Harvard newspaper doesn't want a 4th sorority

[ColdInCanada11]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

That's similar to Title IX here, except that it's not necessarily the number of teams, but the number of "athlete" slots so generally football requires several women's teams because football has so many players. And then universities can't have men's football and women's golf and call it a day.

To be honest, I've never actually thought about our sports teams, but Title IX makes a lot of sense!!

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I have no idea what Glee has to do with anything, so I'll skip over that.

Your argument is basically that it's not okay to segregate by gender (GLO's), except when it is (sports).

No, that's (universities in) Canada's argument. My argument is that prohibiting discrimination is not PC bullshit, but a reasonable policy that works for them. If you want to reduce it to absurdity, your argument is that it's OK to discriminate against women all the time. Absurd, right?

Ok so moving PAST the absurdity, there are some pretty serious arguments about whether or not it's preferable to change sports to co-ed or not, but in MOST sports it's considered that this would eliminate all but very few women from play because of the inherent biological differences (in the aggregate) between men and women's bodies. Some women would be able to compete, but not many. It's not as simple as a argument over discrimination.

Since you were apparently NOT making a Glee reference, I'll note two other things, the first is that there is no reference in UoT's student org. policy regarding disability. I don't know whether there are national or provincial policies like our ADA that would prevent discrimination on those grounds for an organization. The second is that you're getting into the realm of "ability" again. And it is a simple and unfortunate fact that at the current state of technology there is no way for someone who is wheelchair bound to play standard football.

Your comparisons were both sports related and at once dismissed complex arguments about the future of sport and made ridiculous counterclaims. This has nothing to do with student organizations or Greek Life. Neither of which require differing levels of ability.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by ColdInCanada11

To be honest, I've never actually thought about our sports teams, but Title IX makes a lot of sense!!

It's imperfect, but generally works. Problems tend to arise when because football is a money maker, schools cut other mens sports to make the balance even. Then people who play or like these sports rail against Title IX because "it's not FAIR", when history has shown that without it, women rarely get to play sports.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by ColdInCanada11

To be honest, I've never actually thought about our sports teams, but Title IX makes a lot of sense!!

No it doesn't.

Basically, unless the school begs tons of women to play sports that they have no desire to play, men get screwed and unable to play sports they DO want to play. And guess what, taking the mens' sports away doesn't seem to INCREASE the amount of women getting involved in sports, which was what it was supposed to do.

Title IX was a good concept, but the execution sucks monkey balls.

[ColdInCanada11]

Originally Posted by 33girl

No it doesn't.

Basically, unless the school begs tons of women to play sports that they have no desire to play, men get screwed and unable to play sports they DO want to play. And guess what, taking the mens' sports away doesn't seem to INCREASE the amount of women getting involved in sports, which was what it was supposed to do.

Title IX was a good concept, but the execution sucks monkey balls.

I guess I was just thinking of my school. The bigger teams, swimming and track and field are definitely equal in men and women, and the women's hockey team is actually bigger than the men's. Other than not having a men's soccer team, we're pretty even here. So, I guess it all depends on what sports are popular at that school?

That doesn't surprise me, though. If you don't want to play, you don't want to play. Someone else not being allowed to play probably won't change that.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

I don't know if anyone has tried to start an Alpha Phi Omega chapter there, but it would be an interesting test case. My guess is that they would recognize it.

Harvard is a no go for Alpha Phi Omega as well. We have (have had?) a member of the Alpha Phi Omega alumni staff that has worked APO extension throughout New England and beyond for over a decade and who is(was?) an employee of Harvard University. Given that she says that we aren't welcome there, nothing is happening.

Alpha Phi Omega *requires* school recognition for a chapter to exist. No recognition = no chartering and no recognition = loss of charter.

Having said that, the situation at Harvard led to a change in the APO bylaws. The rules on giving Honorary members *used* to say
"Honorary Brotherhood shall not be bestowed upon undergraduate students", *now* they say
"Honorary Membership shall not be bestowed upon undergraduate students, except for students at institutions where extension efforts would be allowed by the Fraternity but cannot be attempted due to institutional regulations. "

[southbymidwest]

Originally Posted by 33girl

No it doesn't.

Basically, unless the school begs tons of women to play sports that they have no desire to play, men get screwed and unable to play sports they DO want to play. And guess what, taking the mens' sports away doesn't seem to INCREASE the amount of women getting involved in sports, which was what it was supposed to do.

Title IX was a good concept, but the execution sucks monkey balls.

