I don't see it the same way, sure the power of the purse and all but if the Federal Government can't coerce states to follow immigration law as a condition of accepting some federal grants, we may as well say that the feds can't tie money to behavior and just let the chips fall where they may.
I get that women and men have different physical capabilities but why split it on gender? Why not split it on race? There isn't much racial equity in some sports, apparently some races can't compete as well as others and the demographics speak for themselves. Better yet, why not split sports by work ethic? I'd be more inclined to do sports if I could play with people who are similarly disinterested and the status quo isn't very accessible to me: a person who over eats, sleeps in, and forgets rules. I'm sure we can map that to a disparate impact somewhere.
Or ignore the discussion entirely and say "we'll let colleges decide how to handle their sports programs".
> I don't see it the same way, sure the power of the purse and all but if the Federal Government can't coerce states to follow immigration law as a condition of accepting some federal grants, we may as well say that the feds can't tie money to behavior and just let the chips fall where they may.
I'm confused, I wasn't making any case for that. I'm not sure where we got to Federal funding tied to specific program attributes.
> I get that women and men have different physical capabilities but why split it on gender? Why not split it on race? There isn't much racial equity in some sports, apparently some races can't compete as well as others and the demographics speak for themselves.
Do they, or is that primarily a matter of socioeconomics and class providing less traditional opportunities for certain ethnic groups, leading them to funnel effort in alternate areas, such as sports? It could also be a cyclical system, where many role models for a race are currently in specific areas (such as entertainment and sports) influencing newer generations. I wouldn't be comfortable attributing it to genetic variance of physical capability without a bit more info.
>I'm confused, I wasn't making any case for that. I'm not sure where we got to Federal funding tied to specific program attributes.
Federal funding coerces schools into offering women's sports programs.
> I wouldn't be comfortable attributing it to genetic variance of physical capability without a bit more info.
Why do we have to attribute the difference to genetics or physical capability to make sports programs accessible? What about mental capability? Mentally impaired, physically okay individuals compete in the special Olympics. Why not create a class for people who are using performance enhancement drugs?
> Federal funding coerces schools into offering women's sports programs.
No, leaving aside whether funding they aren't forced to take can coerce anything, it mandates equal sports programs. They don't have to offer women's sports programs, if they don't offer men's sports programs.
I get that women and men have different physical capabilities but why split it on gender? Why not split it on race? There isn't much racial equity in some sports, apparently some races can't compete as well as others and the demographics speak for themselves. Better yet, why not split sports by work ethic? I'd be more inclined to do sports if I could play with people who are similarly disinterested and the status quo isn't very accessible to me: a person who over eats, sleeps in, and forgets rules. I'm sure we can map that to a disparate impact somewhere.
Or ignore the discussion entirely and say "we'll let colleges decide how to handle their sports programs".