In continuation of my most recent post, Title IX and High School Sports in the News, last week’s USA Today article, Advocacy group plans Title IX lawsuit over high schools, states that the ASC (American Sports Council), formerly the CSC, will seek legal action against the Department of Education based on their belief that application of Title IX rules to high school sports is unconstitutional.
The USA Today piece details very similar arguments to the ones pointed out in the SportsTribune article I highlighted on Monday. Bouncing back and forth from one side of the argument to the other, with the most impressive and articulate part coming from Fatima Goss Graves of the NWLC at the very end:
‘"Rather than looking at this as a zero sum game, they should be looking at ways to increase opportunities for both men and women."’
The question is, is that possible? I mean, can they increase opportunities for both males and females in high school sports without, at some point, having to cut opportunities for males in order to reach the proportionality that Title IX calls for?
It seems that there are two opposing forces at work here, especially since the reality of limited budgets would certainly put a cap on how much opportunity expansion for either gender could take place.
Me, I would vote for maintaining status quo for the boys and work toward bringing up opportunities for girls, but again, this does have budgetary constraints tied to it.
Which brings me back to the point I made at the end of Monday’s post, what exactly do we want “equal [equitable] opportunity” to mean? And once we figure that out, how can we apply this definition to “real world” situations in order to increase opportunity for one gender without diminishing opportunity for the other?
As of yet, I haven’t come up with an answer. Anyone else care to chime in???