View mobile edition

Login/Sign Up

Views

The Campaign to Gut Title IX

December 15, 2006

By Valerie M. Bonnette

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Oyez, oyez, now here comes the arch-conservative Independent Women’s Forum and the College Sports Council demanding reform of Title IX. To promote their agenda to render Title IX useless, they preyed upon athletes whose teams have been cut for financial reasons and organized the students for a demonstration at the U.S. Department of Education in Washington demanding neither honesty nor fiscal integrity, but the reform of landmark legislation prohibiting sex discrimination. Enough already! It’s time for the truth.

Is it possible to “reform” Title IX any more than it has been since 2005? In less than two years, the Bush administration has dug deep to dislodge the cornerstones of two basic provisions of Title IX. Thanks to recently revised federal rules, grade schools can now offer separate classes and even separate schools on the basis of sex. Is it hard to imagine that different curricula -- the very result the Title IX legislation was created to prevent -- will soon follow? And in 2005, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a policy clarification that eviscerates Title IX’s equal access policies for athletics programs, at least in terms of OCR enforcement.

Four years ago, in an affront to the 30th anniversary of Title IX, the Bush administration created the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics based on allegations that Title IX requires proportionality (providing women’s and men’s athletics participation opportunities at rates proportionate to their enrollment rates). The task of this commission of athletics professionals was to rewrite longstanding civil rights policies that had already been upheld unanimously by the eight U.S. Circuit Courts that had ruled on the merits of these policies. CBS Television’s “60 Minutes” weighed in on the commission’s work in a November 2002 program, declaring that proportionality was the only “sure fire” way to comply with the Title IX athletics policies for participation opportunities. Too bad the truth didn’t match the entertainment goals of “60 Minutes” -- proportionality has never been the only method for compliance.

Two Government Accountability Office studies (available here and here) have confirmed what longtime OCR personnel already knew: 73 percent of the time, institutions investigated by OCR choose compliance options other than proportionality. What this means is, 73 percent of the time, institutions are complying with Title IX even though women’s rate of athletics participation is less than their rate of enrollment, and sometimes significantly so. Another GAO study undermined the deceptive slogan that Title IX “quotas” lead to the destruction of men’s programs, finding that 91 percent of institutions cited “lack of student interest” as a reason for discontinuing men’s teams.

OCR’s 2005 policy on the three-part test guaranteeing equal access to athletics participation confirms that institutions choose test three, full accommodation, 66 percent of the time, while test one, proportionality, is selected only 27 percent of the time (test three means offering every sport for the underrepresented sex, i.e., women, for which there is sufficient interest, ability, and available competition in the institution’s normal competitive region). This confirmation is tantamount to an admission that the reason cited for creating the 2002 Commission was false.

So, what to do when your campaign slogan has been exposed as falsehood, your goal is to render Title IX useless, and two-thirds of institutions choose compliance with test three? Answer: Create policy under test three that allows institution officials to decide for themselves that they comply.

OCR’s 2005 policy (clearly written by politically appointed management, not career experts) reads like a rough, first draft of someone’s wish list on how to avoid ever adding another women’s team. If an institution uses OCR’s Model Survey:

OCR will not initiate an investigation.
Non-response is interpreted as lack of interest, and thus, a claim of compliance -- contrary to U.S. Circuit Court rulings.
Should survey results show sufficient interest, an institution can conduct team try-outs, and the athletic director can decide that the women trying-out lack sufficient ability, i.e., institution officials would decide for themselves that they comply with Title IX.
Institution officials can claim uncertainty as to ability and offer a sport at the intramural or club level for several years to assess ability.

Those asserting that Title IX requires quotas are no doubt dismayed that few if any institutions seem to be using OCR’s Model Survey since its public debut on March 17, 2005. So, they have moved on to the next strategy: seize upon a sound bite opportunity and demand “reform” at a time when one institution decides to downsize for the sake of competitiveness and ease of management, while other institutions have substantial state budget cuts foisted upon them.

It would seem that the now-former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert -- the architect behind an 11-year campaign to dismantle the Title IX athletics policies – and “reform” advocates underestimated the intelligence of educators who have recognized that a survey used in isolation reeks of pretext discrimination.

