Schlafly on Title IX

Noted here and there...

First off, let me sing the praises of the excellent new Carnival of the Feminists 7 up at Feministe.

Reflecting on yesterday's 6-3 Supreme Court decision on assisted suicide, one can only conclude that the elevation of Samuel Alito will still leave Anthony Kennedy and other relatively progressive social voices in charge.  The key question -- can John Paul Stevens, the court's oldest justice and a moderate liberal, hang on until a Democratic president can name his replacement?  Much seems to hinge on that, more than on either of the previous two vacancies.

And then, there's this stunner from Phylis Schlafly: Radical Feminists Reinterpret Title IX.  It's filled with the old-time religion that blames women and girls for the decline in male enrollment on college campuses.  What's noteworthy is that she builds her piece around the immensely entertaining (and for some of us, heartbreaking) Rose Bowl game of a fortnight ago:

This year's spectacular Rose Bowl game attracted a phenomenal 35.6 million viewers because it featured what we want: rugged men playing football and attractive women cheering them on. Americans of every class, men and women, remained glued to their television sets and nearly 95,000 spectators watched from the stands.

The runaway success of this game proved again that stereotypical roles for men and women do not bother Americans one bit. Political correctness lost out as all-male teams battled and women cheered.

I'm assuming that the "attractive" women Schlafly refers to are the female cheerleaders and dance squad members for USC and the University of Texas.  Of course, perhaps she means my lovely wife?

I'm a bit baffled as to how "political correctness" lost out at the Rose Bowl, however.  USC, long ago shedding its conservative reputation, has one of the most progressive Gender Studies programs in America, as well as the best archive of lesbian history in the English speaking world.  I know plenty of very left-wing gender-studies types affiliated with the university -- and almost to a man and a woman, they are all football-crazed.  (Last week I chatted with a sixty-something lesbian couple whom I know, affiliated with USC's ONE Institute and of impeccable PC credentials; they were still gnashing their teeth in frustration at Coach Carroll's play-calling.)  So enough with the tired old idea that all authentic feminists don't like football.

Schlafly gets odder:

It's too bad that male sports are being eliminated on most college campuses. Except for Texas, USC, and a few other places, radical feminism rules in the athletic departments at the expense of popular male sports.

Gosh, as I said, 'SC has the most progressive Gender Studies program on the West Coast.  And some pretty awesome women's teams in a variety of sports (water polo, track, and at least in the 1980s with Cheryl Miller, basketball.)  They've managed to fully fund both men's and women's teams just fine.

More fine logic:

The Rose Bowl proved that public demand is for all-male sports, not female contests. Boys do not want to go to a college that eliminates the macho sports, and that is true even if the boy does not expect to compete himself.

The effects of the feminists' attack on men's sports are now coming home to roost. By the time this year's college freshmen are seniors, the ratio will be 60 percent women to 40 percent men, and women are now crying that there are not enough college-educated men to marry.

China's brutal one-child policy has artificially created millions of young men for whom no wives are available. Right here at home, the feminists have created millions of college-educated women for whom no college-educated men are available, and the trend is getting steadily worse.

The American people clearly want male football, baseball, track and wrestling, and colleges that cut these sports should be cut out of the federal budget.

Well, I don't know what Schlafly means by "eliminate macho sports."  The male teams that have been cut by many universities in recent years include swimming and tennis and crew -- not traditionally seen as "macho" compared to football and basketball (which are cut far less often.)

Schlafly suggests that the American public would much rather see men play anything than women.  But it's absurd to imply that all intercollegiate men's sports are more popular than all women's sports!  Yes, football is the sacred cow of American university athletics.  But Phyllis, with all respect, I'm willing to bet I've been to a heck of a lot more intercollegiate track meets than you have.  I've sat in a near-empty Drake Stadium at UCLA (one of the most famous venues in the sport), watching the Bruin men in many a dual meet.  (Quick: name the defending NCAA champions in cross-country and track.  No looking it up on line! Yeah, that's what I thought.)  I've been to water polo games and soccer matches and gotten the best seat in the house time and time again -- most folks don't care about the so-called minor sports, regardless of who's playing!  On the other hand, the famous University of Tennessee women's basketball program regularly outdraws their male counterparts in terms of spectator attendance, and I've often seen more fans at UCLA softball games than at Bruin baseball matches. 

