Title IX Group review, Turea, Stephanie, Tim, Sparkle

Last week, we dove into discussion on Title XI and the current university standards practiced under it. (Carpenter, 2005) provided us with fuel for the fire by listing the following from the Division for Girls and Women's Sports (DGWS), as their philosophy:

1.  Enrichment of participants should focus on athletics.
2. Priority of funding should be "for a comprehensive athletic program" instead of financial aid for a few (Carpenter, 2005, p. 106).
3. Focus should be on "educated" citizens instead of scholarship to compete in athletics- emphasis on student in 'student-athlete'
4. Emphasis should not be on recruiting but on "comprehensive program" (p. 106)
5. Curriculum and program should be basis of choosing institution 
6. Favoritism should not be shown to certain sports (football) over others (gymnastics or soccer)
7. Participation should be encouraged for reasons other than financial aid. 

When my group reviewed the discussion question we were on the fence about some ideals. But first when we considered the concept of cutting minor men's sports as a sacrifice to 'premier' sports on campus, if the DGWS Philosophy was followed we determined that one sport would not be superior to another. It seems to be an easy concept, that no one sport will be favored over another based on campus popularity. Furthermore, we discussed if we thought that there would continue to be many headlines about "abuse and deceit regarding financial aid" and we believe that there would be less new coverage, possibly even no need to publicize financial aid decisions because as set forth by the DGWS Philosophy, number two reveals there would be more of a priority to choose an institution for academics and athletics as a partnership, not athletics over everything. Followed by number seven which gives the idea that there would be an increased promotion for walk-on athletes and less focus on unfair financial aid disbursement.
 Finally, we were asked if elite athletes would be "enticed to forego an education in order to pursue the unrealistic dream of hug pro contracts" (p. 106) This was the most difficult question to provide a clear-cut answer. We concluded that it depends on the person and the times in which collegiate sport is governed. When this article was first released it was prior to the redefining of when athletes can join a professional organization. With athletes such as LeBron James foregoing his collegiate opportunities to become an  NBA all-star, worked out in his favor. However, in recent years it has proven to be very beneficial to future contracts for athletes who went to university, and furthered their skills to gain a higher monetary value. So this question, in today's times seems dependent on the person.