news-record.com

OPINION

Title IX attempts to create false equality in athletics

Monday, December 14, 2009
(Updated 3:05 am)

The Dec. 9 article, “Rockingham schools accused of illegally favoring boys,” by Morgan Glover sheds light on the troubling issue: Title IX. The issue is not discrimination in schools but rather the over-application of feminist-invented and feminist-promoted Title IX legislation.

Title IX dictates that if 60 percent of students taking academic classes are female, then 60 percent of students playing on athletic teams must be female. The legislation ignores the possibility that more men than women actually want to participate in athletics. The result: more under-qualified women join the team’s roster while trophy-winning male teams are canceled. Women’s teams also suffer as untalented players join the roster for the sake of making quotas and a team loses its collective competitiveness.

Title IX may appear to help Reidsville High’s softball team become “equal” but will actually hurt male and female athletes in the long run. Title IX ignores the differences between men and women and demands a quota system that favors one group at the expense of another. It has eliminated equality of opportunity for both men and women, causing an even greater amount of inequality in our schools. North Carolina’s students deserve better.

Jessica Custer
Raleigh

The writer is North Carolina chairwoman for the Network of Enlightened Women.

Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments are accepted on select letters to the editor between the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM, EDT, Monday through Friday.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Interested

December 14, 2009 - 6:37 am EST

This is some of the most bizarre logic I have read in some time. "The issue is not discrimination . . ." Are you kidding? The teams are not provided equal facilities and similar equipment - how does that translate into over-application of legislation. I suppose you thought seperate-but-equal provided equal opportunities for people of color as well.

Rollo

December 14, 2009 - 7:07 am EST

Leave it to a liberal to read racism into any argument, whether it's there or not.

Interested

December 14, 2009 - 8:35 am EST

More bizarre logic - I didn't read racism into the comment. I made a comparison.

Rollo

December 14, 2009 - 11:40 am EST

You're correct. You did make a comparison. You could have compared the logic to anything, yet you chose to use an example that inferences racism.

Interested

December 14, 2009 - 11:58 am EST

And I did so because it was a reasonable comparison. Get over it.

Rollo

December 14, 2009 - 10:30 pm EST

Nah, thanks anyway. Strawman arguments that bring race into an issue aren't my thing.

rightwingnemesis

December 14, 2009 - 7:29 pm EST

Look no further than UNC women's soccer, or Wake Forest women's Field Hockey to see how Title IX has enhanced college athletics. National Championships that have brought much focus and attention to two top ACC schools. Of course, to the ignorant who feel somehow they've been "slighted" there is no amount of proof that will suffice.
Mr. or Mrs. Rollo (I must assume that's a clown name), here is something I posted over on another thread after someone made an ignorant comment on race--yes, it's long, but you will be enriched by reading it.

Here's what white privilege sounds like:
(By Robert Jensen)
I am sitting in my University of Texas office, talking to a very bright and very conservative white student about affirmative action in college admissions, which he opposes and I support.

The student says he wants a level playing field with no unearned advantages for anyone. I ask him whether he thinks that in the United States being white has advantages. Have either of us, I ask, ever benefited from being white in a world run mostly by white people? Yes, he concedes, there is something real and tangible we could call white privilege.

So, if we live in a world of white privilege--unearned white privilege--how does that affect your notion of a level playing field? I ask.

He paused for a moment and said, "That really doesn't matter."

That statement, I suggested to him, reveals the ultimate white privilege: the privilege to acknowledge you have unearned privilege but ignore what it means.

That exchange led me to rethink the way I talk about race and racism with students. It drove home to me the importance of confronting the dirty secret that we white people carry around with us everyday: In a world of white privilege, some of what we have is unearned. I think much of both the fear and anger that comes up around discussions of affirmative action has its roots in that secret. So these days, my goal is to talk openly and honestly about white supremacy and white privilege.

White privilege, like any social phenomenon, is complex. In a white supremacist culture, all white people have privilege, whether or not they are overtly racist themselves. There are general patterns, but such privilege plays out differently depending on context and other aspects of one's identity (in my case, being male gives me other kinds of privilege). Rather than try to tell others how white privilege has played out in their lives, I talk about how it has affected me.

I am as white as white gets in this country. I am of northern European heritage and I was raised in North Dakota, one of the whitest states in the country. I grew up in a virtually all-white world surrounded by racism, both personal and institutional. Because I didn't live near a reservation, I didn't even have exposure to the state's only numerically significant non-white population, American Indians.

I have struggled to resist that racist training and the ongoing racism of my culture. I like to think I have changed, even though I routinely trip over the lingering effects of that internalized racism and the institutional racism around me. But no matter how much I "fix" myself, one thing never changes--I walk through the world with white privilege.

What does that mean? Perhaps most importantly, when I seek admission to a university, apply for a job, or hunt for an apartment, I don't look threatening. Almost all of the people evaluating me for those things look like me--they are white. They see in me a reflection of themselves, and in a racist world that is an advantage. I smile. I am white. I am one of them. I am not dangerous. Even when I voice critical opinions, I am cut some slack. After all, I'm white.

My flaws also are more easily forgiven because I am white. Some complain that affirmative action has meant the university is saddled with mediocre minority professors. I have no doubt there are minority faculty who are mediocre, though I don't know very many. As Henry Louis Gates Jr. once pointed out, if affirmative action policies were in place for the next hundred years, it's possible that at the end of that time the university could have as many mediocre minority professors as it has mediocre white professors. That isn't meant as an insult to anyone, but is a simple observation that white privilege has meant that scores of second-rate white professors have slid through the system because their flaws were overlooked out of solidarity based on race, as well as on gender, class and ideology.

Some people resist the assertions that the United States is still a bitterly racist society and that the racism has real effects on real people. But white folks have long cut other white folks a break. I know, because I am one of them.

I am not a genius--as I like to say, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I have been teaching full-time for six years, and I've published a reasonable amount of scholarship. Some of it is the unexceptional stuff one churns out to get tenure, and some of it, I would argue, actually is worth reading. I work hard, and I like to think that I'm a fairly decent teacher. Every once in awhile, I leave my office at the end of the day feeling like I really accomplished something. When I cash my paycheck, I don't feel guilty.

But, all that said, I know I did not get where I am by merit alone. I benefited from, among other things, white privilege. That doesn't mean that I don't deserve my job, or that if I weren't white I would never have gotten the job. It means simply that all through my life, I have soaked up benefits for being white. I grew up in fertile farm country taken by force from non-white indigenous people. I was educated in a well-funded, virtually all-white public school system in which I learned that white people like me made this country great. There I also was taught a variety of skills, including how to take standardized tests written by and for white people.

All my life I have been hired for jobs by white people. I was accepted for graduate school by white people. And I was hired for a teaching position at the predominantly white University of Texas, which had a white president, in a college headed by a white dean and in a department with a white chairman that at the time had one non-white tenured professor.

There certainly is individual variation in experience. Some white people have had it easier than me, probably because they came from wealthy families that gave them even more privilege. Some white people have had it tougher than me because they came from poorer families. White women face discrimination I will never know. But, in the end, white people all have drawn on white privilege somewhere in their lives.

Like anyone, I have overcome certain hardships in my life. I have worked hard to get where I am, and I work hard to stay there. But to feel good about myself and my work, I do not have to believe that "merit," as defined by white people in a white country, alone got me here. I can acknowledge that in addition to all that hard work, I got a significant boost from white privilege, which continues to protect me every day of my life from certain hardships.

At one time in my life, I would not have been able to say that, because I needed to believe that my success in life was due solely to my individual talent and effort. I saw myself as the heroic American, the rugged individualist. I was so deeply seduced by the culture's mythology that I couldn't see the fear that was binding me to those myths. Like all white Americans, I was living with the fear that maybe I didn't really deserve my success, that maybe luck and privilege had more to do with it than brains and hard work. I was afraid I wasn't heroic or rugged, that I wasn't special.

