Sex Discrimination in Athletics Separate but Equal Essay Example

It is worth noting that Representative Mink had been primarily focused on academic issues.

As a female, I was denied access to medical school. The lack of consideration by legislators regarding Title IX's impact on sports has led to ongoing confusion among courts, colleges, and commentators about its intended scope in this arena. The National Wrestling Coaches' Association lawsuit highlights the current debate surrounding the substantial proportionality standard, which is part of this ongoing struggle. Additionally, Title IX was enacted as a floor amendment with minimal legislative history, further contributing to the difficulty in determining its reach in relation to sports.

Due to a lack of legislative history, interpreting the intent of Title IX has been difficult and resulted in a lengthy process to establish that it applied to college athletic departments. This issue was present early on and required identifying who qualified as a "recipient" of federal funds under Title IX, which mandated avoidance of sex discrimination only for such recipients.

There were two interpretations of Title IX with regards to federal funding and college obligations. The "institution-wide" interpretation stated that if any part of a college received federal funds, then the entire college was considered a recipient and had to follow Title IX's ban on sex discrimination. This release theory claimed that even if one program indirectly benefited from federal funds, like the athletic department, it still had to comply with Title IX. In contrast, the "program-specific" interpretation argued that only parts of a college directly receiving federal funding had to obey Title IX's ban on sex discrimination. This debate significantly impacted gender equity in college sports as athletic departments typically received little or no direct

financial support from the government.

Prior to 1988, there were two different understandings of Title IX - one that required compliance from entire institutions and another that allowed athletic departments to bypass the law. However, Congress modified the Civil Rights Restoration Act in 1988 to adopt the former interpretation as federal law for college athletic departments. Even though debates persist about Title IX's impact on collegiate sports programs, regulations enforcing it were established by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) in 1974. These regulations took effect on July 21st, 1975 and colleges had until July 21st, 1978 to comply or else risk forfeiting federal financial aid.

When HEW suggested new regulations to ensure equal athletic opportunities for women, the NCAA objected. Their concern was that this mandate would reduce funding for men's sports and negatively impact their quality, popularity, and profitability. The NCAA even filed a lawsuit to challenge the regulations, but it was unsuccessful. Additionally, they supported an amendment proposed by Senator John Tower that would have excluded revenue-producing sports like football and men's basketball from Title IX coverage. Although the Senate passed the Tower Amendment, it did not survive the House-Senate conference committee, thus meaning that no sports were exempt from Title IX regulations. Overall, these regulations created uncertainty within higher education about how to achieve compliance with Title IX rules pertaining to sports.

Back in 1978, male and female students were legally mandated to have equal athletic opportunities at colleges. However, some athletic directors were uncertain about the regulations of this policy. In response to their concerns, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare released a "Policy Interpretation" on December 11, 1979. The

goal of this interpretation was to clarify how compliance with the "equal opportunity" requirement could be achieved by considering a critical factor: whether a college can provide sports and competition levels that cater to both male and female students' interests and abilities. When it came to Title IX cases in the 1990s, federal courts relied on this "effective accommodation" test to determine if colleges had indeed given equal athletic opportunities.

Today, the three-part effective-accommodation test from the Policy Interpretation is the legal standard for determining Title IX compliance in college sports controversy. The test requires a college to effectively accommodate students' athletic interests and abilities by satisfying one of three parts. The first part, the substantial-proportionality standard, compares the percentages of male and female athletes to those in the student body. If this cannot be met, a college can comply by showing a "history and continuing practice" of expanding opportunities for underrepresented sexes. If neither part one nor part two can be satisfied, a college may still comply by fully and effectively accommodating its student body's interests and abilities in sports offerings.

During the 1990s, female college athletes achieved courtroom victories and favorable settlements in other cases thanks to the three-part test. However, in the early 1980s, the focus was on whether Title IX applied to college athletic departments. Federal court preoccupation, the Reagan administration's program-specific interpretation support, and weak OCR enforcement created a stagnant decade for gender equity in college sports. While significant athletic opportunities for women were offered in the 1970s, the addition of only a few sports like cross-country, golf, and tennis with minimal funding did not build upon that progress. The Grove City

College v. Bell decision even nearly caused the gender equity cause to fall into a coma.

The Reagan administration was supported by the Court's decision in Grove City, which stated that Title IX only applies to programs or departments within a college that receive direct federal funding. As a result, college athletics were essentially exempt from Title IX since athletic departments rarely received such funding. This ruling had immediate and severe consequences, including the discontinuation of about forty sports investigations under Title IX by OCR, and no longer taking action on new complaints unless the named athletic departments received federal funds. One of the investigations halted was at the University of Maryland, where OCR had already identified six out of ten violations of Title IX's measures for equal opportunity in college sports. The investigation was terminated due to Grove City's ruling since Maryland's athletic department did not receive direct federal funds.

Despite identifying violations of seven out of ten factors, OCR limited its investigation at Auburn following Grove City. OCR notified Auburn that it would only investigate discrimination in athletic scholarship awards to determine potential misuse of federal funds. The Grove City case remained enforced until March 22, 1988, when Congress overruled President Reagan's veto and amended the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. This amendment reversed Grove City and made the institution-wide interpretation of Title IX the law of the country. The new language defined an educational "program or activity" as encompassing "all operations of a college...," which put athletic departments under Title IX. Consequently, every department, program, and office within a college that received federal funds had to adhere to Title IX.

