Jump to content

Title IX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.106.223.131 (talk) at 18:46, 6 February 2013 (Undid revision 536917943 by 24.106.223.131 (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Title IX
Great Seal of the United States
Enacted bythe 92nd United States Congress
EffectiveJune 23, 1972
Citations
Public law92-318
Codification
Acts amendedHigher Education Act of 1965
U.S.C. sections created20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688
Legislative history
United States Supreme Court cases
Cannon v. University of Chicago
Grove City College v. Bell
Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools
Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District
Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education
Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education

Title IX is a portion of the Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. sections 1681 through 1688, U.S. legislation also identified its principal author's name as the Patsy Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act. It states (in part) 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...

History

Foundation and Hearings

Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was written in order to end discrimination based on religion, race, color, or national origin, the act also energized the women's rights movement, which had somewhat slowed after women's suffrage in 1920.[1] While Title IX is best known for its impact on high school and collegiate athletics, the original statute made no explicit mention of sports.[2]

In 1967 President Lyndon Johnson sent a series of executive orders in order to make some clarifications. Before these clarifications were made, the National Organization for Women (NOW) persuaded President Johnson to include women in his executive orders.[1] Most notable is Executive Order 11375, which required all entities receiving federal contracts to end discrimination on the basis of sex in hiring and employment.

Representative Patsy Mink authored an early draft of Title IX.

In 1969 Bernice Sandler used the executive order to help her fight for her job at the University of Maryland.[3] She used university statistics showing how female employment at the university had plummeted as qualified women were replaced by men.[1] Sandler brought her grievance to the Department of Labor's Office for Federal Fair Contracts Compliance where she was encouraged to file a formal complaint. Citing inequalities in pay, rank, admissions and much more, Sandler began to file complaints not only against the University of Maryland but numerous other colleges as well. Working in conjunction with NOW and Women's Equity Action League (WEAL), Sandler filed 269 complaints against colleges and universities.[1]

In 1970 Sandler joined Representative Edith Green's Subcommittee on Higher Education of the Education and Labor Committee and sat in on the congressional hearings where women's rights were discussed. It was in the congressional hearings that Green and Sandler first proposed Title IX. An early draft was prepared by Congresswoman Patsy Mink, with the assistance of Congresswoman Green.[4] In the hearing there was very little mention of athletics.[1] Their focus was more specifically on the hiring and employment practices of federally financed institutions. The proposed Title IX created much buzz and gained a lot of support.

Introduction and Enactment

The first person to introduce Title IX in Congress was its author and chief Senate sponsor, Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana.

At the time, Bayh was working on numerous constitutional issues related to women's rights, including the Equal Rights Amendment, to build "a powerful constitutional base from which to move forward in abolishing discriminatory differential treatment based on sex".[5] As they were having some difficulty getting the ERA out of committee, the Higher Education Act of 1965 was on the floor for reauthorization, and on February 28, 1972, Senator Bayh introduced the ERA's equal education provision as an amendment.[6]

Senator Birch Bayh exercises with Title IX athletes at Purdue University, ca. 1970s.

In his remarks on the Senate floor, Bayh said, "We are all familiar with the stereotype of women as pretty things who go to college to find a husband, go on to graduate school because they want a more interesting husband, and finally marry, have children, and never work again. The desire of many schools not to waste a 'man's place' on a woman stems from such stereotyped notions. But the facts absolutely contradict these myths about the 'weaker sex' and it is time to change our operating assumptions."[7]

"While the impact of this amendment would be far-reaching", Bayh concluded, "it is not a panacea. It is, however, an important first step in the effort to provide for the women of America something that is rightfully theirs—an equal chance to attend the schools of their choice, to develop the skills they want, and to apply those skills with the knowledge that they will have a fair chance to secure the jobs of their choice with equal pay for equal work".[8]

Title IX became law on June 23, 1972.[9] When President Nixon signed the bill, he spoke mostly about desegregation busing, which was also a focus of the signed bill, but did not mention the expansion of educational access for women he had enacted.[5]

Implementation

The wording of Title IX is very brief, requiring specific language and clarifications to be articulated in its implementing regulations. President Nixon directed the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) to carry this out.[1]

Concern over how Title IX would affect men's athletics prompted some to look for ways to limit the influence of Title IX, and Senator Bayh spent the next three years keeping watch over HEW to get regulations formulated that carried out its legislative intent of eliminating discrimination in higher education on the basis of sex.[5] When they were issued in summer 1975 they were contested, and hearings were held by the House Subcommittee on Equal Opportunities on the discrepancies between the regulations and the law. Implementation by colleges and universities also had to be monitored, although many were working to comply. One such attempt was made in 1974 by Senator John Tower who introduced the Tower Amendment, which would have exempted revenue-producing sports from Title IX compliance.[10] Later that year the Tower Amendment was rejected and the Javits Amendment, proposed by Senator Jacob Javits, stating that the HEW must include “reasonable provisions considering the nature of particular sports” was adopted in its place.[1]

In June 1975, HEW published the final regulations detailing how Title IX would be enforced.[1] The regulations were codified in the Federal Register in Volume 34, Part 106. It was not until this step was completed that many people truly understood the ramifications of Title IX as it would apply to college athletics. Universities receiving Federal financial assistance were given three years to comply with the Title IX regulations.[9] The NCAA claimed that the implementation of Title IX was illegal. A revised Tower Amendment was proposed and many debates occurred [vague] but Title IX stood.[1]

In 1979, HEW, under Jimmy Carter's administration, issued further clarifications in its "Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Interpretation".[11][12]

In 1980, HEW was split into two separate agencies in accordance with the Department of Education Organization Act - the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Education (ED).[10] Oversight of Title IX enforcement and implementation was given to ED's Office for Civil Rights (OCR).[13]

Further legislation and regulations

The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988 was passed in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1984 ruling Grove City College v. Bell[14] in which the Court held that Title IX applied only to those programs receiving direct federal aid.[15] The case reached the Supreme Court when Grove City College disagreed with the Department of Education's assertion that it was required to comply with Title IX. Grove City College was not a federally funded institution; however, they did accept students who were receiving Basic Educational Opportunity Grants through a Department of Education program.[14] The Department of Education's stance was that, because some of its students were receiving federal grants, the school was receiving federal assistance and Title IX applied to it. The Court decided that since Grove City College was only receiving federal funding through the grant program, only that program had to be in compliance. The ruling was a major victory for those opposed to Title IX, as it made many institutions' sports programs outside of the rule of Title IX and, thus, reduced the scope of Title IX.[1] The ruling, however, was short-lived. The Civil Rights Restoration Act was passed in 1988 which extended Title IX coverage to all programs of any educational institution that receives any federal assistance, whether direct or indirect.[9]

In 1994, the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, sponsored by congresswoman Cardiss Collins, required federally assisted higher education institutions to disclose information on roster sizes for men's and women's teams, as well as budgets for recruiting, scholarships, coaches' salaries, and other expenses, annually.[10]

On November 24, 2006, the Title IX regulations were amended to provide greater flexibility in the operation of single-sex classes or extracurricular activities at the primary or secondary school level.[16]

Applicability and compliance

The legislation covers all educational activities, and complaints under Title IX alleging sex 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 band and clubs; however, social fraternities and sororities, sex-specific youth clubs such as Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, and Girls State and Boys State are specifically exempt from Title IX requirements.

Title IX applies to an entire school or institution if any part of that school receives federal funds; hence, athletic programs are subject to Title IX, even though there is very little direct federal funding of school sports.[17]

The regulations implementing Title IX require all universities receiving federal funds to perform self-evaluations of whether they offer equal opportunities based on sex[18] and to provide written assurances to the Department of Education that the institution is in compliance for the period that the federally funded equipment or facilities remain in use.[19] With respect to athletic programs, the Department of Education evaluates the following factors in determining whether equal treatment exists:[20]

  1. Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
  2. The provision of equipment and supplies;
  3. Scheduling of games and practice time;
  4. Travel and per diem allowance;
  5. Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring on mathematics only;
  6. Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
  7. Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities;
  8. Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
  9. Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
  10. Publicity.

Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary [of Education for Civil Rights] may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.

Although the most well-known application of Title IX regards athletics, there are several protections the law specifically delineates. Section 106.40 protects pregnant and parenting students from discrimination based on pregnant status, marital status, or parenthood.[21] Their condition must be treated as any other medical condition. Students may not be excluded from any activity based on their condition of pregnancy, parenthood, or marital status. If they attend a separate facility, they must elect to do so voluntarily, and the facility must provide comparable programs.