I let go of some of that fear when I realized that, indeed, I wasn't special, but that I was still me. What I do well, I still can take pride in, even when I know that the rules under which I work in are stacked in my benefit. I believe that until we let go of the fiction that people have complete control over their fate--that we can will ourselves to be anything we choose--then we will live with that fear. Yes, we should all dream big and pursue our dreams and not let anyone or anything stop us. But we all are the product both of what we will ourselves to be and what the society in which we live lets us be.

White privilege is not something I get to decide whether or not I want to keep. Every time I walk into a store at the same time as a black man and the security guard follows him and leaves me alone to shop, I am benefiting from white privilege. There is not space here to list all the ways in which white privilege plays out in our daily lives, but it is clear that I will carry this privilege with me until the day white supremacy is erased from this society.

Frankly, I don't think I will live to see that day; I am realistic about the scope of the task. However, I continue to have hope, to believe in the creative power of human beings to engage the world honestly and act morally. A first step for white people, I think, is to not be afraid to admit that we have benefited from white privilege. It doesn't mean we are frauds who have no claim to our success. It means we face a choice about what we do with our success.

Jensen is a professor in the School of Journalism in the University of Texas at Austin

Rollo

December 14, 2009 - 8:12 pm EST

Oh, look at that. It can post articles written by white guiltists. You must truly be proud of yourself.

overtaxed

December 14, 2009 - 9:38 pm EST

Let's also examine other opines by Mr. Jensen shall we rwn? From wikipedia:

Jensen drew widespread attention for an opinion piece he wrote that the Houston Chronicle on September 14, 2001, shortly after the September 11th terrorist attacks.[6]

In the piece, Jensen wrote that the September 11th terrorist attacks were "reprehensible and indefensible" but "no more despicable than the massive acts of terrorism -- the deliberate killing of civilians for political purposes -- that the U.S. government has committed during my lifetime." [7]

Panacea

December 15, 2009 - 12:56 pm EST

rwn: An insightful essay. Thank you for sharing it. :)

J D R

December 14, 2009 - 6:44 am EST

yabbut .. Sarah Palin says she would not "Be the Person She is Today" were it not for Title IX ... so there is your rebuttal, Jessica.

Rollo

December 14, 2009 - 7:11 am EST

Sarah Palin is an idiot. Great letter Jessica. Fema-fascists will always take "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity"

Interested

December 14, 2009 - 8:49 am EST

While Ms. Custer's letter discusses "equality of outcome" vs. "equality of opportunity," the original article she refers to discussed the lack of "equality of opportunity." Perhaps you should read it. Better yet, perhaps you should raise a daughter who is equally athletic (and interested in competing) as your son is before commenting. It might change your perspective.

Rollo

December 14, 2009 - 11:52 am EST

That's OK. I've already raised a son who's opportunities have been greatly diminished by feminism. I'm sure if I had raised a daughter she'd have quite a bad case of entitlement syndrome. With all the women-only scholarships and grants out there, you hardly have any reason to be complaining about opportunities for women.

Interested

December 14, 2009 - 12:00 pm EST

I am not complaining; too bad the same cannot be said of you. Your poor son whose opportunities were diminished.

Rollo

December 14, 2009 - 12:41 pm EST

Oh, I'm sorry. Is this going to be a discussion about my tone, or are you going to stick to the facts? Fact: 60% of baccalaureate degrees are conferred to women. Should we use your census statistics, and make sure that only 51% of degrees are awarded to women? You can't have it both ways.

ghost from white oak

December 14, 2009 - 9:37 am EST

I agree, it is nothing more than the usual guvmint "feel good" intervention so we can all feel good about ourselves.
All done for the sake of the vast minority. After all we do have quotas to meet.

Interested

December 14, 2009 - 10:12 am EST

"All done for the sake of the vast minority."
From 2008 census figures: Female persons - 51% (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37000.html)

Rollo

December 14, 2009 - 11:48 am EST

Woosh... that one went way over your head. The majority vs minority in this example, are folks interested in sports/athletics vs those who are not. Men tend to be the majority, women tend to be the minority. That's not to say it couldn't be the other way around. However, if women feel that strongly, they should make it known they want XZY sports team at their university; instead of imposing a quota system that is unfair to everyone.

