I would share the writer's complaint, but it so happens that I spend part of the year in a university town that has gradually been adding women's sports. I have observed that by and large, college-age female athletes are dumber and have nicer [censored word] than those admitted solely via intellectual merit.
"college-age female athletes are dumber ... than those admitted solely via intellectual merit."
That's more of a guy thing. Female college athletes, from my experience, tend to be good students as well. That in no way diminishes the abject stupidity of how Title IX is enforced though.
I said it a week and a half ago, I'll say it again:
Doesn't closing down all these college men's sports violate prongs 2 and 3 of the "three prong test" for compliance with Title IX? (Thank you EVER so much, Jimmy Carter!)
1. Prong one - Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
2. Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented ES-EE-EX,* OR
3. Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented ES-EE_EX.
According to US News and World Report, Truman State has an enrollment that is 42% male and 58% female. Doesn't that make men the "underrepresented ES-EE_EX?"
* It's not that I am prudish. The NR filter won't let me post anything with "objectionable language" like ES-EE-EX
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
I said it a week and a half ago, I'll say it again: Doesn't closing down all these college men's sports violate prongs 2 and 3 of the "three prong test" for compliance with Title IX? (Thank you EVER so much, Jimmy Carter!)
1. Prong one - Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
2. Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented ES-EE-EX,* OR
3. Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented ES-EE_EX.
According to US News and World Report, Truman State has an enrollment that is 42% male and 58% female. Doesn't that make men the "underrepresented ES-EE_EX?"
* It's not that I am prudish. The NR filter won't let me post anything with "objectionable language" like ES-EE-EX
Lee -- Your question is a good one. In many circumstances men's teams get cut due to Title IX even though the majority of students on campus are female and the majority of athletes on campus are female. So, why aren't men considered the "underrepresented" gender? That would be due to the courts, who have consistently interpreted "underrepresented gender" to mean "historically underrepresented gender" and have flat out denied that men have grounds to file Title IX complaints in many cases. I have to think that this interpretation will eventually change if enrollment trends continue in the same direction, but it's hard to anticipate when courts will decide that the environment has changed sufficient to justify changing their interpretation.
Kim Schuld and I review the key Title IX court cases in this paper if you are interested: External Link
I would share the writer's complaint, but it so happens that I spend part of the year in a university town that has gradually been adding women's sports. I have observed that by and large, college-age female athletes are dumber and have nicer [censored word] than those admitted solely via intellectual merit.
Title IX: It's a randy middle-aged guy's dream.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"college-age female athletes are dumber ... than those admitted solely via intellectual merit."
That's more of a guy thing. Female college athletes, from my experience, tend to be good students as well. That in no way diminishes the abject stupidity of how Title IX is enforced though.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI said it a week and a half ago, I'll say it again: Doesn't closing down all these college men's sports violate prongs 2 and 3 of the "three prong test" for compliance with Title IX? (Thank you EVER so much, Jimmy Carter!)
1. Prong one - Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
2. Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented ES-EE-EX,* OR
3. Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented ES-EE_EX.
According to US News and World Report, Truman State has an enrollment that is 42% male and 58% female. Doesn't that make men the "underrepresented ES-EE_EX?"
* It's not that I am prudish. The NR filter won't let me post anything with "objectionable language" like ES-EE-EX
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLee -- Your question is a good one. In many circumstances men's teams get cut due to Title IX even though the majority of students on campus are female and the majority of athletes on campus are female. So, why aren't men considered the "underrepresented" gender? That would be due to the courts, who have consistently interpreted "underrepresented gender" to mean "historically underrepresented gender" and have flat out denied that men have grounds to file Title IX complaints in many cases. I have to think that this interpretation will eventually change if enrollment trends continue in the same direction, but it's hard to anticipate when courts will decide that the environment has changed sufficient to justify changing their interpretation.
Kim Schuld and I review the key Title IX court cases in this paper if you are interested: External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse