Jump to content

Title IX: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972''', now known as the '''Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act''' in honor of its principal author, but more commonly known simply as '''Title IX''', is a 37-word [[United States]] law enacted on [[June 23]], [[1972]] that states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of gender, 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."<ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|20|1681}}</ref>
''''''Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972'''''''''Bold text''', now known as the '''Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act''' in honor of its principal author, but more commonly known simply as '''Title IX''', is a 37-word [[United States]] law enacted on [[June 23]], [[1972]] that states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of gender, 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."<ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|20|1681}}</ref>
Although the most prominent "public face" of Title IX is its impact on high school and collegiate athletics, the original statute made no reference to athletics<ref>Carpenter, Linda Jean; & Acosta, R. Vivian (2005). ''Title IX.'' Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. ISBN 0-7360-4239-3.</ref>. The legislation covers all educational activities, and complaints under Title IX alleging discrimination in fields such as science or math education, or in other aspects of academic life such as access to health care and dormitory facilities, are not unheard of. It also applies to non-sport activities such as school bands and cheerleaders, as well as non-social fraternities/sororities, clubs and organizations.
Although the most prominent "public face" of Title IX is its impact on high school and collegiate athletics, the original statute made no reference to athletics<ref>Carpenter, Linda Jean; & Acosta, R. Vivian (2005). ''Title IX.'' Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. ISBN 0-7360-4239-3.</ref>. The legislation covers all educational activities, and complaints under Title IX alleging discrimination in fields such as science or math education, or in other aspects of academic life such as access to health care and dormitory facilities, are not unheard of. It also applies to non-sport activities such as school bands and cheerleaders, as well as non-social fraternities/sororities, clubs and organizations.


Revision as of 01:15, 28 November 2007

'Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972''''Bold text, now known as the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act in honor of its principal author, but more commonly known simply as Title IX, is a 37-word United States law enacted on June 23, 1972 that states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of gender, 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."[1] Although the most prominent "public face" of Title IX is its impact on high school and collegiate athletics, the original statute made no reference to athletics[2]. The legislation covers all educational activities, and complaints under Title IX alleging discrimination in fields such as science or math education, or in other aspects of academic life such as access to health care and dormitory facilities, are not unheard of. It also applies to non-sport activities such as school bands and cheerleaders, as well as non-social fraternities/sororities, clubs and organizations.

Three-prong test of compliance

In 1979, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under Jimmy Carter's administration issued a policy interpretation for Title IX, including what has become known as the "three-prong test" of an institution's compliance. [3] [4] [5]

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

A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.

Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink wrote the law as an outgrowth of adversities she faced in obtaining her college degrees at the University of Hawaiʻi, University of Nebraska and University of Chicago.

Since its inception, this "three-prong test" of Title IX has been highly controversial in its interpretation and enforcement, and there is dissent over how best to analyze its effectiveness in achieving its intended purpose, which is to eliminate discrimination on the basis of gender in federally funded educational institutions. Critics of the three-prong test contend that it operates as a "quota" in that it places undue emphasis on the first prong (known as the "proportionality" prong) and fails to take into account the genders' differing levels of interest in participating in athletics, such that this interpretation of Title IX actually operates to discriminate against men. Defenders of the three-prong test counter that the genders' differing athletic interest levels is merely a product of past discrimination, and that Title IX should be interpreted to maximize female participation in athletics irrespective of any existing disparity in interest. Thus while defenders argue that the three-prong test embodies the maxim that "opportunity drives interest," critics argue that the three-prong test goes beyond Title IX original purpose of preventing discrimination, and instead amounts to an exercise in governmentally-mandated social engineering whereby athletic opportunities are taken away from male students and given to female students, despite the comparatively lower interest levels of those female students.

Litigation

Since the advent of Title IX, schools have been increasingly threatened with discrimination lawsuits.[6]

Title IX has caused much controversy, with some groups claiming that it has caused some schools to spend less money on 'minor' or 'non-money-making' men's sports programs such as wrestling, cross country, swimming, gymnastics, fencing and volleyball. This means that it is harder for men to get into large, Division I schools for small sports due to their over emphasis on football and other money making sports.

