NCAA President Myles Brand made an interesting move last month when he called on colleges and universities to not blame Title IX for cuts they may make in men's sports opportunities during this downturn in the economy. Brand readily admitted that he was trying to "preempt" any attempt to blame Title IX for cuts in collegiate sports programs, an argument which Brand characterized as "unfair" in his comments in USA Today.
Title IX, passed in 1972 to ban discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational program receiving Federal funding, is often cited as the reason for cutting opportunities for men to play sports at the collegiate level - the most frequent spin that as such, the cuts are unfair (supported by the belief that men have a God-given right of first refusal to sports).
The Women's Sports Foundation has some of the best reference information on Title IX - it's the first place to go when looking for stats to back up arguments in support of Title IX. Like the fact that men's participation in sports at the collegiate level has actually increased in the 36 years since Title IX was passed.
(Check the Institute's wiki for more information from the Women's Sports Foundation's most recent report card on colleges and universities.)
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
When the USA TODAY reporter confronted Brand with the fact that Title IX enforcement effectively requires that men's teams be cut first, Brand admitted "Title IX is a factor because fairness is a factor."
So, even according to Brand, Title IX is indeed a factor. Apparently, though, he wants to prevent his members from saying the same thing.
But what if, instead of "blaming" Title IX, administrators praised the law when making the cuts. How about this phrasing: "We are delighted to announce that Title IX enforcement has encouraged us to cut [insert men's team here] and we are deeply gratified that the federal government helped us arrive at this heartening decision."
Would that be acceptable?
Post a Comment