Three-prong test

HEW's 1979 Policy Interpretation articulated three ways compliance with Title IX can be achieved. This became known as the "three-part test" for compliance. A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.[22]

  • "All such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution's athletic program."
  • "Male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities" regarding facilities.
  • "The athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated."[11][23]
  • "Institutions must provide both the opportunity for individuals of each sex to participate in intercollegiate competition, and for athletes of each sex to have competitive team schedules which equally reflect their abilities." Compliance can be assessed in any one of three ways:[22]
  1. Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.
  2. Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).
  3. Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.

Litigation after Grove City case

Since Title IX was passed into law there have been many court cases claiming non-compliance. One of the most notable cases is Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992. The decision in this case required that punitive damages should be awarded to plaintiffs when Title IX is intentionally avoided.[15] In 1993 the court of appeals ruled that financial difficulties is not an excuse for non-compliance in Favia v. Indiana University of Pennsylvania.[10]

In one specific instance, Title IX was instrumental in a court case involving Louisiana State University (LSU). In 1996, a federal court referenced Title IX in ruling that LSU violated the civil rights of female athletes by refusing to fund a trip to a women's volleyball tournament in Hawaii, when earlier in the year, travel for a men's basketball tournament was funded.[24] Since this ruling, LSU has made changes in its athletic programs to achieve compliance.[citation needed] LSU is one of only three NCAA programs that are 100% self-funded and that do not accept financial contributions from the university or government.[citation needed]

In an "unusual" case, Title IX was invoked to justify a school's decision to upgrade its football program from Division I FCS (formerly I‑AA) to Division I FBS (formerly I‑A). The Western Kentucky University Board of Regents approved this move in November 2006, to take effect in 2009.[25] At the time of the vote, WKU was purportedly out of Title IX compliance because it had a disproportionately large number of female scholarship athletes. By upgrading football, it increased the percentage of male athletes on scholarship.[26] However, the following year, it eliminated its men's soccer team.[27]

More recently, the Associated Press reported in May 2011 that the Department of Education was investigating the University of Delaware (UD) for potential sex discrimination against men, following a complaint by members of the school's men's cross country and track teams. UD had announced in January 2011 that it would be eliminating both teams at the end of the current school year.[28]

Impact

Though views differ as respects the impact of Title IX, discussion typically focuses on whether and to what extent Title IX has resulted in increased athletic opportunities for females, and whether and to what extent Title IX has resulted in decreased athletic opportunities for males. In addition, the legislation had impacts on aspects other than athletes. The increased exposure of female sports led to increased dominance by males of the governance of women's athletics. For example, the male dominated NCAA, which had been content to let the women=dominated AIAW run women's championships, decided to offer women's championships, which led to the eventual demise of the AIAW.[29]

The 2012 Summer Olympics in London opened new interest in the impact of Title IX and how the growth of sports participation by women worldwide might be ascribed to the 1972 American legislation. Clearly the intense coverage by the NBC's television system has brought a closer look to the personalities, backgrounds, and history of both men and women in sports and opens a new source for comparison with pre-Title IX sports activity by women. That noted, there has been little reference in the popular media to possible impact by the Patsy Mink authored measure.

Advocates of Title IX's current interpretation cite increases in female athletic participation, and attribute those increases to Title IX.[30][31][32] One study, completed in 2006, pointed to a large increase in the number of women participating in athletics at both the high school and college level. The number of women in high school sports had increased by a factor of nine, while the number of women in college sports had increased by more than 450%.[33] A 2008 study of intercollegiate athletics showed that women's collegiate sports has grown to 9,101 teams, or 8.65 per school. The five most frequently offered college sports for women are, in order: (1) Basketball, 98.8% of schools have a team, (2) Volleyball, 95.7%, (3) Soccer, 92.0%, (4) Cross Country, 90.8%, and (5) Softball, 89.2%.[34]

