Campus Free Speech

Mizzou Women's Softball Team Says Title IX Is Killing the Sport

University of Missouri administrators forced the team to accept weak players, for equality.

|

Softball
Dreamstime

The purpose of Title IX—the federal statute wreaking havoc on campus free expression and due process—is to ensure equality between male and female students. You would therefore expect female student-athletes to be grateful that the law protects their rights and guarantees them equal access to school resources. 

But the University of Missouri women's softball team is currently staging a rebellion against the administration—because they think Title IX is destroying their sport. 

The situation at Mizzou is complicated, and involves considerable ill will between some members of the softball team, other members, the coaching staff, and the university administration. But the gist of the problem is Title IX. Female athletes essentially claim that university administrators, citing Title IX, have forced the team to bring on under-qualified players. This has in turn reduced the amount of game time enjoyed by more skilled players. 

Why is Title IX the culprit? Administrators don't want the federal government to accuse Mizzou of violating federal law, so they have to make sure the softball team is big enough. They don't want it to look like the school is giving more support to the boys' team than the girls' team. 

According to The College Fix: 

In an undated letter to Rhoades, the Unity Council blames Title IX-inflated roster sizes for "lack of playing time or poor individual performances" resulting in player complaints against [Coach] Earleywine. They say Earleywine's critics on the team are "looking for a person to blame" for their lack of performance and play time. 

"This large roster size is not Coach E's doing, but is required due to Title IX rules regarding women's athletics," the letter says. 

Involved parties clearly recall the football team's successful display of solidarity with aggrieved students of color last autumn, which led to the resignation of Mizzou's president. The administration would like to avoid a similar incident with the softball team. 

But this story is useful as a reminder that laws have unintended consequences—particularly when they are misinterpreted by overzealous bureaucrats or broadened far beyond their original scope. 

NEXT: A puzzling order by Judge Hanen in the DAPA immigration case

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why would a large rooster require less playing time for the good players? Are college sports implementing an ‘everyone gets a turn’ policy? What is this T-ball? Are these grown ups or children? Why am I channeling The Judge?

    1. And what will happen to what’s-her-name? All that and more next week.

    2. I was wondering the same thing. Do they not have benches in Missouri?

      1. Benches are a social construct.

    3. Everything has to be fair like with communism so that there is absolutly zero incentive for anyone to even try anymore.

    4. “Why would a large rooster require less playing time for the good players?”

      Perhaps the weaker ones only agree to join – and stay – if they are treated “equally”. The strong players may have a manly approach to sports, weaker ones may be more typically feminine, which includes insisting on a female egalitarian system — which is anathema to team sports. Women are not good in large groups, worse in large groups that include a hierarchical structure.

      1. Pecking order amongst the hens.

      2. “Women are not good in large groups”

        You must have never seen a sewing bee or a quilting circle.

      3. I would have said the exact opposite – women ruthlessly enforce hierarchies, even task specific ones and in circumstances where that heirarchy is irrelevant.

        1. It’s not irrelevant. Women are all about cooperation. When they work as a group each one is given a job by the more experienced members. Just like anything you start at the bottom.

          1. Hey, it’s almost as if a demographic that encompasses half of humanity and three billion people has an enormous variety of behaviors and standards! Crazy, I know.

    5. a large rooster

      It always goes back to huge cocks with you people, doesn’t it?

      1. Justice is only served when there’s a sufficiently pecking pecking hen pecking the head of that rooster… umm, something like that, not that head, the other one.

    6. A good part of it also stems from the NCAA’s practice rules.

      They are very strictly regulated on how many hours of practice the team can have, when those practices can be, and what activities can be performed at them.

      Even if the last 15 players on the roster never get into games expanding the roster from 25 to 40 means that many fewer at bats in batting practice and that many fewer reps in the field

      1. Not buying it. Those last fifteen could be shagging balls all practice, the girls that need extra time in the cage can get it, the ones who need more field drilling get that also.

