Just read this quote on Politico:
“Well first let me take a shot at that, and I’ll tell ya, I’m a product of Title IX in our schools, where equal education and equal opportunities in sports really helped propel me into the—I guess into the position that I’m in today where,” Palin said.
McCain then interjected, “Could I mention she was a point guard on a state championship basketball team.”
After the crowd’s applause died down, Palin continued: “Sports were very, very important to me growing up, you know just learning about self discipline and healthy competition and about what it takes to win and even how to graciously lose sometimes. But how to win, that’s what it teaches ya. Now, I was a product of Title IX where legislation allowed that equal opportunity. Now if we have to still keep going down that road to create more legislation, to get with it in the 21st century, to make sure that women do have equality especially in the work place, then we’re there because we understand that in this age we have all got to be working together. I respect you so much that you are a Democrat recognizing that John McCain and me as a team of mavericks understand where you’re coming from, and we can work together on these issues. But yup, equality for women, for all, that’s going to be part of the agenda and I thank you for that question.” emphasis J. Martin’s
I find this quite surprising actually. But I am wondering what readers here think of Title IX and a Republican ticket member actively supporting it.
September 18th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Who cares? I know precious little about Title IX, but I do know that conservative critics have essentially objected, not to Title IX itself, but the way it’s been hijacked to the ends of liberal feminists. Anyway, Palin talked about this in her first Gibson interview and she’s discussed it multiple times in interviews in Alaska. It’s not like it’s a big secret.
September 18th, 2008 at 11:23 am
It’s called “pandering”. Sometimes politicians do it. Don’t mistake it for actual policy proposals.
September 18th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I am not a Title IX fan because it has done as much to limit males access to sports as it has increased females access. It isn’t bad, it just needs to be reformed and tweaked. Things like allowing cheerleading to be counted as a sport, or taking football scholarships out of the equation would make the law much more tolerable. The feminist athletes like Donna Deverona and Julie Foudy shout down all of these changes as destroying the intent and success of Title IX.
I don’t begrudge Palin for supporting it though. She is right on so many more things.
September 18th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Matt, title IX is a major problem for universities. It’s only hurt.
I am surprised she backs it, I haven’t seen very much of the recent interviews with work and all, but it’s not a deal killer, but it makes me wonder what else in that direction she supports. I am just surprised, it doesn’t go with the rest of the Palin story… like at all.
September 18th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Jason, great post.
I am against quotas of any kind, but we have to remember where Sarah grew up. Sarah grew up in the most masculine state in the country, where female sports practically did not exist 40 years ago. What I like about Palin is that she also played with the boys (trapping, fishing, etc…).
The quotas we must be worried about are economic and race based, as they are continuing to hurt the African American and Latino Americans. We must stop the hand-outs.
September 18th, 2008 at 11:47 am
3. The problem with title IX is at major universities where Football is a multi million dollar part of the budget, other mens sports programs are scrapped so that they can keep equal spending on mens and womens programs. It’s idiotic legislation.
Is it a big deal for Palin? No, but it seems odd and kind of lame.
September 18th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Title IX was a good idea, with overzealous enforcement.
September 18th, 2008 at 11:55 am
One thing to note, Alaska doesn’t have any major universities that play football. She may not be as aware of the downside of the legislation.
September 18th, 2008 at 11:55 am
5. Kristofer,
I have no idea of Alaskas past, and perhaps title ix was a positive there. But overall, its terrible and a huge net negative. Fro instance at my undergraduate school the wrestling, mens gymnastics and swimming was all scrapped so we could have equal play for women. It’s nuts.
The other thing that will be asked (perhaps) is why she would support Title IX non but not affirmative action in public universities.
