Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments Act reads “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 applies to any program or activity of any education institute, but this paper will focus on Title IX's role in intercollegiate athletics. Rosenberg, Klarman, and Fisher's most elementary view that the court alone cannot produce social change applies to Title IX litigation, but the extent to which litigation played a role in furthering the impact of Title IX differs. Unlike gay rights, in which litigation was their only option, litigation in Title IX played an important role, but its impact was not as great.
[...] Board of Trustees California State University, the case was appealed and on appeal the 9th circuit court rejected the position of the Neal and Pederson court which decided that the use of the 1st part of the effective accommodation test not dictated by policy interpretation and is inconsistent with the text, structure, and policy of Title IX itself.” The 9th Circuit Court stated these courts emphasized that women's interest in sports appeared to be lower than men's but that the genders interest were slowly but surely converging On appeal the court believed that the effective accommodation test was a legitimate way to ensure compliance, as females interest and participation in athletics was slowly but steadily growing, and the court acknowledged that fact. [...]
[...] A cross over cases in Title IX litigation is defined as case when an individual of one sex competes or wants to compete on an athletic team consisting of members of the other sex.” The most recent cross over case is Mercer v. Duke, in which a female was allowed to try out for the Duke University football team as a place kicker, but during her four years of her undergraduate career, she was not allowed to dress for any game and was subsequently cut. [...]
[...] During the first 25 years after Title IX was enacted, the Supreme Court decided only four cases concerning Title IX and three of which are important to the scope of Title IX in intercollegiate athletics; Cannon v. University of Chicago (1977), Grove City v. Bell (1984), and Franklin v. Gwinnett County (1992), all cases which provided a stepping stone for future litigation. Since 1997, the Supreme Court has decided three other substantial Title IX cases involving sexual harassment of students by teachers or faculty members, sexual harassment against educational institutions by peers, and the exploration of the scope of Title IX, particularly whether the NCAA is included under the jurisdiction of Title IX. All of these cases laid the ground work for subsequent Title IX litigation and their importance will be discussed later. [...]
[...] While the use of litigation in Title IX was as excessive as gay rights litigation, litigation was certainly one of the better options available in the women's rights movement. The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is the governing body that is responsible for enforcing Title IX in education institutions and to ensure institutions comply. The OCR employs the effective accommodation test to measure compliance and educational institutions have to meet only one of the three parts of the test. The first is substantial proportionality, which requires equal opportunities for college level participation for male and female students in relation to the percentage of males and females in the student body; the second reads the institution shows a history and continuing practice of program expansion; and the third part is institutions demonstrate that the interests and abilities of members of the underrepresented sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program. Institutions can decide which part of the test this wish to comply with, as the majority of institutions between 1994 and 1998 chose the third option. The two Title IX regulations which deal with athletics are 34 C.F.R (athletics in general) and 34 C.F.R (distribution of athletic scholarships). [...]
[...] Title IX is an issue that is hotly debated, most especially the concern of gender equality in athletics in colleges and universities. Colleges and universities continue to support men's programs more generously than women's but courts have indicated a willingness to follow legislative intention clearly expressed.” In Cohen v. Brown University, Brown was found to be in violation of Title IX when the university eliminated the women's gymnastics and volleyball teams. Brown University had failed to comply with any of one of the three parts of the effective accommodation test, as women made up 51% of university students, but only 40% of athletes. The judge held that “women receive less benefit from their intercollegiate varsity programs as a whole than and gave Brown 120 days to make the proper adjustments in order to be in compliance with Title IX. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee