Sample Research paper on the History of Title X in Sports

In the early ’60s, the president of the U.S then, John Kennedy created a commission on the status of women. The commission, which was created in 1961, was made up of 13 women and 11 men; Eleanor Roosevelt headed it. The cardinal aim of this commission was to push for equality in regard to pay among women (Jones, 2010). The commission decided that both the 14th and the 15th amendments of the United States would be instrumental in giving women the protection that the equal rights amendments were trying to achieve. Even though the results from the commission did not get much attention, it resulted in the equal pay act, which was created in 1963 (Smith, 2003).

The equal pay act was very hard to enforce due to the tremendous discretions that were being used to gauge the skills, responsibility, and efforts. For example, the act lacked an application for the male coaches of women’s teams at the college level. A majority of women continued to go through severe discrimination, which was perpetrated by education organizations. Many schools in the U.S barred women from pursuing courses that were perceived as male programs. Quotas were set to limit the number of women admitted in various institutions across the U.S. Prior to Title IX, many prestigious institutions, for example, the University of Virginia remained male (Smith, 2003).

The towering discrimination of women by educational organizations forced congress members to address the problems using legislation. In the early 70’s, members of Congress began addressing female education using various education settings. The creation of Title IX of the education amendments of 1972 was motivated by the factions of the right in the late 1960s and 70’s. Many discussions were held concerning ending gender discrimination in educational institutions.

Patsy Mink Bill

Patsy Mink together with her colleague Edith Green proposed a bill to outlaw sexual discrimination in educational institutions. The proposed bill was fashioned after Title VI, which is in the civil rights Act of 1964, it replaced race with sex (Smith, 2003). The bill faced intense resistance from the educational establishments and organizations that represented prestigious schools, athletic programs, as well as fraternities. Many of these organizations argued that the bill would need to integrate football teams, locker rooms and disband fraternities. Even though the bill did not pass in 1971, it was instrumental since it foreshadowed Title IX passage in 1972.

Senator Birch Bayh

The legislative history of Title IX comes from the congressional testimony in committees and dialogues between the members of congress. Congress did not have a committee report with the final bill and only two references were present to the intercollegiate athletics in the congressional debate. Because Title IX was first established as a floor amendment, its legislative information is unusually distributed. In the House of Representatives, Edith Green served as the sponsoring representative and Birch Bayh as the sponsoring senator (Ambrosius, 2012). When he was introducing the legislation, Bayh stated that there was a need to have a strong and comprehensive measure, to provide women with solid legal protection from the persistent, pernicious discrimination which is serving to perpetuate second-class citizenship of women (Ambrosius, 2012). The senator’s testimony during the passage of Title IX created immense weight on earlier court cases that involved Title IX.

According to Bayh, the cardinal aim of Title IX was to give women equal educational opportunities like any other person in the United States. Many discussions were now focused on educational opportunities for women, which were not previously available. According to Senator Bayh, the intent of Title IX was to give American women something that was theirs (Ambrosius, 2012). Women were offered a chance to attend schools of their choice, to master the skills that they wanted, and to apply the skills, knowing that they would have a chance to secure the jobs of their choice. The congressman argued that the cardinal shortcoming of the American training was the common victimization of women. The only antidote to this discrimination was a comprehensive amendment like the one, which was presented before the country’s senate. Mink supported Birch Bayh’s proposal by arguing that women were entitled to access education institutions of their choice since they paid taxes.

 

The debate that surrounded Title IX showed that it was intended to cover a wide variety of topics which include admissions, employment, athletics, and education opportunities for women. Members of congress established arguments to oppose Title IX. These members demonstrated their concern against reverse discrimination, however, Bayh asserted that the language of his amendment did not require reverse discrimination; it only required every person to be judged on merit as opposed to sex. In 1972, Congress finally passed Title IX; it was signed into law by the head of the U.S government then (Buzuvis, 2006).

Formation of Title IX regulations and significant judicial interpretations

Title IX addresses sexual discrimination within the educational institutions that receive federal financial aid. The amendment, which was signed on June 23, 1972, has eight total sections. The first and one of the longest sections states that there is no person in the United States, shall, on the basis of sex, be barred from participating in, or denied the benefit, or be subjected through discrimination under any education program or activity that receives federal aid.

Title IX has several exclusions, for example, it does not apply to educational institutions, which are controlled by religious education, military, or marine merchants. In regards to the aspect of admissions, Title IX states that its laws cannot apply to educational institutions that traditionally had a policy of admitting students of one sex (McCuskey, 2006). The amendment additionally avoids societies, sororities, kid and young lady scouts, magnificence expos, and father-child or mother girl exercises. In component1681, the divergent conduct of an individual’s is stated; this results from the awkwardness in the support or the receipts of the government advantages. Clause 1682, gives each division in the legislature the power to regulate earlier sections.