At the same time, many contend that the current interpretation of Title IX by the OCR has resulted in the dismantling of men's programs, despite strong participation in those sports.[35] For example, though interest in the sport of wrestling has consistently increased at the high school level since 1990, [36] scores of colleges have dropped their wrestling programs during that same period.[37][38] The OCR's three-prong test for compliance with Title IX often is cited as the reason for these cuts.[38][39] Wrestling historically was the most frequently dropped sport,[39] but other men's sports later overtook the lead, such that according to the NCAA, the most-dropped men's sports between 1987 and 2002 were as follows: Cross country (183), indoor track (180), golf (178), tennis (171), rowing (132), outdoor track (126), swimming (125) and wrestling (121).[37]

A guideline announced by Vice President Joe Biden on 4 April 2011 on sexual harassment or violence required that institutions conduct investigations and discipline on the preponderance of the evidence standard, rather than that of beyond reasonable doubt.[40] The use of such a standard by the University of North Dakota has been criticized by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education in the case of Caleb Warner, who was suspended for three years in January 2010 on the basis of a report by a complainant who was subsequently charged with filing a false report by state police, a decision which the University has refused to reconsider.[41]

Impact on male athletics

Some believe that the increase in athletic opportunity for girls in high school has come at the expense of boys athletics. For example, the College Sports Council has stated, “Nationwide, there are currently 1.3 million more boys participating in high school sports than girls. Using a gender quota to enforce Title IX in high school sports would put those young athletes at risk of losing their opportunity to play.”[42] High school participation rates substantiate this claim. The National Federation of High School associations reports that in 2010-11, there were 4,494,406 boys and 3,173,549 girls participating in high school athletics.[43] Although Title IX's present application to high schools has not so far barred boys from sports activities, a rigid (tit for tat) gender quota clearly would have this effect.

Some continue to challenge Title IX's application to high school athletics, however. The American Sports Council has sued the Department of Education seeking a declaratory judgment that its policy interpreting Title IX's requirement for equity in participation opportunities is limited to colleges and universities.[44] American Sports Council attorney Joshua Thompson said that “The three-part test and its encouragement of quotas, has no relevance to high schools or high-school sports no federal regulation or interpretation has ever said that high schools must abide by the three-part test and the sex-based quota system it fosters".[42] On the other hand, the Department of Education insists that Title IX is a "valuable tool" for ensuring a level playing field for all students" and "plays a critical role in ensuring a fundamental level of fairness in America's schools and universities".[44]

Regarding college athletics, it has been stated that “Between 1981 and 1999 university athletic departments cut 171 men’s wrestling teams, 84 men’s tennis teams, 56 men’s gymnastics teams, 27 men’s track teams, and 25 men’s swimming teams".[45] Yet statistics showing the elimination of men's teams do not demonstrate, as some suggest, that Title IX has expanded women's athletic programs at the expense of men's. While some teams—both men's and women's—have been eliminated in the Title IX era, both sexes have seen a net increase in the number of athletic periods over a similar time period as the above quote[46] and by studies including more recent data.[47]

Moreover, the more relevant statistic for measuring equity is not the number of teams. Because teams vary widely in size, it is more appropriate to compare the number of total participation opportunities those teams afford. Such comparisons also belie the suggestion that women's gains come at the expense of men's, as the total number of college participation opportunities has increased for both sexes in the Title IX era, and men's opportunities outnumber women's by a wide margin.[48] In a 2007 study of athletic opportunities at NCAA institutions, Professor John Cheslock reported that over 150,000 female athletic opportunities would need to be added in order to reach participation levels proportional to the female undergraduate population.[49] Men's athletics also receives the lionshare of athletic department budgets for operating expenses, recruiting, scholarships, and coaches salaries.[46]

Controversy

Title IX has been a source of controversy in part due to claims that the OCR's current interpretation of Title IX, and specifically its three-prong test of compliance, is no longer faithful to the anti-discrimination language in Title IX's text, and instead discriminates against men and has contributed to the reduction of programs for male athletes.[35][50][51]