Interested

December 14, 2009 - 12:13 pm EST

And so you think funding would be provided for the XYZ sports team if they asked and no legal requirement existed? Right.

Rollo

December 14, 2009 - 1:23 pm EST

Silly me, I guess men's sports teams had to go in and demand things with the law, rather than petition and wait until funds were available; based on overall student interest. I suppose we should scream sexism every time women seem to be doing better than men in any area of life? Pathetic.

Panacea

December 14, 2009 - 12:25 pm EST

I looked at the text of Title IX. No where does it state that 60% of student athletes have to be female if 60% of the student body is female. It says, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

It may be there is a relevant court precedent that was based on this kind of ratio system; if so, Ms. Custer would have done better to include that information. But it is not a part of the law itself.

Rollo

December 14, 2009 - 1:54 pm EST

I guess you left out some ellipses? That's not the entire law. Furthermore, it does not make Ms. Custer any less credible than you for leaving out a huge chunk of what has become Entitlement IX.

Panacea

December 14, 2009 - 2:23 pm EST

I included the main core of Title IX. There is no section anywhere in Title IX requiring a ratio and proportion system such as Ms. Custer described. It doesn't exist in the text of the law itself. I did leave room for a court decision that may have interpreted it that way, though I couldn't find one.

Including the entire text of the law was overkill. However, here's a link for you. http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleIX.htm

Rollo

December 14, 2009 - 3:10 pm EST

You may want to check out 9b.

Yvonne

December 14, 2009 - 5:43 pm EST

OK, Rollo, I checked out the entire Title IX and found Panacea to be correct. Why don't you show us where your info came from?

Rollo

December 14, 2009 - 5:48 pm EST

See the post below genius.

Panacea

December 15, 2009 - 1:07 pm EST

I read 9b. It says that education institutions are NOT required to grant preferential treatment based on proportions.

Section 9b:

(b) Preferential or disparate treatment because of imbalance in participation or receipt of Federal benefits; statistical evidence of imbalance.

Nothing contained in subsection (a) of this section shall be interpreted to require any educational institution to grant preferential or disparate treatment to the members of one sex on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of that sex participating in or receiving the benefits of any federally supported program or activity, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of that sex in any community, State, section, or other area: Provided, that this subsection shall not be construed to prevent the consideration in any hearing or proceeding under this chapter of statistical evidence tending to show that such an imbalance exists with respect to the participation in, or receipt of the benefits of, any such program or activity by the members of one sex.

GatorGirl

December 14, 2009 - 3:26 pm EST

The problem with Title IX is what actually happened in 1979 with Title IX Policy Interpretation. The policy interpretation basically laid the groundwork for a 3 part test to make sure institutions complied. THIS has led to "Title IX-ing" and quota systems. See for yourself...

Here's what I found on the Department of Education's site:

-Compliance in Financial Assistance (Scholarships) Based on Athletic Ability: Pursuant to the regulation, the governing principle in this area is that all such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution's athletic program.

-Compliance in Other Program Areas (Equipment and supplies; games and practice times; travel and per diem, coaching and academic tutoring; assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors; locker rooms, and practice and competitive facilities; medical and training facilities; housing and dining facilities; publicity; recruitment; and support services): Pursuant to the regulation, the governing principle is that male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities.

-Compliance in Meeting the Interests and Abilities of Male and Female Students: Pursuant to the regulation, the governing principle in this area is that the athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated.

Do you not see what it says in plain terms?? Words like "Proportional", "male and female receive equivalent opportunities," and "male and female students equally accommodated." Those are all tag words for quotas and ratios. So, yes, Ms. Custer did have the facts right. Shouldn't you?

Rollo

December 14, 2009 - 4:05 pm EST

I'm glad there is someone on this forum who respects factual information. Too bad the folks trying to praise Title IX don't want to rely on facts. Nice post.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search