I've been giving this matter some thought and although I am sure it's been discussed on this forum already, I wanted to start a seperate thread to get a better understanding of how things would work.

Like others have pointed out, things are moving in a direction where student athletes will basically be determined to be employees of the university they represent. The problem is that under such a model and if these employees are treated as most employees are, they will be laid off / terminated being that the units (sports) they participate in are massive money losers.

Such terminations would gut women's sports. Some men's sports would be cast aside as well

With that said, will Title IX be reformed or vanquished? What are the ramifications if it comes to that? I can't imagine that such actions would not draw the ire of many politicians/bureaucrats (especially considering the fact that some are already getting ticked off, at least in my home state).

I don't see how Title IX can be "worked around" as some (not necessarily on this board) have suggested if the employee model comes into effect.

Thoughts?

Now, IANDL, but if they are University employees, then it seems like they will be subject to Title IX in the same way that other University employees are.

Just because Title IX is most famous in the sporting world for requirements to offer equivalent opportunities to scholarship athletes does not mean that it is limited to the question of equity of scholarship offerings.

Obligatory IANAL, but I think it's import to read Title IX.

Quote:No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

That's it. 37 words. Then unelected bureaucrats created a legal maze of compliance.
A better question is if athletes become employees, does Title VII take over?

I hate title IX and the way it’s been weaponized against athletics. The spirit of title IX is that if you’ve got men’s sports you should have women’s sports. It’s ridiculous to demand that sports opportunities be directly proportional. It’s turned sports into an entitlement. No one is going through every possible university activity to count heads and demand this level compliance. I hardly consider it “discrimination” because a school only has 7 women’s sports teams.

Title IX isn’t changing. Everyone needs to get that totally and completely out of their systems. That is way more set in stone than anything else that we’re discussing here. We’re a college sports-focused board, but Title IX is *way* broader than the sports world. The terms of Title IX are not changing. Everyone needs to get over that or we won’t have a productive discussion. Repeat: whether you personally agree with Title IX or not, those terms aren’t changing.

How the terms of Title IX are interpreted to apply to the employment model of college sports is the debate.

My personal opinion is that courts and frankly a lot of legislators have generally taken a pretty expansive view of the applicability of Title IX over the years. This isn’t a law that has been narrowly applied and that has been the case across the ideological spectrum (so it’s not just a clear liberal/conservative dichotomy). As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, courts in recent years have ruled that Title IX applies to student employees of university-affiliated hospitals, so that likely precludes a commonly-proposed “solution” of attempting to place the athletic department into a separate entity. Based on the university hospital cases (which also feature separate entities), that probably isn’t going to work.

So, Title IX will apply to college sports no matter how you try to legally structure it. Whether that means there needs to be equal pay among all athletes and/or equal NIL if schools take that in-house is the gazillion dollar question. My educated guess is that it’s going to be sway more toward the equal pay side than it will to the “football/basketball players getting way more money than everyone else” side, but that’s only my guess. Maybe colleges can get away with paying football and men’s basketball players more, but we can be assured that it will be tested in court if that happens.

(05-21-2024 03:34 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I hate title IX and the way it’s been weaponized against athletics. The spirit of title IX is that if you’ve got men’s sports you should have women’s sports. It’s ridiculous to demand that sports opportunities be directly proportional. It’s turned sports into an entitlement. No one is going through every possible university activity to count heads and demand this level compliance. I hardly consider it “discrimination” because a school only has 7 women’s sports teams.

It is a concession to the existence of distinct men's and women's sports that equal opportunity under title IX is allowed to be equal opportunity across men's and women's sports. Otherwise Title IX would entail equal opportunity for each specific opening, as it does for most every other opening -- academic scholarship, faculty position or &c. -- across the University.

The existence of distinct openings in men's and women's sports doesn't change with the shift in status from formal "student athletes" to "students employed as athletes", so it doesn't seem like there is any substantial reason for requirements for some testable form of equality of opportunity to go away.

Title IX is clearly in need of reform, as it has overcorrected gender enrollment, access and opportunity, and has been a driving force in subverting certain aspects of due process, and also has caused certain economic dislocations and inefficiencies, especially in universities very visible in sports. But it is a political sacred cow, being wrapped up in the public perception --especially active political groups and donors-- with women's rights.

