welsch@houxu.UUCP (Larry Welsch) (03/03/84)
In the Grove City College paper work case, the USA Supreme Court made the worst possible of all possible decisions that it could possibly make. First, the case. The parties are the US. government vs. Grove City College. The issue is whether or not the college must conform to the bureaucracy as defined in Title IX to ensure that the college was not discriminating against women. There was no charge of sex discrimination! The college's position was that it received no federal monies and hence was not subject to the bureaucracy. The government's position was that the students attending Grove City received tuition aide from the federal government and these indirect federal monies made the college subject to Title IX's paper work burden. The case was relatively simple, all the court had to determine was whether or not Grove City was receiving federal aide as defined by Title IX. The court determined yes, Grove City was receiving federal aide, a bad decision. Why bad? The issue is one of just how many hands must the money pass through before it has lost the stench of coming from the federal government. Passing through the student's hands was insufficient. Will passing through the college's hands be sufficient, or must every organization that deals with the college be subject to the same paper work. My point is that this has opened up a Pandora's box of ways the government can add paper work and its tentacles to our lives. But, the Reagan administration, and our Republican appointed Supreme Court was not satisfied with a yes do paper work or no don't do paper work decision. NO, the court felt it necessary to multiply the paper work by rewriting the law, and making it worse! How? By saying that only that portion of the school that receives the money, prove that it doesn't discriminate. Now instead of the college filling out the paper work once, each part of college that receives federal aide must fill out paper work, and those parts that don't must be super careful with accounting to prove that no dollar of indirect federal aide slips through. UGH. To boot, athletics where women were making gains on college campuses, does not generally receive federal aide. NOW the programs at at the big football schools can ignore women athletes completely and not worry about Title IX. IN short the Supreme Court made the worst of all decisions, by subjecting us to more paper work and allowing more sex discrimination. This to get after a school that doesn't discriminate. Larry Welsch houxu!welsch
mazur@inmet.UUCP (03/07/84)
#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!mazurmcmillan@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (03/11/84)
The flowering of women's physical education in the last decade has been a truly wonderful thing in this country. It is really important to the general cause of women's rights. Healthy, active women do not fit (and easily break) many of the stereotypes of the "weaker sex". Women (the largest majority in the country), please note: Your Republican president has struck an enormous blow (in the grove college case) at the gains of the last decade. Republicans CANNOT DO THIS TO YOU unless you choose to be hopelessly divided, politically. - Toby Robison allegra!eosp1!robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison princeton!eosp1!robison (NOTE! NOT McMillan; Robison.)
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (03/12/84)
For crying out load Toby, just because you have an itch to change Presidents, don't let it color your remarks to the extent that you get the three branches of government discombobulated. It was the SUPREME COURT that made the decision that a school getting funds for one program did not have to justify ALL programs. It was not the Presidents decision. It was CONGRESS that wrote the legislation that the SUPREME COURT made its decision on, not the President. It was a poorly written law, that's all there is to it. Put the blame where it belongs. Get a new law passed with the proper wording and everyone is back in business. You may not like Reagan's policies, but making stupid remarks about who is to blame for the fiasco is not the way to get things done. Try being positive by putting the onus where it belongs, with the Democratic majority Congress where the law was written in the first place. Get them to write laws without gapping loopholes that a Philadelphia lawyer could drive a Mack truck through. This little piece of chicanery has been bumping through the court system for the past 5 years, so how in HELL could it be Reagan's fault? Sorry to flame folks, but this type of putting the blame on the current President (no matter who), does nothing to address the real problem; what are we going to do about that bunch of numbskulls we call Congress? T. C. Wheeler
lincoln@eosp1.UUCP (Dick Lincoln) (03/14/84)
>> Sorry to flame folks, but this type of putting the blame on the >> current President (no matter who), does nothing to address the real >> problem; what are we going to do about that bunch of numbskulls we >> call Congress? >> T. C. Wheeler That's not all there is to it. Federal judges are appointed by presidents and generally rubber stamped by US Senates (some of RMN's absurd appointments not withstanding), and anyone who thinks we have a system of laws rather than of men and women is foolish. Long ago I concluded that the most far reaching affect any president is likely to have on the USA (I ignore the possibility of pushing "the big red button") is his judicial appointments which are almost always for the life of the appointee. Now this particular law may be as Swiss Cheese-like as TCW claims, but I doubt that the Carter years Supreme Court would have reached this decision that separates out individual college programs and their discrimination effects so that the federal aid to each program, rather than *all* aid, must be challenged. This is perhaps the only reason I will defend for voting carefully in presidential elections and primaries. Through the almost impenetrable haze of TV "image making" that now suffices for election campaigns, we still can, I think, make out what kind of judges a candidate will appoint. Vote to save your future litigation!