t-and-f: Sport Is Not A Right (Title IX)
Title IX, conceived as a tool for equality, is a farce and unecessary. It is one of many laws and regulations that allows one group to dictate how another group lives (using the big, coercive stick of government); however, Title IX would be a moot issue if educational institutions would wean themselves from the big government teat (at least until government decides that has the authority to dictate *everything* in our lives, federal funding be damned). Why should it matter if one school only wants to offer men's football scholarships and another only wants to offer women's hockey scholarships? Do we have a right to play inter-scholastic sports? What should send all of our moral compasses spinning is a system that forces individuals to expend resources against their will. If enough people want to participate in a sport (demand) then schools will eventually offer the sport (supply), if they have an incentive to do so. Sports programs are but one way an institution differentiates itself and attracts athletes and students. Over time, competition - not coercion - insures a natural balance between supply and demand. If demand exists but schools don't want to supply, another entity will meet that demand. If no one wants to meet the demand, then the incentive is too low. Why should anyone be forced to bear the costs for something they do not want? Would this mean the certain death of track and field in the United States? Would no one supply the demand? Shouldn't revenue sports subsidize non-revenue sports, in the interest of the common good? Shouldn't I subsidize your interests? Shouldn't you subsidize mine?
RE: t-and-f: Sport Is Not A Right (Title IX)
NEtters David Anderson wrote: >If enough people want to participate in a sport (demand) then schools will >eventually offer the sport (supply), if they have an incentive to do so. This is based on the belief in "the invisible hand." Which of course, doesn't exsist. Just as Alabama had to be dragged into the modern world by the feds in rgards to voting rights for blacks so too will the good o'le boys who would never despite any demand allow women to play. Title IX is needed. It is the way it is enacted that is the problem. Micahel
Re: t-and-f: Sport Is Not A Right (Title IX)
> Title IX, conceived as a tool for equality, is a farce and unecessary. It > is one of many laws and regulations that allows one group to dictate how > another group lives (using the big, coercive stick of government); however, > Title IX would be a moot issue if educational institutions would wean > themselves from the big government teat (at least until government decides > that has the authority to dictate *everything* in our lives, federal funding > be damned). Wow. There's certainly a lot to digest in that paragraph. Let's start with the easy ones: "if educational institutions would wean themselves from the big government teat" Good luck there. "at least until government decides that has the authority to dictate *everything* in our lives, federal funding be damned" OK, maybe this one isn't that easy. If only because syntactically I can't figure it out. But I'm guessing it's implying that federal funding creates a system whereby everything in your life is dictated by the government. You must live a very shallow life. "Title IX, conceived as a tool for equality, is a farce and unecessary" Spoken by one who wasn't around, or just didn't care, about the old days when all collegiate women's sports were club level. When anything longer than the 800 was considered too far for women to run. "It is one of many laws and regulations that allows one group to dictate how another group lives" I'm reminded of the somewhat old saying - a conservative feminist is one who has a daughter. And I've seen that come true - men who would rant against government control of this and that - and then file a Title IX suit against the local HS because there was no girls softball facility of the quality of the boys baseball diamond. In principle, I cheer Title IX. You have to remember that it was crafted during an era where Jock Semple was chasing down Cathy Switzer to rip her Boston number off her shirt "because women can't be running marathons". The reason that Boston - which as recently as 1962 was won in a time slower than Joan Benoit's WR 2:22 there in 1982 - could think that women couldn't do things like a marathon is because as a society we weren't exposed to women participating in the wide range of athletic endeavors we take for granted today. The problem with Title IX, imo, is that it hasn't kept up with it's successes. That's the inherent danger in any affirmative action program - those who oppose it do so with such vituperation, and usually with such a lack of regard for the history of the program, that those who support portions of it are forced to defend ALL of it, even the obviously flawed parts, rather than allow the program to be put into play and possibly completely gutted. What should be done, is a grand public celebration of Title IX, heralding it's successes, trumpeting all