The basic Title IX statute provides: “No person in the United States shall, on he 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 (Deaths 2002). ” Two years later the “Tower Amendment” was proposed. This was introduced by senator Tower and was an amendment that would allow revenue-producing sports to be exempt from being calculated into Title IX Compliance.
This amendment was eventually rejected. There was other attempts made at altering Title IX coverage when it came to athletics but they all died before reaching the House or Senate floors. In 1975 the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare had drafted the regulations for Title IX, including one section, which dealt with athletics. It requires institutions to “effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes(Cooper 2003). ” This required drastic changes.
Athletic facilities and support services for men and women now had to be provided on an equal basis. No longer could you focus all your marketing on male sports while ignoring the female sports. The same went for the facilities requiring that all locker rooms and playing fields be equal in quality. Since the acceptance of Title IX the entire scope of high school and college athletics has changed dramatically. According to the National Federation of State High School Associations, in 1971 there was approximately 3. Million boys participating in high school sports but only 294,000 girls. In 2002, 7 boys participated but girls’ participation had grown to 2003). The National collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) also showed a dramatic jump in women’s participation. In 1971-72 there were 29,977 female participants and that number jumped up to 1 50,91 6 by the 2000-01 academic year (Cooper 2003). This is a huge jump in numbers and there are not many that complain about this at all.
Most people are very excited to see that women sports are expanding and allowing for more opportunities. The complaints come from those who feel that in order to comply with Title IX many universities are cutting programs and setting a cap on some men’s programs. Even though some universities choose to cut programs it does not mean that it is the only way to comply with Title K In its 1979 Policy Interpretation, the Department established a three-prong test for compliance with Title IX , which it later amplified and clarified in its 996 clarification.
The test provides that an institution is in compliance if 1) the intercollegiate-level participation opportunities for male and female students at the institution are “substantially proportionate” to their respective full-time undergraduate enrollments, 2) the institution has a “history and continuing practice of program expansion” for the underrepresented sex, or 3) the institution is “fully and effectively” accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (Reynolds 2003).
The Departments Office for Civil Rights (OCCUR) encourages schools to look at the three-prong test ND consider which of the tests best suits their institution. This allows each institution to have a range of flexibility in complying with Title k Although it seems that many schools felt the need to go along with the substantial proportionality prong and felt it was the only way to comply. This is what has led to the cutting of many men’s programs in order to get the numbers to be equal to that of the student body.
In fact, OCCUR is attempting to make it clear that each Of the three prongs Of the test is an equally sufficient means of complying with Title IX, and no one prong is favored (Reynolds July 1 1, 2003). The three-prong test also makes it clear that it is not Title IX that is forcing the cut backs in men’s sports but those put in a place of decision making at each institution who chose how it is that they want to comply with Title Six three- prong test.
In some cases a schools decision to cut sports in order to comply with Title IX has lead to a lawsuit. An example of this would be Miami University. The university formed a committee to address the issue of Title IX compliance and hired a consultant as well. “The committee and consultant determined that in order to comply with Title IX, the university had the option of eliminating a ewe sports for men.
As a result, the university eliminated the men’s soccer, wrestling and tennis teams, effective at the end of the 1 999 spring semester (Challenge 2002). ” On November 18, 1999, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendants, claiming that the defendants’ elimination of the men’s wrestling, tennis and soccer programs at Miami University, a state university of the State of Ohio and a recipient of federal funds, constituted gender discrimination in violation of the 20 U. S. C. & et see.
And violated their rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment (United 2002). The court mound that the plaintiffs failed to state either an equal protection claim or a claim under Title IX (United 2002). The key to the university’s victory was that it eliminated the men’s teams in order to comply with Title Six’s requirement that schools that receive federal financial assistance provide equal athletic opportunities for women and men. In a statement about the case Judge Batcher said, “It is anomalous… O accomplish equality of opportunity by decreasing rather than increasing opportunities, but in the real world of finite resources,” she added, “this approach may be the only way for an educational institution to comply with Title IX while still maintaining the other niceties of its mission, such as its academic offerings (Appellate 2003). ” The students in this case felt that the University’s decision to eliminate their teams, but not corresponding women’s teams, violated their rights under the equal protection clause and Title IX but since the university took action in order to comply with Title IX their case did not hold up.
This was not the only case against Title k In 2002 some groups got together lead by the National Wrestling Coaches Association and alleged in their January complaint that Title IX discriminates against men. Pointing specifically to a 1 996 “clarification” to the 1972 gender equity law, which they assert encourages colleges and universities to shutter men’s sports programs rather than add women’s programs in order to comply with Title IX (Wrestling 2002). The plaintiffs in this case sought a unique type of remedy. They asked that the U. S.
Department of Education write new Title IX regulations that focus on providing opportunities for women based On the number Of women “interested” in competing in intercollegiate athletics, rather than the current tankard, which is based on the “participation” of male and female student- athletes (Wrestling 2002). Just as before the case was dismissed. The debate on weather interest surveys should be considered when dealing with Title IX compliance is one that has been going on since its introduction in 1972. The Secretary of Education’s Commission on Opportunity in Athletics took a look at this topic in depth.
One of their many recommendations included the following: “The Office for Civil Rights should study the possibility of allowing institutions to demonstrate that they are in compliance with the hired part of the three-part test by comparing the ration of male/female athletic participation at the institution with the demonstrated interests and abilities shown by regional, state or national youth or high school participation rates or national governing bodies, or by the interest levels indicated in surveys of prospective or enrolled students at that institution (Cooper 2003). This was just one of many recommendations by the commission. Many people feel that these recommendations would further complicate the compliance issues because they would allow universities rater latitude in demonstrating that they are complying with the 1972 law. In a statement after reading the commissions recommendations Males Brand, the new leader of the NCAA, said, “as well-intentioned as the commissioners were, the recommendations simply provide too much opportunity for mischief in the implementation of Title IX (Commission’s 2003). The athletic director for women at the University of Texas, Christine pylon’s had agreed with Brand. “The commission had a difficult task, given the time frame,” Pylon’s said. “It was a comfort to read that Secretary Page will not consider on-unanimous recommendations. I also agree with Dry. Brand, however, that any alteration of the law would negatively impact equity in opportunities and would be harmful (Commission’s 2003). ” The commission also acknowledged the problem of schools attempting to comply with Title IX by the elimination of men’s teams.