Savvy college and university presidents know better than to walk into a federal court room and proclaim: “We ignored participation numbers in club, intramural, and high school feeder programs because when no one responded to our e-mail survey (administered during spring break or frenetic registration week, perhaps), we knew we complied with federal civil rights law.” The anti-Title IX collective probably never imagined that the NCAA leadership would recommend to its 1,025 member institutions and 260 other members that they not use the Model Survey.

For over three decades, no reform was needed for Title IX -- just education on how to apply the policies in the practical world. Now, in a mere two years, the Bush administration has created a real need for reform -- the need for recision of both of its policies that weaken the protections for students. For over three decades, Title IX has opened the door to the opportunity to explore. Mr. Hastert and the “reform” advocates can’t seem to find that door, as hard as they keep trying to slam it shut.

Valerie M. Bonnette was employed for 15 years at the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights and co-authored the agency's Title IX Athletics Investigator’s Manual. In 1994, she founded Good Sports, Inc., a consulting firm that assists institutions in complying with Title IX's athletics provisions.

Go to comments (14) »

Get Hired!

See all postings »

Matching Jobs

Most Popular

Comments on The Campaign to Gut Title IX

So convincing
Posted by The Old Curmudgeon on December 15, 2006 at 8:45am EST
What a terrible situation. The writer and TDG are so convincing -- terminate all college sports. If students want sports, let them determine the out-sourcing process -- what a teachable moment! Let colleges focus on their core purpose -- education.

Posted by Perplexed on December 15, 2006 at 9:00am EST
"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"
On the basis of this statement advocates of gender discrimination in sports say the proportion of female athletes should match the proportion of female students. But why does this only apply after admission? Why havn't the admissions policies that lead to gender imbalance been challenged? If about 1/2 of the college-age population are male and only about 1/3 of a student body are male that student body has itself failed the proportionality test. To make matters worse, it is the excess number of female students that then drives a lot of these decisions to cut male teams. Arguments using interest, ability, finances etc. should fall on deaf ears, as they have for athletic proportionality after admission.

Posted by K.T. on December 15, 2006 at 9:25am EST
Is it possible to “reform” Title IX any more than it has been since 2005? In less than two years, the Bush administration has dug deep to dislodge the cornerstones of two basic provisions of Title IX.
yes, it is... abolish what has long been a miserable piece of government policy in an area in which the federal government has no constitutional business sticking its nose... education (and athletics).

Posted by Geoff on December 15, 2006 at 12:16pm EST
"Two Government Accountability Office studies (available here and here) have confirmed what longtime OCR personnel already knew: 73 percent of the time, institutions investigated by OCR choose compliance options other than proportionality. What this means is, 73 percent of the time, institutions are complying with Title IX even though women’s rate of athletics participation is less than their rate of enrollment, and sometimes significantly so."
This is not necessarily true. What this figure says is that the majority of the time that a school is investigated the school has chosen to comply with Title IX with a method other than proportionality, and that these methods are much harder to account for than proportionality. Unless I am misunderstanding the author's statement, this seems like an example of using a statistic to mislead a reader.
While I am a supporter of Title IX, I still see some issues with what some schools have done in its name. Specifically, the practice of cutting sports for men in order to comply with proportionality is something that should be addressed. I cannot think that even the most ardent supporters of Title IX would believe that the spirit of the act is supported by removing opportunity from one segment of the population, whether male or female.

KT and The Feds
Posted by Michael on December 15, 2006 at 12:16pm EST
KT --I hope that you actively seek the return of all federal monies that your institutions or state receive from the federal government---in fact, I just wrote an article in response to a whiner about Title IX that they would not have to comply with Title IX if they simply refuse federal monies---certainly good neo-cons would want to do that, or would they? When doe sthe federal government grow bigger and more intrusive? When the neo-cons control!!!

