Rutgers drops male sports

Andy writes:

John forwarded a NYT article about how budget cuts in NJ (the state is broke) has caused the huge state school known as "Rutgers" to lose funding, which in turn has caused it to cut 5 men's teams and only one women's team. The article from the NYT didn't explain, of course, that the Title IX interpretation caused this 5:1 imbalance.

But wait. Title IX gives the women on the fencing team that was cut a powerful cause of action. Under Title IX's three-prong test, a college that cuts teams (as many colleges are now doing) can only satisfy Title IX by satisfying the first prong known as the proportionality test. Here's why:

Prong 1: by making the percentage of female athletes the same as the percentage of female students
Prong 2: by showing an ongoing history of increasing opportunities for women
Prong 3: by showing that it is accommodating the interests and abilities of women.

When a college eliminates a women's team, Prongs 2 and 3 automatically fail! The school must then comply with Prong 1.

Rutgers is now 53% female. If its sports teams are not 53% female also, and I bet they aren't, then Rutgers will lose in court. Already a college was sued in Missouri recently for this very same reason, and its defense is that it will try to bring its sports teams into substantial proportional compliance.

There is a devastating lawsuit against Rutgers waiting to happen now.

Title IX should be repealed. Colleges are forced to discriminate against boys.