Gavora Gender Equality

“Time’s Up for Title IX Sports” is an excerpt from Jessica Gavora’s book entitled Tilting the Playing Field: Schools, Sports, Sex, and Title IX. Gavora argues that instead of evening the play field for girls in athletics, Title IX is eliminating opportunities for men. Gavora’s argument is effective because of her intuitive appeals. She is also successful in using the opposition’s data against them. The first part of a successful argument is to inform the audience about the issue. Gavora directly quotes Title IX, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance” (Gavora 682). Gavora goes on to explain her views on the subject: “But as applied to organized sports, Title IX has been interpreted and twisted and bent outside the institutions of our electoral democracy, conforming at last to the shape of unintended consequences: A law designed to end discrimination against women is now causing discrimination against men” (Gavora 682). In a single paragraph, Gavora has wholly informed the audience about the issue and her standpoint. A study by NBC News/Wall Street Journal is presented showing widespread approval of Title IX.
Gavora argues that the information provided is accurate within its context. She believes that a few crucial details are intentionally left out. This information is used later to reveal what she calls “the truth about Title IX” (Gavora 683). Gavora uses a shock technique to keep the audience by explaining the current conditions of gender equality. She claims that women have far more sports and scholarship money available to them. This is her reasoning for her theory that gender equality is not a race for resources. If that were the case the feminist groups would have already claimed victory. At this point in the piece, Gavora has successfully given background on the issue and introduced the
dilemma. Gavora begins to attempt to explain her resolution for the problem with Title IX. According to her, people very rarely hear about Title IX unless it is negative. She claims that the first step is to admit the truth about Title IX. Many citizens do know what the piece of legislation is truly accomplishing today. Quotas were never actually included in the legislation that passed through Congress. It was “created outside the electoral process by unelected officials working hand in hand with special interest groups” (Gavora 683). This information is effect because it sparks a little bit of outrage among the audience. Most people think that all American legislation should go through an elected official or through direct vote. Gavora provides evidence of quotas in Universities in the United States. She mentions that the “percentage of its [Central Connecticut University] athletes who are female from 29 to 49 by dropping men’s wrestling and adding women’s lacrosse” (Gavora 684). After making these changes, Central Connecticut University was forced to add more female athletes. Most schools have no problem adding a female team here, and cutting a male team there as long as there is enough money to cover the costs.
Gavora claims that “A slowing economy combined with escalating expenses in athletic programs, however, threatens to change this” (Gavora 684) referring to the addition of female teams. If this is true, then the Universities will actually have a reason to go to court. Iowa State University, University of Nebraska, and the University of Kansas have all begun big budget cuts. The more schools to which this problem is presented the more likely the issue will go to court. Gavora asserts that the liberal feminist interest groups have been slow to go court in conservative court districts. It should be no surprise that they are also quick to go to court in liberal districts. This claim is not backed by concise evidence, but it is effective because it makes
sense. When the feminists need to make a legitimate appeal, they present the benefits of being a female student athlete. This includes having better character, higher grades, a greater graduation rate, and becoming more ethnically diverse. Gavora is concise with evidence on this matter. She presents a shocking study conducted by a former Princeton University president. This study shows that female athletes are “less academically prepared, less concerned with scholarship and more financially directed than their fellow students” (Gavora 686). In the remainder of the piece, Gavora describes more cases of universities cutting male sports for female sports. She offers her solution to the issue directly: “The way out is to defend the principle of nondiscrimination, even when it is hard. Especially when it is hard” (Gavora 688). Throughout the piece, Gavora successfully appeals to her audience by using solid evidence. Gavora is extremely successful because she is able to use her opposition’s evidence against them.