Langer and the White House

[zooropa]

Re: Langer and the White House

What do you mean? There's a reunion every time the last undefeated team loses.

Surely you jest.

[witness]

Re: Langer and the White House

Surely you jest.

Mercury Morris takes that thing seriously

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: Langer and the White House

After spending way too much time reading this thread, my conclusions (which are not worth much and are only mine):

1) God bless Jim Langer. He didn't go out to make a statement, and only replied to a reporter's question why he wasn't attending the reunion. What caused the "recognition" by this administration: the desire to have "good news" counteract the bad most likely. For it or against it, I admire Jim's stance. And since they (the '72 group) have had numerous reunions, I'm pretty sure Jim won't regret his decision.

2) Why can SDSU do it and others can't? For the same reason why we are doing so great in Division 1 (strong alumni support, monetarily and participatory, a frugal mentality bred by the state's history, good leadership, etc.) I am a big wrestling fan as well as a fan of our other sports...Zoo and others who don't think that Title IX came because a number of schools faced with "required" or "possibly would be required" proportionality (in one or more prongs) didn't do something and found wrestling one of the easiest to drop (far more participants than golf, tennis, etc) are wrong (only in my opinion of course). I do believe Title IX was intended to increase women's participation...but not at the expense of men's participation. Like most everything the federal government does, there were "unintended consequences".

While SDSU was required by the Regents to meet all 3 prongs, USD was only required to meet the weakest prong (match opportunities desired by females) and still had dropped baseball because of finances. If any of you on the board think there are not plenty of SDSU fans who think we sponsor too many sports and think we should meet our funding requirements for the "big attention" sports (i.e., full scholarship numbers, coaching staffs, salaries, etc) by dropping some sports (obviously in proportional numbers, i.e, maybe drop wrestling or baseball, or maybe men's golf and tennis, for say "equestrian") you are mistaken. We do have an AD and department that hopes to maintain our broad program. Oops, my time is up...will concentrate on the other threads now.

[Nidaros]

Re: Langer and the White House

After spending way too much time reading this thread, my conclusions (which are not worth much and are only mine):

1) God bless Jim Langer. He didn't go out to make a statement, and only replied to a reporter's question why he wasn't attending the reunion. What caused the "recognition" by this administration: the desire to have "good news" counteract the bad most likely. For it or against it, I admire Jim's stance. And since they (the '72 group) have had numerous reunions, I'm pretty sure Jim won't regret his decision.

2) Why can SDSU do it and others can't? For the same reason why we are doing so great in Division 1 (strong alumni support, monetarily and participatory, a frugal mentality bred by the state's history, good leadership, etc.) I am a big wrestling fan as well as a fan of our other sports...Zoo and others who don't think that Title IX came because a number of schools faced with "required" or "possibly would be required" proportionality (in one or more prongs) didn't do something and found wrestling one of the easiest to drop (far more participants than golf, tennis, etc) are wrong (only in my opinion of course). I do believe Title IX was intended to increase women's participation...but not at the expense of men's participation. Like most everything the federal government does, there were "unintended consequences".

While SDSU was required by the Regents to meet all 3 prongs, USD was only required to meet the weakest prong (match opportunities desired by females) and still had dropped baseball because of finances. If any of you on the board think there are not plenty of SDSU fans who think we sponsor too many sports and think we should meet our funding requirements for the "big attention" sports (i.e., full scholarship numbers, coaching staffs, salaries, etc) by dropping some sports (obviously in proportional numbers, i.e, maybe drop wrestling or baseball, or maybe men's golf and tennis, for say "equestrian") you are mistaken. We do have an AD and department that hopes to maintain our broad program. Oops, my time is up...will concentrate on the other threads now.

As usual an excellent post. Being you are an old journalist, you were spot on in seeing Jim Langer in the perspective that he choose. I had not made that distinction of him making a statement as oppose to responding to a reporter. There is a difference there and you picked up on it and pointed it out. Thanks.

To me Title IX is a great thing and important equalizer, and sure the wrestling sport might be the unintended consequence, but would be watching AJ and his fine picked team game after game, if not for Title IX? I guess I should stop watching Tim Wise videos on Youtube.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Langer and the White House

Damn women thinking they should be treated equally.

I sense sarcasm, and agree that women should be treated equally. I propose we eliminate "women's" sports and "men's" sports, and just have "sports". The best athletes make the teams. That way, women can truly be treated equally.

Being treated fairly isn't the same as being treated equally. Women will never be equal to men. Men will never be equal to women. Sorry if that offends anybody.

*This post is mostly in jest. All this title 9 talk has got me down.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Langer and the White House

Yeah we are last in everything. So much for effiency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency

A simple way of distinguishing between efficiency and effectiveness is the saying, "Efficiency is doing things right, while Effectiveness is doing the right things."

I think your statement may speak more to the effectiveness of SD Government/Culture than to its efficiency. Matter of opinion though, not trying to pick a fight.

