pamps here...

um....

life is not fair, and this is the perfect example

college football team, for example, is gonna get better stuff from sponsors than the intramural basketweaving team. that's not a gender issue. it's an issue of private business choosing which sports they want to sponsor

the remedy is not some kind of forced egalitarian sponsorship. it is OTHER private businesses stepping up to the plate and sponsoring women's teams - think dannon's sponsorship for example

the sad fact is that men's sports, in general, are more popular with viewers (hence, potential product purchasers) than women's are.

that's life. it AINT fair

private business should sponsor the teams that they see fit as promoting their image and their product

gender aside, a football team will get more sponsorship than a weightlifting team. heck, i participated in the latter. but life aint fair. people watch football far more than they watch weightlifting

there are a few sports where the women's teams get more sponsorship/popular attention than mens- gymnastics comes to mind.

but in general, they don't

business recognizes this

the onus is on businesses to step up to the plate and sponsor the (relatively as compared to men's) unpopular sports

let the market work

jabosian:

If it were an independent sports team receiving sponsorship funds, you'd be right on the mark. If it were even private schools under discussion, you might have a point. Unfortunately, it's not: it's public schools. Public schools have a legal responsibility to ensure that women's sports are supported as well as men's sports -- and arranging deals by which men's sports benefit disproportionately violates that responsibility.

Life isn't fair, but the government damn well better be. Government contracts are not a free market problem.

Unfortunately, the government has nothing to do with sponsorships.

An athletic director might go ahead and request that the women's basketball team gets the same sponsorship the men's team gets (and might have such a request granted), but if the government stepped in and demanded it, the company would take them to court in a second -- we're a free enterprise economy, and that's a bit too much regulation.

The reality is, Nike will sponsor the men's team more than the women's team because the men's team gets more exposure on national television. So, if you're going to demand equal sponsorship, you'll have to demand equal air time.

You're not going to get equal air time, however, because larger audiences tune in for men's games than for women's games.

And the government's not going to demand that people care the same.

As to the question of the Title IX requirement to afford the same opportunities, well, the government in many cases does afford the same opportunities, sometimes even with equal funding. And it gives colleges the opportunity to seek private sponsorships in the same amounts for women's and men's sports. That doesn't mean the colleges will be successful at it, and clearly they haven't been.

In order to level this playing field, it's really going to take a combination of athletic directors and sponsorship companies stepping up. Regulation is not going to help.

i agree with josh here. i don;t think title IX requires (and certainly shouldn't) an equality of outcome - only an equality of opportunity (while of course allowing gender differentiated teams - which is a form of gender discrimination of course - but the only one that could allow women to compete so it's "ok")

sponsors are free to step up and sponsor any team - women's team, men's team, or coed team.

but it is patently absurd to seek "cosmic justice" to borrow a term such that unpopular sports are given the same sponsorship $$ as popular sports.

Josh:

The first thing to note is that this particular issue relates to high schools, not colleges. Although the continuing separation of sports programs from the higher academic institutions that they are supposedly a part of is something else that alarms me, I'd like to lump universities in with high schools as organizations that in theory control disbursement of funds as well.

Title IX requires that female athletes not be denied the benefits of participation in athletic programs in academic institutions. That's in the very first paragraph.

A business is free to donate men's shoes only if they like -- but then those shoes have to be factored into the total benefits disbursed, and then matched for the female players that cannot benefit from them. If a high school is not willing to provide the same benefits, e.g. to women's track and field with respect to men's track and field in the form of free shoes, they may not contract with a business to benefit one at the expense of another, whether or not the business has any interest in supporting both.

It's not a business decision, nor a free trade interest, but a rule for handling discrimination within a public institution against female athletes.

