Classism One: Title IX

One of the choruses of Right Wing Anti-Feminists' thirty-five year rendition of "I Want a Girl Just Like the Girl Who Married Dear Old Great-great-great Grandad" contains lyrics full of fear and loathing of Title IX, the act that give birth to Mia Hamm and the WNBA.

The Right's hatred of Title IX is almost certainly just another expression of their general hatred of anything that has happened over the last hundred and fifty years to give rights, privileges, opportunities, security, and hope to people who previously didn't have many or any of those---Civil Rights, the Labor Movement, Welfare, Social Security, the Women's movement---and lessened the power and prerogatives of people who were rich and overprivileged---the progressive income tax, workplace safety regulations, environmental protection laws, affirmative action.

But they seem to think they hate Title IX because they believe in fairness.

Title IX takes opportunities away from boys and young men, they protest.  And that's unfair!

The usual line of reasoning goes like this:

Because Title IX requires schools that get federal money to offer as many sports scholarships to women as it does to men (I'm simplifying; it doesn't require exactly that.), schools have had to end some of their men's sports programs.

The critics of Title IX rarely suggest that another way to achieve parity would be not to shift funding around but simply increase it for women.  But that would cost money, some of which, in the cases of public schools and state universities that exist on government funding, would have to be raised by increasing taxes, and being good "conservatives" they're not about to advocate that.

Besides, like I said, their object isn't fairness anyway.  It's the opposite.

Now, it is true that some schools have gotten rid of or defunded some of their male sports---men's tennis teams, men's swimming teams, men's fencing teams, men's gymnastics, and in not a few cases men's baseball have all suffered.

But there are two men's sports programs that never suffer.

Football and basketball.

Can't touch those.

They bring in serious money.

Title IX isn't unfair to men.  It's unfair to men whose athletic prowess is not a contingency of their height or muscle mass.

Which is to say that's it's not Title IX that's unfair; it's this country's obsession with football and basketball and winning that's unfair.

As it turns out, schools have cut or defunded plenty of women's sports too---women's tennis, women's fencing, women's gymnastics...

And they have poured the money saved into women's basketball and soccer and, in some of the more civilized areas of the country like upstate New York, lacrosse.

So an outcome of Title IX has been an unfairness to women whose athletic prowess does not reside in their height or ability to shrug off a body check.

I understand that it can be cheaper to maintain one big team sport in place of four or five little sports.  Savings in transportation costs alone can be huge.  If you have to get 40 student athletes to their next competition, it's better, cheaper, if they all have to be at the same place at the same time and can all ride the same bus.

But Division I colleges do not do anything on the cheap when it comes to their sports programs.

The big team sports are also where the money is.  More paying customers will turn out to watch a women's basketball game than a men's fencing match.

The problem with Title IX is capitalism.

But you won't hear a "conservative" point that one out.

You will hear one claim that the problem with Title IX is that it's not just keeping men from playing sports at college; it's turning them away from college altogether.

That is, you'll hear one say it if you follow a link ManDrake of Daffodil Lane sent me to a post by the Carpetbagger.

The Carpetbagger has found and deconstructed a rant against Title IX by Phyllis Schlafly.

Schlafly is concerned that the elimination of the manlier of the manly sports is causing young men to give up on the idea of going to college.  She says:

The Rose Bowl proved that public demand is for all-male sports, not female contests. Boys do not want to go to a college that eliminates the macho sports, and that is true even if the boy does not expect to compete himself.

I guess all those young men who want to get into Harvard and Yale want to because of those schools' powerhouse football programs.

Graduates of the University of Chicago can tell us how that school's elimination of its football team several generations ago has resulted in its turning into an all-girl's school.

Schlafly appears to be worried that Title IX is unfair not just to men who want to fence, swim, or play tennis.  It's unfair to all those guys who want to go to college to sit on their duffs, drink beer, watch other, more talented and active men achieve, and then burp and high five each other while they incidentally, even accidentally, pick up a business degree.

Sadly, there are a lot of those, but since they can sit on their duffs and drink beer in front of the television as well as in an actual stadium, I doubt they much care if the teams they're watching wear their school's colors.

But Schlafly isn't as worried about them as much as she's worried about all the young women who will be denied the chance to marry those guys.

No sports means fewer guys on campus.  Fewer guys means fewer potential mates for the women on campus.  All these thousands of young women losing the opportunity to marry their sports obsessed, beer-drinking, fat-assed C student college sweethearts!  A tragedy!

Ok, we long ago figured out that Schlafly is an obscenely-blatant hypocrite whose anti-Feminism has been a decades-long crusade to deny other women the chance of the sort of career, wealth, status, and freedom to live her life as she pleases that she's enjoyed.

But hypocrisy is her job.

