Forcing Girls to Cheer for Girls

**travelinman** · January 30th, 2007, 09:08 AM

Forcing Girls to Cheer for Girls
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, January 30, 2007

High school cheerleaders must now cheer for girls' teams as often as for boys' teams thanks to federal education officials' interpretations of Title IX, the civil rights law that mandates equal playing fields for both sexes. According to The New York Times, almost no one directly involved wants this -- not the cheerleaders, not the fans, not the boys' teams, and not even the girls' teams. But it doesn't matter: The law coerces cheerleaders to cheer at girls' games.

Of all the myths that surround Left-Right differences, one of the greatest is that the Left values liberty more than the Right. Regarding a small handful of behaviors -- abortion is the best example -- this is true. But overwhelmingly, the further left one goes on the political spectrum, the greater the advocacy of more state control of people's lives.

That is why, with the exception of Nazism -- which was an acronym for National Socialism but, rightly or wrongly, because it was race- and nationalism-based and because it allowed private enterprise, Nazism has been generally considered a far-right, not far-left, doctrine -- nearly all totalitarianism of the 20th century was on the Left.

By definition, the moment one crosses from center to left, one accepts more government control of people's lives. Therefore, the further left society moves, the more there is government control over its citizens' lives. It is astonishing that this obvious fact is not universally acknowledged and that the Left has somehow successfully portrayed itself as preoccupied with personal liberty with regard to anything except sexual behavior and abortion.

Taxation is an obvious example. It is difficult to imagine greater government control of a person's life than forcing the person to give half or more of his honorably earned money to the state under threat of being imprisoned. All rational people acknowledge the need for taxes -- who other than the state should pay for police, roads and national defense, and serve as the last resort for the truly helpless? But all rational people should equally acknowledge that the greater percentage of one's money the state forcefully confiscates, the less liberty the individual has.

But the single greatest example is law. The means by which the state exerts control over the individual is law. As with taxes, the more laws, the less individual liberty. And just as rational people acknowledge the need for taxation, all rational people appreciate society's need for laws. But just as taxes increase the further left one moves, so, too, the number of laws passed increases.

As liberalism has moved left in the past 50 years, there has been a veritable explosion of legislation. That is why the mainstream, i.e., liberal, news media, characterize local, state and federal legislatures as successes or failures based on the number of laws the legislature has passed. The worst legislature is one that repeals laws, and the next to worst is a "do-nothing" Congress or state legislature, in other words, one that has not passed enough new laws.

There are many reasons for the liberal/progressive/Left's adoration of laws. Three of them are:

1. Most activists on the Left believe that they, not only their values, are morally superior to their adversaries. Therefore, coercing people to adhere to "progressive" values is morally acceptable, even demanded. It is thus quite understandable that laws would compel high school cheerleaders to cheer at girls' athletic events as much as at boys'. And true to leftist totalitarian models, not only is behavior is coerced, but emotions as well. As The New York Times article reported, "a statewide group of physical education teachers in California called for cheerleaders to attend girls' and boys' games 'in the same number, and with equal enthusiasm' as part of its five-year goals." It is Orwellian, but not inconceivable, that either the California legislature or a California judge will require "equal enthusiasm" from cheerleaders at the girls' games.

2. "Progressives" are often unsuccessful in competing in the marketplace of ideas. Same-sex marriage and affirmative action are two contemporary examples. And when persuasion fails, laws are used. If you can't convince, coerce.

3. The more secular the society, the more laws are needed to keep people in check. When more people feel accountable to God and moral religion, fewer laws need to be passed. But as religion fades, something must step into the moral vacuum it leaves, and laws compelling good behavior result.

Unlike the nearly contemporaneous French Revolution, which affirmed "egalite" along with "liberte," the American Revolution never held equality equal to liberty. The Founders knew that you cannot have both, and so, the further left one moves, i.e., the more like France and Western Europe we become, the more coerced equality and the less personal liberty we will have.

Now even high school cheerleaders know that.

source

[ January 30, 2007 05:09 AM: Message edited by: travelinman ]

**cincygreg** · January 30th, 2007, 12:57 PM

So what?!?!?!?!

