Infieldad,
Your goal is not to learn anything or even to have an honest debate but rather to keep the questions coming in the hope of setting a trap- the only purpose to which would be to validate your existing views. It's time to try that approach on someone else.
You made a completely outrageous claim that I must be in favor of discrimination against brain damaged Iraqi vets and didn't have the decency to retract it or apoolgize for it. That to me says everything.
I can see the benefit of Title IX. Given that I have a very talented softball playing daughter in high school, I resent the misogynist label that RJM directed my way. IMHO, RJM had no business turning this into a Title IX debate as that is not what the thread was about. Moreover, my comment earlier in the thread about why they may have made the cuts was with the thought in mind that is was purely logical given Duquesne's circumstances. If the majority of their students were women, then maybe it made sense to cater more to women by focusing on their sports. Now after reading these debates, that does not seem reasonable. If a college had 60% men and 40% women, it seems it would be impermissable for them to cater to the men over the women if I am understanding the Title IX law correctly. Someone correct me if my understandeing is incorrect.
Moreover, the idea of correcting past discrimination by discriminating against others seems unsatisfactory to me. One of our members is hurting as she posted in this thread. Why should her son be a tool to correct a past discrimination? It seems to me there ought to be a requirement for an institutional quid-pro-quo here if Title IX is the reason for the adjustments. In other words, the program should be required to limp along until all current members of the team, including NLI signees have used up their eligibility. This could be achieved by recruiting JUCO players to fill in some of the years affected by graduation. Other kids could be recruited as JUCO players for the chance to play D1 baseball. For example, in the final year of the program's existence, they could recruit kids with the one-year promise to play D1 with the knowledge they would have to find a new home like any JUCO player. Maybe this solution is unacceptable also but to just throw kids out on the street to satisfy a law to help some other affected class seems highly unfair to me.
All that said, I fully support equal treatment for women. I want my dauighter to have the same opportunites as my sons. That also seems fair.
Moreover, the idea of correcting past discrimination by discriminating against others seems unsatisfactory to me. One of our members is hurting as she posted in this thread. Why should her son be a tool to correct a past discrimination? It seems to me there ought to be a requirement for an institutional quid-pro-quo here if Title IX is the reason for the adjustments. In other words, the program should be required to limp along until all current members of the team, including NLI signees have used up their eligibility. This could be achieved by recruiting JUCO players to fill in some of the years affected by graduation. Other kids could be recruited as JUCO players for the chance to play D1 baseball. For example, in the final year of the program's existence, they could recruit kids with the one-year promise to play D1 with the knowledge they would have to find a new home like any JUCO player. Maybe this solution is unacceptable also but to just throw kids out on the street to satisfy a law to help some other affected class seems highly unfair to me.
All that said, I fully support equal treatment for women. I want my dauighter to have the same opportunites as my sons. That also seems fair.
quote:You made a completely outrageous claim that I must be in favor of discrimination against brain damaged Iraqi vets and didn't have the decency to retract it or apoolgize for it. That to me says everything.
Another completely false and baseless statement .
In the context of asking you how your "compete equally" in education would apply, I asked this question, which you chose not to answer:
"So, for instance, the Vet who returns from Irag with a brain injury will need to compete equally when he tries to get his education in a college supported by federal funding? He or she either competes equally with every other student or they don't go to college? Title IX applies to education in the classroom too, doesn't it?"
The question marks are purposeful. They are to ask a question.
CD is so correct that these are very hard issues, made even harder by difficult and trying economically driven issues. Balancing of social issues, rights and obligations requires tremendous courage and a wealth of relevant facts and information. As opposed to having my mind made up, I actually am like a sponge on these types of issues and wanting of more and better information.
My hope was to obtain, through my questions, the information that led to your conclusions and allegations.
I never received any factual responses but did get what I view as a complete misrepresentation of my views and questions, as illustrated by the above and your comments that laws mandated confidentiality, when none do.
As I felt several months ago when I posted about the layoffs at Stanford due to economics, what happened at Duquesne involves real people and real families. It is incredibly difficult.
If what happened is to be discussed within the context of Title IX, and if it is to be blamed, as you assert, everyone of those people at Duquesne deserve our very best efforts to provide accurate and detailed information and an informed discussion of the issue.
This type of discussion won't heal their hurt. But, such a discussion does equate with the dignity which should be afforded to their situation.
The application of Title IX and the unintended consequesnces is really the "tail of the dog." The reality is we are reshaping our society with real economic impact which has been occuring for nearly 20-years.