Title IX and women’s sports

When Title IX was implemented in 1972, women’s involvement in sporty activities was low (Ambrosius, 2012). In its first four years of implementation, the participation of women’s athletics increased significantly by six hundred percent to include nearly two million participants. In the 2008, 3.1 million girls took part in high school sports with an additional 182,503 women participating in NCAA collegiate sports (Ambrosius, 2012). After the implementation of Title X, many colleges across the United States continued to expand the athletic opportunities for the women. Even though the hard economic times have created challenges in the compliance of Title X, many schools are finding alternative ways to comply with the requirement of the amendment (Ambrosius, 2012).

The Javits amendment

After Title IX was implemented, numerous departments took a time span of three years to develop regulations. In the three-year activity, congress members proposed revision with the point of limiting the extent of the amendment title. The Tower Amendment that was defeated aimed at excluding the revenue-producing sports from Title IX regulations. Specifically, the tower amendment would have removed football from any or all considerations concerning Title IX.

The Javits amendment was established and passed in 1974 (Ambrosius, 2012). The amendment directed the governing body, which was responsible for title IX enforcement; department of health, education, and welfare to implement some regulations with a provision stating that the regulations would include with respect to the intercollegiate athletics activities reasonable provisions which would consider the nature of particular sports. Examples of this situation would include, the size of the event management staff needed at some of the events compared to others or the cost of the equipment needed in football compared to the costs of the equipment needed in volleyball. The introduction in addition to the passage of the Javits amendment motivated the inclusion of Title IX into law.

The three-prong tests

In 1979, a policy interpretation of the regulatory requirement was proposed; it demanded education institutions cater to the interest as well as the abilities of the members of both sexes (Buzuvis, 2006). The policy interpretations created three alternative measures, which would be used for the purpose of compliance-known as the three-prong tests. The tests were to be utilized to determine whether institutions satisfy the equal participation need. The measures include;

  1. A considerable proportionality between the proportion of competitors who are female to the proportion of understudies who are female.
  2. History and practice of expanding the women’s athletic activities
  3. Full and effective accommodation of the women’s interests as well as abilities in athletics (Buzuvis, 2006)

The third measure is the major facet of convergence for specific organizations (Buzuvis, 2006).  In 1996 the office for civil rights explained that it would be able to determine whether an institution complied with the third prong.  They considered whether there was unmet interest among the female students in a particular sport and whether a particular institution would be able to sustain a team of female participants that would enjoy a reasonable expectation of competition. In terms of measuring the unmet interests, the office for the civil rights would analyze some specific indicators, for example;

  1. Demands that a current club game be raised to intercollegiate group status.
  2. Requests that a current club sport be promoted to intercollegiate status.
  3. Fascination in a specific club or an intramural game
  4. Support rates in games in secondary school, beginner athletic affiliations and group sports classes.
Cohen versus Brown University

A few government investigative courts, consider the disposal of a current suitable ladies’ group to be true proof of the unmet premiums and resistance with the third prong. For example, in Cohen Versus Brown university, the first circuit rejected a university’s attempt to eliminate two men’s and two women’s teams at the same time (Buzuvis, 2006). The court ruled that an academic institution cannot cancel a healthy women’s team and still claim to be fully and effectively accommodate women’s interests and abilities into athletics. According to Cohen prong three, when establishments come short of the proportionality test under prong one, the current ladies games are shielded from disposal in a way that the men’s sports groups are most certainly not (Buzuvis, 2006).

Grove City College v. Bell

Title X application to collegiate athletics was indirectly challenged. In this case, the Supreme Court was faced with two significant questions, first, could the department of health, education and welfare begin the process of terminating federal funds if an institution refuses to execute an assurance of compliance with Title IX?. Does an institution’s willingness to accept federal funds in one program or activity means that all institutional programs and activities must comply with Title IX. Does an institution’s willingness to accept federal funds in one program or activity mean that all the institutions, programs and activities must comply with Title IX?

The Groove City College decided not to accept federal funds from the government. Despite the decisions, the college continued to enroll student who received federal grants to assist in paying tuition and fee. After a formal title X complaint was made, the university refused to grant an assurance of compliance to Title IX arguing that the federal grants did not trigger an institution wide coverage under Title IX. Amid this time, the department of well being, instruction, and welfare had started the procedure of expelling funds from the school. According to the third circuit court, the acceptance of students who get federal grants triggered compliance with Title IX in the admissions programs, but not in all the college programs as well as activities.

