Title IX in Collegiate Athletics

Michael Shipp Multimedia WR 11/13/12

Strong opposition to gender discrimination arose in the United States during the 1970s and new acts of influential legislation were born. Title IX, a landmark civil rights law enacted in 1972, bars sex discrimination in any federally funded school program. The basic tenets of the law include offering members of both sexes equal opportunities to compete in sports, allocating athletic scholarships equitably, and treating both genders fairly with regard to services like facilities, coaching, and equipment (nwlc.org). While Title IX has provided women with more opportunities to play sports over the past forty years, it has neither lived up to its expectations nor realized its goal of gender equality in collegiate athletics. There has been considerable progress, but the issue of gender discrimination in college sports remains unresolved. The origins of gender discrimination can be traced back thousands of years. Its foundation is so deeply rooted in our society that formal laws once prohibited women from achieving the same opportunities as men. However, during the twenty first century, women gradually gained more power. The 1970s are of particular interest because women experienced dramatic social change, primarily through the enactment of Title IX. Prior to Title IX, female athletic opportunities were nearly non-existent. The NCAA, which became the ruling body of college athletics, offered few athletic scholarships or championships for women (History.com). The facilities, supplies, and funding were all disproportionally allocated to mens teams (History.com). As a matter of fact, just forty years ago, women were ridiculed for competing in college sports. Labeled by society as unfeminine and unattractive, female college athletes were marginalized (Gilder Lehrmann). However, everything changed when Senator Birch Bayh introduced Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 legislation (McAndrews, 114). The law was proposed

to end gender discrimination in all facets of educational life. Coinciding with the rise of the womens rights movement and civil rights legislation, Title IX was originally passed in response to concerns about gender discrimination in education (McAndrews, 115). Despite the original intent of the legislation, schools also applied Title IX to athletics, expecting to achieve complete gender equality in sports. Little did people know that after forty years, this revolutionary piece of legislation would never fully realize its goal. One of the easiest ways to assess change is through statistical evidence. Over the past forty years, advocates and critics of Title IX have primarily cited statistics to justify their positions. Statistics provide an objective way of presenting irrefutable evidence. Interpreting the statistics sheds light on female athletic progress but more importantly, highlights the magnitude of gender inequality in collegiate athletics. A major component of Title IX mandates that the gender proportionality gap in college athletics must equal the gender proportionality gap in the student population. When Title IX was passed in 1972, there were 170,384 men playing college sports (nwlc.org). However, female collegiate athletes didnt reach the 170,000 mark until 2006 (nwlc.org). The fact that it took women thirty-four years just to reach the level that men were at prior to Title IXs enactment highlights some major flaws in Title IX enforcement. Advocates of Title IX praise the law for the equality it has generated over the past forty years. In actuality, statistics show that the promise of equality remains unfulfilled. Women in Division 1 colleges represent 53% of the student body (nwlc.org). In accordance with Title IX, women should comprise roughly 53% of Division 1 college athletes. However, women account for only 45% of Division 1 college athletes (nwlc.org). The importance of this statistic cant be overlooked. Advocates of Title IX can continue to praise the law for all

the progress it has made, but the truth is that even after forty years, a federally mandated law has been unable to achieve statistical equality in athletics. In addition to equal participation opportunities, the creators of Title IX also expected financial equality between male and female sports. Despite forty years of progress, women only receive 34% of money spent on athletics (nwlc.org). The unequal allocation of athletic funds also carries over into scholarship and recruiting money. Women receive 45% of athletic scholarship dollars and 32% of recruiting dollars (nwlc.org). Statistics show that there is a clear disparity between male and female athletic opportunities. However, the progress that women have made over the past forty years cant be overlooked. The number of women participating in collegiate athletics is five times the pre-Title IX rate. Fewer than 32,000 women competed in collegiate athletics prior to Title IX (nwlc.org). In 2009, a record 182,503 women competed, showing a 570% increase in female athletic participation (nwlc.org). Although female participation in sports has skyrocketed since 1972, this progress is overshadowed by the emptiness of Title IXs promise of true equality. Progress is an important aspect of change, but the progress associated with Title IX has been much slower than anticipated. Statistics provide a fair objective way to assess social change. By analyzing data about female participation and financial opportunities, it is clear that women have yet to achieve true gender equality in athletics. Despite significant progress over the years, female athletic opportunities may never be equal to those of men. Title IX has been successful to a degree since its enactment in 1972. However, after forty years, the framers of Title IX didnt expect to still be talking about the need to achieve equal opportunity. The struggle to achieve gender equality can primarily be