The NCAA, which is to say the schools at the highest levels that dictate these rules, are to blame for the requirements of numbers of sponsored sports and scholarship minimums. These were not done out of random ignorance, but as a means of gatekeeping. Power schools looked at how much they could afford without causing bother and set the bar as high as they could to keep the riff raff out. Title IX was taken in stride, as athletes were not paid, so they could simply add unproductive Olympic Sports, where 2/3rds of those scholarships went to women to offset large football rosters. The cost was relatively minimal, and these athletes could be held to the regular impacted admissions requirements, thus raising APR (which itself is another hurdle to keep many schools out of the club). These were "cost of business" units, which really were not expensive at all; just slight changes in mix of admitted students and source of grant/scholarship money.

The whole game, where the NCAA is the shell to provide cover for the universities in the club, is to put up bureaucratic procedures and requirements to do the denying for them, keeping their hands clean.

Of course, the economic model for collegiate athletics has changed, but not the bureaucratic mindset of the schools. The reforms that will come will not be to Title IX but to the organization of sports and athletic departments. We already see a proposal kicking around to limit football rosters to 85. A first step before scholarships are either reduced or bifurcated into active and potential (red shirt squad) to reduce payroll number. Some have gone so far as to propose eliminating (from scholarship athletics) all but Football, Basketball and whatever sports are required to keep up title IX requirements. Bifurcation is probable, where some sports fall under a pay system and others not -- there will have to be very significant adjustments to non employee sports to not qualify in anyway for employment; schools will put great effort into determining the boundaries. All this is simply reaction to increased business cost.

Think of it this way. If you had to pay each of your employees double what they make now, you will look very hard at whether you absolutely need each one of them or not. Your HR, marketing and other staff who are not directly on the production and sales are likely to see very big cuts as you trim back to what you need to get the job done, the extra trimmed off. This is exactly what the proposals to go down to "6 sports" by certain ADs are about. These are realistic because they do not presume protection from congressional action, nor do they anticipate a change in title IX. Similar is the taking up the concept of limiting roster size, a precursor to reducing scholarships.

(05-21-2024 02:37 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  I've been giving this matter some thought and although I am sure it's been discussed on this forum already, I wanted to start a seperate thread to get a better understanding of how things would work.

Like others have pointed out, things are moving in a direction where student athletes will basically be determined to be employees of the university they represent. The problem is that under such a model and if these employees are treated as most employees are, they will be laid off / terminated being that the units (sports) they participate in are massive money losers.

Such terminations would gut women's sports. Some men's sports would be cast aside as well

With that said, will Title IX be reformed or vanquished? What are the ramifications if it comes to that? I can't imagine that such actions would not draw the ire of many politicians/bureaucrats (especially considering the fact that some are already getting ticked off, at least in my home state).

I don't see how Title IX can be "worked around" as some (not necessarily on this board) have suggested if the employee model comes into effect.

Thoughts?

Title IX will remain the law of the land. The courts will tell universities what's what. Judges are the experts who make that call.

A number of athlete-plaintiffs in the antitrust lawsuits we're seeing play 'non-revenue' sports. This often goes overlooked here. The Dartmouth basketball players were ruled 'employees' under labour law even in the absence of monetary consideration (Ivy League sports are non-scholarship). If those guys can be employees, any athlete given a uniform and a travel schedule can be.

If athletic programs are indeed in for widespread cutting, don't be surprised if proportionality guidelines make it the reverse of what you describe. Men's skating may be on thinner ice than women's skating if a school already offers American football.

Keep in mind, though, that Title IX wasn't enacted to reduce student opportunities. The person who needs to sweat before either of the skating captains may well turn out to be their athletic director who's knocking down the 7-figure salary. That AD's payday can be put on the block first as.a matter of statute.

(05-21-2024 03:06 PM)clunk Wrote:  Obligatory IANAL, but I think it's import to read Title IX.

Quote:No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

That's it. 37 words. Then unelected bureaucrats created a legal maze of compliance.
A better question is if athletes become employees, does Title VII take over?