The opening comparison of the article is a very apt one: this is exactly the same as a high school picking up a contract with a computer company to provide computers only for its male students -- this is something obviously unacceptable, even if the school happened to be hosting a branch of the ACM where the local members were all men.

zed, i think you are begging the question. you are assuming the very thing in question - that title IX ***does*** require this equal distribution of privately donated stuff, and that "the benefits of participation" include this, in this respect.

part of the benefits of participating in football vs. an unpopular sport is that you get to use the big stadium on friday night, you get more media coverage, etc. so, one could argue that is 'discrimination' by your same logic

one could also make an argument about race in this regards since black student athletes greatly outnumber on a per capita basis in most school districts, white athletes in football and basketball and make equally "egalitarian" demands about equal benefits, etc.

regardless, the very point u assume is the one in question

that all these private spoils should be distributed eqaully across gender lines

if i, as a private business, want to outfit the football team with groovy shoes because i like football, and the football team only has 2 women and 45 men, then i gotta buy a bunch of shoes for the women's track team to make it "egalitarian?"

the very idea is absurd.

again, imo, the onus should be on OTHER private businesses to step up to the plate. lots of businesses have done a lot for women's sport - Dannon comes to mind, but there are lots of others

your last paragraph is a bogus analogy imo

also, last i checked, in nearly every high school - it is MEN that are banned from women's teams not the other way around.

women can play football, for instance, if they can make the team, whereas men can't play field hockey (for obvious reasons due to women's and men's difference in ability)

so, if i donate to the football team i am not donating to a "men's only" team. if i donate to women's field hockey i am

and fwiw, i have extensive history training and supporting women athletes, and working with olympic team members even, so i am speaking from experience vis a vis sports training and gender issues in sports

great post.

"For decades, society has rallied behind equal rights for women"

Which decades are those, exactly? So, after thousands and thousands of years of male domination and female subjugation, feminists spend three and a half decades here and three and a half decades there working for women's rights, while most law-makers and conservatives fight them every step of the way and...now we're supposed to go back to making men our number one priority?

How about this: after thousands and thousands of years of society using the most brutal methods to make sure women lack even the most basic human rights and men always come out on top, activists have spent some decades fighting back, and shouldn't stop anytime soon.

Quite frankly, if the free market "just happens" to be misogynous, I have no problem with government interference.

lol. if u think it's "misogynous" for private companies to sponsor sports that are actually popular, you have a very enhanced sense of histrionic victimization going

"help, i'm being repressed"

jabosian/pamps here...

oh to make an analogy. if it is misogynous for companies to disproportionately sponsor male sports with their $$$ (since male sports are disproportionately more popular), then it is clearly racist of Nike et al to disproportionately sponsor african american athletes, since they sponsor more (on a per capita basis) black athletes than white athletes

of course, the fact that black athletes are disproportionately represented in US sports is the reason why they do this , and they are clearly not racist.

similarly, the idea that they are misogynous for disproportionately sponsoring male sports teams is equally absurd.

not to mention again (just did) that women's sports teams discriminate against men

oh, the repression

note that the above comments even include the sponsorship of hockey players :)

There many issues wrapped up in this story.

I do feel if a school is to take money from a company it needs to share it among all the students. Yes, nike is a sports company but i feel a school needs to say true to its main reason of being "to educate." Thus if nike wants to support a team at my school they need to be willing to help out with something for the class room as well. Yes, I know I am dreaming if i fell this is going to happen.

And Yes, companies should help both genders out as equally as possible or be limited to only donating thing that both can use. i swam at my university. Swimming is one of a few sports where many of the Women's and Men's teams have a strong partnership. Both teams where sponsored by Speedo equally (a company very dear and near to my heart).

We can't stray from the original issue involving this particular case, which is that under Title IX, individuals can't be denied the benefits that come from a specific sponsorship.

Yes, sponsors aren't liable and can choose to sponsor who they please. But they're usually more than willing to supply the same benefits to a girls' team that they give to a boys', if only the school asks.

It's schools' responsibility that there is an equal amount of benefits distributed, and this article is merely pointing out that many are apathetic or hesistant to make sure that equal treatment exists.

Jabosian, if you're going to debate, please refrain from so much sarcasm. "Help, help, I'm being repressed" shows your total unwillingness to listen to the other side of the argument (or totally inability) and, frankly, makes you look like a smug little twit.

No one has said that Nike CAN'T donate exclusively to men (this is for Sue, too, who seems concerned that the corporations are being stepped on). The whole POINT of the law is that the public schools enter the donations into a ledger and, at the end of the day, the BOTTOM-LINE TOTALS are roughly equal for boys vs. girls.