She's a professional hypocrite whose service is to enable hypocrisy in others.

It doesn't matter that what she says is nonsensical, counter-factual, and fantastical---What schools are eliminating their football and basketball programs?---and even insulting to the people she claims to be championing---are there any guys who will be flattered by Schlafly's opinion of their reasons for going to college?   She's not in the business of providing real arguments.  She's in the business of providing strings of words that sound as if they might be real arguments that "conservatives" can deploy to distract other people, and distance themselves in their own minds, from their racism, classism, elitism, and just plain I Got Mine You Get Yoursism.

Schlafly's new argument is just more of the same, ridiculous on its face, hypocritical at its core, but it did inspire two very good comments on the Carpetbagger's post.

The first one is pertinent to the whole Boys are Flunking Life 101 issue.  Whenever people, on either side of the question, discuss it, they often bring up the fact that there are now college campuses where two-thirds of the student population is female.  Steve Israel's article in the Sunday Record mentions it as does this USA Today article linked to by Shakespeare's Sister a few weeks ago.

I haven't seen any lists showing which schools these are.  If one of them's Bryn Mawr, I'm not interested.

But angry young man provides an interesting list...of 25 schools, good schools, where the student population is far more than 50 percent male, including some that are more than 66 per cent (or two thirds) male.

Probably won't surprise you that these are major engineering schools or schools with large and highly regarded engineering programs.

Topping the list is Pop Mannion's alma mater, RPI, a school that has one decent sports program.  Hockey.

Somehow I doubt very many men are enrolling at RPI for the chance to watch a good hockey game.

Although that's definitely a perk.

Engineering, however, is still a male-dominated profession, so it's not surprising these schools are predominately male.  But this raises the question:  Are schools with larger female to male ratios schools that have major programs in fields that are traditionally female-dominated?

A school that, with all other things being equal, has a nursing program is going to have more women on campus than men.

What we are looking at here may be just a sign of something that we all know is true already.  Young men can begin careers in blue collar fields without having to go to college, while young women who are beginning careers in pink collar and lower level white color fields on an economic par with their brothers' jobs as cops, plumbers, electricians, and auto mechanics need a degree.

(It's important to keep in mind that an awful lot of young men who don't go to college don't wind up as cops, plumbers, electricians, and auto mechanics, jobs that can take you into the middle class.  They wind up on factory floors, on loading docks, and on non-unionized road crews. There are plenty for whom the only tool they will handle is a broom or a shovel or a grapple.  So it's not to be supposed that we don't have to worry about young men who don't go to college because they'll all end up as skilled craftsmen and technicians.  And a good high school education is necessary for boys who want to go into those skilled jobs, and high school is where a great many boys are having trouble.)

The other interesting comment is from Davis X. Machina, a high school teacher, who makes two vital points:

There have to be serious economic & cultural disincentives tending to keep young white men on the margins going to college.

The good ones still go — but the 'maybe I should go' cadre has certainly been somewhat priced out, and maybe a little driven off by the 'real men are pig-ignorant'-Sean Hannatzi factor, who knows?

By "good ones" I'm assuming Davis means the best students, the very brightest who are motivated by their own achievements.  Doing something very well tends to make you want to keep doing it and want to keep getting better at it.  But it's the average students, the ones whose grades are only ok, good enough to get them into college, but not good enough to earn them any academic scholarships,  who may be deciding college is not worth it.

More financial aid would be a big incentive for those young men, but we have a Republican Congress that attacks federal financial aid programs every chance it gets and a lot of states that can't afford to fund generous programs of their own, for a variety of reasons, including the fact they aren't getting help from the Republican Congress.

And while those young men are on the fence about whether or not to go on to college, what are they hearing from the Right Wing Noise machine?

The continuation of a now six year old argument that being smart, well-educated, well-read, intellectually curious, thoughtful and even intelligent aren't necessary to being successful at the most important job in the world.

This is another hypocritical argument, different from the hypocrisy of Schafly's, because it has different victims.

The people who've been arguing that it's ok that George Bush is an ignoramous don't really believe it.  That is, they don't want their own children to be slackers and goof-ups.  They just want George Bush to be President and to be thought a successful President and they will say anything they can think of to help that cause.

But who else is listening to them, if not their own sons?

Comments

[blue girl]

Really, really good post Mr. Mannion. You've given me a lot to think about. I'll be back after linkage-reading.

[blue girl]

First, Phyllis Schlafly is a complete and total loon and I wish she'd just go away. Along with all the rest of 'em.

I'm assuming that most right-wingers would say to the "on the fence" boys -- "Too bad! You didn't work hard enough! What? You think you deserve MONEY FOR COLLEGE as a REWARD for being lazy? Ha! You lose."

