+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Title IX (/showthread.php?tid=4860)
Pages:
1
2
- Hunter - 10-02-2006
Kaan Wrote:JMU is trying to go Div 1A. thats why the stadium and parking deck changed/added. All these moves were made for the football team.
and i'll continually stand behind this statement. if they gave MM the football team budget... we'd get them more press
Amen brotha!
As said before the thing that bothers me most about title IX, is that probably 75% of guys either participate in or follow some sort of sports, however only maybe 20% of girls do the same. (Im completely pulling those numbers out of my ass) I think that translates into sports participation rates as well, so even in a school thats 60-40 girls, there are still likely more guys that would want to participate in sports.
- Mike - 10-02-2006
Kaan Wrote:and i'll continually stand behind this statement. if they gave MM the football team budget... we'd get them more press
i have a feeling that you're wrong. udner that assumption, auto racing is more popular than football in america? no.
- Kaan - 10-02-2006
with their budget we could compete in more televised games than the JMU football team ever could... we would get in more magazines, have more tv time, more web press... yes we could get them more press.
the football team MIGHT get on espn if they pull a stunt OR flash on the bottom of the screen for a score IF they are going to contend for the championship.
- Mike - 10-02-2006
i'd have to see what the team's budget is. professional racing is not cheap at all and is far less televised or popular. we'd have to be in nascar or something, which is a silly amount of $.
- BLINGMW - 10-02-2006
I have no idea what their budget is either, but I betcha it would fund a WC or GrandAm cup car(s) with no problem..... :thumbup:
- Evan - 10-02-2006
the difference being the football team brings in quite a bit of money!
- Hunter - 10-04-2006
So I just found out some interesting information about the situation. So there are apparently 3 different ways to be incompliance
1. Do what we did. Have the mens and womens sports participants be proportional to that of the make up of the school.
2. You can apparently simply put more money into the womens sports. This will offset the fact that there are a disproportional amount of guys or something. Anyway its another way to do it
<b>3. YOU CAN TAKE A STUDENT BODY SURVERY TO DETERMINE THE WISHES OF THE STUDENTS!!!</B>
I also found out that in all of NCAA athletics, only 10% of schools are in compliance with title IX. Not only that, but no school has ever been punished for not being in compliance with title IX.
So, this was obviously a monetary decision, JMU is simply using a Title IX as the scapegoat. If it was about compliance, then JMU could have simply cut indoor track and then been fine. Also, Lamar Daniels (the consultant the brought in) was quoted to something along the lines of "this was not a decision based on title IX, it was purely financial"
So now I'm very disapointed in the bored of visitors and wish they could just be honest about what theyre trying to do.
- .RJ - 10-04-2006
Sounds like it was a political decision of sorts. Again, unfortunate for many students
I would be curious to know why a "consultant" was brought in to address these issues. Independent consultants cost money. It seems this guy has been involved in Title IX issues with many different universities
A google search on this guy - it does seem like he has the right idea, to get schools in compliance (not equality) by bringing the women's sports up to standard, rather than cut men's sports to fit within the guidelines. I would definately like to see what he wrote out for JMU.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.louisville.edu/president/boards/athleticassocation/minutes/Jan02.html">http://www.louisville.edu/president/boa ... Jan02.html</a><!-- m -->
"Lamar Daniels, Title IX Consultant"
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.louisville.edu/ur/ucomm/mags/summer2002/ulwomen.html">http://www.louisville.edu/ur/ucomm/mags ... women.html</a><!-- m -->
Quote:Bad ... Really bad ... Possibly the worst in the country ... In 1997 that was the widely held perception of the U of L women's athletics program.
Several U of L teams were led by part-time coaches. Most lacked scholarships and facilities to compete on the NCAA Division I level. Many shared old, inadequate locker rooms and training facilities. Teams in popular sports such as softball and golf simply didn't exist.
Now, less than five years later, the program has turned around. The university has added three women's sports and dramatically upgraded four others. Several teams are led by coaches who worked with or played on Olympic or national teams.
A softball program only three years old compiled a winning league record this year in a conference that sent two teams to the College World Series in 2000. And a field hockey team that had lost 34 straight games and 46 of 47 from 1996 through 1998 finished this season ranked 14th in the nation.
That this emergence has happened is impressive. That it has happened in fewer than five years and without dramatically cutting men's sports has been remarkable, says a top gender equity consultant.
It also is a change that has made other universities take notice.
"There was an enormous change here," says Lamar Daniels, one of the nation's leading consultants on gender equity issues. "People around the country are talking about the University of Louisville."
Leadership helped turn it around
U of L's improvement from a gender equity laughingstock to an emerging power in women's athletics began in 1996 when then-President John Shumaker and athletics director Bill Olsen hired Daniels to audit the U of L program.
A former investigator with the Office of Civil Rights, Daniels looked at U of L for compliance with Title IX, the federal act mandating gender equity in intercollegiate athletics programs. Over his 26-year career Daniels has reviewed about 140 institutions for Title IX compliance.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:y1Dxlsq8FrcJ:www.tlpj.org/News_PDF/fall-02/07-02-02-phila.inquirer.pdf+Lamar+Daniels+Title+IX&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1">http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:y1 ... =clnk&cd=1</a><!-- m -->
Quote:The OCR has the authority to withhold federal funds from aschool for violating Title IX, buthas never done that.ÔÇ£The OCR can also refer cases to the Justice Department for prosecution. That has never happened,ÔÇØ said Lamar Daniels, aleading Title IX consultant. ÔÇ£Most of their time is spent on handicapped, not Title IX, cases.ÔÇØ
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://portfolio.pdx.edu/Portfolio/Accreditation_Self_Study/Standard_3/Standard_3E/">http://portfolio.pdx.edu/Portfolio/Accr ... andard_3E/</a><!-- m -->
Quote:During the Fall of 2004, the DIA hired Lamar Daniels to conduct a Title IX audit and provide recommendations based upon his three-day visit.