In a case where Nike only donated to boys, the school could create more parity by any number of ways. Equality could be obtained by: 1) using excess Nike shoes to outfit the girl, 2) selling excess Nike shoes to outfit the girls, 3) using more school funds to outfit the girls (since Nike saved them a ton of money by already outfitting the boys), 4) finding and lobbying an organization who could donate items to outfit the girls, 5) speaking to Nike about the benefits involved in outfitting the girls as well as the boys, etc.

The point, Sue, is that companies are still free to give whatever they want. It's up to the school to attempt to balance these donations, though. The same thing would apply if people were donating computers to be used only by white students.

And, jabosian, please try to listen next time before pulling out the smirking Monty Python quotes. Equal treatment is an admirable goal and complaining when it doesn't exist is not on par with "whining". You are welcome to disagree with the points made, but you are being dismissive and condescending.

EJ, I think you and I could be friends if we met in person. Whenever I come across people complaining about how Title IX discriminates against boys, I have the urge to say, "BULLSHIT."

It amazes how often people direct their anger towards women for demanding equal rights instead of directing it towards the bureaucratic mismanagement that caused the problem in the first place. In this case, no one is saying that the companies HAVE to sponsor both teams... just that they might. For instance, a parent might pay for equipment for their child's team, but the parent is obviously not obligated to outfit any other team. The problem here is the apathy and hesitance on the part of schools to make sure the (figurative and literal) playing fields are level.

Personally, I think Nike in particular would be willing to support female sports, given the market share they hold in encouraging women to be active and strong. nikegoddess.com, anyone?

Hi Ive read the articel my view on it if this, if nike gives money to the school to spend it on sports IX comes into effect. If Nike adresses over the school a specific team for example they give shoes to the basketball team, well tough luck for everyone else. Sponsorships are essentially presents, or they are rewards for good performance of course hoping it will reflect on the brandt. The principal has a point and i can see how bitter the principals of public schools must be. If any team is coming short without sponsorship the Gov should fork over more money. America is not poor. In germany we have so called Vereine (Unions) which are basically gov sponsored clubs outside of school and also for adults dedicated to a certain hobby.(self defense swimmin u name it) Of course the members contribute as well.

Thank you, prairielily. :)

I'm a bit surprised that Nike isn't already sponsoring the girls' teams. After "What Women Want" and all those Nike Girl commercials, I assumed they were making some sort of name for themselves as being the sports apparel for women. Apparently not?

Hell yeah, EJ and prarielilly! You guys nailed it perfectly.

The only thing I have to add is a question for those of you who find it acceptable for the school not to make up the difference:

How would you feel if your daughter were playing with second-rate equipment (or equipment that you had to pay for out-of-pocket) while the boys were playing with better quality, free stuff because "life just isn't fair?" What would you say to her then?

It's interesting to note that if someone was donating equipment to be used "only by the white students" I have no doubt that the media would be all over it - and the school would be expected to disregard the wishes of the supplier and share the equipment equally between white and black students.

In this case, the school IS actually trying to accomodate the supplier - to follow the analogy, the equipment IS being used only for the white students - and the school is just trying to "make it up" somehow to the black students.

Would the people who posted that "people should be able to donate to whomever they want," back up the right of an organization to donate "white-student-only" computers? Desks? Charis? Would you still fight so passionately for the right to decide where and how your donated products will be used?

Personally, I think a donation is a gift - and that the school can use it how they see fit, within reasonable limits.

Gender discrimination is not a reasonable limit, in my opinion. But that is NOT what Title IX is about.

1) donating to a "male" team is not donating only to males, at least in theory, since MALE teams are open to females (in almost all cases)

on the other hand, donating to women teams would be solely female donations, since female teams BAN men, whereas the reverse is not true. we all know the reasons why

again, i am saying that i am NOT certain that Title IX *does* mean that schools can't take sponsorship money from private donors that disproportionately AFFECTS males vs. females. that point seems to (by EJ) accepted as fact, and i think it is the point in contention, but she keeps begging it

second of all, i already brought up the race issue. basketball, for instance (on the college, high school and professional level) *is* disproportionately black, far less so white, and barely any asians at all

so, in an EFECTS basis (which seems to be the metric so many people use here vs. a process analysis) any donation to a basketball team for instance (a sport disproportionately dominated by blacks on a per capita basis) could be seen as "racist" in the same way donating to football but not women's field hockey would be seen as "sexist".