Title IX was actually an Act of Congress, which is why it's proven so difficult to wriggle around. It it had actually been enacted by unelected bureaucrats, like, say, in the recent Dartmouth basketball case, there would have been a gradual weakening of it, probably a complete rescission. It was written by Senator Birch Bayh.

We can argue until we're blue in the face about college employment, rogue bureaucrats, Supreme Court leanings, etc etc, but Title IX has been the law of the land for over 50 years. You don't see a bunch of underemployed male rowers picketing Congress b/c their right to a scholarship has been limited by girls' volleyball or whatever. WE might not like it very much b/c it gets in the way of our football and mbb, but Congress, the Courts, and the public at large (including most college students) all support it.

(05-21-2024 03:44 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Title IX isn’t changing. Everyone needs to get that totally and completely out of their systems. That is way more set in stone than anything else that we’re discussing here. We’re a college sports-focused board, but Title IX is *way* broader than the sports world. The terms of Title IX are not changing. Everyone needs to get over that or we won’t have a productive discussion. Repeat: whether you personally agree with Title IX or not, those terms aren’t changing.

How the terms of Title IX are interpreted to apply to the employment model of college sports is the debate.

My personal opinion is that courts and frankly a lot of legislators have generally taken a pretty expansive view of the applicability of Title IX over the years. This isn’t a law that has been narrowly applied and that has been the case across the ideological spectrum (so it’s not just a clear liberal/conservative dichotomy). As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, courts in recent years have ruled that Title IX applies to student employees of university-affiliated hospitals, so that likely precludes a commonly-proposed “solution” of attempting to place the athletic department into a separate entity. Based on the university hospital cases (which also feature separate entities), that probably isn’t going to work.

So, Title IX will apply to college sports no matter how you try to legally structure it. Whether that means there needs to be equal pay among all athletes and/or equal NIL if schools take that in-house is the gazillion dollar question. My educated guess is that it’s going to be sway more toward the equal pay side than it will to the “football/basketball players getting way more money than everyone else” side, but that’s only my guess. Maybe colleges can get away with paying football and men’s basketball players more, but we can be assured that it will be tested in court if that happens.

Swaying the ~ $22m towards the athletes that actually earn that money for the school is a reasonable goal for the schools, but I think it will be hard to get Congress to include that in a theoretical limited anti-trust exemption. There's just not many votes to win from supporting something like that, and there will be some very vocal and pissed off girls who would work tirelessly to get people out of office if they were to support it. We'll see though, as the exact wording of Title IX doesn't say anything about paying a football stud who earns million$ for the school more or less than a female polo player who costs the school million$ per year. It certainly wouldn't be "sex discrimination" if, say, Illinois decided to pay their starting kicker on the football team $50k and only pay the starting women's soccer goalie $5k. Heck, some schools have a female placekicker on the football team, but it would be absurd to say that they should make $500k just b/c the starting QB was getting paid that much.

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

The one area that could come up in conversations would be WBB vs MBB players. Schools/Conferences/the NCAA could reasonably argue that the men's Tourney brings in about 15x as much as the women's tourney, men's games average far more attendance across schools and conferences, with a couple notable exceptions, and men's non-Tourney games are worth significant money to conferences, and women's rights advocates could reasonably argue that WBB is on a rocketship of popularity these days and their title game had more eyeballs than any single MBB game last year. But, in every other sport, it would be easy to just pay the girls and boys the exact same (small) amount.

Title IX is selectively enforced. Men are 17 percent of the population at the coed Texas Women' University, a few miles east of the University of North Texas in Denton, TX playing in Division II. TWU has been coed for 30 years.

There are nine women's teams. How many men's teams? Zero.

(05-21-2024 04:07 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(05-21-2024 02:37 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  I've been giving this matter some thought and although I am sure it's been discussed on this forum already, I wanted to start a seperate thread to get a better understanding of how things would work.

Like others have pointed out, things are moving in a direction where student athletes will basically be determined to be employees of the university they represent. The problem is that under such a model and if these employees are treated as most employees are, they will be laid off / terminated being that the units (sports) they participate in are massive money losers.