Supporters of Title IX point to statistics (from a GAO study[7]) that indicate male collegiate sport participation has increased since the inception of Title IX, and that so-called "non-revenue" sports were being eliminated even before Title IX.

However, the same GAO study shows that, while male participation in sports rose 5% between 1981 and 1998, male enrollment during those years rose almost 19%. The number of men's sports teams available per male student has declined 21% over that time. Teams such as tennis, track and field, and swimming have decreased for men, while women's teams have increased. Although there are now more teams available to women than to men, the total number of male participants still significantly outnumbers the number of female participants; in 1998-99 there were 232,000 males participating in college athletics and 163,000 females

A few non-college sports leagues have opened competition to men and women in the same events, such as equestrian competitions, auto racing, sailing, a few golf tournaments, and inline skating under the so-called "Fabiola rule", named for Fabiola da Silva.

In one specific instance, Title IX was instrumental in a court case involving Louisiana State University. In 1996, a federal court referenced Title IX in ruling that LSU violated the civil rights of female athletes with "arrogant ignorance" of their needs. Since this ruling, LSU has made changes in its athletic programs to achieve compliance.[8]

In an unusual case, Title IX played a key role in a school's decision to upgrade its football program from Division I-AA to Division I-A. The Western Kentucky University Board of Regents approved this move in November 2006, to take effect in 2009.[9] At the time of the vote, WKU was out of Title IX compliance because it offered approximately 20 too few scholarships for men; moving its football program to Division I-A would add 22 men's scholarships.[10]

Commission on Opportunity in Athletics

On June 27, 2002 Secretary of Education Rod Paige announced the creation of the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics (COA), a blue-ribbon panel to examine ways to strengthen enforcement and expand opportunities to ensure fairness for all college athletes. The purpose of the Commission was to collect information, analyze issues, and obtain broad public input directed at improving the application of Federal standards for measuring equal opportunity for men and women and boys and girls to participate in athletics under Title IX.

Co-chairs for the COA were Cynthia Cooper and Ted Leland. Cynthia Cooper is the former head coach of the WNBA's Phoenix Mercury and a member of the 1988 and 1992 Olympic women's basketball teams. Leland is the Athletic Director at Stanford University.

Four town hall meetings were held in Atlanta, Chicago, Colorado Springs, and San Diego to allow the general public to comment on the past, present, and future of Title IX. On February 26, 2003 the COA issued its final report. The COA provided twenty-three recommendations to the Secretary of Education. The most controversial recommendations dealt with considering non-scholarship athletes in prong one of the three-part test for compliance and allowing interest surveys to determine compliance with prong three. These recommendations were passed by 8-5 votes. On the same day, Secretary of Education Rod Paige announced he would only consider unanimous recommendations, essentially giving veto power to current or former Women's Sports Foundation members Julie Foudy and Donna DeVarona.

Clarification of Prong Three

On March 17, 2005, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) announced a clarification of prong three of the three-part test of Title IX compliance. Prong three specifies the institution is in compliance if "the school is fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex." The clarification issued guidance on using web-based surveys to determine the level of interest in varsity athletics among the under-represented sex.

Renaming

The law was renamed as the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act on October 29, 2002, upon the death of the law's principal author, Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink. It was also written by Edith Green.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ 20 U.S.C. § 1681
  2. ^ Carpenter, Linda Jean; & Acosta, R. Vivian (2005). Title IX. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. ISBN 0-7360-4239-3.
  3. ^ http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9interp.html
  4. ^ IX:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_10_31/ai_59580155
  5. ^ http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3731
  6. ^ http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3731
  7. ^ Intercollegiate Athletics: Four-Year Colleges' Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams, GAO-01-291, March 28, 2001
  8. ^ SPORTS PEOPLE: COLLEGE SPORTS;Bias Found at L.S.U. In Title IX Ruling Associated Press 1996
  9. ^ "WKU Regents Approve Move To Division 1-A Football". Western Kentucky University. 2006-11-02. Retrieved 2006-11-03.
  10. ^ Bailey, Rick (2006-10-05). "State College Notebook: Toppers' switch to I-A probable". Lexington Herald-Leader. Retrieved 2006-10-06. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)


la

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Title_IX&oldid=174266361"