If these are the best arguments against Title IX that the right can come up with, we're in better shape than I thought.

Comments

[will]

Very interesting topic.

Like most people who make sweeping generalizations based on single events, schlafly makes a fool of herself.

I like the concept of title IX. I do not know enough about the specifics of the statute to comment much about its implimentation, except to say that "revenue" sports dont always bring in as much actual revenue as they claim.

I will also disagree with her if she is trying to say that by enjoying the Rose Bowl the public accepts and loves cheerleading.

I hate cheerleading. Too much sexualization. Too much about girls supporting boys instead of doing their own thing.

[Mr. Bad]

Hugo, to me Schlafly sounds as strident and prone to generalities and hyperbole as most feminists, so much of your missive sounds like 'pot-calling-the-kettle black' to me. However, you stated: "Well, I don't know what Schlafly means by 'eliminate macho sports.' The male teams that have been cut by many universities in recent years include swimming and tennis and crew -- not traditionally seen as "macho" compared to football and basketball (which are cut far less often.)" However, this isn't true Hugo - the most common team cut from college campuses is men's wrestling; this was highlighted in the Title IX lawsuit and subsequent hearings a few years ago. Further, the main problem highlighted by those hearing was the proportionality test for compliance. Currently funding must be equal regardless of actual interest in sports by women on campus as compared to men. Never mind that there are a lot more men interested in participating in sports than there are women, all the resources must be equal, at least when it advantages women; you won't hear those arguments when it comes to funding things like men's resource centers, men's studies departments, etc.

I don't have a problem with Title IX in theory, it's the implementation that is problematic. I believe that Title IX was meant to apply to more than just athletics - it was intended to apply to all resources and facilities at colleges and universities that receive Federal funding. Therefore, I would like to see more rigorous and just enforcement of Title IX to include things such as men's studies departments (if we can't eliminate women's studies), men's resource centers, equal numbers of men-only dorms and other housing, more targeted affirmative action for men (if affirmative action can't be eliminated), etc.

The problems are in the implementation and enforcement of Title IX, not the underlying philosophy.

As for your personal anecdotes re. attendance at women's sporting events, of course your mileage may vary, but other than women's figure skating and tennis, men's sports are far more popular with the public at large than women's sports. However, because of Title IX, men's wrestling, swimming, gymnastics, and other sports are at risk on college campuses.

[Lauren]

At my university, sports fund themselves.

Mr. Bad, gender studies is the new replacement for "women's studies" and attempts to look at gender in greater context including turning a focus on the the construction of male genders. Of course intro courses focus on feminism in part because they rely on feminist pedagogy as a model for classroom workings.

[kate.d.]

all the talk about people liking to watch male sports more than female sports always rings a bit hollow to me because, well, how often did people really have the choice? in the larger scheme of things, womens sports have only been available for moderate to wide-scale viewing for a very short period of time. it's going to take longer than a few decades to erode some of the deeply entrenched societal beliefs about who should play sports and why.

same goes for critics of title IX funding and the "lack of interest" among women in college to play certain sports. it's disingenous to say that women don't "want" to play sports, when you've hardly given them the time to start considering the possibility that they can, and should. changing attitudes takes time, but it doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do.

[djw]

Hugo, you don't know how to use the phrase PC. PC is what you call things you don't like or understand, and un-PC is what you call things that your imaginary enemies must surely hate for all the wrong reasons.

[Hugo]

DJW -- Oh. :-)

[alexander]

it's going to take longer than a few decades to erode some of the deeply entrenched societal beliefs about who should play sports and why.

This is exactly the problem with Title IX. It's one more example of the government using force to brainwash people. The agenda which the above quote promotes is the state coming in and telling people what they should believe.

What if someone chooses to prefer men's sports? Does that make them an enemy of society? Should they be subjected to more indoctrination? Should they be blacklisted?

The poster seems to be unable to understand the concept of a free market: that people have a right to make their own choices. And if people choose not to watch womyn's sports, that is their right. If womyn's sports lose out because people choose not to watch them, feminists have no right to go to the government and then use force -- in this case money gathered involuntarilly by taxes -- to rig the game in their favor.

