In 1972, the U.S. Congress passed Title IX. Widely known as the equal opportunity law that brought about tremendous access for women in sports, in reality it was a landmark law that guaranteed gender nondiscrimination in all education programs, though its primary focus was on sports.

Background
For the 31 years of Title IX, women and girls have come to rely on its support. Prior to 1972, high schools, colleges and universities provided very few outlets for women’s sports. With Title IX, all schools receiving any federal dollars for any program, project or activity found that they had to offer equal opportunities to men and women in athletics. This extended to federal funds that went to support school lunches and financial aid.
Athletic programs would be in compliance with Title IX if they proved satisfaction with one of the following three requirements:

• Provide athletic opportunities to females and males substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments;
• Consistently expand programs for the underrepresented gender;
• Show that it “fully and effectively” meets the interests of the gender that is underrepresented.
  

To no one’s surprise, there were immediate challenges to this law. These challenges delayed implementation until 1978 and continued throughout the 1970s and 1980s. There were lawsuits, delaying tactics and ambiguous interpretations of what actually needed to be done.
In 1984, Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania refused to sign the compliance statement. The case went to the Supreme Court, where the justices sided with the school. The decision was based on their assertion that the federal government had entangled itself in local affairs. Among those leading the charge to dismantle Title IX was the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).
Following the Grove City case, only the actual programs that were receiving federal funds had to comply and not the entire institution. This limitation held until passage of the 1991 Civil Rights Act, which resulted in the broader application of Title IX – to prohibit discrimination in an institution that received federal dollars.
One real fear in the Grove City-type challenges was, and still is, the possible spillover effect into other civil rights laws regarding race, age or disability. Supporting equal opportunity in women’s sports may seem like a trivial idea or issue for some advocates, but it is the most vulnerable who are attacked first in any endeavor of justice. The familiar words of Pastor Martin Neimoller of Germany during World War II comes to mind:
In Germany, the Nazis came for the communists and I didn’t speak up because I was not a communist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak up because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I was a Protestant, so I didn’t speak up. Then they came for me…by that time there was no one to speak up for anyone.

By 1992, better equity in high school and college sports programs became more commonplace. The NCAA, advised by the National Association of College Women’s Athletic Directors, began to conduct programs for colleges on how to comply with Title IX. In the early 1990s equity was on its way to becoming the norm in college sports.
As we look at sporting events offered at public stadiums and broadcast on television, it is apparent that women, girls, their families and the general sports viewing public have gained from the establishment of Title IX. We have witnessed great strides and accomplishments toward women’s participation in the Olympics, organized basketball, soccer, and softball. This increase in sports activity is not just at the high school and college level; we see more sports at the grade school level for girls as well.
Even with the high visibility and all the recent gains of women in sports, a peek below the surface will show us that we still have more to accomplish. A USA Today survey showed that there is only $1.00 spent on women sports for each $3.00 spent on men. (See http://www.now.org/nnt/05-97/titleix.html)
As we look at this issue, some of the questions we are forced to answer are about balance, justice and equity between men and women in all college programs.

Presidential Panel
Where does the Bush Administration stand on the issue of Title IX? In his 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush spoke against it and indicated his interest to end it. After the election, he instituted the 15-member Presidential Panel, the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics. Composed primarily of professional athletes and athletic directors, the panel was asked to review approximately two-dozen recommendations on the future of Title IX.
The panel held eight months of public hearings. There was heated debate among the panelists, because some of the proposals would reduce the number of programs available to women and girls. The January 30, 2003 Wall Street Journal reported that the panelists were greeted by protestors with signs during their coffee breaks, and chanting “Don’t bench the girls.”
Opponents of Title IX have said that women’s sports have taken away resources from the more important revenue-producing men’s sports. It has been referred to as a “quota program,” in an effort to kill it. In fact, it is claimed that schools have been forced to discontinue 113 men’s wrestling teams over the last two decades.
Opponents and supporters of Title IX have had numerous press conferences over the last few weeks and both sides have come to Capitol Hill to advance their arguments.
The Presidential Panel spent a lot of time on the first compliance criteria – proportionality. This criterion asserts that the college must have the same proportional number of women in their sports activity as they have in the general student population. That has become troubling to some over the years, because the number of women on many U.S. campuses has outpaced the number of men. Women now account for 56 percent of the students on campuses around the nation. (Diana Jean Schemo, “Advisory Panel Would Ease Some Title IX Rules,” New York Times, Friday, 31 January 2003, Sports section.)
Proportionality would mean reducing the number of allo- cated sports to men, while increasing the opportunities for women. Needless to say, men are complaining. The commissioners debated three choices:

• End proportionality,
• Give men and women a 50/50 share, or
• Leave it as it is.
  

