RE: t-and-f: Title IX fight
I would agree that men's sports have been unfairly lost, however, I contend that it is not Title IX that has caused it, but poor financial decisions by the Universities. Men's programs get dropped when Universities hire new male coaches at outrageous figures. The University can not maintain their current sports due to these salary increases, the law prevents them from eliminating women's sports, so men's sports are cut. The cause is not Title IX is not to blame. Catherine Sellers United States Olympic Committee Manager, Coaching 1 Olympic Plaza Colorado Springs, CO 80909 719.866.3236 FAX- 719.866.4850 Get Olympic Coach magazine at: http://coaching.usolympicteam.com/coaching/ksub.nsf -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 8:53 PM To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: t-and-f: Title IX fight Supporters of Title IX policy reform argue that men's teams have been unfairly lost in the last few decades. Some coaches say Title IX discriminates against men. They say a loss of sports opportunities, such as wrestling teams, can be blamed on Title IX's proportionality requirement. A 1997 report released by the Department of Education carries a different opinion: It is important to recognize that there is no mandate under Title IX that requires a college to eliminate men's teams to achieve compliance...the regulation is intended to expand opportunities for both men and women. http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=44715 03/13/2006 Title IX supporters fight policy change Attorney, Florida Coastal School of Law professor and former Olympic swimmer Nancy Hogshead-Makar is a local expert on Title IX. She's part of a national push by Title IX supporters asking for a recent policy change to be revoked. by Liz Daube Staff Writer Women's education and sports organizations are leading a national effort to fight a policy change that they believe threatens Title IX. The Department of Education issued a Title IX clarification last year that allows schools to assess female student interest in sports with an e-mail survey. According to the campaign's Web site, www.savetitle9.com, The Department of Education has made a major change to the Title IX policy that threatens to reverse the progress women and girls have made. The Department's latest 'clarification' ignores long-time policy and years of court rulings by telling our daughters they have to prove they are interested, while male athletes have never had to prove their interest. The policy lets schools send a mass e-mail survey to all their students. Girls who don't respond can be counted as uninterested in sports and that doesn't sit well with Nancy Hogshead-Makar, a Florida Coastal School of Law professor and attorney who has joined the battle against the new policy. She writes position papers and provides guidance on sports and education equality law to parents, attorneys and reporters. The survey is flawed, said Hogshead-Makar, adding that surveys usually don't receive many results and e-mail accounts are often clogged with spam. It (the survey) is biased to produce a certain result. Title IX is a 1972 amendment that attempts to create equal school sports opportunities for women by prohibiting sex discrimination in schools with federal funding. Schools can prove that they're complying with the law in three ways. First, schools can show that women and men in their student population both have a proportional number of sports opportunities. Essentially, if 50 percent of a school's students are men, proportionality dictates only 50 percent of the school's athletes should be men. The second option allows the school to show a continuous history of improvement - which, according to Hogshead-Makar, is pretty tough after 34 years. The recent policy change applies to the third method, in which a school shows they are meeting the interests and abilities of their students. As a former Olympic swimmer, Hogshead-Makar has both professional and personal interest in Title IX policy. I owe my Olympic medal to this one law, said Hogshead-Makar. She explained that when she was younger, she believed women reached their athletic peak at age 17. I thought women didn't get any better physically - not making the connection that they didn't improve because there was no place for them to go. There were no opportunities. Then, according to Hogshead-Makar, Title IX changed everything. She received an athletic scholarship to Duke University, where she continued to train. At age 22, she won an Olympic gold medal in the 100 meter freestyle. Hogshead-Makar said she wants the survey policy revoked because it doesn't produce an accurate measure of female student interest or address the needs of future students. She added that the schools need to survey the population from which they recruit. Supporters of Title IX policy reform argue that men's teams have been
