The March 2011 issue of CQ Researcher features competing columns on the question, Has Title IX led to unfair treatment of men’s sports? Count me firmly in the ‘yes’ column and if you need a reminder as to why witness yet another wrestling team cut (this time at Liberty University) because the school wasn’t proportional and it was easier to cut a men’s program rather than add women’s programing. The ‘yes’ side of the argument in the CQ debate was offered by Karen Owoc, an advisory board member at the College Sports Council, while the ‘no’ side of the argument was offered by Linda Jean Carpenter, a professor emerita at Brooklyn College. Owoc does a good job of providing an overview on how Title IX has morphed from an anti-discrimination statute into a rigid quota system. Carpenter focuses a lot on budgetary issues for big sports like football as a problem. As I pointed out yesterday, this ignores the revenue side of the picture. You can view their debate here.
Even though I agree with Owoc’s side of the argument, both authors present their case in a civil tone. So what’s the nasty side of Title IX referenced in the title of this post? That would be the reaction to the article from sportswriter Beau Dure. In response to the piece Dure tweeted “Aw, the CSC hired an intern. How sweet.” Agree or disagree with Owoc’s argument, she deserves more respect than that. Add it to the long list of ad hominem attacks in the Title IX reform debate.
UPDATE: Dure has apologized