Title IX Didn't Make College Sports Equal, It Made Them Contentious
After 50 years, not only has Title IX failed to deliver on its promises for female athletes, it also made men's sports worse.

Passed 50 years ago, to the day, Title IX was not created in order to give women more athletic opportunities—that was just a byproduct. In fact, "the [law's] initial supporters were just as surprised as the athletic departments when it became clear that this law would also apply to sports programs," according to feminist historian Susan Ware in comments to Sports Illustrated.
Title IX starts with:
"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 words sports, athletics, or even physical education never appear in the law since the original intent of the legislation was to alleviate imbalances between men and women in education.
Title IX initially meant educational institutions had to provide both sexes with opportunities "substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments." And a 1992 court decision determined that noncompliant schools could face lawsuits, as well as being cut off from federal funding.
But when implemented, Title IX effectively turned into a form of affirmative action for women in sports—an unsustainable quota-like system. It's proven difficult for schools to equally allocate resources—scholarships, equipment, arenas, and budgets—across genders and sports, which has caused schools to take the easy way out by slashing male programs. Especially given that football, a huge moneymaker on college campuses, doesn't have a female equivalent in size or impact.
In 1970, just 44 percent of women in the U.S. graduated from high school, and only 11 percent had college degrees. Today, about 91 percent of American women complete high school, with over 39 percent going on to earn degrees from colleges and universities. In 1972, only 294,015 women competed on high school sports teams. By the 2018-2019 academic year, 3.4 million women competed on high school sports teams. In the early '70s, some 30,000 women competed on college sports teams. By 2020, that number had risen to 215,486.
Title IX did remove barriers for women and girls to participate in sports, but the implementation has been flawed, with worse outcomes than anticipated. "Things have gone from absolutely horrendous to only very bad," Bernice R. Sandler, director of the Association of American Colleges' Project on the Status and Education of Women, told The Washington Post, a full decade after Title IX was passed. Full equality has yet to be achieved—and in some areas, probably can't be achieved, given the lack of equivalent women's teams for football and basketball, for example—and this legislation continues to put colleges and universities in a bind to reach unachievable quotas.
There's nothing in Title IX that requires schools to cut or reduce men's opportunities in order to be compliant. But men's teams haven't gone unscathed in the last five decades. Title IX presented a complicated numbers game to athletic departments: Their student-athletes had to reflect the same gender disparity as that of the school plastered on their uniforms. So if a college campus was 56 percent women, then roughly 56 percent of the student-athletes should also be women. Is this even achievable when the two most profitable sports—football and basketball, which consume roughly 80 percent of men's sports budgets—require male athletes?
It should come as no surprise that college football takes up a majority of the scholarships awarded to male athletes nationally—roughly 26,000, or 22,500 more scholarships than women's swimming and diving (the sport I competed in at a collegiate level) offers. The odds of getting a women's swimming and diving scholarship when I graduated high school were 47 to one. By comparison, football players had 43 to one odds of going on to play in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) after high school. It's nearly impossible to make scholarship opportunities equally accessible for both sexes for every sport at every school.
Back in 2002, George Will called Title IX a "policy train wreck" because of how it has negatively impacted male sports. "Colleges have killed more than 400 men's athletic teams in order to produce precise proportionality between men's and women's enrollments and men's and women's rates of participation in athletics," wrote Will. And what Michael Lynch wrote for Reason circa 2001 still rings true today: "The tragedy of Title IX is that virtually nobody is pleased with its current results."
It's only gotten worse since the pandemic hit. Many colleges faced major budget deficits from a year without March Madness, and are still reeling from the earnings loss that came with fanless football games. For many schools, cutting programs was inevitable. Title IX was at the forefront of many athletic directors' minds on the cutting room floor, but their hands were tied, and budgets constrained, due to the requirements of the law.
How Title IX protects transgender athletes is the law's next big controversy. When Lia Thomas, who previously competed as a male on the University of Pennsylvania's men's swimming and diving team, won the 500-yard freestyle event at the NCAA Division I women's championships for the same sport, uproar ensued. The NCAA received some praise for being inclusive by allowing Thomas to compete, but by protecting one athlete out of fear of backlash, many other athletes have been denied a true shot at the top spot on the podium.