Excuse me? I find it VERY hard to believe that ANY D-1 school is having problems finding female athletes wanting to play their chosen sport in college. Having two very athletic daughters who played sports in high school, no one had to cajole them into playing.The also played on club teams. They both have friends who play/played in college and believe me, these girls worked incredibly hard to get to that level, and to be noticed by college coaches. There are lots and lots of girls competing for the same one sixth of a scholarship (the number of scholarships often does not equate to the number of spots on a team, thus they are broken up) place on any college team. No one had to drag them kicking and screaming onto the team. My daughters, their friends, my future granddaughters (should I have any) all have the same right as their guy friends, my future grandsons, (once again, should I have any) my nephews, to play sports at the collegiate level if they have the talent and commitment to do so.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by southbymidwest

Excuse me? I find it VERY hard to believe that ANY D-1 school is having problems finding female athletes wanting to play their chosen sport in college. Having two very athletic daughters who played sports in high school, no one had to cajole them into playing.The also played on club teams. They both have friends who play/played in college and believe me, these girls worked incredibly hard to get to that level, and to be noticed by college coaches. There are lots and lots of girls competing for the same one sixth of a scholarship (the number of scholarships often does not equate to the number of spots on a team, thus they are broken up) place on any college team. No one had to drag them kicking and screaming onto the team. My daughters, their friends, my future granddaughters (should I have any) all have the same right as their guy friends, my future grandsons, (once again, should I have any) my nephews, to play sports at the collegiate level if they have the talent and commitment to do so.

Not necessarily talking about D-1, silly goose

And besides that, you misinterpreted my post. Like DF said, it's the number of spots that is looked at, not the number of teams/opportunities. The result is that a sport that requires lots of members on a team - like football or wrestling - is going to suck up a lot of space on the men's side. The guys who golf, play tennis etc get screwed, just because there isn't a women's sport that has teams that large. The other alternative is to overpack the women's sports teams, which isn't fair to them.

Like I said, good concept, bad execution.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Not necessarily talking about D-1, silly goose

And besides that, you misinterpreted my post. Like DF said, it's the number of spots that is looked at, not the number of teams/opportunities. The result is that a sport that requires lots of members on a team - like football or wrestling - is going to suck up a lot of space on the men's side. The guys who golf, play tennis etc get screwed, just because there isn't a women's sport that has teams that large. The other alternative is to overpack the women's sports teams, which isn't fair to them.

Like I said, good concept, bad execution.

Sounds like the problem with the non-D1 schools is the insistence on a football team then. Title IX is NOT why guys teams get "screwed." Title IX is why womens teams don't get screwed nearly as often. Without it, during funding cuts, womens teams are the first to go, with it, both genders lose sports funding at about an equal pace.

I don't think there's another way to achieve the goal of IX in a society that devalues women's sports as ours does.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Sounds like the problem with the non-D1 schools is the insistence on a football team then. Title IX is NOT why guys teams get "screwed." Title IX is why womens teams don't get screwed nearly as often. Without it, during funding cuts, womens teams are the first to go, with it, both genders lose sports funding at about an equal pace.

I don't think there's another way to achieve the goal of IX in a society that devalues women's sports as ours does.

Are you saying non D-1 schools should just bag their football teams then? Believe it or not, there are non D-1 players who end up in the NFL (and coaches too).

I don't want to think about the alum support my D-2 school would lose if we got rid of the football team - it would make the athletic funding situation even worse.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Are you saying non D-1 schools should just bag their football teams then? Believe it or not, there are non D-1 players who end up in the NFL (and coaches too).

I don't want to think about the alum support my D-2 school would lose if we got rid of the football team - it would make the athletic funding situation even worse.

Not seriously, no. Although plenty of schools do just fine without football teams and even play (brace for it) soccer. Men AND women. But we have a fundamentally flawed system that prioritizes the money making for the school over the benefit of the student-athletes. When people complain that guys teams get cut because football has SOOOO many slots, I'm not particularly sympathetic since too many people wouldn't care if football, basketball and baseball were the only sports around and who cares about women's sports in the first place. Title IX at least makes the cuts hurt everyone equally rather than just women.

And who gives a crap about the NFL? It's statistically irrelevant. So few people make it in the first place that Joe Schmoe coming from Division Two U doesn't exactly present a convincing case for prioritizing football above all.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Title IX is NOT why guys teams get "screwed." Title IX is why womens teams don't get screwed nearly as often.

