IBJNews

Butler University directed to spend more on male athletes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Butler University has learned that it is violating U.S. civil rights laws because it isn’t spending enough money on its male athletes. It also was directed to get more women involved in intercollegiate sports.

The U.S. Department of Education told the Indianapolis school to close the difference in spending on scholarships between men and women. Women got 53.4 percent of the scholarships in the 2010 academic year, while comprising 36.5 percent of athletes.

The inequalities violate a law known as Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, and which has led to growth in the number of women’s sports teams the past 40 years.

Since Butler’s 4,000 undergraduate enrollment is 59.6 percent women, the school was directed to create more opportunities for them to participate in sports.

Butler Athletic Director Barry Collier was out of town and wasn’t available for comment. Calls to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights weren’t immediately returned.

Spokesman Jim McGrath said the school will submit a plan to the Department of Education that puts it back into compliance by Sept. 1.

Butler  plays football in the Pioneer League, which doesn’t allow scholarships. That sport likely would even out the spending.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Re-read Reddog
    Just to point out a couple items that may clarify this story for you, it is not about the percentage of female students versus money to athletes, it is the percentage of female athletes versus the percentage of money to athletes. It is also the percentage of female students versus the percentage of female athletes. Hopefully that helps. I see nothing "ridiculous" about this, makes total sense and a win/win for everyone. Male sports get more money, females get more incentive/access to more sports, and they all get into compliance. Also, there is no such thing as "reverse discrimination".
  • Title 9
    So funny...females comprise over 55% of the students and they get more $$. Now BU has to spend more on men. They reached out to take care of the females and no it is reverse discrimination. Ridiculous....

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

    2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

    3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

    4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

    5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.

    ADVERTISEMENT