However, the Biden administration seems adamant that what originally gave women protection 50 years ago also applies to transgender athletes today. On June 16, the Department of Education expanded federal sex protections to include transgender students, reversing a Trump-era policy, even though many states already ban transgender students from participating in female sports. The Biden administration intends to enforce Title IX's prohibition on the basis of sex to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Title IX was never supposed to be about sports; it was about protecting women. It seems like that, too, is now disputed.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Men's gymnastics and Men's Volleyball have been utterly annihilated by Title IX, in particular. And it plays out at the Olympic level-the field of people who would have entered sports like these is much smaller than it would have been otherwise, so the US is at a competitive disadvantage.
While that's not particularly tragic, it's more visible than the costs of males who were denied opportunities they might have otherwise had. There's very few places you get a volleyball scholarship or a gymnastic scholarship now as a male athlete. Athletes who could have translated their skills into an education, (or even just the notoriety of being a successful college athlete, given what degrees are worth these days), are now denied that opportunity.
I actually think the idea of incentivizing women's sports is a good one, though. There are women's basketball teams at the college level that sell out their arenas, and people can take pride in the quality of their teams. Title IX just isn't the vehicle to accomplish this because it demands parity-equity-rather than simply trying to serve as the rising tide that lifts all boats.
I think we can all celebrate women's volleyball
Especially Beach Volleyball.
At least until Lia Thomas shows up.
I even have made $30,030 simply in five weeks clearly working parttime from my loft. (res-32) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was depleted and fortunately I tracked down this top web-based task and with this I am in a situation to get thousands straightforwardly through my home. Everyone can get this best vocation and can acquire dollars
on-line going this link..> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
I love the way the initial lines of these 'bot posts flow perfectly with these threads as I read down. And in some cases their contents fit the tone perfectly too. Keep 'em coming!
Do we have to work thru you home/loft, too?
While I cannot guarantee what you might get offered if you’re successful with them, my research suggests around $30 USD per hour for those (res-68) based in Asia/India, and around $30-40 USD per hour for those based in Europe and UK / US / Australia / New Zealand. I work through this link.
.
For More Detail:>>>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
favorite olympic sport
Women's volleyball would get a much bigger audience if they played naked.
/sexist pig.
It is interesting that the mens' sports that have been eviscerated are the ones where women tend to get the most notoriety. Women's gymnastics is probably the most popular sport in the Summer Olympics. Women's beach volleyball will always out-draw men's and I am sure the same is true for indoor volleyball. And this is despite the fact that (for example) a Men's indoor volleyball game is one of the most physical and strategic games I've ever seen played. (If you like Anime, Haikyu on Netflix is a fantastic breakdown of volleyball strategy.)
The reason those sports have 'failed' at the college level is because we persist in tying competitive athletics to monopolized education (with federal money) (or massively cronyist cartels of big money sports leagues).
There is a very natural link in competitive athletics with YOUNG athletes. And there is always going to be a link with that demographic among the K-12 system where the attendance is mandatory. But there is no reason whatsoever why the next age demographic should only track to college competition rather than say pro, semi-pro, or even amateur, local private or semi-private sports leagues that are NOT affiliated with colleges.
The reason we can't even imagine the alternative is because Americans simply don't do sports governing bodies well (except for the USGA). So the women's NCAA basketball pays its athletes nothing, the WNBA pays them $150,000 or so, and Europe pays them up to $2 million or so. Likewise with women's soccer. How can 'Title IX' possibly offset that screwing of women athletes? For men, the difference is the number of professional leagues/teams/clubs in Europe which provide paid or semi-paid opportunities for athletes.
I think this is part of the problem...you and they seem to think they are paid for playing their sports.
For example, Megan Rapinoe thinks that her job is to play soccer.
----------------------------------------
“I’m a member of the LGBTQ community with pink hair, and where I come from, I could have only dreamed of standing in the position I am today at the White House. I’m also a professional athlete, and I’ve helped — along with all of my teammates virtually here today, one teammate literally here today — win four World Cup championships and four Olympic gold medals for the United States,” Rapinoe said.