It's not clear that these are different things, or opposed to each other, or are even true on face.

I don't think there's another way to achieve the goal of IX in a society that devalues women's sports as ours does.

Since Title IX was designed and implemented in what amounts to a different era (both in terms of sports and society in general, but particularly w/re: to major college athletics), and since the Title wasn't really designed with sports in mind, I'm not entirely sure it even achieves its goals.

I don't think anybody will argue against enforcing equal opportunity for men and women - educational entities that receive federal funds are a great place to start. I'm not entirely sure the broad application of something like Title IX makes sense given the wide rift between the "haves" and "have-nots" in the major college sports world. It's inefficient and may create more problems than it solves.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

It's not clear that these are different things, or opposed to each other, or are even true on face.

You can argue that they're the same point, but I stand my opinion that IX - as it applies to college sports - has an equalizing effect. I won't feel bad because a school can't ONLY cut womens sports to save money but must cut both.

Since Title IX was designed and implemented in what amounts to a different era (both in terms of sports and society in general, but particularly w/re: to major college athletics), and since the Title wasn't really designed with sports in mind, I'm not entirely sure it even achieves its goals.

I don't think anybody will argue against enforcing equal opportunity for men and women - educational entities that receive federal funds are a great place to start. I'm not entirely sure the broad application of something like Title IX makes sense given the wide rift between the "haves" and "have-nots" in the major college sports world. It's inefficient and may create more problems than it solves.

Plenty of people will argue against enforcing equal opportunity for men and women, that's why I argue for it.

I won't disagree that the college sports world is broken, I just suspect I disagree on WHY it is broken. I don't know when sports went from a (healthy) fun, sporting activity to a money-maker for schools but I see it as a serious problem and a primary reason for a lot of the continuing inequality (or desired inequality) in mens and womens sports teams.

But you'd have to go more indepth on what you mean by haves and have-nots for me to follow what you're suggesting.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I won't disagree that the college sports world is broken, I just suspect I disagree on WHY it is broken. I don't know when sports went from a (healthy) fun, sporting activity to a money-maker for schools but I see it as a serious problem and a primary reason for a lot of the continuing inequality (or desired inequality) in mens and womens sports teams.

I'd probably argue that it doesn't much matter, since that particular genie is out of the bottle, but that's neither here nor there.

But you'd have to go more indepth on what you mean by haves and have-nots for me to follow what you're suggesting.

I mean it in a very literal sense: Texas football brings in much more money than U of Pacific basketball. UCONN women's basketball brings in much more money than Minnesota-Duluth volleyball. Many of these top programs are completely self-sufficient and receive no outside federal funding - those are the "haves", the lucky few with a constant income stream for their particular sport. The rules, which did not envision this situation, have not evolved at all.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I'd probably argue that it doesn't much matter, since that particular genie is out of the bottle, but that's neither here nor there.

Eh, it's something that could be fixed, if people wanted to. Whether that'd ever happen is another issue.

I mean it in a very literal sense: Texas football brings in much more money than U of Pacific basketball. UCONN women's basketball brings in much more money than Minnesota-Duluth volleyball. Many of these top programs are completely self-sufficient and receive no outside federal funding - those are the "haves", the lucky few with a constant income stream for their particular sport. The rules, which did not envision this situation, have not evolved at all.

I don't think that ultimately matters. (Or should matter.) It shouldn't be about whether a team is self-sustaining or not. This isn't professional sports and it isn't the Yankees compared to the Pirates. Universities shouldn't be focused on making their money on TV deals and if that means states need to be contributing more, or programs need to be cut back to club, I'm actually ok with that. While I realize that IX is in place on the presumption that schools will receive federal funds, I don't know of any accredited school except perhaps Liberty University that doesn't accept federal funds in some way shape or form. And some states have passed laws prohibiting discrimination in sports regardless of the funding sources. As long as schools are in the business of athletics IX will apply.

I think athletics are important, even if I can't actually verbalize the "purpose" of college sports overall. But for something that started as boat clubs at Harvard and Yale and pickup games of that new fangled "base-ball" I think it's gone WAY off track. The US is pretty unique in its college athletics system, other countries just don't DO sports the way we do, and honestly I'm not convinced ours is the best way. And the way things are now is, I believe, fundamentally broken.

Also to address concerns about "We're trying but women just don't WANT to play ultimate frisbee" here's the three prong test for Title IX. (C/o Wiki)

Prong one - Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, OR
Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex.
A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.