that? This question arises as athletic departments try to cope with the challenge of making an equitable situation for female athletes while preserving the stream of revenue generated by men's football and basketball programs.One of the easiest ways of complying with the Amendments of 1972 is to make the number of female athletes proportional to the number of women enrolled in the institution.Activists, athletic directors and government officials all side differently on the issue, however a coalition of conservative groups all agree that it is unfair to both men as well as women to cut men's sports due to gender-equity. Besides all that a poll was taken in the Salt Lake Tribune stating that men were more likely to be inclined to play sports versus women. Depriving men of opportunities just to meet proportionality guidelines is a load of trash, besides that it's plain out discriminatory.I believe Title IX applies to our Political Science class because of many reasons, the most identifiable being that Title IX is a law governing how sports programs are organized and since it is an amendment it's easy to relate this to our class. Furthermore I think there always needs to be great regards towards working for equality whether it's in school, in the work place or on the field. I do not however agree with cutting men's athletics just so women can be labeled equal; chances are good that there will never be a professional women's football league. Now don't quote me on that, but there just isn't enough demand to see ladies strap up pads and knock each other down, granted that would be cool to see but then they'd be making a mockery of the sport and themselves. Is it sport or spoof? If women want to compete I have no problem with that, let 'em knock themselves out organizing a rugby team, just don't penalize men for women not being as genetically aggressive.My goal in composing this paper was not to offend anyone but on the contrary, to inform yo...