The panel has also received a proposal that would give men a five percent variance on campuses that are 56 percent or more female.
Other proposals, dropped early in discussion, included eliminating football programs from the proportional count and including the cheerleading squad. As the number of non-traditional students increase (primarily older women), how should they be considered in numbers of proportionality when they usually do not have an interest in participating in sports? Opponents of Title IX want to rule these women out of eligibility to be included in the count toward sports participation, while supporters of Title IX want them to remain in.
Title IX, of the Education Amendments of 1972, is monitored and enforced by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the Department of Education. The OCR has said that there is perhaps insufficient flexibility in the law to deal with constant changes in student population.
A January 31, 2003 Washington Times article quoted two members of the Presidential Panel; Deborah Yow, the athletic director at the University of Maryland (who defends proportionality), and Thomas B. Griffith, general counsel for Brigham Young University (in opposition). Commissioner Yow said, “Even when you can identify a discriminatory process, it is fraught with problems to get that remedied. That’s why I gravitate toward a numerical formula. You know it when you can see it. It’s an efficient process.” On the other hand, Commissioner Griffith has stated, “They’re very efficient. But efficiency is not the value here. Fairness is the value here. When you use a numeric formula, you compromise fairness for effiency.”
The Panel made several non-binding determinations that will be sent on to the Education Secretary, Rodney Paige, who will consider what they have to offer. He is not expected to bring changes to the actual Title IX law. It is anticipated that he will use the regulatory process to implement how it will be handled in the future.
Supporters of Title IX see the regulatory and implementation process to be as dangerous as actually changing the law. It affects the short-term efforts toward equity and is dependent upon whichever party is in charge at the time.
Panel members include:

• Cynthia Cooper (co-leader), former W.N.B.A. player and coach.
• Ted Leland (co-leader), athletic director at Stanford University.
• Percy Bates, professor at University of Michigan. Bob Bowlsby, athletic director at University of Iowa.
• Gene DeFilippo, athletic director at Boston College.
• Donna de Varona, Olympic gold medal swimmer; broadcaster.
• Julie Foudy, U.S. national women's soccer team captain. Thomas Griffith, general counsel at Brigham Young University.
• Cary Groth, athletic director at Northern Illinois University.
• Lisa Graham Keegan, chief executive officer of Education Leaders Council.
• Muffet McGraw, women's basketball coach at University of Notre Dame.
• Rita J. Simon, professor at American University.
• Mike Slive, commissioner of the Southeastern Conference.
• Graham Spanier, president of Penn State University. Debbie Yow, athletic director at the University of Maryland.
  

Legislation
On January 30, 2003, Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) , submitted S. Res. 40: Reaffirming congressional commitment to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and its critical role in guaranteeing equal educational opportunities for women and girls, particularly with respect to school athletics. It has been referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
NOTE: At press time, The Washington Post reported (Feb. 25, 2003) that two of the female athletes on the Presidential Panel are “disappointed with the panel's final recommendations and will send a minority report” to Education Secretary Paige. Julie Foudy said that she and Donna de Varona believe the report does not present a balanced view of the issues, and also does not “acknowledge that women are being discriminated against, and that over 80 percent of schools are still not in compliance.”

Action
Contact the following persons or institutions to ask what they are doing to protect Title IX—

• Contact Secretary Rod Paige to share your views on Title IX. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington DC 20202, www.ed.gov or (202) 401-3000
• Contact President George W. Bush at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington D.C., 20500. Comment Line (202) 456-1414 or president@whitehouse.gov
• Contact your own Alamater and any other schools you may support. Ask what they are doing regarding Title IX.
• Contact your Senator to enlist support for the reaffirmation on Title IX and support for S. RES. 40.
• Encourage the young women in your family, church and community to participate in sports. It is also a health concern.

The Presidential Panel concluded most of their work with close votes on the recommendations discussed in the body of this article. On the most controversial issue of proportionality, the vote was tied 7-7, due to the absence of one member. Your advocacy on this issue is important.

General Assembly Policy

The 207th General Assembly (1995) approved the recommendations of the United Nations sponsored conference called “The World Summit for Social Development (WSSD).” This conference brought together member states to address interrelated global problems: poverty, unemployment and the marginalization of peoples. Included in the various Human Rights resolutions of the conference were recommendations regarding women’s rights. The conference called on member states to:
“[S]trengthen policies and programmes that improve, ensure and broaden the participation of women in all spheres of political, economic, social and cultural life, as equal partners, and improve their access to all resources needed for the full exercise of their fundamental rights.”

By Elenora Giddings Ivory