Comments on: University of Richmond drops men’s soccer and track/field

By: Melvin H.

Melvin H. — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 06:17:22 +0000

Max, can you name one? ((sound of crickets…))

The word I forgot to put in was “almost”, as in “…nearly–almost exclusively?–on the proportional-representation clause…”. The other two prongs you mention never seem to be cited when a Title IX case comes up, as the only safe harbor courts, and such as the Women’s Sports Foundation, seem to recognize/allow on any consistent basis is proportional enrollment. Whether there is more interest among men compared to women in sports–an aspect that should be at least taken into account–is deemed irrelevant, sexist, outdated, etc. That is way wrong, and way outdated–Title IX needs to be changed, and before it somehow gets applied to high schools.

By: Deborah Elson

Deborah Elson — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:42:29 +0000

Here’s an update on Towson University from the American Sports Council, one of the only organization’s attempting to reform the law’s regulations so that male athletes will no longer have to face discrimination caused by activists and government bureaucrats: http://savingsports.org/2012/10/09/puppeteeringattowsonuniversity/

By: Max Kennerly

Max Kennerly — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 14:35:23 +0000

Melvin,

Your assertion sounds “nice” (for people trying to kill Title IX), but can you cite a single case in which a Court ignored the third prong of the three-prong test and instead required proportional-representation?

I’ll wait. It’ll take you a while.

By: Melvin H.

Melvin H. — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 05:27:13 +0000

Max, that sounds nice, but the enforcement of Title IX has been nearly–exclusively?–on the proportional-representation prong of the three-part test, prosecuted by the Feds and decided by the courts…..with the added danger that Title IX may now be starting to be enforced at high-school level, something Title IX was explicitly never supposed to be done.

By: Max Kennerly

Max Kennerly — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 20:39:47 +0000

Culdescahcero — In the time it took you to write, “The test applied to sports is a 50/50 balance or proportional to school attendance,” you could have used The Google to figure out you were wrong. Title IX has never required 50/50. One way of satisfying Title IX is proportional to enrollment, but that’s not the only way. The more common way is to show “The institution is fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.”

By: culdesachero

culdesachero — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 13:22:44 +0000

Title IX states that it is illegal for a federally funded school to discriminate on the basis of gender. The test applied to sports is a 50/50 balance or proportional to school attendance.

All you have to do, is find a program category, say arts, with a gender bias in favour of women and mount the same legal challenge. Surely there must be the will (and the money) somewhere to back enough legal challenges nation-wide to cause a stir. If you threaten the programs favoured by women, they’re bound to take notice of the hypocrisy.
Fight insanity with insanity!

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 20:53:20 +0000

Title IX doesn’t work that way ps. It is like a check valve, it only works one way.

By: Max Kennerly

Max Kennerly — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 18:37:52 +0000

Title IX does not cause a university to make a revenue-neutral decision. Money does.

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:02:22 +0000

I teach in the computer science master’s degree program at Johns Hopkins University. Typically about 15-20% of the students in my classes are female. In the class I am teaching this semester, there are 2 female students out of 12 (17%).

By: ps

ps — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:52:13 +0000

maybe the low numbers of men taking Womens Studies will finally see it dropped by universities. We could hope.