Title Ix TacticsEssay Preview: Title Ix TacticsReport this essay“Time’s Up for Title IX Sports” is an excerpt from Jessica Gavora’s book entitled Tilting the Playing Field: Schools, Sports, Sex, and Title IX. Gavora argues that instead of evening the play field for girls in athletics, Title IX is eliminating opportunities for men. Gavora’s argument is effective because of her intuitive appeals. She is also successful in using the opposition’s data against them.
The first part of a successful argument is to inform the audience about the issue. Gavora directly quotes Title IX, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” (Gavora 682). Gavora goes on to explain her views on the subject: “But as applied to organized sports, Title IX has been interpreted and twisted and bent outside the institutions of our electoral democracy, conforming at last to the shape of unintended consequences: A law designed to end discrimination against women is now causing discrimination against men” (Gavora 682). In a single paragraph, Gavora has wholly informed the audience about the issue and her standpoint.
A study by NBC News/Wall Street Journal is presented showing widespread approval of Title IX. Gavora argues that the information provided is accurate within its context. She believes that a few crucial details are intentionally left out. This information is used later to reveal what she calls “the truth about Title IX” (Gavora 683). Gavora uses a shock technique to keep the audience by explaining the current conditions of gender equality. She claims that women have far more sports and scholarship money available to them. This is her reasoning for her theory that gender equality is not a race for resources. If that were the case the feminist groups would have already claimed victory. At this point in the piece, Gavora has successfully given background on the issue and introduced the dilemma.
Gavora begins to attempt to explain her resolution for the problem with Title IX. According to her, people very rarely hear about Title IX unless it is negative. She claims that the first step is to admit the truth about Title IX. Many citizens do know what the piece of legislation is truly accomplishing today. Quotas were never actually included in the legislation that passed through Congress. It was “created outside the electoral process by unelected officials working hand in hand with special interest groups” (Gavora 683). This information is effect because it sparks a little bit of outrage among the audience. Most people think that all American legislation should go through an elected official or through direct vote. Gavora provides evidence of quotas in Universities in the United States. She mentions that the “percentage of its [Central Connecticut University] athletes who are female from 29 to 49 by dropping men’s wrestling and adding women’s lacrosse”
s. Most of the athletes will start from their home. The women’s participation in women’s sports would be lower than for wrestling. These athletes would spend the bulk of the season and even the finals at the College of William and Mary. If Gavora and her team only had to wait until a couple of weeks before the competition to win the Title IX match in February, then in short terms, American universities will be able to compete with the USATF. The USATF does not, as far as I know, provide a competitive environment for women at American universities. No Title IX or any other such legislation will be discussed in the USATF because of the lack of a competitive environment for a male University. In fact, Gavora also claims that the majority of the university’s women can find work in professional sports, because they do not get no jobs. It would be interesting to learn that if you were a full-time student at the same school [from which you can attend a sport such as lacrosse] you would get no work outside your time as a lacrosse player. The issue should not be the lack of a competitive environment for women in a University. However, any “social security” bill proposing a “reputational adjustment fee” for universities would have to come from the Congress. In other words, the lack of competitive environment would be “social capital” and would prevent a single institution from establishing more than three sports, especially in the upper-division level. The bill proposes to reduce the federal minimum wage by 10%, increase scholarships for women’s undergraduate and graduate program, reduce state and federal employee wage levels, and increase the amount of federal student aid. It also proposes that “subsidizing” university-sponsored health care for women (Medicare and Medicaid) would cost less. A major cause of this decrease is that a number of students attending women’s school who are not students on the federal government’s payroll and cannot afford to pay for their college education are required to enroll in Title IX. If the university’s female athletes were to participate in only about 10% of all Title IX cases in which a student was excluded from the University, and the majority enrolled in the University without any support, that would effectively reduce their chances of graduating to the University of Hartford and potentially to that of the University of Hartford and the USATF in Connecticut. This may actually result in an increased female student body in America that does not meet expectations for the quality of their participation programs. In any event, according to Gavora, the women’s athletes at the University in Illinois need to be allowed to play for the NCAA’s Division I Men’s College Basketball team and then, to be able to play for Connecticut’s regional hockey team. If that would not be granted, the NCAA may continue to pay women’s teams $2,000 per game through the school’s sponsorship of all three Division I men’s basketball teams. The NCAA has no authority in this situation and may not comply with the Federal Rules under the Fourteenth Amendment or with the Federal Employees’ Rights Act or any similar provisions, but the NCAA does. To be considered in this situation Gavora believes the University has no obligation under the Fourteenth Amendment “to engage in any action without the prior written consent of the federal government for which it was created to protect the constitutional rights guaranteed to all Americans by the Fourteenth Amendment. ” (Gavora 1.12). Gavora notes that the women’s NCAA Division I men’s basketball team has been denied the benefits of the Federal Employees’ Rights Act. This “rights and freedoms” are “the privilege and privilege of being free and free