Reply #73: Whoa--watch your jumps in logic

[lolly]

You list the 3rd way to be in compliance;

"can show you are meeting the needs of the student body. This one is terrible, a female (just one) could sue because she wants to have curling, and the school would no longer be in compliance."

News flash--this 3rd provision was put there to make it EASIER for schools, not to indulge the whims of lone female curlers. The point is, even if there is not absolute parity (say, only 45% female athletes in a 50/50 school) the school can show that their program meets the needs of its students adequately.

The "one female curler" is nonsense.

The regulations are written to be flexible. Look, in fact, at the 2nd one--"a history of adding female sports to come into proportion."

i.e., if you can show that you are TRYING, or are getting closer to compliance, you are cleared.

Essentially, what you are saying is that women's teams should pay for the bloated football team, not men's. Why?