Title IX

10 Key excerpts on "Title IX"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Economics of Intercollegiate Sports

  • Randy R Grant, John Leadley;Zenon Zygmont;;(Authors)
  • 2008(Publication Date)
  • WSPC

    (Publisher)

  Title IX is part of the 1972 Education Amendments of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The law prohibits any educational program or activity that is receiving federal funds from discriminating on the basis of gender. Forms of discrimination include exclusion from par-ticipation and denial of program benefits. The law covers schools ranging from the elementary to college levels, plus any other insti-tution that offers educational programs and receives federal finan-cial assistance, even if the institution’s primary mission is not educational. Title IX applies to virtually every program an educa-tional institution might offer. As it applies specifically to athletics, the law states that No person shall on the basis of sex, be excluded from participa-tion in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person, or otherwise be discriminated against in any Race and Gender Issues in Intercollegiate Sports 401 interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics offered by a recipient [of federal financial assistance], and no recipient shall provide such athletics separately on such basis. 6 Title IX requires that schools “effectively accommodate the inter-ests and abilities of members of both sexes,” 7 which has meant pro-viding equal opportunities for male and female athletes in the following three ways: 1. Proportionality in participation opportunities — the percentage of a gender group represented in the student population must match the percentage of that gender group represented on ath-letic teams. 2. Proportionality in scholarship dollars — the percentage of a gender group represented in the student population must match the percentage of athletic scholarship dollars going to that gender group. 3. Equity in other program benefits — both gender groups must receive comparable benefits in terms of practice and competitive facilities, equipment, coaches, travel, recruiting, and scheduling of games and practices.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Title IX

  The Transformation of Sex Discrimination in Education

  • Elizabeth Kaufer Busch, William E. Thro(Authors)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  CHAPTER 1 The Adoption of Title IX A Ban on Sex Discrimination in Education      

  O n June 23, 1972, Richard Nixon signed Title IX into law as part of the Educational Amendments of 1972.1 Co-sponsored by Senator Birch Bayh and Congresswoman Patsy Mink, the law states:

  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.2

  Considered by themselves, these thirty-seven words seem neither revolutionary nor controversial in twenty-first-century America, and yet Title IX’s subsequent transformation would come to mark a number of critical moments in the history of women’s rights, infusing every aspect of education in the United States. Title IX’s passage produced immediate changes to the 1970s classroom, altering the opportunities of students and teachers across the country. Yet, the most monumental changes were to come.

  Since the critical moment of its passage, the Federal Executive Branch and the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) have expanded and transformed Title IX’s enforcement, scope, meaning, and goals. Students today can invoke Title IX not only to receive equal opportunities in admissions, activities, and programs, but also to attain equal numerical outcomes in athletics, receive protection against sexual harassment and assault by teachers or students, and recover monetary damages when a school fails to ensure any of these things. These changes have been enacted, not by Congress, the legislative body whose primary purpose is to create law, but by appointed officials in the agency responsible for enforcing Title IX— the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).3

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Gender in the Classroom

  Foundations, Skills, Methods, and Strategies Across the Curriculum

  • David Sadker, Ellen S. Silber(Authors)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  actions you can do, in or beyond class. The final interaction is an authentic assessment task—a real-world evaluation that gives you the opportunity to put your Title IX knowledge in action.

  ESSENTIAL EQUITY QUESTION 3.1: WHAT IS Title IX AND WHY DO WE NEED IT?

  For more than 30 years, the federal law Title IX has prohibited sex discrimination in education. The law was enacted in 1972 as a broad proscription against discrimination in any federally funded education program or activity. It states “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” (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Section 1681).

  Title IX requires educational institutions to maintain policies, practices, and programs that do not discriminate against anyone on the basis of sex. It is the nation's educational promise that the talents of all its citizens—women and men, girls and boys—will not be restricted by discrimination. Today, Title IX provides legal protection against sex discrimination for approximately 70 million students and employees in all educational institutions receiving federal financial assistance (National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 2006). The law also covers institutions such as vocational training centers, public libraries, and museums. It was intended to ensure equal opportunity for women and girls in all aspects of education—from access to higher education to equal opportunities and fair treatment in elementary and secondary classrooms to equal opportunity in athletics. In this chapter, you will have the opportunity to understand the letter of the law—the legal requirements of Title IX—as well as to embrace the spirit of Title IX—a broader notion of equity that integrates gender with related issues of race, culture, disability, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Access, achievement, and equity—isn't that what educational excellence is all about?

