1 / 50

2004-2005 Dr. Christine H.B. Grant

Title IX. 2004-2005 Dr. Christine H.B. Grant. Title IX. 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 educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. .

saniya
Download Presentation

2004-2005 Dr. Christine H.B. Grant

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Title IX 2004-2005 Dr. Christine H.B. Grant

  2. Title IX 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 educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

  3. Title IX requirements • Financial assistance • Effective accommodation of students’ interests and abilities • Benefits, opportunities and treatment

  4. Benefits, opportunities and treatment • Equipment and supplies • Scheduling of practice and competition • Travel and per diem • Opportunities for coaching and academic tutors • Assignment and compensation of coaches and academic tutors • Locker room, practice and competitive facilities • Medical and training facilities and services • Housing and dining facilities and services • Publicity

  5. Effective accommodation of students’ interests and abilities • Opportunities for males and females substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments • Where one sex has been underrepresented, a history and continuing practice of program expansion responsive to the developing interests and abilities of that sex. • Where one sex is underrepresented and cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by that present program.

  6. History • 1972 • passage of Title IX. • 1974 • Javits Amendment: HEW must issue Title IX regulations. “…with respect to intercollegiate athletic activities, reasonable provisions, considering the nature of particular sports.” • 1974 • Amendment to exempt revenue-producing sports from Title IX rejected. • 1975 • Bills to alter Title IX athletics coverage die in committee • 1975 • HEW issues final regulations, reviewed by Congress, signed into law with provisions banning sex discrimination and establishes 3-year time frame to be compliant. • 1975 • Congress reviews Title IX regulations and doesn’t disapprove. • 1975 & 1977 • Senate refuses to act on bills to curtail Title IX enforcement. • 1979 • HEW issues final policy interpretations - Rather than relying on presumption of compliance, final policy focuses on institution’s obligation to equal opportunity and details factors to assess compliance. • 1980 • DOE established, OCR given oversight responsibilities.

  7. History • 1984 • Grove City vs. Bell: only programs/activities receiving direct Federal assistance held to Title IX. • 1988 • Civil Rights Restoration Act: mandated all educational institutions receiving federal aid be bound by Title IX. • 1990 • Title IX investigational manual published. • 1992 • Franklin vs. Gwinnett County Public Schools. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Title IX plaintiffs are eligible for punitive damages when intentional action to avoid Title Ix compliance is established. • 1992 • Gender Equity Study. • 1994 • Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA).

  8. Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act • Number of male/female participation slots • Total operating expenses for men’s and women’s sports • Number of male/female head coaches • Number of male/female assistants • Amount of athletics scholarship money allocated to males/females • Salaries for coaches • Amount of recruiting dollars for men/women

  9. NCAA data

  10. NCAA data

  11. NCAA data

  12. NCAA data

  13. Courtesy of Women’s Sports Foundation General Accounting Office Study on NCAA & NAIA men’s teams 1981-1982 1998-99 Difference # of men’s teams 9,113 9,149 36 teams

  14. General Accounting OfficeStudy on NCAA & NAIA men’s teams 1981-1982 1998-1999 Difference # of men’s teams 9,113 9,149 +36 teams # of male student athletes 220,178 231,866 11,688 (+5%) GAO 1999

  15. NCAA all divisions Men’s teams dropped and added 1988-2002 # Added teams 1,938 # Dropped teams 1,877 Net gain + 61 teams NCAA 2003 data

  16. Men’s teams dropped and added 1988-2002 Division III # Added 1002 # Dropped 790 Net gain + 212 teams Division II # Added 494 # Dropped 471 Net gain: +23 teams Division I # Added 442 # Dropped 616 Net Loss -174 teams NCAA 2003 data

  17. Summary: Losses/gains in NCAA men’s teams Division III +212 teams Division II +23 teams Division I-AAA -31 teams Division I-AA -38 teams Division I-A -109 teams NCAA 2003 data

  18. NCAA men’s teams (all divisions): greatest number lost 1988-2002 * Wrestling -99 Tennis -53 * Rifle -33 * Gymnastics -32 * Fencing -23 Swimming/diving -22 * Lost teams in all 3 divisions NCAA 2003 data

  19. 2001

  20. Daniel L. Fulks, 2001

  21. Daniel L. Fulks, 2001

  22. Comparison of Gender Equity Survey (92) and EADA (97, 02) Division IA Female undergraduate population in Division IA: 52% From the Chronicle of Higher Education

  23. Changes in operating expenses NCAA gender equity survey results Division I-A 1992 1997 Increase Men 1,049,000 2,429,000 1,380,000 Women 263,000 663,000 400,000 Division II 1992 1997 Increase Men 190,470 177,500-12,970 Women 73,300 91,500 18,200 Division III 1992 1997 Increase Men 112,400 127,200 14,800 Women 56,120 73,400 17,280 NCAA data

