Muda69

https://reason.com/2022/06/23/title-ix-didnt-make-college-sports-equal-it-made-them-contentious/ The words sports, athletics, or even physical education never appear in the law since the original intent of the legislation was to alleviate imbalances between men and women in education. Title IX initially meant educational institutions had to provide both sexes with opportunities "substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments." And a 1992 court decision determined that noncompliant schools could face lawsuits, as well as being cut off from federal funding. But when implemented, Title IX effectively turned into a form of affirmative action for women in sports—an unsustainable quota-like system. It's proven difficult for schools to equally allocate resources—scholarships, equipment, arenas, and budgets—across genders and sports, which has caused schools to take the easy way out by slashing male programs. Especially given that football, a huge moneymaker on college campuses, doesn't have a female equivalent in size or impact. In 1970, just 44 percent of women in the U.S. graduated from high school, and only 11 percent had college degrees. Today, about 91 percent of American women complete high school, with over 39 percent going on to earn degrees from colleges and universities. In 1972, only 294,015 women competed on high school sports teams. By the 2018-2019 academic year, 3.4 million women competed on high school sports teams. In the early '70s, some 30,000 women competed on college sports teams. By 2020, that number had risen to 215,486. Title IX did remove barriers for women and girls to participate in sports, but the implementation has been flawed, with worse outcomes than anticipated. "Things have gone from absolutely horrendous to only very bad," Bernice R. Sandler, director of the Association of American Colleges' Project on the Status and Education of Women, told The Washington Post, a full decade after Title IX was passed. Full equality has yet to be achieved—and in some areas, probably can't be achieved, given the lack of equivalent women's teams for football and basketball, for example—and this legislation continues to put colleges and universities in a bind to reach unachievable quotas. There's nothing in Title IX that requires schools to cut or reduce men's opportunities in order to be compliant. But men's teams haven't gone unscathed in the last five decades. Title IX presented a complicated numbers game to athletic departments: Their student-athletes had to reflect the same gender disparity as that of the school plastered on their uniforms. So if a college campus was 56 percent women, then roughly 56 percent of the student-athletes should also be women. Is this even achievable when the two most profitable sports—football and basketball, which consume roughly 80 percent of men's sports budgets—require male athletes? It should come as no surprise that college football takes up a majority of the scholarships awarded to male athletes nationally—roughly 26,000, or 22,500 more scholarships than women's swimming and diving (the sport I competed in at a collegiate level) offers. The odds of getting a women's swimming and diving scholarship when I graduated high school were 47 to one. By comparison, football players had 43 to one odds of going on to play in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) after high school. It's nearly impossible to make scholarship opportunities equally accessible for both sexes for every sport at every school. Back in 2002, George Will called Title IX a "policy train wreck" because of how it has negatively impacted male sports. "Colleges have killed more than 400 men's athletic teams in order to produce precise proportionality between men's and women's enrollments and men's and women's rates of participation in athletics," wrote Will. And what Michael Lynch wrote for Reason circa 2001 still rings true today: "The tragedy of Title IX is that virtually nobody is pleased with its current results." It's only gotten worse since the pandemic hit. Many colleges faced major budget deficits from a year without March Madness, and are still reeling from the earnings loss that came with fanless football games. For many schools, cutting programs was inevitable. Title IX was at the forefront of many athletic directors' minds on the cutting room floor, but their hands were tied, and budgets constrained, due to the requirements of the law. How Title IX protects transgender athletes is the law's next big controversy. When Lia Thomas, who previously competed as a male on the University of Pennsylvania's men's swimming and diving team, won the 500-yard freestyle event at the NCAA Division I women's championships for the same sport, uproar ensued. The NCAA received some praise for being inclusive by allowing Thomas to compete, but by protecting one athlete out of fear of backlash, many other athletes have been denied a true shot at the top spot on the podium. However, the Biden administration seems adamant that what originally gave women protection 50 years ago also applies to transgender athletes today. On June 16, the Department of Education expanded federal sex protections to include transgender students, reversing a Trump-era policy, even though many states already ban transgender students from participating in female sports. The Biden administration intends to enforce Title IX's prohibition on the basis of sex to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Title IX was never supposed to be about sports; it was about protecting women. It seems like that, too, is now disputed. Agreed. Title IX is a train wreck implementation wise, and this transgender issue only makes it use. Repeal the legislation and let colleges and universities run their athletic programs as they see fit.

