Interesting article but you do realize that rich white guys are getting the tennis scholarships, right? I am trying to come up with one, just one, "inner city" kid who has a tennis scholarship. Can you name any? I don't know of any. I certainly know plenty of boys whose parents welcomed and needed the additional tuition help, but that is not inner city by any strech. Those boys had parents who had enough cash (and usually two parents) to get to the tournaments week in and week out. You need those tournament wins to get a scholarship. I don't think inner city boys have much of a chance of playing college tennis whether programs are cut or not. If you think that then you do not know much about tennis. Tennis is way too expensive for anyone in the inner city to pursue. Maybe if you're really lucky someone will notice you but the chance of that is about same as winning lotto. And even then the USTA may put up any roadblock they can because they traditionally have wanted certain kinds of kids representing American tennis. Hopefully that has changed, but who knows. In any case, I think everyone wants all kids to succeed and have opportunities.
I agree with you that inner city boys are unlikely to play tennis (actually, my impression from what I've read is that Americans in general are increasingly unlikely to get college scholarships). Please do re-read my post, though - my objection is that focusing on tennis scholarships at universities (ie., depriving the "rich white guys" of scholarships) paints a very misleading picture of the elimination of sports scholarships.
Here's the quote from the atlantic article that I think represents my position:
"Data from the U.S. Department of Education and from several recent university studies show that far from being shy and demoralized, today's girls outshine boys. They get better grades. They have higher educational aspirations. They follow more-rigorous academic programs and participate in advanced-placement classes at higher rates. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, slightly more girls than boys enroll in high-level math and science courses. Girls, allegedly timorous and lacking in confidence, now outnumber boys in student government, in honor societies, on school newspapers, and in debating clubs. Only in sports are boys ahead, and women's groups are targeting the sports gap with a vengeance."
I don't like to hear people say "oh, this is just a bunch of rich white guys complaining about tennis scholarships that they don't need in the first place."
I'm actually not as about title IX as some people, because I do understand the historical context. Women's sports were belittled, and I think that if you come from this generation, you feel that title IX was a kind of saviour, because it gave universities and other organizations no choice but to start treating women equally, and I think a lot of people would say "I'm sorry it took such a heavy hand, but sometimes that's what it takes to create change." They'd also say, well, get rid of football, then, and you'll have no trouble funding all those men's sports. Trust me, I get it.
I think that a lot of resentment now comes from young men who grew up in an environment that reflects that passage I posted above. They see their sports cut, and they wonder (reasonably, in my opinion) why a policy so aggressively enforces gender equity in sports when women are such a clear majority in so many other college activities. It does seem like the policy says "gender equity is bad and must be stopped, unless the inequity favors women."
Anyway, my main point is that we should not dismiss complaints regarding cuts to men's scholarships as "upper middle class white guys" complaining about tennis.
