Title IX: A Quick Rebuttal

I think most of you by now are well versed in my staunch opposition to Title IX. Truth be told, I think it is one of the most poorly structured pieces of legislation in our nation's history, probably the result of too many legislators hopped up on who knows what (hey, it was the early 70s) and even more swept up in the wave of irrational feminism that was for the most part productive but in this case overreaching in its reform.

Having said that, the objectives of the bill are pure and any changes must be done to ensure those objectives continue to be met. However, the years since Title IX was enacted have shown us that a bit of tweaking is needed. After all, the intent was to eliminate discrimination in educational opportunities on the basis of gender. What has instead resulted is an elimination of unequal funding, the result of which has been the creation of completely unequal opportunity, this time discriminating against male athletes.


Before I go further, while I realize the actual legislation made no mention of athletics, let's just cut to the chase and recognize that high school and intercollegiate athletics have borne the brunt of the impact. So if that was going to be your point, forget it.

Now back to the main argument. The problem Title IX created hinges on the treatment of football both at the high school and collegiate level. Football is not only the most prominent sport financial, it is also the sport with the largest rosters. On the Division 1 (FBS) level, a football program is allotted 85 full scholarships, far more than any other sport and in many instances more than the rest of the sports that a school is able to offer, combined.

This would be no problem, except for the fact Title IX stipulates that schools must consider football to be a men's program, requiring those schools to compensate for those 85 scholarships with additional sports and additional scholarships for women's programs elsewhere in the athletic department.

Ignoring the fact that women can and have earned scholarships to play football (scholarships that are still considered men's scholarships), this creates a wide gap in the opportunity afforded to men and women in every other sport except football.

In Division 1 golf, men's programs are only allowed a maximum of 4.5 scholarships while there women's counterparts are allowed to hand out 6. This is unfair ignorant of the reality that the competition (in sheer numbers) is much greater on the men's side than it is for women, but when you add that to the mix it is downright discriminatory.

In volleyball, there are 317 schools with Division 1 programs for women. Only 22 are able to offer that same opportunity to men. Oh, and those 22 men's programs are only allowed to hand out 4.5 scholarships a piece while the women get to put 12 scholarships to use.

Perhaps even more revealing is the fact that in all levels of volleyball there are just 99 scholarships available NATIONWIDE to men. There are 9024 for women.

The list goes on and on and doesnt exactly paint a portrait of equality when it comes to comparing opportunity.

The good news is that there is an easy solution: stop considering football.

Football isnt a recipient of funding anyway. In fact, at many schools it is the primary source of revenue for the rest of the programs in the athletic department. So by eliminating football from the calculation of "equality", you are jeopardizing not a single ounce of equality when it comes to the flow of funding for intercollegiate athletics.

More importantly, you are now able to provide a truly equal playing field (or at least close to it, as I would argue men are still at a disadvantage due to the greater numbers at which they participate).

If you want to have a baseball program, all you have to do is have a counterpart on the women's side, softball or otherwise.

Scholarships simply need to equal out among men and women across the program, with the NCAA having limits on a sport-by-sport basis that would be the same for both genders.

What is so unfair about this system? What would be the "blow" to women's rights?

Unless there is some unserved mass of women being left out of the mix when it comes to consideration for football scholarships, then I really dont see the issue.

In all honesty, I think we could and should take these changes further, accounting for the differences in competition when we consider how many scholarships should be available. At the very least, I think we should allow schools to do whatever they want so long as there is equality on a sport-by-sport basis. But in the interest of compromise, I think it is more than fair to suggest we implement a program that simply equalizes the opportunities that a school offers to its non-football athletes.

If you've got a better idea, by all means....

What Is Compromise?

Too often in today's political realm we hear of politicians supposedly being "willing" to compromise but unable to accomplish anything. Inevitably the implication here is that it is the other side's fault, that if only the opposition would show the same level of willingness to work toward a solution than the solution wouldnt be all that difficult to come by.

And this implication in and of itself shows why I believe that true compromise is a long forgotten commodity. Not just in politics, but across society.

True compromise isnt about backing down on something you want, it is about backing down on something that you need, something that you hold dear, something that it required of you in order for you to stay true to your principles. This type of compromise is nowhere to be found today.

Why do we need to back off on our principles to forge solutions to difficult issues? Because these issues inevitably involve a conflict between those principles.

Walking by Bascom Hill this morning, I was reminded of one of those conflicts, the conflict between a pro-life stance (without exception) and a steadfast determination to shrink government according to the ideals of fiscal conservatism (on another note, I think the 3000 flags, one for each daily abortion, was designed to have shock value but honestly I dont think 3000 per day is all that many. Anyway....).

How can you believe that we need to cut down on welfare programs, cut down on government spending, and at the same time argue that we should ban a procedure that prevents one of the most common causes of welfare reliance, namely unwanted and untimely birthing.

See the problem today is that our "willingness" to compromise seems to always come with a plethora of caveats.

"Yeah, we need to cut spending, but not military spending. Oh, and we arent going to consider allowing funding to go to Planned Parenthood to prevent unwanted pregnancy, let alone abortions"

"Yeah, we need to reduce the deficit, but we wont even consider reducing medicare spending. And we cannot continue to give corporations tax breaks designed to increase the tax base"

These are the types of concrete stances being made in the name of "compromise" today. Hence our inability to get things done.

Truly compromising is about compromising your principles to achieve greater goals, to preserve greater needs. Its about Democrats recognizing the value of tax breaks and the wastes of medicare. And it is about Republicans seeing the wastes in military spending, to allow for potential cost cutting measures that may be morally distasteful, and to recognize the need to cut down on unproductive tax loopholes.

This is what compromise is all about. Right now, this isnt happening.

Not even close.

Right now, we have two camps entrenched against one another, claiming to offer a hand of compromise but at the same time unwilling to step out of the foxhole and enter the no man's land of true compromise.

As they say, the first step to recovery is recognizing the problem at hand. Until we all realize that our elected officials are not coming even close to truly attempting compromise, we will never get ourselves out of the political stalemate that is threatening the viability of our nation going forward.