OOPS what I meant.... TITLE IX
Title IX
Collegiate Women sports in danger of sexism and lower funding levels. The Dept. of Education now requires colleges with womens sports programs showing low levels of participation, and little success, to fill out a survey regarding interest in that sport on the campus. Oh, but mens sports needn't bother with surveys of their programs.
The survey responses are meant to disipher whether or not the particular failing womens sports program should continue to receive the same amount of funding.
I understand that lack of interest in a sports program may entitle more popular programs to more money- BUT the new measure by the Dept. of Education ONLY applies to TITLE IX (created in 1970s to give equal funding to men and womens sports programs) - in other words, mens teams with low interest in success rates are NOT at risk because of the new measure....
WOW- I DON'T UNDERSTAND how theses alterations are filtered through a legislative body without public awareness or acknowledgement of blatant sexism. Even people who mess up blogs by posting a title can see it! :)
Collegiate Women sports in danger of sexism and lower funding levels. The Dept. of Education now requires colleges with womens sports programs showing low levels of participation, and little success, to fill out a survey regarding interest in that sport on the campus. Oh, but mens sports needn't bother with surveys of their programs.
The survey responses are meant to disipher whether or not the particular failing womens sports program should continue to receive the same amount of funding.
I understand that lack of interest in a sports program may entitle more popular programs to more money- BUT the new measure by the Dept. of Education ONLY applies to TITLE IX (created in 1970s to give equal funding to men and womens sports programs) - in other words, mens teams with low interest in success rates are NOT at risk because of the new measure....
WOW- I DON'T UNDERSTAND how theses alterations are filtered through a legislative body without public awareness or acknowledgement of blatant sexism. Even people who mess up blogs by posting a title can see it! :)
2 Comments:
I wonder what the courts will do with this. Unfortunately, American 14th amendment jurisprudence is desperately lacking compared to its ECHR brethren her in the "old world."
In any case, a piece of legislation that, on its face, treats men and women differently, is treated to some kind of nebulous judicial evaluation between "strict scrutiny" and "rational relation." Our equality jurisprudence is very behind the times when it comes to gender equality.
It seems to depend, too obviously, on whether or not the justices wish to strike down the challenged legislation. If they wish to let it stand then they will move the consideration closer to a "rational relation" consideration, and if they wish to strike it down then it will be closer to "strict scrutiny."
The make up of our court, I suspect, is closer to the former. In addition, there is a trend to roll-back gender equality provisions gained in the past few decades...especially Title IX. I would be interested in a closer look at this legally...if you have a link EC please include it so us legal sophist fellow-travellers can get a closer look.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/12/opinion/12tue2.html
Is where I found the article, but I couldn't find the Dept. of Education website :(
Post a Comment
<< Home