Such terminations would gut women's sports. Some men's sports would be cast aside as well

With that said, will Title IX be reformed or vanquished? What are the ramifications if it comes to that? I can't imagine that such actions would not draw the ire of many politicians/bureaucrats (especially considering the fact that some are already getting ticked off, at least in my home state).

I don't see how Title IX can be "worked around" as some (not necessarily on this board) have suggested if the employee model comes into effect.

Thoughts?

Title IX will remain the law of the land. The courts will tell universities what's what. Judges are the experts who make that call.

A number of athlete-plaintiffs in the antitrust lawsuits we're seeing play 'non-revenue' sports. This often goes overlooked here. The Dartmouth basketball players were ruled 'employees' under labour law even in the absence of monetary consideration (Ivy League sports are non-scholarship). If those guys can be employees, any athlete given a uniform and a travel schedule can be.

If athletic programs are indeed in for widespread cutting, don't be surprised if proportionality guidelines make it the reverse of what you describe. Men's skating may be on thinner ice than women's skating if a school already offers American football.

Keep in mind, though, that Title IX wasn't enacted to reduce student opportunities. The person who needs to sweat before either of the skating captains may well turn out to be their athletic director who's knocking down the 7-figure salary. That AD's payday can be put on the block first as.a matter of statute.

This is a compelling reason for Congress to get involved now. Nobody wants to be seen as the Congressman who sat around while tons of D1 athletes lost their scholarships and opportunities to advance their careers/lives, but it's also not reasonable to expect colleges to run a $22m deficit indefinitely. 20 or 30 of us can absorb that $22m, but the rest of the P5 and all of the g5 will be scrambling, slashing, cutting, paring down, etc etc and generally getting all sorts of stingy when it comes to money. As that number increases over time, it will get more and more difficult to keep up for many programs, and the pressure on Congress will increase significantly to "do something to fix this". We can only pray that the solution isn't worse than the problem.

(05-21-2024 04:52 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-21-2024 04:07 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Title IX will remain the law of the land. The courts will tell universities what's what. Judges are the experts who make that call.

A number of athlete-plaintiffs in the antitrust lawsuits we're seeing play 'non-revenue' sports. This often goes overlooked here. The Dartmouth basketball players were ruled 'employees' under labour law even in the absence of monetary consideration (Ivy League sports are non-scholarship). If those guys can be employees, any athlete given a uniform and a travel schedule can be.

If athletic programs are indeed in for widespread cutting, don't be surprised if proportionality guidelines make it the reverse of what you describe. Men's skating may be on thinner ice than women's skating if a school already offers American football.

Keep in mind, though, that Title IX wasn't enacted to reduce student opportunities. The person who needs to sweat before either of the skating captains may well turn out to be their athletic director who's knocking down the 7-figure salary. That AD's payday can be put on the block first as.a matter of statute.

This is a compelling reason for Congress to get involved now. Nobody wants to be seen as the Congressman who sat around while tons of D1 athletes lost their scholarships and opportunities to advance their careers/lives, but it's also not reasonable to expect colleges to run a $22m deficit indefinitely. 20 or 30 of us can absorb that $22m, but the rest of the P5 and all of the g5 will be scrambling, slashing, cutting, paring down, etc etc and generally getting all sorts of stingy when it comes to money. As that number increases over time, it will get more and more difficult to keep up for many programs, and the pressure on Congress will increase significantly to "do something to fix this". We can only pray that the solution isn't worse than the problem.

California's legislature, last time I looked, was working on this in connection with a lawsuit there. Universities having trouble meeting athletic budget obligations would be required by statute to reduce staff expenses first before any scholarships and offerings for students. IIRC, schools could not cut any opportunities for students until no staffer made more than $500,000 annually.

This is last summer's news. I don't know the current status of that legislation.

(05-21-2024 04:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-21-2024 03:06 PM)clunk Wrote:  Obligatory IANAL, but I think it's import to read Title IX.

Quote:No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

That's it. 37 words. Then unelected bureaucrats created a legal maze of compliance.
A better question is if athletes become employees, does Title VII take over?

Title IX was actually an Act of Congress, which is why it's proven so difficult to wriggle around. It it had actually been enacted by unelected bureaucrats, like, say, in the recent Dartmouth basketball case, there would have been a gradual weakening of it, probably a complete rescission. It was written by Senator Birch Bayh.