    7. Yes it would – or else those players will sue.

      Nobody watches women’s sports, the large roster is solely to limit the school’s exposure to attack by the DoJ. As they don’t actually care about women’s athletics (its a money drain, not a revenue source) they require everyone to get playtime as this not only limits their liability from *players* but it also fits into the modern ‘everyone is a winner’ culture that is popular among academia at all levels.

      There is still a hard-core of female athletes who want to *compete* (whether or not anyone is watching), which is the purpose of these programs (as far as they are concerned). So there’s a conflict of interest – the guy’s paying the bills don’t really want the programs in the first place but have to have them so they’re using them to manage liability. The players don’t care because they’re not fronting the costs – they want to compete.

      Sadly the players, for some reason, never think to walk away from the college programs and institute their own leagues where they can.

      1. 25 years ago the coach could have gotten away with benchwarmers – but then again, 25 years ago the coach wouldn’t have *had* to have them in the first place.

      2. Well Missou, live by the SJW sword, die by the SJW sword…

  2. Apply to businesses.

  3. It’s a game. Get over it. If you want to be a professional softball player why are you in college?

    1. I think the complaint is that it isn’t much of a game with Title IX.

      1. Well Missou isn’t much of a university, so there.

    2. That’s not why they’re playing. And its why programs like Title IX and other, oh-so-well-meaning, programs like a minimum wage and the ADA end up destroying the very things they’re trying to help.

      In the past these women simply wanted to play a sport – and they were happy that the school was willing to bear *any* of the cost, let alone set up competitive leagues and cover out-of-area play. Now Title IX is here and in the name of sexual equality has removed the one part of the game that made it worth playing in the first place – genuine competition between players at the top of their bracket.

    3. “a professional softball player”

      A what?

  4. Female athletes essentially claim that university administrators, citing Title IX, have forced the team to bring on under-qualified players. This has in turn reduced the amount of game time enjoyed by more skilled players.

    “Harrison Bergeron” starts to prove prescient.

    1. that story seems to conflict with his stated political views, but maybe Im reading it wrong. I also want to believe that he wasn’t a communist at heart.

      1. I know this, he wanted a “Secretary of the Future.” NPR talked about it for almost a month straight.

      2. Harrison Bergeron was intended to be a satire of the way opponents of the state and of socialist ideals characterized them. The irony is that it was read that way by almost no one. So joke was on Vonnegut.

        1. Harrison Bergeron was intended to be a satire of the way opponents of the state and of socialist ideals characterized them.

          It certainly doesn’t read that way in the context of all the other stories in Welcome to the Monkey House, all of which have a strong thread of “suspicion of government”, anti-war, revulsion @ scientifically-justified social-engineering, etc.

          You could say it was his (only) Libertarian book; consequently its been considered “problematic” by all of his Lefty fans who try and handwave a lot of it away as “complex satire”.

          1. It certainly doesn’t read that way in the context of all the other stories in Welcome to the Monkey House

            Bear in mind though that it was originally published 7 years earlier as a stand alone short story. I’m no scholar of Vonnegut and haven’t read much of anything from that particular anthology, but Harrison Bergeron stands out specifically because it is the polar opposite of Vonnegut’s expressed views on the nature and role of government. It would be a very uncharacteristic change of heart. The extremely exaggerated heroic characteristics of the protagonist and authoritarian characteristics of the state also suggest mockery. Bergeron is the ideal of Randian romantic individualism, which isn’t really how Vonnegut’s characters were written more generally. I’m not married to the idea necessarily, but I do suspect the intent of the story was more “Jesus Christ, this is what Birchers actually think socialism is” than “Abandon hope all ye who enter here”.

            Then again, Orwell wrote 1984 as a socialist. Blind squirrels and all that.

            1. I think its a mistake to attribute consistency in their political positions. They, like most people, have a mish-mash of personal principles and ‘expected viewpoints’.

              Orwell was an anti-totalitarian – and wrote Animal Farm from that perspective – but he was also a democratic socialist. Mainly because, IMO, he, like all other democratic socialists hate totalitarianism and don’t realize the extent that its neccessary to enact their ‘democratic’ socialism.

              Or take Weld – on the small scale the dude’s got some libertarianish ideas, but on the large scale his first response is to ignore how government works in real life and so he runs to it as a primary problem solver for ‘the nation’s problems’.

              Harrisson Bergeron is completely consistent – if you start from the assumption that the writer’s political beliefs aren’t consistent.

              Or it could be a very well done piece of satire that fall’s well-within Poe’s Law decades before it was formalized.

        2. wow, I never even considered that it might be satire. I mean I read it for the first time in like middle school, so my first impressions (always important) were maybe too naive to pick up on something like that; I came away with the strong impression of Harrison as a hero. I also have never been able to stand ayn rand for more than a few pages (from what I hear I think Id agree with a lot of her philosophy, I just really dislike her as a writer) so I wouldn’t get any references to her even now. It would make much more sense as satire though. Im gonna have to read that again.

        3. The fact that Poe’s Law obtains makes it even worse!

  5. Just wait until they let a bunch of dudes who couldn’t make the cut for the baseball team on the squad.

    1. +1 Pitching overhand because FYTW!

    2. Just wait until they let a bunch of girls who never played before on the guys squad.

      1. Which major league team signed her after the video went viral?

        Which minor league team did she end up playing for?

        Oh.

        1. But the same goes doubly for men cut from the baseball team.

      2. Softball pitchers are usually at an advantage over baseball batters. The pitches are not the same, they come in different, they move different. Even a professional would require some time to familiarize themselves with the mechanics at the bat.

        Give him thirty minutes, and then see whether she can still strike him out. I’m all for “fair’s fair”, and I’ll argue for co-ed baseball all day long, but this wasn’t fair.

        1. And she didn’t come close in the whole AB to throwing a strike

        2. Give him thirty minutes, and then see whether she can still strike him out. I’m all for “fair’s fair”, and I’ll argue for co-ed baseball all day long, but this wasn’t fair.

          Also, I can’t identify the field/stadium but, judging by the paper crowd in the stands and where she’s standing, we’re looking at a womens’ softball field, which means she’s only pitching from 43′ instead of the usual 60.5′.

          So, even before she throws a pitch, the conditions are slanted in her favor and, I’d speculate, a 75 mph softball from 60′ would get creamed regularly by even an average batter and time spent adjusting to the rise vs. fall of the pitching would only increase the probability of being creamed.

      3. Would

  6. Wymenz Softball…

    …yummy lesbianz!

  7. RE: Mizzou Women’s Softball Team Says Title IX Is Killing the Sport
    University of Missouri administrators forced the team to accept weak players, for equality.

    This only makes sense.
    People who never played sports should dictate political correctness to those who do play sports.
    It’s all part of the inclusionary and political correct policy of the ruling insane.
    Next up, nazis, jihadists and communists get a certain number infantry divisions in the Army and Marine Corps, their own fighter air wing in the Air Force and a few destroys from the Navy not to mention seats on the US Supreme Court and in Congress and the Senate.
    Won’t life be wonderful?

    1. “People who never played sports should dictate political correctness to those who do play sports.”

      This is just the typical mode of operation for the Left. It’s the same reason gun laws are written by people who couldn’t even tell you the difference between a fully-auto and semi-auto.

  8. So you’re telling me that the government can’t just legislate more skilled female athletes into existence? They can’t just legislate more interest in women’s athletics into being?

    1. Have you ever seen any WNBA games? Not even legislation at gunpoint could generate interest in that “sport.”

  9. Awww. Derp. Nothing else to say.

  10. I’m no expert on Women’s College Softball, but I’m going to guess that if the team actually is trying to win stuff, I could see how they’d be very skeptical of Title IX.

  11. Why do professional women’s basketball players make less than men professional basketball players? Herpity derpity durrr. Duh, I dunno, what, men’s basketball makes way more money and has more money to pay their players? Sexist, patriarchy, CIS heteronormative hate mongering, fish merchants, xenophobic, misogynists, vector vector, hate monger, derpity doo, derpity doo, zero zero, down field, down field, you have been assimilated, you have been assimilated, we have assumed control, we have assumed control…

    1. Better questions is since we are all equal why are their separate leagues? If woman can be in ground combat elements (read infantry) they can either guard Lebron or go home cause they suck.

      1. For the same reason we have weights in boxing and wrestling.

        1. But not in combat?

  12. laws have unintended consequences?particularly when they are misinterpreted by overzealous bureaucrats or broadened far beyond their original scope

    Overzealous bureaucrats aggrandizing their power by boadening laws far beyond their original scope is hardly an unintended consequence.

    1. Something something, foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

  13. If not for Title IX, there wouldn’t be any female softball team on campus to begin with.

    1. ^This. I’m sure there would be women’s softball teams, but not as many. The combination of Title IX and bloated football rosters opens up a shit ton more positions for female athletics than there are women who really want to fill them. I’d bet they have to beg/bribe some women to join teams in order to be compliant with Title IX, so the women who couldn’t care less wind up being rather lousy teammates to the ones who really do want to play.

      1. There are no ‘bloated’ football rosters. The scholarship limit is 85 guys. Once upon a time, there was a no limit.

    2. Oh. Snap.

  14. “This has in turn reduced the amount of game time enjoyed by more skilled players.

    Why is Title IX the culprit? Administrators don’t want the federal government to accuse Mizzou of violating federal law, so they have to make sure the softball team is big enough. They don’t want it to look like the school is giving more support to the boys’ team than the girls’ team.”

    You were saying Obama?

    Title IX was set up in 1972?

    http://www.titleix.info/histor…..rview.aspx

    Why is it such an issue now?

    1. Also, this is how you hasten mediocrity when you sideline your most talented people. Not just in sports but in anything.

      All to give a lesser being a ‘fair shot’.

      Know what probably happens along the slippy-slidey slide? You then have leaders of mediocre ability. See Trudeau and Obama.

    2. Its an issue now because of the change in ‘interpretation’ of Title IX over the last 8 years.

      Its the same law – but in the 80’s and 90’s they didn’t have to deal with the ‘equal access means equal money spent’ interpretation.

  15. Well, this problem is easy to solve. Cut down the size of the men’s teams.
    Equality.
    Because as all right-thinking people know, men and women have identical interest in sports. I mean are we equal or are we not equal?

    1. They’ve done that with Title IX for half a century now. They have no problem cutting male sports in this numbers game. Title IX has always been abjectly awful.

      1. Title IX was a pestilential abortion trying to end-run around keeping girls off the team. “Separate but equal! So you wanted to play baseball or football, isn’t softball and volleyball pretty much the same thing?!”

        Shocking, how a stupid law to cover a problem that shouldn’t have been a problem caused more problems than the original problem itself. That never happens.

        Repeal it! I think we can all agree on that much.

  16. Involved parties clearly recall the football team’s successful display of solidarity with aggrieved students of color last autumn, which led to the resignation of Mizzou’s president. The administration would like to avoid a similar incident with the softball team.

    Did Robby really just write this dumb shit? I mean, Robby has posted some grade-A derp before, but what the fuck?

    1. it all looks pretty straightforward and factual to me…
      * the football team did, in fact demonstrate with
      * other aggrieved students of color
      * Said demonstration was successful in its goal of
      * forcing the resignation of the school president

      what are you on about?

      1. when a university takes a massive enrollment hit solely due to an event, calling that event “successful” is a stretch of gargantuan proportions. When students do something that fucks up your university, the last thing you do is let them repeat the process.