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Innovations in 'Sport for Development and Peace' Research

  • Megan Chawansky, Lyndsay Hayhurst, Mary G. McDonald, Cathy van Ingen(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  This global initiative that champions Title IX does so in ways that disarticulate the statue from its litigious and contentious history to re-imagine Title IX in ways which exist outside of the social, legal, and political history through which the legislation was produced. As numerous feminist scholars have pointed out, much as with similar liberal feminist policies, since its inception in 1972 Title IX has been subject to litigation and adversarial adjudication as interpretations have developed over the course of time within US legal and sporting contexts. The law was designed to end gender discrimination within educational institutions and was then applied to sport. Increasingly, the statute has been used to stop sexual harassment and assault on college campuses, but its status as related to sports discrimination adjudication remains.

  In the 1970s, Title IX stood alongside other US liberal feminist strategies to offer ‘immanent critique’ by ‘revealing the gendered exclusions within liberal democracy’s proclamation of universal equality, particularly with respect to the law, institutional access, and the full incorporation of women into the public sphere.’20 The law did make inroads in regard to participation and resource allocation. For example, prior to Title IX, only 1 in 27 girls played varsity high school sport in the US and now that number is closer to 1 in 2 girls.21 Again, in the years before Title IX only 32,000 women competed in intercollegiate sport and that number is approximately 150,000 participants today.22 Women now enjoy roughly 43% of the total athletic scholarship opportunities available for playing college sports.23

  Far from a straightforward movement to progress, closer inspection of the history of Title IX reveals a complicated terrain. For example, requirements for the law’s implementation took several years to develop. The policy was further weakened by opponents’ legal manoeuvres in the 1980s during the administration of President Ronald Reagan. Full implementation of Title IX again faced backlash under the administration of George W. Bush – although female athletes also took to the courts in order to force compliance over the course of the policy’s history.24

  This often-contentious legislation and implementation history is rarely noted in State Department accounts. Dominant US sport for development framings are instead influential in promoting sporting access as a means of personal empowerment and community building. For example, Clinton’s speech to introduce the new sport development programmes includes references to the importance of Title IX within the US context and is interlaced with discussions about the intangible, interpersonal values of increasing sport opportunities for girls and women globally. The speech also offered a chance for Clinton’s own personal reflection in recounting the presumed progress that has been made in regard to sporting access. Indeed, Clinton told an audience at the Benjamin Franklin Room at the Department of State that

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Badges and Incidents

  A Transdisciplinary History of the Right to Education in America

  • Michael J. Kaufman(Author)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  4 The most consequential and far-reaching of these bills was Title IX of the 1972 Education Act. As we will see throughout this chapter, Title IX explicitly conditions the continued receipt of federal funds on recipients’ compliance with the command to eliminate sexual discrimination in their institutions. 5 Its language is simple, direct, and far-reaching. Title IX states: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 6 This broad command touches every aspect of education, impacting academics, athletics, and student discipline at all educational institutions accepting federal aid, as well as student body composition at public institutions of higher learning. Title IX has proved especially impactful at the university level. While the nearly half century of Title IX’s existence has featured a number of divisive conflicts surrounding its use and interpretation, women’s rights legislation was seen as entirely uncontroversial by both the House and the Senate in 1972. As Freeman ironically notes: “Support for (the Equal Rights Amendment) came from an extraordinarily broad spectrum of national figures from actress Jane Fonda . . . to Richard Nixon and Strom Thurmond.” 7 Given the many battles over the appro- priate scope and usage of Title IX, it is revealing to discover that the basic premise of Title IX enjoyed such an extraordinarily wide consensus at its inception. THE PARAMETERS OF Title IX: BROAD SCOPE, JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES In the Education Amendments of 1972, 8 Congress included Title IX’s directive preventing gender-based discrimination in federally 2 Ibid. at 262–265. 3 Ibid. at 264. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 United States Department of Justice, “Equal Access to Education: Forty Years of Title IX” (June 23, 2012), 1.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Women Cross-Culturally

  Change and Challenge

  • Ruby Rohrlich-Leavitt(Author)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • De Gruyter Mouton

    (Publisher)