This is what Phyllis Schafly was getting at in her editorial.

[evil_fizz]

The government attaches strings to the money it provides to institutions and states *all the time*. Witness the drinking age, which is tied to federal highway funding. The government here isn't putting a restraint on the free market by telling the NFL to start sponsoring women's football. It's demanding that colleges and universities provide equal funding. And for crying out loud, the word is women.

Sorry for the thread drift, Hugo.

[kate.d.]

shoot, i am always forgetting to genuflect before the Free Market before i speak.

of course people have the right to make their own choices. my point is that they didn't have the choice to watch (or play) certain women's sports for the longest time. and now that choice is being provided to them, and we need to give it a little time and see how things develop.

[Antigone]

Men's Studies? Gee, at my university that's called "The English, Physcis, Biology, and History Departments".

And the dorms are generally proportional to the number of female vs males on campus. (Except for here at UND, which offers way more to men).

Free market means that women don't want to play sports? BAHAHAHAHAHA! When the hell has the free market ever exsisted? *hehe snort snigger*

[Mr. Bad]

Antigone wrote: "Men's Studies? Gee, at my university that's called "The English, Physcis, Biology, and History Departments".

Heh - That's a good one AG. Sometimes those old gems from the '60s are just as funny now as the first time I heard them 40 years ago. But that's so yesterday - can't you feminists come up with anything new? Come on, it's been almost a half century now since you first laid that bullshit us.

Like there's "men's" math, physics, biology - hahahahaha. What universe do you live in? In the one I live in, men and women are certainly equal when it comes to the laws of physics abd biology. For instance, apparently in the universe you live in women have to deal with more gravity than men, which undoubtedly is because gravity - being a manifestation of the Patriarchal Conspiracy (TM) to hold women down that "male" physics most certainly is - is a much greater force on women than men.

Uh huh.

Bwaaaaahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

However, because those universal truths re. physics, math, medicine, science in general, etc., that exist in the universe that I live in were first discovered and described by (- gasp! -) Dead White Males (TM) like Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, et al., well, they just must be wrong. At least according to the religious fanatics of The Sisterhood of Feminism.

Yeah, right. Gotcha.

As for english and history, since those have mostly been co-opted as vehicles for women's/queer studies, I have no interest and thus no knowledge whatsoever about they're all about. They lost me when they abandoned Shakespeare for Ensler.

[alexander]

The government attaches strings to the money it provides to institutions and states *all the time*. Witness the drinking age, which is tied to federal highway funding.

This is true, and it is wrong, wrong, wrong! A direct violation of the 9th Amendment. It's simply a way for the federal government to coerce the states into passing laws which their own voters reject by using tax money -- extorted from the states' taxpayers -- as a gun to the head. The fact that feminists support this kind of extortion only shows how once again the feminist agenda is about using force instead of persuasion. And violating the Bill of Rights. So there!

my point is that they didn't have the choice to watch (or play) certain women's sports for the longest time.

This is simple nonsense. There was absolutely nothing to stop women and women's colleges from organizing their own football leagues, for example.

Let me note that at one of the universities I am associated with the administration is lockstep behind the PATRIOT ACT. Why? The reason, stated by the university president (a liberal woman!) is that if the university does not get in line, the federal government will pull the $10,000,000 or so dollars it "gives" the university every year.

When the feds started registering Middle Eastern students a few years back, the administration marched along with this disgraceful program because if they dared object, they were afraid the feds would pull the plug on the cash flow. So posted flyers all over the university telling Middle Eastern students to show up at the federal building, or else. Now I know what it must have been like to have seen Japanese-Americans interned in World War Two.

How does feminism reconcile itself with this jackbooted thuggery?

[alexander]

The government attaches strings to the money it provides to institutions and states *all the time*. Witness the drinking age, which is tied to federal highway funding.

This is true, and it is wrong, wrong, wrong! A direct violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments. It's simply a way for the federal government to coerce the states into passing laws which their own voters reject by using tax money -- extorted from the states' taxpayers -- as a gun to the head. The fact that feminists support this kind of extortion only shows how once again the feminist agenda is about using force instead of persuasion. And violating the Bill of Rights. So there!

my point is that they didn't have the choice to watch (or play) certain women's sports for the longest time.

