Title IX Pros And Cons

Title IX and the Education Amendments of 1972 were created to defend equal opportunities for women of all ages. Since its inception 44 years ago, women have seen impressive strides as well as disappointing failures. Social prejudice continues to exist limiting female participation opportunities, benefits for female athletes, coaching opportunities, and increased exposure to sexual assault and abuse. Few institutions treat female athletes equally due to the lack of enforcement by collegiate athletic departments. The enforcement of Title IX has not been a priority among far too many educational institutions leaving women open to discrimination and mistreatment.

Title IX is arguable the most pivotal law in regard to granting participation opportunities

The Supreme Court resolved the issue of uncertainty in Grove City vs Bell, by determining that Title IX only applied to the particular departments receiving federal financial assistance, and not to the entire intuition (U.S Department of Education,2000). The ruling was based on the fact that Title IX did not distinguish between direct institutional assistance and aid received by the school through its students. Although few athletic departments receiving federal funds directly, this ruling made it possible for almost every university’s athletic program to fall short of compiling with the laws of Title IX. Cohen v. Brown University is the most significant hard fought case involving the first prong of Title IX “proportionality”. Brown University eliminated two men’s teams (water polo, golf) and two women’s teams (gymnastics, volleyball) from the universities donor funded varsity status (Stevens, 2004). Female students sued Brown University claiming that the University had violated their rights under Title IX by eliminating these two sports. The plaintiffs also argued that Brown did not make a sufficient reduction in men’s sports or add another women’s team to compensate before eliminating the two women’s programs. The court found that the universities student population and athletic compensation were not equally

Duke University, a female place kicker alleged sexual discrimination when she was not selected for Duke Universities football team, one of the contact sports in the Title IX regulations. Although no woman had ever participated on the team Duke University did not specifically say that football at the university was not a coed team (Stevens, 2004). North Carolina district court granted the university’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the “regulation did not contain an exception for any particular position that may not require physical contact” (Stevens, 2004). On Appeal, the fourth circuit court reviewed the “separate teams” subsection of Title IX and noted that Duke University had allowed this woman to tryout for coed sports team deeming her qualified to be a member of the team (Stevens, 2004). The verdict in this case is the first documented case awarding punitive damages in a Title IX athletics related case. Title IX’s purpose is to prevent discrimination against women in educational forums, but by institutions diminishing Title IX’s mandate, the commission is allowing and justifying the rationalization of on going discrimination against