[Nidaros]

Re: Langer and the White House

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency



I think your statement may speak more to the effectiveness of SD Government/Culture than to its efficiency. Matter of opinion though, not trying to pick a fight.

Oh but you are, and I choose to ignore your comment.

[filbert]

Re: Langer and the White House

Oh but you are, and I choose to ignore your comment.

The way to ignore a comment is . . . you know . . . to ignore it.

[GopherHole]

Re: Langer and the White House

This thread has truly been an interesting read! It stimulated my mind during what is normally my afternoon lull.

[zooropa]

Re: Langer and the White House

Zoo and others who don't think that ... a number of schools faced with "required" or "possibly would be required" proportionality (in one or more prongs) didn't do something and found wrestling one of the easiest to drop... are wrong.

In my original post I highlighted the example of UNO, a school that was already far out of compliance on Title IX, and likely to get even more so if they kept wrestling and football.

In certain very limited instances like this, I recognize the role that budget has in cutting men's sports, rather than adding women's sports.

But the majority of circumstances, especially those at universities that have budgets that are multiples of SDSU's, may be analogized thus:

Imagine that a law is passed that increases the cost of employing someone by, oh, say $1,000 a year.

Now, suppose a company responds to that law by laying off enough employees so that their labor costs do not go up, despite this additional tax. Further, suppose this company would have had a good profit even after paying this additional tax.

Without venturing into politics, did these employees lose their jobs because of the law, or did they lose their jobs because of a choice the company made about how they would comply with the law?

Where there is a reasonable choice, the outcome cannot be blamed on the law.

I've already said that the priority that SDSU places on the student athlete experience over and above any national glory-seeking ensures that they will take an expansive attitude toward Title IX compliance. While SDSU's circumstances certainly make it easier for the administration to have such a constructive attitude toward athletics, it is, nonetheless, a thoroughly enlightened attitude in this day and age.

[jacksfaninne]

Re: Langer and the White House

Jim Langer was one heck of a good football player. Not as good a politician but one heck of a FB player.

Me thinks we could use a whole lot more people like Jim -- people who aren't as good a politician.

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: Langer and the White House

In my original post I highlighted the example of UNO, a school that was already far out of compliance on Title IX, and likely to get even more so if they kept wrestling and football.

UNO didn't cut football and wrestling because of Title IX or concerns over gender equity. They cut football, because it was not producing enough revenue to offset the huge cost (to say nothing about subtle pressure from the Lincoln area). They cut wrestling, because the Summit League required them to add two more men's sports that were needed in the Summit League, not including wrestling.

I understand your concern about the dropping of wrestling ("those at universities that have budgets multiple of SDSU's"), but there were far fewer of those, than there were of smaller schools, who did not even have SDSU's budget, who dropped their wrestling program (either forced or morally committed to the principal of Title IX). My major point was that the sport of wrestling took the brunt of the unintended consequences of the act. My position was never intended to be opposed to the principal intent of Title IX, nor of the benefit that it has been to women's athletics. I could write a treatise on the way that Congressional legislation is interpreted and extended and broadened by the lay staffs that flesh out the intent with all of the heavy handedness that goes with Federal programs (do it exactly as we say, or forfeit your federal funding). But I've just come back from Coach Stigs' Difference Maker gathering and prefer to spend my time prepping for Jackrabbit football. Let the games begin!!!!

[zooropa]

Re: Langer and the White House

UNO didn't cut football and wrestling because of Title IX or concerns over gender equity. They cut football, because it was not producing enough revenue to offset the huge cost (to say nothing about subtle pressure from the Lincoln area). They cut wrestling, because the Summit League required them to add two more men's sports that were needed in the Summit League, not including wrestling.

They were also significantly out of compliance as a D-2 school. IIRC, they may have needed to add almost a hundred spots to hit the proportionality test and keep wrestling and football and add the Summit mandated sports. They were maybe 30 spots over? Maybe? I can't remember. It's on the forum somewhere. I ran the numbers once. Right now, M/F enrollment is 91%, while M/F participation is 85%, so they could actually add a few men's spots.

BTW: it's worth reflecting that SDSU added something in the neighborhood of 80 women's spots in two new sports (equestrian & soccer) to hit strict Title IX compliance, and, probably a hefty number of additional swimmers, T&F participants, etc. That's a pretty significant buy-in on the part of SDSU's administration.

My major point was that the sport of wrestling took the brunt of the unintended consequences of the act.

I would agree with that, but I would also suggest that wrestling programs would've declined absent Title IX, as 53 D-1 schools dropped wrestling when they didn't have to under Title IX (after Grove City, before the CRRA). Possibly Title IX accelerated the decline of wrestling, but I would argue that the explosive growth of football & the decline of wrestling are not unrelated.

