The 3 Prong Test: Difficult to Understand

Immediately after reading “Liberty Explains” in the Title IX blog, I thought about multiple things from our readings and class discussions. The blog is about how Liberty University knows they are currently in compliance with prong two of Title IX, but they believe in three to five years they will no longer be in compliance. This is because the rules of the three prong test are not very clear.

In class we discussed Title IX very thoroughly. One of the main parts of Title IX is the three prong test that helps to show if a school is in compliance with the educational amendment. The three prongs are male/female athletes are proportional to the male/female undergrad population, a history of progress which shows expanding opportunities, and accommodation of interests (students’ needs are fully met). (Sarah’s Lecture Notes) Liberty is in compliance with prong two because they have added three women’s sports since 2009, as well as recently cutting their men’s wrestling program.

I agree completely with Liberty’s statement that prong two is subjective and not described well enough. Title IX is an extremely important amendment for education and sport, and the fact that the stipulations of the three prong test are not clearly defined causes many problems for schools. As the blog said, schools do not know how many or how frequently new opportunities need to be added. This needs to change very soon. I am not very clear on the process of changing amendments, but it seems obvious that the guidelines for the three prong test need to be easier to understand and more in depth. Schools like Liberty who are trying to comply with Title IX need to know exactly what they should do, and non-compliant schools do not need an excuse (saying the rules are unclear).

Although Liberty said they are worried about staying in compliance for the next few years, I believe they do not have anything to worry about. If they continue to add women’s sports, they will be able to not only stay in compliance with prong two, but also prong one (proportionality). Prong one only requires the ratios to be close, although equality is the ultimate goal. (Women and Sports in the United States 332) Therefore, Liberty should still strive to add more women’s sports, and if they do so they will continue to be in compliance for years to come.

Comparing men's and women's basketball on Twitter

There’s no doubt which national championship basketball game was better: the women’s game was a million times more entertaining than the men’s was. After watching them both closely and taking notes for our March Madness paper, I don’t see how anyone could argue this fact, whether you’re a casual basketball fan or diehard follower.

I’m an active member of the Twitter community, largely tweeting and reading about sports related topics. The tool has been a cultural phenomenon as it allows people to spout out an opinion and post it so easily to the entire world before they can even think about what they just wrote. It was unfortunate to read and hear that many male basketball fans, and even some well-respected media members, tweeted sexist remarks when watching the men’s game Monday night (including Simmons, who is one of my favorite sportswriters).

Erin Whiteside stuck up for the women’s game overshadowing the men’s in her blog post “Twitter users compare men’s basketball to women’s game.” Whiteside wrote, “The men’s game was boring. Illustrating just how boring it was by comparing it to women’s basketball denies the women’s game the legitimacy it deservers.” I couldn’t agree more. I actually thought that Whiteside could have even supported her argument a lot better as the post was fairly short. She was on the right track, but I felt like she just decided to stop. If I could, I would encourage her to follow through with her point and make it stronger.

In class we have talked about the struggle women went through to gain access to basketball, starting in 1975 in places like Oklahoma, Tennessee and Arkansas. Many men thought it was a violation of tradition to allow women to play, and that the sexes were too different to play by the same rules. The rules were tweaked to make it more of a slower, half court type of game because the thought was that women couldn’t handle faster, more physical play. It was also believed that fans might not enjoy a higher scoring game played by women.

I understand the general public can be very ignorant, especially when it comes to sport. And most of the people tweeting those things because they intended them to be a joke. Too bad it wasn’t funny. I guarantee most of the people who made sexist remarks like Whiteside talked about haven’t even watched a women’s game recently. Women’s basketball has come a heck of a long way in a short time. It should be respected.

Twitter has been very interesting to study in today’s society. The way it connects so many people in a similar conversation has sparked many debates that are worth analyzing.

Bashing the men’s championship game was well deserved. But you don’t need to compare it to the women’s game to do that. The awful stats were enough to support that case. I predict that one day the men and women’s game will be equal. I also think we’re a lot closer to that day than people think.

How Long Does Compliance Take?