RE: t-and-f: Title IX fight
Hello: Unfortunately the executive branch in the government is not responsive enough to alter or fine tune policies that would have prevented the dropping of so many men's sports. Keep in mind that the vast majority of football programs report a half a million dollar or more loss each year. Therefore the athletic administrators look to dropping the sports that cost in the neighborhood of one hundred thousand and receive the benefits of eliminating the male slots on those sports. I had the pleasure of hearing a presentation from Dona Lopianno (Women's Sports Foundation C.E.O.) this past weekend. Very interesting to hear her perstective on the implementation of Title IX. This issue will continue to be around until a coalition of athletic adminsitrators begin to properly administered their budgets in a way that reflect the reality on the ground. Meaning that a team that loses a half a million is far more harmful than a small men's team that does not draw much revenue but only costs one hundred thousand or less. Thanks, Tim Willis, Esq. (770) 908-2177 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cathy Sellers Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 12:10 PM To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: t-and-f: Title IX fight I would agree that men's sports have been unfairly lost, however, I contend that it is not Title IX that has caused it, but poor financial decisions by the Universities. Men's programs get dropped when Universities hire new male coaches at outrageous figures. The University can not maintain their current sports due to these salary increases, the law prevents them from eliminating women's sports, so men's sports are cut. The cause is not Title IX is not to blame. Catherine Sellers United States Olympic Committee Manager, Coaching 1 Olympic Plaza Colorado Springs, CO 80909 719.866.3236 FAX- 719.866.4850 Get Olympic Coach magazine at: http://coaching.usolympicteam.com/coaching/ksub.nsf -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 8:53 PM To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: t-and-f: Title IX fight Supporters of Title IX policy reform argue that men's teams have been unfairly lost in the last few decades. Some coaches say Title IX discriminates against men. They say a loss of sports opportunities, such as wrestling teams, can be blamed on Title IX's proportionality requirement. A 1997 report released by the Department of Education carries a different opinion: It is important to recognize that there is no mandate under Title IX that requires a college to eliminate men's teams to achieve compliance...the regulation is intended to expand opportunities for both men and women. http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=44715 03/13/2006 Title IX supporters fight policy change Attorney, Florida Coastal School of Law professor and former Olympic swimmer Nancy Hogshead-Makar is a local expert on Title IX. She's part of a national push by Title IX supporters asking for a recent policy change to be revoked. by Liz Daube Staff Writer Women's education and sports organizations are leading a national effort to fight a policy change that they believe threatens Title IX. The Department of Education issued a Title IX clarification last year that allows schools to assess female student interest in sports with an e-mail survey. According to the campaign's Web site, www.savetitle9.com, The Department of Education has made a major change to the Title IX policy that threatens to reverse the progress women and girls have made. The Department's latest 'clarification' ignores long-time policy and years of court rulings by telling our daughters they have to prove they are interested, while male athletes have never had to prove their interest. The policy lets schools send a mass e-mail survey to all their students. Girls who don't respond can be counted as uninterested in sports and that doesn't sit well with Nancy Hogshead-Makar, a Florida Coastal School of Law professor and attorney who has joined the battle against the new policy. She writes position papers and provides guidance on sports and education equality law to parents, attorneys and reporters. The survey is flawed, said Hogshead-Makar, adding that surveys usually don't receive many results and e-mail accounts are often clogged with spam. It (the survey) is biased to produce a certain result. Title IX is a 1972 amendment that attempts to create equal school sports opportunities for women by prohibiting sex discrimination in schools with federal funding. Schools can prove that they're complying with the law in three ways. First, schools can show that women and men in their student population both have a proportional number of sports opportunities. Essentially, if 50 percent of a school's students are men, proportionality dictates only 50 percent of the school's athletes should be men.
