Introduction
The struggle for gender equality has become an essential part of the development of society and a reflection of civilizational progress. Numerous movements of activists supporting women as a vulnerable group are aimed at creating conditions in which females can count on equal conditions in education, politics, and other spheres of life. One of the significant initiatives in this direction was the signing of Title IX in 1972 by President Nixon, which implied removing educational barriers and creating an inclusive learning environment for men and women (Title IX). It is as follows: “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation, in be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program” (Title IX). However, social activists’ attempts to draw attention to women’s equality issues can lead to reverse discrimination, which is evident in the case below with cutting traditional Olympic sports. Expanding the rights of one population category may entail the infringement of the rights of another one, and promoting the rational resolution of controversial situations is an important condition for maintaining a social balance.
Case Background
The upcoming 1996 Olympic Games may be held under the auspices of a new competition format. The point is that in an effort to address gender inequalities in sports disciplines, responsible authorities are considering cutting back on traditional Olympic sports, including swimming, wrestling, and volleyball, to include more women’s sports. This decision is accompanied by a number of controversial nuances because, in the light of such an outcome, the opportunities for male participation will also be limited. Analyzing the case from the perspective of Title IX and its underlying provisions can help reveal the ambiguity of the responsible authorities’ position. The issue of gender equality will inevitably arise since this law was originally enacted to help improve the situation, but the aforementioned initiative may worsen the situation.
Reasons for the Inadmissibility of Cutting the Olympic Sports
Although Title IX was originally drafted and implemented into formal legislation to ensure equality between men and women in the above case, its violation is clear. Druckman et al. analyze the experiences of student-athletes and note that, despite the authorities’ attempts, “the implementation of Title IX has not yet produced the policy’s aim of eliminating sex-based discrimination” (642). One of the main reasons is reverse discrimination, which inevitably occurs when priority is given to a particular class.
The activity to eliminate gender inequality in society, including in the sports field, is a significant objective. Nevertheless, its implementation by curtailing the rights of one group in favor of another one can be seen as reverse discrimination and bias. Traditional Olympic disciplines in which male athletes have always performed well can be canceled to provide more opportunities for women and expand their sports opportunities. This decision looks like an attempt to solve the problem superficially, without taking into account either the sport or the civilian aspects. Druckman et al. assess Title IX and acknowledge the persistence of discrimination by stating that “those most affected by the policy are not the constituents to whom policymakers and college leaders fully respond” (642). As a result, one of the parties inevitably remains vulnerable, which contradicts the idea of getting rid of inequality and overcoming social vestiges associated with gender issues.
Given the current situation, my fellow athletes and I have the right to challenge the decision to cut Olympic sports, including swimming. According to the official provisions of Title IX, it contains “a variety of procedural requirements, the most important of which is the requirement to establish grievance procedures” (Title IX). Submitting a collective appeal to the responsible authorities, including the National Olympic Committee, is an adequate solution to assess the legitimacy of the proposed measure and its legal grounds. Despite the fact that the main purpose of this law is to regulate equal rights in the field of education, the problem under consideration belongs to the category of gender issues. Therefore, it requires consideration in the context of the violation of equality on this basis. Moreover, given the national nature of the problem, the appeal should be considered beyond doubt because a large number of affected individuals, particularly male athletes, are likely to agree with the need for adequate remedial actions.
Potential Outcomes of the Appeal
If the appeal is considered at the highest national level, this can help create a legal precedent and achieve a fair resolution of the case. Those who spearheaded the cancellation of a number of sports disciplines may need to answer to Congress that ratified Title IX signed by the then president. The Olympic Games, like other sports contests, do not involve the combination of men and women within the same competition, especially contact sports, and this factor is taken into account in Title IX (Title IX). However, the document does not state that the organizers have the right to change the disciplinary rules of the competition and change the regulation of involving athletes, guided by gender considerations. Therefore, in case of a collective appeal to Congress and the National Olympic Committee, the petition to return traditional men’s sports will most likely be approved due to the lack of grounds to prevent this.
Interested athletes have reason to file a complaint that is to be considered. They can report “perceive distribution biases” under the gender aspect, which, as practice shows, is a common approach among male athletes (Druckman et al. 646). The authorities are likely to organize a special committee to provide a legal background for the proceedings. Otherwise, inaction on the part of the responsible boards would mean that they contradict themselves since adopting Title IX at the Congress level is a significant factor in favor of the protection of interested parties. In this case, male athletes act as stakeholders who are subject to reverse gender discrimination. More sports without cutting back on current disciplines might be a reasonable outcome of this case and become a relevant precedent in legal practice.
Conclusion
To maintain a social balance and not pursue discriminatory practices related to gender bias, the authorities in charge should reconsider their decision to curtail traditional male Olympic sports. In this case, reverse discrimination occurs when the priority of one class entails the infringement of the rights of others. In accordance with Title IX, interested athletes can file a complaint with a higher authority to justify the inappropriateness of such a decision. If the case is assessed adequately, the truth will be on the side of those who have applied. The responsible authorities should develop a different algorithm for the distribution of sports disciplines at the upcoming Olympic Games so as not to infringe on the interests of male athletes.
Works Cited
Druckman, James N., et al. “Gender Policy Feedback: Perceptions of Sex Equity, Title IX, and Political Mobilization Among College Athletes.” Political Research Quarterly, vol. 71, no. 3, 2018, pp. 642-653.
“Title IX.” The United States Department of Justice, 12 Aug. 2021, www.justice.gov/crt/title-ix.