I can hardly hold back on all the Title IX stories I want to share. But first… let’s get the fine print out of the way. Today, we’ll talk about how institutions have been judged on compliance as the law has evolved.
So, again, here’s the starting point, the wording of Title IX.
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.
First off, let’s just note that Title IX is agnostic about compliance. It does not say how an institution needs to comply, just that it needs to comply.
In the athletic realm, a lot of very specific questions arose: Should we add women’s sports teams or cut men’s teams? Increase women’s athletic scholarships or decrease men’s? Tighten up some rosters or expand others? Gussy up women’s facilities or cut back on the men’s amenities? All of this is left up to the institution’s powers that be.*
The three-pronged test
Over the years, as questions arose about how to comply, the Office of Civil Rights issued clarifications. In 1996, it issued a three-pronged test for Title IX compliance. The tests are:
Proportionality: Is participation in the athletics programs for men and women proportional to the overall representation in the student body? For example, if a school has a 50-50 split of male and female students, are the athletics programs also split equally?
Expansion: If a school has fewer sports programs for female students, they can demonstrate that they are working to expand these opportunities. As long as the expansion equals the interest female students show in joining athletics programs, the school meets Title IX requirements.
Accommodating interests: If the sports programs are not equal, and the school is not expanding them, a school can still comply by demonstrating that they already meet the interests of their students. However, the school must solicit input from female students to determine they are satisfied with the opportunities and scholarships available.
A Top 10 list
Even with these broad tests, exactly how to equalize programs by sex could still be murky. So, in 1979, the OCR provided the down-and-dirty on how to ensure that an institution is providing equal athletic opportunities, benefits and treatment. It noted 10 specific factors that demonstrate equality.
For example, the institution must determine: Are the locker rooms, practice and competition facilities equal? Are practice and game times equally scheduled? Are the medical and training benefits equal? Are housing and dining facilities equal? Is the on-the-road housing and per diem allowance equal? Is the opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring equal? Even the programs’ publicity efforts must be equal.
Time and time again, leading up to and in the years after Title IX, institutions failed to equalize along these lines. On the road, male athletes arrived by plane while women rode rickety, unreliable buses. Male athletes got single hotel rooms and $50 per diem food allowances, while women slept four to a room or on dorm floors and got $15 a day. Female athletes were barred from sparkling new gyms, and they practiced and competed in ancient, musty gyms with no bleachers. Male athletes got trainers and medical attention; female athletes had to figure out their own nutritional needs, training programs and how to deal with injuries. Inequities like this surface even today.
We’ll be telling all these stories and more as the year progresses. We’ve come a long way, baby, but we’re not there yet!
______________________________
* Early on, the most common complaint about Title IX was that a college would have to cut men’s teams in order to make room for women’s teams. Yet the OCR has termed that path a “disfavored” solution. It’s true that some universities take that path, however, and the outcry can be significant. But it’s also true that interest in individual sports can decline over time, and cutting a team might have more to do with lack of student interest than with Title IX. Examples might be wrestling, fencing or diving. And the budgets granted the massive football and basketball programs could also be at fault, sucking up all the available sports dollars.
Photo credit: Mike Keefe, “Title IX’s Fault,” The Denver Post (January 31, 2003)