(04-29-2009 06:26 AM)Buc Wrote: I thought I would repost a couple of my questions/comments since there was no response from Buc2002. I was interested in what the administration thought of these questions. See below
Kev and Gold's view of sports could absolutely fit the model of Title IX. For God's sake, will you please admit that to keep football you guys have chosen the most expensive way to comply with Title IX. You do realize their are other alternatives. I know, I know... this is the route you guys chose and you all have been certified as passing Title IX but with a little extra work you could comply with Title IX like most every other school.
If sports is about more than fun and interest and it is about educational opportunities, why don't you guys charge student fees for scholarships for the underprivilidged?
I can't speak for the overall administration, president or anyone else in a decision making compacity on the "whys" or the thought process. There is just the "is", and at ETSU that fact is the proportionality approach to scholarships. Now, I can say that I've heard and read comments from both the AD and president that talk about proportionality being the only prong of Title IX that is really legitimate. The other prongs are considered ways "around the intent" of Title IX. They make it so that some schools can skirt (no pun intended) the law.
As for your question about underpriviledged students, I would first point out that there are numerous scholarships, grants, federal grant in aids, and work studies for underpriviledged students. In addition, if these kids are coming from households without a lot of income, they aren't paying federal income tax or any other tax with the exception of sales taxes. There are multiple ways for underpriviledge kids to get an education in this country, and many of those kids utilize athletics to reach that goal.
As for a fee, there are plenty of fees in tuition that cover "services and operating" on campus, but I don't know that you can specifically say they are earmarked for scholarships.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but again, you have to consider athletics the same as other opportunities on campus. Athletics has an educational purpose and mission, and people a long time ago and at institutions across the country bought into that mission. Which is why college athletics is so rampant today -- even at NAIA schools.
Think about that. Why do you think schools like Milligan or King have athletic programs? They know their mission is to educate kids and stay operational. They can do both by starting athletic programs, which bring certain kids to their school that otherwise wouldn't be there to get an education while also providing revenue. The system works at all levels. And to Gold, sure winning is important at places like King and Milligan as well, but I'm sure they would say the reason for their being goes beyond the standings, because really at that level there's not a lot of people paying attention whether you win or lose anyway.