We can argue until we're blue in the fact about college employment, rogue bureaucrats, Supreme Court leanings, etc etc, but Title IX has been the law of the land for over 50 years. Unlike another law that was recently overturned by the SC after about 50 years, this one is also accepted and almost universally embraced as the law of the land. You don't see a bunch of underemployed male rowers picketing Congress b/c their right to a scholarship has been limited by girls' volleyball or whatever. WE might not like it very much b/c it gets in the way of our football and mbb, but Congress, the Courts, and the public at large (including most college students) all support it.

You've completely missed the point. Congress passed 37 words. An unelected bureaucracy then created the 3 prong test that everybody has to comply with, plus the need for pretty much every organization to have a dedicated Title IX enforcement officer.

(05-21-2024 05:25 PM)clunk Wrote:  You've completely missed the point. Congress passed 37 words. An unelected bureaucracy then created the 3 prong test that everybody has to comply with, plus the need for pretty much every organization to have a dedicated Title IX enforcement officer.

Those 37 words are law. That is the point not to be missed.

The law says stop on red and go on green. The rest is making sure everyone knows, so the maximum number of people will stay healthy.

If the phrase 'unelected bureaucracy' is going to be one's fetish d'jour, one may as well use the term to describe athletic departments, too. It works.

(05-21-2024 05:06 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(05-21-2024 04:52 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-21-2024 04:07 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Title IX will remain the law of the land. The courts will tell universities what's what. Judges are the experts who make that call.

A number of athlete-plaintiffs in the antitrust lawsuits we're seeing play 'non-revenue' sports. This often goes overlooked here. The Dartmouth basketball players were ruled 'employees' under labour law even in the absence of monetary consideration (Ivy League sports are non-scholarship). If those guys can be employees, any athlete given a uniform and a travel schedule can be.

If athletic programs are indeed in for widespread cutting, don't be surprised if proportionality guidelines make it the reverse of what you describe. Men's skating may be on thinner ice than women's skating if a school already offers American football.

Keep in mind, though, that Title IX wasn't enacted to reduce student opportunities. The person who needs to sweat before either of the skating captains may well turn out to be their athletic director who's knocking down the 7-figure salary. That AD's payday can be put on the block first as.a matter of statute.

This is a compelling reason for Congress to get involved now. Nobody wants to be seen as the Congressman who sat around while tons of D1 athletes lost their scholarships and opportunities to advance their careers/lives, but it's also not reasonable to expect colleges to run a $22m deficit indefinitely. 20 or 30 of us can absorb that $22m, but the rest of the P5 and all of the g5 will be scrambling, slashing, cutting, paring down, etc etc and generally getting all sorts of stingy when it comes to money. As that number increases over time, it will get more and more difficult to keep up for many programs, and the pressure on Congress will increase significantly to "do something to fix this". We can only pray that the solution isn't worse than the problem.

California's legislature, last time I looked, was working on this in connection with a lawsuit there. Universities having trouble meeting athletic budget obligations would be required by statute to reduce staff expenses first before any scholarships and offerings for students. IIRC, schools could not cut any opportunities for students until no staffer made more than $500,000 annually.

This is last summer's news. I don't know the current status of that legislation.

And I think that is going to be the reaction of legislators in general: don’t come to us threatening to cut women’s scholarships and complaining about Title IX compliance when you’re spending 8 figures on football coaches every year.

I think a lot of people here are in a total denial bubble here about Title IX even more than all of the wins that athletes have been getting regarding compensation. The NCAA getting an antitrust exemption from Congress - which I think has an infinitesimal chance of happening - is still exponentially more likely than any weakening of Title IX whatsoever. Seriously - anyone hoping for that needs to jettison it from their brains.

(05-21-2024 06:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-21-2024 05:06 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(05-21-2024 04:52 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-21-2024 04:07 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Title IX will remain the law of the land. The courts will tell universities what's what. Judges are the experts who make that call.

A number of athlete-plaintiffs in the antitrust lawsuits we're seeing play 'non-revenue' sports. This often goes overlooked here. The Dartmouth basketball players were ruled 'employees' under labour law even in the absence of monetary consideration (Ivy League sports are non-scholarship). If those guys can be employees, any athlete given a uniform and a travel schedule can be.