  Then, after setting forth procedure for Federal Administrative Enforcement and Judicial Review, Title IX amends other laws. First, it amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by including sex as a 74 March 22,1972. Congressional Record 118 (44): S 4612. 75 United States Code 1: xlvii, Article V. The thirtieth ratification was by the state of Washington on March 22,1973. 76 Public Law 92-261, March 24, 1972. United States Statutes at Large 86: 103 — codified at United States Code 42: Supplement II to 1970 edition at 2000 et seq. 77 Public Law 92-318, June 23,1972, Title IX. United States Statutes at Large 86: 373. Legislation: An Aid in Eliminating Sex Bias in Education 353 prohibited area of discrimination under its Title IV, Desegregation of Public Education, and its Title IX, which pertains to certain judicial procedures. Then Title IX of the 1972 amendments further expands the coverage of the equal pay provisions in the amended Fair Labor Stan-dards Act of 1938. Executive, administrative, and professional employees, including teachers, now come within the purview of the equal pay provi-sions of the basic act. As far as education is concerned, the Congress again has exercised its transcendent power to provide for the ... general welfare of the United States. And it has done so within a law initially enacted under its specifically enumerated Constitutional power to regulate commerce. The earlier amendments under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 became operative in commerce and industry on June 10, 1964. As of May 20, 1973, the Department of Labor reports a total of nearly $64 million to be due to a total of nearly 139,000 employees — almost all of them women discriminated against in pay.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Body Politics

  • Nadia E. Brown, Sarah Allen Gershon, Nadia E. Brown, Sarah Allen Gershon(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  29 Women’s bodies thought to be suspiciously strong, unnervingly fast, or too masculine, not only stretch gendered understandings of physicality, they defiantly undermine the male/female binary assumptions that constitute the political category of sex inherent to Title IX (Butler 1998). Yet contradictorily, the better and more competent the athlete, the greater the countervailing pressure to balance these physical feats by performing femaleness in gender normative ways. Sociologists demonstrate that gender policing of female athletes remains a factor on sports teams across the country and in media portrayals of women in sport (Cooky, Messner, and Musto 2015; Schultz 2014). Women athletes must now, politically and culturally, continue to perform a certain brand of femaleness (always already in juxtaposition to male bodies under Title IX) even as they compete in sports. In a perverse consequence of history, the price to pay for shifting understandings of women’s physicality is borne by the very bodies Title IX aims to empower.

  Perhaps two of the most important methods for evaluating any civil rights policy hinge on the extent to which it effectively curtails discrimination or circumvents potential discrimination by another name. Here, Title IX – and our shared understanding of it as a model of policy success – falls short, at least in part. Beyond the domain of sports, the naturalized practice of segregating women and men contributes to the difficulty in addressing continued and often pernicious discrimination against cisgender women, as well as transgender and intersex people. So long as we fail to acknowledge the fraught legacy of accepting purported sex difference at the core of policy design, we also remain haunted by attempts to renaturalize this false dichotomy in other policy applications (see also Davis 2014). The resurgence of bathrooms as a contested domain for transgender students and the problematic demands by conservative political groups that students adhere to bathrooms which serve their “real” sex underscore this point (see also Westbrook and Schilt 2014). Instead of ensuring students’ equal treatment regardless of whether their physical body matches their gender identity, Title IX’s reliance on the body as a fundamental category in education means that both trans- and cisgender students potentially face the requirement that they declare their embodied sex in order to be protected from discrimination on its basis. So long as Title IX continues to rely on policy design that invokes binary sex as a category in athletics, public policy will fail to afford non-discrimination protections to some of the most vulnerable populations in terms of gender-identity, race, economic class, and physical ability within educational institutions more broadly.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Women's Rights in the USA

  Policy Debates and Gender Roles

  • Dorothy E. McBride, Janine A. Parry(Authors)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Title IX enacted. President Nixon, remedying the omission of sex from Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, signs Title IX into law on June 23, 1972. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in all federally-funded education programs and activities. 1974 Javits Amendment adopted. An effort to exempt revenue-producing sports from the reach of Title IX fails. An alternative, the Javits Amendment, is adopted calling for implementation regulations that include “reasonable provisions considering the nature of particular sports” in college sports. 1975 Title IX regulations issued. After considerable debate, guidelines for complying with Title IX are published in the Code of Federal Regulations and shared with school and university officials across the country. 1976 NCAA unsuccessfully challenges Title IX. The National Collegiate Athletic Association's lawsuit challenging athletic regulations under Title IX fails. 1979 More policy interpretation Interpretation of Title IX rules published in the Federal Register, including the introduction of the “three-prong test” for equal opportunity in athletics. 1979 Cannon v. University of Chicago. The U.S. Supreme Court rules that individuals may sue to enforce Title IX. 1980 Title IX finds a new home. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare transfers oversight responsibility for Title IX to the newly-created Department of Education, specifically its Office for Civil Rights (OCR). 1980 Investigator's Manual published. OCR publishes its Investigators’ Manual. 1982 North Haven v. Bell. The U.S. Supreme Court rules that employment discrimination is prohibited by Title IX. 1984 Grove City College v. Bell. The U.S. Supreme Court rules that Title IX apples only to programs that receive federal funds, not the entire educational institution. 1988 Civil Rights Restoration Act adopted. Over President Reagan's veto, Congress requires all programs in the educational institution comply, not just those in direct receipt of federal funds. 1990 Investigators’ Manual revised. OCR rewrites its enforcement manual. 1992 Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Minority Rights Revolution

