Controversial policies One of the most controversial policies implemented by the federal government has been Title IX. What are the main provisions that opponents find so objectionable?
Title IX of the Education Amendments 1972 'prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance'. The provisions in Title IX support the belief that education facilities should not be exempt from the quest for Civil Rights. However, any federal involvement in powers reserved for the states (such as education) controversy is bound to occur. The federal government allocates monies to every state in order to supplement education costs, in 1972 through Title IX the federal government required accountability with regard to civil rights within educational facilities in order for it to continue to receive federal funding.
Several arguments of the opposition:
1. the federal government threatens to hold federal funds ransom
2. funding for educational policy is best left to the individual states, because states have different financial needs
3. athletic programs in schools should be determined by the individual school based upon but not limited to consensus, popularity, and cost effectiveness.
However, I think it is fair to say that while these arguments seem 'just' in many cases (including Supreme Court decisions to their contrary) inhibit 'equal protection under the law'...even if it's only 'girls' boxing... it counts just the same !!!
One solution (which will never happen) is to radically cut funding for all intercollegiate sports programs and use the funds saved in this fashion to support academics. Sports programs would then essentially be intramural, in which talented students competed with one another on campus or against schools very close to home. The need for expensive transportation costs would be cut, as many different sports could be offered as there were people interested in playing them, and American colleges would focus on academics. This, of course, is a completely pie-in-the-proverbial-sky solution. I know it cannot be achieved and that there would be very little interest in achieving it even if it could be.
This is a very contentious issue due to the way that Title IX seeks to promote gender equality in sports through the equal promotion and creation of opportunities for women to practise a sport. This has led to funding being cut and some teams being dissolved altogether because of the inability of some colleges to fund two teams of a given sport--one for men and another for women. This is such a difficult issue in one sense because, whilst we are all in favour of equal opportunities, at the same time, we have to admit that physiological differences between the sexes makes men more likely to want to engage in certain sports than women. Is it fair to treat all sports the same in this sense?
In brief, the crux of the Title IX controversy is that to meet compliance for proportional gender representation in student sports, men's sports teams are underfunded or are cut altogether since educational institutions haven't been able to double their athletic budgets to facilitate funding two sets of top-notch sports teams: women's sports teams and men's sports teams. The Department of Education's Office of Civli Rights (OCR) has attempted since 2005 to improve the deleterious specifications of Title IX but the outcome of their modifications or clarifications has produced only debatable success.
The government holds and spends our tax money and disperses it as it sees fit to supposedly promote "equal access" to sports. While no one would deny that anyone who wants to should play whatever sport they desire with others so like minded, the whole program, as evidenced by the prior quotes, instead of expanding sports opportunities for women, has resulted in contracting sports opportunities for everyone. The government should not be regulating sports.
The entire idea of legislating equality is ridiculous anyway. This is sort of like an affirmative action program for sports; who needs this? And why? I don't see the point of it at all. I agree that there should never be prejudice and discrimination in involvement, but punishing programs because they naturally gather a certain type of person, forcing them to have others who might hurt the program, is foolish.
People tend not to like this law because it "forces" colleges to cut programs for men. They argue that there aren't enough sports that women want to play to make the numbers equal to the number of men. So the colleges end up cutting mens sports to get the numbers equal. It's a tough question. The obvious answer is to increase women's sports offerings, but that's hard in a tough economic climate.
We can also look back to the time before Title IX as to the kinds and number of athletic programs offered for women and men--it was vastly different and imbalanced. So while Title IX is certainly inconvenient and sometimes costly, I feel it would be difficult to argue that it has not achieved it's purpose. Would there be a WNBA without Title IX? Would there be as many female olympians?
People simply find Title IX objectionable based upon the fact that it is a "limiter." Anything which limits a person's ability to better themselves (meaning college sports programs and such) based upon limitations placed on them will tend to anger a/the person.