Monday, January 29, 2007

Title IX: New numbers and Old numbers

OU must be in compliance with ONE of the THREE prongs of title IX (here's an explanation). OU thought we were not in compliance with prong one.

Prong one of Title IX: Participation among genders must be “substantially” but not exactly proportional to the schools student body.


Student Body:
48% Male
52% Female

59% Male
41% Female

(there WERE 9% more male-athletes)


Student Body:
48% Male
52% Female

47% Male
53% Female

(there IS 6% more female-athletes than male)

This means that the athletic department thought OU was out of compliance with one prong 1 of Title IX (providing athletic opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment). Instead of cutting the margin down to 2-3% more male athletes, we now have MORE female athletes than male athletes!

This means that we didn’t have to cut so many guys teams! The athletic department is retarded! All we would have to do is cap the rosters of some male sports and cut indoor track. That’s it. None of us wanted to run indoor track in the first place, it’s a depressing sport!

1. Bring back women’s LAX and men’s swimming
2. Maintain the cut of men’s indoor track
3. Cap the rosters of men’s outdoor track, men’s swimming, and possibly another men’s sport.
4. Sell the Attack Cat, melt down that stupid bobcat statue, and be more fiscally conservative with the football team’s crazy budget.


bleeding green23 said...

Was any of this information presented to the Athletic Department? regardless i think this should be put in the article that is going to be written for friday in the post, any thoughts?

Anonymous said...

Umm, 59% vs. 41% male vs. female athlete percentages before the cut is an 18% difference, not 9% as you say.