Title IX isn't about equal opportunity
Tom McTaggart
junior
Lost in the wake of other prominent national events was the presidential commission on Title IX's failure to address several major problems it has caused over the last 30 years. I fully support equality, but Title IX isn't creating the equal opportunity it professes.
Right now, the George Washington University cross country program is cutting male athletes. Not because they aren't dedicated, not because they aren't talented, but because the school has been unable to find an equal number of female athletes to participate on the women's team. How is this equal opportunity?
Isn't the opportunity for everyone who is talented and dedicated enough to run cross country at GW a more equal policy than what is going on right now? Aren't equal opportunity and equal participation two different ideas?
The men's team at GW is actually lucky. Their program wasn't one of the more than 400 male athletic teams eliminated in the 1990s alone as schools attempt to comply with Title IX. Over 17,000 male collegiate athletes have seen their opportunity to compete erased by Title IX.
The fact that the numbers of female athletes in high school and college are skyrocketing is a great thing, but the fact that at the same time male athletes are being put out to pasture after high school is a disgrace.
Athletic programs should provide equal amounts of funding to men's and women's programs of the same sport. Like it or not, football dominates the college landscape. You may or may not have noticed that big cement structure next to DeBartolo. The game of football requires dozens of skilled players to compete. Because of this, football programs get a lot of scholarships. It's that simple. The women's basketball team doesn't receive fewer scholarships than football because men have this big, evil master plan — they receive fewer scholarships because they only play five at a time.
We shouldn't fault every other male program just because no one ever came up with a female football equivalent. Is it right to allow less funds for every other male program to make up for football? Title IX isn't about equal opportunity. Two equally talented high school gymnasts, swimmers, rowers or runners face completely different prospects of earning a college scholarship and having an opportunity to succeed in collegiate athletics depending if one is male or female.
And that is why Title IX has to go.
Look at our interhall football system for an example. Male dorms are forced to cut players due to a limited number of roster spots and equipment, while female teams send dozens of athletes to each game. If we want the "equality" Title IX provides, shouldn't we limit the number of women competing and make it equal to the number of men?
Additionally, there are no female members at Augusta National Golf Club, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. For every one all-male golf facility, there are ten female-only tennis clubs and fitness centers. Augusta lets females play on their course, but males aren't even allowed to enter the building at a brand new fitness center a few blocks from my house.
Augusta is a private club, so is the womens' fitness center in my town. One of my friends is a member there. She says she likes working out and spending time there with no men around. Apparently men aren't entitled to that same respect. I'm not condoning Augusta's admission policies, but I do think they should have the same rights as the fitness center down the street.
I don't expect the majority of women to agree with me, but don't explain your argument to me. I want you to explain it to the guy at George Washington who just found out his career is over because his dismissal was vital for "equality" in sports.
Tom McTaggart
junior
Haddon Heights, N.J.
Feb. 4
All Viewpoint Stories for Wednesday, February 5, 2003