Title IX and Disproportionate Impact
Posted by R. Hirsch on December 15, 2006 at 2:30pm EST
At our community college in CA, we offer many vocational education programs with highly distored gender ratios. Overall there are 130 men:100 women at our college. We also offer Theater Arts, Dance, Ceramics, and a recreational exercise science program, all of which have highly distorted gender ratios (more women than men). Should we require all yoga, aerobics, and dance courses/ programs to have gender equity?
Equity and equality do not mean "the same". I cringe everytime I see men's sports cut in order to create equity. The athletic programs are created to promote a sense of community and build teamwork, and a life-time of friendships (at least here where no athletic scholarships are given). Yes, athletic programs are expensive (and definitely not part of back-to-basics), but they sure fit into the notion of engagement, and they promote student retention and success (especially for men).
How does Spellings treat inter-collegate athletics in her push for accountability and accreditation reform? Perhaps like a doctor who treats the disease, but not the whole patient. We need more men, women and co-ed teams(sports, forensics, or other) in this era of on-line distance education, personal isolation, reduced sense of community, and loss of personal accountability/ responsibility.
When accountability is measured in degrees per initial student, the students loose, the community looses, and our educational institutions loose their relevance beyond "technical" education. An educated person is more than the ability to pass a standardized test.
I would encourage people to support all of their intercollegate teams, and be especially visible and vocal when the administration tries to cut a team in the name of Title IX. Add and expand teams, expand student engagement, and expand the definition of education.

College Sports Council Replies
Posted by Jim McCarthy at College Sports Council on December 15, 2006 at 5:55pm EST
Before a discussion of the facts, it’s worthwhile to address some of the ad hominem accusations that Valerie Bonnette levels in the lead of her piece. The Independent Women’s Forum is “arch-conservative,” she charges, and the College Sports Council (for which I am the media rep) are lying manipulators who have “preyed upon athletes” in order to advance an ulterior agenda. By inference the administrators at JMU, who publicly cited Title IX enforcement (and not budget) as the driving force in their reluctant decision to cut 10 athletic teams, are also lying. The student-athletes (young women and men alike), parents (both moms and dads), men and women coaches that spoke out for Title IX reform at the Department of Education are, at best, gullible dupes in the eyes of Ms. Bonnette.
Oh, also, 60 Minutes is an “entertainment” program that similarly deceived the public about Title IX, Ms. Bonnette will have you know, and the presidential commission on Title IX was formed under false pretenses.
Got that? Ms. Bonnette declares that it is “time for the truth” for which she alone has insight. Those who differ with her have no bona fide position – they are liars, predators, political manipulators and, but of course, rank sexists scheming to “shut the door” on women.
Well despite Ms. Bonnette’s vitriol, the debate over Title IX enforcement is worthy and it is one that the coaches, athletes and parents in our group are going to engage with a principled voice – no matter what smears are leveled at us.
When you sort through the invective, the substantive points in Ms. Bonnette’s piece boil down to these two:
1) Schools feel no pressure to enforce proportionality, which the GAO has proven, and;
2) The DoEd guidance on surveys is legally and practically flawed.
First, the GAO studies that Bonnette cites have been debunked now for years. Here’s why. The 1996 study was itself based on studies and research conducted by activist groups and trial lawyers with a vested interest in obscuring the harm done by proportionality. Here’s how the GAO report describes that methodology and its reliability:
“We consulted academic researchers and professional
organizations and identified eight major studies that evaluated the
progress being made toward gender equity in intercollegiate athletics. We
reviewed each study and summarized its key findings but did not verify the
accuracy of the information presented in the studies.”
And what were some of those groups? Here what the report shows:
American Association of University Women
National Women’s Law Center
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
Women’s Sports Foundation
Feminist Majority Foundation
These, by the way, are the very groups that routinely bring suit and threaten litigation against schools that aren’t proportional. In other words, they collect legal fees, contributions, grants and publicity for their activism. When asked by the GAO whether they are causing harm to men’s athletic opportunity, is it any surprise at all that they would want to distort that impact?
The second study has the same methodological flaws. Here’s how that study describes its data:
“In conducting our review, we relied on data obtained
from Education and intercollegiate athletics associations which, although
not verified, are considered the best available and are used extensively by
researchers.”
Read that again: Not verified. Incredibly, despite the corrupted reporting, the GAO can’t avoid noting in the findings, “There was no agreement on whether the law has contributed to the decline in the number of men involved in intercollegiate sports.”
And who was the main contributor of the data? Why, of course, it was the Office of Civil Rights, which offered information gathered in part when Ms. Bonnette was a compliance official there. So here, in effect, is how the GAO conducted their inquiry:
GAO: “Say, Office of Civil Rights, are schools cutting men’s opportunities because of pressure from your proportionality requirement?”
OCR: “Of course not. We are shocked, shocked that you would even ask such a thing.”
GAO: “How do you know?”
OCR: “Because we say so!”
Valerie Bonnette: “See, I told you!”
Notice also in the second report the six page reply from the Department of Education demanding dozens of edits, redactions and changes to the final wording of the report. What were those for? That’s easy, as Norma Cantu explained in the attached letter to GAO: “We are concerned that the draft report does not include information that we believe effectively rebuts the widely held misperception that Title IX is responsible for the decline in the number of men’s sports opportunities.”
But even if you take the GAO’s see-no-evil data at face value (and if you do, I’ve got some lunar real estate to sell you) it means that in 27 percent of the cases, schools are using an explicit gender quota that eliminates men’s opportunities. See – men are only discriminated against about a third of the time. No sweat!
As for surveying students on athletic interest, Ms. Bonnette’s complaint isn’t really that the surveys are conducted by email, or during a hectic time, or during a slow time as she suggests. The real problem is that students themselves are being asked directly whether and how they wish to participate. And this is the main conceit of the Title IX status quo: young women can’t answer for themselves, coaches and parents are deluded, and critics are ideologues in disguise. Any survey without input from people like Ms. Bonnette, the belief goes – administrators, lawyers and enforcers – cannot truly gauge what kind of athletics young men and women want. Ask the students directly? Not a chance.
Well if Ms. Bonnette is so keen on getting to the truth, let me put forward some questions for her that will help enlighten readers:
-- You have a vested, professional interest in promoting Title IX compliance, so how vested is it? What are your fees for conducting what you call “Title IX investigations” at various schools?
-- Of the schools that you have investigated and advised, how many have had to eliminate men’s athletic teams or cap their rosters as a means of Title IX compliance?
-- You charge that the Department’s 2005 clarification was “clearly written by politically appointed management, not career experts.” When you were a Department official yourself, did you ever work in conjunction with the National Women’s Law Center while crafting policy and enforcement guidelines?
-- I’ve spoken with many of the young women that participated in our reform rally about criticisms like yours that they were manipulated. Most found the accusation to be insulting and demeaning. These are intelligent and honorable student-athletes who are living through the effects of your policy and they don’t deserve condescension. I’d say you owe them some basic courtesy and probably an apology. Anything to offer?
Finally, if proportionality is just one part of a flexible system the other aspects of which you presumably find acceptable, then surely you would have no objection if it were scrapped? How about any of the dozens of the smaller reform measures that a majority of the Title IX Commission put forward – is there even a single one that you could accept as a compromise?
When you answer those questions, or not, readers can judge for themselves whether you are in any position to call us controlling ideologues.
Jim McCarthy
College Sports Council