This is simple nonsense. There was absolutely nothing to stop women and women's colleges from organizing their own football leagues, for example.

Let me note that at one of the universities I am associated with the administration is lockstep behind the PATRIOT ACT. Why? The reason, stated by the university president (a liberal woman!) is that if the university does not get in line, the federal government will pull the $10,000,000 or so dollars it "gives" the university every year.

When the feds started registering Middle Eastern students a few years back, the administration marched along with this disgraceful program because if they dared object, they were afraid the feds would pull the plug on the cash flow. So posted flyers all over the university telling Middle Eastern students to show up at the federal building, or else. Now I know what it must have been like to have seen Japanese-Americans interned in World War Two.

How does feminism reconcile itself with this jackbooted thuggery?

[Space Chick]

So, the reason men go to college is to play sports? Gosh, I thought it was to get an education!

[Noumena]

Hopefully that closed the runaway italics ...

Sorry to hijack things even more, but -- Mr. Bad, are you actually familiar with the feminist critiques of physics et al. you're so quick to dismiss? I can't speak to Physics, but sexism is still an issue in the composition of Mathematics departments (who gets hired, who gets tenure, who is assigned which roles within the department, etc.). At least one anthology was published on this last year, Gender Differences in Mathematics.

Anyway, my understand is that Wrestling was often cut in favour of money to officially support female teams (of course women could form their own unofficial teams prior to Title IX; they just couldn't get any money from the university for it, the way men did) because Wrestling was nowhere near as popular as other sports -- a handful of guys want to wrestle, no-one comes to the meets, the record over the past decade isn't so great, and meanwhile a whole lot of girls are interested in basketball, so it seems fair for the school to go with a women's basketball team over wrestling. Perhaps my impression was wrong?

[Space Chick]

Or maybe the guys could form their own unofficial teams for sports which have been cut, and once they do well enough against other schools and get enough of a fan base, the school can reinstate them and cut some other sport that isn't doing well. Since that seems to have been an approach used for women's teams, turnabout would be fair play...

[Noumena]

Blech, my mind is dysfunctional this morning. Apologies for the double post.

Title IX, like affirmative action programs more generally, is not about 'brainwashing' or even trying to change attitudes. These programs only have an effect on adults, long after biases have been inculcated. If the idea were to eliminate racist and sexist memes, rather than racist and sexist practices, affirmative action programs would involve things like elementary and junior high school curricula. To my knowledge, Title IX does not require all sixth graders to watch Bend It Like Beckham.

Rather, the purpose of affirmative action programs is to combat institutional discrimination against groups of people who have suffered historical discrimination. For example, before Title IX, very few universities even offered women the option to participate in intramural sports, much less gave female athletes the expensive facilities and staffing they lavish on male football and basketball players. Title IX addresses this longstanding and systematic discrimination directly, by requiring schools to give women and men roughly equal opportunities to participate in sports.

While the generation of empirical data will make it hard for individuals to maintain sexist views in a post-Title IX world -- in this case, I suppose the view would be that women are less interested/less capable athletes than men -- the law certainly doesn't punish anyone for holding or expressing these views. Phyllis Schlafly (sp) is free to think women don't want to be athletes, she just can't turn her views into an institutional policy of any federally-supported university she happens to be on the board of trustees of.

[The Happy Feminist]

As someone who attended an academically oriented women's college, I always find it odd when discussions of Title IX wind up becoming discussions of whether women's sports are popular among spectators. Yes, I understand that some colleges rely heavily on sports to generate spectator revenue. But surely the PRIMARY purpose of sports programs at the college level should be to serve the sports' participants, not to entertain crowds of people. Phyllis Schlafly misses the mark when she relies on football's overwhelming popularity to support her critique of Title IX and women's sports. Traditionally, the educational ideal is "a sound mind in a sound body," not "a sound mind in a sound body that can entertain the masses in the most popular sports."

[Hugo]

Happy, that's an excellent point. Though I go to many a college football game, my happiest memories of my own unathletic college years were of going to countless swim meets and softball contests, watching classmates play not for television exposure or professional contracts, but for love of the game and of their university.

[evil_fizz]

Curses, I was trying to avoid the thread drift here, but you're wrong, alexander. The government attaches strings to the money it provides to institutions and states *all the time*. Witness the drinking age, which is tied to federal highway funding.

This is true, and it is wrong, wrong, wrong! A direct violation of the 9th Amendment. It's simply a way for the federal government to coerce the states into passing laws which their own voters reject by using tax money -- extorted from the states' taxpayers -- as a gun to the head.

Are you even remotely familar with the case law? There are cases in which the terms of federal funding have been found to be coercive. See New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898. There's an awful lot of nuance that you're missing here.

Back to the topic at hand, I feel compelled to point out that people aren't demanding baseball. In fact, it's been cut from the Olympics. There's also relatively little demand for collegiate wrestling as a spectator sport. The money (if you're a highly successful, Div 1 school) is in football and basketball. There are very few university athletic programs that pay for themselves. In fact, they're more likely to be a financial drain on colleges than anything else.

Also, although it's neither here nor there, I think it's extremely dubious for universities to function as the minor leagues for men's basketball and football. The point of college is supposed to be education, not a good signing bonus when you enter the NBA after your sophomore year. I know I'm definitely in the minority, but I'd go so far as to call for the elimination of the current collegiate athletic system as we know it.

[evil_fizz]

hopefully, that ends my italics snafu.

[Mr. Bad]

Noumena wrote: "I can't speak to Physics, but sexism is still an issue in the composition of Mathematics departments (who gets hired, who gets tenure, who is assigned which roles within the department, etc.). At least one anthology was published on this last year, Gender Differences in Mathematics."

Except that you're missing the point (deliberately?): It shouldn't matter what sex, race, religion, etc., the instructor is re. math and science because despite the rhetoric of career sexists and racists in the diversity industry, there is no specific perspective vis-a-vis sex, racial, religious, etc., for the topics. The laws of nature are faultlessly and ruthlessly neutral when it comes to identity politics; they simple are what they are, nothing more. For example, gravity exerts the same pull on female mass as it does male mass; 2+2=4 just as much for African Americans as it does for Korean Americans; etc. To argue otherwise is patently ridiculous. Now, there might (arguably) be a place for different interpretations for a subject like history, but not for math and science, which is why the push to discriminate (via affirmative action) in favor of minorities and women and against non-Jewish white males is not only unfounded and absurd, it is actually harmful to the academy and society at large. The best minds should be leading and teaching, not the most politically correct by virtue of their sex, skin color, religious affiliation, etc.

Further, I don't for one second buy the theory that discrimination is responsible for the variability in representation of women in math and science; all the data I've personally looked at point to individual choice. It's the same mechanism that causes men to be underrepresented in, e.g., nursing.

Unless of course you're going to argue that nursing schools actively discriminate against men.

"Anyway, my understand is that Wrestling was often cut in favour of money to officially support female teams (of course women could form their own unofficial teams prior to Title IX; they just couldn't get any money from the university for it, the way men did) because Wrestling was nowhere near as popular as other sports -- a handful of guys want to wrestle, no-one comes to the meets, the record over the past decade isn't so great, and meanwhile a whole lot of girls are interested in basketball, so it seems fair for the school to go with a women's basketball team over wrestling. Perhaps my impression was wrong?"

I think that you're probably correct, however, one has to ask what value the various teams bring to the academy. I would probably agree that re. wrestling and women's basketball, all things being equal, it's probably a wash as to which brings more value to the institution, and likely quite variable and dependent on individual school. However, as I said before, it is my understanding that Title IX addresses a lot more than just athletics, so IMO if they're going to vigorously enforce it in the context of women's sports, then they need to also vigorously enforce it for men's resources, such as men's centers, men's studies (if we can't eliminate women's studies, which IMO is preferable), men's health programs, etc.

"Title IX, like affirmative action programs more generally, is not about 'brainwashing' or even trying to change attitudes... Rather, the purpose of affirmative action programs is to combat institutional discrimination against groups of people who have suffered historical discrimination."