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), which fails to take into account any differences in the genders' respective levels of interest in participating in athletics (in spite of the third prong, which focuses on any differences in the genders' respective levels of interest in participation). Instead it requires that the genders' athletic participation be substantially proportionate to their enrollment, without regard to interest. Prong two is viewed as only a temporary fix for universities, as universities may only point to past expansion of opportunities for female students for a limited time before compliance with another prong is necessary. Critics say that prong three likewise fails to consider male athletic interest in spite of its gender-neutral language, as it requires that the university fully and effectively accommodate the athletic interests of the "underrepresented sex", despite the fact that ED regulations expressly require that the OCR consider whether the institution "effectively accommodate[s] the interests and abilities of members of both sexes". As such, with a focus on increasing female athletic opportunities without any counterbalance to take male athletic interest into consideration, critics maintain that the OCR's three-prong test actually operates to discriminate against men.[35][51]

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 regardless of any existing disparity in interest. Thus while defenders argue that the three-prong test embodies the maxim that "opportunity drives interest",[52] critics argue that the three-prong test goes beyond Title IX original purpose of preventing discrimination, and instead amounts to an exercise in which athletic opportunities are taken away from male students and given to female students, despite the comparatively lower interest levels of those female students. Academy Award-winning author and self-described women's rights advocate John Irving opined in a New York Times column that on this topic, women's advocates were being "purely vindictive" in insisting that the current OCR interpretation of Title IX be maintained.[50]

On March 17, 2005, OCR announced a clarification of prong three of the three-part test of Title IX compliance. The guidance concerned the use of web-based surveys to determine the level of interest in varsity athletics among the underrepresented sex.[53] Opponents of the clarification – including the NCAA Executive Committee, which issued a resolution soon afterward asking Association members not to use the survey – claimed the survey was flawed in part because of the way it counted non-responses.[54] On April 20, 2010, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights abandoned the 2005 clarification that allowed institutions to use only Internet or e‑mail surveys to meet the interests and abilities (third prong) option of the three-part test for Title IX compliance.

On April 20, 2010, the United States Commission on Civil Rights weighed in on the OCR's three-prong test and procedures for implementing it. On that date, the Commission on Civil Rights released several recommendations on Title IX policy to address what it termed "unnecessary reduction of men's athletic opportunities".[55] The Commission advocated use of surveys to measure interest, and specifically recommended that the Department of Education's regulations on interest and abilities be revised "to explicitly take into account the interest of both sexes rather than just the interest of the underrepresented sex", almost always females.[55]

Recognition

There were several events praising the 40th anniversary of Title IX in June 2012. For example, the White House Council on Women and Girls hosted a panel to discuss the life-altering nature of sports. Panelists included Billie Jean King, All‑American NCAA point guard Shoni Schimmel of the University of Louisville, and Aimee Mullins, the first double-amputee sprinter to compete in NCAA track and field for Georgetown University.[56]

President Barack Obama wrote a pro-Title IX op‑ed published in Newsweek magazine.[57]

The Women's Sports Foundation honored over 40 female athletes.[56]

On June 21, 2012, espnW projected a digital mosaic featuring the largest-ever collection of women and girls’ sports images (all of which were submitted by the athletes themselves) onto the First Amendment tablet of the Newseum in Washington, D.C. The mosaic also included photos of espnW’s Top 40 Athletes of the Past 40 Years.[58]

ESPN The Magazine produced its first “Women in Sports” issue in June 2012.[58]

Also in June 2012, ESPN Classic first showed the documentary Sporting Chance: The Lasting Legacy of Title IX, narrated by Holly Hunter.[59][60] It also showed the documentary On the Basis of Sex: The Battle for Title IX in Sports, and other programming related to women's sports.[61]

In 2013 ESPN Films will show Nine for IX, a series of documentaries about women in sports.[58] Good Morning America anchor Robin Roberts and Tribeca Productions cofounder Jane Rosenthal are executive producers of the series.[58]

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.[62] Co-chairs for the COA were Cynthia Cooper and Ted Leland. 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.

