Title Nine Synthesis Essay
Title IX
Title IX creates an inefficient bureaucracy that fails to address the real causes of sexism and instead creates problems in regulations and further inequalities.
Title IX provides opportunities to female athletes, but at the expense of lesser known male sports teams. Title IX, like many other laws, has good intentions but lacks the resources to support it. It is not right that the University of Minnesota "axed its trophy winning men's gymnastics team," (Source A) simply because it needed to spend more money on women's sports to fulfill the quotas established by Title IX (Source B). If the government is going to require that the female sports teams of all institutions, "receiving financial assistance," (Source C) to meet quotas, it is going to have to provide enough funds to support sports of both genders. "In 1994, two hundred and seventeen new women's teams were created nationwide while only ninety male teams were," (Source F). It is not right to try to improve the status of one group if it is going to detriment the other.
Furthermore, if no one supports women playing sports, it is pointless for them to do so. "There are fewer women involved in college athletics because women in General have historically been discouraged from participating in sports," (Source B). Government programs like Title IX are ineffective in changing our "legacy of sexism," (Source C). Instead, we rely on the work of a dedicated few such as the famous female tennis player, Billie Jean King (Source E). Motivated individuals and organizations are frequently found to be more effective than government programs. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. and the efforts of community organizations accomplished more in the fight for civil rights than any government program. There is no way that an impersonal bureaucracy can possibly, "produce positive social change," (Source B). The gender stereotypes of today are deeply rooted, but will hopefully fade as women continue to prove
Title IX creates an inefficient bureaucracy that fails to address the real causes of sexism and instead creates problems in regulations and further inequalities.
Title IX provides opportunities to female athletes, but at the expense of lesser known male sports teams. Title IX, like many other laws, has good intentions but lacks the resources to support it. It is not right that the University of Minnesota "axed its trophy winning men's gymnastics team," (Source A) simply because it needed to spend more money on women's sports to fulfill the quotas established by Title IX (Source B). If the government is going to require that the female sports teams of all institutions, "receiving financial assistance," (Source C) to meet quotas, it is going to have to provide enough funds to support sports of both genders. "In 1994, two hundred and seventeen new women's teams were created nationwide while only ninety male teams were," (Source F). It is not right to try to improve the status of one group if it is going to detriment the other.
Furthermore, if no one supports women playing sports, it is pointless for them to do so. "There are fewer women involved in college athletics because women in General have historically been discouraged from participating in sports," (Source B). Government programs like Title IX are ineffective in changing our "legacy of sexism," (Source C). Instead, we rely on the work of a dedicated few such as the famous female tennis player, Billie Jean King (Source E). Motivated individuals and organizations are frequently found to be more effective than government programs. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. and the efforts of community organizations accomplished more in the fight for civil rights than any government program. There is no way that an impersonal bureaucracy can possibly, "produce positive social change," (Source B). The gender stereotypes of today are deeply rooted, but will hopefully fade as women continue to prove