Wednesday, March 23, 2005

More on Title IX: Much Ado About Nothing?

Today has brought some new criticisms of the Title IX clarification issued last week (see earlier post). Most notably, NCAA president Myles Brand has come out against the new regulations. In addition, the Feminist Majority and other women's rights groups have come out against the bill. The people at Inside Higher Education have excellent articles on the clarification and the debate.

The focus of most criticisms, though, seems to be centered not on what the clarification actually does, but (1) how it was enacted and (2) problems that might arise in implementation. Brand and others have talked about the lack of debate and how the DOE quietly tried to "sneak" this in when no one was looking. I agree, this appears to be what happened. This was proposed two years ago in very public debates and while it could have passed over 2 dissenters, it would have created a hot political issue before the election. But it was still proposed and debated at the time, so the idea does have merit.

In addition, many critics focus on how online surveys will not adequately gauge student interest. But are they that much worse than what has been used. As one article points out, this is not a very radical change.

    Schools have long been able to comply with the Title IX law by proving they have met the sports interests of women, but never before has the government endorsed and promoted a way to measure that.
So the problem is that the government has provided a convenient way for schools to comply with the requirements? This seems unconvincing. This seems like a better way for the government to ensure that schools are actually in compliance and not just relying on "fake" procedures that purport to measure interest.

Another criticism of the methodology is that it does not "encourage women to participate" or that "women and girls might not express interest and ability in particular sports if they have not had the chance to play them." This seems to be misguided for two reasons. One, college is not the first place women play sports. Young girls are now introduced to a variety of sports at a young age, sparking the interest that will be reflected on such a survey. And even if there is some sport that a female may have wanted to play, but her high school or childhood sports leagues did not offer it, and thus she did not know if she had an interest, this could apply equally to males. I fail to see how this discriminates against female athletes.

Finally, the most misguided criticism, which I discussed yesterday, is that "no one answers email surveys." As I have said, if you have enough of an interest to play a varsity sport, you also should be able to answer and return a survey. The federal government should ensure that universities do not avoid high answer rates through conspiratorial procedures, but barring this, online surveys are the wave of the future.

Thus, it seems like the new methodology should be given a chance to succeed. If schools cheat or if it does not work, it can always be changed. And as Baseball Crank argues, women's sports probably has enough momentum now to grow on its own. But most likely, this procedure will work, schools will comply and Title IX will continue to be as relevant as is needed.

0 comments:

Post a Comment