The panel held four town hall meetings (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.[63] The COA provided twenty-three recommendations to the Secretary of Education. Although many of the recommendations were unanimous, some of the more controversial recommendations passed by an 8‑5 vote. These 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. On the same day, Secretary of Education Rod Paige announced he would only consider unanimous recommendations, whose effect on the Department of Education was to:

  • Reaffirm its strong commitment to equal opportunity for girls and boys, women and men
  • Aggressively enforce Title IX in a uniform way across the nation
  • Give equal weight to all three prongs of the test governing Title IX compliance
  • Encourage schools to understand that the Department of Education disapproves of cutting teams in order to comply with Title IX[64]

Similar U.S. state laws

Because Title IX only addresses public and private schools that receive federal funding, several states have enacted similar laws to prohibit discrimination based on sex regardless of whether the school receives federal funding. As of 2008,[needs update] about a third of the states have done so, including Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin.[65]

See also

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Further reading

  • Brake, Deborah L. Getting in the Game: Title IX and the Women's Sports Revolution (New York University Press; 2010) 287 pages, scholarly history
  • Blumenthal, Karen. Let Me Play : The story of Title IX, the law that changed the future of girls in America (Atheneum Books for Young Readers; 2005) 152 pages,
  • Gavora, Jessica. Tilting the Playing Field: Schools, Sports, Sex, and Title IX (Encounter Books; 2003) 165 pages,
  • Title IX Blog, http://title-ix.blogspot.com