RE: t-and-f: Title IX fight
Meaning that a team that loses a half a million is far more harmful than a small men's team that does not draw much revenue but only costs one hundred thousand or less. True enough, but the reason why football, even football that loses a half million each year, is a net winner for many schools is that it is a huge favorite with the alumni -- alumni with big checkbooks. Keep the alums happy and the school comes out ahead. Unfortunately minor sports don't do that. So football ends up a sacred cow, which creates an even bigger and built-in gender imbalance, since there is no women's football program. So Title IX-wise any school that fields a football team starts out in the hole. And to dig themselves out of the hole they are usually left with three choices: 1. Get rid of football (a nonstarter; see reasons above). 2. Spend a lot of money they can ill-afford on creating many new women's programs. 3. Cut men's minor sports programs to achieve the gender balance. #3 is quick, easy, and saves money. #2 is very lengthy, difficult, and in some cases impo$$ible. And #1 is out of the question. Congress hoped for #2 but mostly got #3. But given the realities it's easy to see why things have turned out they way they have. Kurt Bray Tim Willis [EMAIL PROTECTED] .net To Sent by:'Cathy Sellers' [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED], .uoregon.edut-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu cc 03/14/2006 09:27 AMSubject RE: t-and-f: Title IX fight Please respond to Tim Willis [EMAIL PROTECTED] .net Hello: Unfortunately the executive branch in the government is not responsive enough to alter or fine tune policies that would have prevented the dropping of so many men's sports. Keep in mind that the vast majority of football programs report a half a million dollar or more loss each year. Therefore the athletic administrators look to dropping the sports that cost in the neighborhood of one hundred thousand and receive the benefits of eliminating the male slots on those sports. I had the pleasure of hearing a presentation from Dona Lopianno (Women's Sports Foundation C.E.O.) this past weekend. Very interesting to hear her perstective on the implementation of Title IX. This issue will continue to be around until a coalition of athletic adminsitrators begin to properly administered their budgets in a way that reflect the reality on the ground. Meaning that a team that loses a half a million is far more harmful than a small men's team that does not draw much revenue but only costs one hundred thousand or less. Thanks, Tim Willis, Esq. (770) 908-2177 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cathy Sellers Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 12:10 PM To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: t-and-f: Title IX fight I would agree that men's sports have been unfairly lost, however, I contend that it is not Title IX that has caused it, but poor financial decisions by the Universities. Men's programs get dropped when Universities hire new male coaches at outrageous figures. The University can not maintain their current sports due to these salary increases, the law prevents them from eliminating women's sports, so men's sports are cut. The cause is not Title IX is not to blame. Catherine Sellers United States Olympic Committee Manager, Coaching 1 Olympic Plaza Colorado Springs, CO 80909 719.866.3236 FAX- 719.866.4850 Get Olympic Coach magazine at: http://coaching.usolympicteam.com/coaching/ksub.nsf -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 8:53 PM To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: t-and-f: Title IX fight Supporters of Title IX policy reform argue that men's teams have been unfairly lost in the last few
RE: t-and-f: Title IX fight
I have done several articles on Title IX and Gender Equity. What I have have found is that universities are willing to tolerate $500,000 (and much higher) losses on football (and men's basketball) because these programs are used for and help to recruit students, hit on alumni for donations for academic dept. and the school's foundation, and to attract academic research grants. I have come to the conclusion that many - if not most - university presidents, ADs, school marketing departments, and university foundation boards could give a crap about Olympic sports - men's or women's (I don't like to use the term minor sports.) Universities tolerate Title IX because if they did not abide by Title IX rules, universities would receive negative publicity and lose students, alumni support, and research grant money. -- Original message -- From: Tim Willis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello: Unfortunately the executive branch in the government is not responsive enough to alter or fine tune policies that would have prevented the dropping of so many men's sports. Keep in mind that the vast majority of football programs report a half a million dollar or more loss each year. Therefore the athletic administrators look to dropping the sports that cost in the neighborhood of one hundred thousand and receive the benefits of eliminating the male slots on those sports. I had the pleasure of hearing a presentation from Dona Lopianno (Women's Sports Foundation C.E.O.) this past weekend. Very interesting to hear her perstective on the implementation of Title IX. This issue will continue to be