imo, neither is the case, but the claim would fit based on the effects analysis vs. the process analysis. nobody (i would hope) would argue that basketball is racist, or basketball sponsors are racist. i find many of these sexism arguments equally absurd vis a vis sports sponsorship. and sorry if i sounded like a snarky twit (not really) but to argue that Nike is MISOGYNYST because they are offering $$$ to a team that happens to be males vs. females is patently absurd. not to mention that nike has done metric assloads of work to promote women in sport.

on a capitalistic level, it BEHOOVES corporations to increase female participation in sports, for obvious reasons. again, i would prefer to see people seek out companies to support women's team (even though as i mentioned they are sexist :) and i point out Dannon as a classic example of a company that has promoted women in sports

and EJ, i do not see the school using a donation to a football team as "gender discrimination" any more than using a donation to a basketball team or football team (which are both almost always disproportionately composed of black athletes vs. the per capita representation) as racist

so, is Nike racist for sponsoring basketball teams?

be serious

Jabosian, can you provide some examples of co-ed football teams? I don't think I've ever seen a single one. Heck, I don't think I've seen formally co-ed basketball or even track and field teams.

From a long-term perspective here, I would agree with you: the better solution is removal of barriers to mixed gender participation, but you're making claims I find fantastically unbelievable. I simply don't see mixed-gender sports anywhere.

If the school can demonstrate that girls are participating in the program receiving benefits, and are receiving the same benefits as the boys, I agree that there is no issue.

I don't think that's the case, and as such, it's a non-issue.

As for the race card, I do see teams that are heavily mixed race, and I don't hear about barriers to entry.

Third, none of this is about whether Nike is being racist or sexist -- it has never been Nike's responsibility to ensure equity under Title IX. The question is whether the school is being racist or sexist in its policies. This has been pointed out to you several times now. You are the only person talking about Nike.

yes i can provide examples

http://www.post-trib.com/title9/030502b.html

"Records from the 2000-01 school year showed 1,655 girls played football across the country, according to the National Federation of State High School Associations, based in Indianapolis. That same year, more than 1 million boys played football, John Gillis, the federation's assistant director, said."

the misconception is that girls are (generally) banned from mens sports teams

generally - FALSE

the contrary is true. boys are banned from girls sports teams because (obviously) if boys could play high school field hockey, they would (generally) be much better than the girls. it's (generally) only a one way discrimination that rests on the reality that men are better athletes than women, thus a two tiered discriminatory system needs to be set up where sexism is ok (of course it is) in banning boys from girls sports teams and setting up teams by gender.

if sports was truly "nonsexist", then there would be no gender discrimination in sports. that of course would be ridiculous, but it would also not be sexist.

and still nobody has addressed the race issue. basketball and football are both HEAVILY disproporotionately black. so, if it is "sexist" to sponsor a male dominated team (like football) and not a woman only team (like field hockey), then it is racist to sponsor basketball or football

as to your last paragraph.

1) the schools are already (technically) sexist by setting up girls only sports teams. any team than bans men is by definition sexist. i find nothing WRONG with this, but let's not pretend it isn't sexist to tell a high school boy he can't play on a field hockey team, and only girls are allowed

2) imo, it is not racist or sexist for a school team to accept privately donated money that is earmarked for a specific team.

2, of course, is the argument under contention.

Zed, you are 100% correct. This is not about Nike at all.

jabosian, I agree with Zed in that I have never even heard of a co-ed high school team. Most "female" teams were created because the male teams wouldn't allow the females to participate. Your contention that "female" teams are sexist and "male" (but not exclusively) teams aren't is ridiculous.

You are furthermore not reading my posts. I never said that a school couldn't accept donations. I said that it was up to the school to make sure that, at the end of the day, males and females were treated as equally as possible. ONE of the many solutions I suggested was that the school might use more school funds on the girls, since the donations to the boys had saved the school so much money. Since words don't seem to work on you, I'll try math.

A school has 100$ to spend on it's two sports teams - a girl's soccer team and a boy's soccer team.

With no donations, the school would spend 50$ on the boys and 50$ on the girls.