Notes

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Suggs, Welsh. A Place on the Team. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 2005.
  2. ^ Carpenter, Linda Jean; Acosta, R. Vivian (2005). Title IX. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. ISBN 0-7360-4239-3.
  3. ^ Valentin, Iram. “Title IX: A Brief History.” Women's Equity Resource Center. August 1997.
  4. ^ “Title IX: A Brief History.” AAUW. 2009.
  5. ^ a b c Cruikshank, Kate. The Art of Leadership; A Companion to an Exhibition from the Senatorial Papers of Birch Bayh. (Indiana University Libraries, 2007), p. 43.
  6. ^ 118 Cong. Record 5802-3 (1972).
  7. ^ 118 Cong. Record 5804 (1972).
  8. ^ 118 Cong. Record 5808 (1972).
  9. ^ a b c “Legislative History of Title IX” National Organization for Women. June 27, 2007.
  10. ^ a b c d “Landmark Title IX Cases in History” Gender Equity in Sport. February 23, 2006.
  11. ^ a b "A Policy Interpretation: Title IX and Intercollegiate Athletics". Federal Register. 44 (239). December 11, 1979. Retrieved 2012-06-24.
  12. ^ Lynch, Michael W. (March 2000). "Weapons Modernization - changes to Title IX". Reason.
  13. ^ "US Department of Education Principal Office Functional Statements: Office for Civil Rights". Retrieved 2009-09-12.
  14. ^ a b ”The Oyez Project, Grove City College v. Bell” , 465 U.S. 555 (1984)
  15. ^ a b "Title IX." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 19 Nov. 2009
  16. ^ "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance". Federal Register. 71 (206). October 25, 2006. Retrieved 2012-06-24.
  17. ^ 34 C.F.R. §106.2
  18. ^ 34 C.F.R. §106.3
  19. ^ 34 C.F.R. §106.4
  20. ^ 34 C.F.R. §106.41(e)
  21. ^ "Nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance". U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 27 January 2012.
  22. ^ a b "Dear Colleague Letter". Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. April 20, 2010. Cite error: The named reference "OCRletter" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  23. ^ A Policy Interpretation: Title IX and Intercollegiate Athletics, 44 FR 71413 (Dec. 11, 1979)
  24. ^ "Sports People: College Sports;Bias Found at L.S.U. In Title IX Ruling". New York Times. Associated Press. January 13, 1996.
  25. ^ "WKU Regents Approve Move To Division 1-A Football". Western Kentucky University. November 2, 2006. Archived from the original on 2008-01-15. Retrieved 2009-09-12.
  26. ^ Bailey, Rick (2006-10-05). "State College Notebook: Toppers' switch to I-A probable". Lexington Herald-Leader. Archived from the original on 2007-09-30. Retrieved 2006-10-06. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  27. ^ "Western Kentucky Athletics Discontinues Men's Soccer". Western Kentucky University. 2008-02-13. Retrieved 2009-02-13.
  28. ^ "Feds looking at Delaware athletics". ESPN.com. May 2, 2011. Retrieved May 2, 2011.
  29. ^ Hult, p. 240
  30. ^ "Title IX Athletic Statistics". American Association of University Women. Retrieved 2009-10-13.
  31. ^ "Title IX at 35: Beyond the Headlines" (PDF). National Coalition of Women and Girls in Education. Retrieved 2009-10-13.
  32. ^ "TitleIX.info". The MARGARET Fund of NWLC. Retrieved 2009-10-13.
  33. ^ Linda Jean Carpenter and R. Vivian Acosta, Women in Intercollegiate Sport: A Longitudinal National Study Twenty-Nine Year Update 1977-2006 (2006)).
  34. ^ "Women in Intercollegiate Sport, a Longitudinal National Study" (PDF). 2008.
  35. ^ a b c Shelton, Donald E. (2001). "Equally Bad is Not Good: Allowing Title IX "Compliance" by the Elimination of Men's Collegiate Sports". University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. 34 (1). SSRN 1163230.
  36. ^ "USA Wrestling response to quotes by Donna Lopiano - Women's Sports Found". 2000.
  37. ^ a b "Title IX has hurt the college sport, but it is now fighting back". 2003.
  38. ^ a b "Wrestling programs threatened by Title IX". 1997.
  39. ^ a b "Bucknell to drop wrestling for Title IX compliance". 2001. [dead link‍]
  40. ^ Carter, S. Daniel (April 20, 2011). "How to Comply With the Dept. of Ed's Title IX Sexual Violence Guidance". Campus Safety Magazine. Retrieved 2012-06-24.
  41. ^ Yes Means Yes—Except on Campus, Wall Street Journal
  42. ^ a b McErlain, Eric. "College Sports Council Urges High Schools to Fight Use of Gender Quotas to Comply with Title IX in Athletics.", College Sports Council, 8 Feb 2011.
  43. ^ NFHS "High School Sports Participation Continues Upward Climb.", National Federation of High School Associations, Aug. 23, 2011,
  44. ^ a b Frederick J. Frommer. "Group Sues Over Title IX High School Enforcement.", Associated Press, 21 July 2011.
  45. ^ Williams, Alison. "Title IX- Tipping the Scales of Equality.", University of Denver Sturm College of Law, 2009.
  46. ^ a b Women's Sports Foundation. "Gender Equity Report Card.", Women's Sports Foundation, 1997. Cite error: The named reference "Women's Sports Foundation" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  47. ^ GAO. "Intercollegiate Athletics: Recent Trends in Teams and Participants in National Collegiate Athletic Association Sports.", Government Accountability Office, 2007.
  48. ^ GAO
  49. ^ Cheslock, John. "Who's Playing College Sports.", Women's Sports Foundation, 2007.
  50. ^ a b Irving, John (2003-01-28). "Wrestling With Title IX". New York Times.
  51. ^ a b Gavora, Jessica (2003). "Tilting the Playing Field: Schools, Sports, Sex and Title IX".
  52. ^ "Smith professor speaks on Title IX". The Smith College Sophian. 2008.
  53. ^ "Additional Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy: Three-Part Test ― Part Three". U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 2009-10-13.
  54. ^ "OCR rescinds 2005 Title IX clarification". National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved 2010-04-25.
  55. ^ a b Brady, Erik (2010-04-02). "Commission: Title IX interpretation unnecessarily hurts men's sports". USA Today.
  56. ^ a b Groer, Annie (June 23, 2012). "As Title IX turns 40, women pay homage". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2012-06-24.
  57. ^ "Obama marks 1972 law lifting education barriers to girls". Reuters. June 23, 2012. Retrieved 2012-06-24.
  58. ^ a b c d Margolis, Rachel (June 18, 2012). "espnW To Unveil Historic Title IX Mosaic in Washington June 21". Espnmediazone.com. Retrieved 2012-06-24.
  59. ^ http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2012-06-11/title-ix-documentary-debuts-june-23
  60. ^ http://www.sportingchancetitleix.com/
  61. ^ http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2012/06/espntitleixprogrammingday/
  62. ^ "Commission on Opportunity in Athletics". Retrieved 2009-10-13.
  63. ^ "COA Report Text". Ed.gov. Retrieved 2012-06-24.
  64. ^ Retrieved 2008-09-05.[dead link‍]
  65. ^ "State Title IX Laws". Women's Sports Foundation. Retrieved 2008-09-05.

References

  • Hult, Joan S.; Trekell, Marianna (1991). A Century of women's basketball : From Frailty to Final Four. Reston, Va: National Association for Girls and Women in Sport. ISBN 9780883144909.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Title_IX&oldid=536919194"