Which is exactly to what I was alluding.

The sole purpose of the law was to eliminate discrimination. No where does it state that any programs were to be eliminated.

The bottom line is that the schools used this as an excuse to cut existing programs they no longer wanted to financially support.

I only dispute the words underlined. Since they were required to add female athletes (and hence, sports teams) due to the number of athletes system of enforcement (as I said, ignoring the level of interest requirment), colleges needed to get the funds for these newly required teams from somewhere. That they chose to cut men's teams to free up the funds cannot fairly be described as "wanted to" cut, anymore than any other kind of extortion is a free choice.

This has led, for example, to such ridiculousness as the University of Minnesota establishing a women's rowing team when there is absolutely no interest in the sport in any high school in the state nor at any youth level whatsoever in the state. It is a completely imported sport, solely for the purpose of being able to offer women atheletes a team. It offered no benefit whatsoever to in-state students.

A fast, easy to understand summary of Title IX, and common misconceptions about it
 

http://www.womenssportsfoundation.or...html?record=34

http://bailiwick.lib.uiowa.edu/ge/aboutRE.html

Yup, 2 completely objective, non-advocacy sources. :rolleyes:

No show partner for two man. Going solo, close play a second, called out. OC must have forgot I had no parnter, wants me to get help. I told him, he agrees with me. I think he's still looking for my partner.

When you are alone, every argued call is your partner's fault. ;)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...academicweapon