“Despite those wins, I’ve been devalued, I’ve been disrespected and dismissed because I am a woman. I’ve been told that I don’t deserve any more than less because I am a woman. You see, despite all the wins, I’m still paid less than men who do the same job that I do,” she continued. “For each trophy — of which there are many — and for each win, for each tie, and for each time that we play, it’s less.”
[from another source]
The lawsuit argued in part that "the female players have been consistently paid less money than their male counterparts. This is true even though their performance has been superior to that of the male players."
-----------------------------------------
In reality, her job, like all professional athletes, is to put butts in seats, sell tickets, sell merchandise, sell ads on TV coverage of her games. As Mises economists put it:
"Revenues follow from the entertainment value of the play. When it comes to compensation, what matters is the ability of the players to entertain. Pro athletes, after all, are fundamentally just entertainers, no different from the buskers who do handstands on the street corner. Some people may mistakenly believe that chasing a ball around constitutes some sort of highly-valuable enterprise in itself — but unless consumers are willing to pay to watch it, it has no large-scale economic value.
The lawsuit for equal pay reflects this notion, too, by attempting to focus on the fact that the WNT has won more games than the MNT. Indisputable fact. But winning games is not the reason athletes are paid!
The last World Cup for the men generated over $6B in revenue, with $400M going to teams in prize money (about 7%). The last World Cup for the women made about $130M, with $30M in prize money for the teams (about 23%).
The WNT's lawsuit for "equal pay" was dismissed by a federal judge. Why? Because the WNT was offered the exact pay schedule as the men, but they rejected it:
In dismissing the women's claim that they are paid less for the same work, Klausner pointed to differences in the structure of the men's and women's contracts — contracts to which they agreed in collective bargaining.
"The WNT [Women's National Team] rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT [Men's National Team] and ... the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for other benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players," Klausner wrote. "Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their CBA worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT's pay-to-play structure when they themselves rejected such a structure."
As those Mises economists have laid out, the way the women will get paid more is to make their product something that everyone is willing to pay to see:
Ultimately, however, whether or not the women get "equal pay" depends not on the team owners, but on the consumers. If the women's team wants just as much pay, it will need to generate just as much revenue. That is, these things will need to happen:
The consumers are willing to pay at least as much ( in terms of ticket prices) to see women play as to see men play. They'll also need to watch broadcasts in numbers similar to men's broadcasts, thus driving up ad revenue for the women's team.
The women's teams will then generate more revenue.
Thus, female athletes will then produce more revenue than male athletes.
Female athletes are therefore paid more by the owners.
If the fans want the women to be paid more than the men, the consumers will have to spend more.
Even some of the players recognize this. Earlier this week, US women's team member Megan Rapinoe outlined how consumers can support a pay hike for the women's team : "Come to games ... buy players' jerseys ... become season ticket holders."
Rapinoe is right. When the consumers pay more to see the women, the women will be paid more to play.
Your (and Rapinoe's) obsession is equal pay. But of course you and her are fixated on a sport with virtually ZERO opportunities to actually get paid here (or even to play as adults) in the US. The WSL is the only professional womens soccer league in the US (very much linked to the single women's national team since that is the mission of soccer's governing body in the US) - and it is the first league that lasted two years - and has 10 teams. That's it.
Germany has dozens of womens football leagues and possibly 1000 teams. It was simply an extension of the German football league system when there was interest. Far more American women play soccer as adults in Germany than do in the US. Even if they aren't earning 'equal pay' at the top - and even if, like Michael Jordan, they have to earn more money selling shoes than playing their sport.
But apparently we do not even understand opportunity any more.
Start a damn league then
While on the subject of women's soccer...
Currently, women's top-level soccer is played at about the level that 15-year-old boys play. Are we expected to have to pay the under-15 Boys teams now?
FC Dallas under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women's National Team in a scrimmage. In preparation for two upcoming friendlies against Russia, the U.S. women's national team played the FC Dallas U-15 boys academy team on Sunday and fell 5-2, according to FC Dallas' official website. Apr 4, 2017
And not just in the US either...
Australia’s women’s football team are ranked the fifth best side in world football. So how did they lose 7-0 to a collection of 15-year-old boys? It is the question gripping the Matildas, who will be targeting a medal at the Rio Olympics in August, after they were embarrassed by the Newcastle Jets under-16s side on Wednesday.