      2. I was just mocking his comparison between the Mizzou football team and the female softball players. Who the hell would notice if they went on strike?

  17. A video (HD wasn’t a thing in the age of freedom) back when men were still free men.

    Bon Scott, among the last remnants of real free men

    1. I was front row center for this show

      1. And the comment from someone else there is correct. “Riff Raff” was the first song in the set.

        The show cost a whole $6.50.

  18. ESPN will be showing a 30 For 30 feature called “IX vs. X, Title IX’s War on Women’s Softball”

    1. That network has become totally fucking unwatchable.

      And I know your just kidding, but that episode will eventually be made.

  19. Involved parties clearly recall the football team’s successful display of solidarity with aggrieved students of color last autumn, which led to the resignation of Mizzou’s president.

    And the decimation of their incoming class and, consequently, finances. That’s a “success”?

    The administration would like to avoid a similar incident with the softball team.

    Proving the administration has learned nothing.

  20. I don’t think that’s actually unintended though. The left’s wet dream is to make everyone equal, regardless of ability or how hard they work.

    1. Close. The left’s wet dream is to make everyone equal except themselves, who are more equal than the rest of us mouth-breathers.

  21. The purpose of Title IX?the federal statute wreaking havoc on campus free expression and due process?is to ensure equality between male and female students.

    No it’s not, you stupid asshole. Here is the text of Title IX in it’s entirety:

    Title IX states that: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

    The purpose of Title IX is to prohibit discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance BASED ON THE SEX OF THE PARTICIPANT. That’s it. Idiots have warped it into mishmash of PC bullshit and you can’t even stand up and simply state what it really means. Jesus Christ, the other day you even said it was about gender. (“Title IX, you will recall, is a one-sentence statute prohibiting gender discrimination in educational institutions that receive public funding, which is all well and good.”)

    If you’re going to write about Title IX, youths want to actually read the text of it, not what you hear your moronic SJW buddies tell you what it “means”.

    And don’t give me some bullshit about gender = sex. The government and SJWs have gone out of their way to say they are entirely different constructs.

    1. And don’t give me some bullshit about gender = sex. The government and SJWs have gone out of their way to say they are entirely different constructs.

      Gender and sex are distinct, except for when a statute specifically makes reference only to “sex”, and then it actually means “gender”. You must dissonate your cognate.

      1. I find it hard to believe reason employs a person on the college beat that can’t even take the time to learn the text of Title IX and report accordingly.

        He’s either too lazy to learn his beat, he’s too stupid to understand a plainly-written rule or he’s social signaling by deliberately misrepresenting it. Those are the only three possibilities I can fathom. If it could be something else, please tell me what it is.

        1. I find it hard to believe reason employs a person on the college beat that can’t even take the time to learn the text of Title IX and report accordingly.

          It’s rare to find a print “journalist” that has more than a wikipedia page’s worth of knowledge on the topic they’re covering.

          I see it a lot in sports “journalism.” Sure, the guy knows everything about football and basketball, but when you get away from those two, he’s a flipping moron. It’s easy stuff, too! Stuff that is one google search away from being debunked.

          1. Suave is a flipping moron. And if I was his boss, his inability to accurately portray the most important statute that applies to his beat (Title IX), he’d be a burger-flipping moron if he didn’t get his head out of his sphincter and start researching the government laws, rules and regulations he’s been tasked with writing about.

            He can only skate by for so long on exposing the frauds in the UVa rape story. Eventually he’s going to have to become competent.

            1. To be fair, his characterization of Title IX is pretty much the the standard interpretation of the government and school administrators who are tasked with enforcing it.

              1. No it’s not. I’ve yet to see a single suit filed for the reasons he lays out as the reason for Title IX.

                Ensure equality? Bullshit, because that’s impossible. Maybe ensue access. And explain to me how he inexplicably replaced sex with gender in his article on the 16th.

