I don’t agree with everything here, but as usual , Frank Deford takes an independent-minded and sensible approach to Title IX. An excerpt:

Moreover, because so many American boys devote themselves to sports, starting in grade school, working toward an athletic scholarship, neglecting classroom work, the problem can only increase. That is to say, because more boys concentrate on sports, more girls do better academically, so more women get into college and so there are fewer men’s teams with fewer positions for the boys devoting themselves to sports. Hence, even more girls qualify for college, thus fewer men’s sports and so on until eventually only a handful of Renaissance men will be populating the few remaining male sports teams.
The current situation is fair. It is not the fault of girls that boys won’t work hard in the classroom. However, it is really not healthy that, soon enough, most colleges will only have men’s teams in football and basketball, maybe baseball.
Most of the critics of Title IX argue that it was never the intention of the statute only to use the gender percentage of enrolled students to determine the number of slots allotted to men’s and women’s teams and athletes. These opponents argue that students should be polled to determine their interest in athletics, and that should determine the gender ratio. That is, if a school is 60 percent female, but only 40 percent of the women say they’re interested in sports, then only 40 percent of the athletic team population should be given over to women.
I would agree, too, that far more young men are “interested” in sports than are women, but I would also suggest that that more substantial “interest” is because men and boys have a greater devotion to spectator sports — and what’s that got to do with participating in sports? To measure “interest” is just too vague a standard. It’s a red herring. Everybody should have an equal chance at playing sports