The question on whether a University’s denial to grant an assurance of compliance to Title IX, Justice White, who was writing for the majority, wrote that a refusal to execute the proper program specific assurance of compliance warrants termination of the federal assistance to the student financial aid program. The court’s ruling defined the implementation and the enforcement procedures of Title IX for the mid 1980’s. The court pronounced that Title IX did not apply to all areas of an educational organization. The court concluded that an institution’s receipt of the federal funds did not in any way mandate compliance with Title IX in that program; however, it did not in way mandate compliance in all the programs or activities.

With this sort of decision, the Court compelled the degree of Title IX scope. Since athletics, teams did not get the federal funding directly, the athletics departments were not obligated to comply with Title IX regulations. The ruling made in Grove City removed all the university athletic programs from Title IX scope; the ruling did not go for long as congress implemented the civil rights restoration act. The civil rights restoration acts stated that if any activity or even program at an educational institution received federal funds, all the institutional departments are bound by the Title IX regulations. By making this statement, congress favored a broad interpretation of Title IX and passed the act over President Reagan’s veto, this brought athletics back under the Title IX guidelines.

Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education

In the Jackson v Birmingham Alabama, the respondent was the board of education of Birmingham while the petitioner was Roderick Jackson (McCuskey, 2006). The board of education of Birmingham, Alabama, a recipient of government funds employed Roderick as a coach in 1993. As a coach, Jackson noticed that the girls team received less funding compared to the boys and unlike the boys, the girls were not given access to adequate practice facilities. When Jackson complained to his supervisors about this Title X discrimination he was not taken seriously (McCuskey, 2006). Instead of corrective action, Jackson’s supervisors were moved to react, the issued negative evaluations of his work and removed him from the coaching position in May 2001. The case raised many issues concerning what conduct discrimination encompasses and who may bring suit for the purpose of redressing such discrimination on the basis of sex under Title IX. The court dismissed his objection for failure to assert a claim from which consolation could be granted (McCuskey, 2006).

This case presented the court with several narrow questions in regards to the scope of Title IX; did the title prohibit retaliatory discrimination against people who bring complaints about its enforcement? If so, did the statute also protect whistleblowers who were not subjected to the underlying discrimination? Many courts answered yes to both questions, for dissenters the absence of an explicit reference to retaliation in the statute meant a no. The decision in Jackson’s case raised stakes for many players. For the justices, the functions of the court in the constitutional scheme and the proper methods of interpreting the federal statutes were at issue (McCuskey, 2006). The United States government with its agencies saw their ability to delegate the enforcement of important rights creating statutes and conditional spending programs at stake. For local school boards, decisions made would impact the liability for the alleged retaliatory employment actions.

Compliance by contraction

The 1979 intercollegiate athletics policy interpretation of Title IX established three means by which institutions can demonstrate their compliance with section C which focuses on effective accommodation of the student’s interests and abilities. The means are commonly called prongs. The first prong demands for substantial proportionality where the intercollegiate level participation opportunities for both male and female students are provided in numbers that are proportionate to the full-time enrollment. Many colleges, as well as universities, respect the first measure by eliminating the men’s team, to establish the illusion of the presence of gender fairness and impartiality.

Conclusion

It is evident that the congressional intent of the nondiscrimination statute has been distorted; this creates a challenge of embracing this kind of statute based on the Cohen opinion. Title X, which was created in 1972 has greatly expanded opportunities for many women across the United States, the Title can be attributed to Patsy Mink and senator Birch Bayh. Despite its widespread fame, the Title, through misinterpretation and misapplication of the statute and its regulatory tools, the title has been challenged as evidenced by several court cases, for example, in Cohen Vs Brown, Grove City Vs Bell, and Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education. Many universities are forced to adopt practices to accommodate women in sports. It is important to note that decency in sports is all about successful convenience, mindfulness, and human rights.

 

Reference

Ambrosius, B. L. (2012). Title IX: Creating Unequal Equality through Application of the Proportionality Standard in. Valparaiso University Law Review , 557-605.

Buzuvis, E. E. (2006). Survey Says … A Critical Analysis of the New Title IX policy and a proposal for reform. Iowa Law Review , 828-845.

Jones, C. (2010). Book Review: Getting in the Game: Title IX and and the women’s sport revolution. Marquette Sports Law Review , 614-616.

McCuskey, E. Y. (2006). Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education: Title IX’s Implied Private Right of Action for Retaliation. U. Pa. J. Const. L , 143.

Smith, J. (2003). Wrestling with the Effects of Title IX: Is It Time to Adopt New Measures of Compliance for University Athletic Programs – Chalenor v.University of North Dakota. Missouri Law Review , 1-15.