On March 31, Kristine Newhall wrote on the Title IX blog about Liberty University, a Christian school in Virginia, and their recent decision to cut their wrestling program and make it a club sport only. The reason Liberty did this was to come into compliance with Title IX under the 2nd prong, which we learned in class was history of progress. This means the school must show that they are making a constant push to come into compliance with Title IX and have had a history of adding or taking away programs to do so. Wrestling was given the boot in this case at Liberty because it had a larger roster than other men’s sports, with 38 members total, and it was the only sport that was not affiliated with the Big South Conference. Liberty also stated that they planned on adding more women’s sports to their athletics department, while continuing to decrease roster sizes of some of their men’s sports. Kristine applauded the school for making such forward thinking motions, in such that they were planning ahead on how they were going to stay in compliance with Title IX in a few years, but she brought about a very interesting question. If Liberty is still working on coming into compliance with Title IX now, what was the school like back in 2006? And that then made me ask the question--just how long should compliance take? As we learned in class, Title IX was passed in the 1970s, felt considerable backlash and was almost discarded in the 1980s, and then received support to thrive in the 1990s. But this is 2011. Why are we still having such issues with compliance? I think one of the main reasons that schools find it difficult to comply with Title IX and make changes in order to fall under one of the prongs is simply because of money. Finances are set out and schools like knowing just where their money is going to. If a men’s team is cut and then two women’s teams are added, that is an extra set of financial assistance, opportunities for athletes, and, as we stated in class, the laundry list, which includes everything from equipment to recruiting. Having a school add another team that requires all of this scares them, which is why I think a lot of schools tend to just cut programs rather than try to come into the proportionality prong. However, as the Fresno State example shows us, cutting men’s programs is just a quick fix and will not allow schools to stay in compliance for long. I think what Liberty is doing may help them come under the 2nd prong compliance right now, but it is all a matter of whether or not they can continue to show a history of progress. I guess I just don’t understand why it has taken this long for a school to come under compliance. The three prongs, in my opinion offer plenty of opportunities to do so and it seems absurd to me that a school is still trying to work towards compliance after all these years.

Betty Hicks, Forever Remembered

When I first read Remembering Betty Hicks (1920-2011) on Pat Griffin’s LGBT blog, I was amazed about all the things Hicks had accomplished in her life, so I decided to find out more about her. Betty was a golfer, founder of the Women’s Professional Golf Association, and the precursor to the LPGA, not to mention she was an inductee into the Women Sports Foundation International Hall of Fame. So why is it that I have never heard about Betty Hicks? The blog talks about Hicks and how the fear of being labeled a lesbian in the 1950’s haunted the women in the LPGA tour. Betty’s athletic career was during the McCarthy Era, when Senator Joseph McCarthy spoke out against Communists and homosexuals. I can only imagine the changes that this woman went through. She lived to be 90 years old and she got an opportunity to see and live through the changes in women’s sports and changes in women’s and LGBT rights.

I then thought about the reading that was assigned to us, “Changing the Game: Homophobia, Sexism, and Lesbians in Sport” by Pat Griffin, and how by not speaking out about homophobia in sport it actually shows ignorance. “Our failure to speak out against homophobia signals our consent to the fear, ignorance, and discrimination that flourish in that silence.” Betty was a person who spoke out about equality and she was the first woman athlete to write about lesbians in sport. Here first article “The Billie Jean King Affair,” came out in a 1981 issue of Christopher Street, a former gay publication. In her article, Betty talks about how Billie Jean King was the first athlete to come out as a lesbian. I don’t know about you, but to me Betty Hicks is an inspiration, someone who I can admire. She was a fearless feminist and a great athlete, who stood up for what she believed in. If it wasn’t for her courage and hard work in sports, women and LGBT voices would never have been heard. As Pat Griffin states in the reading I read, “If our goal is to create a vision of sport in which all women have an opportunity to proudly claim their athletic identity and control their athletic experience, then we must begin to build that future now.” Betty Hicks fought for that and isn’t that what we all want nowadays?

Making an example of Kobe

Kobe' Bryant's display of vulgarity Tuesday night — specifically calling a ref a "fucking faggot" — should not be overlooked. It wasn't by the NBA, who promptly fined the five-time NBA Champion $100,000.

As we discussed at the beginning of the semester, what happens in sport reflects the happenings of our cultural and societal beliefs, too. Clearly, people still have issues with homophobia and discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation. Whether Kobe is homophobic and or hateful of gays is up for debate — I'm almost certainly he's not — but "faggot" is not an acceptable term and should be treated that way.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the whole ordeal is the way it was treated by Bryant and Lakers coach Phil Jackson afterwards. Bryant was very apologetic and genuine, but he even alluded to his mistake being that he was 'caught' — not that what he said was a mistake:

Hopefully, other players look at what happened to me and what I said and understand you have cameras around the league and there are a lot of things being said that shouldn't be said.

