Title IX: guilty unjustly

On January 19, 2011, the University of Delaware cut two sports teams of men: track and field across country and in the open air. The athletics department of the U. said that the transfer consisted of keeping in accordance with title IX. However, UD is not the only sports court of the university. Recently, the University of North Dakota cut two of its men's teams. UND's athletic director said title IX was a factor in the court's decision to cut the programs.

Title IX was created in 1972 to end gender discrimination in educational programs that receive federal financial assistance. The law has made great progress in advancing gender equality, especially with regard to women's sports. Many young women had the opportunity to practice sports that they could not participate before. However, the law has become a common explanation why college sports teams are cutting off. So how could a federal law that promotes gender equality, such as Title IX, creates inequality for men?

The truth of the matter is that Title IX unjustly damages the fault of cutting the sports teams of men. Sports departments are just to blame. The atypical little orientated budgets lead to the end of the men's teams. The university's university departments are too proud to admit it, which is why they call Title IX their Turkish leader. This was the case for both the University of Delaware and the University of North Dakota. UD cut two teams of men to pour more money into their soccer program. UND cut two teams of men as part of a $ 2.4 million budget cut in their athletics department. Title IX was used unfortunately as a deflection for the true reason why these teams were cut.

How can colleges and universities manage a budget so poor that they have to cut down on the team of people who asks you? Well, the answer is surprisingly simple: football. Football has the highest budget for any other university sport. University football programs can also award up to 85 scholarships. Unfortunately, there is no female sport that can counter football in terms of scholarships and funding. Due to title IX, schools have to adjust this amount of funding to women's sports, leaving sports teams of other men with little or no money. In "Rethinking how to apply title IX", Frank Deford suggests separating football from the university's athletic departments. It proposes putting football under the category of entertainment or enthusiasm of former students. Doing so would be in line with title IX since football does not have any female analog. Once the football is separated, the sport no longer has to fulfill title IX.

Even with the separation of football, title IX is not entirely clear. The US Congress must review Title IX in order to support not only equality between men and women, but between sports teams of men and sports teams of women. A new revision of title IX must be that each school has the same amount of money assigned to each team, depending on the number of student athletes in the sport. Another rule should be that the proportion of female athlete to athlete must be exactly 50/50. With these new rules, women's athletics would be exactly the same in terms of funding and number of athletes for male athletics.

We are going to take a college of fiction, College X, for example. Image A has a budget of $ 74,000 for athletics and currently has 74 registered athletes. Therefore, College X's athlete's expense would be $ 1,000. Let's say that College X has 3 sports: men and women, basketball and women stirring. The basketball teams in the photo have 12 list points, so they assign a budget of $ 12,000 for each team. The rowing team has 50 women in the team, so it gives you a $ 50,000 budget. However, according to the new rules, College X would be violated because the number of male athletes is less than the number of female athletes. However, if College X has added a male swim team with 50 list points, College X should no longer violate the new rules of Title IX.

With regard to football, the new revision should not allow the football budget of a specific school to exceed 33% of the general athletics budget. Returning to the example of College X, College Football team X could not have a budget of more than $ 24,420, exactly 33% of the $ 74,000 athletic budget for College X. The 33% may seem like a lot of money and a significant part of the athletics budget, but this is only a fraction of what soccer programs usually spend. "According to the statistics chosen by the Sports writer on Earth, Patrick Hruby, in Rutgers, one of the teams cut, male tennis, had a budget of $ 175,000, which is roughly what the team soccer passed to hotel rooms for her home and between 1986 and 2009, the average salary of football coaches in 44 programs of great importance went from $ 273,000 to more than $ 2 million "(Zimmerman) With these new rules in force, football budgets will not be scandalous compared to the budgets of other sports teams.

With this revision of the current law, the athletic departments will be forced to manage a budget correctly. Soccer budgets will remain in line with other sports programs. The most important thing is that these new rules will promote equality between men and women's sports as the title IX was designed.

Deford, Frank. "Rethinking how the title IX applies". Npr. Np, May 2, 2007. Web.

Zimmerman, Jonathan. "Blame football, not the title IX." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, January 9, 2014. Web. March 14, 2016.

Source by Mark Wellborn