Help out a fellow poster - Warning Title IX questions inside

[ILive4This]

Ok so I typically would not condone this sort of use of the board (perhaps it is abuse), but I am hoping you all will not see it that way.

I am in the middle of researching and writing my Senior Honors Thesis which is being done in conjunction with the Politics and Legal Studies departments at my school.

My Topic is on Title IX, and essentially the question that I am asking is How has Title IX succeeded and failed in achieving gender equity in intercollegiate athletics, and how can it be more efficient/effective in doing so?

While I know that a number of you will have opinions on the matter and I certainly welcome them, since this is a Thesis, I am looking for perhaps professionals who deal with the law and its effects on a daily basis.

I know that a few SID's and perhaps even other senior administrators pass by these boards and if any of you could help me out and answer a few questions, or could put me in contact with the compliance director at your institution, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks

[duffer]

Sorry. I don't get on here often and you probably don't need this info anymore, but I'll offer my opinion anyway. Can't answer for colleges & universities, but as a former PE teacher & coach at the high school level, I have experienced both the success & and the failure. First & foremost, females have benefitted greatly in the athletic arena. Being given the same budgets, practice facilities, scholarship opportunities, etc., has meant greater successes.

On the other hand, co-ed PE classes can be lots of fun or lots of headaches. Dealing with dominant males who have a need to show off or make the "weaker sex" look bad, or even try to hurt them lends itself to the complete failure of the law and the class. This is also the case when girls go out of their way to avoid participation, frustrating their male counterparts.

Occasionally, you get a terrific group of kids, guys & girls who just like to have fun and compete at the levels permitted in a physical education environment.  This makes for a truly successful class and is one reason Title IX was created - equal opportunity.

Interestinlgy enough, I wrote my graduate thesis on a skill acquisition comparison of co-ed and non co-ed classes. Statistically, there is no difference. Girls improve more than boys, but mostly because they started at a lower skill level. Whether they were in a co-ed or non co-ed class made no difference in my study.

I do know at the college level, some male programs have suffered as a result of Title IX. Many would consider this the ultimate failure of Title IX. I'm not sure I agree. Some sports such as swimming or wrestling have been cut from programs. My own thoughts on that topic are that non-revenue producing sports will suffer anyway depending on the university. Women do not compete with or against men, so that argument is weak. Perhaps the distribution of funds from one program to another is the real problem. I'm all for football scholarships; but I don't know why 65 guys on scholarship at the top Division I schools is necessary, when less than 35 or 40 actually get playing time in any one year.

There are separate teams for the likes of soccer, basketball, golf, tennis, lacrosse, etc. Softball doesn't compete with baseball; nothing competes with football (the largest revenue producer). In my opinion, giving women a chance to compete on the collegiate level, has lead to the success of women after their college experiences (in careers, for example). I do not believe it has had a negative impact on male productivity in the same post-graduate arenas.

As I said before, I'm sorry I didn't respond in a timely manner. I would be interested in reading your final project.

[Gray Fox]

I do know at the college level, some male programs have suffered as a result of Title IX. Many would consider this the ultimate failure of Title IX. I'm not sure I agree. Some sports such as swimming or wrestling have been cut from programs. My own thoughts on that topic are that non-revenue producing sports will suffer anyway depending on the university. Women do not compete with or against men, so that argument is weak. Perhaps the distribution of funds from one program to another is the real problem. I'm all for football scholarships; but I don't know why 65 guys on scholarship at the top Division I schools is necessary, when less than 35 or 40 actually get playing time in any one year.

There are separate teams for the likes of soccer, basketball, golf, tennis, lacrosse, etc. Softball doesn't compete with baseball; nothing competes with football (the largest revenue producer). In my opinion, giving women a chance to compete on the collegiate level, has lead to the success of women after their college experiences (in careers, for example). I do not believe it has had a negative impact on male productivity in the same post-graduate arenas.

Perhaps it is one reason Colorado College dropped football.  They needed budget room and they couldn't drop women's soccer (or make it nonscholarship)  because of wanting to keep their men's hockey program (both scholarship sports).

