By NeW Intern Nicole
Title IX reminds me of my heroes, and in particular Mia Hamm. As I grew up, I always dreamed of playing soccer in college. When I was younger I remember asking my grandma if she played a sport in college. She told me that when she was growing up girls didn’t play sports and there were no collegiate women’s teams. To this day, her answer resonates in my head as I think about how fortunate I am to be able to attend college to play soccer and study.
I most definitely agree with Lukas and Schaeffer that “certainly Title IX was crafted with good intentions and meant to prevent discrimination” (75). The issue with Title IX, as Lukas and Schaeffer put into perspective, was its implementation of a quota system. The quota system, in turn, results in encouraging “schools to reduce opportunities for young men” (76). The effects of the Title IX quota system is overstepping its boundaries in this day and age.
I can see how this can be. A few of the schools I was considering, especially in the South, had no men’s soccer team. This was because the southern schools typically had an enormous football program. Therefore, in accordance with Title IX, a male sport had to be cut to even out the spending between the men and women’s athletic programs.
Tactics like this result in the fact that from 1981 to 2005, “the number of women’s teams increased by 34 percent…and the number of men’s teams declined by 17 percent” (77). As a male athlete, this statistic is not too promising of an opportunity for you to play in college. As women, on the other hand, our opportunities to play in college are increasing. Even though women’s opportunities to play a collegiate sport are increasing, why does it give us solace when men’s opportunities are decreasing and becoming more challenging?
Lukas and Schaeffer point out liberal logic
that somehow women are better off when men’s opportunities are curtailed (77).
Again reiterating the point at the beginning of the blog, Title IX had good intentions and was successful during its inception. Now, however, it is disadvantaging men.
Lukas and Schaeffer show the double standard of Title IX when they hypothetically give an example of what would happen if the government were to decide to set quotas on extracurricular activities, such as student newspapers and theater, where female participation overshadows male’s. In this case, many females would be at a disadvantage to succeed in these activities. How would liberals react to this?
Liberals and the Obama Administration push an agenda that is a double standard, which hurt American men. How can we, as women, be satisfied with women’s progress when the way policy has been implemented results in men’s progress waning? These liberal policies create a war between the sexes.
Lukas and Schaeffer point to the example of the Educate to Innovate campaign, which would expand Title IX quotas to STEM fields where men outnumber women. The authors’ sum up their argument by stating,
it’s a travesty that Title IX, a law that was supposed to advance equity and opportunity, is now being used to the contrary (79).
This statement brings to mind another highly controversial issue of Affirmative Action. Do you believe there are similarities between Affirmative Action and Title IX and how they are implemented today? Do we still need these “corrective” legislations in the twenty-first century and beyond?
Next week Lukas and Schaeffer conclude their book by laying out policies that will help both men and women prosper! See y’all next week!