And then the media came to their rescue "Australia women's soccer team faces unfair global backlash after loss to boys' team"
The first problem Australia’s national women’s soccer team encountered in a practice match against a team of teenaged boys Wednesday was this: the inability to field the full women’s national team.
The second problem the team nicknamed the “Matildas” encountered in that practice match was this: treating it like a practice match.
Then they got thrashed, 7-0, and it became a story. And that is the biggest problem of all.
And not just soccer
Jan 5, 2006 — The Warroad High School boys' team squeaked out a 2-1 victory over the U.S. Olympic women's hockey team Wednesday.
(2016) BROOKLINE, Mass. — The United States women’s hockey team will be among the top gold medal contenders at the 2014 Winter Olympics, but before the squad heads to Sochi on Feb. 1, it’s preparing for the Games by scrimmaging against New England high school boys. The most recent opponent on Team USA’s schedule was Dexter Southfield, which defeated the U.S. Olympians 6-3 on Sunday afternoon.
There was an excellent men's gymnastics team at Michigan State, until it became a victim of Title IX. Apparently it was easier to kill a successful men's program than it was to recruit enough women to fill out the athletics program.
"Things have gone from absolutely horrendous to only very bad," Considering the popularity and the disparity in generating income between male and female sports, getting to 'very bad' means Title IX was successful beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Only an idiot thinks 'full equality' (equity!) can ever be achieved in a 'somewhat free market' situation. To suggest we abandon Title IX and untie their hands so AD's can cut the lower hanging fruit (women's sports), from the budget is ridiculous on it's face. But using IX to mandate unfair competition is just as ridiculous and is a threat to women athletes everywhere.
The problem is Title IX is nowhere near a market solution. It's equity in scholarship dollars so even if there is interest (athletes and fans) for another male sport it cannot offer scholarships unless it also pays for an equivalent number of women's scholarships. So the schools end up offering disparate sports and scholarships based on which ones generate the most interest/revenue down to the scholarship totals then they're out instead of by which sports support themselves.
"The problem is Title IX is nowhere near a market solution."
But that is Naime's point. A market solution will be for there to be much fewer womens sports. Because all things being equal, people generally would rather watch (and thereby support) the male versions of sports.
There are some notable exceptions, of course. But by and large, if the sport has to support itself, the end result is probably a few programs that are perpetually underfunded.
Naime's point remains: You may not like Title IX, but it has probably been far better for womens sports than the free market would have been- if your measure is "number of women competing in sports at the college level".
"...Naime's point remains: You may not like Title IX, but it has probably been far better for womens sports than the free market would have been- if your measure is "number of women competing in sports at the college level"..."
IOWs, it should be abolished.
..and at the high school level.
Yet they came at an ugly cost as the article stats. How is any of that fair?
But if your measure is 'number of women competing in sports at the college level' where they are not paid - then maybe the fix-it shows that maybe we got the wrong measure.
Aside from the fact that you've moved goalposts, student-athletes do get paid in the form of scholarships and housing. So you have NO CLUE what you're talking about.
Was a big Title IX stick on the NCAA tournament 2 years ago or so.
Although the NCAA Division I men's basketball championship budget for the 2018-19 season was $28 million -- almost twice as much as the women's budget -- information provided by the NCAA on Friday also shows the men's tournament brought in a total net income of $864.6 million that season.
The women's event lost $2.8 million -- the largest loss of any NCAA championship.
Information provided by the NCAA also shows a stark contrast in total revenue. The men generated $917.8 million, including media and ticket revenue, while the women generated $15.1 million, also including media and ticket revenue. Total attendance accounts for some of the disparity, as the men's basketball tournament had 690,000 fans, while the women's tournament had 275,000 fans.
The men's tournament budget for the 2018-19 season was $28 million, while the women's was $14.5 million, but the NCAA points to "key differences in tournament structures" that resulted in lower costs for the women's championship. This year's women's tournament, which is taking place in San Antonio, is unique because typically the women's first- and second-round games are played on campus and hosted by the higher-seeded team. That format was agreed upon in 2014 to help grow fan interest and attendance. In the men's tournament, all 32 first- and second-round games are played at neutral sites and result in additional expenses. The men's tournament also has four more teams and an additional round (the First Four).