attributed to the lack of enforcement. By examining the difficulty enforcing Title IX, it is easy to see why Title IX has not lived up to its creators expectations. In order to comply with Title IX, a schools share of resources allocated to each gender must equal the share of each gender among student athletes. Unlike most college areas, athletics are segregated by gender, which leads to a loose interpretation of athletic equality. Because Title IX is loosely interpreted with regards to athletics, colleges are allowed small differences between the gender proportionality figures (Cheslock, 32). Essentially, higher education institutions arent required to achieve perfect gender equality in athletics. Furthermore, the law does not specify the size at which the disparity becomes unequal (Cheslock, 32). To further my point, even if the disparity becomes noticeably large, colleges and universities are able to maintain their compliance with Title IX. They simply have to demonstrate compliance by noting legitimate nondiscriminatory factors that explain the disparity between female athletes and aid (Cheslock, 32). A common excuse is sighting natural fluctuations in undergraduate enrollment to explain slight departures from substantial proportionality (Cheslock, 34). The ease with which colleges and universities can dodge compliance infractions makes it exponentially more difficult for women to make gains in college athletics. As a result, female progress has slowed and women may never fully achieve equality in college sports. Title IXs flawed system of enforcement has been one of the major reasons that the law has not lived up to its expectations. However, the lack of enforcement primarily stems from the imperfect three-part system used to assess compliance. The system was designed to determine whether higher education institutions are accommodating students to achieve equality. Despite its good intentions, its application to athletics has caused controversy

over the past forty years and has proven to be an ineffective way of promoting gender equality in collegiate athletics. The first prong of the test requires substantial proportionality. Colleges can satisfy this portion of the test by making participation opportunities for men and women substantially proportionate to their undergraduate enrollments (Cheslock, 33). The second prong is satisfied when an institution demonstrates a history of program expansion that accommodates the underrepresented sex (Cheslock, 33). Finally, colleges can comply with the third prong by meeting the interests of female students even if there are disproportionally fewer women participating in college sports (Cheslock, 33). In accordance with the first part of the compliance test, since women represent 53% of the nations college student body, they should also make up 53% of its student athletes. However, as noted earlier, women only account for 45% of college athletes in the United States (nwlc.org). This disparity stems from the unclear interpretation of what is actually considered proportionate. The three-part test does not specify how different the figures can become before they are no longer considered substantially proportionate (Cheslock, 33). The unclear policy interpretation also carries over into the second and third aspects of the test. The main issue is that Title IX doesnt provide guidance on how to demonstrate compliance with the last two parts of the test. Naturally, colleges wanted clarification from the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the governing body responsible for assessing adherence to Title IX. Two common complaints emerged from colleges and universities about enforcement of Title IX. First, most colleges and universities didnt feel that the OCR had sufficient information to determine compliance under the three-part test (Cheslock, 33).

This lack of information makes it difficult for the OCR to investigate compliance, which ultimately causes the disparity between male and female college athletic opportunities. Additionally, critics argued that the OCR relied too heavily on the first prong of the test (Cheslock, 33). The OCR concluded that an institutions failure to provide nondiscriminatory participation (the first prong) opportunities usually amounts to a denial of equal athletic opportunity because these opportunities provide access to all other athletic benefits, treatment, and services (Kennedy, 87). The enforcers of Title IX believe that using the first prong of the test is enough to determine a college or universitys level of compliance. Although the first portion of the test is easiest to prove because it is based on statistics, its interpretation is still uncertain. Higher education institutions have the ability to loosely interpret what constitutes substantially proportionate in athletics. As a result, schools tend to maintain higher numbers of male athletes because men have generally dominated athletic participation. When it comes to enforcement of Title IX, the rules arent clearly defined. Much of the blame can be attributed to the flawed three-part system designed to assess adherence. Gender inequality continues in collegiate athletics to this day because higher education institutions can find ways around the rules laid out in the three-part test. Title IX developed during the equal rights and civil rights movements. Because of the context during which the law formed, people generally think that Title IX only applies to women. However, most people dont realize that Title IX also protects male athletic opportunities as well. In Title IXs attempt to overcompensate for years of gender inequality, they have ended up limiting male athletic opportunities. In doing so, Title IX has actually created even more gender inequality.

