Sex Discrimination in Education: Title IX

C) 0 7 ! 0 4 Washmgton. D.C. 2054 Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress COMPLIMENTS OF Gene Snyder SEX DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION: TITLE IX IP0166 In response to numeroue requests for information on sex discrimination in educational programs and activities, we have compiled this collection of materials. The Reagan administration recently announced its plans to review Federal guidelines intended to protect women from discrimination under "any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" (Title IX, Civil Rights Act as amended 1972). Title IX has most frequently been identified with efforts to curtail discrimination in college athletics. Now, legislation proposed in the 97th Congress may specifically eliminate sports from intercollegiate activities covered by Title IX. This Infopack reviews the reasons Title IX came about, its application to women in sports, other Federal laws and regulations prohibiting sex discrimination in educational institutions, and sources of additional information. More information may be available in a local library through the use of indexes such as the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. We include a list of agencies and organizations that may also provide information on request. We hope this information will be helpful. Congressional Reference Division AQXCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS I N WASHINGTON, D. C. TC! CONTACT FOR ADDITICNAL INFORMATION ON SEX DISCRIMINATION I N EDUCATION (Washington, D. C. z i p code given u n l e s s otherwise i n d i c a t e d . ) Government Agencies Organizations Education Dept., National A ~ ~ ~ s o w American Assn. o f University ProCouncil on Women' s Educational f e s s o r s , 1 Dupont C i r c l e N.W.) 20036. programs, 1832 Id St. N.W, 20036. American Assn. o f University Women, 2401 Virginia Ave. N.W., 20037. Education Dept. , Office f o r C i v i l Rights, 330 C S t . S.W., 20202. American Council on Education, Office Education Dept. , Office o f Educational of Women i n Higher Education, Research and Improvement, National I. h p o n t C i r c l e N.W.) 20036. I n s t i t u t e of Education, Learning and Development Division, S o c i a l American Federation of Teachers, Processes/Women's Research Team, A F L C I O , Women's Rights Committee, 1200 1 9 t h St. N.W, 20208. 11 Dupont C i r c l e N.W., 20036. Education Dept., Women's Educational Equity Act Program, 7 t h and D S t s . Sew, 20202. Assn. of American Colleges, P r o j e c t on t h e S t a t u s and Education of 20009. Women, 1818 R. St. N.W., Health and Human S e r v i c e s Dept. , S e c r e t a r y ' s Advisory Committee on t h e Rights and R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f Women, 200 Independence Ave. S.W., 20201. Assn. of American Law Schools, S e c t i o n on Women i n Legal Education, 1 mpont C i r c l e N.W., 20036. J u s t i c e Dept. , C i v i l Rights Div., Federal Enforcement S e c t i o n , &in J u s t i c e Bldg, 20530. Council o f Chief S t a t e School O f f i c e r s , Resource Center on Sex Equity, 400 N. Capitol St. NW) 20001. National Assn. f o r Girls and Women i n S p o r t , 1900 Association D r . , Reston, VA 22091. Congress National Assn. f o r Women Deans, AdminisHouse Education and Labor Committee, t r a t o r s and Counselors, 1625 Eye S t . N.u., 20006. S u b c a m i t t e e on Elementary , Secondary and Vocational Education, . ~ 3 4 RHOB, 6 ~ 20515. National Council of' Administrative Women i n Education, 1201 1 6 t h S t . N.W, House Education and Iabor Committee, 20036. Subcommittee on Postsecondary Educat i o n , 320 5%20515. National Education Assn., .Teacher Rights Mv., 1201 1 6 t h St. N.W., 20036. Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Education, National School Boards Assn., 1055 Arts and Humanities, 309D Senate Thwlas J e f f e r s o n S t . , H.W., 20007. Annex, 20510 (120 C St. N.E. ). National Women's S t u d i e s Assn., Wniv. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. organizations (cont.) P r o j e c t on E p a l Education Rights, 1112 1 3 t h S t . N.W. 20005. United S t a t e s Student Assn., N a t i o n a l Women' s Student C o a l i t i o n , 1220 G S t . S.E. 20003. Women ' s Equity Action League, 805 1 5 t h S t . N.W. 20005. Women's Equity Action League Educational and Legal Defense Fund, 805 1 5 t h S t . N.W. 20005. Source: Washington Information Directory, 1981-82. NEW YORK TIM@ ,, 19 ~ ~ G 1 5 1 9 8 1D. Study of Title LX ISNo Big Surprise 'Lbntrarrosdsolrbott.adta dlgnrttoaud tile rlmaa blasCrt.t ment o! Margo Polivy. "It must hve ken rn dull QY rftb Caaprcsr -W a- ncp for che ~ t i o for o Inma% AthlM6 k?WOmen, rrid "'IblsthinghrkcnOolngcmfim iwmoathrraditrrrrorwthlzlg -Sth.Coaarr Mlu hpbm. tbc romen'r A* laicdIr8cmr~~U~tyal Texas, Mrderrlng to A p m p a d uneadmQttoTttleIX~olfmd by Sumtor Orrin G. B.trh, Rcpubllao of U t 4 rhteb nu cllminrte lportl ho.