Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 was passed to ensure that women and men received equal athletic opportunities at the high school and collegiate levels.

Recently, the Obama administration rescinded a 2005 clarification on Title IX that allowed student interest surveys to be used as a form of demonstrating compliance with the law.

This move is meant to strengthen Title IX, but what it really does is strengthen a faulty compliance enforcement policy that is hurting men’s minor/Olympic sports programs at the college level.

Proportionality is the name of the game when it comes to Title IX, and this method of compliance is hurting collegiate men’s minor sports teams.

This system of ratios and head counts is how the Office of Civil Rights (the Title IX enforcement group) and athletic departments are defining “equal opportunity.”

There is a need for reform; not with the law itself, but the way we implement it. Providing equal opportunity means looking at more than the just numbers to ensure the athletic abilities and interests of both sexes are adequately met.

Background of Title IX

Title IX says that “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.”

Its original intent was to make sure that men and women received equal opportunities in schools and colleges. However, its focus was expanded to include athletics to ensure women had the same opportunity to participate in sports as men.

In that regard, Title IX has been a success. Before the Education Amendment Acts of 1972, only 1/27 girls played sports in high school. There were just 32,000 female intercollegiate athletes and virtually no athletic scholarships for women.

By 2001, one in every 2.5 female high school students played a sport, and there were 150,000 female collegiate athletes receiving $1 million in athletic scholarships.

Where the issues come up is how Title IX is enforced. A three-pronged compliance test was introduced in a 1979 clarification to determine if institutions met Title IX standards.

The three prongs are:
1. The institution’s ratio of male students to female students is similar to male athletes to female athletes (the proportionality test)
2. The institution shows a “history and continuing practice” of expanding women’s athletic opportunities
3. The institution shows that it has “fully and effectively” met the athletic abilities and interests of women

The problem is that proportionality is the only “safe-harbor” standard to avoid further investigation by the Office of Civil Rights, according to a clarification by then-assistant secretary for civil rights Gerald Reynolds.

The “current regulations governing Title IX have created a quota system that arbitrarily limits participation in sports, which harms men and does not benefit women,” according to the College Sports Council (CSC), a national coalition of coaches, athletes, parents and fans dedicated to promoting the student athlete experience.

Therefore, men’s programs are often capped or cut entirely to meet a ratio that demonstrates proportionality. 

Changing how Title IX is applied

A 2003 clarification from the Office of Civil Rights said that “nothing in Title IX requires the cutting or reduction of teams in order to demonstrate compliance with Title IX” and that such actions were a “disfavored practice.”

However, that same office stated that the proportionality prong was favored as the only “safe-harbor” standard for an institution to avoid further scrutiny. And proportionality often leads to capping or cutting of programs, because it’s easier and cheaper to give the cut a program than it is to fund and field new women’s programs.

What the Office of Civil Rights and athletic departments needs to do is find a different way of complying with Title IX’s intent, one that relies less on ratios and more on the interests and abilities of the student body.

More emphasis should be given to the other two prongs of compliance, especially “fully and effectively” meeting the interests and abilities of both sexes. And this is where those student interest surveys can be invaluable.

They cannot, as the 2005 clarification tried to use them, be the sole determinant of compliance. However, the Commission on Civil Rights said that the model survey “currently provides the best method available” for measuring student interest and that it “provided a flexible and rigorous assessment.”

Input from student populations is essential in determining their interests and abilities, and thus, demonstrating the third prong of compliance. To bolster an institution’s case when using this prong, administrators can turn to some of those numbers they used in proportionality testing.

But not the head counts and ratios; rather, they can show that the money spent by the school on women’s programs and men’s programs is proportionate.

That may mean that big football teams need to spend a little less or cut a few scholarships to ensure that minor sports programs aren’t lost. As long as it’s done across the board, the playing field stays fair. Moreover, it helps athletes in other sports realize their dreams and their potential.

Regardless of how it gets done, the bottom line is that proportionality needs to go, whether it’s completely removed as a method of compliance or it loses its status as the only “safe-harbor” of compliance.

There are other ways of demonstrating Title IX compliance; government officials and athletic administrators need to find and use one that promotes the most opportunities for the most athletes of both gender.

What do you think?  Does Title IX hinder or aid equality with respect to college athletics?  Have you, or someone you know, been subject to a sport(s) being cut due to the requirements of Title IX?

Until we speak again,
“The Inner Chick”