Tag Archives: Olympics

Title IX branches out

It took 20 years and the courage of one teenage girl to expand the reach of Title IX into the realm of sexual harassment.

In 1986, Christine Franklin was a freshman at North Gwinnett High School in Suwanee, Georgia. She had a boyfriend, played in the school band and eagerly accepted an offer from her economics teacher, Andrew Hill, to help him in the classroom, grading tests and running errands.

She said Hill, who was also the school’s football coach, began bringing up references to sex and questioning her about her sex life. Eventually, he — a married man — called her at home, asking her on a date. Finally, in her sophomore year, she says, he forcibly kissed her in the school parking lot and pressured her into having sex on three occasions.

Christine and her boyfriend told her band teacher about Hill’s conduct, but she says he advised her to drop the matter. She went to the school’s guidance counselor, who she says also downplayed her claim, although the school did open an investigation.

Skipping over the school

Hill resigned in 1988, citing the football team’s poor performance. But that wasn’t enough for Christine. She filed a complaint with the federal Office of Civil Rights, which oversees Title IX. OCR ordered the school to create procedures for reporting sexual harassment. Still, Christine went on, bringing a $6 million lawsuit in U.S. district court against the school district, saying it failed to protect her from Hill, in violation of Title IX.

This wasn’t the first time Title IX had been applied to sexual harassment in a lawsuit, but none so far had been successful. And it was the first time compensation was attached to a Title IX claim.

With Hill gone, and reporting procedures in place, the school thought everything was hunky dory. The court agreed, dismissing Christine’s suit in 1989, and again on appeal in 1990.

But Christine persisted, and in 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Christine was not only challenging one school district. She was standing up to President Bush, whose administration opposed expanding the reach of Title IX. The president said it would expose school districts to a massive financial burden.

Apparently, in his mind, a school’s welfare trumped a student’s welfare.

Not only that, but the case was being heard by a court that included Justice Clarence Thomas, who, during his Senate confirmation hearing, was accused of sexual harassment. He was confirmed anyway.*

A lifelong nightmare

In February 1992, the high court ruled unanimously in Christine’s favor, clearing the way for her to seek compensation.

“We intend to ask for substantial damages in the amount of $1 million or more to compensate for the trauma that she has to sustain for the rest of her natural life,” said Michael Weinstock, Christine’s attorney.**

Christine had gone on to college but dropped out after one year, saying she suffered from eating and sleep disorders. She married her high school boyfriend, Douglas Kreeft, and had a child, but struggled with crushing fears. She found it difficult to leave her home.

“To be honest, it’s been a nightmare,” she said.***

Meanwhile, Hill was supported by a large circle of former students, football parents and fellow church members. He made a living selling building supplies and steadfastly maintained his innocence, saying Christine had initiated their encounters.

For its part, the school district claimed that Christine had made up an ever-changing story and that she had a habit of befriending male teachers. The alleged sexual encounters, they say, were consensual.

A wide-ranging victory

In the end, the Gwinnett school district settled with Christine for an undisclosed amount. Her lawsuit became the starting point of a new era for Title IX.

“It’s an enormous victory for women and girls across the country because it puts teeth in the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in schools,” said Marcia D. Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center. “It means that students who are victims of sexual harassment, who have been closed out of courses, whose athletic opportunities have been denied and who have faced discrimination in so many other ways finally have a remedy that really will make a difference.”****

___________________________

* Law professor Anita Hill testified that Thomas harassed her when she worked for him at the U.S. Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Thomas was confirmed by a narrow margin of 52-48.

** “Student to press $1 million sexual harassment suit,” UPI (February 28, 1992).

*** “Student,” UPI.

**** Ruth Marcus, “Harassment damages approved,” Washington Post (February 27, 1992).

Claiming her place in the canon

Title IX is usually thought of as a sports law, so we often forget that its original intent was to increase academic opportunity. In 1974, just two years after Title IX was enacted, a woman who wanted to go to medical school brought a lawsuit claiming gender bias.

Geraldine Cannon was a surgical nurse in Skokie, Ill., who had been practicing since 1955. While serving in Iceland during the Korean War, a doctor had remarked that she had extraordinary skills. She began to think about becoming a doctor.

“I love nursing and I don’t think it gets the recognition it deserves. But I can do more. I want to go further,” she said of her decision to pursue medical studies.*

But soon, Geraldine and her husband started a family. In 1974, she finally got her degree from Trinity College in Deerfield, Ill. She was 39 years old, with five children and a grandchild.