~U-IIJ. ateaaMtia arPmed by TitleDG The Natiarul Collqlatt A t b t t c Asuc&tba, rhlct brs Wbid -gly yptart of T i t l c M . n u y b w r ~ .. ~ to^^.^ N.C.A.A., cmted in 100B. hu been the Nlar gwaaial body for mcnL Mcrcolleglate athletiu since the late M s . The N.C.A.A. M I condud Wmuen's cham m -Y=. -&-Q=-Y TheIrrinquestianfrntleIXcd the FaYexd Education Amcab rncntroi1WlmrbeClvilRightaAQ o f w f ~ , tm a d =-yY for ncartp A decade,nr.tes. Nopcrsgltntln United Sates shrll. an the basis al sex, be aduded from participating in, be d d e d the benefits of. or be durinp tb c = w - " W h I bard Vim P r a i w Bush quom Fa* m b u r g h of NotmD8meIaouldhrv8touytbr lobbyinsP.lda''ldlrrlaOkDo uid .'Ib Rev. fhsodots R C S h ~ prssident d the Unfvvrity of N a n D 8 m a a a d h s k c n A n ~ d t i e of Title IX Ia im mluioatdp toIatmo11eol.tesporOI Rtle IX Frankly we went too kr. We'vedoneit wrung.' " AM ~ariss,the women's athletic 6 m3or at the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut, said, "I'm very di+ turbedin terms of what the V i a Rrsident said. It seems like all we do fr f a t . fight. fight forcquP1 qpmamtty for women." The University of Bridgeport hm kenthe object of investigation by the Department d Education's Office of Civil Rights becaw 19 complaints of sex discrimination in sports wen flled n t h that office. The total of complaints is the most against any om ib stitutim; d l told, there were 97 oom- .. -Erpcactltlar racpollcyintcrprrtati~cd-4. r019 s u m ΒΆ 'hat colleges mpst *vtd; equal athletic appommitkr lor members of both sacs" and Mrs. Burfs stated at that time tbat iturasmust be m a pbuk For sample, U SlM.000 in rhdu- rhipaidirgivmbyacoUcgctoSOmrk athletes,the rame school, whicb brs 19 female .thletu d e r rchalurhip, must pmvide tbem with A toml d t#I,Q00 worth of aid. Mn.Harris uW t h t the regulatioas did not rs~uir8 spcndinethe same amount of mony. "When are people going to underrtudthis?" Miu Polivy8sked. 'RK m c t i m from men ia c o w athletic administrations to Mr. Busb s rnrorummcnt was rather muted by cornparism to the loud, critical A b tacks m Title IX by tollegu duritq tbsls70'r. Dr. Alan J. Chapman of Rlca Ual vcnfty, who war the N.CA.A. prai.. dent in 1973 and 1974. said, "Call have movd so far doing mrnen anyway, that I'm not sure fftk I X matters, frankly. ~edainly. not u much as it did. And 1 dun? think rayme b going to retreat. Mmt univmb ties think women rhould h u e sporP. Women's athletlg ushere to stay." -% ' Women's Equ~tyA c l m League July 1981 805 15th Street. N.W . Su~te822 washmgton. D.C 20005 2021638-1961 RECENT TITLE IX DEVELOPMEMS In 1972 Congress passed Title IX of the Education Amendments. Title IX states: "No person...shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation i n , be denied the benefits of, or b r s u b j ected to discrimination under any education program or Schools and activity receiving federal financial assf stance. universities failing to comply w i t h the law risk the cutoff of federal funds. Sex discrimination i n school sports and athletics, however, were not originally included i n the law. Not u n t i l 1974, through the lobbying efforts of feminist organizations and women's sports activists d i d Title IX explicitly cover school and university athletic programs. .." In July 1975 under Republican President Gerald Ford the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) issued Title IX's implementing regulations. These regulations were intended to describe the scope of Title IX's anti-discrimination provisions. B u t schook and universities argued that they s t i 11 d i d not know what the government would consider compliance w i t h the law. In December 1979 the Office of C i v i l Rights released the final guide1 ines for Title IX and Intercollegiate Athletics. Since their release, these guidelines have served as the yardstick by which students and administrators have measured their school 's colapl iance w i t h Title IX. A t the present time i n Congress, in the courts, i n different federal offices, changes are being proposed that could have a massivenand devastating--effect on Title IX. Some of these proposals could change, in a single act, the direction that Title IX has taken for these l a s t nine years. Some proposals would dramatically a1t e r the Title IX regulations, others would remove athletics from Title IX's jurisdicti on i n nearly a l l cases. The following "Recent Title IX Developments" provides