Title IX was passed in 1972 to ensure
all persons, regardless of gender, has equal access to any program receiving
federal funding. This law has been hijacked by persons with agendas
that are contrary to the law. The enforcement of Title IX must return
to the intent of the law, and the discrimination allowed by present
enforcement policies must end.
In the 1960’s, the women’s movement began to make substantial
strides in gaining an equal footing with men, in many areas of society.
There still existed, however, a disparity in college admissions. In
an effort to help bring about an end to that disparity, several well-meaning
congressmen passed the Education Amendments of 1972, and President Nixon
signed it into law. Title IX is thirty-seven words long: “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”
(Education Amendments of 1972)
Those thirty-seven words, which bar discrimination on the basis of
sex, have become a vehicle by which discrimination on the basis of sex
is encouraged.
In 1979, under direction from President Carter, the Department of
Education (DOE) began to apply Title IX exclusively to collegiate athletics
in the form of Proportionality. Proportionality is the safe harbor part
of a three prong test DOE uses to “prove” compliance to
Title IX. Basically, Proportionality means, for example, that if a school
has 60% female enrollment, 60% of all active athletes must be female.
Norma Cantu, the Secretary of Education under President Clinton, began
a strict enforcement of Proportionality in the early 1990’s.
According to Leo Kocher, Head Wrestling Coach at the University of
Chicago, female participation in athletics increased substantially prior
to the application of Title IX to athletics. “In the case of sports,
Title IX #1 was much more effective in spirit than in law. At the time
Congress first debated and passed the measure, school sports were not
even on its radar screen. The driving concern was the male-female academic
gaps in areas like admissions and college faculty positions. But regardless
of congressional intent, by 1972 the idea that females should have an
opportunity to experience the benefits of competitive athletics was
one whose time had come. Parents, educators, and school boards implemented
girl interscholastic sports programs in their local schools quickly
and enthusiastically.
The strongest evidence of Title IX #1's success are the data provided
by the National Federation of State High School Associations - 294,015
female athletic participants in US high schools in 1971, the year before
Title IX. Seven years later that number had grown by 631% to 1,854,400.
Eager bureaucrats and policy advocates created Title IX #2 in 1979 after,
not before, this explosion in girls' high school athletics. Generated
by the Carter Administration, Title IX #2 was not strongly applied during
the Reagan and Bush administrations.” (1999) Kocher uses the term
“Title IX #1” to refer to Title IX as passed into law and
the term “Title IX #2” to refer to the policy of Proportionality.
Since 1972, the year Title IX was passed, 433 collegiate wrestling
programs have been eliminated nationwide. (Lost Programs) Presently,
less than 20 colleges nationwide have gymnastics programs. (Petition
Poster) Kocher also states “There is overwhelming evidence that
Title IX #2 is wreaking havoc on collegiate and high school teams. Right
now over 50% of the sports teams in our NCAA schools are female, but
because males come out in greater numbers they make up 61% of the athletes.
We have lost 20,000 male sports opportunities in the last decade. It
is undeniable that continuing with the quota interpretation of Title
IX #2 will be disastrous for the males that have not already been slashed.”
(1999)
Some people have attributed the loss of men’s programs to financial
reasons, but Marquette University’s wrestling team was dropped
even though it was self funding. (Berglund, 2002) Dennis Hastert, Speaker
of the House of Representatives states, “I strongly support the
original goal of Title IX -- equal opportunity for both women and men
who wish to participate in college athletics. It is my deeply held conviction
that there is no place for discrimination in our society, whether it
be based on sex, race, religion, or any other factor. A strong, properly
interpreted Title IX is a key element in combating discrimination.
Nonetheless, I am concerned about some of the unintended consequences
of the regulations promulgated by the Department of Education that enforce
Title IX; especially those regulations that result in "athletic
quotas" at universities. Specifically, I am concerned that enforcement
of Title IX has resulted in less, not more, participation in athletics.”
(Hastert Letter)
Many people may not see the importance of this issue as they feel the
primary purpose of an educational institution is academics. I hold that
the primary purpose of any educational institution is to provide an
opportunity for as many people as possible to enhance their future life
possibilities. Most sports offer few, if any, professional possibilities.
What is offered by these sports is an opportunity to earn a possible
partial scholarship. Those scholarships may be as little as $1,000.00,
but those scholarships can be the difference between someone being able
to afford a college education or not.
I believe that all kids deserve a chance at a better future, regardless
of their gender. I believe discrimination is wrong in any form. There
were previous discriminations against female students and that is an
undeniable statement. Creating a new discriminated group is not the
way to end discrimination. The only way to end discrimination is to
end it, not continue it or transfer it to someone else. Female students
deserve no less opportunity than male students. Male students deserve
no less opportunity than female students. Title IX was passed into law
to prevent discrimination, and must be enforced in the spirit it was
written. It may be an unintended consequence of the enforcement of Title
IX that male opportunities are being destroyed, but it is also an unacceptable
consequence. Dr. Martin Luther King, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial,
on August 28, 1963, stated, “I have a dream that my four little
children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged
by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
I feel more profound words were never spoken. To paraphrase Dr. King,
“One day our children will not be judged by their gender but by
the content of their character.” We must, as a society, demand
our government not sanction any discrimination. All we have to lose
by our silence is the future of our children.
- Berglund, A. Death of a Dream: The Demise of Wrestling at Marquette
University. Retrieved March 06, 2005 from: http://illsportsadvocacy.com/titleix/demisemarquette.html
- Education Amendments of 1972, Retrieved March 06, 2005 from: http://illsportsadvocacy.com/titleix/titleixtext.html
- Hastert, D. Retrieved March 06, 2005 from: http://illsportsadvocacy.com/titleix/hastertletter.html
- King, M. I Have a Dream. (1963) Retrieved March 06, 2005 from: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/Ihaveadream.htm
- Kocher, L. There are Two Title IX’s. Retrieved March 06, 2005
from: http://illsportsadvocacy.com/titleix/twotitleixs.html
- Lost Programs. Retrieved March 06, 2005 from: http://illsportsadvocacy.com/titleix/lostprograms.html
- Petition Poster. Retrieved March 06, 2005 from: http://illsportsadvocacy.com/titleix/petitionposter.html
