Another entry in the “Why do I bother with New York Times?” series: So a lady in a certain state (Hint: it’s my least favorite state and it rhymes with Blue Cork) sued under Title IX because cheerleaders weren’t at her daughter’s basketball games.  Now, neither her daughter nor the team wanted the cheerleaders at the game, so I’m not really sure why the mom thought this was a good idea in the first place, but in any case the fact that she won the complaint seems to me the result of a total misunderstanding of what the cheerleaders do.  Now, the entire article (and the reason for the suit, it appears) is premised on the idea that cheerleaders are there to support the team, whereas I contend that the cheerleaders are there to, I don’t know, lead the fans in the eponymous cheers.  So the fact that the status quo, where cheerleaders go to games with big crowds (football, men’s bball, and some playoff games for the other sports) strikes me as perfectly reasonable and not against the spirit of Title IX at all.

Unsurpisingly, some of these small-town cheerleading squads in NY have been decimated as everyone drops out on hearing that they no longer go to away games (since they’re home cheering for the girls) and that they have to cheer crowdless, empty fieldhouses.