Title IX clause hurts men's athletics programs
Let me state at the outset that I fully support equality for women in collegiate athletics, and many aspects of Title IX. However, in light of the editorial in yesterday's paper (""Title IX remains relevant today,"" Nov. 8), I thought it important to clarify the effect the proportionality clause of Title IX has on men's athletic programs. I can only assume that the author of this editorial has had no contact with any of the thousands of male athletes and coaches whose programs have been cut'or they might rethink their callous, ""Oh well,"" tone.
The proportionality clause is directly related to the loss of men's programs; the loss of these programs is not always related to budgetary constraints; and, most importantly, the clause acts against its intended goal of ""gender equity"" and ""increased opportunity"" in collegiate athletics.
Under this clause, school officials face the risk of lawsuits and the loss of funding if they don't achieve compliance-where the percentage of female athletes must mirror the percentage of females in the student body. Cutting men's programs has become not only the quickest method of achieving proportionality, but sometimes it is the only viable method.
It is true that schools facing athletic revenue deficits-rising from attempts at achieving compliance-are the ones making many of these cuts. However, one of the most blatant abuses, ignored in the editorial, are the instances where money is not the issue and cuts are made only to meet proportionality.
In total, a 1997 NCAA gender equity study shows the loss of more than 200 men's teams and 20,000 male athletes between 1992 and 1997.
The story of the rise of women's collegiate athletics is encouraging, but it is unfortunate that it has been achieved in a manner that hardly merits celebration, or, as Camille Paglia aptly stated, ""on the smoking ruins of men's traditions.""
Thompson deserves notice in governor's race
It has come to my attention that mention of Ed Thompson's impending candidacy was omitted from a recent article chronicling the upcoming gubernatorial campaign. How and why? Ed has been no stranger to the media in recent weeks/months, be it state or national'see any number of Wisconsin dailies such as Madison's own State Journal or Green Bay's Press Gazette, as well as a New York Times' article which ran Sept. 1 of this year. Among others, personal visits have been paid to the World Dairy Expo and the recent UW homecoming parade. At best, then, your coverage illustrates an ignorance to the current happenings of Wisconsin politics, or at worst a conscious disservice to your readership.
In future coverage of the gubernatorial race, please pay due attention to the broader campaign and not simply to the Republicrats who doggedly drag the voting public into a state of utter indifference election after election, year after year. There is once again, in the proud tradition of the LaFollette-led Progressives, a viable alternative for the state of Wisconsin.
