opportunities to participate in college athletics.

Also, please explain why 53 college wrestling programs were dropped between 1984 and 1988-----------when Title IX DID NOT APPLY TO COLLEGE SPORTS?

Please note that these points were made in the same post that had that chart.

BTW: What did college wrestling supporters get angry about from 1984 to 1988? Did they still blame Title IX even though, by Supreme Court decision, Title IX did *not* apply to college athletics?

You know what? Maybe wrestling isn't as popular as it used to be for reasons entirely unrelated to women's athletics.

[goon]

Re: Langer and the White House

College? You want to talk college?

In 2011 there were 38k more men participating in NCAA athletics than there were in 2002. There were 32k more women.

Please explain how Title IX is denying men opportunities to participate in college athletics.

Also, please explain why 53 college wrestling programs were dropped between 1984 and 1988-----------when Title IX DID NOT APPLY TO COLLEGE SPORTS?

Please note that these points were made in the same post that had that chart.

BTW: What did college wrestling supporters get angry about from 1984 to 1988? Did they still blame Title IX even though, by Supreme Court decision, Title IX did *not* apply to college athletics?

You know what? Maybe wrestling isn't as popular as it used to be for reasons entirely unrelated to women's athletics.

Maybe it became popular again. golf and tennis usually compete for peolpe, when say high school golf is really big or good, many tennis programs are not as strong, and when tennis is up, golf number struggle abit. No one is saying every sport would stay for ever regardless of the law, but how can you claim title IX helped grow womens sports when womens sports were growing in popularity and colleges were adding more even before tittle IX was the law. Explain that.

[zooropa]

Re: Langer and the White House

how can you claim title IX helped grow womens sports

Did I claim that?

I pointed out that ADs use Title IX as window dressing for unpopular reductions in sports.

[jack power]

Re: Langer and the White House

College? You want to talk college?

In 2011 there were 38k more men participating in NCAA athletics than there were in 2002. There were 32k more women.

Please explain how Title IX is denying men opportunities to participate in college athletics.

Also, please explain why 53 college wrestling programs were dropped between 1984 and 1988-----------when Title IX DID NOT APPLY TO COLLEGE SPORTS?

Please note that these points were made in the same post that had that chart.

BTW: What did college wrestling supporters get angry about from 1984 to 1988? Did they still blame Title IX even though, by Supreme Court decision, Title IX did *not* apply to college athletics?

You know what? Maybe wrestling isn't as popular as it used to be for reasons entirely unrelated to women's athletics.

Wasn't Title IX enacted in 1972?

[witness]

Re: Langer and the White House

Wasn't Title IX enacted in 1972?

Yes it was and the current one was enacted in 1979. Some followed it some didn't until Supreme Court ruling

[goon]

Re: Langer and the White House

Did I claim that?

I pointed out that ADs use Title IX as window dressing for unpopular reductions in sports.

Yep and even if there was demand to bring back sports it can't with out adding womens, or cutting from another mens to make up for it.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: Langer and the White House

Damn women thinking they should be treated equally.

[zooropa]

Re: Langer and the White House

Wasn't Title IX enacted in 1972?

Yes. But between 1984 and 1988 it was not applied to college athletics.

Also, contrary to what Witness posted, there was no law passed in 1979, but guidelines were published regarding compliance in athletics:

1. Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.
2. Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).
3. Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX#Three-prong_test

(FWIW, the BoR mandates and SDSU is in compliance with the first and strictest prong of the test---and that with wrestling and baseball)

Grove City College v. George Bell was decided by the Supreme Court in 1984. It specifically exempted college athletics from Title IX:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grove_City_College_v._Bell

In 1988, Congress expanded Title IX by statute to cover college athletics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_R...on_Act_of_1987

So, from 1984 to 1988, no university was required to be Title IX compliant, yet 53 universities dropped wrestling programs during that period. Only 56 wrestling programs have been dropped since then.

[zooropa]

Re: Langer and the White House

Yep and even if there was demand to bring back sports it can't with out adding womens, or cutting from another mens to make up for it.

