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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
