Save Title XI!

Paper Summary:

In this article the writer points out that when the anti-discriminatory legislative amendment known as Title XI was passed in 1972, many Americans laughed at the idea of women participating in competitive sports at all, much less female sports competing for an equal level of spectator attention and funding at institutions of higher learning. This paper looks at the legacy of Title XI, as today, powerful and positive images of female sports stars such as Venus Williams adorn the covers of magazines, and women everywhere run in marathons, take their daughters to soccer leagues or participate in such leagues themselves, and simply enjoy the delights of hard, physical competitive effort. The writer argues that Title IX must continue to mandate equal funding as without equal funding it will be too easy for colleges and high schools to go back to the old traditions of supporting male sports disproportionately, in comparison to supporting female activities.

From the Paper:

"Encouraging women to participate in athletics is not merely an issue of equality in school, or about building champion athletes who can win college championships. It is also an issue of health. As America becomes increasingly concerned about the inactivity of its citizens, encouraging a group of people such as women who have been historically discouraged from being physically active is vital for the well-being of the entire nation. Also, when people compete in athletics, they experience a positive uplift in their sense of self-esteem as well as their physical prowess. Women must see other women, like themselves, participating in sports, rather than simply see images of themselves as spectators on the sidelines to gain this sense of positive esteem."
"Critics of Title XI argue that by requiring institutions of higher learning to provide equal funding and equal opportunities for men and women is not valid, because there is less public interest, amongst both men and women, in collegiate sports."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Conniff, Ruth. "A new day for women's sports - favorable TV images of the Atlanta Olympics." The Progressive. Sept 1996. [23 Oct 2006] <http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n9_v60/ai_18610910>
• Lazerson, Marvin & Ursula Wagener. "Missed opportunities: lessons from the Title IX case at Brown - suit by women athletes against Brown University." July-August 1996. Change. [23 Oct 2006]<http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1254/is_n4_v28/ai_18603196>
• "Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972." Title 20 U.S.C. Sections 1681-1688. U.S. Department of Labor. [23 Oct 2006]. <http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm>

More papers on Save Title XI!:

• Argumentative Essay # 146201 : "Title IX: A Modern Education Quagmire"
• Essay # 72307 : "Title Vii"
• Argumentative Essay # 32240 : "Title IX - Current Interpretation and Enforcement Should Continue"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: