PDA

View Full Version : OT: Poole on Title IX



RichyBear
04-08-2010, 12:19 PM
Here's a link to an article in today's Oakland Trib by Monte Poole on title IX.



http://www.insidebayarea.com/sports/ci_14840030

SadbutTrue999
04-08-2010, 03:05 PM
The sooner they change it so that revenue-generating sports are exempt from Title IX, the better.

carebear
04-08-2010, 03:34 PM
I'm not trying to go anywhere with this, only trying to help myself take a side.

What is the role of collegiate athletics? Is it to teach kids more about sports (similar to how they might want to learn more about biology or spanish)? Is it to raise money? Is it to build morale? Is it to help kids go pro? Is it to raise the profile of universities? Is it something else?

Honestly curious what people think.

SadbutTrue999
04-08-2010, 03:54 PM
I'm not trying to go anywhere with this, only trying to help myself take a side.

What is the role of collegiate athletics? Is it to teach kids more about sports (similar to how they might want to learn more about biology or spanish)? Is it to raise money? Is it to build morale? Is it to help kids go pro? Is it to raise the profile of universities? Is it something else?

Honestly curious what people think.

It serves to a) build part of the total package of a college graduate, as the competition and hard work will make them better at whatever they do and b) it gives opportunities to people who don't have them.

That said, right now Title IX is removing that opportunity from a ton of male applicants simply because no one likes to watch women's sports. Therefore, it makes sense to limit Title IX to sports that are net losers financially... laws limiting scholarships for schools that accept federal fundhing should only apply if the government is actually subsidizing the sports in question. If the government isn't actually subsidizing it (like most BCS football and basketball programs), they should have no bearing on scholarship limits.

carebear
04-08-2010, 04:10 PM
It serves to a) build part of the total package of a college graduate, as the competition and hard work will make them better at whatever they do and b) it gives opportunities to people who don't have them.

That said, right now Title IX is removing that opportunity from a ton of male applicants simply because no one likes to watch women's sports. Therefore, it makes sense to limit Title IX to sports that are net losers financially... laws limiting scholarships for schools that accept federal fundhing should only apply if the government is actually subsidizing the sports in question. If the government isn't actually subsidizing it (like most BCS football and basketball programs), they should have no bearing on scholarship limits.

i don't like to watch women's sports, but if it is helping some women become better graduates (and people) and offering them opportunities they would not otherwise have, shouldn't that be considered?

i think i am in the middle on this one. i know i am going to get dinged for this question, but do sports (other than club or intramural sports) belong at a university?

SadbutTrue999
04-08-2010, 04:13 PM
i don't like to watch women's sports, but if it is helping some women become better graduates (and people) and offering them opportunities they would not otherwise have, shouldn't that be considered?


It should, and I do, but not at the expense of men. I dont have a problem with the concept of Title IX, the problem is it doesn't make sense in today's financial environment. It is quite literally driving athletic programs bankrupt, while simultaneously removing options for men who don't play basketball or football.

The fact that more women now attend college then men also supports ending/altering Title IX. Women can no longer claim that they need help to force colleges to admit women in equal numbers as men, a major change from 1972.

FiatSlug
04-08-2010, 04:13 PM
I'm not trying to go anywhere with this, only trying to help myself take a side.

What is the role of collegiate athletics? Is it to teach kids more about sports (similar to how they might want to learn more about biology or spanish)? Is it to raise money? Is it to build morale? Is it to help kids go pro? Is it to raise the profile of universities? Is it something else?

Honestly curious what people think.

The highest purpose of collegiate athletics is to provide athletes an avenue to attain a college education otherwise not available to them.

Entertainment does have a value in any society: it is essential to the expression of the human spirit. Each society chooses for itself those forms of entertainment which it does value.

Some forms of entertainment are also valued more highly than others. An expression of this valuation is the amount of money that people will spend on the continued practice of some forms of entertainment. Americans spend billions each year on movies, concerts of many different kinds of music, stage plays, television shows, and yes, baseball, football, basketball, hockey, auto racing, horse racing, golf, etc.

Athletics are unique in that not only is it entertainment, it also appears to be a substitution for tribal warfare on a grand scale. The identification with teams from a specific location (see MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL) or a school that a spectator attneded or for which someone feels an affinity, is essentially a form of tribal identification. In short, teams representing some entity (whether it's a city or region, or a school), represents us, our ideals, our stated purpose or conversely, those of our opponents and their popularly accepted value systems.

It is apparent that academics has a valued place at our universities. It is also apparent that athletics is part of the tapestry that defines our universities. Some forms of entertainment are readily accepted by the academic side as being valuable (drama, music, literature, for example) while athletics is very often devalued or being a threat to academics.

This is a false dichotomy. What is often obscured in the raging debate is that society benefits from an appropriate balance between academics and athletics. What we have now in the United States is a society that overvalues entertainment at the expense of academics.

Evidence of that imbalance is expressed in declining budgets to academics at all levels (from kindergarten up to and including colleges and universities) while expenditures on athletics continues to rise: player and coaches contracts, rising costs for stadia with ever-increasing levels of luxury at the highest ends.

As I've been saying for some time now, the arms race in athletics (both professionally and at the intercollegiate level) is busting budgets across the United States. As a society, if we're going to maintain our status as an economic and miltary superpower, we need to re-evaluate our priorities and choices. We need to decide if we want to remain the foremost nation on the face of the planet not just for this generation, but for generations to come. We need to find an appropriate balance and ways to achieve it.

This isn't just about athletics and academics; it's about what we value as a society and whether we can be a unified people willing to fulfill the ideals of a just and free society. I'm not so certain that there is a singular or unified will to achieve those goals in America today.