The NCAA points to the savings made by the reduced expenses for those games as the biggest component explaining a large chunk of the discrepancy in the budgets, but in the information provided to ESPN, the organization specifically details a difference of only $7.1 million:
• $2.7 million in travel: Only seven men's teams drove to games, while 16 women's host teams didn't travel for the first and second rounds and another 16 drove.
• $1.7 million in per diem: The NCAA said per diem rates, even in high-cost cities, are the same for the men and women. With 16 women's teams hosting games in the first two rounds, though, the NCAA said there was savings in costs for food and hotel expenses.
• $1.1 million for an additional round: The men's tournament pays for the First Four, which the women's tournament doesn't include.
• $1.6 million for facilities: The men's Final Four includes additional seats (and storage costs) to convert a football stadium into a basketball arena. The costs for women's basketball build-outs are generally less than $20,000.
"For me, it's important for the fans to understand that the policies around the men and the women's tournaments are the same policies," McNeely said. "They have the same rules around how much the schools reimburse for per diem, they have the exact same travel policy ... the goal of all of that is that the experience for the student-athlete is a great experience, it is a like experience and that we are providing the same opportunities for the student-athletes regardless of the tournament they are playing in."
+1
Ridiculous article demonstrating the perfect is the enemy of the good argument.
Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.
Eat shit and die, Asshole.
And as I've stated above, all that came at an ugly cost. Did you even read the article? Title IX has been proven to be used unfairly.
"The Biden administration intends to enforce Title IX's prohibition on the basis of sex to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity."
Which is fucking retarded. You dont legislate or enforce legislation based on imaginary characteristics that can be made up or changed on the spot. Not that I am a big Title IX supporter, but if you were one, this seems to completely undermine it.
Or did you want to make it OK for Chad, the swole frat guy, to be able to identify as a woman to enjoy the benefits, or just say he is Bi, then he gets protection? He could just say he is Bi, or "Questioning" and he is LGBTQ. So Chad Dickswingington gets priority status? Sounds good!
Shit getting into medical school would have been so much easier in this environment. Pull the BIPOC card (ive got more cherokee than Warren, thats for sure) and all the doors go flying open. BIPOC plus LGBTQ?! (prove im not "questioning"!). I could have even got some free money to boot.
Might as well change Title IX to account for height discrimination in basketball. We need more short, white, fat basketball players.
And what about the racial equity angle?!
Filipinos fucking love basketball. How come they dont get protection?!
Basketball is simple; allow each team 32 feet of players.
They can put out three six footers and two at six-one, or eight four footers, or whatever they feel like.
Those teams should reflect America. Where are the Paraplegic running backs? Why no Dwarves as Centers in the NBA?
Merit based sports placements needs to stop.
So exactly how does just eliminating "mens" and "womens" sports fail at complying with the actual law?
Just pull up the "womens" tees on the golf course, and allow everyone enrolled to try out for all teams.
Done.
Of course, there will be some redundant coaching staff, but that is a simple matter to resolve.
It will regulate most female athletes to the bench or the spectator stands?
If feminists and female athletes are supporting this then why should I white knight for them? Fuck them, let every back bench male player "identify" as trans, do nothing different, and play on the women's team.
This is unfortunately where I am landing at, despite disagreeing with the insanity that is the trans craze
You want to fall all over yourselves to celebrate some physically dominant white guy that kicks the shit out of the women and call them brave? Well, I tried standing up for you, but it seems you people cant help yourselves so you are on your own. If you completely obliterate women's sports in the name of woke insanity, I cant say I didnt warn you, but it is ultimately your fight in the end. Come find me when you decide you have had enough of the mental health debacle that is the trans movement.
It is noteworthy that most women do NOT support this, for exactly the reasons you state. The problem is that the Trans movement is absolutely brutal to women who step out of line here. If you aren't rich and powerful (like JK Rowling), failing to stay silent can ruin your life.