around until a coalition of athletic adminsitrators begin to properly administered their budgets in a way that reflect the reality on the ground. Meaning that a team that loses a half a million is far more harmful than a small men's team that does not draw much revenue but only costs one hundred thousand or less. Thanks, Tim Willis, Esq. (770) 908-2177 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cathy Sellers Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 12:10 PM To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: t-and-f: Title IX fight I would agree that men's sports have been unfairly lost, however, I contend that it is not Title IX that has caused it, but poor financial decisions by the Universities. Men's programs get dropped when Universities hire new male coaches at outrageous figures. The University can not maintain their current sports due to these salary increases, the law prevents them from eliminating women's sports, so men's sports are cut. The cause is not Title IX is not to blame. Catherine Sellers United States Olympic Committee Manager, Coaching 1 Olympic Plaza Colorado Springs, CO 80909 719.866.3236 FAX- 719.866.4850 Get Olympic Coach magazine at: http://coaching.usolympicteam.com/coaching/ksub.nsf -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 8:53 PM To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: t-and-f: Title IX fight Supporters of Title IX policy reform argue that men's teams have been unfairly lost in the last few decades. Some coaches say Title IX discriminates against men. They say a loss of sports opportunities, such as wrestling teams, can be blamed on Title IX's proportionality requirement. A 1997 report released by the Department of Education carries a different opinion: It is important to recognize that there is no mandate under Title IX that requires a college to eliminate men's teams to achieve compliance...the regulation is intended to expand opportunities for both men and women. http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=44715 03/13/2006 Title IX supporters fight policy change Attorney, Florida Coastal School of Law professor and former Olympic swimmer Nancy Hogshead-Makar is a local expert on Title IX. She's part of a national push by Title IX supporters asking for a recent policy change to be revoked. by Liz Daube Staff Writer Women's education and sports organizations are leading a national effort to fight a policy change that they believe threatens Title IX. The Department of Education issued a Title IX clarification last year that allows schools to assess female student interest in sports with an e-mail survey. According to the campaign's Web site, www.savetitle9.com, The Department of Education has made a major change to the Title IX policy that threatens to reverse the progress women and girls have made. The Department's latest 'clarification' ignores long-time policy and years of court rulings by telling our daughters they have to prove they are interested, while male athletes have never had to prove their interest. The policy lets schools send a mass e-mail survey to all their students. Girls who don't
Re: t-and-f: Title IX fight
I had this theory years ago, but haven't had a legal case come forward to test it out. It runs like this: -- public high schools in the state offer X sports at the championship level. All of those sports must be offered at public institutions of higher learning if ANY sports are offered. -- when determining budgets, all of these sports must be treated the same. If you hire a full-time head coach for football, you must budget for a full-time head coach for every other sport. If you provide the football team with travel to X number of away contests, you must do that for the budget of every other sport. If you provide new uniforms every year for basketball, then you must budget to do that for every other sport. -- when you realize that you have budgeted expenses of $10 million when you treat everyone equally, and you only get $2 million in support from the state for your sports programs, then -- BEFORE REVENUES -- every sport would receive 20% of its requested budget. Now, here's the kicker -- each sport ALSO gets to keep all of the revenue it brings in. So when the track teams would like $1 million, and they only get $200k from the budget process, and they only bring in $5k of entry fees and admissions during a year, then their budget is $205k. When the football team budgets $2 million, and they only get $400k from the budget process, and they bring in $1.1 million in revenues, then they have a budget of $1.5 million. Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds simple to me... Bill Roe On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Meaning that a team that loses a half a million is far more harmful than a small men's team that does not draw much revenue but only costs one hundred thousand or less. True enough, but the reason why football, even football that loses a half million each year, is a net winner for many schools is that it is a huge favorite with the alumni -- alumni with big checkbooks. Keep the alums happy and the school comes out ahead. Unfortunately minor sports don't do that. So football ends up a sacred cow, which creates an even bigger and built-in gender imbalance, since there is no women's football program. So Title IX- wise any school that fields a football team starts out in the hole. And to dig themselves out of the hole they are usually left with three choices: 1. Get rid of football (a nonstarter; see reasons above). 