Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!genrad!wjh12!n44a!ima!inmet!mazur
From: mazur@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: BAD USA Supreme Court Decision - (nf)
Message-ID: <1015@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 7-Mar-84 06:09:08 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.1015
Posted: Wed Mar  7 06:09:08 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Mar-84 19:41:17 EST
Lines: 39

#R:houxu:-32900:inmet:10900057:000:1741
inmet!mazur    Mar  6 20:30:00 1984

Pardon me while I scream.  

Not too much better, but anyways.  I played intercollegiate women's ice 
hockey for four years at Boston University.  Women's ice hockey has really
developed as a sport, especially in the Northeast.  However, ten years after
the sport was started at BU, it is still a club sport (it gets no money from
the athletic dept) competing against varsity teams.  For two seasons while
I was there, our locker room was in a "renovated" ladies room (at least we 
didn't have far to go to the loo).

Now the Supreme Court (in their "infinite" wisdom) has decided that the 
Federal government no longer has to police the colleges and universities
for departments that don't get Federal aid.

Well, I'll bet there are a hell of alot of athletic directors that are 
going to be crying all the way to the bank.

The bottom line is MONEY.  ADs don't want to put money in a program
that isn't going to have a positive cash-flow back.  That's why they'll
virtually clothe and spoon-feed a male football or basketball player (we
are talking big television bucks and ticket receipts here).  I can
understand that from an economic viewpoint.

However, by offering an opportunity to a male student that they don't
to a female student, they are practicing discrimination.  Now everybody
hopes that this new ruling won't cause schools to give up on programs
that already exist.  It seems obvious (to me at least) that those schools
who don't have enough (or any) women's programs won't be in any rush to
implement them.

One note: apparently Massachusetts has a *state* law that has the same
interpretation that Title IX used to, so it won't be so easy to let women's
programs be cut here.
 
Beth Mazur
{ima,harpo,esquire}!inmet!mazur