Katie Thomas' article in yesterday's New York Times addresses the deceptive maneuvers of some colleges and universities in their reporting of male and female athletes on the official rosters of the school's sports teams, and their blatant disregard for the intentions of Title IX. Thomas writes: Ever since Congress passed the federal gender-equity law known as Title IX, universities have opened their gyms and athletic fields to millions of women who previously did not have chances to play. But as women have surged into a majority on campus in recent years, many institutions have resorted to subterfuge to make it look as if they are offering more spots to women.
Title IX, enacted in 1972, states that: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..." Thanks to the passing of Title IX 40 years ago, the numbers of women competing in college-level sports has risen 500%. However, as Thomas reports, these numbers are skewed, as loopholes within the law allow for men who practice on women's teams to be counted as females, and for female athletes to be counted multiple times (the same person can be reported on the rosters of outdoor track, indoor track, and cross-country, and count three separate times). Therefore the numbers may seem high overall, but the actual number of female athletes is lower given the double-and-triple counting of participants.
In my opinion, the biggest issue (besides the shady practices of university officials) is the lack of scholarship opportunities for women who participate in college sports. Football players, whether they play or not, are routinely offered large scholarships, which are often not scholastically deserved nor maintained. With football rosters teetering around 100, much money is diverted to male participants. As the general female population on college campuses nears 57%, there is a growing need to support young women attending college and prevent them from falling into massive debt paying their tuition bills. Scholarships, both athletic and academic, are sorely needed during this time of rising college costs. Financial issues are a major feminist concern, as women have historically been pigeonholed into jobs and profession with low wages...or ones with no pay at all (homemaker). For more on this subject, check out Barbara Ehrenreich's writing, specifically Nickel and Dimed.
It might just be because of this blog and I have somewhere to post stories, but I feel like I can't keep up with the gender inequality stories recently! This morning, NET did a segment on the pay gap in Nebraska being significantly larger than the national average ($.71 to $.80). What was most interesting to me was the gap in high earning professions- doctors, lawyers, professors- because there wasn't the typical "women pick different professions than men, that's why there is a gap" argument to fall back on.
ReplyDeleteThe Title IX controversy is similar in that way- it's not that women aren't choosing athletics- the schools just aren't prioritizing them in the same way. I also think of the continued path of male athletics- if you're good enough in college you DO get to play professionally. Which makes me think that I really need to cheer women's teams more- I wanted to go to a basketball game last year (they were quite good) but never did. And the funny thing is, they were so much better than the men's team, but the deal was you paid for a men's basketball game and you got the women's for free....
yup.
Here's the link to the NET story
ReplyDeleteand Fresh Air tonight- towards the middle there are comments about the idealists vs. realists gender breakdown in the current administration.
This isn't exactly related, but this makes me think of a book I read last year-- Why So Slow? by Virginia Valian. It's an extremely well-researched look at the slow advancement of women in the professions.
ReplyDeleteValian theorizes that what she calls "the accumulation of disadvantage" accounts for much of the income/status discrepancies between men and women working in the same professions.
This review says it well:
"(Valian) argues that we all have unarticulated, often subconscious ideas about gender that affect both our behavior and, perhaps even more importantly, our evaluations of one another. For instance, we think men are logical, women are social; men are competent, women are flaky. As a result, men are consistently overrated and women underrated by coworkers, bosses--and themselves. The resulting advantages and disadvantages may be small, but they accrue over time to create large gaps in advancement."
An interesting idea, I think.