SDSU has almost 500 student athletes, is dollar-for-dollar and participation compliant under Title IX and they have a $14M budget. Under no circumstances to I accept a university with a larger budget crying poverty.

[Nidaros]

Re: Langer and the White House

Damn women thinking they should be treated equally.

Yeah that's what is wrong with them. In my day, tall girls were often ashamed of their height, and worried about catching a tall guy for a husband. In my class at BHS, we had one person who did not get to take advantage of Title IX, but would have excelled had the opportunities. She went on to be a Roman Catholic Nun and also had a big part in starting the wellness and conditioning programs at SDSU. She was indeed remarkable with talent, but only had GAA sports to show what she could do. For those under fifty, they had a Girls Athletic Association, which never field teams but everything was intramural competition. We come a ways since the passage of Title IX. I am glad for it.

[witness]

Re: Langer and the White House

Actually 1978 was when it applied to colleges. 1988 was just a Supreme Court decision in Hafner vs Temple when schools finally realized the implications of not following Title IX. Nobody is saying women don't deserve the same rights at all. Just that while it has done good things, it has had some bad consequences to it Here is a timeline of events. http://www.womenssportsfoundation.or...ry-of-title-ix

[zooropa]

Re: Langer and the White House

Actually 1978 was when it applied to colleges. 1988 was just a Supreme Court decision in Hafner vs Temple when schools finally realized the implications of not following Title IX. Nobody is saying women don't deserve the same rights at all. Just that while it has done good things, it has had some bad consequences to it Here is a timeline of events. http://www.womenssportsfoundation.or...ry-of-title-ix

It applied to colleges from the get-go, Witness.

1978 was the -deadline- for compliance.

Additionally, Haffer v. Temple was 1) not argued before the Supreme Court and 2) settled out of court. It did not create legal precedent for further actions under Title IX.

[filbert]

Re: Langer and the White House

It applied to colleges from the get-go, Witness.

1978 was the -deadline- for compliance.

Additionally, Haffer v. Temple was 1) not argued before the Supreme Court and 2) settled out of court. It did not create legal precedent for further actions under Title IX.

OK, Zoo, I'm calling you on this one:

Also, please explain why 53 college wrestling programs were dropped between 1984 and 1988-----------when Title IX DID NOT APPLY TO COLLEGE SPORTS?

Either Title IX applied to colleges before 1988, or it didn't. You're argument currently appears to land on both sides of the question.

Some of those colleges who dropped wrestling prior to 1988 may have done so precisely because they were advised by their counsel that Title IX required that action to provide equity and be within the law.

[zooropa]

Re: Langer and the White House

Either Title IX applied to colleges before 1988, or it didn't.

This is a false dichotomy and a mistaken summary of my post.

Title IX has always applied to colleges that receive federal funding. It has not always applied to college sports. The deadline for compliance was in 1978. This was not the starting point for compliance, it was the deadline for compliance.

In 1984, Grove City College v. Bell limited Title IX to areas such as the office of financial aid that received money directly from the feds.

The "1987 Civil Rights Restoration Act" (passed in 1988) required compliance with Federal laws against discrimination in all areas, not just areas which received direct federal funds.

Thus, from 1972 to 1984, the government's position was that Title IX compliance was required in all aspects of collegiate activity, not merely those receiving money directly from the government.

From 1984 to 1988, the Grove City precedent held, and Title IX applied only to departments and programs that received federal funds.

In 1988, the Civil Rights Restoration Act codified the pre-Grove City interpretation of Title IX.

[zooropa]

Re: Langer and the White House

they were advised by their counsel that Title IX required that action to provide equity and be within the law.

If your university's GC did not know what the Grove City decision meant, then he/she was grossly unfit for the job. Grove City was, for colleges, as significant as Citizens United was for political fund raising. We're not talking about a minor decision that had minimal impact on business.

Further, there has always been an alternative: Add women's sports. It's something that poor lowly underfunded South Dakota State did, adding both soccer and equestrian to meet the strictest standard on the books. And, as I've said before, if SDSU, with its minuscule budget, can find the funds to be Title IX compliant without cutting men's sports, then the failure to do so at other, larger, schools is inexcusable.