The reality of Title IX is that despite the progress it has made for women, it has actually begun to disadvantage men in recent years. Title IX was originally enacted as an anti-discrimination statute, but it has been converted into a rigid quota system that has denied mens sports opportunities (Tigay). One of the major unintended consequences of Title IX is the need to eliminate male sports teams to make room for more female athletes. Over 350 male sports teams have been eliminated since 1972 as a direct result of Title IX (McAndrews, 111). MIT, which has one of the largest athletic departments in the country, had to eliminate its mens teams in gymnastics, ice hockey, golf, wrestling, alpine skiing, and pistol (McAndrews, 112). A law intended to end gender-based discrimination is amplifying the problem. Men are being denied participation opportunities in order to open more opportunities for women. Advocates of Title IX argue that team counts are a fair way of showing that men have experienced fair treatment under Title IX. According to Professor Carpenter of Brooklyn College, 398 new mens teams have been added to college programs over the past 22 years (Tigay). There are three major flaws with Carpenters justification. First, Carpenter does not take into account the number of female teams that have been added during the past twenty-two years. Additionally, she fails to note the number of male sports teams that have been eliminated during the same time period. Finally, proportionality under Title IX isnt assessed on the basis of teams, but instead on the number of individual student athletes (Tigay). The law doesnt take into account that several male sports have larger rosters than female sports. In order to preserve those sports like football and comply with Title IX, schools have to cut other male sports teams that dont generate as much revenue. When schools cut male sports teams in order to comply with Title IX regulations, they are making the decisions primarily based on gender

(McAndrews, 132). These gender conscious decisions to eliminate sports teams in favor of others amounts to gender discrimination. In 1998, the University of North Dakotas wrestling team was cut, which prompted them to sue the university (McAndrews, 134). An appeals court ruled that men have equal protection under Title IX. However, since men are not an underrepresented sex, the court ruled that the wrestling teams termination didnt violate Title IX (McAndrews, 135). Although men technically have equal rights under Title IX, they still dont receive the same benefits as women. Although most people think Title IX is meant to only protect womens rights to equal opportunities, it also protects male athletic opportunities. In an attempt to abolish gender discrimination in educational institutions, Title IX has actually caused gender inequality. It not only limits male athletic opportunities, but also is unable to achieve equality for women. In that sense, it is safe to say that Title IX has failed to live up to the expectations of its creators. Another issue with Title IXs rigid quota system is the assumptions it makes about men and women. Not all women want to participate in athletics, nor do all men. The simple fact is that Title IX legislation is loosely applied to most educational programs. It causes problems in athletics though because athletics have been traditionally male. Title IX naturally ends up hurting men when it tries to achieve gender equality in athletics. Leo Kocher, president of the College Sports Council, argues that, our everyday experience says that more males than females want to do sports (CQ Researcher). His reasoning implies that Title IX should not apply to athletics because it harms men. He proceeds to explain, more females than males want to participate in dance. It would be a horrible injustice to mandate that in dance you have equal numbers of males and females.

It would be an injustice if women, who are 53 percent of college students, were mandated to be reduced to 50 percent of college students (CQ Researcher). The main issue that Kocher brings up is that the quota system is barely enforced elsewhere on college campuses, but its application to athletics is mandated. Regulations for Title IX exclude men from athletics based on their gender by assuming that male and female athletic opportunities should have always been equal. Title IXs attempt to overcompensate for years of inequality has limited male athletic opportunities and caused even more controversy about gender equality. Title IX is one of the most influential yet controversial pieces of legislation to come out of the equal rights movement. It has naturally provided more opportunities for women in college sports by barring gender discrimination in any federally funded educational program. The law has good intentions and has partially opened doors for women. However, after forty years, the statute has neither lived up to its expectations nor fulfilled its promise of true gender equality in collegiate athletics. Will women ever experience true gender equality under Title IX? Only time will tell.

Sources:
Cheslock, John J., and Suzanne E. Eckes. "Statistical Evidence and Compliance With Title IX." New Directions For Institutional Research 2008.138 (2008): 31-45. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 Oct. 2012. Kennedy, Charles. "The Athletic Directors Dilemma: $$$ & Womens Sports." Gender Issues 24.2 (2007): 34-45. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 Nov. 2012. Kennedy, Charles. "A New Frontier For Womens Sports (Beyond Title IX)." Gender Issues 27.1/2 (2010): 78-90. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. McAndrews, Patrick J. "Keeping Score: How Universities Can Comply With Title IX Without Eliminating Men's Collegiate Athletic Programs." Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal 1 (2012): 111-140. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Nov. 2012. Tigay, Chanan. "Women and Sports." CQ Researcher 21.12 (2011): 265-68. Web. 4 Nov. 2012. http://cqresearcherblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/has-title-ix-created-equity-for-women.html http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/title-ix-enacted http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/seventies/essays/impact-title-ix http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/2011_8_battle_in_college_athletics_final.pdf http://thesportjournal.org/article/history-women-sport-prior-title-ix