And I'm not sure I agree with you about this line:

"The people who've been arguing that it's ok that George Bush is an ignoramous don't really believe it."

I know plenty who completely believe it and they wouldn't describe Bush as an ignoramous either.

These men that I know tend to be anywhere from late 50s - mid 70s. They didn't go to college but became pretty successful in business anyway. They *brag* about not going to college and make sarcastic remarks about people who think degrees are going to get them ahead. God, I heard one of them once brag about their little town's library having to be shut down for lack of money.

I know it's a generational thing, but it really aggravates me when my son is exposed to their nonsense.

[Cryptic Ned]

--What schools are eliminating their football and basketball programs?---

I think a few schools for whom the football team was about 15% of the male population have shut down their football programs. Swarthmore for example.

[Mudge]

The big problem (D1) with athletic scholarship equivalence (Title IX) is football. I forget the exact number, but those 70 or so schlolarships put pressure on athletic departments viz. female scholarships. This whole kerfluffle is due to the conflict of the business that is athletics versus the responsibility of a college or university to its students. You failed to mention one of the most commonly dropped men's programs: wrestling. An interesting topic, that I never see investigated, are intramural sports opportunities at colleges and how and whether they have changed as a result of Title IX. If they have, I'm betting that it is due to the increased interest in athletics in high schools by girls, also due to Title IX.

Division III colleges do not give athletic scholarships. They tend to support their intercollegiate sports from general revenues and view such competition as a meaningful option for their students. This concept is completely lost on the big money large universities.

RPI hasn't had good ice hockey since Ned Harkness left, with one exception.. in my opinion..

[Shakespeare's Sister]

Great post, Mannion. And I'd just add that, as I noted in the post to which you linked, it's not just the Right Wing Political Noise Machine that both subtly and overtly encourages anti-intellectualism. It's the Right Wing Religious Noise Machine that does it, too. Anti-intellectualism has become inextricably linked with conservative fundamentalist Christianity. (See: Intelligent Design.) Knowledge undermines the tenuous, though dogmatic, faith predicated on literal translations that a large swath of conservative Christianity demands. Best, then, to demonize education.

[Lance]

Mudge,

I went to the University of Iowa where wrestling isn't a sport, it's a higher calling, so I guess I think of wrestling programs as sacrosanct and therefore no schools would dare touch them. I'm sorry to hear I'm wrong.

I think Pop Mannion would agree with yuo about RPI hockey.

[Jennifer]

Wrestling should be outlawed if only to get rid of those god-forsaken unitards! They make everyone look like an Oompa Loompa!

My husband went to school at Grinnell and did indeed concur that Iowa and wrestling go hand in hand.

[Ken]

Following up on David X. Machina's comment about boys on the margins with some guesses of my own...

For many people, particularly the urban and rural poor, the decision to go to college means leaving home for good. This may be one of the major cultural disincentives.

Small town America ain't what it used to be. Towns that could once support numerous small businesses, libraries, doctors, lawyers, etc. because of the money from the nearby manufacturing plant may no longer exist in large numbers. So when a young man in such a place looks around at his options, what does he see?

Some fast food joints, maybe a Wal-Mart, the military, or somehow scraping together the money for college.

After finally earning that degree, home no longer has a place for him and not everyone wants to uproot to an urban center.

As for if this affects boys more than girls, I don't know...

I also don't know how it relates to Mannion's piece above. Except to say that at about the same age is when my 18 year old self began to realize that I was never going to make any money 1) playing sports, 2) playing video games, 3) making music, 4) getting by on innate talent and charm. I had the grades and my parents had the money to send me to college though. And I could envision my self someday earning a living from a degree in the general geographic area as my friends and family.

[blue girl]

Not to sidetrack into wrestling here -- but, Jennifer -- wrestling is really intense and fun to watch once you get into it. You are correct though -- those unitards are quite oompa-ish.

[Jennifer]

blue girl- I agree. I knew many wrestlers in high school and married a former wrestler. My commentary was not about the sport, but the uniform... to me, it just diminished all they were doing. Is your son a wrestler?

[blue girl]

Jennifer, Nope -- doesn't wrestle. He's not really a sports nut at all. More of a music nut. And striving to be a unique individual -- which I'm proud of.

Lance, he and I had a terrific discussion about your post today driving home from school. He said..."Mr. Z, who has pictures all over his classroom of Frederick Douglas -- he's his hero -- so you know he's not a racist or a sexist, told us that the feminists and the anti-anit-anti-racists still don't think things are equal and want to keep giving more things to girls than boys." Then he went on to give several examples and I think he may have been embellishing to make his point. Boys wear old uniforms, girls get new ones every year, etc. But he ended by saying that teachers are way nicer to the girls than the boys. He said boys can't get away with anything and girls get away with everything!

[Uma]

Hello my little Lance-chop...

