Does Discrimination Fix Discrimination?

The Atholton High School junior varsity football team has a girl trying out (and word is she's pretty good). Two years ago, a girl from Arundel High School wrestled in the Maryland State Wrestling 3A/4A Championship match versus a River Hill wrestler (and gave him one heck of a match).

There's a boy that wants to play field hockey this season for River Hill but can't because, well, he's a boy.

If you missed it, Katherine Dunn broke the story in The Baltimore Sun (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/highschool/bal-va.hockeyboy26aug26,0,308516.story) about incoming freshman, Luke Chopper's, urge to play for the school's field hockey team. He's been playing the sport since he was six years old and it was never an issue until he entered high school and the best reason that anybody can give him for his inability to participate is that he was born the wrong sex.

Does anybody else see a problem here? Wasn't Title IX intended to stop this type of discrimination?

The Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (now referred to as simply Title IX) clearly states that "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 or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

Somebody please find me the part where it says "...unless you are male."

A few years after Title IX was created, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare created a policy for better interpreting Title IX called the "three-prong test". As long as a federaly funded entity meets one of the following prongs, they are found to be in compliance with Title IX.

Prong one - Providing athletic opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, OR
Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex.

This approach still doesn't clear it up for me. I look at it this way, in the fall athletic season, boys are permitted to play football, soccer, golf, cross country, and cheerleading. Five sports. Girls are permitted to play football, soccer, golf, cross country, cheerleading, volleyball, and field hockey. Seven sports. So how is Title IX being adhered to in this instance?

I think that Luke's mother, Lori McKay, had it right in The Baltimore Sun's article when she said, "You cannot fix discrimination by discriminating."

Now I may be taking an all too simplistic approach to this matter, but it seems like common sense to me. Until the county prevents girls from playing football and golf, or allows boys to play field hockey and volleyball, I don't see how the county (and state) is adhering to the Title IX requirements.

I understand that that will open up a whole new can of worms, but after learning of Title IX's true intended purpose and just watching American men play field hockey and volleyball in the Beijing Olympics, I think that Luke and his mother have a legitimate gripe.