The greediest blog on the net.
Sunday, November 02, 2003
I thought that the desegregation cases I've been reading are horrible misinterpretations of the law, but Title IX is just as bad. The analysis uses a three-prong test:
1. Does the school offering proportional varsity roster slots to men and women based on school population ratio?
No: Prong 2.
This seems to be a pure quota: the ratios must be equal.
2. Is the school moving towards offering proportional varsity roster slots to men and women?
No: Prong 3.
This also seems to be a quota: the ratios must be approaching equality. However, prong 1 mandates equal ratios, so this victory would be short-lived.
3. Does the school accommodate the interests and abilities of men and women?
No: Fails Title IX. Women's programs must be added.
However, empirically demonstration that women have less interest does not justify fewer opportunities. Then how can prong 3 ever be met? The only thing left is the quota system from prongs 1 and 2.
The quota system is funny since Title IX "shall not be interpreted to require any educational institution to grant preferential or disparate treatment to the members of one sex on account of an imbalance which may exist."
There is a small discussion of viability of women's sports, but $1.8M losses (i.e., I have to pay $400/year for UT women's basketball, plus money for softball, volleyball, etc.) should not meet any viability standard. Instead, all the emphasis is placed on "success" while ignoring that among several viable programs there will be a winner.
I can't wait to see what kind of liberal gloss Powe puts on this.
Posted by Gel 7:55 PM Post a Comment
Real Friends' Blogs