Qbt 1 Annotated Bibliography - 2076 Words

Title IX does not currently achieve the bill’s original purpose of equal opportunity between the sexes because the tests used to measure compliance are flawed, the required balance of funding between male and female sports teams is skewed due to revenue sports, and there is a vast amount of misinformation about the results of Title IX hiding its failures. Bentley, Eric (2005) Title IX: The Technical Knockout For Mens Non-Revenue Sports. Journal of Law Education, 33, 139-166. This provides an argument that men’s intercollegiate sports should not be dropped in order to reach Title IX compliance. The article states that colleges should look to increase women’s sports to achieve substantial proportionality rather than the cheaper,†¦show more content†¦In the second test he performs he shows that he does not want to actually achieve a 0.0 rating, but would rather a school have as high of a positive rating as possible declaring a college with a rating of +6.24 as better than +0.54. This trend continues throughout the paper. This source is credible because it is a peer reviewed paper with relevant information regarding the way Title IX is viewed as an affirmative action law. Langton, Victoria (2009). Stop the Bleeding: Title IX and the Disappearance of Mens Collegiate Athletic Teams. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment Technology Law, 12, 183-207. This note begins by stating: Circuit courts current interpretation of Title IX and its progeny has led schools to believe that proportionality is the only safe path for avoiding liability under Title IX, even if it means eliminating mens teams. (Langton, 2009). It then proceeds to argue that that the wording of Title IX actually should prohibit such actions and that eliminating male sports teams just achieve â€Å"equality† is actually discrimination based on sex. The note continues saying that the Supreme Court should grant certiorari making the removal of men’s sports to achieve compliance under Title IX illegal. This source is credible because it was published in the Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment Technology Law with relevant information regarding different