  24. Growing deficits in athletic programs Daniel L. Fulks, 2001

  25. Daniel L. Fulks, 2001

  26. NCAA Gender equity report Women’s percentages 2001-2002 From Gender Equity report 2001-2002

  27. NCAA Gender equity reportTravel, equipment, uniforms NCAA Gender Equity report 2001-02

  28. NCAA Gender equity reportWomen’s coaching percentages NCAA Gender Equity report 2001-02

  29. Title IX Lawsuits

  30. Commission on Opportunities in Athletics 2002-3 Commission on Opportunities in Athletics, 2002-3

  31. Atlanta Journal-Constitution Dec. 1999 8-part special: The Gender Gap Day 1: More than 27 years after a federal law mandated that school athletic programs for boys and girls be given comparable support, gender equity is still not the standard in most Georgia high schools. Not even close. Day 2: First-class sports amenities are not new to boys sports, thanks to booster clubs that perpetuate inequities and continue to leave girls with second-class facilities. Day 3: From coaches’ compensation to sports budgets, football programs get the lion’s share of everything in high schools across Georgia. Day 4: Participation in Florida high school athletics has risen sharply since the state passed laws to ensure equality of sports opportunity. Day 5: With college scholarships at stake, parents increasingly insist Georgia schools address disparities in opportunities that girls receive. Day 6: Oconee County High School has made strides since becoming Georgia’s first high school with a Title IX complaint filed against it. Day 7: Padding the participation numbers for girls, the Georgia High School Association classifies competitive cheerleading as a sport, over the objections of Title IX watchdogs. Day 8: A bipartisan pair of legislators is preparing to introduce a bill that would give Georgia power to monitor and enforce Title IX compliance in the state’s high schools. Plus: Readers comment on the Gender Gap series and inequities in high school sports in Georgia.

  32. Boys Girls Salary supplements 75 25 Extended pay supplements 95 5 Legislative grants 86 14 Executive Committee of Georgia High School Association 2495 men 5 women Georgia High School Sports From Georgia High Schools 1999

  33. Georgia vs. Florida Georgia Florida How many state Education department staff members are assigned to gender equity in sports? 1 60 How many schools were out of compliance with gender equity laws last year as determined by the state? 0 42 Is there a state law prohibiting gender discrimination in schools? No Yes Are there state-imposed penalties for failure to comply? No Yes Are districts required to submit annual self-reviews of gender equity in athletics? No Yes Was an equity seminar conducted by the State Education Department this year? No Yes Male Athletes, 98-99 81,960 108,289 Female Athletes, 98-99 45,678 75,760 From Georgia High School Association, Florida and Georgia departments of education

  34. Universities have the right to reduce number of male athletes Cal-State Bakersfield • Preliminary injunction to keep wrestling in Feb. 1999, Panel of U.S. Court of Appeals did not uphold. Illinois State • Dropped men’s soccer and wrestling and added women’s soccer. Panel of U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed lawsuit.

  35. June 23, 1993 Jury decision Sanya Tyler v. Howard U Sex discrimination lawsuit, first Title IX case awarding monetary damage, $1.1 million. Feb. 8, 1994 Jury decision James Huffman v. California State University System 1st amendment and breech of contract. VB coach assisted players settle lawsuit, awarded $1.35 million and undisclosed amount of punitive damages. Pending, filed Aug. 5, 1993 Marianne Stanley v. USC Sex discrimination. Earned $70,000, seeks parity with men’s coach, seeking $8 million and reinstatement. Equal pay and/or wrongful termination

  36. Anti-Title IX Websites • Iowans against quotas (@iaq2000.org) • Americans against quotas (@aaq2000.org) • Independent women’s forum (@iwf.org) • National Coalition for athletic equity • Simply common sense (scs@the_wrestling_mall.com) • Citizens against quotas

  37. Percent difference between female undergrads and female athletes (Big Ten, Pac 10, Big XII) 2001-02

  38. Chronicle of Higher Education SEC numbers 2001-02

  39. Percentage difference between female undergrads and female athletes 2001-02 1. 13 or 29 percent in compliance or within 3 percent a. Big Ten – 6 b. Big 12 – 4 c. Pac 10 – 3 d. SEC – 0 2. 20 or 44 percent in compliance or within five % points a. Big Ten – 9 b. Big 12 – 6 c. Pac 10 – 4 d. SEC – 1 3. 27 or 60 percent in compliance or within 7 % points a. Big Ten – 10 b. Big 12 – 8 c. Pac 10 – 6 d. SEC – 3 4. 18 or 40 percent greater difference than 7 points a. Big Ten – 1 b. Big 12 – 4 c. Pac 10 – 4 d. SEC – 9

  40. Title IX websites • http://bailiwick.lib.uiowa.edu/ge • www.ncwge.org Title IX athletic policies, Aug. 2002 • www.womenssportsfoundation.org

  41. June 2003 Poll By Wall Street Journal and NBC News (from Chronicle of Higher Education, January 2003) ApproveDisapprove 1. Approve/Disapprove of Title IX 68% 20% 2. “Cutting back on men’s athletics to ensure equivalent athletic opportunities for women” 66% 27% 3. Attitudes toward changing Title IX: 20% Strengthen the law 50% No changes to law 21% Weaken the law i.e. 7 of 10 adults familiar with the law want Title IX strengthened or left alone. Title IX “does not require colleges to give the same amount of money to men’s and women’s sports programs or to have equal numbers of male and female athletes; it does require colleges to provide equitable resources and opportunities in a non-discriminatory manner.”

  42. The Bottom LineNCAA Division I-A EADA Data 1999-2000 • Female and college participation • High school: 2.9 million or 42 percent • College: 153,601 or 42 percent

  43. Gender Equity • “Gender equity is an atmosphere and a reality where fair distribution of overall athletic opportunity and resources are proportionate to women and men and where no student-athlete, coach or athletic administrator is discriminated against in any way in the athletic program on the basis of gender.” • “That is to say, an athletic program is gender equitable when the men’s sports program would be pleased to accept for its own the overall participation, opportunities and resources currently allocated to the women’s program and vice versa.” NCAA Gender Equity Task Force

More Related