And I'll also note, that there is great potential for Trans Women to be extremely abusive to cis-women. You know all that shit that your pappy taught you "A Man never does"? Well call yourself a woman and its all ok. You hit your girlfriend? Well that's just women cat fighting. You run a harem of multiple women, physically and mentally abusing them day in and day out? That isn't a male making women subservient, it is just women working out their alternative lifestyle.
Read the replies
https://twitter.com/Rosu9Diana/status/1540205478554513408?t=cy4mjbixP3wTSOp87j2J9A&s=19
Update: they found my location, school, work, and my number. Shame that a woman standing against males mocking them is such a problem.
Here's the video she's being harassed over:
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1540204923702353921?t=RPoN7zqsO1etprIB4IZpPg&s=19
"So exactly how does just eliminating "mens" and "womens" sports fail at complying with the actual law?"
The law requires you to have an equal number of women competing in sports as men. Not "Eligible to compete" but actually "Competing".
In general, a male at the 20th-30th percentile or so in a sport (that is, worse than 70 - 80% of male players) would be at the 70-80th percentile for women (That is, better than 70 - 80% of players). The purpose of women-only sports is to counter this basic biological fact. There are more men able to out-compete women in pretty much any sport than there are spots your school can afford to fund.
"The law requires you to have an equal number of women competing in sports as men. Not "Eligible to compete" but actually "Competing"."
You could technically allow them to "compete" but have them riding the bench (in the example LTBF gave where we eliminate categories and let everyone try for one team). There are plenty of guys on the basketball team that dont get on the court until the end of the game, when the outcome is determined. Or just during practice but rarely in a real game. They are considered to "competing" even though they ride the bench. No one demands they get as many minutes on the floor as the all stars, unless we are OK with the team just losing. Why should a woman riding the bench in a sport where she cant compete with the all stars (men) be any different?
For there to reach mandated equality in numbers between male and female athletes, you have to carve out a female only competitions or discriminate against males. Either of which is arguably also against the law. There is no way to follow the law as it is inherently contradictory.
At the risk of replying to Overt -
"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."
No way to read that as require any kind of number, equal or otherwise.
Sure- the problem is the meat on the bones has been interpreted to mean "equal representation". This has been tested numerous times in courts. I'm not defending it, just saying what the law is as interpreted.
I don't believe that the government should mandate women's sports. That said, this notion of "just open up men's sports for women" is the sort of stuff that works in theory only. Women competing in most sports with men will be uncompetitive and likely injured. This is not something I want for my daughters.
Assuming we don't go down this path of gender queering everything in our life to absurdity, there are places women can compete. Parents support the sports of their kids all the time, and it works great. Once you get into schools, there are probably several sports where girls tend to support themselves- gymnastics, and volleyball are some, but another big one is Cheer. Cheer is a physically demanding sport that is probably the #1 cause of injury in all sports. It also puts men and women together into the same sport in ways that compliment their attributes. Men's strength is useful for base work, and women's agility and weight are well suited for the arial work.
In a more libertarian world, I would expect the increased demand of girls in college to give rise to additional "co-ed" sports that have aspects that don't require men and women to go head to head (like cheer).
There's a lot of women's sports that are profitable enough to support themselves. Gymnastics, volleyball, tennis (a huge one), golf, basketball, softball, soccer. It's not universal, there's some places you can't make all of these catch on and profitable, but it's the same with many men's sports as well. There's a reason Atlanta can't keep an NHL team, and why NFL teams keep leaving St. Louis.
There are NOT a lot of women's sports profitable enough to support themselves. Maybe tennis - that's about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue
allow everyone enrolled to try out for all teams
Presumes that the results of the tryouts will be tied to merit (tired colonialist, patriarchal, wrong-think).
It is about re-distributing the potential proceeds that come from being involved with Professional Sports' Farm Team.
"allow everyone enrolled to try out for all teams
Presumes that the results of the tryouts will be tied to merit (tired colonialist, patriarchal, wrong-think)."
This might be what the feminists and woke women need to see. A bunch of "all gender" teams, where it all boils down to watching the best people compete and take the podiums (all men) with transgender women sometimes maybe getting a chance to play, and traditional women riding the bench and never winning anything.
They probably need to see this happen for some time to knock some sense into their heads
I'm not sure why they wouldn't just then force coaches to choose and play equal numbers of men and women.