the statistics and case studies and anecdotes available, to show how those who couldn't conceive of a woman beating all but six American men at Boston were as shortsighted as those who a couple generations ago thought the 4 minute mile was the edge of human capabilities. However, as part of the celebration, there should be an acknowledgement that Title IX is now becoming a straightjacket to limit successes of all athletes, because it is beginning to limit participation among men, rather than create new opportunities for women. And male collegiate athletes are a critical portion of the HS coaching base for girls and boys. Deny collegiate men the opportunity to participate in and learn from intercollegiate athletics, and you're drying up part of your supply of knowledgable and motivated individuals to go forward and teach. Using that tack, I think Title IX could be amended to reflect it's successes, as well as the new budgetary and participation realities faced by athletic departments today. But you're not going to get those changes by being confrontational, because that will only entrench the other side even deeper. Phil
Re: t-and-f: Sport Is Not A Right (Title IX)
In a message dated Tue, 26 Feb 2002 1:04:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, "David Andersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Why should it matter if one school only wants to offer men's football scholarships >and another only wants to offer women's hockey scholarships? >> The answer to that one is simple, because you're describing let's say the first century of collegiate sports, pre-1980. A world in which everybody wants to offer mens' football scholarships and nobody wants to offer women's hockey. Or much of anything else that involves women. You'll get no argument from me that Title IX sucks as to what it has done to our sport (and other "minor" ones) on the men's side, but it's still better than what we had when women were second- (if lucky) class citizens. It's not that many years ago that most major universities not only didn't have any women's varsity teams, they also didn't even have club teams. And it wasn't uncommon to find track coaches who wouldn't even allow women anywhere near their track when practice was in session. gh
Re: t-and-f: Sport Is Not A Right (Title IX)
A couple of additions to what Phil said below about the Boston Marathon. Benoit won in 1983 not 1982. Her 2:22:43 placed 121st overall. By 1995 that time would have placed 29th and been first American. I don't have time to count how many Americans beat Benoit in 1983 but it was over 100. Does that mean that since then title IX has ruined men's running? And failed to bring up women's running? Or is there no cause and effect in these interesting numbers? Or is the cause something else? Tom Derderian, who wrote the book on the Boston Marathon > In principle, I cheer Title IX. You have to remember that it was crafted > during an era where Jock Semple was chasing down Cathy Switzer to rip her > Boston number off her shirt "because women can't be running marathons". > The reason that Boston - which as recently as 1962 was won in a time slower > than Joan Benoit's WR 2:22 there in 1982 - could think that women couldn't > do things like a marathon is because as a society we weren't exposed to > women participating in the wide range of athletic endeavors we take for > granted today. > > The problem with Title IX, imo, is that it hasn't kept up with it's > successes. That's the inherent danger in any affirmative action program - > those who oppose it do so with such vituperation, and usually with such a > lack of regard for the history of the program, that those who support > portions of it are forced to defend ALL of it, even the obviously flawed > parts, rather than allow the program to be put into play and possibly > completely gutted. > > What should be done, is a grand public celebration of Title IX, heralding > it's successes, trumpeting all the statistics and case studies and > anecdotes available, to show how those who couldn't conceive of a woman > beating all but six American men at Boston were as shortsighted as those > who a couple generations ago thought the 4 minute mile was the edge of > human capabilities. > > However, as part of the celebration, there should be an acknowledgement > that Title IX is now becoming a straightjacket to limit successes of all > athletes, because it is beginning to limit participation among men, rather > than create new opportunities for women. And male collegiate athletes are > a critical portion of the HS coaching base for girls and boys. > > Deny collegiate men the opportunity to participate in and learn from > intercollegiate athletics, and you're drying up part of your supply of > knowledgable and motivated individuals to go forward and teach. > > Using that tack, I think Title IX could be amended to reflect it's > successes, as well as the new budgetary and participation realities faced > by athletic departments today. But you're not going to get those changes > by being confrontational, because that will