an outline and a sumary of these proposed changes. For more information on these developments call the to1 1-free SPRINT-1 ine: 800-424-51 62. Reproduced by t h e Library o f Congress, C o n g r e s s i o n a l Research S e r v i c e w i t h p e r m i s s i o n o f Wonen's E q u i t y Action League Women's Eguity A c M League 805 15fhStreet. N.W.. Suite 822 Washmgton. D.C.20005 2021638-1961 RECENT TITLE IX DEVELOPMENTS In Congress 0 On June 17, 1981 Rep. A1 bert Smith (R-AL) and Sens. Roger Jepsen (R-IA) and Paul Laxal t (R-NV) introduced companion Family Protection Acts (H.R. 3955 and S. 1378) i n the House and Senate respectively. Among the b i l l 's many provisions, the Family Protection Act implicitly calls for the repeal of Title IX. The act removes from federal jurisdiction the r i g h t to determine whether the "sexes can intermingle" i n athletics or any other school activity. Earlier i n the year Rep. George Hansen (R-ID) introduced a similar version of the Family Protection Act (H.R. 311). 0 Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has introduced a bill (S. 1361)to amend Title IX, specifically limiting the law to apply only to those programs receiving direct federal financial assistance. The Department of Education would have no jurisdiction beyond these limits. In other words, i f a school were receiving federal funds for its math program, b u t not for its humanities program, only students i n the math program would be covered by Title IX's anti-discrimination provi sions. The amendment redefines "federal financial assistance" so that it excludes financial aid to students, like Pel1 Grants, GI and student loans. There i s one exception to the "direct funding" principle: i f a school receives federal assistance for any of i t s programs, then the school can not discriminate i n i t s overall admissions. (Student loans, b u i l d i n g improvements, etc. are not considered "programs. *') Discrimination i n admissions to specific courses, however, would only be considered a violation of the law if the course were receiving direct federal financial assistance. The bill would a1 so remove employment discrimination from Title IX's jurisdiction in most cases. T i t l e I X Developments - paqe two a Rep. John Erlenborn (R-IL) has submitted a b i l l (H.R. 1904) t o the Rouse o f Representatives t h a t would abolish the Department o f Education, the cabinet-level department t h a t has j u r i s d i c t i o n over T i t l e I X . Passage o f t h i s b i l l would restore education programs i n a Department o f Health, Education and Welfare, the arrangement t h a t existed before Education was granted cabinetstatus i n May 1980. Although other b i l l s t o eliminate the Education Department have also been introduced i n the House, Erlenborn's b i l l has, a t the present time, the greatest support. a Sen. Zorinsky (D-NE) and Sen. Hatch have introduced a b i l l (S. 1091) t h a t provides a reimbursement t o educational i n s t i t u t i o n s for costs incurred during investigations i n i t i a t e d by the Office o f C i v i l Rights (OCR). OCR i s the agency i n the Department o f Education t h a t enforces T i t l e I X . By t h i s act schools would be e l i g i b l e for reimbursements f o r these "compliance reviewsn conducted between May 1, 1980 and September 30, 1984. The reimbursements would not include any costs related t o corrective action required o f the educational i n s t i t u t i o n . However, even a school found i n v i o l a t i o n o f the law would be e n t i t l e d t o repayment f o r the costs o f the compliance review i t s e l f . OCR would not have i t s budget increased i n order t o reimburse these schools; rather, these expenditures would simply decrease the amount o f money OCR has t o spend for other purposes. Copies o f H.R. by writing: 3955, H.R. 311, and H.R. 1904 can be obtained free The House Documents Room Room H-226 U.S. Capitol Washington, DC 20515 Copies o f S. 1378, S. 1361, and S. 1091 can be obtained free by writing: The Senate Documents Room U.S. Capitol Washington, DC 20510 I n The Office o f Management and Budget a So far, no cuts have been proposed i n the budget f o r the O f f i c e o f C i v i l Rights. Perhaps the most important reason OMB decided t o r e t a i n these funds i s t h a t they had no choice: the O f f i c e o f C i v i l Rights i s under a court order, known as the WEAL o r Adams Order, which requi res t h a t OCR investi gate and r e s x com'p7;l'i-ts i n a timely fashion. Cutting OCR's budget would have made *'timelyu investiaations impossible and miaht well have placed OCR i n contempt of courl. Foi mo+e information, ;ee below I n the Courts, "YEAL v. Bell." - - --- Title IX