These days, there is a major problem with common sense. Its absence in American society is disturbing; it seems as if people have dispensed with common sense in order to avoid offending anybody.
In the arena of sexual politics, the Title IX debate, specifically, is no exception.
Title IX had good intentions. The regulations were meant to ensure that everyone, male or female, at public universities has the opportunity to participate in programs. The opening paragraph reads, “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.”
But even programs with the best of intentions can be soured by interpretations by narrow-minded politicians.
In October of last year, the University of Wisconsin was found to be in non-compliance with Title IX specifications. Let’s take a quick look at the numbers from the 1998-99 school year:
At that point, there were 12 sports on campus for men, and 11 for women. Of all athletes on campus, 55.5 percent were men and 45.5 percent were women.
The recruiting budget for men’s sports was $473,862, or 70 percent of the university’s total recruiting budget; women’s sports came in at $203,129, or 30 percent of the recruiting budget.
The total revenue from men’s programs was $42,884,237. The total revenue from women’s programs was $2,829,099.
The entire sport program at Wisconsin pulled in $42,614,237. The program’s expenses rang in at $43,707,509. In other words, the university is losing money on sports.
So male athletes outnumber female athletes, even though women make up slightly more than half of the undergraduate population. I’d argue, though, that men are simply more interested in sports, and the university may have gone too far in trying to appease the fanatical equality proponents.
It’s a fact: on attending major sporting events, one finds more men, more excited men and more men who aren’t there just because their girlfriends dragged them there. Men are just more interested in athletics, whether participating or watching.
In fact, to draw in even this many female athletes for Wisconsin, “sports” such as sailing and precision ice-skating for women have been added. I’m not denying that these activities require skill, but to add these programs in exchange for men’s programs, such as the notably absent men’s baseball, seems unfair.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Next, the recruiting budget: This is clearly related to a vast difference in the revenues brought in by men’s and women’s sports. I don’t find it unreasonable that the university is more willing to spend money to bring in athletes, who will, in turn, bring money back to the university. Sorry, precision ice-skaters, but the football program brings in more than you ever will.
The fact is that men’s sports bring in more money than any women’s sports because men, in general, are more athletic than women. I speak from experience.
I played rugby in high school, and while I loved to play, it is about a million times more fun to watch the men. As a general rule, men are stronger, faster and more aggressive than women. And for this reason, Wisconsin shouldn’t be stigmatized for spending more money on sports that will bring prestige to the school while giving women all reasonable (note, reasonable) opportunities to participate in athletics.
And this brings us to common sense. Title IX may have allowed more women to play sports, but is it fair to cut mainstream programs for men to simply play a numbers game? Frankly, I don’t think men who want to play baseball should be excluded from the sports program because the university has to think about its position in the context of a law meant to maintain both sexes’ rights. Unfortunately, advocates for the equal treatment of women seem to be going beyond “equal” and all the way to unfair — unfair for men, that is.
Though many militant feminists say it’s not possible, men are truly getting screwed over in this deal. The law states that no person will be denied opportunities because of his or her sex. However, I would argue that men, simply for being men, are punished under this law for having more testosterone in their blood and being naturally more competitive than women. Does it not violate the law to specifically cut men’s programs? What about with baseball? There is a women’s softball team, but no comparable team for men. Is that sexist? If it were the other way around, you can bet there would be outrage.
Jamie Seiberlich is a junior majoring in journalism at the University of Wisconsin.
