Former UO student Allie Grasgreen has a story in Insidehighered.com about the potential implications for Title IX:
“Nevertheless, our results do suggest that it may be a mistake to base Title IX implementation on the assumption that males and females have, or soon will have, generally equal sports interest.”
The report counters that assumption with three sub-studies that found gender gaps of varying and often significant proportions. The sub-study most relevant to college athletics in particular examined who participated in intramural sports participation at 34 institutions (varied in size and location, and listed in the study). Only about one in four participants (or 24 percent) were female. Intramural programs, like all educational opportunities at federally funded institutions, are subject to Title IX.
You don’t think that maybe there’s a cause-and-effect thing going on here?
Basically the reason Title IX exists is that there’s a general problem with students being steered towards or against particular opportunities based on their gender.
Of *course* there are more men than women involved in sport – because “everybody knows” that’s the case, and so men are approached more about sport, and sport is not on the radar for most women. Title IX is an attempt to break this cycle, so saying “yeah, but that doesn’t reflect the current situation” is kinda missing the point.