The medical practice that I go to for my health care is a "snap shot" or what the future holds. 70% of their doctors are women and 90% of them work part time. The economics of this is a capacity shortage which only helps increase cost. The reality is we (all of us) have invested in people that have what they want and feel that they have earned that right.
Why is this important? With the changing demographics of higher education we are "socially enginering" our society. By 2018; 3 of 5 college graduates will be women - fact. This translates into post graduate work; doctors, lawyers, educators.
With more women moving to the forefront by definition we will have less men. The net effect is less opportunity for men to be "family leaders." The role in the american family will continue to change; the reality is in spite of maternal instincts less women will be able to stay home and raise children as they become the dominate economic engine for both the family and our society.
The entire social engineering begins when our kids are young. The vast majority (say 90% for discussion purposes) of teachers through elementry and into high school are women. The vast majority do their best; but as women, they have an easier time relating to and working with young girls. Over time; as resources become scarcer in our schools, our ability to "help" young boys becomes more difficult. The end result is by the time they get to college as a whole they are less likely to compete with young ladies.
What compounds the problem is the changing roll of parents. Men don't have the maternal ability of women; yet with women becoming a bigger part of our working world, young men are having a far more difficult time competing. This has and continues to erode american families.
Along the way the elements of education that kept many a boy engaged are being slowly curtailed. Whether it is recess for a 3rd grader; art classes for a 6th grader; music for a 9th grader or competitive sports at all levals, the outlets which kept young men engaged are not what they were 20+ years ago.
The discussion of whether baseball should get more scholarships is silly (and unfortunate) when the reality is the world has changed.
As I tell my kids; life is not fair, don't expect anything from anyone. If you want something you and only you can make it happen.
The medical practice that I go to for my health care is a "snap shot" or what the future holds. 70% of their doctors are women and 90% of them work part time. The economics of this is a capacity shortage which only helps increase cost. The reality is we (all of us) have invested in people that have what they want and feel that they have earned that right.
Why is this important? With the changing demographics of higher education we are "socially enginering" our society. By 2018; 3 of 5 college graduates will be women - fact. This translates into post graduate work; doctors, lawyers, educators.
With more women moving to the forefront by definition we will have less men. The net effect is less opportunity for men to be "family leaders." The role in the american family will continue to change; the reality is in spite of maternal instincts less women will be able to stay home and raise children as they become the dominate economic engine for both the family and our society.
The entire social engineering begins when our kids are young. The vast majority (say 90% for discussion purposes) of teachers through elementry and into high school are women. The vast majority do their best; but as women, they have an easier time relating to and working with young girls. Over time; as resources become scarcer in our schools, our ability to "help" young boys becomes more difficult. The end result is by the time they get to college as a whole they are less likely to compete with young ladies.
What compounds the problem is the changing roll of parents. Men don't have the maternal ability of women; yet with women becoming a bigger part of our working world, young men are having a far more difficult time competing. This has and continues to erode american families.
Along the way the elements of education that kept many a boy engaged are being slowly curtailed. Whether it is recess for a 3rd grader; art classes for a 6th grader; music for a 9th grader or competitive sports at all levals, the outlets which kept young men engaged are not what they were 20+ years ago.
The discussion of whether baseball should get more scholarships is silly (and unfortunate) when the reality is the world has changed.
As I tell my kids; life is not fair, don't expect anything from anyone. If you want something you and only you can make it happen.
ILVBB,
Women in the workforce today earn 20 percent less than men.
If you post something like you did, you probably should identify the educational background you have and some of the research you've done to form your presentation. You do give some good food for thought, however, I'm stuck on the "men don't have the maternal ability of women" comment.
Women in the workforce today earn 20 percent less than men.
If you post something like you did, you probably should identify the educational background you have and some of the research you've done to form your presentation. You do give some good food for thought, however, I'm stuck on the "men don't have the maternal ability of women" comment.
BBdad:
My point was not relative to what people make but in the changing demographics and the impact on the young men (and families) in our little part of the world.
As to my background, I am a retired CPA with a post graduate education with way too much time on my hands. I read too much, think too much and worry too much. I do my best to add to our little world without stepping on too many toes.
My point was not relative to what people make but in the changing demographics and the impact on the young men (and families) in our little part of the world.
As to my background, I am a retired CPA with a post graduate education with way too much time on my hands. I read too much, think too much and worry too much. I do my best to add to our little world without stepping on too many toes.