Geraldine had high grades and a good score on the medical college admissions test. She applied to seven medical schools in Illinois. They all turned her down, including the University of Chicago’s Pritzker School of Medicine and the Northwestern University Medical School.

Both schools rejected Geraldine on the basis of age, not sex. The University of Chicago wouldn’t enroll students over the age of 30 who didn’t have an advanced degree. Northwestern wouldn’t enroll any applicant over the age of 35.

She decided to fight back.

Wait just a minute there

Geraldine filed a complaint with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, alleging that university officials had engaged in sex discrimination in violation of Title IX.

Sex discrimination? Shouldn’t her complaint be about age discrimination?

Geraldine argued that women often have to put off or interrupt their education for childbirth and to raise families. The delays and interruptions increase the likelihood of women pursuing advanced education over the age of 30.

“I think, if we really put a value on marriage, motherhood and raising a family, then women should also be allowed to choose the sequence of their life,” she said.**

Geraldine’s husband was a lawyer, and the Cannons filed suit. They lost in district court and on appeal, but took the case to the Supreme Court.

In Cannon v. the University of Chicago, the high court ruled 6-3 in her favor. But the justices said only that Geraldine had the right to sue, not that she could enroll. The court answered the question of whether an individual, as opposed to an entire class — say, all female applicants who were denied admission to those medical schools — could sue under Title IX. The court said, yes, she could.

Meanwhile, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 had prohibited age limits in programs that receive federal funds. The two universities said that Geraldine could apply again, but they would judge her qualifications against those of the 1979 class, which were more stringent. Geraldine wanted her application to be compared to the 1974 applicants. She continued her legal fight.

The fight of her life

That decision to continue fighting likely cost Geraldine her chance to become a doctor. In 1979, the year of the Supreme Court ruling, she was 44 years old. In an interview, she expressed her continuing interest and hope for the future.

“Each fall I think, ‘I’ll make it to medical school this time,’” she said. “I’m ready. I’m not rusty. I don’t think I’m too old either. Doctors stay on the scene for a long, long time.”***

But it seems unlikely that Geraldine ever got to medical school. In a court brief I saw from 1985, the year Geraldine turned 50, it was clear she was still fighting — and losing.

“Attorneys are expected, even required, to represent their clients’ interests zealously. But they are also expected to know when to give up on an obviously lost cause. It should have been apparent to Cannon’s counsel that Cannon’s cause was dead,” the court sniffed.

Despite the outcome of her fight, Geraldine has claimed a place in the canon of Title IX warriors. She had the nerve and the persistence to challenge longstanding discriminatory practices against women. In that way, she won her battle.

_________________________

* Carol Kleiman, “Too Old for Med School?” Chicago Tribune (Lifestyle Section 12, October 21, 1979), pp. 1 and 4.

** “Too Old.”

*** “Too Old.”

**** Cannon v. Loyola University of Chicago, 609 F. Supp. 1010 (1985) Feb. 26, 1985. United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. No. 84 C 8063.

Vaulting to Title IX success

Gymnastics was one sport available for women long before Title IX. But that doesn’t mean it was free from discrimination. In fact, gymnasts at Brown University brought a precedent-setting lawsuit in 1992, two decades after Title IX became law.

In 1991, Brown University cut women’s varsity gymnastics, along with three other teams. It wasn’t that the program was failing; just the year before, the team had won Brown’s first-ever Ivy League title for gymnastics.

Amy Cohen, the incoming captain of the team, was devastated.

“We begged for another solution; we suggested the athletics director ask all coaches to trim 5 percent from their budgets to spare these four teams,” she says. “He told us in no uncertain terms that he had made the decision and that his decision was final.”*

Who got rid of whom?

The possibility remained of keeping the team at a club level, and the women got to work fundraising. Over the summer, they raised enough money — from the community, not the university! — to continue. In the fall, Amy arrived on campus proud of saving the team and expecting the athletic director to congratulate the women.

Well, that didn’t happen.

“He locked us out of our locker room and informed us that we could not see the athletic trainers, use the varsity weight room or hold home meets on weekends,” she said. “At one point, he even muttered, ‘I thought I got rid of you.’”**

The university had cut the teams — men’s water polo and golf, and women’s gymnastics and volleyball — in response to a mandate to trim $1.6 million from its budget. It claimed it was acting fairly by cutting two women’s and two men’s teams.

Amy saw it differently — women were already underrepresented in sports at Brown, so the cuts disproportionately affected them. At the time, women comprised 53.8 percent of the 5,600 enrolled students, yet they represented just 38 percent of the 900 varsity athletes.