                He starts from faulty premises and goes downhill from there. On almost every single story about a plainly written piece of legislation.

                1. That was intended more as an indictment of the government’s board interpretation of Title IX than praise of Robby’s investigative prowess.

      2. I never understood this. Can someone explain the difference between gender and sex, please?

        1. Sex is the naughty bits that spring up on account of your chromosomes. Gender is the reason why chicks shave their armpits and dudes go to monster truck rallies.

        2. Sex is your biological makeup. Gender is your emotional makeup as it applies to sex and/or your ability/inability to accept sex as a defining part of who you are.

          1. Sex is your genitalia. Gender is how you feel.

    2. similarly, why can’t bullshit be called on govt and SJWs about gender and sex?

      1. It can. You just need to expect to be crucified in the media if you do it.

        1. if you don’t, it’s how political correctness becomes intellectual tyranny.

    3. The correct answer is to stop subsidizing sports.

  22. In honor of Sevo…oops, I mean in honor of Groovus, let’s have some Ukrainian oriented news.

    Wives of Priests Reveal Their Unique Vocation as Spiritual Mothers

    “…As a priest’s wife for more than 40 years, Irene Galadza knows how the vocation of a priest’s wife relies upon the lifeline of prayer and constant dependence on God. She helped her husband build their Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish of St. Elias in Brampton, Canada, watched it grow and thrive, and then burn down. Her house has now become the parish hall, while the church is being rebuilt.

    “”Just like marriage was a lifetime commitment, I realized this was a lifetime commitment,” she said.”

  23. Why is Title IX the culprit? Administrators don’t want the federal government to accuse Mizzou of violating federal law, so they have to make sure the softball team is big enough. They don’t want it to look like the school is giving more support to the boys’ team than the girls’ team.

    I’ve heard this complaint made a number of different ways… and i think its as old as Title IX itself. People were complaining of it in the 1990s.

    In short – in order to keep the fake-“Balance” with the men’s team-sports numbers, they go berserk with drafting anyone who can [swim/play vollyball/play softball etc] to pad out/bloat the “less competitive sports”. They may protect ‘1 or 2 premium’ women’s sports like Basketball or Soccer or Volleyball… but others, where they don’t compete as well, will get lots of crappy drafts.

    Very few people who actually *play* sports like Title IX. You’ll never find an honest poll saying so, because they just cherry pick cheerleaders (*pun sorta intended) for it. But people who play to *win*, not just to play, find Title IX an unwanted intervention.

    Rather than boo-hoo about Softball not being competitive-enough, however, i’d be more interested in someone pointing out how Title IX has had a disproportionately negative impact on men’s sports like Wrestling… which (according to some coaches) say has really eaten into the number of schools which offer scholarships to wrestlers.

    1. A couple of outlets, years back, pointed out the negative impact on sports like wrestling and those stories were met with a collective yawn. Fairness, don’t you know, because women will always turn out in equal numbers to men for sports, no matter the level of competition and no matter the sport itself.

  24. Dammit Robby, how are those poor under skilled girls supposed to get their participation medals with you standing in the way of equity?

  25. They should just get some trans women on the team and clean up.

  26. Make 7500 bucks every month? Start doing online computer-based work through our website. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website?

    ——————- http://youtube.nypost55.com

  27. On another note, my Alma Mater is one game away from a Division II Championship.

  28. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ???????? http://www.factoryofincome.com

  29. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone who needs an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $14000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week…
    I work through this link..
    This is what i do..——————— http://ace23.tk/

  30. easy solution: women’s football team; plenty of scholarships there. bad news for the women’s track, golf, and tennis teams though.

  31. Now, coming to the Showbox app, this is another superb app developed for movie lovers who want to get a better experience of watching movies and tv show on a bigger screen with more detailings.

  32. And one of those applications is Showbox apk app. It is one of the best online streaming application for watching Movies and TV Shows. In the starting, this application has been released for only a few of the mobiles and allows users to watch shows online.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.