When they reach the college level, if they continue to cheer, they will probably cheer at some womens games as well as at the mens games.
It's not that unusual.
What, does this guy think that it's some sort of punishment to have the cheerleaders show school and team spirit for both sexes?
I do, however, think that the schools or districts should be able to decide for themselves, but this is far from some sort of travesty of justice.
I get his point about government making too many choices "for us" but girls cheerleading at girls games isn't such a new thing. In fact, it's fairly common at all levels.

[ January 30, 2007 08:58 AM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]

**travelinman** · January 30th, 2007, 03:01 PM

Christ you are clueless aren?t you.

**Lew** · January 30th, 2007, 03:15 PM

Trav-

I agree with many of the points stressed in the piece you cited, but I do think there is something that the author is neglecting to mention. The piece speaks of how the government has grown in its power, and how individual freedoms have been attacked (and that is correct) but it fails to mention why this came about- when the teacher leaves the room, the children won?t behave.

Think about the late 1800s. There was very little government regulation of the railroad industry. Rail workers that were injured in the course of their employment (which was very dangerous, thousands of railroad workers were hurt/killed annually) had no recourse; the common law at that time held that a railroad worker ?assumed the risk? by hiring on with the railroad in the workplace.

Customers who shipped by the railroads got gouged. Property along the right-of-way often times got burned (due to sparks from the locomotives), pollution, spills?..you name it, the railroad did it and could get away with it.

Now, the railroads could have taken a more ?progressive? approach- they could have taken care of their employees, they could have been fair with their customers, they could have spent resources on developing cleaner, safer technology.

Instead, they just went hog-wild. And finally, because enough people had been burned by them, the public demanded that the government do something about it. In time, the ICC came along to regulate rates. Work comp (actually for railroad workers it?s the FELA but similar in concept) came along to protect workers. Environmental regs were passed regarding pollution and what have you.

Now, obviously, once the government saw what it could get away with, here came the avalanche. Which like I said, I do agree that, as we sit here in 2007, the pendulum has gone too far the other way. But a reading of history teaches us that, for a very long time, the pendulum went the other way. Ideally we want the pendulum to be in the middle, but I don?t suppose that?s ever going to occur.

**cincygreg** · January 30th, 2007, 07:30 PM

I guess I'm the only one here who realises that cheerleaders cheer for both sexes in many schools accross the nation. Oh well.

I got the point of government control, I just think that his idea of using the cheerleader thing was weak.

**cincygreg** · January 30th, 2007, 07:51 PM

This Is From The national Association For Girls & Women In Sports

FREQUENTLY ASKED TITLE IX QUESTIONS

1. What is Title IX?
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in any educational program or activity at any educational institution that is a recipient of federal funds.
Athletics, drama, band and other extracurricular student activities are considered to be educational programs under this law.
Title IX also prohibits all forms of sex discrimination in federally funded educational institutions, including sexual harassment, discrimination in admissions and counseling, discrimination against married or pregnant students, etc.
2. Which schools must comply with Title IX?

Title IX applies to educational institutions that receive any federal funds - whether public or private. (There are very few private colleges but many private elementary and secondary schools that do not receive federal money.)
Almost all private colleges are covered because they receive federal funding through federal financial aid programs used by their students. Many private elementary and secondary schools receive federal funding through various programs as well.
3. How is Title IX applied to athletics?

There are three basic parts of Title IX as it applies to athletics:
Participation: requires that women and men be provided an equitable opportunity to participate in sports (not necessarily the identical sports but an equal opportunity to play).
Scholarships: requires that female athletes receive athletic scholarship dollars proportional to their participation (e.g., if there are 100 male athletes/100 female athletes and a $200,000 scholarship budget, then the budget must be split $100,000 to men/$100,000 to women).
Other Benefits: requires equal treatment in the provision of (1) equipment and supplies, (2) scheduling of games and practice times, (3) travel and daily allowance, (4) access to tutoring, (5) coaching, (6) locker rooms, (7) practice and competitive facilities, (8) medical and training facilities and services, (9) publicity and promotions, (10) recruitment of student athletes, and (11) support services.
4. Does Title IX require that equal dollars be spent on men's and women's sports?