A civil rights warrior

In 1992, Amy became the lead plaintiff in a Title IX lawsuit against the university. The case wound its way through the courts, handing the women victory after victory. In 1997, they finally won in district court, but Brown didn’t give up. It appealed to the Supreme Court.

“The ruling leaves the university no choice but to set aside up to 51 percent of its varsity opportunities for qualified women because 51 percent of its students were women,” said a spokeswoman for the university. “That stark numerical quota was required without regard to the fact that women do not represent 51 percent of all interested athletes.”***

This well-worn argument is sort of a chicken-and-the-egg line of thinking. Women aren’t as interested in sports as men are, one side says. Women would be just as interested in sports if they had as much opportunity as men, the other side says.

When the women won their case in 1997, Amy was no longer a student. Then a second-grade teacher, Amy said her students likened her to civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks.

“I think they understand Title IX better than most of the nation’s athletic directors,” she said.****

Fast forward to today

Ultimately, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case and the ruling stood. The university set in motion a plan to increase minimum team sizes for women’s sports, cap team sizes for men’s sports, restore the four cut teams, and add a women’s lightweight crew team.

That wasn’t the end of the story, though. In May 2020, Brown cut several women’s teams even though male athletes already had a larger share of the school’s athletic resources. The women went back to court and emerged with a settlement requiring the university to reinstate two of the teams and extend enforcement of the decree for several more years.

For Amy, this decades-long battle for equality became bigger than just one team.

“We realized that this case was about much more than just getting our gymnastics team back. We became Title IX warriors,” she said. “Over the past 50 years, progress has been made towards equality and equity in sports but, I am sad to say, we still have a long way to go. I hope that in my lifetime I will see true equity and equality.”*****

________________________________

* “Class Action Hall of Fame, Class of 2022: Title IX Champions for Equality in Women’s Sports,” Impact Fund (February 2022). Amy and her teammates were honored by this social justice organization for their activism. https://www.impactfund.org/social-justice-blog/cahof22

** “Class Action,” Impact Fund.

*** “Women gain a victory in access to athletics,” The Philadelphia Inquirer (April 22, 1997), p. 5.

**** Susan Ware. Title IX: A Brief History with Documents (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press Inc., 2007), p. 85.

***** “Class Action,” Impact Fund.

PHOTO: Brown University women’s 1990 gymnastics team. Amy Cohen is in front, above the “O” in the sign. Source: National Museum of American History.

Let’s hear it for “the girls”

The next Summer Olympic Games aren’t until 2024, so there’s still time for broadcasters to rethink their coverage of female athletes. Broadcasts of the Olympics reach massive audiences, giving athletes a thrilling moment on the world stage. Yet broadcasters often take the opportunity to minimize women’s achievements.

This was especially noticeable at the 2016 Rio Summer Olympics — so noticeable that for the 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics (played in 2021 because of the pandemic), the International Olympics Committee issued “portrayal guidelines” that included such advice as to not focus on athletes’ looks, clothing or intimate body parts and to refrain from broadcasting wardrobe malfunctions.

“You will not see in our coverage some things that we have been seeing in the past, with details and close-up on parts of the body,” said Olympic Broadcasting Services chief executive Yiannis Exarchos.*

Even so, female athletes at the 2020 Olympics staged protests over the skimpy uniforms some sports’ ruling bodies require. German gymnasts wore unitards that covered them from head to toe. And, after verbal protests at the Olympics, Norwegian women refused to play in bikini bottoms at a European beach handball event, instead donning skin-tight shorts. They were fined for breaking the rules.

So, what did broadcasters say in 2016 that ticked people off?

Target: gymnasts

Because of their petite size, female gymnasts in particular were the frequent target of sexist comments. When NBC cameras panned over the world-beating Olympic gymnastics team on the sidelines, commentator Jim Watson said, “They might as well be standing around at a mall.”^**After all, he apparently wanted the audience to know, they’re just vapid teen girls.

Simone Biles, the most decorated gymnast in U.S. history, was also reduced to average teen girl status in 2016. In NBC’s promotional video, “Better Know an Athlete,” Simone was shown getting a manicure, and an interview with her parents was reduced to comments about her love of shopping.

Commentators also attacked gymnast Gabrielle Douglas for her hair, repeating criticism she faced at the 2012 London Olympics. Never mind that she’s a world-class athlete and the first African-American gymnast in Olympic history to be named Individual All-Around Champion.

When female athletes achieve feats of strength or speed, they are often compared to men, whose achievements clearly are thought superior. In 2016, both commentators and viewers compared Simone Biles to runner Usain Bolt and swimmer Michael Phelps, but she batted away the comparisons.