only entrench the other side > even deeper. > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: t-and-f: Sport Is Not A Right (Title IX)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You'll get no argument from me that Title IX sucks as to what it has done to our >sport (and other "minor" ones) on the men's side, but it's still better than what we >had when women were second- (if lucky) class citizens. > > It's not that many years ago that most major universities not only didn't have any >women's varsity teams, they also didn't even have club teams. And it wasn't uncommon >to find track coaches who wouldn't even allow women anywhere near their track when >practice was in session. > > gh In other words, pre Title IX, universities treated women's track and field pretty much the same as T&FN did at the time :-) -- Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computomarx™ 3604 Grant Ct. Columbia MO 65203-5800 USA (573) 445-6675 (voice & FAX) http://www.Computomarx.com "Know the difference between right and wrong... Always give your best effort... Treat others the way you'd like to be treated..." - Coach Bill Sudeck (1926-2000)
RE: t-and-f: Sport Is Not A Right (Title IX)
At 06:26 PM 2/27/2002 -0800, t-and-f-digest wrote.. >Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 05:54:34 -0500 >From: "Michael Rohl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: t-and-f: Sport Is Not A Right (Title IX) > >NEtters >David Anderson wrote: > >If enough people want to participate in a sport (demand) then schools will > >eventually offer the sport (supply), if they have an incentive to do so. > >This is based on the belief in "the invisible hand." Which of course, >doesn't exsist. When I saw the original post, I winced as a practicing economist. But I decide to sit back and wait for the kneejerk response that Michael Rohl's epitomizes. It's the classic debate between the extreme individualists and the radical egalitarians. And you're both wrong. Contrary to Michael's statement, market forces and the "invisible hand" have been generally extremely successful in pushing beneficial economic transformation. The failure of the 70 year experiment in centralized social economic control was an utter failure, and that set of nations is still trying to recover any semblance of productivity a decade later. Probably the single best comparison is the relative environmental conditions between the market economies of Western Europe and North America and the socialized economies of Eastern Europe and Asia. The environmental destruction under Communism is an order of magnitude worse in every single way. And that difference can be largely attributed to the "invisible hand" and individual incentives. Markets work best so far. But having said that, markets are far from perfect, and not necessarily appropriate in all cases. Social conditions can impede individuals and institutions from properly responding to market incentives. The failure to acknowledge the start up problems and transaction costs in new markets is the key reason why market economies have not done well in Eastern Europe or Russia. The same problem exists in introducing sports for women. There needs to be a kick start, and Title IX provided that jump. Phil Ponebshek's observations are on point. Too many governmental programs (e.g., the 1873 Mining Act) continue well beyond their original purpose, and Title IX may now fall into that category. I strongly believe that it is now creating reverse discrimination. The only way to actually comply with it would be to undermine the commercial nature of collegiate athletics. That has its pluses and minuses, and those who push Title IX issues tend to come from the radical egalitarian camp that would like to see the toppling of market economies. Richard McCann M.Cubed, Davis, California (530) 757-6363
RE: t-and-f: Sport Is Not A Right (Title IX)
NEtters Richard wrote: >When I saw the original post, I winced as a practicing economist. But I >decide to sit back and wait for the kneejerk response that Michael Rohl's >epitomizes. It's the classic debate between the extreme individualists and >the radical egalitarians. And you're both wrong. Let me clarify. The notion that the "invisible hand" is benvolent is a myth. The fact that there are some good things that come out of a free market system are not eveidence to that. There is no icentive to do what is right in a free market system only what is profitable. The the fact that our envrionmental sate is better here is due to our democratic sate. WIth out legislation U.S. Companies would have laid waste to our country. AS I pointed out with out legislation it would never have happened (womne's athletics.) ANd belive you me these AD's would drop there "girls games" in NY minute. > I strongly believe that it >is now creating reverse discrimination. The only way to actually comply >with it would be to undermine the commercial nature of collegiate >athletics. You better believe it is! But only because Universities refuse to do the correct solution: Which is drop foot ball below the D1 level.
