Here’s a new feature on the site: The Daily Rant. Go to the Daily Rant page to view the explanation of the Daily Rant, which will be posted daily on the home page and archived in the Daily Rant.
We start by complaining about a money grab through Title IX:
- – - -
A couple of days ago, I came across this story about a Title IX compliance report in the City of Pittsburgh.
Based on the Tribune-Review story, the 139-page report contains few surprises: Female participation in scholastic sports trails male participation, athletic opportunities for girls are lacking, etc., etc., etc. There’s nothing particularly new or shocking here.
Now, let it be said: I am a Title IX proponent, at least in its most simply stated goal: No discrimination between boys and girls at schools that receive federal funds. I’m big on non-discrimination.
But look at the story closely. Peg Pennepacker, until recently the athletic director at Susquehanna Twp. High School near Harrisburg and a passionate advocate of Title IX enforcement in high schools, rang the two bells that give me a headache.
(1) Spend more money, and (2) confiscate the booster clubs’ dough.
No, no, no.
On the first issue, I have no problem with high school sports being funded, obviously, but with taxpayers stretched to the max everywhere and a massive tax increase coming in 2012 that will drastically affect the finances of every school district in the state, throwing money at the problem is simply not going to work. There won’t be any money to throw at the problem. Indeed, the phrase “pay to play,” which is being whispered now, will likely be a full-throated shout come 2012. The City of Pittsburgh, already a problem child financially, will likely have serious school-funding issues that could depress athletic funding.
On the matter of booster-club revenues being under the control of the schools and thus subject to Title IX regulation, I say no flippin’ way.
Peg’s stance is that it doesn’t matter how the money is raised or where it is raised, what matters is how and where it’s spent.
Baloney.
Booster clubs have as many different kinds of structures as there are schools. Some are private organizations; some are essentially adjuncts of a school’s athletic department. Some serve a single sport. Some serve all sports. Some serve gigantic egos.
Regardless, I strongly believe that if the funds are raised privately, they are NOT subject to Title IX regs (this is not a legal opinion, of course, and Pennepackers says there are cases out there that legally support her position). If a group of parents raises money for football, well, what’s wrong with that? Pennepacker’s position (we talked about this for a Title IX story I did for The Patriot-News in 2009) is that all money raised for scholastic sports – any sport – is subject to school oversight and thus Title IX regulations.
I just don’t buy that. What I buy is that if a group of private individuals decide to fund-raise for a certain sport, they have control (in consultation with that school’s athletic department and administration). In fact, often schools will approach boosters and ask them to raise some money for a certain aspect of that school’s athletic program.
If the Pennepacker model wins the day, who controls that money? The AD? The principal? The school’s Title IX compliance officer? Barack Obama (probably)? As Pennepacker and her colleagues are well aware, the control of finances is the control of policy. And like most people who are on the administrative side of the fence, women’s advocate groups want the flow of money and policy to be in administrative and not private hands.
No. No way. Taxpayers and parents have already yielded far too much control. It’s time to draw the line.
- – - -