Anyway, I think we can both agree that SDSU's implementation of Title IX reflects an institutional philosophy that is less likely to cause the issues one sees at schools where a higher value is placed on winning and staying in the national limelight.

[filbert]

Re: Langer and the White House

Imagine that a law is passed that increases the cost of employing someone by, oh, say $1,000 a year.

Now, suppose a company responds to that law by laying off enough employees so that their labor costs do not go up, despite this additional tax. Further, suppose this company would have had a good profit even after paying this additional tax.

Without venturing into politics, did these employees lose their jobs because of the law, or did they lose their jobs because of a choice the company made about how they would comply with the law?

Where there is a reasonable choice, the outcome cannot be blamed on the law.

OK, I can't let this one go by . . .

First and foremost, the purpose of a business is not to provide jobs for its employees. It is in fact to provide a profit to the owner or owners, by providing goods and/or services to customers willing to purchase those goods and services. The managers of the company have a fiduciary responsibility to the owners (assuming that they are not themselves the owners) to maximize that profit.

If we assume normal fiduciary responsibility, the managers of the company have already maximized that profit by maintaining a balance between costs (such as labor) and revenue. A change in law forces--and note well the word, forces--the managers to re-balance their company because of their fiduciary responsibility to the owners.

The only ways a business can do this is by reducing their expenses, increasing their revenues, or by some combination of the two.

Which comes to Second: regardless of what the managers "choose" do in response to the law, it is a NOT an action that they would have taken absent the presence of the law. It is NOT a "reasonable choice"--it is a coerced action.

I would invite you to read and digest the discussion of the concept of "coercion" in F. A. Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty, a portion of which is:

Coercion clearly does not include all influences that men can exercise on the action of others. It does not even include all instances in which a person acts or threatens to act in a manner he knows will harm another person and will lead him to change his intentions. A person who blocks my path in the street and causes me to step aside, a person who has borrowed from the library a book I want, or even a person who drives me away by the unpleasant noises he produces cannot properly be said to coerce me. Coercion implies both the threat of inflicting harm and the intention thereby to bring about certain conduct.

Though the coerced still chooses, the alternatives are determined for him by the coercer so that he will choose what the coercer wants. He is not altogether deprived of the use of his capacities; but he is deprived of the possibility of using his knowledge for his own aims. The effective use of a person's intelligence and knowledge iin the pursuit of his aims requires that he be able to foresee some of the conditions of his environment and adhere to a plan of action. Most human aims can be achieved only by a chain of connected actions, decided upon as a coherent whole and based on the assumption that the facts will be what they are expected to be. it is because, and insofar as, we can predict events, or at least know probabilities, that we can achieve anything. And though physical circumstances will often be unpredictable, they will not maliciously frustrate our aims. But if the facts which determine our plans are under the sole control of another, our actions will be similarly controlled.

Coercion is thus bad because it prevents a person from using his mental powers to the full and consequently from making the greatest contribution that he is capable to of to the community. Though the coerced will still do the best he can do for himself at any given moment, the only comprehensive design that his actions fit into is that of another mind.

Note that the highlighted statement in the Hayek quote is a pretty good working definition of a law: an expressed intent by the state to bring about certain conduct, backed by the threat of the use of the state's police power to enforce that conduct.

To think that an action taken in response to the passage of a law is not the ultimate responsibility of the law and the lawmakers themselves is simply risible, unless one is distressingly unfamiliar with the concept of "unintended consequences."

(Of course, should a company be able to meet your supposition that they are actually able to maintain their revenues with a reduced number of employees, then the owners of the company would have cause to question that management as to why the company was 'overstaffed' to begin with. But another plausible scenario would be that the remaining employees would see an increased workload but no increase in pay, morale would plummet affecting customer service, affecting revenues, causing a death spiral sending the company completely out of business, finally being bought out by a larger company whose owners and executives just coincidentally donated lots of money to the legislators who voted for the law.

Totally not the fault of the law that was passed, of course. It was totally the choice of the managers.)

[goon]

Re: Langer and the White House

I would agree with that, but I would also suggest that wrestling programs would've declined absent Title IX, as 53 D-1 schools dropped wrestling when they didn't have to under Title IX (after Grove City, before the CRRA). Possibly Title IX accelerated the decline of wrestling, but I would argue that the explosive growth of football & the decline of wrestling are not unrelated.

Yet at the same time before title IX passed, womens sports were growing, that they were already seeing major improvements well before the law was passed. So the point of unintended consequences is that because of the law we will never know what would have happened with out it. Maybe womens sports would have kept growing. Maybe not. Maybe wresting would have found its natural balance as some schools would have probably kept it and others would have cut it anyway. I do agree with you that plently of schools would cut everything but football in mens basketball if they could. The issue of budgets and getting less state support for many programs shows there is good in title IX that you cant just cut one in the name of budgets anymore, but mens and womens teams will get axed but its in the best interest of most ADs to keep as many as they can.