Title IX Comes of Age:
Eliminating Gender Discrimination
by Martha McCarthy, Ph.D.
It seems appropriate when celebrating women's history to address
developments pertaining to Title IX of the Education Amendments
of 1972, a landmark piece of legislation designed to eliminate
gender discrimination in educational programs that receive
federal funds. Federal funds can be withdrawn from non-complying
institutions, and under certain circumstances, individuals
can bring private suits to vindicate their Title IX rights.
Initially, Title IX was plagued by jurisdictional controversies.
Not until 1982 did the Supreme Court clarify that beneficiaries
of and participants in educational programs include school
employees as well as students. Two years later the Supreme
Court ruled that this law bars gender discrimination onlyin
specific programs that are federally assisted, but Congress
responded by amending Title IX and three other laws with similar
language. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 clarified
that these anti-discrimination provisions were intended to
apply to entire institutionswith any programs that receive
federal aid.
There is little question that female athletes have made strides
as a result of Title IX, from coeducational soccer teams for
young children to varsity competition in universities. Facilities
and practice times, scholarships, and other financial resources
have become more equal between male and female athletic programs,
although differences still persist, particularly in revenue-generating
sports.
The Office for Civil Rights has interpreted Title IX as requiring
schools' athletic programs to satisfy one of the following
criteria. Each program must show that the percentage of women
involved in sports is proportional to the percentage of women
enrolled in the school, substantiate a history of expanding
athletic opportunities for the underrepresented gender, or
demonstrate that the current interests and abilities of the
underrepresented gender are being addressed by the athletic
program. The proportionality standard has been particularly
controversial because it is alleged to impose a quota system,
resulting in the elimination of some men's programs (e.g.,
wrestling), when resources do not allow the expansion of women's
programs to meet this standard.
Critics hoped and supporters feared that major changes to
Title IX would result from a review of the law that was commissioned
by Secretary of Education Rod Paige in 2002 on the eve of the
thirtieth anniversary of Title IX. After the Department of
Education reviewed the committee's lengthy report in 2003,
it decided that no significant changes were warranted in Title
IX.
Despite the media's focus on Title IX's impact on athletics,
the law's legacy is far broader. It bars gender-based admissions
criteria, sexist language in instructional materials, single-gender
courses (e.g., home economics, wood shop), and sexual harassment
in federally assisted schools and universities. These topics
have generated a number of significant Title IX cases. Moreover,
the threat of legal action has caused institutional practices
to change without the imposition of sanctions. The playing
field may not yet be level, but its tilt is not as severe as
before Title IX was enacted.#
Martha McCarthy, Ph.D. is the Chancellor Professor, School
of Education, Indiana University.
