Title IX Comes of Age: Eliminating Gender Discrimination
By Martha McCarthy, Ph.D.

It seems appropriate when celebrating women's history to address developments pertaining to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a landmark piece of legislation designed to eliminate gender discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funds. Federal funds can be withdrawn from non-complying institutions, and under certain circumstances, individuals can bring private suits to vindicate their Title IX rights. Initially, Title IX was plagued by jurisdictional controversies. Not until 1982 did the Supreme Court clarify that beneficiaries of and participants in educational programs include school employees as well as students. Two years later the Supreme Court ruled that this law bars gender discrimination onlyin specific programs that are federally assisted, but Congress responded by amending Title IX and three other laws with similar language. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 clarified that these anti-discrimination provisions were intended to apply to entire institutionswith any programs that receive federal aid.

There is little question that female athletes have made strides as a result of Title IX, from coeducational soccer teams for young children to varsity competition in universities. Facilities and practice times, scholarships, and other financial resources have become more equal between male and female athletic programs, although differences still persist, particularly in revenue-generating sports.

The Office for Civil Rights has interpreted Title IX as requiring schools' athletic programs to satisfy one of the following criteria. Each program must show that the percentage of women involved in sports is proportional to the percentage of women enrolled in the school, substantiate a history of expanding athletic opportunities for the underrepresented gender, or demonstrate that the current interests and abilities of the underrepresented gender are being addressed by the athletic program. The proportionality standard has been particularly controversial because it is alleged to impose a quota system, resulting in the elimination of some men's programs (e.g., wrestling), when resources do not allow the expansion of women's programs to meet this standard.

Critics hoped and supporters feared that major changes to Title IX would result from a review of the law that was commissioned by Secretary of Education Rod Paige in 2002 on the eve of the thirtieth anniversary of Title IX. After the Department of Education reviewed the committee's lengthy report in 2003, it decided that no significant changes were warranted in Title IX.

Despite the media's focus on Title IX's impact on athletics, the law's legacy is far broader. It bars gender-based admissions criteria, sexist language in instructional materials, single-gender courses (e.g., home economics, wood shop), and sexual harassment in federally assisted schools and universities. These topics have generated a number of significant Title IX cases. Moreover, the threat of legal action has caused institutional practices to change without the imposition of sanctions. The playing field may not yet be level, but its tilt is not as severe as before Title IX was enacted.#

Martha McCarthy, Ph.D. is the Chancellor Professor, School of Education, Indiana University.