“I’m not the next Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps,” she insisted. “I’m the first Simone Biles.”^***

Not satisfied to confine their sexism to just one sport, Fox News ran a segment on whether all female Olympians should wear makeup — inviting two men to weigh in with their opinion. They declared that the only way for women to snag sponsorships was by wearing makeup.

“Would you put money behind a gal that won the gold medal that looks like a washed out rag?” asked commentator Bo Dietl. “No. If she looked beautiful, and looked a little happy-looking, then you’d support her.”^****

So there!

The good news is that female athletes are persevering and thriving. At the 2020 Olympics, women comprised almost 54 percent of Team USA and won 58.4 percent of the medals, including 23 gold medals. NBC spent 59.1 percent of its broadcast time on women’s events.

Still, 82 percent of commentators were male, and female athletes were ten times more likely than male athletes to be visually objectified with camera angles. Female athletes were also seven times more likely than men be referred to using diminutive language such as “girl” or “lady,” according to Power Play’s #RespectHerGame Olympic report.

Let’s hope broadcasters get the message going forward, because people are watching. In 2016, one tweet on this very failing went viral.^*****

“Seriously commentators stop calling women girls. From: pretty much everyone.”

______________________________

* Graham Dunbar, “Olympic broadcasters curb sexual images of female athletes,” Associated Press (July 26, 2021).

** Carole Glines, “Tarnished Olympics? NBC Blasted for Blunders as Ratings Tumble,” Fox News, August 9, 2016

***Megan Garber, “The Olympic Quote (That Should Be) Heard ‘Round the World,” The Atlantic, August 12, 2016. In 2020, Simone withdrew from the women’s team final and the women’s all-around final, due to mental health concerns.

**** Jihan Forbes, “Male Commentators Offer Some Very Important Opinions on Female Athletes’ Wearing Makeup,” YahooSports, August 11, 2016. Dietl is a retired New York City Police Department detective and media personality who was a frequent guest on Fox News programs. He held no credentials in the sporting world.

***** Tweet by Chris Mayer (@chrismayer), Twitter, July 8, 2016.

An athlete turned author

Title IX slashed a definitive before-and-after dividing line. But recently I’ve been reminded that women did play sports long before the 1972 law. Today, let’s go back to the early 1900s.

A hundred-plus years ago, golf was one of the few sports “approved” for women. It was a genteel pursuit that didn’t involve sweat. But, of course, it was a sport only for the privileged. There were tony country club golf courses and golf pros back then as now. Only a few dozen women competed at an elite level.

But one woman not only played golf, she excelled at it and she wrote about it!

A teen sensation

In the early 1900s, Genevieve Hecker topped the charts of the women’s golf circuit. She was born in Darien, Connecticut, in 1883, and began playing at the Wee Burn Golf Club in Noroton.* Her success at the game led to her eventual election as captain of the women’s team. In 1901, the family switched its membership to Apawamis, a course in Rye, New York, named with the Native American words for “covering tree.”

Genevieve was only 16 years old when she won her first tournament, the 1900 Women’s Metropolitan championships. She won again in 1901. That year, and in 1902, she also won the Women’s National Golf Tournament sponsored by the United States Golf Association (USGA), the highest achievement a woman could attain in those times.

“It is admitted by every critic who has ever seen her play that in style and grace, she is absolutely in a class by herself,” one sportswriter declared.**

But Genevieve also was eager to test her skill against men. In 1902, she led the Apawamis Club’s women’s team against the men’s team in an intramural match. She won her match by three holes against Maturin Ballou, the USGA secretary at the time.*** (And here I thought that the Billie Jean King v. Bobby Riggs “Battle of the Sexes” tennis match was the first ever gender battle in sports!)

Sharing the good stuff

That year, Genevieve also began writing about golf. In 1902, Harper’s magazine published a series of her articles. Two years later, in 1904, she wrote the first book of golf instruction for women, Golf for Women, published by Baker & Taylor. It cost $2, was a bestseller and went into many subsequent printings. (The publisher thought it necessary to identify the author on the cover not only by her own name but in parentheses as Mrs. Charles T. Stout. It’s only proper, right?)

“No woman player, however skilful, can fail to profit by a careful study of it,” reported the New York Post in its review.****

Although Genevieve remained an enthusiastic player, she bowed to the conventions of the time and left competition while she bore and raised children. But in 1925, at the age of 41, she won a New York Women’s Metropolitan Golf event. Once a champion always a champion!

