Copyright 2001 The Atlanta Constitution The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution
July 1, 2001 Sunday, Home Edition
SECTION: Sports; Pg. 7D
LENGTH:
627 words
HEADLINE: What is Title IX?; RE-EXAMINING TITLE IX: THE PRICE OF EQUITY
SOURCE: AJC
BODY: Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 states as follows:
"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."
The
Office of Civil Rights, a division of the Department of Education, is in charge
of Title IX enforcement.
In 1979, a
policy interpretation established a three-prong test to determine if schools
were in compliance with Title IX in the area of intercollegiate athletics. A
school must satisfy only one of the prongs to be in compliance:
1. Show that participation opportunities for male
and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their
respective enrollments.
This test became known as
"proportionality" and is the most specific standard of compliance. To meet it,
schools that had a 50 percent female enrollment were expected to make sure that
about 50 percent of their athletes were also female. This is difficult to
accomplish for schools that have 85 males on football scholarship with no
equivalent female sport.
2. Show a history and
continuing practice of program expansion in response to the interest and
abilities of the underrepresented sex.
To meet this
standard, schools had to prove that when there was a sufficient demand on campus
for an additional women's sports opportunity, that demand was met. Defining
"sufficient" has been difficult for most schools.
3. Demonstrate that the interests and abilities of members of the
underrepresented sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the
school's program.
To meet this standard, schools had to
prove that they had done everything in their power to determine the athletic
"interest and abilities" of females on their campus. Schools were unsure how
they could prove such a thing for any period of time.
In 1996, OCR issued a clarification on the three-pronged test stating
that proportionality, or option 1, was a "safe harbor" for schools unsure if
they were in compliance. Schools, afraid of the vague language in options 2 and
3, turned to proportionality as the sure way to avoid legal action from
individuals or the OCR.
The arguments Because of
gender quotas, the system is now unfair to men:
"There
are, in effect, two Title IXs. Title IX #1 was passed in 1972 by a Congress that
wanted to prohibit sex discrimination in schools. Title IX #2 is a
reinterpretation of #1, created by un-elected bureaucrats at the Department of
Education's Office for Civil Rights. The primary problem with Title IX is that
the gender quota is an inadequate and illegal measure of non-discrimination. . .
. The OCR's reinterpretation of Title IX has resulted in the wholesale
devastation of men's sports at the collegiate level. . . . These policies should
be changed to reflect actual levels of interest in athletics by all students,
regardless of sex."
--- Kimberly Schuld, Independent
Women's Forum System still needed to ensure equal treatment for women:
"The answer to Title IX is very simple: If revenues don't
increase, then everyone must make do with a smaller piece of the budget pie. The
NCAA and its athletic conferences are simply refusing to legislate lower costs
and a lower standard of living for men's sports in order to free up money for
new women's teams. . . . Unfortunately, at most institutions, it is easier for a
college president to cut wrestling or men's gymnastics than to deal with the
politics of reducing the football or men's basketball budgets. Simply put,
educational leaders need more guts to step up and do the right thing."
Document 58 of 67. 