Title IX doesn't force cuts in men's sports

[showcase]

This according to the DC Circuit, which found that the Department of Education's regulations and policies did not mandate that schools cut mens teams or sports, but rather that the decision to cut teams was attributable solely to the individual schools in question.

sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=1801717

[kchoya]

Yeah, but if there's a limited pot of financial resources to draw from, you're going to have to cut from established programs in order to bring in new sports.

[thebin]

In similar news, consuming 20,000 calories a day won't lead to weight gain, unless you don't run a marathon daily.

There is not an argument that I have less patience for than this one. I alternate between bemused ("Did he really just say that?") and red in the face angry when I hear it. It is the very soul of disingenuous debate.

In general I would advise trusting your own barometer of common sense rather than letting the wisdom of the DC Circuit court inform it.

[DFW HOYA]

There's some legal slight-of-hand at work here.

On its face, no men's sport has been sumamrily cut by Title IX because the government does not go after sports. But it can lean on schools, and the chilling effect of litigation forces the schools' hands without the governent actually decreeing anything.

Title IX is bad law because it is selectively applied. It is not a sports law but an education law--and how is such "proportionality" enforced in other means of education, from college department hiring to numerous elements of junior colleges, trade schools, even in high school extracurriculars? Answer: it's not.

[thebin]

Saying Title IX is "selectively applied" is the understatement of the year. Its this extraordinarily broad law that is almost completely ignored (because full execution of it is not even plausible given its gargauntuan scope) except within this tiny facet of it. It was a highly effective Trojan Horse law. And now any mention of the collateral damage is met with a melodramatic refrain of people who act like you are trying to repeal the first amendment because you don't like seeing a century-old baseball program or an Olympian producing swiming team dumped so that a they can bring in a women's diving team ready to give out scholarships to any female student who can swim. Who get screwed the most? Smaller schools without 1A football reveue. If we are going to live with this travesty, I say let's get the proportionality rule applied so that university faculties have to get political science faculties whose voting patterns roughly mimic that of the population at large. Or do the libs think that should be decided by free market demand forces?

[TigerHoya]

Football, specifically at 1-A schools, should not count against the scholarship numbers for Title IX.