|
 Provocations
Michael
LaBossiere
Number
Twelve: Of Gender and Numbers in Academics and Athletics
In
1972 the United States enacted Title IX. It states: "No person
in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination
under any education program or activity receiving federal assistance."
This law was created to rectify the wrongful gender based exclusion
of women from activities. It obviously rests on the moral principle
that exclusion and discrimination based on sex is wrong.
In
1993, it was decided Title IX would be applied using more rigid
standards. One new standard required schools to ensure that the
athletic teams perfectly mirrored the gender distribution of the
general student body. No other factor, such as the amount of interest
in a sport, was to be considered. Not surprisingly, many feminists
lauded these efforts to bring about gender equality. These efforts
had two major effects. First, schools that could not create and
fill new teams for women were forced to cut men's teams to balance
the numbers. Second, schools that could not encourage enough women
to join existing teams were forced to cut men until the proper numbers
were reached. To put it bluntly, a male student could be denied
the opportunity to participate in sports not because of a lack of
determination or ability, but simply because he happened to be male.
This clearly violates the letter of the law as well as the underlying
moral principle regarding the immorality of gender based exclusion.
It is indeed ironic that a law intended to protect women from exclusion
was used to exclude men.
Oddly
enough, the feminists who fought against the exclusion of women
are rather silent about this new exclusion. However, perhaps the
moral principles these feminists follow do not include the principle
that exclusion is wrong. Perhaps their true principle is that we
are obligated to bring about numerical gender equality even at the
cost of exclusion.
If
this is their true principle, then it becomes difficult to explain
the general lack of concern over the significant gender inequalities
within the academic realm. Women compose 51% of the population.
But, women make up 58% of the student body and 61% of the graduates
of American community colleges. In 2002, for every 100 men who received
a bachelor's degree there were 133 women. In the same year, for
every 100 men who received a master's degree there were 138 women.
Men, however, still outnumber women in the number of doctorates
received.
The
situation is even more extreme for minorities. For every 100 African
American males earning a bachelor's degree there are 192 African
American women. The proportions are roughly the same for Hispanics
and Native Americans.
Despite
the glaring lack of gender equality, only a very few, such as Andy
Sum of Northeastern University, Jessica Gavora, author of Tilting
the Playing Field, and Christina Hoff Summers, author of The
War Against Boys, have raised concerns.
If
the feminists were actually following a principle of numerical gender
equality, then they would be obligated to insist that these numbers
be balanced. As in the case of athletics, this would need to be
done by requiring an increase in male enrollment. Schools that could
not bring the number of men on par with the number of women would,
of course, be required to cut female students until equality was
achieved.
Since feminists have largely failed to step forward and insist on
the same numerical equality in academics as they expect in athletics,
it is unlikely that they accept a principle of gender equality.
Instead, it seems they must endorse a gender-biased principle or
principles. Whatever specific principle(s) they follow, the principle(s)
must include the following: First, gender inequality is unacceptable
if it is tilted in favor of men. Second, it is acceptable to exclude
men to bring about gender equality in an area. Third, gender inequality
is acceptable if it is tilted in favor of women.
It
certainly seems that any principle based on the above would violate
the principle of relevant difference. This is the principle that
it is only acceptable to treat two people or things differently
if there is a relevant difference between them. In terms of athletics
and academics, being a man or a woman does not seem to make a person
more or less entitled to equal opportunity. Thus, it seems that
it would be morally best to return to the original spirit of Title
IX and insist that no one should be denied the opportunity to participate
merely because of his or her gender.
Provocations
will next be updated mid August 2003
Join
Our Café mailing list
To
receive *very* short messages, letting you know when the Café
has been updated, just fill in your email address below - and press
submit.
[If
you wish to unsubscribe from the mailing list, simply fill in your
subscriber email address, select "Unsubscribe", and press Submit.]
Previous
Provocations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
|