Today, around 25 million people play golf, according to the National Golf Foundation. About a quarter of the players are women. And, if you want, you can still pick up a copy of Genevieve’s book***** — it was reprinted as recently as 2017!

_____________________

* Genevieve’s father, John V. Hecker, was a flour miller in New York City, and no ordinary one at that. He was described at the time as a millionaire.

** W.E. Burlock, Jr., “Genevieve Hecker Tells Post Readers How Famous Women Golfers Are Preparing for Championship Tournament to be Played at Brookline This Week,” Boston Post (Sept. 28,1902), p. 48. However, Burlock also believed that Genevieve didn’t always play her best, “owing more, I have always thought, to indifference and carelessness than to lack of ability.”

*** But the men won the handicap competition 8-6.

**** Associated Press, “She Wrote the Book,” New York Daily News (June 19, 2022), p. 70.

***** Here’s one copy on AbeBooks. https://bit.ly/3yv4cPD

Trans bans reach finish line

Last week, the governing bodies for three sports banned or delayed trans women from competing against biological women. Hallelujah! say those who believe Title IX should protect women’s space in the sporting world.

FINA, the swimming world’s governing body, now permits only swimmers who have transitioned before age 12 — the onset of male puberty — to compete in women’s events.

Cycling’s governing body will force transitioning riders to wait longer to compete. The International Cycling Union doubled the transition period on low testosterone to two years and lowered the maximum acceptable level of testosterone.

And finally, rugby’s governing body banned transgender women from playing in women’s international matches while it works out a policy. The International Rugby League hopes to have something in place before the upcoming World Cup in October.

Wrestling with the issue

Eventually, every sport will have to wrestle with the issue of transgender participation in women’s sports. These three athletic organizations are saying that males have inherent advantages over biological females that cannot be erased after the onset of puberty, even with hormone therapy. On average, biological males who have gone through puberty can move faster, jump further, throw longer, and lift heavier objects than females, creating large performance gaps in almost all sports.

Although there are no transgender competitors currently at elite levels in swimming, FINA’s ban would affect swimmers who hope to compete at national and international competitions and at the Olympics.

Of course, the first person to come to mind is Lia Thomas, the transgender swimmer who competed for the University of Pennsylvania, setting a world record in the NCAA Division I 500-yard freestyle event. Lia has eyes on the Olympics, which are now out of the question.

FINA says it’s preparing to address this issue. It has proposed an “open competition category” that would allow transgender women to compete separately. The details of this new swimming category are being worked out.

These bans address only sporting events at the elite level. But at the same time, nineteen states have enacted laws or issued statewide rules that bar or limit transgender sports participation at all levels.

The yays and nays

Reaction to the bans was immediate — and predictable. Spokespersons for LGBTQ advocates call the bans discriminatory. Those hoping to protect biological women from having to compete against biological males favor the restrictions.

“The eligibility criteria for the women’s category as it is laid out in the policy police the bodies of all women, and will not be enforceable without seriously violating the privacy and human rights of any athlete looking to compete in the women’s category,” said Anne Lieberman of Athlete Ally, an LGBTQ advocacy group.*

“When it comes to sport, you cannot deny biology and facts. And the facts say that men and women are so different, different enough that in order to give girls and women an equal opportunity to participate, they need their own team,” said Nancy Hogshead-Makar, a four-time Olympic swimming medalist and a longtime advocate for women’s rights in sports.**

Former Olympic decathlete Caitlyn Jenner, a transgender woman, agreed.

“It worked! I took a lot of heat — but what’s fair is fair! If you go through male puberty you should not be able to take medals away from females. Period,” Jenner said via Twitter.***

Many people believe the issue can be settled by creating a separate category or by instituting a system of handicapping, which is an accepted way to address disparities in sports like golf. But the future really is unknown.

“If we want to see women winning Olympic gold medals or earning professional sports contracts then we can’t be having men in the category,” said Joanna Harper, a sports scientist and transgender woman who is a runner.**** “Can we have trans women who have gone through male puberty in the category? That, admittedly, is not yet a settled question.”

_____________________________

* Ciarán Fahey, “World swimming bans transgender athletes from women’s events,” AP News (June 22, 2022).

** Justin Barney, “Olympic gold medalist Hogshead-Makar: Transgender ruling positive news for female swimmers,” WJXT News4Jax (June 20, 2022).

*** Khaleda Rahman, “Transgender Swimming Ban Praised by Former Olympic Athletes,” Newsweek (June 20, 2022).

**** Dan Roan and Katie Falkingham, “Transgender athletes: What do the scientists say?,” BBC Sport (May 11, 2022).

PHOTO: Transgender swimmer Lia Thomas

Happy 50th Anniversary, Title IX!