2. Spend a lot of money they can ill-afford on creating many new women's programs. 3. Cut men's minor sports programs to achieve the gender balance. #3 is quick, easy, and saves money. #2 is very lengthy, difficult, and in some cases impo$$ible. And #1 is out of the question. Congress hoped for #2 but mostly got #3. But given the realities it's easy to see why things have turned out they way they have. Kurt Bray Tim Willis [EMAIL PROTECTED] .net To Sent by:'Cathy Sellers' [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED], .uoregon.edut-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu cc 03/14/2006 09:27 AMSubject RE: t-and-f: Title IX fight Please respond to Tim Willis [EMAIL PROTECTED] .net Hello: Unfortunately the executive branch in the government is not responsive enough to alter or fine tune policies that would have prevented the dropping of so many men's sports. Keep in mind that the vast majority of football programs report a half a million dollar or more loss each year. Therefore the athletic administrators look to dropping the sports that cost in the neighborhood of one hundred thousand and receive the benefits of eliminating the male slots on those sports. I had the pleasure of hearing a presentation from Dona Lopianno (Women's Sports Foundation C.E.O.) this past weekend. Very interesting to hear her perstective on the implementation of Title IX. This issue will continue to be around until a coalition of athletic adminsitrators begin to properly administered their budgets in a way that reflect the reality on the ground. Meaning that a team that loses a half a million is far more harmful than a small men's team that does not draw much revenue but only costs one hundred thousand or less. Thanks, Tim Willis, Esq. (770) 908-2177 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cathy Sellers Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 12:10 PM To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: t-and-f: Title IX fight I would agree that men's sports have been unfairly lost, however, I contend that it is not Title IX that has caused it,
RE: t-and-f: Title IX fight
Hello: I like your proposal but keep in mind that the intent of Title IX was to remedy a disparity that was fostered for many decades on college campuses. This is why the dropping of the men's sports is not seen as a Title IX violation. Another thought if you total up the amount of money that has been spent by schools in fighting Title IX lawsuits you would have enough money to fund many of these men's sports that have been dropped. The many Title IX suits brought by women should have been settled immediately and then the costs of litigation would not have been so high. Tim Willis, Esq. (770) 908-2177 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Roe Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 2:05 PM To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: t-and-f: Title IX fight I had this theory years ago, but haven't had a legal case come forward to test it out. It runs like this: -- public high schools in the state offer X sports at the championship level. All of those sports must be offered at public institutions of higher learning if ANY sports are offered. -- when determining budgets, all of these sports must be treated the same. If you hire a full-time head coach for football, you must budget for a full-time head coach for every other sport. If you provide the football team with travel to X number of away contests, you must do that for the budget of every other sport. If you provide new uniforms every year for basketball, then you must budget to do that for every other sport. -- when you realize that you have budgeted expenses of $10 million when you treat everyone equally, and you only get $2 million in support from the state for your sports programs, then -- BEFORE REVENUES -- every sport would receive 20% of its requested budget. Now, here's the kicker -- each sport ALSO gets to keep all of the revenue it brings in. So when the track teams would like $1 million, and they only get $200k from the budget process, and they only bring in $5k of entry fees and admissions during a year, then their budget is $205k. When the football team budgets $2 million, and they only get $400k from the budget process, and they bring in $1.1 million in revenues, then they have a budget of $1.5 million. Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds simple to me... Bill Roe On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Meaning that a team that loses a half a million is far more harmful than a small men's team that does not draw much revenue but only costs one hundred thousand or less. True enough, but the reason why football, even football that loses a half million each year, is a net winner for many schools is that it is a huge favorite with the alumni -- alumni with big checkbooks. Keep the alums happy and the school comes out ahead. Unfortunately minor sports don't do that. So football ends up a sacred cow, which creates an even bigger and built-in gender imbalance, since there is no women's football program. So Title IX- wise any school that fields a football team starts out in the hole. And to dig themselves out of the hole they are usually left with three choices: 1. Get rid of football (a nonstarter; see reasons above). 