If athletic programs are indeed in for widespread cutting, don't be surprised if proportionality guidelines make it the reverse of what you describe. Men's skating may be on thinner ice than women's skating if a school already offers American football.

Keep in mind, though, that Title IX wasn't enacted to reduce student opportunities. The person who needs to sweat before either of the skating captains may well turn out to be their athletic director who's knocking down the 7-figure salary. That AD's payday can be put on the block first as.a matter of statute.

This is a compelling reason for Congress to get involved now. Nobody wants to be seen as the Congressman who sat around while tons of D1 athletes lost their scholarships and opportunities to advance their careers/lives, but it's also not reasonable to expect colleges to run a $22m deficit indefinitely. 20 or 30 of us can absorb that $22m, but the rest of the P5 and all of the g5 will be scrambling, slashing, cutting, paring down, etc etc and generally getting all sorts of stingy when it comes to money. As that number increases over time, it will get more and more difficult to keep up for many programs, and the pressure on Congress will increase significantly to "do something to fix this". We can only pray that the solution isn't worse than the problem.

California's legislature, last time I looked, was working on this in connection with a lawsuit there. Universities having trouble meeting athletic budget obligations would be required by statute to reduce staff expenses first before any scholarships and offerings for students. IIRC, schools could not cut any opportunities for students until no staffer made more than $500,000 annually.

This is last summer's news. I don't know the current status of that legislation.

And I think that is going to be the reaction of legislators in general: don’t come to us threatening to cut women’s scholarships and complaining about Title IX compliance when you’re spending 8 figures on football coaches every year.

I think a lot of people here are in a total denial bubble here about Title IX even more than all of the wins that athletes have been getting regarding compensation. The NCAA getting an antitrust exemption from Congress - which I think has an infinitesimal chance of happening - is still exponentially more likely than any weakening of Title IX whatsoever. Seriously - anyone hoping for that needs to jettison it from their brains.

This take is way too strong - just a few years ago no one believed Trump could win the Presidency or that Roe v Wade would be overturned. We are in a new world - Supreme Court could rule that the 3 pronged test for Title 9 is unconstitutional in the near future. Certainly the 5th circuit in Texas would love to send a case up to DC.

At base level, it makes no sense to pay all college athletes the same amount - it is frankly unAmerican to do so. Find anyone, outside of the athletes and immediate family, that think the Alabama QB and the Alabama softball backup outfielder should earn the same salary. I have no idea what will happen but I am smart enough not to talk in absolutes.

Plus do you really think the vast majority of the population of Red states care about women's sports vs football? You think a majority of Alabama citizens want to reduce the football coach salaries to pay female atheletes? Absolutely not. The current intrepretation of Title 9 is not in any way safe.

(05-21-2024 05:25 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(05-21-2024 04:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-21-2024 03:06 PM)clunk Wrote:  Obligatory IANAL, but I think it's import to read Title IX.

Quote:No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

That's it. 37 words. Then unelected bureaucrats created a legal maze of compliance.
A better question is if athletes become employees, does Title VII take over?

Title IX was actually an Act of Congress, which is why it's proven so difficult to wriggle around. It it had actually been enacted by unelected bureaucrats, like, say, in the recent Dartmouth basketball case, there would have been a gradual weakening of it, probably a complete rescission. It was written by Senator Birch Bayh.

We can argue until we're blue in the fact about college employment, rogue bureaucrats, Supreme Court leanings, etc etc, but Title IX has been the law of the land for over 50 years. Unlike another law that was recently overturned by the SC after about 50 years, this one is also accepted and almost universally embraced as the law of the land. You don't see a bunch of underemployed male rowers picketing Congress b/c their right to a scholarship has been limited by girls' volleyball or whatever. WE might not like it very much b/c it gets in the way of our football and mbb, but Congress, the Courts, and the public at large (including most college students) all support it.

You've completely missed the point. Congress passed 37 words. An unelected bureaucracy then created the 3 prong test that everybody has to comply with, plus the need for pretty much every organization to have a dedicated Title IX enforcement officer.