Jim, I don't get the CSC's logic.
Posted by Eveningsun at Small Public College on December 17, 2006 at 10:20am EST
I just went to the College Sports Council's website (http://www.savingsports.org/home/) and looked at the "Fact" section. Here's what it says:
"All 64 teams in the 2005 NCAA Div. I women's basketball championships existed prior to 1979, when the federal government first introduced proportionality as part of the three-part test. Therefore, not one of these teams benefited from the gender quota."
But that does not seem to follow. For all I know, the "gender quota" might have led to the creation or the strengthening of new teams elsewhere, thereby elevating the general level of play, in turn increasing public interest and support, leading to increased emphasis on girl's basketball at the high school level, etc., etc.--all of which could have benefited those teams, significantly if indirectly.
Nor does this fact mean that OTHER women's basketball teams, whether non-championship Division I teams or Division II teams, did not benefit more directly from the "gender quota." For all I know, the very reason that the 64 teams were in the 2005 championship is because they had a longer and stronger tradition than post-Title IX Division I teams.
One might as well say something like this: "Both of the major religions represented in the 2004 presidential election existed prior to 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Therefore, not one of these religions benefited from the First Amendment."
All I'm saying here is that if the CRC's website is meant to persuade, it ain't doing a very good job. It struck me as a propaganda site.
BTW, if wrestling coaches wanna keep their jobs, they should stop blaming feminism and blame the football business instead. Until they do that, many of us will continue to shake our heads and to peg them as misogynists (because they reflexively blame women first) and cowards (because they won't dare stand up to the football bullies).