I have been enjoying your recent posts and did want to say that although you are leaning towards verbosity, I'm with you!

FYI- I am the cover story on "In Style" for February. My article talks of things I am grateful for, one of which is Lancemannion.com. I must confess that I have indeed found another beau, but since your heart is truly tied to The Blonde, I don't think that will bother you that much. I'm still game for an innocent Tango.

Yours always-

Uma

[Linkmeister]

"Lance-chop?" Oh dear.

[Chrys]

As the mother of two male former college athletes, I can say that I understand the concept and intention of Title IX. The problem arises when universities take the literal meaning of Title IX to the extreme.

Sure, the schools keep their money-making sports, football and basketball intact, but that doesn't mean they're keeping the number of athletic scholarships intact for those sports. More and more players are no longer given a free-ride. As an example, what has happened with baseball in many cases, is that scholarships have been drastically cut. Baseball used to get an average of 11 full scholarships per year (the coaches could either use the funds as full scholarships for 11 players or divide the money and share the wealth with more members of the team.) An average Division Division I baseball team now receives 3 scholarships. The lack of money is NOT discouraging these boys from attending college. It's just forcing them to take more loans to pay for their education.

Now, the real problem with Title IX arises when universities try to give scholarships to equal numbers of female athletes. I have seen unathletic girls, who have no interest in sports, approached by university athletic directors asking them if they'd like to join a new women's competition ping pong or badminton team...and receive a scholarship for doing so. Or, to equalize the male-female ratio, girls are approached and asked if they would like to dress as the school mascot or run on the football field and deliver water bottles to players...and receive an athletic scholarship for doing so.

Now how ridiculous is that? Here a girl is recieving thousands of dollars a year to play water-girl, and a High School All-American baseball player is receiving nothing.

There's something definitely wrong with the enforcement of Title IX.

[MoXmas]

I have to add that the comments about wrestling being one of the prime targets for cuts in men's sports is related to the previous post. Anecdotally, atheltic departments in the Big Ten get more complaints about wrestlers than any other sport. More fights, less class attendance, etc., etc. And I believe that is a total number, not weighted for number of athletes. So while football players getting into fights may make the paper, wrestlers beating folks up is "dog bites man".

So, for your average Uni administrator, what could be a better combo than balancing your Title IX hassels than by getting rid of your biggest group of hassles?

BTW, I specifically said "anecdotally" because I wouldn't be surprised if the wrestlers aren't all that bad, problem-wise. But they are PERCEIVED to be the biggest problems, and that's where this ties into the earlier post.

[superdestroyer]

I just found this post but it would be nice if you actualy knew anything about TitleIX enforcement or college athletics before you wrote a long rant about it. Among the many things you got wrong:

1. Title IX enforcement is not based on scholarships but on participation rates versus the university sex ratio. The biggest problem with Title IX is that the 20 male athletes who walk on to the football team create the need for 20 (or more) female athletes. And the dirty little secret is that ,generally, women will not play sports without a scholarship (that is, women do not try to walk on to a team in near the numbers than men do with the exception being competative cheerleading).

2. At state universities, athletics do not receive appropriated funds from the state (no tax dollars). Most athletic programs are run by a separate, not-for-profit corporate set up to organize, administer, and fund the intercollgiate sports teams. The organizations are usually called the Athletic Foundation. (Every year, Penn St makes a point of stating the Joe Paterno is not an employee of the University). However, these separate organizations are the ones that have to comply with Title IX and the easist way for the athletic foundations to do this is to eliminate male sports like track and baseball while creating teams like Women's crew and filling the team with existing students.

3. If you look at US News college review you will find out two things are go against all of the elitist statements you made. Being an athlete is a huge advantage in getting into Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, etc. They have teams made up of walk ons and being a fairly bright, fairly good athlete is worth more at Harvard than having a 1600 on your SAT. Also, for all the talk about the white boys, the universities with the worst Title IX compliance rates at the Historically Black Universities.

4. Wrestling is unique in that most any university could have a competative wrestling program with nothing but walk ons. However, establishing a wrestling team would require a university to establish an equivalent female sport to offset the walk-ons and at most universities that would require giving scholarships to more women than men.

5. You miss stated the impact of basketball. Women's teams currently have more members than the men's teams. (15 to 13). The problem is that a women's team cost about the same as a men's team while generating a small fraction of the revenue of the men's team. And the biggest reason for the financial difference is that women do not support women's sports.

6. Also, if you would look at participation rates, you would find that women's sports are much more white and much more upper middle class than men's sports. Look at a schools that win in soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, volleyball, golf, equestrian, swimming, etc. The Department of Education statistic show than Hispanic and Asian women are underrepresented versus the percentage of the college student body and black women are barely represented in proportion.