Keep in mind that SOMEBODY has to implement laws once they're passed. Admittedly, we've seen so much overreach from various Executive Departments over the past few decades that it's tempting to just assume that any decisions we don't agree with must have been made by unelected bureaucrats grabbing for power, but you could not be more wrong in this case. This is unelected bureaucrats doing the job they were hired to do.

(05-21-2024 07:21 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-21-2024 05:25 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(05-21-2024 04:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-21-2024 03:06 PM)clunk Wrote:  Obligatory IANAL, but I think it's import to read Title IX.

Quote:No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

That's it. 37 words. Then unelected bureaucrats created a legal maze of compliance.
A better question is if athletes become employees, does Title VII take over?

Title IX was actually an Act of Congress, which is why it's proven so difficult to wriggle around. It it had actually been enacted by unelected bureaucrats, like, say, in the recent Dartmouth basketball case, there would have been a gradual weakening of it, probably a complete rescission. It was written by Senator Birch Bayh.

We can argue until we're blue in the fact about college employment, rogue bureaucrats, Supreme Court leanings, etc etc, but Title IX has been the law of the land for over 50 years. Unlike another law that was recently overturned by the SC after about 50 years, this one is also accepted and almost universally embraced as the law of the land. You don't see a bunch of underemployed male rowers picketing Congress b/c their right to a scholarship has been limited by girls' volleyball or whatever. WE might not like it very much b/c it gets in the way of our football and mbb, but Congress, the Courts, and the public at large (including most college students) all support it.

You've completely missed the point. Congress passed 37 words. An unelected bureaucracy then created the 3 prong test that everybody has to comply with, plus the need for pretty much every organization to have a dedicated Title IX enforcement officer.

You're right that an unelected bureaucracy manages Title IX, as it was designed to. I constantly rail at aggressive bureaucrats trying to legislate from their desks, but the implementation of Title IX is exactly what they're supposed to be doing. That doesn't mean that we have to LIKE how they're implementing it ofc, and I for one think that they're implementing it quite poorly, but they have every right to do so unless and until Congress clarifies Title IX's meaning. If Congress wanted to keep the Department of Education from interpreting Title IX in the way that they have for 50+ years then they could make it more precise at any time.

There wasn't an urgent need to rework Title 9 until the players could be paid. Now there is an urgent need. People with money care about this issue so Congress is more likely to address it.

(05-21-2024 07:21 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-21-2024 05:25 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(05-21-2024 04:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-21-2024 03:06 PM)clunk Wrote:  Obligatory IANAL, but I think it's import to read Title IX.

Quote:No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

That's it. 37 words. Then unelected bureaucrats created a legal maze of compliance.
A better question is if athletes become employees, does Title VII take over?

Title IX was actually an Act of Congress, which is why it's proven so difficult to wriggle around. It it had actually been enacted by unelected bureaucrats, like, say, in the recent Dartmouth basketball case, there would have been a gradual weakening of it, probably a complete rescission. It was written by Senator Birch Bayh.

We can argue until we're blue in the fact about college employment, rogue bureaucrats, Supreme Court leanings, etc etc, but Title IX has been the law of the land for over 50 years. Unlike another law that was recently overturned by the SC after about 50 years, this one is also accepted and almost universally embraced as the law of the land. You don't see a bunch of underemployed male rowers picketing Congress b/c their right to a scholarship has been limited by girls' volleyball or whatever. WE might not like it very much b/c it gets in the way of our football and mbb, but Congress, the Courts, and the public at large (including most college students) all support it.

You've completely missed the point. Congress passed 37 words. An unelected bureaucracy then created the 3 prong test that everybody has to comply with, plus the need for pretty much every organization to have a dedicated Title IX enforcement officer.

Keep in mind that SOMEBODY has to implement laws once they're passed. Admittedly, we've seen so much overreach from various Executive Departments over the past few decades that it's tempting to just assume that any decisions we don't agree with must have been made by unelected bureaucrats grabbing for power, but you could not be more wrong in this case. This is unelected bureaucrats doing the job they were hired to do.

What's wrong with doing exactly what congressional law says, and nothing more?
Unelected bureaucrats have no business creating policy out of thin air. I might be in the minority on that, but you will never convince me otherwise.