Three-prong test of compliance
In 1979, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under Jimmy Carter's administration issued a policy interpretation for Title IX, including what has become known as the "three-prong test" of an institution's compliance.- Prong one - Providing athletic opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
- Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, OR
- Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex.
A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.
Since its inception, this "three-prong test" of Title IX has been highly controversial in its interpretation and enforcement, and there is dissent over how best to analyze its effectiveness in achieving its intended purpose, which is to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded educational institutions. Critics of the three-prong test contend that it operates as a "quota" in that it places undue emphasis on the first prong (known as the "proportionality" prong) and fails to take into account the sexs' differing levels of interest in participating in athletics, such that this interpretation of Title IX actually operates to discriminate against men. Defenders of the three-prong test counter that the sexes' differing athletic interest levels is merely a product of past discrimination, and that Title IX should be interpreted to maximize female participation in athletics irrespective of any existing disparity in interest. Thus while defenders argue that the three-prong test embodies the maxim that "opportunity drives interest," critics argue that the three-prong test goes beyond Title IX original purpose of preventing discrimination, and instead amounts to an exercise in governmentally-mandated social engineering whereby athletic opportunities are taken away from male students and given to female students, despite the comparatively lower interest levels of those female students.
Litigation
Since the advent of Title IX, schools have been increasingly threatened with discrimination lawsuits.Title IX has caused much controversy, with some groups claiming that it has caused some schools to spend less money on non-revenue-generating men's sports programs such as wrestling, cross country, swimming, gymnastics, fencing and volleyball. This means that it is harder for men to get into large, Division I schools for small sports due to their over emphasis on football and other money making sports.
Supporters of Title IX point to statistics (from a GAO study) that indicate male collegiate sport participation has increased since the inception of Title IX, and that so-called "non-revenue" sports were being eliminated even before Title IX.
However, the same GAO study shows that, while male participation in sports rose 5% between 1981 and 1998, male enrollment during those years rose almost 19%. The number of men's sports teams available per male student has declined 21% over that time. Teams such as tennis, track and field, and swimming have decreased for men, while women's teams have increased. Although there are now more teams available to women than to men, the total number of male participants still significantly outnumbers the number of female participants; in 1998-99 there were 232,000 males participating in college athletics and 163,000 females.
A few non-college sports leagues have opened competition to men and women in the same events, such as equestrian competitions, auto racing, sailing, a few golf tournaments, and inline skating under the so-called "Fabiola rule", named for Fabiola da Silva.
Legal rulings
In one specific instance, Title IX was instrumental in a court case involving Louisiana State University. In 1996, a federal court referenced Title IX in ruling that LSU violated the civil rights of female athletes with "arrogant ignorance" of their needs. Since this ruling, LSU has made changes in its athletic programs to achieve compliance.In an "unusual" case, Title IX played a key role in a school's decision to upgrade its football program from Division I FCS (formerly I-AA) to Division I FBS (formerly I-A). The Western Kentucky University Board of Regents approved this move in November 2006, to take effect in 2009. At the time of the vote, WKU was out of Title IX compliance because it offered approximately 20 too few scholarships for men; moving its football program to the FBS level would add 22 men's scholarships.
Commission on Opportunity in Athletics
On June 27, 2002 Secretary of Education Rod Paige announced the creation of the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics (COA), a blue-ribbon panel to examine ways to strengthen enforcement and expand opportunities to ensure fairness for all college athletes. The purpose of the Commission was to collect information, analyze issues, and obtain broad public input directed at improving the application of Federal standards for measuring equal opportunity for men and women and boys and girls to participate in athletics under Title IX.Co-chairs for the COA were Cynthia Cooper and Ted Leland. Cynthia Cooper is a former WNBA MVP, as a player for the Houston Comets, former head coach of the WNBA's Phoenix Mercury, and a member of the 1988 and 1992 Olympic women's basketball teams. Leland is the Athletic Director at Stanford University. Other members were: Percy Bates, University of Michigan professor and director of programs for educational opportunities; Bob Bowlsby, University of Iowa athletic director; Gene DFilippo Jr.,Boston College athletic director; Donna de Varona, Olympic gold medal swimmer; broadcaster; Julie Foudy, president of the Women's Sports Foundation; U.S. national women's soccer team captain; Thomas Griffith, Brigham Young University general counsel; Gary Groth, Northern Illinois University athletic director; Lisa Graham Keegan, chief executive officer of Education Leaders Council; Muffet McGraw, University of Notre Dame women's basketball coach; Rita J. Simon], American University professor and founder and president of the Women's Freedom Network; Mike Slive, Southeastern Conference commissioner; Graham Spanier, Penn State University president; and Debbie Yow, University of Maryland athletic director.
