HIGHLIGHT: College used to be a "man's" world, with little attention to female athletes.
MORAL: Don't lose sight of the hard word of those before you and take advantage of college athletics if you can!
San Francisco Chronicle
THERE IS something special about seeing your daughter dressed up for the prom, looking poised and gorgeous, as mine was on a recent Saturday night. There is something equally beautiful about seeing her bolting through the rain for a soccer ball, hair matted and socks flecked with mud, against the bay-chilled wind on a February night.
You can credit Title IX with making the second scene an attainable dream for so many young women.
On June 23, 1972, President Richard M. Nixon signed a 37-word piece of legislation that prohibited discrimination "on the basis of sex" in any education program or activity that received federal assistance.
As anyone who was in high school or college in 1972 knows, Title IX's effects on competitive athletics have been profound. It is evident in the fivefold increase in the number of women participating in intercollegiate athletics today; and the tenfold increase in the number of young women competing in high school sports.
The positive impact of Title IX is apparent in the athleticism and self-image of the young women who participate in sports today. It helped put an end to the cultural notion that only a "tomboy" would relish robust athletic competition.
"When I was in grade school in Reston, Va., I wasn't allowed to do sports ... I was taught to put my hair up, walk upright, learn proper manners and makeup, while the boys got to play basketball," said Jill Lounsbury, the 40ish manager of the San Francisco Nighthawks, a soccer team that draws scholarship athletes from across the nation to compete in a summer league. "I was better than most of the boys in sports, yet I had to do my hair, which I'm still not very good at."
Lounsbury credits Title IX with giving her and her teammates the chance to inaugurate an NCAA soccer team at Evergreen State College, in Olympia, Wash., in the early 1980s.
Lounsbury said the speed and intensity of the game has picked up immensely, but even more dramatic is the demeanor of today's intercollegiate athletes.
"Now the main quality they have in common is they're so confident, capable and independent," she observed. "They think they can do anything."
By now, various studies have established beyond doubt that girls who participate in sports have higher self-esteem, lower drug-abuse and pregnancy rates and better odds of attaining a college degree. Then there are the intangibles: lessons on teamwork, winning and losing gracefully, rebounding from failure.
"Sports is a place where you learn to be leaders," Lounsbury said.
It's hard to imagine that anyone would want to roll back the clock. But the 1972 law cannot be taken for granted. It has been maligned, unjustly, for causing the demise of non-revenue men's sports such as wrestling and gymnastics. A far greater stress on "minor sports" has been that the king of "revenue sports" -- football -- spends more than it takes in at almost half of Division I-A and I-AA schools. A 2005 survey of major college programs showed that football averaged operating deficits of $1 million.
The best that can be said of the Bush administration is that it has been passive about enforcing the law. Just one of the 416 complaints filed about Title IX violations from 2002 to 2006 were initiated by the federal government, according to the National Women's Law Center.
Earlier this month, the Pacific Legal Foundation and College Sports Council petitioned the U.S. Department of Education to remove one of the three tests of Title IX compliance: The determination of whether a school's athletic offerings for men and women is "substantially proportionate" to the student body's gender mix. That test has been vital in assuring opportunities for female athletes -- and they have seized them, as the participation numbers attest.
Guess what? More men are playing intercollegiate sports today than in 1972. Title IX, when fairly administered, is win-win.
Knowing how sensitive a 17-year-old can be about any public doting by a parent, I alerted my three-sport daughter that I wanted to mention her athletic endeavors in the course of a column about Title IX.
"What's Title IX?" she asked.
Perhaps that's the ultimate measure of Title IX's progress, 35 years later. It's no longer a huge controversy. Young women assume they have a right to athletic opportunities.
Yet all of us should be aware of the forces that want to declare victory or redefine "equality" even before the playing fields are truly level.
John Diaz is The Chronicle's editorial page editor.
For Kenzie
THERE IS something special about seeing your daughter dressed up for the prom, looking poised and gorgeous, as mine was on a recent Saturday night. There is something equally beautiful about seeing her bolting through the rain for a soccer ball, hair matted and socks flecked with mud, against the bay-chilled wind on a February night.
You can credit Title IX with making the second scene an attainable dream for so many young women.
On June 23, 1972, President Richard M. Nixon signed a 37-word piece of legislation that prohibited discrimination "on the basis of sex" in any education program or activity that received federal assistance.
As anyone who was in high school or college in 1972 knows, Title IX's effects on competitive athletics have been profound. It is evident in the fivefold increase in the number of women participating in intercollegiate athletics today; and the tenfold increase in the number of young women competing in high school sports.
The positive impact of Title IX is apparent in the athleticism and self-image of the young women who participate in sports today. It helped put an end to the cultural notion that only a "tomboy" would relish robust athletic competition.
"When I was in grade school in Reston, Va., I wasn't allowed to do sports ... I was taught to put my hair up, walk upright, learn proper manners and makeup, while the boys got to play basketball," said Jill Lounsbury, the 40ish manager of the San Francisco Nighthawks, a soccer team that draws scholarship athletes from across the nation to compete in a summer league. "I was better than most of the boys in sports, yet I had to do my hair, which I'm still not very good at."
Lounsbury credits Title IX with giving her and her teammates the chance to inaugurate an NCAA soccer team at Evergreen State College, in Olympia, Wash., in the early 1980s.
Lounsbury said the speed and intensity of the game has picked up immensely, but even more dramatic is the demeanor of today's intercollegiate athletes.
"Now the main quality they have in common is they're so confident, capable and independent," she observed. "They think they can do anything."
By now, various studies have established beyond doubt that girls who participate in sports have higher self-esteem, lower drug-abuse and pregnancy rates and better odds of attaining a college degree. Then there are the intangibles: lessons on teamwork, winning and losing gracefully, rebounding from failure.
"Sports is a place where you learn to be leaders," Lounsbury said.
It's hard to imagine that anyone would want to roll back the clock. But the 1972 law cannot be taken for granted. It has been maligned, unjustly, for causing the demise of non-revenue men's sports such as wrestling and gymnastics. A far greater stress on "minor sports" has been that the king of "revenue sports" -- football -- spends more than it takes in at almost half of Division I-A and I-AA schools. A 2005 survey of major college programs showed that football averaged operating deficits of $1 million.
The best that can be said of the Bush administration is that it has been passive about enforcing the law. Just one of the 416 complaints filed about Title IX violations from 2002 to 2006 were initiated by the federal government, according to the National Women's Law Center.
Earlier this month, the Pacific Legal Foundation and College Sports Council petitioned the U.S. Department of Education to remove one of the three tests of Title IX compliance: The determination of whether a school's athletic offerings for men and women is "substantially proportionate" to the student body's gender mix. That test has been vital in assuring opportunities for female athletes -- and they have seized them, as the participation numbers attest.
Guess what? More men are playing intercollegiate sports today than in 1972. Title IX, when fairly administered, is win-win.
Knowing how sensitive a 17-year-old can be about any public doting by a parent, I alerted my three-sport daughter that I wanted to mention her athletic endeavors in the course of a column about Title IX.
"What's Title IX?" she asked.
Perhaps that's the ultimate measure of Title IX's progress, 35 years later. It's no longer a huge controversy. Young women assume they have a right to athletic opportunities.
Yet all of us should be aware of the forces that want to declare victory or redefine "equality" even before the playing fields are truly level.
John Diaz is The Chronicle's editorial page editor.
For Kenzie
Nuk ka komente:
Posto një koment