The announcement

of Grove City in 1984 was significant and its reversal in 1988 was equally consequential. It led to the filing of 45 complaints to OCR alleging Title IX violations by college athletic departments and aided in the settlement of a long-standing lawsuit against Temple University, which favored women athletes at Temple. The focus of debate shifted from compliance with Title IX to how to comply with it. This debate relocated from Congress and the Department of Education to federal courts where women college athletes prevailed as plaintiffs in the 1990s. While the debate about the reach of Title IX was important, it was not the only one in the college-sports community of 1970s and 1980s. A group of female teachers and coaches also engaged in a significant debate within the community that was not as visible.

The debate centered on whether women should adopt the male model of college sports, which prioritizes winning games and making money, or create an alternative model that focuses on benefiting the women playing instead of the institutions they represent. Older women physical educators typically rejected the male model due to adhering to a philosophy that preferred cooperation over competition and ensured that athletics did not overshadow academics or promote cheating. Furthermore, they believed that sports should not become so important that players have to worry about scholarships, and coaches must win games to stay employed. Lastly, they did not want average athletic women to feel less important than star teammates. As a result, women physical educators preferred intramural competition to promote physical and mental health while avoiding public displays of athletic prowess. Such displays have led to corruption in men's

college sports and therefore conflict with traditional ideas of proper female behavior that conservative women physical educators did not want to challenge.

Allen Sack and Ellen Staurowsky believe that women's sport was initially associated with education models that mirrored the refined and restrained nature of womanly behavior. However, during the 1960s, there was a shift in traditional standards of womanly behavior that resulted in an acceptance and appreciation for female athleticism. This change led to a gradual dismantling of women physical educators' opposition to varsity competition among female collegians, and paved the way for the significant expansion of athletic opportunities for college women in the 1970s. In fact, the Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (CIAW) was established by women physical educators in 1966 to provide intercollegiate athletic competition for women students who increasingly desired it, but without the rampant commercialism and win-at-all-costs mentality that plagued men's college sports. The CIAW sponsored championships for women in various sports before transforming into a new organization, the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW), in 1970.

Despite not being open to colleges, the CIAW was composed of women physical educators. In contrast, the AIAW allowed colleges to be a part of their national membership organization if they were interested in engaging in intercollegiate athletic championships for women. Still, many of the same female leaders who were once associated with the CIAW were also leaders in the AIAW. This college-sports governing body was distinctive in that it was affiliated with an educational association – the Division of Girls' and Women's Sport (DGWS), a segment of the American Association of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation (AAHPER). Among its various duties included

conducting championships as well as publishing rules for its sponsored sports, dispersing information such as athletically driven schedules, and defending its members when it came to college sports-related issues – much like its equivalents for male college athletes: the NCAA and the National Association for Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA).

In 1972-73, the AIAW had 386 college memberships and female athletes could compete in 8 AIAW-sanctioned national championships. By 1981-82, the AIAW conducted 41 national championship events across three divisions and 19 sports. From 1973 to 1981, the average percentage of women's sports budgets increased by 43.59% per college, and the number of women's sports increased by an average of 2.73 per college. Prior to 1973, women's sports budgets were insignificant.

Although women's sports budgets experienced a 9% increase, the amount was still significantly lower than men's sports budgets in 1981. The AIAW was influential in advancing college sports for women but ceased to exist on June 30, 1982. Interestingly, Title IX is partially responsible for the AIAW's decline. While Title IX expanded athletic opportunities for college women, it failed to offer physical educators and coaches running women's college sports the autonomy that Mary Jo Festle called "self-determination." Rather, Title IX was interpreted to require "sameness" between men's and women's athletic programs, ultimately causing women's programs to replicate men's programs as the latter were the established norm in college sports and their leaders in the NCAA were not willing to sacrifice business for participation.

In 1973, a lawsuit was filed by eleven students and three instructors from two Florida colleges against the AIAW. They claimed that the AIAW's rule of prohibiting colleges from awarding athletic scholarships discriminated based on sex,

violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Instead of defending itself, the AIAW eliminated the scholarship ban as it was afraid of losing colleges that offered athletic scholarships to men who believed they were required to offer athletic scholarships to women according to Title IX. The lawsuit foreshadowed a division within the AIAW itself. In the mid-1970s, one group wanted a participatory model of college sports similar to old PE programs, while another group desired a more competitive and big-business approach.

During the early 1980s, the big-business faction emerged victorious after securing a win in 1980. In 1981-82, NCAA membership voted to offer five national championships for women in Divisions II and III due to pressure on colleges to fund women's sports because of Title IX. The NCAA aimed to govern women's college sports, protecting men's college sports' profitability and its own economic well-being in the future. By gaining control over women's college sports, the NCAA eliminated AIAW as an organizational rival and applied the commercial model from men's games to women's games. The announcement of the NCAA's intention to offer championships for women devastated AIAW.

The NCAA received the revenue from women's college championship telecasts instead of the AIAW, as they had more financial resources to cover travel expenses for championship sites. In 1981, many AIAW members - 20% - chose not to renew their memberships, with another 12% renewing but refusing to participate in championships. This allowed the NCAA, with its much larger operating budget of $20 million compared to less than $1 million for the AIAW, to quickly take over as a sponsor of college sports for women.

The AIAW sued the NCAA for antitrust violations but lost in both trial and appeal since courts found that there was no intent by the NCAA to create a monopoly.

The resolution of the debate on whether or not Title IX applied to college athletic departments in 1988 marked the end of discussions on intercollegiate athletics for women. As a result, the NCAA adopted the male model for governing women's sports. Though Title IX had positive impacts such as greater budgets, competition opportunities, and visibility for women's college sports, a commercial approach that did not correspond with higher education values was adopted at a cost. Essentially, while promising equality in collegiate sports for women under Title IX, it limited their decision-making power simultaneously. Women pursued federal court cases throughout the 1990s to achieve equality successfully. However, men's non-revenue sport supporters reacted negatively and accused colleges of complying with Title IX regulations by compromising these sports.