Today’s the day! Fifty years ago today, President Nixon signed Title IX into law. Let’s step back in time and see what reaction to the proposed law was like in its early days.

The good

“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

“My mail tells me it is the most important subject in the United States today.” — Caspar Weinberger, director of the Office of Management and Budget (1972-73).

The bad

“A girl just can’t do those things and still be a lady.” — a sportswriter of the day, referring to vigorous sports like basketball and baseball.

“Athletic competition builds character in our boys. We do not need that kind of character in our girls, the women of tomorrow.” — John Clark Fitzgerald, a Connecticut judge ruling against allowing a high school girl to be on a cross-country team.

“Impending doom is around the corner if these regulations are implemented.” — NCAA director Walter Byers.

“If this passes, you are going to have male stewards.” — a male House member, speaking of airline flight attendants.

“I would have had much more fun playing college football if it had been integrated.” — Sen. Peter Dominick (R-CO), joking about Title IX’s impact on sports.

“I’m all for women’s athletics, but if we had to split our budget it would bankrupt us.” —University of Alabama football coach Bear Bryant.

“The Federal Government’s ever‐expanding role in the affairs of American higher education has struck home. And I am not happy about it.” — Fred C. Davison, a New York Times writer who supported exempting revenue-producing sports like football from Title IX compliance.

The truth

“We are all familiar with the stereotype of women as pretty things who go to college to find a husband, go on the graduate school because they want a more interesting husband, and finally marry, have children, and never work again. The desire of many schools not to waste a ‘man’s place’ on a woman stems from such stereotyped notions. But the facts absolutely contradict these myths about the ‘weaker sex’ and it is time to change our operating assumptions.” — Sen. Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senate sponsor of Title IX.

“The truth is that all our problems stem from the same sex-based myths. We may appear before you as white radicals or the middle-aged middle class or black soul sisters, but we are all sisters in fighting against these outdated myths.” — activist and feminist Gloria Steinem.

“Women have not been encouraged to participate in athletics at least partly because the traits associated with athletic excellence — achievement, self-confidence, aggressiveness, leadership, strength, swiftness — are often seen as being in contradiction with the role of women.” — Margaret Dunkle, whose research helped set the groundwork for Title IX.

“My research was much better than my badminton volley!” — Bernice “Bunny” Sandler, the “Godmother of Title IX,” on her efforts to collect data and anecdotes illustrating the need for gender equality laws.

“All I want and all I ask is that if two individuals, a man and a woman, come to a college or university and they have equal credentials and apply for admissions, that they shall be treated as equals.” — Rep. Edith Green (D-OR), who co-wrote Title IX.

“Millions of women pay taxes into the Federal treasury and we collectively resent that these funds should be used for the support of institutions to which we are denied equal access.” — Rep. Patsy Mink (D-HI), Title IX co-sponsor.

“There were only 27 of us but we were a talky bunch.” — a female lobbyist, about efforts to gain approval for Title IX in the House.

“To create trench warfare between men and women is terrible. If it happens, women will be blamed, and they don’t have to be. The idea is to comply without being retaliatory.” — Olympic swimmer, sports broadcaster and sports activist Donna de Varona, on how collegiate athletic budgets could be fairly apportioned under Title IX rules.

The future

“Unfortunately, certain restrictions placed in the law by the Congress mean that we will not be able to realize fully our principles of equity. But as confidence develops in the new programs, we look forward in the near future to having a set of Federal student assistance programs devoted to the goal of equalizing opportunities for all.” — President Nixon on signing the Education Amendments of 1972 into law (but making no mention of Title IX).

The Mars to Venus gap

Last week, a national poll found an astonishing split between men’s and women’s perception of the impact of Title IX.

Poll results showed that 61 percent of men say that due to Title IX, the country has made a “great deal” or “a lot” of progress toward gender equality. At the same time, only 37 percent of women say that is the case, according to the poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the National Women’s History Museum.*

That’s a gap of a full 24 percent! Indeed, men are from Mars, women are from Venus.

Other women said that the country has made only “some” progress toward gender parity. Half of women held that view, while 13 percent said the country has made just “a little” or no progress.

Overall, 63 percent of those responding said they approve of Title IX, including majorities of men and women.

The end times

I guess, in the grand scheme of things, this is progress. In 1974, two years after the passage of Title IX, the executive director of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) predicted that the end of the world was nigh.