No. The only provision that requires that the same dollars be spent (proportional to participation) is "scholarships." Otherwise, female athletes must receive equal "treatment" and "benefits."
The standard is one of "quality" rather than dollars spent. For example, if a school spends $700 outfitting a male football player, it does not have to spend $700 outfitting a female lacrosse player. However, male and female athletes must be provided with the same quality uniforms, and they must be replaced under the same circumstances.
Unequal budgets can also affect the number of athletes on a team. Insufficient funds may not permit a coach to supply the necessary equipment, uniforms and travel costs to a large number of players. Such disparities may violate Title IX.
5. Does Title IX require identical athletic programs for males and females?

No. Males and females can participate in different sports. Rather, Title IX requires that the athletic programs meet the interests and abilities of each gender.
Under Title IX, one team is not compared to the same team in each sport. The Office for Civil Rights examines the total program afforded to male athletes and the total program afforded to female athletes and whether each program meets the standard of equal treatment.
Title IX does not require that each team get exactly the same services and supplies. Rather, it requires that the men's program and the women's program receive the same level of service, facilities and supplies. Variations within the men's program and within the women's program are allowed.
6. Are most schools and colleges in compliance with Title IX?

No. Current estimates are that 80% or more of all colleges and universities are not in compliance.
At the high school level, financial data are unavailable. Participation data reveal that while females comprise 54 % of the general collegiate student population, they receive only 41 % of athletic program opportunities (1999-2000 Gender-Equity Study).
Male athletes at the college level receive $133 million more than female athletes in college athletic scholarships each year (1999 NCAA Gender-Equity Study)!
7. Does Title IX apply to booster clubs and other types of (similar) support for athletic teams?

Yes. If the school permits an individual or group to donate funds for the benefit of a specific gender or sport, it must also make sure that benefits and services are equivalent for both sexes.
8. Is any sport excluded from Title IX?

No. All sports at an institution are included under Title IX.
During the 1970s, there were four efforts to amend Title IX to exclude football, and each effort failed.
9. Should football be excluded from Title IX coverage?

No. No sport should be excluded from Title IX compliance. Males are entitled to participate in the sports in which they have an interest, and females are entitled to participate in the sports in which they have an interest.
The point is that if male athletes prefer to use 100 participation opportunities playing football, that's fine. If female athletes prefer to use their 100 participation opportunities playing soccer, softball and field hockey, that's fine too.
10. Does Title IX enforcement hurt football programs?

No. Football programs already receive protection under Title IX as mandated by the Javits Amendment, which allows increased expenditures based on "the nature of a sport" (i.e., football uniforms and protective equipment cost more than uniforms in other sports).
Some have argued for the exclusion of football from Title IX because it not only costs more to fund a football program, but it earns more money, which funds other sports. This is a myth. Among NCAA football programs in all competitive divisions, 81% spend more than they bring in and contribute nothing to other sport budgets. Even among Division I-A football programs, more than a third are running deficits in excess of $1 million per year.
Affording special consideration to football would permit an economic justification for discrimination. This would allow an institution to say, "We're sorry we can't afford to give your daughter the same opportunity to play sports as your son because football needs more money."
11. Does Title IX mandate decreases in opportunities for male athletes in order to provide increased opportunities for females to participate?

No. Title IX's purpose is to create the same opportunity and quality of treatment for female athletes as is afforded male athletes. The law does not require reductions in opportunities for male athletes.
Some educational institutions have chosen to cut men's non-revenue sports and maintained that this was necessary in order to comply with Title IX, thereby making women's programs the easy scapegoat to blame for the loss of these men's programs. However, it is the school's choice to cut back in this unfortunate manner.
Title IX is not to blame for school priorities that short-change men's minor sports. During the 1980s, when few schools were expanding opportunities for women to play sports, men's minor sports were being eliminated in order to spend more money on football and other men's revenue-producing sports.
Cutting men's sports is not the intent of Title IX. The intent of Title IX is to bring treatment of the disadvantaged gender up to the level of the advantaged group.
12. Does Title IX require institutions to meet "quotas"?

No. Every institution has three options to meet the participation standard of Title IX, only one of which is to provide athletic participation opportunities in substantial proportion to each gender enrollment. They only need to meet one of the following:
Option 1: Compare the ratio of male and female athletes to male and female undergraduates; if the resulting ratios are close, the school is probably in compliance with the participation standard.
Option 2: Demonstrate that the institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion for the under-represented gender.
Option 3: Demonstrate that the institution has already effectively accommodated the interests and abilities of the under-represented gender.
13. Has Title IX increased female participation over the last 25 years?

