Sunday, 9 August 2009
Notes on my reading list
Just so that none of the three persons who occasionally looks at this blog will think that I've lost my head or had a sudden change of political sensibility, let me explain why I've been reading Phyllis Schlafly, described by some as the grande dame of the Old Right. I have been reading her work as an exercise in spotting fallacious argumentation. I've also been reading a few of her books because I believe that one should know intimately the positions and arguments of those with whom one does not agree. I wish that I had an opportunity to make a documentary film about her that included interviews with her—something along the lines of Nahid Persson Sarvestani's The Queen and I (see more info here).
Sunday, 19 July 2009
Implementing Title IX in College Athletics
I have heard a number of arguments recently that Title IX (yes, I know this is an old topic, but it’s still a hard one…) is evil and is harmful to male athletes. In the words of one frustrated male college golfer: “I could not receive an athletic scholarship last year because there was one more male than female on the golf teams. There had to be an equal number of males and females on scholarship even though with some members of the female golf team, their opportunity exceeded their ability.” Assuming (perhaps without any reason other than to make our discussion a little bit easier) that his judgment about the ladies’ abilities is fair and accurate, is his plight good anecdotal evidence against Title IX and its application in college sports?
It is unfortunate if Title IX is applied (or perhaps mis-applied) in the way that this young golfer describes. There is nothing in Title IX or in the prevailing interpretations that stipulates that there must be equal numbers of male or female students with athletic scholarships. If so, then it could easily be construed as privileging males: after all, there are more females than males enrolled in tertiary institutions in the US.
The interpretation of Title IX by the US Dept. of Education allows for several different, alternative and equally valid criteria to determine whether or not an institution is in compliance with the mandates of Title IX. The second of these states that an institution is compliant if their record demonstrates that they are “responsive to the developing interests and abilities of [women in sports]” (). The third states that an institution can comply by “meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports” (ibid.). Clearly, there need not be an equal number of female and male athletes on athletic scholarships in order for an institution to be compliant with Title IX.
It is clear that the needs and interests of male athletes may be negatively impacted by an application of Title IX that ignores the possibility that compliance can be achieved even if there are more males than females participating. It’s also obvious that the achievements of female students may be hurt if women are denied dance, music, or theatre scholarships because no more of such scholarships can be given to women than to men. But when there’s so much room for interpretation—so much “gray area”—how can an institution protect itself, then, from challenges to its policies and decisions in granting athletics and other merit-based scholarships?
One way that has been attempted is to circulate questionnaires to determine the level of interest and experience in athletics (and possibly in other areas, such as the performing arts) on the part of men and women. The responses would then be used to determine if the athletics programs at an institution were appropriately proportional or responsive to the interest and abilities of the student population. There are pitfalls though: expressing interest in response to a questionnaire is a far cry from actually committing to and participating in time-consuming athletics or performing arts activities.
The mandates of Title IX remain difficult to implement. Where college sports are involved, institutions are vulnerable to costly litigation about their policies, and students and others are confused about what can be expected from institutions in response to Title IX. The values that underlie Title IX are sound and have served the US very well. The actual implementation of policies to ensure compliance with Title IX is a stickier question, though, and one that will not go away for the simple reason that policies and the decisions made in response to them are by nature limited, while the spirit of Title IX is expansion.
It is unfortunate if Title IX is applied (or perhaps mis-applied) in the way that this young golfer describes. There is nothing in Title IX or in the prevailing interpretations that stipulates that there must be equal numbers of male or female students with athletic scholarships. If so, then it could easily be construed as privileging males: after all, there are more females than males enrolled in tertiary institutions in the US.
The interpretation of Title IX by the US Dept. of Education allows for several different, alternative and equally valid criteria to determine whether or not an institution is in compliance with the mandates of Title IX. The second of these states that an institution is compliant if their record demonstrates that they are “responsive to the developing interests and abilities of [women in sports]” (
It is clear that the needs and interests of male athletes may be negatively impacted by an application of Title IX that ignores the possibility that compliance can be achieved even if there are more males than females participating. It’s also obvious that the achievements of female students may be hurt if women are denied dance, music, or theatre scholarships because no more of such scholarships can be given to women than to men. But when there’s so much room for interpretation—so much “gray area”—how can an institution protect itself, then, from challenges to its policies and decisions in granting athletics and other merit-based scholarships?
One way that has been attempted is to circulate questionnaires to determine the level of interest and experience in athletics (and possibly in other areas, such as the performing arts) on the part of men and women. The responses would then be used to determine if the athletics programs at an institution were appropriately proportional or responsive to the interest and abilities of the student population. There are pitfalls though: expressing interest in response to a questionnaire is a far cry from actually committing to and participating in time-consuming athletics or performing arts activities.
The mandates of Title IX remain difficult to implement. Where college sports are involved, institutions are vulnerable to costly litigation about their policies, and students and others are confused about what can be expected from institutions in response to Title IX. The values that underlie Title IX are sound and have served the US very well. The actual implementation of policies to ensure compliance with Title IX is a stickier question, though, and one that will not go away for the simple reason that policies and the decisions made in response to them are by nature limited, while the spirit of Title IX is expansion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)