You really shouldn't reflect on your own life that way. Be positive.

Not dogpiling at all since I appear to be the only one consistently defending my friend DT in this thread. But don't let incorrect word choices discourage you from your role as the GID Grammar Nazi. You be you.

Your statements in this thread tell the story, not I.

And maybe constantly reading in-between the lines, trying to insinuate something that really isn't there in a desperate attempt to pull a "gotcha!" on DT and others, is your forte. I take a written medium like an internet forum at face value. Yeah, DT may have complained about the practice travel times but he quickly followed that up with that as a "city guy" he would not like to do it, but understood that a "country guy" could find such travel acceptable. He did not discredit the entire idea, not by a longshot. You still seem to have a problem with separating and understanding school consolidation from football team/program consolidation. They can be two different things, at least in other states. And as I have previously stated the IHSAA would be wise to also bless such football team/program consolidations. Of course in the Ivory Tower that is Cathedral football, ideas such as football program consolidation would seem very strange and foreign.

School Choice and Religious Liberty Advocates Just Won Big at the Supreme Court https://reason.com/2022/06/21/school-choice-and-religious-liberty-advocates-just-won-big-at-the-supreme-court/ A win for school choice.

No, the commentary in this thread is not "clear". And the thread post by Old Man High Pants you linked to was discussing school consolidation, not football program consolidation/co-op. These are two very different things, would you agreed? No, chief, DT has been very consistent regarding his opinions regarding school consolidation and football program consolidation. So very far from a "checkmate". But again, nice try. As for being productive, I've been very much so. Been configuring web server software datasources to use a updated version of a database driver and testing those against a new DB server our DBA recently stood up. Unlike you I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I've searched all three pages of this thread for a post by DT where he states "I think it's a bad idea" and I can't find it. Can you please provide a direct link to said post or a screenshot?

Too bad for you he wasn't being one.

Hmm: When Are Social Security Benefits Paid Each Month? - AARP: https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/questions-answers/social-security-payment-schedule.html#:~:text=Here's how it works%3A,fourth Wednesday of the month. "If the birthday is on the 21st through the 31st, you are paid on the fourth Wednesday of the month." Enjoy your public dole.

Neither do I see a condemnation.

No, I'm not. But try again gonzo. Again, a screenshot of DT's exact post/quote:

DT's quote was: " I would choose not to commute 30 minutes to a consolidated practice site after school 4 days a week, but some farm kid in Ripley County might be happy to do it. " Wrong again FK16. Why don't you just admit it?

Right click on the small down-arrow next to your username and icon in the upper left hand corner of the GID screen. You should see an option titled "Ignored Users". Select this option and it will take you to a screen where you can add users to your ignore list:

Nice attempt at a dodge after being proven wrong. It didn't work though.

I prefer nuclear power.

The IHSAA really needs to allow football co-ops, if they don't already. Illinois does it with some success. Some fiercely independent small government school corporations (think Rossville) would consider a consolidated/co-op football team before they would consider an entire school consolidation. So let's say Clinton Prairie, Clinton Central, and Rossville decide to join forces and create a co-op football arrangement, and have the practices at Clinton Central (because, you know, it's central). Google maps shows these drive times: Clinton Prairie to Clinton Central: 23 minutes Rossville to Clinton Central: 26 minutes.

As a left-handed individual I support this initiative. After all we lefties are the only ones in our right minds..............