BUT, Nike donated 30$ worth of equipment to the boys. Yay! That's 30$ worth of money that the school DOESN'T have to spend on the boys. Now math looks like this:

100$ - School funds
+ 30$ - Nike donation for boys
----
130$ - Total resources

The distribution could look like this:

Boys
----
30$ - Nike donation
35$ - School money

Girls
----
30$ - School money to match Nike donation
35$ - School money

Bottomline, BOTH teams received 65$ worth of goods at the end of the day. Someone will please note that the boys "only" got 35$ from the school, yet the girls "unfairly" got 65$ from the school. Yet, this disparity in spending is meant to reflect the donations involved. In this way, neither team is favored and the boys AND the girls are treated equally.

jabosian:

Thanks for the link; it was a pleasant read. However, I'd like to point out that the information in it undermines, rather than supports, your argument.

You posted an article noting that although over a million boys were playing football, only 1655 girls were -- and those numbers don't say how many of those girls are on girl-only teams. The article was only newsworthy at all because of how unusual it was that a single girl got onto an otherwise all-male football team at all.

This tells me that although there are a couple of rare exceptions, football being a male-only sport is generally true.

As I said, I feel that this sort of thing, once it actually becomes commonplace and not a fantastically rare exception, is the way the future should work and may render Title IX mostly obsolete. I'm guessing that the schools that work that way aren't the ones with problems violating Title IX to begin with, though.

Also, I did address the race issue. Unless you are preparing to back the claim that for every million basketball players, only a thousand aren't black, and of those thousand most are on segregated teams, you aren't talking about anything on the same scale.

Without evidence to the contrary, I bluntly don't believe that there are race-related barriers to entry in basketball. Provide evidence for that first, and then we can talk. If you can show that non-black basketball players are being harassed off of teams or flatly being denied access at a given university, I'll agree that that university has a problem on par with Title IX violations -- and a university that chooses to fund only those sports to which only black primarily have access is probably violating federal law.

That's currently a wild hypothetical, however. Right now we're looking at actual cases of sexism in athletics.

EJ: Actually the "someone" in your example would be more off the mark than that. As I understand it, those donations aren't disbursed directly from Nike to the athletes -- they're given to the school, which then allocates them to the athletes. It's an additional source of school funding, sometimes in the form of something that can generally only be allocated to men (gender-specific equipment). Whether the funding for the shoes came from taxpayer money or from Nike, both the girls and the boys are getting $65 worth of school-provided supplies at that point. That's the only metric that matters.

heh...reminds me of how the male football players in my old high school had new EVERYTHING every year, while other sports, and women's teams received little if nothing. I'm not even going to go into our marching band equipment.

I have still yet to hear anyone come back and answer my question. :)

For those who so passionately defended the right of sponsors to give to whom they will, I asked if it was appropriate to donate "white student only" chairs, computers, and desks.

And thank you, Zed, for checking that article. I have never heard of a girl on a boys' football team - and now I know why.

I think they should just take away all funding for all sports teams.

Take away the scholarships.
Take away the free equipment.
Take away the sponsorships.
Take away the transportation.
Take away funding for field upkeep.

Let the athletes themselves pay for EVERYTHING... that will make it FAIR, right?

Seriously tho, I could care less about the funding for collegiate athletes, all collegiate sports are incredibly better funded than say the Dialectic and Philanthropic societies...which I think are more beneficial.

The problem arises, I think, when the school treats the male equipment as "freebies" and still spends 50$ on each team. In which case (to return to my example), the Girls team got 50$ and the Boys team got 80$. Not good.

EJ, I highly doubt you will get an answer to your question. I don't think anyone will state what they would tell their daughter in this situation either.

Could it be that the answers might end up being a little contradictory to previous posts?

EJ, I highly doubt you will get an answer to your question. I don't think anyone will state what they would tell their daughter in this situation either.

Could it be that the answers might end up being a little contradictory to previous posts?

EJ, I highly doubt you will get an answer to your question. I don't think anyone will state what they would tell their daughter in this situation either.

Could it be that the answers might end up being a little contradictory to previous posts?

Eshew Obfuscation, I think the latest statistics on obesity underline the necessity of school-funded athletics.

Sorry for the multiple posting. My computer now officially hates me.

PrairieLily, they underline the necessity of school-funded recreational programs, not the necessity of school-funded athletics.

Athletic teams consist of less than 1 percent of a universities matriculates...if this were about funding for intramural teams, more regimented Phys. Ed standards, etc, I would agree...

But athletics has nothing to do with the latest obesity statistics.