Having a women's sports category is inherently exclusionary on the basis of sex or gender. It is intended as a carve out to give female athletes a place to compete on an even playing field. The question is, which definition to exclude non-women makes sense, the one that takes into account the objective physiological differences between males and females, or the ones that is dependent on the subjective feelings of the person? Trans athletes may compete in the Men's category despite that it may hurt their feelings.
The best way to do this is to segregate based on number of Y Chromosomes.
And bonus, if there are some Trans women whose Y chromosome allows them to effectively compete against cis-men, then all the better. Your school can say "Look I have 40 women players on our XX team, and 3 women on my XY team! The pot is right!" Back off title IX!
Why not just separate them on the basis of ability? That's how we do it in most competitive sports, and even non-sport competitive games like chess.
A school with two coed teams selected entirely by merit would have two 95% male teams. If you understand Title IX by its revealed principle of forcing institutions to spend resources on women you'll understand why this is not considered a solution.
Women's chess does seem to be a curious case. Cannot fathom how feminists can support its continued existence.
Handicap leagues limiting participants to characteristics other than the characteristics of those at the most elite levels allow more to gain the benefits of participation. For me, running against adolescent and twenty somethings is not very interesting or motivating; I strive in my more grey haired cohort and achieve a relative success.
Same for women in sports.
But why do women need handicapped chess?
'In fact, "the [law's] initial supporters were just as surprised as the athletic departments when it became clear that this law would also apply to sports programs," according to feminist historian Susan Ware in comments to Sports Illustrated.'
Most of the world would be equally surprised about the importance of and attention paid to "sports" in American higher education. But, again, the US is exceptional.
In other words, end college sports, beyond the club level (or maybe Division 3 level). Universities are entities for the development and distribution of knowledge, not entertainment. "Serious" athletes, in any sport, and the hundred of thousands of staff dedicated to athletics, have nothing to do with knowledge--and probably actively degrade learning.
As for making money (and I find it questionable that beyond a few exceptional programs that university sports are profitable), let Big State U license its name and rent out its stadium to the "home" team.
There's nothing beneficial to see talented athletes be deprived of showing their skills in sports and getting scholarship and housing benefits in doing so. Your ideas would kill jobs and cause bankruptcies.
I think a fair rule would be to say any teams that pay for themselves (many football teams) shouldn't be counted because they are not a net cost to the school and therefore are not receiving federal funding. Then the school can decide how to spend the federal funds equally among male and female athletes.
We probably just need a trans league.
"We probably just need a trans league."
In a stadium with 12 spectator seats.
It's pretty difficult to argue that NCAA sports programs contribute anything to the core mission of universities. How about just eliminating NCAA sports programs from colleges completely?
I attended a Junior College in the 1970s. Students were encouraged to join one of school's many intramural teams, and lots of us did so (I joined the archery team). If there are any lessons to be learned from athletic competition, a broad intramural program can teach those lessons to many more people than a small, elite, NCAA team.
Could be, but universities and colleges try to offer elite talent a place to grow and excel, which is why they often have music departments with excellent talent, including dance. Why not athletics as well?
Who gets all the music and dance scholarships?
Too bad it's not as ideally run as you claim it to be Joe.
Funny to see this comment
"It's pretty difficult to argue that NCAA sports programs contribute anything to the core mission of universities."
given how hard it is to define the core mission of universities.
I am a long time member of a flagship state university's gym (called a rec center with a pool, indoor track, indoor basketball courts, food court, spa, and more) which recently opened and aligned with a rehab center with whirlpools and such. Someone mentioned this would lead to more members and a more crowded facility with the number of members exceeding the facilities capacity to which an admin noted the facility has an unlimited capacity to absorb money.
Title IXs application to college sports has been an incredible success and this ridiculous article is an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. Girls in America are now participating in team sports at incredible numbers and the impact of that is a huge improvement not only in their health, but in social behavior, including less teen pregnancies.
Until the last 50 years, college sports were not - except for a very few schools like Notre Dame - not a money making industry but a true amateur endeavor. Yes, it would be nice if there was a men's LaCrosse team on campus, but there are often men's "club" teams on campuses that compete with other club teams.