2. Spend a lot of money they can ill-afford on creating many new women's programs. 3. Cut men's minor sports programs to achieve the gender balance. #3 is quick, easy, and saves money. #2 is very lengthy, difficult, and in some cases impo$$ible. And #1 is out of the question. Congress hoped for #2 but mostly got #3. But given the realities it's easy to see why things have turned out they way they have. Kurt Bray Tim Willis [EMAIL PROTECTED] .net To Sent by:'Cathy Sellers' [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED], .uoregon.edut-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu cc 03/14/2006 09:27 AMSubject RE: t-and-f: Title IX fight Please respond to Tim Willis [EMAIL PROTECTED] .net Hello: Unfortunately the executive branch in the government is not responsive enough to alter or fine tune policies that would have prevented the dropping of so many men's sports. Keep in mind that the vast majority of football programs report a half a million dollar or more loss each year. Therefore the athletic administrators look to dropping the sports that cost in the neighborhood of one hundred thousand and receive the benefits of eliminating the male slots on those sports. I had the pleasure of hearing a presentation from Dona Lopianno (Women's Sports Foundation C.E.O.) this past weekend. Very interesting to hear her perstective on the implementation of
Re: t-and-f: Title IX fight
Bill, I think you may be onto something. When I was a college head coach my biggest competitors were the other coaches at my own school at budget time. And in contrast the coaches of the teams we competed against in track and cross-country were more program supporters than competitors. Hardly any of them had a good relationship with their athletic directors. Maybe you explain why. Tom On Mar 14, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Bill Roe wrote: I had this theory years ago, but haven't had a legal case come forward to test it out. It runs like this: -- public high schools in the state offer X sports at the championship level. All of those sports must be offered at public institutions of higher learning if ANY sports are offered. -- when determining budgets, all of these sports must be treated the same. If you hire a full-time head coach for football, you must budget for a full-time head coach for every other sport. If you provide the football team with travel to X number of away contests, you must do that for the budget of every other sport. If you provide new uniforms every year for basketball, then you must budget to do that for every other sport. -- when you realize that you have budgeted expenses of $10 million when you treat everyone equally, and you only get $2 million in support from the state for your sports programs, then -- BEFORE REVENUES -- every sport would receive 20% of its requested budget. Now, here's the kicker -- each sport ALSO gets to keep all of the revenue it brings in. So when the track teams would like $1 million, and they only get $200k from the budget process, and they only bring in $5k of entry fees and admissions during a year, then their budget is $205k. When the football team budgets $2 million, and they only get $400k from the budget process, and they bring in $1.1 million in revenues, then they have a budget of $1.5 million. Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds simple to me... Bill Roe On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Meaning that a team that loses a half a million is far more harmful than a small men's team that does not draw much revenue but only costs one hundred thousand or less. True enough, but the reason why football, even football that loses a half million each year, is a net winner for many schools is that it is a huge favorite with the alumni -- alumni with big checkbooks. Keep the alums happy and the school comes out ahead. Unfortunately minor sports don't do that. So football ends up a sacred cow, which creates an even bigger and built-in gender imbalance, since there is no women's football program. So Title IX-wise any school that fields a football team starts out in the hole. And to dig themselves out of the hole they are usually left with three choices: 1. Get rid of football (a nonstarter; see reasons above). 2. Spend a lot of money they can ill-afford on creating many new women's programs. 3. Cut men's minor sports programs to achieve the gender balance. #3 is quick, easy, and saves money. #2 is very lengthy, difficult, and in some cases impo$$ible. And #1 is out of the question. Congress hoped for #2 but mostly got #3. But given the realities it's easy to see why things have turned out they way they have. Kurt Bray Tim Willis [EMAIL PROTECTED] .net To Sent by:'Cathy Sellers' [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED], .uoregon.edut-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu cc 03/14/2006 09:27 AMSubject RE: t-and-f: Title IX fight Please respond to Tim Willis [EMAIL PROTECTED] .net Hello: Unfortunately the executive branch in the government is not responsive enough to alter or fine tune policies that would have prevented the dropping of so many men's sports. Keep in mind that the vast majority of football programs report a half a million dollar or more loss each year. Therefore the athletic administrators look to dropping the sports that cost in the neighborhood of one hundred thousand and receive the benefits of eliminating the male slots on those sports. I had the pleasure of hearing a presentation from Dona Lopianno (Women's Sports Foundation C.E.O.) this past weekend. Very interesting to hear her perstective on the implementation of Title IX. This issue will continue to be around until a coalition of athletic adminsitrators begin to properly administered their budgets in a way that reflect the reality on the ground. Meaning that a team that loses a half a million is far more harmful than a small men's team
