Skip to main content

Flying Under Radar

With the combination of my lack of quality of internet access and my general desire to not draw much attention to myself, I've managed to stay pretty quiet since the semester ended. I really don't mind - it's given me time to apply for jobs, do some reading, spend some time with family, and relax. Two news stories this week, however, have caught my interest...

Title IX: This week marks the 30th anniversary of Title IX, the landmark legislation that said that any institution receiving federal funds cannot discriminate on the basis of gender. While college athletics may not have been the intended target of the new law, athletics is certainly where Title IX's impact has been most public. With the help of Title IX, opportunities for women to participate in collegiate sports has grown immensely. While that is undoubtebly good, many schools try to comply with Title IX through what is known as proportionality - a standard that says the percentages of a school's male and female athletes should equal the school's percentages of male and female students. While adding women's sports has brought many schools closer to proportionality, some schools have found that complying with Title IX can be done by dropping men's sports. Wrestling and men's gymnastics has been particularly hurt, some claim, by Title IX.

When the University of Northern Iowa faced major budget cuts in its athletic program, the decision was made to save money by dropping men's and women's tennis and swimming. Less than two months later, the university was faced with a lawsuit that it did not believe it could win - a lawsuit claiming the women's sports should be reinstated in order to comply with Title IX. With 60% of the university's students being female, but only 40% of its athletes being female, the university immediately reinstated only the women's tennis and swimming teams. The men were told they had no legal grounds on which to ask for reinstatement.

Hmmm...while I won't deny that the University of Northern Iowa has a way to go to meet the proportionality standard of Title IX, it seems strange that the university's cuts were made in a way that affected both genders equally, but yet the decision to reinstate the women's sports were made entirely on the basis of gender. Should we expect equality in such a situation? Here's something else to think about - what if proportionality also applied to race? For example, what if a school with a 95% white student body was required to have 95% of its athletes be white? To what else can we apply the proportionality theory? When does it go too far?

The Pledge of Allegiance: The big news of the moment seems to be the decision by a California court to declare the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because the words "under God" violate our right to separation of church and state. While I'm not sure what inspired the government to add "under God" to the pledge (it was added during the Eisenhower presidency), I've been wondering how people would react if the words were removed or changed. What if it was "under Buddha" or "under Allah" instead of "under God"? (Yes, I know God is considerably more generic than the other words, but many agree it implies a Christian God.) Here's my favorite - what if the pledge was simply changed to say "under Gods"? This could imply the tolerance towards multiple religions, or it could even imply religions with multiple gods. Would that be better?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The 15-Year Blogoversary

15 years and 1,213 posts! My first experience with the World Wide Web came in 1995, and by 1997 I had my own web page. The first web authoring tool I remember using was Composer, an HTML editor built into the Netscape Communicator suite. That helped me learn some HTML, and later I used Microsoft Word 97 and then FrontPage 98 and later Macromedia Dreamweaver to design more elaborate pages. Some of my FrontPage-built sites are still on the web. As I learned more about HTML standards and validation I wrote more HTML by hand, but I still wanted a way to make publishing to the web easier.

By 2001 I understood that (a) sites should be updated regularly and (b) FTP'ing sites and pages from my desktop to a server was a bit of a pain. I had heard about some early blogging platforms and chose one, Blogger, to try out. As you can see, I'm still here.
My first post using Blogger came on December 8, 2001. A few months later I paid for Blogger Pro, which offered additional authoring tools, l…

Last.fm and Ten Years of Web 2.0

Ten years ago yesterday I scrobbled my first tracks to last.fm. What's scrobbling? On last.fm, scrobbling refers to automatic music track logging to the internet. For me, uploading a record of my music listening habits was my first real experience with "Web 2.0." Remember Web 2.0? It referred to websites of user-generated content that enabled virtual communities and interoperability. Now such sites are too ubiquitous on the web to warrant a special designation — they're just the web. But that wasn't true in 2006, and even though I'd been putting content on the internet since 1996, at the time it was enough to make me a little nervous. What did these strangers want with my data, and what was in it for me?

Ten years and 24,941 scrobbles later, I have my answer: I have a really cool record of all the music I've listened to the past 10 years! Well, not "all," technically: I've certainly listened to music in places and on devices that didn't …

Why Eleanor Roosevelt Would Have Liked Google+

And why Google+ won't be replacing Twitter or Facebook for most of us anytime soon
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
-- Eleanor Roosevelt

I know too much already has been written about Google+ and its place in the world of social networking, but I've recently developed a new perspective which might help some of you who are trying to decide how and when to use Google+ versus Twitter or Facebook.

Eleanor might have said "small minds discuss people," but there's more than one way to discuss people and none of us are consistently small-minded. People are important, and the people who are most important to us are those with which we have mutual friendships or family relationships. This is why Facebook is best at people: it enforces (if we ignore fan pages) a symmetric follower model, ensuring that we are connected to people who want to also be connected to us. Those connections, often with people who we don&…