Meanwhile, certain women's sports are gaining audiences - softball is exploding and much more popular than men's collegiate baseball. Others never will - in my opinion women's basketball is a poor relative of men's. The same game with smaller, lesser athletes.
More shit from Joe Asshole.
Fuck off and die, Asshole.
Why is it not applied to other scholarships?
Sports are divided by sex for reasons we almost all agree on. If we did not there would be virtually zero women participating and therefore winning scholarships. I hope most agree that would be a bad idea.
In fact girls participation in sports began to increase long before Title IX. Authoritarians give Title IX the credit because they believe all change comes from top down. But in reality our culture changed and Title IX was a meaningless after effect. It's irrelevancy is one reason it was so easy to corrupt.
We'd be better off without it both because of the nonsensical corruption it has created and because it convinced people government authoritarianism solves problems.
Just have half the men on the team announce they are women. Bang! 50/50 split! Mission accomplished!
It'll overshoot that. Soon "sportsman" will mean "female", and they'll have trouble finding "men" for it.
I identify as an Olympic kayak champion.
Rather than treating men and women equally there is this foolishness to pretend there is no difference between men and women.
girls playing sports would likely have happened without Title IX
Based on what Dillinger? Kids like heroes and seeing university level competition on TV and that and high school level in person inspires the little ones and guess what? It inspires their parents, including the possibility of scholarships.
If the only reason to oppose what title IX has done for women's athletics is some male sports are no longer funded, that's not much of a reason, no matter what that muscle bound jock George Will says. That's not a requirement of Title IX and I can tell you that the Big State U I live near, and who's sports I attend - including women's sports - rakes in multi-millions dollars, and enough to fund a men's lacrosse team. Hell, the football and basketball coaches could do that out of their salary and not even feel it. I understand that not all universities make money on sports and some lose on it but still do it to keep and expand alumni support, but enough do that don't have men's lacrosse, soccer, and gymnastics teams to know that's not the problem.
Amanda Whurlitzer was revolutionary.
>>Kids like heroes and seeing university level competition on TV
kids like heroes and seeing competition on TV
Women currently receive over 60% of academic scholarships, and over 80% of scholarships in the Arts. Why has this never been challenged?
Unlike sports, those endeavors are not divided by sex. Most of us agree that men's and women's sports should be divided by sex.
It's interesting he grasps at this straw showing he's incapable of identifying a rational reason. If the law requires proportionality that is not limited by the fact that they play against only each other.
The basic "problem" is that few women even want to play sports, period. Their tastes mature faster than boys in that regard.
I could've said "games" rather than "sports". Or I could've just left out the word entirely. Girls outgrow interest in play.
Are you 90?
Men are generally more interested in competition than women. What part of that statement is difficult for you to understand?
The problem with Title IX is that it's unfair to elite men's basketball and football players, whose talents and skills are worth 7 or 8 figure annual salaries in the free market.
Most big college athletic departments take the revenue from men's football and men's basketball to support all the other sports. They're able to do this by grossly underpaying the basketball and football players.
The "Ed O'Bannon" name,image, likeness (NIL) now provides some income stream to the elite athletes but I think it's still pretty unfair.
Just need to start getting footballs players, en masse, to state that they identify as women. Problem solved.
So if a college campus was 56 percent women, then roughly 56 percent of the student-athletes should also be women.
This shows the discriminatory implementation of Title IX. If Title IX is so stringent and exact an invented issue (sports) must meet near exact proportionality why is that same standard not applied to the core feature of education? This happens because the people in charge - administrators, politicians, and courts - have corrupted it.
All Title IX means is ensuring there are no barriers to either sex enrolling in any school or department thereof. All the rest is bullshit, a means of creating political conflict and lucrative jobs for useless people.
Title IX (good intentions) has been a failure. I know a lawyer who has made bank sueing the univertsities.
She investigates the schools sports programs. Any difference between the mens and womens sports, like facilities, equipment, locker room, lights, stadium, uniforms....
Then she sues the school, most can't even things out due to cost, so they just shut it down. So they pay the fine and the lawyer and slaughter all the sport programs.
The opportunties are even now, since most don't have sports anymore.
Lawyers have used Title IX to slaughter the school sports and line their pockets, and she really has lined her pockets well.