Four town hall meetings were held in Atlanta, Chicago, Colorado Springs, and San Diego to allow the general public to comment on the past, present, and future of Title IX. On February 26, 2003 the COA issued its final report. The COA provided twenty-three recommendations to the Secretary of Education. The most controversial recommendations dealt with considering non-scholarship athletes in prong one of the three-part test for compliance and allowing interest surveys to determine compliance with prong three. These recommendations were passed by 8-5 votes. On the same day, Secretary of Education Rod Paige announced he would only consider unanimous recommendations, essentially giving veto power to current or former Women's Sports Foundation members Julie Foudy and Donna DeVarona.
Clarification of Prong Three
On March 17, 2005, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) announced a clarification of prong three of the three-part test of Title IX compliance. Prong three specifies the institution is in compliance if "the school is fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex." The clarification issued guidance on using web-based surveys to determine the level of interest in varsity athletics among the under-represented sex.Renaming
The law was renamed as the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act on October 29, 2002, upon the death of the law's principal author, Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink. It was also written by Edith Green.See also
- Gender equality
- Gracie (film) (2007)
- Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Notes
External links
- Want boys to do better in school? Bring in the girls new study suggests
- Text of the original Title IX
- TitleIX.info, proponents of Title IX.
- Title IX at 35: Beyond the Headlines, report by the National Coalition of Women and Girls in Education
- "The Case for Requiring a Proportionality Test to Assess Compliance with Title IX in High School Athletics", Northern Illinois University Law Review, vol. 23, No. 1 (fall 2002)
- "A Hero For Daisy", a film about a Title IX demonstration at Yale University in 1976.
- 29-year long longitudinal study, tracking the status of women and collegiate sport.
- Equal Cheers for Boys and Girls Draws Some Boos
- Is Title IX a good law?
- Secretary of Educations Commission on Opportunity. Title IX is another word for title opportunity in Athletics final report
- Additional Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy: Three-Part Test ― Part Three
- Video on The State of Title IX in America
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Last updated on Friday July 18, 2008 at 18:47:25 PDT (GMT -0700)
View this article at Wikipedia.org - Edit this article at Wikipedia.org - Donate to the Wikimedia Foundation
Three-prong test of compliance
In 1979, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare under Jimmy Carter's administration issued a policy interpretation for Title IX, including what has become known as the "three-prong test" of an institution's compliance.- Prong one - Providing athletic opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR
- Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, OR
- Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex.
A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.
Since its inception, this "three-prong test" of Title IX has been highly controversial in its interpretation and enforcement, and there is dissent over how best to analyze its effectiveness in achieving its intended purpose, which is to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded educational institutions. Critics of the three-prong test contend that it operates as a "quota" in that it places undue emphasis on the first prong (known as the "proportionality" prong) and fails to take into account the sexs' differing levels of interest in participating in athletics, such that this interpretation of Title IX actually operates to discriminate against men. Defenders of the three-prong test counter that the sexes' differing athletic interest levels is merely a product of past discrimination, and that Title IX should be interpreted to maximize female participation in athletics irrespective of any existing disparity in interest. Thus while defenders argue that the three-prong test embodies the maxim that "opportunity drives interest," critics argue that the three-prong test goes beyond Title IX original purpose of preventing discrimination, and instead amounts to an exercise in governmentally-mandated social engineering whereby athletic opportunities are taken away from male students and given to female students, despite the comparatively lower interest levels of those female students.
Litigation
Since the advent of Title IX, schools have been increasingly threatened with discrimination lawsuits.Title IX has caused much controversy, with some groups claiming that it has caused some schools to spend less money on non-revenue-generating men's sports programs such as wrestling, cross country, swimming, gymnastics, fencing and volleyball. This means that it is harder for men to get into large, Division I schools for small sports due to their over emphasis on football and other money making sports.
Supporters of Title IX point to statistics (from a GAO study) that indicate male collegiate sport participation has increased since the inception of Title IX, and that so-called "non-revenue" sports were being eliminated even before Title IX.
However, the same GAO study shows that, while male participation in sports rose 5% between 1981 and 1998, male enrollment during those years rose almost 19%. The number of men's sports teams available per male student has declined 21% over that time. Teams such as tennis, track and field, and swimming have decreased for men, while women's teams have increased. Although there are now more teams available to women than to men, the total number of male participants still significantly outnumbers the number of female participants; in 1998-99 there were 232,000 males participating in college athletics and 163,000 females.
