On June 23 1972, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was passed into law. The law states simply 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"(US Dept of Labor). Although the law was designed to broadly discourage sexual discrimination everywhere in society and initially made no reference to specific institutions or facets of society, the most widely debated impact that Title IX has had on our society has been the law's effect on the dynamics of men's and women's college athletics
[...] are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment” in order to be in adherence with Title IX (Wushanley 76) The resulting changes in college athletics have been both positive and negative. Women have benefited greatly from the new law, as “Women and girls across the United States, spurred by the opportunities created by Title IX . are playing sports in record numbers. More than 135,000 women currently participate in college sports, up from 30,000 in 1971” (Harvard Law Review 1627). However, the effect that the sport has had on men's athletics has been troubling. [...]
[...] Success of Title IX From the standpoint of creating opportunities and stimulating participation in sports for women in high school and college athletics, Title IX has succeeded tremendously. The American Association of University Women (AAUW) writes: Title IX's impact on women's athletic participation is one of the country's greatest success stories. It has changed the playing field dramatically for girls and women in sports. In 1971, seven percent of high school varsity athletes were young women but thirty years later, nearly 2.8 million young women representing 41.5 percent of high school varsity athletes were women. [...]
[...] She mentions that because the enforcement and compliance measures for Title IX are so vague, schools are never sure if they are truly in compliance with the law or not, even if they are exerting tremendous effort to do so. The University of Texas was sued for not being in compliance with Title IX, even though they “treated existing sports programs as well as the men's . they just didn't have enough opportunities” (Suggs), and therefore were sued because they were not in compliance with the proportionality prong, even though they believed they were in compliance with the equal treatment prong. [...]
[...] My initial three interview questions were as follows: How do you feel the clause in Title IX which calls for universities to offer “athletic opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment" has affected the dynamics of college athletics? In your opinion, has the resulting change been positive, negative, or neutral as a whole? Do you feel that the execution of Title IX should be amended in any way? In addition to receiving answers to these questions from Ms. [...]
[...] And although the law has had a positive impact on increasing athletic opportunities available to women, due to the vague wording and improper execution of a law that has such noble intentions, many in the sphere of men's athletics have come to believe that Title IX has merely created a “reverse discrimination” towards men's sports, effectively punishing men and causing men's sports to be cut while women's sports are flourishing. Mike Moyer, the executive director of the National Wrestling Coaches association, believes like many that Title IX has simply shifted the unfairness in college athletics from women to men, instead of providing equity. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
