It seems to be my purpose in life, or at least on this blog, to find all the bits of misinformation perpetuated by sport writers about Title IX, become quite irate and then correct them on this blog and often in a letter to the writer and/or editor.
Sometimes they seem very little especially when the intent clearly is not malicious (though there are plenty of those cases too). But the misinformation is presented so matter-of-factly that it is clear the writers have no idea that they are just plain wrong and that they are adding to the considerable backlash.
A few weeks ago [I lost the link, sorry] a writer in Indiana expressed sympathy for boys' volleyball which gets little recognition because it is not a sport sanctioned by the Indiana High School Athletics Association. He encouraged IHSAA to add the sport but noted that the obstacle has been Title IX which mandates state athletic associations sanction the same number of boys' and girls' sports. Well not quite. Title IX's mandate for equity doesn't directly affect athletic associations--it affects the schools that belong. IHSAA has likely not sanctioned boys' volleyball because its member schools probably already have compliance problems in the area of equitable opportunities.
And then today I read a feature on a wrestler from University of New Hampshire who won a national title at the National Collegiate Wrestling Association championships. Good for him. Not so good was the writer who failed to correct the UNH coach who said that the level of competition is pretty intense at these championships because they are comprised of club teams that are former DI programs cut by Title IX. It was said in passing and was incorporated into the story in the same manner. And it is completely false as we have discussed here too many times already. It's budget and interest. And we know this is true at UNH. By the time Ebuz and I got to UNH wrestling was already a club sport, but we did go through a round of cuts that were all about the budget. UNH has since undergone another set of cuts that are again due to budget shortfalls and budget priorities that the administration will not alter. They aren't crying that Title IX forced their hand in the same way JMU has but maybe they should inform their wrestling coach about why wrestling was really cut.
Showing posts with label University of New Hampshire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label University of New Hampshire. Show all posts
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
UNH and baseball
This is the type of editorial we usually just let go but given that it's about University of New Hampshire, the alma mater of Ebuz and myself, and that we were actually at UNH and in student government when the cut baseball team came to plead its case (we had no power to change that decision by the way), it probably deserves a posting.
The occasion of the editorial which bemoans the cutting of the baseball team over a decade ago is the installment of a new president who was hired "for one purpose: to raise money." First of all, what university president isn't hired these days to raise money? Second, the criticism that the money he is raising won't go to reinstating baseball seems to be more egregious to the writer than the fact that it is not necessarily earmarked for lowering tuition either--something that would benefit far more students than reinstating baseball.
The writer calls on new president Mark Huddleston to raise private funds for baseball. Let's also note here that the idea of bringing back baseball, which was actually only one of the sports cut that year and there have been several more since, including women's teams, has not even been a serious consideration. Additionally it is very difficult to sustain an athletic team on private donations. Teams are already doing a lot of fundraising. At home football games members of various athletic teams, it's often the ski team which had its budget cut significantly the year baseball was cut, sell raffle tickets in the stands. I had friends on the women's hockey team that had to go to men's hockey games and sell 50/50 tickets. Yet you don't see football players climbing through the stands at women's volleyball games trying to raise money for their very expensive program.
I don't know who asked Huddleston the question about baseball, but his response that it's not in the cards was a lot more diplomatic than my own would have been.
The occasion of the editorial which bemoans the cutting of the baseball team over a decade ago is the installment of a new president who was hired "for one purpose: to raise money." First of all, what university president isn't hired these days to raise money? Second, the criticism that the money he is raising won't go to reinstating baseball seems to be more egregious to the writer than the fact that it is not necessarily earmarked for lowering tuition either--something that would benefit far more students than reinstating baseball.
The writer calls on new president Mark Huddleston to raise private funds for baseball. Let's also note here that the idea of bringing back baseball, which was actually only one of the sports cut that year and there have been several more since, including women's teams, has not even been a serious consideration. Additionally it is very difficult to sustain an athletic team on private donations. Teams are already doing a lot of fundraising. At home football games members of various athletic teams, it's often the ski team which had its budget cut significantly the year baseball was cut, sell raffle tickets in the stands. I had friends on the women's hockey team that had to go to men's hockey games and sell 50/50 tickets. Yet you don't see football players climbing through the stands at women's volleyball games trying to raise money for their very expensive program.
I don't know who asked Huddleston the question about baseball, but his response that it's not in the cards was a lot more diplomatic than my own would have been.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
