Title IX does not defend women's sports, it defends their right to an education. Sports are an extra-curricular activity that nobody has to fund for them.
It’s because like usual Imp is wrong. Title IX does apply to sports. If the school receives federal funding and funds athletics programs then they can run afoul of title IX. It doesn’t mean the same sport has to be offered to men or women but if the school is funding 5 male sports there must also be 5 female sports being funded by the school. So it doesn’t require the school to field a female American football team, but they may have a women’s field hockey or volleyball team without a male equivalent team since there is likely a male American football team. It also doesn’t matter that men’s football, basketball, baseball, and hockey can bring in way more money for the school than what they spend on it while most women’s teams don’t even come close to breaking even. They have to offer the same number, so the men’s teams have to subsidize the female sports usually in the athletics budget.
The federal funds are not necessarily going to their sports programs and are likely not. The rule applies if the school is receiving federal funds at all. Even if the school has the money ear marked for research or classroom upkeep. If they have accepted federal funding then title IX applies to everything. Most athletic programs at the college level are funded by booster clubs/alumni programs. And the money making sports really function as a marketing arm for the university. You will see a ton of people wearing licensed clothing of whatever dominant school in the surrounding areas of the university who have never set foot in a classroom and likely never been on it campus.
IMO, it's "Education (program or activity)" because nothing else makes sense.
Reading it the other way would mean any campus activity would have to let women in, and I don't see frats advertising letting women join. It also wouldn't be logical for the government to waste time on policing extra-curricular activities.
Can someone bring in the SCOTUS and ask them what it's supposed to say?
Title IX does not defend women's sports, it defends their right to an education. Sports are an extra-curricular activity that nobody has to fund for them.
It’s because like usual Imp is wrong. Title IX does apply to sports. If the school receives federal funding and funds athletics programs then they can run afoul of title IX. It doesn’t mean the same sport has to be offered to men or women but if the school is funding 5 male sports there must also be 5 female sports being funded by the school. So it doesn’t require the school to field a female American football team, but they may have a women’s field hockey or volleyball team without a male equivalent team since there is likely a male American football team. It also doesn’t matter that men’s football, basketball, baseball, and hockey can bring in way more money for the school than what they spend on it while most women’s teams don’t even come close to breaking even. They have to offer the same number, so the men’s teams have to subsidize the female sports usually in the athletics budget.
The federal funds are not necessarily going to their sports programs and are likely not. The rule applies if the school is receiving federal funds at all. Even if the school has the money ear marked for research or classroom upkeep. If they have accepted federal funding then title IX applies to everything. Most athletic programs at the college level are funded by booster clubs/alumni programs. And the money making sports really function as a marketing arm for the university. You will see a ton of people wearing licensed clothing of whatever dominant school in the surrounding areas of the university who have never set foot in a classroom and likely never been on it campus.
IMO, it's "Education (program or activity)" because nothing else makes sense.
Reading it the other way would mean any campus activity would have to let women in, and I don't see frats advertising letting women join. It also wouldn't be logical for the government to waste time on policing extra-curricular activities.
Can someone bring in the SCOTUS and ask them what it's supposed to say?
The institutions that allow them to exist do.