  • John D. Skrentny, John David Skrentny(Authors)
  • 2009(Publication Date)
  • Belknap Press

    (Publisher)

  62 The key provi s ion in Title IX s tated innocuou s ly that “ [n]o per s on . . . s hall, on the ba s i s of s ex, be ex-cluded from participation in, be denied the benefit s of, or be s ubjected to di s -crimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal finan-cial a ss i s tance. ” 63 In addition, Title IX exempted military s chool s ; exempted admi ss ion s policie s of private undergraduate college s , nonvocational elemen-tary and s econdary s chool s , and traditionally s ingle-s ex public undergraduate college s ; allowed a s even-year exemption for tho s e in s titution s making a tran-s ition to coeducational learning; barred any preferential treatment on the ba-s i s of s ex; and allowed for in s titution s to maintain s eparate living facilitie s on the ba s i s of s ex. No one wa s thinking about football. In fact, Title IX wa s completely ig-nored during the final s tage s of pa ss age. It s s weeping prohibition of s ex di s -crimination in education s lipped in without oppo s ition, and without out s ide lobbying. 64 Thi s wa s in part becau s e Title IX benefited in an indirect way from the legacie s of the black civil right s movement. The controver s y over bu s ing to achieve black and white s chool integration ran interference for Ti-tle IX, attracting attention to it s elf while lowering Title IX’ s vi s ibility. It i s tempting to s ay that Title IX’ s low vi s ibility wa s a major factor in it s pa ss age, but it s s uperficial appropriatene ss wa s more important. Even during the minority right s revolution, if s omething did not look right, it wa s caught. A s s hown in Chapter 9, an extremely ob s cure Labor Department regulation for affirmative action for white ethnic s wa s s topped dead in it s track s . Fur-thermore, the Nixon admini s tration s upported the principle behind Title IX, a s evidenced by the s upport given at Edith Green’ s 1970 hearing s .

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  Available until 4 Dec |Learn more

  Feminist Critical Policy Analysis I

  • Catherine Marshall(Author)
  • 2005(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  7(2), pp. 99–114.

  BROWN, C. and REID, J. (1987) Twenty Years On: New Federal and State Roles to Achieve Equity in Education, Washington, DC, National Center for Policy Alternatives.

  CALIFANO, J., JR. (1981) Governing America, New York, Simon and Schuster.

  COPPOCK, V., HAYDON, D. and RICHTER, I. (1995) The Illusions of ‘Post-Feminism’, London, Taylor and Francis.

  DIAMOND, I. (Ed) (1983) Families, Politics, and Public Policy. A Feminist Dialogue on Women and the State, New York, Longman.

  EDLEMAN, M. (1971) The Symbolic Uses of Politics, Urbana, IL, University of Illinois Press.

  EISENSTEIN, Z. (1983) ‘The state, the patriarchal family, and working mothers’, in DIAMOND,

  (Ed) Families, Politics, and Public Policy, New York, Longman.

  FISHEL, A. and POTTKER, J. (1977) National Politics and Sex Discrimination in Education, Lexington, KY, D.C.Heath.

  FLYGARE, T. (1982) ‘Supreme Court Says Title IX covers employment but raises a serious question about the future impact of the law’, Phi Delta Kappan, 64, pp. 134–6.

  FLYGARE, T. (1984) ‘The Supreme Court’s and Title IX decision: Who won?’, Phi Delta Kappan, 65, pp. 640–1.

  GELB, J. (1989) Feminism and Politics: A Comparative Perspective, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press.

  GELB, J. and PAULEY, M. (1982) Women and Public Policies, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.

  HOGAN, C. (1982) ‘Revolutionizing school and sports: 10 years of Title IX’, Ms, 10, pp. 25–9.

  HOUGHTON MIFFLIN (1975) Avoiding Stereotypes.

  KOHL, J. (1987) ‘Women and political action: The sex equity in education act in California’, Contemporary Education, 58(4), pp. 211–5.

  MARTINEZ, S. (1974) ‘Sexism in public education: Litigation issues’, Inequality in Education, 18,

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book