Except that the concept of "strict scrutiny" (resulting from a case decided by the SCOTUS) forbids discrimination on the basis of 'righting past wrongs,' so if schools are not complying with the narrow and targeted application of affimative action required by the Supreme Court - and instead using to 'make up for past wrongs' - then they are in violation of the law and should be prosecuted.

I trust that the resident attorneys will correct me if I'm wrong, but I beleve that you describe above, i.e., using AA to 'make up for past wrongs,' is blatantly illegal. However, either way, your argument goes directly against the diversity lobby, who argue that diversity is about changing attitudes, minds, etc., via the kinds of discussions that occur between people who are different.

It's just too bad that the self-proclaimed diversity 'experts' are emabarassingly simple-minded, shallow racists and sexists who literally only consider people skin-deep. You won't hear those folks arguing for diversity on the basis political and philosophical perspective, etc. To them it's all about race and sex, which to men is quite telling and shocking in its blatant racism and sexism.

The Happy Feminist wrote: "But surely the PRIMARY purpose of sports programs at the college level should be to serve the sports' participants, not to entertain crowds of people."

That's precisely the argument offered by the advocates for men's wrestling vis-a-vis eliminating the proportionality test; what they wanted was to change to a compliance test where allocation for resources reflected the interest of the students to participate. On the other hand, the proportionality test requires that resources be allocated for men's and women's activities based on raw enrollment data, not actual interest in the various activities, and since women have been the majority on most campuses now for well over a decade, the feminists of course advocated in favor of the proportionality test because it gave women the advantage, especially because the numbers show that most of the time fewer women want to participate in targeted activities than men do. So what we have is more money for women, all of it going to fewer female athletes, therefore, more money per athlete. If you're a woman - especially a feminist - what's not to love about that?

Hugo wrote: "Though I go to many a college football game, my happiest memories of my own unathletic college years were of going to countless swim meets and softball contests, watching classmates play not for television exposure or professional contracts, but for love of the game and of their university."

Hugo, if you truly feel this way, then you should be someone who is against the proportionality test and in favor of allocation of resources based on the interest level of the athletes.

That is, if you truly believe what you wrote and aren't just trying to play to your audience.

[Antigone]

Maybe I'm going to a way different school, Mr. Bad, but in my classes, women are rarely, if ever, mentioned.

My 20th century philosophy class, for instance, did not mention a single female (or minority for that matter) in the entire textbook. Not one: not even a wife, an influence, or an editor.

My Brit Lit class? We had ONE day where we discussed Margery Kempt, when each of the male authors got at least a week each.

These are representative of my classes, and I'm in a "soft" major: communications. It is rare that we learn about female ANYTHING. And it's not they don't exsist, or aren't important: it's that are not included.

You know, it is an old joke. I guess that's why it's sad instead of funny.

[Caitriona]

Hugo, I'm skipping all the comments to your post. I just wanted to say, "What ELSE do you expect from Phyllis Schafly???"

Phyllis and Roger Schafly are two of the biggest pains on the 'net. I've had more than one run-in with Roger on Usenet. He's definitely his mother's son.

[Mr. Bad]

Antigone said: "Maybe I'm going to a way different school, Mr. Bad, but in my classes, women are rarely, if ever, mentioned.

My 20th century philosophy class, for instance, did not mention a single female (or minority for that matter) in the entire textbook. Not one: not even a wife, an influence, or an editor."

Antigone, you're changing the subject. We were - or at least I was - talking about math and science, not humanities, where I already stated that there's an argument for including diversity vis-a-vis race, sex, etc. - but most importantly, intellectual, political, and philosophical perspective.

However, I don't believe that what you note, i.e., that philosophy classes are dominated by males, is due to current discrimination. I believe that the simple fact is that most great philosophers have been men, so of course you're going to study mostly men. It's similar to the condition for males in women's studies - you won't talk about many male leaders and thinkers in those courses because there simply haven't been many. Now, you might want to argue about why it's the case that there haven't been many (any?) outstanding female philosophers, but such arguments are better left for a women's studies, political science, or history class, not philosophy, where the topic should be the philosophy itself rather than gender politics.