Just a new thought on the CC football issue.

[Ralph Turner]

More Title IX stuff...


Double A Zone blog (as of June 24th, 2009.)

http://www.doubleazone.com/2009/06/ruling_could_impact_title_ix_proportionality_intrepretation.php

UC Davis article in the Sacramento Business Journal

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/06/15/daily30.html

+/- 1.5% on proportionality instead of +/- 5%

Under the settlement, Davis has 10 years to bring female participation in varsity sports to within 1.5 percent of their proportion of the overall student population. According to federal education statistics, female athletes made up about 50 percent of Davis's athletes in the 2007-8 academic year, but 56 percent of its student population.

The NY Times writes on the possible impact on men's sports...


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/sports/19ncaa.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

In the agreement, Davis would be permitted to trim the rosters of men's teams to comply. Male athletes in smaller, nonrevenue sports like wrestling and gymnastics have criticized universities for sacrificing their teams in an effort to achieve gender equity.

+/- 1.5% seems totally unworkable at the levels of participation in D-III.

[Ralph Turner]

I went to this web site to review UC-Davis' numbers.

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

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 ratio.

Let's assume that the 1.5% tolerance is an actual 0% number.

There 337 men playing sports and 340 women playing sports.

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. [EDIT:  340 + 101 = 441 females].

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 men's cuts and adding women's sports.

In any case, these male sports are vulnerable if the school cannot add enough women's sports.

Sport	Men	Women
Baseball	37	*
Basketball	16	15
All Track Combined	93	136
Football	99	*
Golf	10	13
Gymnastics	*	17
Lacrosse	*	24
Rowing	*	64
Soccer	27	31
Softball	*	22
Swimming and Diving	32	32
Tennis	12	12
Volleyball	*	17
Water Polo	27	31
Wrestling	30	*
Total Participants Men's and Women's Teams	383	414
Unduplicated Count of Participants (Number of individuals who participated on at least one varsity team.)	337	340

[Ralph Turner]

I have posted much of the same material in the comments section of the Double A zone blog.  Let's see if the moderator accepts it as appropriate and complying with the guidelines of the blog.   

[roocru]

I just found this article on Title IX issues.  See below;

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jo3PSXOVqEUL5IMpYIk2eR2CPwmAD9EKMTOG1

[Ralph Turner]

Change to one-platoon football.  There are 40 scholarships right there.

[Just Bill]

No one has ever been able to explain this to me.

Why can the NFL get by with 53 players plus 6 practice squad guys to play 16 regular season games plus playoffs and whatever preseason time necessary, while D-I college football needs 85 guys plus 20 or more walk-ons to play 12, 13 or maybe 14 games?

[David Collinge]

NFL players don't have to make time for inorganic chemistry labs.  Well, not legal ones, anyway.

[Ron Boerger]

NFL players don't have to make time for inorganic chemistry labs.  Well, not legal ones, anyway.

Neither do most D-I players. 

[Knightstalker]

NFL players don't have to make time for inorganic chemistry labs.  Well, not legal ones, anyway.

Neither do most D-I players. 

+k
http://www.instantrimshot.com/

[David Collinge]

Oops, sorry, I didn't notice that we weren't talking about D3 here on D3boards.com.  My mistake.

It does bring to mind an anecdote, though.  A couple of Ohio State football players were assigned to spy on the Michigan football practice, and they were hiding in the grandstands when a couple of big, burly U of M guards were leaving.  As they passed the cowering Buckeyes, one Michigan man was complaining to the other: "Man, this practice schedule is so grueling, it's all I can do to find time for my labs."  The OSU jocks complained to their coach: "Whys do them Michigan players gets given free dogs and we doesn't?"

[sac]

You get course credit for playing a varsity sport at Ohio State.......you can look that up.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

You get course credit for playing a varsity sport at Ohio State.......you can look that up.

That's pretty common for schools where physical education is a part of the general education curriculum, isn't it?