A few non-college sports leagues have opened competition to men and women in the same events, such as equestrian competitions, auto racing, sailing, a few golf tournaments, and inline skating under the so-called "Fabiola rule", named for Fabiola da Silva.
Legal rulings
In one specific instance, Title IX was instrumental in a court case involving Louisiana State University. In 1996, a federal court referenced Title IX in ruling that LSU violated the civil rights of female athletes with "arrogant ignorance" of their needs. Since this ruling, LSU has made changes in its athletic programs to achieve compliance.In an "unusual" case, Title IX played a key role in a school's decision to upgrade its football program from Division I FCS (formerly I-AA) to Division I FBS (formerly I-A). The Western Kentucky University Board of Regents approved this move in November 2006, to take effect in 2009. At the time of the vote, WKU was out of Title IX compliance because it offered approximately 20 too few scholarships for men; moving its football program to the FBS level would add 22 men's scholarships.
Commission on Opportunity in Athletics
On June 27, 2002 Secretary of Education Rod Paige announced the creation of the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics (COA), a blue-ribbon panel to examine ways to strengthen enforcement and expand opportunities to ensure fairness for all college athletes. The purpose of the Commission was to collect information, analyze issues, and obtain broad public input directed at improving the application of Federal standards for measuring equal opportunity for men and women and boys and girls to participate in athletics under Title IX.Co-chairs for the COA were Cynthia Cooper and Ted Leland. Cynthia Cooper is a former WNBA MVP, as a player for the Houston Comets, former head coach of the WNBA's Phoenix Mercury, and a member of the 1988 and 1992 Olympic women's basketball teams. Leland is the Athletic Director at Stanford University. Other members were: Percy Bates, University of Michigan professor and director of programs for educational opportunities; Bob Bowlsby, University of Iowa athletic director; Gene DFilippo Jr.,Boston College athletic director; Donna de Varona, Olympic gold medal swimmer; broadcaster; Julie Foudy, president of the Women's Sports Foundation; U.S. national women's soccer team captain; Thomas Griffith, Brigham Young University general counsel; Gary Groth, Northern Illinois University athletic director; Lisa Graham Keegan, chief executive officer of Education Leaders Council; Muffet McGraw, University of Notre Dame women's basketball coach; Rita J. Simon], American University professor and founder and president of the Women's Freedom Network; Mike Slive, Southeastern Conference commissioner; Graham Spanier, Penn State University president; and Debbie Yow, University of Maryland athletic director.
Four town hall meetings were held in Atlanta, Chicago, Colorado Springs, and San Diego to allow the general public to comment on the past, present, and future of Title IX. On February 26, 2003 the COA issued its final report. The COA provided twenty-three recommendations to the Secretary of Education. The most controversial recommendations dealt with considering non-scholarship athletes in prong one of the three-part test for compliance and allowing interest surveys to determine compliance with prong three. These recommendations were passed by 8-5 votes. On the same day, Secretary of Education Rod Paige announced he would only consider unanimous recommendations, essentially giving veto power to current or former Women's Sports Foundation members Julie Foudy and Donna DeVarona.
Clarification of Prong Three
On March 17, 2005, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) announced a clarification of prong three of the three-part test of Title IX compliance. Prong three specifies the institution is in compliance if "the school is fully and effectively accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex." The clarification issued guidance on using web-based surveys to determine the level of interest in varsity athletics among the under-represented sex.Renaming
The law was renamed as the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act on October 29, 2002, upon the death of the law's principal author, Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink. It was also written by Edith Green.See also
- Gender equality
- Gracie (film) (2007)
- Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Notes
External links
- Want boys to do better in school? Bring in the girls new study suggests
- Text of the original Title IX
- TitleIX.info, proponents of Title IX.
- Title IX at 35: Beyond the Headlines, report by the National Coalition of Women and Girls in Education
- "The Case for Requiring a Proportionality Test to Assess Compliance with Title IX in High School Athletics", Northern Illinois University Law Review, vol. 23, No. 1 (fall 2002)
- "A Hero For Daisy", a film about a Title IX demonstration at Yale University in 1976.
- 29-year long longitudinal study, tracking the status of women and collegiate sport.
- Equal Cheers for Boys and Girls Draws Some Boos
- Is Title IX a good law?
- Secretary of Educations Commission on Opportunity. Title IX is another word for title opportunity in Athletics final report
- Additional Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy: Three-Part Test ― Part Three
- Video on The State of Title IX in America
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Last updated on Friday July 18, 2008 at 18:47:25 PDT (GMT -0700)
View this article at Wikipedia.org - Edit this article at Wikipedia.org - Donate to the Wikimedia Foundation
Copyright © 2008, Dictionary.com, LLC. All rights reserved.