Yes Jim, you come across as an ideologue
Posted by Jerry , Parent on December 17, 2006 at 2:05pm EST
Here’s one reader that clearly sees you as a controlling ideologue. Jim, you come across as a redneck boy’s coach who is used to placating the booster club dads in some back room. “Got that?” “Read that again” “No sweat!” “Not a chance.”
You talk of ad hominem accusations and proceed to sling a few yourself. You give a fictional dialog and leave the author with the last word. You seem to have studied from the same playbook as Donald Rumsfeld.
Ms. Bonnette probably does make a living defending fairness in collegiate athletics - much as the ACLU makes a living defending the bill of right - from the likes of you.

On Logic and Ideology
Posted by Jim McCarthy at College Sports Council on December 18, 2006 at 12:40pm EST
So, according to Eveningsun and Jerry, the CSC and the "likes of me" are misogynists, cowards and rednecks. Nice.
How sadly typical of the status quo defenders: ignore the merits of the debate and instead disparage anyone that differs with the Title IX orthodoxy. For people who are so strident about equity and discrimination, one might think they would care about intellectual integrity. Apparently not.
I will repeat this as often as necessary: the athletes, parents and coaches working for reform of Title IX deserve basic respect and we will continue to offer a principled argument no matter how low the attacks from the other side may go. If anyone thinks we've resorted to ad hominems, Jerry, then cite them.
That said, let me take on the rebuttals that were made, such as they are.
The question of Title IX's impact on women's basketball, while not at all germane to the discussion of Valerie Bonnette's article, is an important one. The point of our statistic (that all the teams in the NCAA tournament existed well before proportionality) is to show that the vast credit Title IX receives isn't always warranted. Eveningsun's point about the indirect benefit is, by his own description, conjecture. But if it will help clarify the illustration, fine, we'll add the word "direct."
If you don't find the rest of the CSC website persuasive, I suppose we'll just have to try harder. In the meantime, here's a suggestion for those who wish to learn more: talk to any of the countless athletes and coaches who have had their teams decimated by Title IX enforcement. They tell a more compelling, heartfelt, authoritative story than I ever could.
For his part, Jerry makes no points of substance that I can discern but his notions of control and ideology are worth examining. The athletes we represent are being excluded and cast aside by the score, month after month, while their appeals to the Department of Education for relief go disregarded. In short, we control little except the power of our voices and the strength of our conviction.
As for ideology, the CSC doesn't really have one, per se. We are urging that both men and women shouldn't be denied opportunity to play sports but that hardly qualifies as a political belief system, does it? Some of our members are Democrats, some GOP -- but it's hard to tell since we rarely discuss politics and make no political contributions. I myself am a libertarian and have never voted for either major party, so make of that what you will.
Jerry's complaints about my rhetoric are perplexing. The phrases I used such as "no sweat" and "not a chance" are somehow disqualifying? Huh?
The GAO/OCR dialogue I presented was clearly described as a characterization, preceded by the verbatim excerpts from GAO and OCR. The reports are linked in the original piece and I would urge readers to take a look and decide for themselves if they are worthy.
But the larger points I made earlier remain unanswered and uncontested. Specifically: the GAO studies are deeply flawed; Valerie Bonnette has a vested interest in leveraging Title IX enforcement; she faults political influence in Title IX policy-making and yet won't say whether she worked with political groups when she was an OCR official; if proportionality is truly optional, then why not scrap it or provide more alternatives.
If anyone would care to respond to those specifics, I'm all ears. And it would be a refreshing change if responders could refrain from asserting what a redneck, sexist, predatory, lying, right-wing ideologue I am. Thanks in advance for making that effort.