September 18th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Jason,
It goes along with the Palin story just fine. Alaska is by far the least densely populated state in the country. Sports, and I know this a wacky concept, require you to play other teams. In other parts of the state. If I recall correctly, Basketball is a winter sport. You might have heard that winter’s are hard in Alaska. And that travel isn’t easy. You can’t just take a bus to a school 500 miles away in the dead of the Alaskan Winter. And there aren’t 15 snow machines for every team member. Travel is expensive and in the state with the smallest percentage of women in the country, flying girls basketball teams 500 hundred miles a week wouldn’t necessarily be a budgetary priority. I’m not surprised Palin likes Title IX. It gave her a chance to play basketball, when she almost certainly wouldn’t have had this chance ordinarily.
September 18th, 2008 at 11:59 am
It sounds like the cons of Title IX here are that it kept men from doing something. No?
September 18th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Sorry for the snark. I’m just in a bad mood. I have no problem with folks criticizing Title IX; to be totally honest, I’d never even heard of it until Palin brought it up a few weeks. I just think there’s perfectly understandable why Palin would grateful for it’s creation.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
If you have a daughter who wants to play college sports, you may change your mind on Title IX. Interesting how personal experience can change a point of view.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Matt,
Not to nitpick on this too much, like I said I don’t care all that much about this beyond this one post, but Matt that’s poor rationalization. You just argued she really has no idea of the implications of the policy beyond her high school basketball days.
She’s on the national campaign trail now, perhaps before she picks policy positions she should study them a bit?
I don’t care too much though. Romney liked farm subsidies and I think those are the worst things in the world.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
PA,
Probably not.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I am still against affirmative action and title IX, but what makes me very angry is that it is applied to private colleges.
Public education is one thing, but applying this to private instituions is criminal.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I think that whether or not Title IX was appropriate in the first place, it has served it’s purpose. These things shouldn’t exist in perpetuity, they should simply move things in the right direction and then go away. Title IX, as I understand it, forced schools to allow girls to play sports in schools that received federal money, which made perfect sense in 1972. No respectable school nowadays would uniformly exclude girls from athletics, and if they tried to, it wouldn’t require judicial arbitration to settle the matter because the public backlash would probably cause the school more trouble than allowing girls to play sports. Title IX is now used to split hairs and punish schools that don’t meet “absolute equality” between the genders and their athletic opportunities. I once read about a community college that had to end its wrestling program because its female wrestling program died out to a lack of interest and the school didn’t have the resources to institute a replacement female sports program. I can’t quite remember all of the details in the case, but essentially no one at the school even cared, it was outside interest groups who attacked the school for “non-compliance” with Title IX and the school had to shut down its wrestling department because *if the girls couldn’t have their own sport, the boys shouldn’t either*. It’s a sham. Title IX has equalized the opportunity, and the issue should be reprivatized to meet the needs of the institutions who actually have to make those decisions.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Palin’s statement is good because it shows that the script writers are backing off and finally letting Palin be Palin.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
And for the record, I really don’t care about Palin’s stance on it because I’m sure she: 1. was talking out of her ass to pander to the womenfolk and 2. has no intention to make it an issue during her tenure as VP.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Palin supports it for equality…I don’t think conservatives have a problem about equality. It is the inequality that Title IX has created that bothers most conservatives.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
If you are a male wrestler or soccer player in HS with thoughts of getting an athletic scholarship to help you attend college, you know all about Title IX andits implications, trust me. Personal experience works both ways PA Conservative.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
One can be for title ix as a concept but also feel it should be tweaked so not to hurt men. This need not be an either/or issue. I want changes to title ix but have no issue w palins statement.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I think Title 9 has directly hurt men’s sports in country while directly helping women’s sports. Men who are all over sports are having to play without scholarships, or being denied the opportunity to play when colleges cut back teams. Women who are “sort of” interested in playing sports are pitched scholarships because there are so many fewer women vying for the scholarships than there are men.
It is a problem the way it is right now. How to resolve it?
I like the idea above of either counting cheerleading as a sport or no longer counting football scholarships as contributing to the “cap” of scholarships.