Yes. In 1970, only 1 out of every 27 high school girls played varsity sports. Today, that figure is one in 2.5. Female high school participation increased from 294,015 in 1971 to 2,784,154 in 2000. College participation has more than quadrupled, from 31,000 participants to 150,916.
14. Are females less interested in sports than males?

No. There is no evidence suggesting girls are inherently less interested in sports than boys. We do know that at an early age (six to nine years old), they are equally as interested. However, participation opportunities decline sharply as girls get older.
The participation rate of boys (twice that of girls) reflects the opportunities that are offered to them-not lack of interest on the part of girls. 15. How do I know if my school is in compliance with Title IX?
Ask. Every school, by law, has to have a Title IX Coordinator. Find out who this person is and ask them about the school's compliance. Title IX covers many areas, from participation numbers to quality of available coaching. If the school doesn't have a Title IX Coordinator, report it to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Education.
At the high school level, find out if the school is accommodating the sports interests of both boys and girls. Are there programs not being offered for girls where there's substantial interest to field a program? Compare the number of participation opportunities available to boys (not the number of teams but the actual number of players) to the number of opportunities for girls.
At the college level, it's become a little easier for anyone to find out if an institution is in compliance. In 1994, Congress passed the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA), which requires all institutions of higher education to report each year on athletic participation numbers, scholarships, program budgets and expenditures, and coaching salaries by gender. This information is to be made available to anyone in a timely fashion (1-2 weeks) upon request. Simply call the institution's athletic department and request it. As it is broken down by gender, it's easy to see whether an institution is being equitable.
16. Who is responsible for enforcing Title IX?

Schools and colleges are responsible for complying with federal law.
The OCR is specifically charged with enforcing the law. Anyone can file an OCR complaint and the identity of the complaining party will be kept confidential.
Courts-affected parties have the individual right to sue (courts may award damages).
17. What is the penalty for non-compliance with Title IX?

The ultimate penalty for non-compliance is withdrawal of federal funds from the offending institution. Institutions may also be required by a court or the OCR to make changes in their programs and to pay damages to the students for their lost opportunities.
Although most institutions are not in compliance with Title IX, no institution has lost any federal funds as a result of non-compliance with Title IX (Office for Civil Rights states that it does not have sufficient staff/budget to fully enforce Title IX). Institutions have had to pay substantial damages and attorneys' fees in cases brought to court.
18. Are institutions prohibited from retaliating against persons who file Title IX complaints or lawsuits?

Yes. Retribution is prohibited.
However, there are many coaches of women's teams who have complained about Title IX violations and who have not had their contracts renewed, ostensibly for other reasons.
19. The boys' teams receive letter jackets from the booster club at the end of the year while the girls' teams receive certificates from the school. Is this a Title IX violation?

Yes. If permission is given by the athletic director for an action or expenditure that benefits the boys' programs, a similar benefit must be provided to the girls' programs.
20. Is it a violation of Title IX when cheerleaders, pep squads and/or bands are provided for men's athletic events but not for women's athletics events?

Yes. Cheerleaders, pep squads and bands are considered publicity services. If they are provided for the men's program, they must be provided for the women's program.
21. Does Title IX require an equal number of teams for male and female athletes?

No. Title IX deals with participation opportunities or number of individual participation slots for males and females to play-not numbers of teams.
22. Our high school girls play at 4:00 p.m. on Fridays, and the boys play at 7:00 p.m. on Fridays. Is this a violation of Title IX?

Yes. Later times for games are more valued because parents, friends and spectators can attend.
In order to comply with Title IX, many schools flip-flop early and late starting times for men's and women's teams.
23. Can cheerleading be considered a varsity sport?

Generally, no. However, if they have a coach, practice as frequently as a regular varsity team and compete against other cheerleading teams on a regular basis and more frequently than they appear to cheer for other teams, they may meet the definition of a varsity team.

BTW, Cheerleaders dont get nearly enough respect for what they do. It's not easy to try and rev up a crowd when the team is getting hammered!