The Progressive Grievance Parade https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-progressive-grievance-parade/ The story is full of spectacular quotes, but perhaps none better than these: How spectacularly disruptive and grievance-obsessed are progressive activists? So bad that even Bernie Sanders told his presidential campaign to stop hiring them, because they created more problems than they solved! I’ll pause for a moment, so you can wipe away the tears of laughter. The Intercept article made only a passing reference to the extraordinarily nasty and public tumult at the Washington Post that swirled around Dave Weigel and Felicia Sonmez, and didn’t mention the perpetual drama surrounding Taylor Lorenz, last seen lecturing Matt Yglesias about the alleged horror of joking about his own case of Covid-19. But both cases seem like good examples of the same phenomenon: employees who put their never-ending personal grievances and branding ahead of the organization’s mission, and who are incapable of resolving disputes quickly and quietly behind closed doors. My home has one teenager and one near-teenager, so I’ve been thinking a lot about what kinds of lessons are important to instill in young people as they approach their first experiences in the workplace. It’s a free country; believe whatever you want to believe. But for heaven’s sake, don’t be the kind of person who obsesses over anything that could remotely be interpreted as a slight, a microaggression, a lack of respect, or a violation of some unspoken code. You go to work to do a job (and try to do it well), collect a paycheck, and get experience that with luck will lead you to the next job that you like even better. If you get along with your bosses and co-workers, that’s gravy. But your boss is not your parent. Don’t be someone who turns every interpersonal dispute into a grand crusade, someone who can’t let anything go. (I know, I know, I have my own battles with “Irish Alzheimer’s,” where you forget everything except a grudge.) You don’t want to be the kind of person who is always dwelling on some sort of problem with a co-worker or boss. Seeking out reasons to be upset and angry makes you a miserable person, and that often makes everyone else around you miserable as well! How you feel about the state of your life, your workplace, your community, your state, your country, and the world will be largely determined by what you look for and choose to focus on. As a wise warrior once said, “your focus determines your reality.” (Okay, that was Qui Gon Jinn in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, and he was killed shortly after he said it, but that doesn’t mean he was wrong.) One of the hard but important truths in life is that very few people care that much about your feelings. Oh, there’s a low, decent-society baseline of care — everyone hopes you’re feeling well, not battling depression, etc. But in the end, your mental health is your responsibility, not other people’s. There’s a limit to how much others are willing to bend over backward so that you feel happier. Your mission is to figure out how to thrive in a world full of people who will not be what you want them to be. You can’t control what other people do; you can only control how you react to them. In Josh Barro’s terrific “your workplace is not Fleetwood Mac” essay, he observed: Lord knows, conservative organizations, including the one I work for, have their own share of quirky personalities and internal disagreements, often passionate ones. But if, as it seems, organizations primarily staffed by conservatives have employees that are generally better team players, we have a fascinating inversion of the expected dynamic. In a workplace full of folks who classify themselves as rugged individualists, those folks are in fact willing to put aside their personal desires and feelings from 9 to 5 or so, for the sake of participating in a smoothly running, effective organization. Meanwhile, the workplace full of self-professed collectivists, who believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, is increasingly debilitated by runaway narcissism, petty infighting, and self-absorbed grievance-mongering. Finally, on that last term, I am reminded of an observation about the psychological state of mass shooters by Willard Gaylin, a preeminent psychology professor, which I wrote about a few years ago. Gaylin discusses the dangers of “grievance collecting” in his book Hatred: The Psychological Descent into Violence: As I wrote at the time, “At the heart of the grievance collector’s worldview is that he is not responsible for the condition of his life; a vast conspiracy of malevolent individuals and forces is entirely at fault. There is always someone else to blame. . . .” This isn’t to say that every whiny, self-absorbed, irresponsible employee will turn into a mass shooter. But there are healthy ways of dealing with life’s challenges, and unhealthy ones — and these progressive organizations appear to be filled to the brim with toxic personalities. ....

So Indiana High School Football is all about quantity over quality?

It's discrimination against a particular form of school. The success factor can affect every school, government and p/p alike. Yes. Catholic school barristers could just be one part of a legal team representing all p/p schools, Catholic or otherwise.

https://reason.com/2022/06/20/the-defense-production-act-has-become-a-license-for-central-planning/ Sliding every so slowly into complete economic socialism. It is what the progressive liberals want. And it will destroy America.

Let's Applaud the 10-Year-Old Who Walked to School Every Day for 4 Years https://reason.com/2022/06/20/max-mcpartlin-walk-to-school-every-day/