CSC Chairman Responds
Posted by Eric Pearson , Chairman at College Sports Council on December 20, 2006 at 4:40am EST
Evening Sun's final paragraph provides a perfect illustration of the usual chaff thrown into the debate on Title IX reform. I have heard it before:
1. Football is to blame.
2. Anyone who dares to speak of Title IX reform is a “misogynist.”
If football is the problem, then how do you explain the elimination of men's teams at schools like Marquette and Seton Hall that have no football teams? There are over 400 schools among the 1,000 plus NCAA member institutions that do NOT have football programs. That's a lot of ground to cover if you can't blame football.
Eveningsun, you want them to stop “blaming feminism,” but can you provide even a single direct quotation from the National Wrestling Coaches Association leadership where they have ever blamed feminism? The NWCA has always asserted its support for the spirit of Title IX, and takes issue only with proportionality. It fully supports the growth of opportunities for both women and men to play sports. The wrestling community works hard to promote opportunities for women's wrestling, despite the fact that the NCAA has yet to sanction it as an emerging sport.
Your use of harsh labels like “misogynists” and “cowards” contributes nothing new to the debate. You may want people to believe that anyone who dares to speak of Title IX reform is either so stupid or sexist that they need not be taken seriously. That approach may have worked in the past on those who didn't want any debate over reforming Title IX in the first place, but it will not hold up over time as we continue to see sports programs dropped and schools citing Title IX as the reason. Coaches from many Olympic sports like track and field, swimming and diving, and gymnastics have spoken out about the need to find more fair and flexible ways to comply with Title IX, other than proportionality.
We are facing a crisis on many levels with keeping boys engaged in the educational process and preventing them from entirely dropping out of civil society. Our minority communities are hardest hit. The gender ratios for undergraduates at the historically black colleges are now over two females to each male student.
Sports alone may not solve the problem of declining male enrollment, but athletics can go a long way in keeping boys engaged in school and motivating them towards higher learning. Instead of “pegging” people who are advocating for the welfare of boys, we should be applauding them.
Eric Pearson
Chairman
College Sports Council

College Sports--cui bono?
Posted by Jacques Albert on December 20, 2006 at 8:55am EST
In support of the "Old Curmudgeon"'s failure (like my own) to identify any connexion between lavishly-supported college sports programmes and proper higher educational missions, I offer this "pox on both your houses" personal reminiscence:
I played a year of small-college basketball as a 17 year-old freshman too many years ago to count. At 6-2 I played forward (!), and was the third "tallest" player and one of only two of us on the team who could dunk the ball. We were the only engineering school in the conference; we were also the only school in the conference that gave no athletic scholarships, though I do remember the satisfying steak dinners we players received (our lone emolument) in the dorm on game day (mea culpa!). Although we won only three or so games (of twenty) that year, when we won, we celebrated with edenic joy, though always soon after with an admixture of self-deprecating humour. Yet even when we lost, we did so with good-cheer and even charitable solicitude, as when trailing by over thirty points in an away game, we stalled the last five minutes of the game so our opponents couldn't score a hundred points. We just didn't want to wake their fans for the traditional 100- point cheer.
Today, things are a bit different, even at many middling colleges, where the school's gladiators oiled for the arena provide the guns for the mostly middle-aged capos who run them. Athletic departments often hold their minions to an omerta that prevents abuses and even crimes from being whispered about outside the family. In the big schools the capos' yearly pelf far exceeds that of our nation's president. Yet the prodigal sums fronted on this seedy campus entertainment industry could perhaps in turn be more lucratively reinvested (if college administrators fancy that such an industry is essential to "under-taking" the college's higher education mission) in other and more reputable family-run enterprises, such as casinos and brothels.
But the great books schools are ever an inspiration to one who conned his fair Latin, small Greek, and extensive readings in western and world classics at university in his mid-twenties after doing a bit of soldiering during the Southeast Asian war. In my later career as a college professor I've not met but a very few vets among colleagues of comparable age. Perhaps they just weren't recruiting in their neighborhoods. Though I wish I'd started on the classics earlier, I'm delighted that there are schools and colleges like the great books schools that encourage (nay, require) them early. So Greek, Latin, mathematics . . . and perhaps croquet
--early. Indeed, my belief is that getting these venerable languages early realises our human evolutionary destiny, for what's a backside for but(t) to facilitate the study of Greek and Latin?
Would this approach help mitigate some of the controversy over Title IX funding?

Posted by K.T. on December 21, 2006 at 7:10am EST
KT —I hope that you actively seek the return of all federal monies that your institutions or state receive from the federal government—-in fact, I just wrote an article in response to a whiner about Title IX that they would not have to comply with Title IX if they simply refuse federal monies—-certainly good neo-cons would want to do that, or would they? When doe sthe federal government grow bigger and more intrusive? When the neo-cons control!!!
I seek the return of that money and a cessation of federal involvement (financial or regulatory) with higher education... since it has no authority to be involved... both sides are complicit in the crime.

Posted by K.T. on December 21, 2006 at 7:35am EST
Let colleges focus on their core purpose — education.
Another myopic perspective... colleges and universities have many purposes to many different constituencies... education is but one of those purposes.

Search Views