Home > Issues > Employment and Leisure > Unintended Consequences or Dashed Dreams
The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

 

Unintended Consequences or Dashed Dreams

by Joe Campbell 2005
Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map

 

Title IX was passed in 1972 to ensure all persons, regardless of gender, has equal access to any program receiving federal funding. This law has been hijacked by persons with agendas that are contrary to the law. The enforcement of Title IX must return to the intent of the law, and the discrimination allowed by present enforcement policies must end.

 

In the 1960’s, the women’s movement began to make substantial strides in gaining an equal footing with men, in many areas of society. There still existed, however, a disparity in college admissions. In an effort to help bring about an end to that disparity, several well-meaning congressmen passed the Education Amendments of 1972, and President Nixon signed it into law. Title IX is thirty-seven words long: “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” (Education Amendments of 1972)

Those thirty-seven words, which bar discrimination on the basis of sex, have become a vehicle by which discrimination on the basis of sex is encouraged.

 

In 1979, under direction from President Carter, the Department of Education (DOE) began to apply Title IX exclusively to collegiate athletics in the form of Proportionality. Proportionality is the safe harbor part of a three prong test DOE uses to “prove” compliance to Title IX. Basically, Proportionality means, for example, that if a school has 60% female enrollment, 60% of all active athletes must be female. Norma Cantu, the Secretary of Education under President Clinton, began a strict enforcement of Proportionality in the early 1990’s.

 

According to Leo Kocher, Head Wrestling Coach at the University of Chicago, female participation in athletics increased substantially prior to the application of Title IX to athletics. “In the case of sports, Title IX #1 was much more effective in spirit than in law. At the time Congress first debated and passed the measure, school sports were not even on its radar screen. The driving concern was the male-female academic gaps in areas like admissions and college faculty positions. But regardless of congressional intent, by 1972 the idea that females should have an opportunity to experience the benefits of competitive athletics was one whose time had come. Parents, educators, and school boards implemented girl interscholastic sports programs in their local schools quickly and enthusiastically.

 

The strongest evidence of Title IX #1's success are the data provided by the National Federation of State High School Associations - 294,015 female athletic participants in US high schools in 1971, the year before Title IX. Seven years later that number had grown by 631% to 1,854,400. Eager bureaucrats and policy advocates created Title IX #2 in 1979 after, not before, this explosion in girls' high school athletics. Generated by the Carter Administration, Title IX #2 was not strongly applied during the Reagan and Bush administrations.” (1999) Kocher uses the term “Title IX #1” to refer to Title IX as passed into law and the term “Title IX #2” to refer to the policy of Proportionality.

 

Since 1972, the year Title IX was passed, 433 collegiate wrestling programs have been eliminated nationwide. (Lost Programs) Presently, less than 20 colleges nationwide have gymnastics programs. (Petition Poster) Kocher also states “There is overwhelming evidence that Title IX #2 is wreaking havoc on collegiate and high school teams. Right now over 50% of the sports teams in our NCAA schools are female, but because males come out in greater numbers they make up 61% of the athletes. We have lost 20,000 male sports opportunities in the last decade. It is undeniable that continuing with the quota interpretation of Title IX #2 will be disastrous for the males that have not already been slashed.” (1999)

 

Some people have attributed the loss of men’s programs to financial reasons, but Marquette University’s wrestling team was dropped even though it was self funding. (Berglund, 2002) Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives states, “I strongly support the original goal of Title IX -- equal opportunity for both women and men who wish to participate in college athletics. It is my deeply held conviction that there is no place for discrimination in our society, whether it be based on sex, race, religion, or any other factor. A strong, properly interpreted Title IX is a key element in combating discrimination.

 

Nonetheless, I am concerned about some of the unintended consequences of the regulations promulgated by the Department of Education that enforce Title IX; especially those regulations that result in "athletic quotas" at universities. Specifically, I am concerned that enforcement of Title IX has resulted in less, not more, participation in athletics.” (Hastert Letter)

 

Many people may not see the importance of this issue as they feel the primary purpose of an educational institution is academics. I hold that the primary purpose of any educational institution is to provide an opportunity for as many people as possible to enhance their future life possibilities. Most sports offer few, if any, professional possibilities. What is offered by these sports is an opportunity to earn a possible partial scholarship. Those scholarships may be as little as $1,000.00, but those scholarships can be the difference between someone being able to afford a college education or not.

 

I believe that all kids deserve a chance at a better future, regardless of their gender. I believe discrimination is wrong in any form. There were previous discriminations against female students and that is an undeniable statement. Creating a new discriminated group is not the way to end discrimination. The only way to end discrimination is to end it, not continue it or transfer it to someone else. Female students deserve no less opportunity than male students. Male students deserve no less opportunity than female students. Title IX was passed into law to prevent discrimination, and must be enforced in the spirit it was written. It may be an unintended consequence of the enforcement of Title IX that male opportunities are being destroyed, but it is also an unacceptable consequence. Dr. Martin Luther King, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, on August 28, 1963, stated, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” I feel more profound words were never spoken. To paraphrase Dr. King, “One day our children will not be judged by their gender but by the content of their character.” We must, as a society, demand our government not sanction any discrimination. All we have to lose by our silence is the future of our children.

 

 

FAQ

Webmaster

Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

15 July 2015

Top