Then there was Jackson, who was even more Blunt in suggesting that Kobe's problem was getting caught, not what he said; "It's unfortunate he got caught saying something like that. It came in the heat of the game."

Some people protest the $100,000 fine, and say, "It's too much." If so, please tell me what would be appropriate — maybe a number that is irrelevant to Kobe would be more appropriate? The whole point of a fine is to send a message and to deter people. Bryant makes over $24 million a year, and that's only money from his basketball salary. Bryant also rakes in about $10 million a year with endorsements alone.

So really, is the fine that outrageous? As arguably the biggest superstar in the game of basketball today, David Stern and the NBA — who I rarely agree with — made Bryant an example. And it was the right move. Offensive comments reflecting any sort of hate towards a particular group is not to be tolerated.

Who knows, maybe one of Kobe's teammates on the bench sitting next to him is gay? Either way, it doesn't matter. Bryant's actions were completely uncalled for.

A Tux Traded for a Prom Dress

Prom has always been considered a monumental occasion in a girl’s life. They get a dressed up by doing their hair, makeup and finding that perfect dress. But in the case for Erin a high school senior she is planning on wearing a tux for prom but this did not sit well with school officials. School officials are denying her from coming to prom if she comes wearing a tuxedo. They say it is against school policy. The school policy states that proper attire is to be worn, specifically dresses for girls and tuxedos for boys. I am appalled that school officials are not allowing her to come because she doesn’t want to wear a dress. She just wants to wear what is comfortable in. Are the school officials afraid that coming in a tuxedo she will change everyone into homosexuals and there will be a huge riot? Since when is a tuxedo not acceptable when girls wear pants for the past couple of decades.

People have said that society is constantly moving forwards and is a progressive society but isn’t this moving backwards? Many girls like Erin are wearing tuxedos to prom and getting reprimanded for it. They are seen as “resisting girl” just like athletes. (Krane) The article Living the Paradox by Kane it talks about how women athletes are said to be “doing girl” at the same time “resisting girl”. This is what school officials believe Erin and other like her are doing. They are afraid of her breaking away from the norm. People are generally afraid of things they don’t know about or break what has generally been considered acceptable. Girls have always been thought of wearing dresses to dances while guys wear tuxes. It is hard to break tradition but it has been done before in regards to Title IX. Title IX allowed girls to participated more and in a wider variety of sports. There was opposition faced but eventually it was accepted. I hope this can happen in regards to clothing choice. Girls and boys should be allowed to wear whatever they would like except if its harmful or degrading to another group or of course if they aren’t wearing anything at all.

The persecution of the Black Mamba

The best player in the NBA and yes the best player in the NBA is still Kobe Bryant was fined a ridiculous amount of money ($100,000) for apparently calling NBA referee Bennie Adams a fucking faggot. Now I agree that calling an NBA official those words is extremely crude and offensive, but $100,000? Are you kidding me David Stern? That is one fat pile of cash to fine anyone for talking back to a referee in the heat of the moment. So far Stern has made talking to referee's pretty much illegal this season. If a player shows any emotion after a foul call or tries to plead their case to a ref, they will get a technical foul.

I get it David Stern was probably setting an example, but that fine is ridiculous compared to other things that have gone down recently in the NBA. Earlier this year Kevin Garnett called Charlie Villanueva a cancer patient. (Villanueva suffers from alopecia, a disease that causes a person's hair to fall out). In another game this year Garnett kicked Channing Frye in the genitals while Frye was attempting a three point shot. Also with Villanueva he was involved in a fight earlier this week with Cavs center Ryan Hollins and was suspended five games without pay, which by taking Villy's 7.5 million dollar salary for 2011 amounts to around 91K per game or 459,756 dollars.

Trash talking in the NBA is a part of the game and in this case it is exorbitantly excessive. Villanueva got into a straight up fight with another player, but all Kobe does is shout in disgust and is fined a fifth of the amount. That doesn't make sense.

Like Kobe said, it was in the heat of the moment, but look at all professional sports. If Tiger Woods hits a bad shot he will scream "FUCK" or various other obscenities. Cursing occurs in sports, and even if Kobe uttered a highly offensive anti-gay slur the amount he was fined was still excessive.

Here is the video of the Black Mamba spazzing. http://bit.ly/eoFL8p