Has Title IX been good for our country?

It has caused more problems that it has help. The money from football is now spread out so much that sports has suffered. Perhaps some day it will work out but it has not so far.

Schools shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on sex. There is no good reason to oppose this. Everyone should have equal access to education regardless of sex, race, creed or family wealth. We were largely able to secure the first three in the 50s through 70s. Class seems to be the great divider remaining in having a society based on merit and equality of opportunity(1).


1. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/0...

It has forced cancellations of a lot of men's sports because women's sports didn't draw an interest in proportion to women's enrollment.

In some cases yes but it can fail us too. I would have liked an undecided to answer on this poll.

Title IX isn't just about sports. It addressed educational inequality as well.

Not only is it not 'just' about sports, it was primarily NOT about sports.

Government-imposed/mandated "equality" isn't. period.

It would probably not work in reverse. It favors women.

Chose no for the hell of it. Not one person on this poll has given a REASON for their vote. Call it "equal________(anything)" and it is instantly popular.

I would say it has done some good for women in that we get to participate more in sports which does help to prepare people for the competition of "life at large". Confidence and teamwork are two other things we women have learned more about thanks to title 9.

All one needs to do is look around & see the benefits that came about as a result of it.

Basically yes, although it has been heavily misused by opportunist idiots for political corruption.

We wouldn't have done so well in women's soccer without it.

Sure, but when will women no longer be second class citizens?

Are you married? I don't know one second class woman

We have true equality here. In your country, women still don't get equal pay for equal work everywhere. In union protected jobs; yes. Far too many folks consider women to be "property", just like they were in the good old days. Every woman in your country has the potential to be second class, depending on where they live, work, and what they do for a living.
Your president used equality as a campaign point. Never came across though, did he?

My wife makes more than I ever made. Men and women aren't equal. Women don't make good bricklayers men don't make good secretaries. Get over it.

Get over your stereotypes.

Get real.

Thanks for saving me time by revealing what you intend to add to this and other discussions.

Um, yea, who's against it?

The anarchist wing of the Republican party.

Isn't that most of them?

Quote or reference please, since this is the first I've heard of it. Not to be too cynical, but far too often I hear people claiming a side says or feels a certain way, when there is no quantifiable evidence to support it; but is solely based on their presumption of them.

You can scroll up a few comments and see for yourself. The arguments have always been on the grounds that the federal government does not the authority to ensure equality in this country. That it's a states' right issue, that it imposes on freedom, that the state does more harm than good no matter how good the intentions are. Read conscious of the conservative by Barry Goldwater. It's a quick read and the arguments are the same as any modern Republican. Try Ron Paul and the claims of why he wouldn't vote for the 1964 civil rights act or anything that goes beyond the explicitly enumerated powers. Any person who wishes to dismantle the Department of Education also wishes to end Title IX by default(Title IX and anything else in the Higher Education Act would have zero enforceability without a Department of Education). So I'm not trying to demagogue conservatives here. I'm sure most Republicans would say the support it. I'm simply trying to assure you there are people in this country that do oppose any and all federal regulation of education.

Good. What is the argument against it?