Harvard newspaper doesn't want a 4th sorority

[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.