Quote:F. Conclusion
1. PSU did not comply with 34 C.F.R. Section 106.37© of the Title IX regulation in the
award of athletic financial assistance in 2002-203. If only $25,000.00 more had been
awarded to women student-athletes, the 1% standard would have been met, and PSU
would have complied with Title IX.
2. I recommend the addition of $25,000.00 to the womenÔÇÖs program to correct this. As you
know, the National WomenÔÇÖs Law Center (NWLC) is monitoring this area and will create
continuous embarrassment as long as PSU does not. Unfortunately, the NWLC used the
Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) report in monitoring intercollegiate
programs. That document is inaccurate with respect to Title IX. The EADA has not been
ÔÇ£fixedÔÇØ because that would not fit the political agenda of certain organizations.
I wonder if a similar increase in spending would have brought JMU within compliance? While money earmarked for athletics might be tough to push through the bean counters, surely it has to have less long term impact than this on the reputation of JMU.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://reason.com/0104/fe.ml.title.shtml">http://reason.com/0104/fe.ml.title.shtml</a><!-- m -->
Quote:"There's no question in my mind that women are less interested in playing sports than men," says Lamar Daniel, a former investigator at the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights who conducted the very first Title IX investigation, back in 1978. Daniel went on to conduct over 20 reviews before retiring in 1995 to become a consultant. "But logically, in my experience, you can't prove that," he adds. "It's just not provable." In practice, Daniel says, this means schools must seek proportionality, either by adding women athletes, cutting or capping men's teams, or doing a little of both.
- .RJ - 10-04-2006
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dnronline.com/sports_details.php?AID=6601&CHID=3">http://www.dnronline.com/sports_details ... 601&CHID=3</a><!-- m -->
Daily News Record article.
Quote:James Madison had already made Title IX-related cuts in 2001, taking scholarship money away from 13 sports, most of them menÔÇÖs, in a nod to gender equity. Even so, JMUÔÇÖs sports participation numbers were still out of whack with federal Title IX requirements ÔÇö 61 percent of MadisonÔÇÖs students are women, while just 50.7 percent of its athletes are female.
Obviously, something had to give.
But the female athletes ÔÇö the ones on the archery, fencing and gymnastics teams that got the ax Friday effective next July ÔÇö didnÔÇÖt think it would be them.
"ItÔÇÖs really confusing," junior archer Jessica Fasula said. "They kept on telling us over and over again it has nothing to do with funding. WeÔÇÖre confused by that. If it had nothing to do with funding, why not keep the womenÔÇÖs sports to help the ratios?"
Because it did have something to do with funding.
While the students whose teams were eliminated werenÔÇÖt told so when members of the athletic administration met with them at the Convocation Center on Friday ÔÇô according to several of them -- JMU spokesman Andy Perrine said Monday that womenÔÇÖs sports were cut, in part, because of monetary issues.
"ItÔÇÖs mainly because of funding," Perrine said. "Well, I wouldnÔÇÖt say mainly, but itÔÇÖs more so a combination of funding and that the womenÔÇÖs teams that were cut are not part of any conference. They donÔÇÖt have conference membership."
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/03/jmu">http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/03/jmu</a><!-- m -->
Quote:ÔÇ£This was, for the most part, a business decision,ÔÇØ said Lamar Daniel, a Title IX compliance consultant and former U.S. Education Department official whom James Madison first hired in 1999. Daniel attributed the universityÔÇÖs decision to cut the teams to a desire to scale back its sports program ÔÇö at 28 sports, one of the biggest in Division I ÔÇö to a more manageable size and scope in the hope of making the teams it is keeping more competitive without spending more.
ÔÇ£This is about funding; this is about money,ÔÇØ he said. ÔÇ£ItÔÇÖs not about Title IX; Title IX is only a consideration in this matter in that you have to consider the impact of Title IX in any athletic decision.ÔÇØ
- Andy - 10-05-2006
Is it me or is JMU getting crappier? It use to be a small liberal arts school then got bigger but the girls got hotter so that was cool but now...we're trying to be VT or any of these other big ass schools without any character outside of a football team.
- .RJ - 10-05-2006
Andy Wrote:Is it me or is JMU getting crappier?
I dont know, but ISAT sucks! :lol:
- ScottyB - 10-05-2006
Andy Wrote:we're trying to be VT
basically
- Hunter - 10-05-2006
.RJ Wrote:I dont know, but ISAT sucks! :lol:
Now that Im at another school, I realize how much was not covered but should have been in alot of the isat courses.
- Feersty - 10-05-2006
Hunter Wrote:.RJ Wrote:I dont know, but ISAT sucks! :lol:
Now that Im at another school, I realize how much was not covered but should have been in alot of the isat courses.
You learn about a lot of different things, but don't know anything about any one thing. Useless
