Backwards Title IX at it again

[M&M Guy]

I was nosing around the NCAA website, and found this:

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p...yorktimes.html

Originally Posted by NCAA Website

For the record, Bill Finley got it wrong in his January 2 New York Times article (“A Man’s Place at a Woman’s Practice”) when, in writing about the use of male practice players in women’s intercollegiate athletics practices, he wrote, “Legislation to ban the practice at the Division III level will be voted on at the N.C.A.A.’s annual convention Jan. 11-15 in Indianapolis." In fact, the proposed legislation in Division III would have regulated the use of male practice players, not ban it. Also, the NCAA Convention was held in Orlando, January 5-8, not Indianapolis.

Division III members referred the proposal back to the Division III Management Council for further review.

While the Committee on Women’s Athletics did speak out against male practice players altogether, the Division III proposed legislation did not encourage an all-out ban. It is also important to note that whatever the outcome of the Division III final decision, it in no way would have predicted what Division I or II might decide is right for their respective members when it comes to male practice players.

The issue regarding the use of male practice players is working its way through the NCAA governance structure process at various levels. There is no clear consensus yet, and the discussion is energetic. The CWA has made its position known, as have others. We will have to follow the debate and see what consensus emerges.



Jennifer Kearns

NCAA Associate Director of Public and Media Relations

So, it looks like this is still just at the "discussion" stage.