RE: t-and-f: Title IX fight
I alway's thought it was about The Student Athlete. Without these young Women and Men; we as so called Adults woulnd not have games/matches/meets to watch! Let the kids play. - Original Message - From: Cathy Sellers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: t-and-f: Title IX fight Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:09:46 -0700 I would agree that men's sports have been unfairly lost, however, I contend that it is not Title IX that has caused it, but poor financial decisions by the Universities. Men's programs get dropped when Universities hire new male coaches at outrageous figures. The University can not maintain their current sports due to these salary increases, the law prevents them from eliminating women's sports, so men's sports are cut. The cause is not Title IX is not to blame. Catherine Sellers United States Olympic Committee Manager, Coaching 1 Olympic Plaza Colorado Springs, CO 80909 719.866.3236 FAX- 719.866.4850 Get Olympic Coach magazine at: http://coaching.usolympicteam.com/coaching/ksub.nsf -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 8:53 PM To: t-and-f@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: t-and-f: Title IX fight Supporters of Title IX policy reform argue that men's teams have been unfairly lost in the last few decades. Some coaches say Title IX discriminates against men. They say a loss of sports opportunities, such as wrestling teams, can be blamed on Title IX's proportionality requirement. A 1997 report released by the Department of Education carries a different opinion: It is important to recognize that there is no mandate under Title IX that requires a college to eliminate men's teams to achieve compliance...the regulation is intended to expand opportunities for both men and women. http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=44715 03/13/2006 Title IX supporters fight policy change Attorney, Florida Coastal School of Law professor and former Olympic swimmer Nancy Hogshead-Makar is a local expert on Title IX. She's part of a national push by Title IX supporters asking for a recent policy change to be revoked. by Liz Daube Staff Writer Women's education and sports organizations are leading a national effort to fight a policy change that they believe threatens Title IX. The Department of Education issued a Title IX clarification last year that allows schools to assess female student interest in sports with an e-mail survey. According to the campaign's Web site, www.savetitle9.com, The Department of Education has made a major change to the Title IX policy that threatens to reverse the progress women and girls have made. The Department's latest 'clarification' ignores long-time policy and years of court rulings by telling our daughters they have to prove they are interested, while male athletes have never had to prove their interest. The policy lets schools send a mass e-mail survey to all their students. Girls who don't respond can be counted as uninterested in sports and that doesn't sit well with Nancy Hogshead-Makar, a Florida Coastal School of Law professor and attorney who has joined the battle against the new policy. She writes position papers and provides guidance on sports and education equality law to parents, attorneys and reporters. The survey is flawed, said Hogshead-Makar, adding that surveys usually don't receive many results and e-mail accounts are often clogged with spam. It (the survey) is biased to produce a certain result. Title IX is a 1972 amendment that attempts to create equal school sports opportunities for women by prohibiting sex discrimination in schools with federal funding. Schools can prove that they're complying with the law in three ways. First, schools can show that women and men in their student population both have a proportional number of sports opportunities. Essentially, if 50 percent of a school's students are men, proportionality dictates only 50 percent of the school's athletes should be men. The second option allows the school to show a continuous history of improvement - which, according to Hogshead-Makar, is pretty tough after 34 years. The recent policy change applies to the third method, in which a school shows they are meeting the interests and abilities of their students. As a former Olympic swimmer, Hogshead-Makar has both professional and personal interest in Title IX policy. I owe my Olympic medal to this one law, said Hogshead-Makar. She explained that when she was younger, she believed women reached their athletic peak at age 17. I thought women didn't get any better physically - not making the connection that they didn't improve because there was no place for them to go. There were no opportunities. Then, according to Hogshead-Makar, Title IX changed everything. She received
