Title IX slaughters men’s sports
Calling President George W. Bush’s steps to reform Title
IX a “war against women” as Carmen Winant did in her
submission “Proposed Title IX changes punish female
athletes” (Feb. 20), is not only extreme, it is flat-out
wrong.
UCLA’s adherence to Title IX should be taken as an
example. In our efforts to equalize funding for men’s
and women’s sports, UCLA Athletics has taken some relatively
absurd steps, such as allowing many women’s sports to
maintain several more roster spots than their male counterparts
(including Cross Country and Track & Field, in which Winant
competes).Â
The big kicker, though, is that entire programs have been cut
even though Winant somehow sees it as a problem that “Title
IX does not make athletic departments cut certain male
sports.” She fails to justify why it’s a good
thing that UCLA’s men’s gymnastics and men’s
swimming, both NCAA Championship teams, have been completely rubbed
out, all in the name of the “fairness” of Title IX.
I agree with Winant that the concentration in football
scholarship needs to be looked at in more detail, which is
something Bush’s commission may yet do. But the fact is
that Title IX did not just freeze additional spending for male
sports, forcing universities to focus development efforts to
expanding opportunities for women. Instead, Title IX sent many
men’s sports programs to be slaughtered in a nationwide
effort to adhere to a well conceived but poorly implemented
idea.
I’d also like to say that this is my opinion as a student
and does not represent USAC or any other body I work for.
Adam Pearlman USAC facilities commissioner
City council should remain local
I was disappointed in Thursday’s editorial, “City
council must take a stance on war” (Feb. 20), which advocated
that the city of Los Angeles should take a position regarding a
possible U.S.-led war in Iraq.
Is it wise to encourage the council to spend their valuable time
and energy debating such a divisive issue over which they have no
control? Foreign policy is simply not part of a
councilperson’s job description, and it is unfair for the
council to try to speak for us on this issue.
Does the editorial board also advocate that Los Angeles engage
in an internal debate over U.S. policy regarding North Korea and
Afghanistan? Where does this foreign policy dabbling end, and when
would we get back to the work of running our local government?
Topics such as public safety, education, land-use issues,
traffic and pollution can’t wait.
Bob Switzer UCLA Alumnus