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