Just when I thought this thread couldn't get more "interesting"...
quote:Women in the workforce today earn 20 percent less than men.
This is just a straight average that doesn't adjust for differentials in education, continual work experience, and occupational differences.
When these factors are adjusted for, the remaining differential between women's and men's pay goes to about 3%. For some demographics, such as single women under the age of 30, after adjusting for these factors, women make MORE than men.
So the argument that females are systematically discriminated against in the workplace is very weak.
Looks like we can expect more cuts in men's sports, including baseball, in the not so distant future. Today Arnie Duncan eliminated the common sense "survey" as a method to determine if schools were in compliance with Title IX.
Why bother to ask men and women if they are happy about sports participation at their school if we already know intuitively who the victim is and what remedies must be put in place?
Here's an article. Cue the trial attorneys.
Department of Education Rolls
Back Title IX Reforms
CSC Says Action to eliminate student surveys is a
“Step backwards for everyone that cares about fairness in athletics.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – April 20, 2010 – The College Sports Council denounced an effort by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to undermine student interest surveys as a way to comply with Title IX. The decision by OCR comes just weeks after the US Commission on Civil Rights issued a report calling for Title IX reform, including surveys.
“At a time when the US Commission on Civil Rights is calling for reform of Title IX, this is a step backwards for everyone that cares about fairness in athletics,” said Jessica Gavora, the College Sports Council’s Vice President for Policy. In 2007, Gavora testified before the Commission and urged that the model survey be more widely adopted. “Students, women and men alike, are more than capable of expressing their interests, and especially when it comes to extracurricular activities on campus their voices should be heard,” Gavora said.
Ever since the Cohen v. Brown decision, schools have understood that sticking with the proportionality gender quota would make them safe from lawsuits. The 2005 clarification offered for the first time a model survey that schools could use to comply with Title IX by measuring the interest of their students.
“This reform rollback by the Obama Administration is a gift to the trial lawyers’ lobby and will mean that more sports teams will be eliminated like at Duquesne University where 4 men’s teams were recently terminated,” said CSC President, Leo Kocher.
“Surveys can give the students a voice in the decision making process of sports sponsorship. It appears that the Obama Administration has yielded to pressure from the NCAA and gender quota advocates in weakening the value of student interest surveys for Title IX compliance,” said CSC Chairman Eric Pearson.
“Instead of working with students to demonstrate how model surveys could work for everyone, the NCAA has actively undermined their use in order to silence the voice of the students, much as a majority of NCAA administrators tried to prevent Women’s Sand Volleyball from obtaining official designation as an emerging sport,” Pearson said.
Why bother to ask men and women if they are happy about sports participation at their school if we already know intuitively who the victim is and what remedies must be put in place?
Here's an article. Cue the trial attorneys.
Department of Education Rolls
Back Title IX Reforms
CSC Says Action to eliminate student surveys is a
“Step backwards for everyone that cares about fairness in athletics.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – April 20, 2010 – The College Sports Council denounced an effort by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to undermine student interest surveys as a way to comply with Title IX. The decision by OCR comes just weeks after the US Commission on Civil Rights issued a report calling for Title IX reform, including surveys.
“At a time when the US Commission on Civil Rights is calling for reform of Title IX, this is a step backwards for everyone that cares about fairness in athletics,” said Jessica Gavora, the College Sports Council’s Vice President for Policy. In 2007, Gavora testified before the Commission and urged that the model survey be more widely adopted. “Students, women and men alike, are more than capable of expressing their interests, and especially when it comes to extracurricular activities on campus their voices should be heard,” Gavora said.
Ever since the Cohen v. Brown decision, schools have understood that sticking with the proportionality gender quota would make them safe from lawsuits. The 2005 clarification offered for the first time a model survey that schools could use to comply with Title IX by measuring the interest of their students.
“This reform rollback by the Obama Administration is a gift to the trial lawyers’ lobby and will mean that more sports teams will be eliminated like at Duquesne University where 4 men’s teams were recently terminated,” said CSC President, Leo Kocher.
“Surveys can give the students a voice in the decision making process of sports sponsorship. It appears that the Obama Administration has yielded to pressure from the NCAA and gender quota advocates in weakening the value of student interest surveys for Title IX compliance,” said CSC Chairman Eric Pearson.
“Instead of working with students to demonstrate how model surveys could work for everyone, the NCAA has actively undermined their use in order to silence the voice of the students, much as a majority of NCAA administrators tried to prevent Women’s Sand Volleyball from obtaining official designation as an emerging sport,” Pearson said.