RE: t-and-f: Sport Is Not A Right (Title IX)
OK, I'm getting way off topic here, and we should go off line for further discussion. See my other truncated post to Phil as well... At 09:12 PM 2/28/2002 -0500, Michael Rohl wrote: >NEtters > >Richard wrote: > >When I saw the original post, I winced as a practicing economist. But I > >decide to sit back and wait for the kneejerk response that Michael Rohl's > >epitomizes. It's the classic debate between the extreme individualists and > >the radical egalitarians. And you're both wrong. > >Let me clarify. The notion that the "invisible hand" is benvolent is a >myth. The fact that there are some good things that come out of a free >market system are not eveidence to that. Adam Smith never said that the invisible hand was benevolent, only that it created an outcome, under specific conditions, which would leave everyone better off than any other economic system. >There is no icentive to do what is right in a free market system only what >is profitable. The the fact that our envrionmental sate is better here is >due to our democratic sate. The existence of our democratic system is actually dependent on our market system. Without the economic independence provided by individual choice and mobility, we would not be able to exercise our freedom to disagree with the government. In the USSR, the government could take away your job if you disagreed. Not a strong democratic incentive Our environmental situation is better because we have an adversarial regulatory scheme. Individuals own and control the economic instruments, and government makes sure they are playing by the rules. The realization that we were damaging the environment arose in the mid 20th century, and our increasing wealth lead us to demand improvements. The worst environmental damage is created by government ownership (e.g. DOE nuclear facilities) and management (e.g. USBR water projects, USFS timber harvesting, BLM grazing and mining) where the relationships are not adversarial. Such a relationship is only feasible in a market economy that runs by the rule of law. Title IX is an example of an adversarial regulatory scheme. The problem is that it has run its course for serving its purpose, and now is running contrary to achieving equality of opportunity. >WIth out legislation U.S. Companies would have laid waste to our country. The old Communist countries laid waste to their lands in the name of the "people." And our market-based democratic system lead to the eventual regulated solution. >AS I pointed out with out legislation it would never have happened >(womne's athletics.) ANd belive you me these AD's would drop there "girls >games" in NY minute. No longer true. Maybe some obscure universities would, but those ADs would be much more interested in dropping all NON-REVENUE sports, both men's and women's. Women's basketball would continue, along with men's basketball and football at those schools. But the new generation of ADs recognize the importance of a full range of sports offerings to attract a range of students to their college. > > I strongly believe that it > >is now creating reverse discrimination. The only way to actually comply > >with it would be to undermine the commercial nature of collegiate > >athletics. > >You better believe it is! But only because Universities refuse to do the >correct solution: Which is drop foot ball below the D1 level. DI schools are where the worst violations are occurring! Div II and Div III don't fund football scholarships to the same magnitude, so the impacts are much smaller. Commercial value is not a consideration at Div II and III. So you have not proposed a solution to the actual problem of reverse discrimination without going to direct prohibitions and centralized decision making--the preferred solution of the radical egalitarians and the rigid hierarchists (best characterized by John Ashcroft). Richard McCann
RE: t-and-f: Sport Is Not A Right (Title IX)
Richard You don't work in an athletic department. You have no clue. If you want to call me sometime go ahead. 570-662-4645
RE: t-and-f: Sport Is Not A Right (Title IX)
Netters My apoligies, I meant to send my response to Richard. In all seriousness I don't have the time (and this is not the place) to write about the subject but if some wants to call me atthe office its ok with me. Michael
RE: t-and-f: Sport Is Not A Right (Title IX)
At 09:19 PM 3/2/2002 -0500, Michael Rohl wrote: >Richard > >You don't work in an athletic department. You have no clue. If you want >to call me sometime go ahead. > > >570-662-4645 I'm close enough to coaches, SIDs and administrators in both the Cal, Stanford and UCD athletic depts to have a very good idea of what is going on on the West Coast. Those depts. are definitely NOT anti-women--they're often their most successful programs! However, revenue producing is a major pressure. In that sense, the ADs want to be left with only football and basketball because then they don't have revenue allocation headaches. I think you're misinterpreting the motivations of the ADs. Richard McCann
Re: Off topic - Free Market Environmentalism (was RE: t-and-f: Sport Is Not A Right (Title IX))
At 10:35 PM 2/28/2002 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >When I saw the original post, I winced as a practicing economist. > >If you keep practicing do you get good at it? ;-) Naw, probably not. ;^) > >Contrary to Michael's statement, market forces and the "invisible hand" > >have been generally extremely successful in pushing beneficial economic > >transformation. > >I'll agree with you - but I disagree with your example. I sent Phil a very long response to the rest of his post which is way, way, way off topic for the list. If you're interested in my response, I'll forward it to you. Don't worry, I didn't call him any names or threaten his children ;^) Richard McCann