“Impending doom is around the corner if these regulations are implemented,” warned Walter Byers.**

At the time, just 2 percent of college athletic budgets went to women’s sports. I guess Mr. Byers thought that was just too much already.

Still, 5 percent of those responding to the poll did not approve of Title IX at all (really?!?), while the rest said they were neutral or not sure.

One reason people might not be sure of whether we’ve benefited from Title IX is that they might not know what the law covers. Its reach has expanded beyond its original scope. In 1972, when the law was passed, its intent was to open colleges and universities to women. Its application in the realm of sports quickly followed.

Today, the law is being applied to matters of sexual harassment and sexual assault. You can easily see why — sexual violence creates a hostile environment for women on college campuses. And administrations historically have swept women’s complaints under the rug. Women often say they were raped twice — once by an attacker and then again by her college.

Whose turn is it?

The unequal perception unearthed by the poll doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Men and women also have widely different views on equality in other settings. For example, a 2021 Pew Research poll found that in the home, 55 percent of men say they are satisfied with the division of household chores. But women? Only 38 percent say they are satisfied with how labor is divided. Laundry anyone?!?

And let’s talk about talking. Australian author and researcher Dale Spender found that in a college classroom environment, men believe conversation is equally divided between men and women when women speak 15 percent of the time. Fifteen percent! She found that men also believe women dominate conversation when they speak 30 percent of the time.

Spender’s conclusion? Men have no idea how much they talk or who they talk over. And, ultimately, men would prefer that women remain silent.

One of the respondents to the Title IX poll summed up the situation well. Progress that started in the ’70s seems to have stalled, said Brenda Theiss, a 68-year-old retired optician in Vinemont, Alabama.***

“We’ve fought a lot, we’ve gained a little bit, but we haven’t really gained equality,” she said.

——————————–

* Collin Binkley, “Men, women split on equity gains since Title IX, poll shows,” AP News (June 15, 2022).

** Karen Blumenthal, Let Me Play: The Story of Title IX: The Law that Changed the Future of Girls in America (New York: Atheneum Books for Young Readers, 2005), p. 65.

*** AP News poll.

A champion denied

Today, let’s talk about another elite athlete who turned her success into a life of activism.

In 1960, 13-year-old Donna de Varona qualified for the Olympic swimming team. She held a world record in her best event, the 400-meter individual medley.

The problem? That event wasn’t on the Olympic program. People still believed women shouldn’t exert themselves. (Though, in the pool, who can see you sweat?) In a 1962 Sports Illustrated cover article, the writer felt it necessary to comment on the photo of Donna (above) that “some good, tough muscles show on her otherwise ladylike figure.”

At the 1964 Tokyo Olympics, organizers added the event and Donna won gold in the women’s 400-meter individual medley. She defeated the second-place finisher by an astounding six seconds and set an Olympic record. She also took home gold as a member of the world-record-setting U.S. team in the 4 x 100 freestyle relay.

But this being the 1960s, Donna’s stellar swimming career came to an abrupt end. Back then, female athletes couldn’t get college athletic scholarships so there was no path forward for her.

“After finishing my last race at the 1964 Olympics in Tokyo, I went back to the arena and climbed the highest tower overlooking the pool,” she said. “I sat there and looked out at all those empty seats, thinking, ‘What’s next?’”*

Pivoting to activism

Well… a lot came next! She enrolled in UCLA and at age 17 began a decades-long broadcasting career for ABC, going on to cover eighteen Olympics. At the same time, she began her lifelong activism for Title IX.

“I never forgot how the lack of scholarships forced me to cut my swimming career short. It made me a passionate advocate for gender equality in college sports,” she said.**

Donna worked with Congress to pass Title IX, so that future generations of women could have the opportunities she was denied. In the mid-1970s, she and Billie Jean King founded the Women’s Sports Foundation, serving as its first president. One of its focuses was ensuring that Title IX’s mission was being accomplished. In 2007, she hosted, wrote and produced a documentary for the 35th anniversary of Title IX.

A rising Title IX issue

Today, Donna has entered the fray in the highly controversial issue of whether transgender women should compete in women’s sports. Last year, she and other elite athletes founded the Women’s Sports Policy Working Group, whose mission is to provide equitable ways to include trans women yet protect women from competing against biological males who have physical advantages that can’t be erased. “There is a middle way,” the group insists.

“Those that want to compete as transgender male to female athletes should be accommodated in a separate or more creative manner,” Donna says.***

The group’s answer is two-fold: to provide men and women with equal opportunities on the basis of biological sex, and to provide ways to include trans girls and women in ways that would ensure fairness and playing safety in competitive sport without diminishing the protection of biological females. They advocate for national standards that would ensure fairness across all states and sports.

