The elimination of women's wrestling in 2000 at UC Davis is symptomatic of the university's overall poor performance in providing equal opportunities for women in varsity sports, a federal appellate court ruled Monday.
Of course. I mean, who in their right mind would eliminate women's wrestling?
So the 9th Circuit has sent the case back for a jury trial. Your tax dollars at work.
14 comments:
Jello or baby oil?
Why do American universities provide sports at all? If someone wants to play a sport, they should join a club.
And women shouldn't be afforded the opportunity to wrestle because...?
You're trolling.
Actually, in this case, the University's actions confuse me. I understand the desire to cut programs. I'm not a big fan of the way Title IX has been applied to athletics (and even less of the way it's being threatened to be applied to faculty appointments in the sciences). But they had womens' wrestling, in which the women essentially shared space with the men, but wrestled other women under international freestyle rules. Then the university eliminated this aspect of the program, and forced the women to wrestle against the men under collegiate rules, the result of which was that wrestling scholarships were taken away from women.
If we assume that the scholarships were full rides to out of state students, one per weight class, its a total savings of something like $400,000. For a school that recently spent $31,000,000 (that's 80 times as much) for a new football stadium.
The rest of the ruling bothers me more- that womens' golf doesn't count as a womens' program because it didn't come from women asking for it, etc.
You two guys must be on the same vibe today:
From Carpe Diem: One of the Most Dangerous Words Ever: Fairness
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/02/one-of-most-dangerous-words-ever.html
If schools offer sports for boys -- and with it all the trimmings -- scholarships, tutors, coaching -- why shouldn't girls get the same opportunities? It shouldn't be surprising to require our federally funded institutions to SHARE athletic resources equally.
And women's wrestling is an Olympic sport.
Actually, women were trying out against men, and were being cut from the team because they couldn't compete. They didn't even try to field a women's team, so there was no elimination.
Anonymous...women can wrestle if they want but why should my tax dollars fund it? Especially if matches bring in no income or benefit for the school.
I'll bait the troll:
1) How many women are there, really, who want to participate in college wrestling? Is the number sufficient to justify a program?
2) Why, to satisfy Title IX requirements, should men be denied the opportunity to participate in the many college sports that have been eliminated to reach "parity" in intercollegiate ports for women (who generally are less interested in participating in intercollegiate sports than men)?
I will have to forward this one onto my friend who teaches Civics. He talks about Title IX every year. He gets fired up about it, but the girls in his class take advantage of it and go look at those smaller schools for athletic scholarships when they didn't think of it before.
Title IX is one of those things that was nice when it was made, but has no place right now.
Title IX is one of those things that was nice when it was made, but has no place right now.
Like affirmative action?
In an attempt to appease the same Title program, SMU scrapped one of the few nationally competitive programs they had in men's track in order to provide parity on women's sports. The problem is that football takes such a huge hunk out of the budget that it's almost impossible to make things equal.
Ellen . . . while it's true that football takes a large percentage of any school's budget, it is also the greatest source of revenue for a D1 team like SMU. One bowl appearance can make millions for the school. Basketball is second greatest in terms of revenue derived.
Post a Comment