That's the title of this morning's Inside Higher Ed piece on Title IX. Read it here.
Article gives the most vocal Title IX advocates (Erin, Nancy, and Donna) a chance to spout their propaganda. Fortunately, there's balance.
But a new study, based on participation data and the hypothesis that women are inherently less interested in sports than men, asserts that Title IX might be taking the wrong approach.
“A greater male predisposition for sports interest does not contradict most arguments made by Title IX proponents,” concludes the study released Wednesday evening in the online journal PLOS ONE. “Nevertheless, our results do suggest that it may be a mistake to base Title IX implementation on the assumption that males and females have, or soon will have, generally equal sports interest.”
The study's lead author, Robert Deaner, doesn't have a horse in this race. He's pointing out the facts. He's not suggesting what should be done about the differences in interest.
Unfortunately, the facts don't mean a danged thing to those who support the flawed quota system known as proportionality.
They continue to support the "limit or eliminate male opportunities" plan.
But those societal effects work both ways – and are part of the reason we shouldn’t be surprised by (nor draw too much from) the findings, said Erin Buzuvis, a law professor at Western New England University who runs the Title IX Blog.
“If we all agree that those kinds of things influence people’s interest, then why are we surprised, in a world where there’s still sex discrimination, that women’s participation in sport is lower than men’s?” Buzuvis said. “Women have inferior opportunities and they have to do so against the cultural grain…. It doesn’t say anything at all about what interest levels would be there absent discrimination and absent these strong cultural forces.”
Erin and her pals continue to dance around the real reason they support destruction of male opportunities:
It's still about REVENGE!!!