“Those of us who fought for Title IX, it has been a war for a long time,” she said. “We had to research and prove our point that we deserved to have an equal opportunity, not just to compete but to learn so many valuable tools from the foundation sports provides us.

“So what is the answer? It is complicated and people don’t want complicated.”***

Donna would like to see her sport lead the way in crafting policy. “The voices are going to get louder and we have to find solutions,” she says.****

If anyone can find an answer, it’s Donna de Varona. She’s proved she’s a champion both in the pool and out.

____________________________

* Donna de Varona, “At 17, I’d won two Olympic gold medals for swimming. I still couldn’t get a scholarship,” Vox (July 13, 2016).

** Vox. Ironically (and sadly), in 2000, de Varona sued ABC Sports for $50 million, saying she was fired because of her sex and age. She dropped the suit in 2002 when ABC rehired her.

*** Dan D’Addona, “Donna de Varona: Transgender Swimming Dialogue Must Continue,” Swimming World (January 4, 2022). De Varona was responding to the controversy over trans woman Lia Thomas, who swam for the University of Pennsylvania, winning an NCAA Division I national championship this year in the women’s 500-yard freestyle event. Thomas’s final collegiate ranking in this event jumped from 65th on the men’s team to first on the women’s team. In a March 17th article, Swimming World’s editor said, “Lia Thomas’ victory is an insult to the biological women who raced against her. Against those who fought for Title IX and equal opportunities for female athletes. Against science, and the unmistakable physiological differences between the male and female sexes.”

**** Swimming World.

That’ll leave a mark

Recently, I’ve heard several elite female athletes say they want to be more than athletes. They want to use their success — and their position in the media spotlight — to achieve other personal goals.

This seems to me like a sign that Title IX is doing its job. For a woman to have the opportunity — and the luxury — of choosing how to leave her mark on the world is not a case of abandoning hard-won opportunity, but of embracing a life that has been made possible by the gender equality law.

This certainly has been the case for Maya Moore.

Maya ruled the basketball court, no doubt about it. She played forward for the University of Connecticut, winning national championships in 2009 and 2010. She was the first overall pick in the 2011 Women’s National Basketball League (WNBA) draft, joining the Minnesota Lynx.

From 2011 to 2017, Maya led the Minnesota Lynx to four WNBA championships and in 2014 was named league MVP. Her team made the playoffs in all eight of the seasons she played, and she was named to the All-WNBA squad seven times. She won two Olympic gold medals.

So why did she walk away from it all?

Life off the court

Off the court, Maya and her family were part of a Christian prison ministry at Jefferson City Correctional Center in St. Louis, Missouri. There, in 2007, as an 18-year-old, she met Jonathan Irons, a Black prisoner who had been convicted in 1998 of breaking into a suburban St. Louis home and shooting the homeowner in the course of a burglary. He was serving a 50-year sentence.

Maya became convinced of Irons’s innocence. His lawyers said he was convicted on the basis of false identification, a false confession and the omission of crucial evidence at trial. Maya backed the legal team with her own money, convinced that Irons was the victim of a racist justice system. In 2019, she stepped away from her basketball career to focus on social justice issues.

In March 2020, a judge ruled that the case against Irons was weak, with a lack of evidence linking him to the crime, and further efforts to keep him imprisoned failed. On July 1, Irons walked out of prison after 22 years behind bars. As Maya watched, she dropped to her knees, cradling her head in her hands.

“It was kind of a worshipful moment, just dropping to my knees and being so thankful that we made it,” she said. “When I stepped away two springs ago, I wanted to shift my priorities to be more available and present for things that mattered more than being a professional athlete. This is one of the biggest and most direct results of that.”*

A new freedom

In September that year, Maya and Jonathan married, and the couple began working together to help others who they believe have been treated unfairly by the justice system. In 2021, Maya won the Excellence in Sports Performance Yearly (ESPY)’s Arthur Ashe Award, an honor given to individuals whose contributions transcend sports, joining the ranks of Muhammad Ali, Pat Summitt and Billie Jean King. ESPN produced a “30 for 30” feature on Maya titled “Breakaway,” and through their nonprofit, Win With Justice, the couple is using their own story as an agent of change.

“There is a life we want to live, things we want to do, things we feel called to do together to help make our world a better place,” she says. “This sense of freedom is huge for both of us now.”

And that’s the kind of freedom made possible by Title IX.