Writing in The Weekly Standard, Jonathan Last makes the point that ESPN — bowing to Title IX feminists — is biting the hand that feeds it: “First They Came for the Wrestlers“:

Some […] creepy programs are scheduled for ESPN this weekend. On Saturday we have ‘On the Basis of Sex: The Battle of Title IX’ and its companion show ‘On the Basis of Sex: An ESPN Town Meeting,’ followed on Sunday by another Title IX special, ‘On Equal Ground.’

I haven’t seen any of these programs, but judging from the glowing ads ESPN has been running (featuring Billie Jean King, Brandi Chastain, and every other significant female jock of the last 30 years) for the Saturday shows, and the fact that the Sunday show was funded and produced by the left-wing Women’s Sports Foundation (according to the group Saving Sports), it’s probably safe to assume that in the end, they’re going to come out for Title IX. Which is strange, since ESPN is a sports network devoted largely to men and Title IX is briskly and efficiently killing many men’s sports.

Strong words. Interesting topic. Worth reading.

I’ve said this before (at least I think I have — I’m a heavy drinker), but it bears repeating: you can be vehemently opposed to Title IX (as it’s currently being interpreted by the courts and the Department of Education) and still be supportive of women’s sports. Woman need (and have received) equality of opportunity in all arenas; but social engineering schemes of the kind favored by Title IX adherents — and evident in just about every instance where proportionalism is operative — are wrongheaded, and promote a dangerous slide toward equality of outcome.

Is it a slippery slope argument to suggest that the continued legal success of open proportionality schemes such as this are preparing the playing field for other such dangerous schemes (say, gender apportioned city councils)? Perhaps.

But why provide the idea with any legal traction?

[Related: Jessica Gavora’s “The War on Football” in the Los Angeles Times (free registration required)]