Developments - page three In the Department of Education a Despite the House initiative to demote the Deparbnent of Education and Reagan's campaign promise to abolish i t, Education Secretary Bell has not announced any plans for the department's demise. Be1 1 is reportedly in favor of downgrading the Education Department to a smaller, independent agency or corporation like NASA or the U.S. Comnission on Civil Rights. At the present, however, the department's status remains unchanged. The Reagan Administration has called for a review of all regulations that have been issued by Cabinet departments. The status of the Title IX regulations, issued in 1975 by HEW, remains uncertain at this time. Suggested changes in the regulations have been made by some outside groups (see below, In the Halls of the Lobbyists). ----- Investigations have begun at cot 1 eges and universities with complaints of sex discrimination in athletics. The prel iminary results for the schools already investigated have been prepared by the regional Offices of Civil Rights and written up as "letters of finding." One letter of finding, concerning the University of Akron, has been released and others are awaiting the approval of Education Secretary Bell. Although the University of Akron was found *in compliancen with Title IX, the school was required to implement a plan that would upgrade substantially its women's athletic programs. Among the provisions of the plan is a schedule to increase the scholarship budget in proportion to the university's projections for women's increased participation. In 1979-80 women comprisdd 15% of the athletes, but received only 5% of the scholarship budget. By 1983-84 the university expects women to comprise 21% of the athletes and the women are promised 20% of the scholarship budget. Two new women's teams, track and cross country,are to be added and at least four women's teams are to be upgraded to Division I. Some of the other areas found to be unequal between the men's and the women's programs are: scheduling of games and practices, the provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive f a d 1 ities, the opportunity to receive coaching, the the recruitment of student athletes, and the effective accomnodation of students' interests and abilities. The University of Akron's plan also includes a description of how these areas are to be equalized, but offers no concrete timetables like those scheduled for the scholarship increases. In the letter of finding the Office of Civil Rights states its intention to monitor the university's plan; however, no timeframe or plan for OCR monitoring is provided. Furthermore, finding a school "in compliance'' with the law when Title IX clearly has been violated could be of questionable legality. T i t l e IX Developments - page four In the Halls of the Lobbyists -- ~ h American e Council on Education recently forwarded t o Vice President George Bush who is heading President Reagan's c m i t t e e on regulatory ref ief,a memo that suggested "for discussionU the dismantling of the Title IX regulations. According towkeswoman Vol .XI, No. 5, May 1981, ACE proposed the following: the repeal of the Title IX intercollegiate athletic pol icy guide1 ines; the exclusion of revenue-produci ng sports f r o m the Title IX regulations; elimination of employment from Title IX's scope of authority; and, replacing investigations by the Office of Civil Rights w i t h peer review by volunteer teams of athletic directors, coaches and financial aid officers. The National Coali tion for Women and Girls i n Education expressed alarm to ACE'S president over the proposal. The Women's Sports Foundation, on behalf of organizations they say represent ten million people, has written Vice President Bush declaring their support for the existing Title IX regulations. For further information on the ACE proposal contact: Dr. Jack Pel tason President ACE One Dupont Circle, N.W. Was h i ngton, DC 20036 In the Courts NCAA v. HEM: The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled i n ~ p r i l ' 1980 that the National Col legiate Athletic Association (NCAA) can sue the federal government over Tftle IX requirements for women's sports. The rul ing overturned a d i s t r i c t court's decision i n 1978 that the NCAA d i d not have legal standing to sue because the Title IX regulations applied to its member colleges and not to the association. The appeals court sent the case back to the d i s t r i c t court i n Kansas City where the NCAA will raise i t s original contention that Title IX should not apply to intercollegiate athletics and that parts of the equal opportunity law are "arbitrary and capricious." Othen v. Ann Arbor School Board: Federal Judge Charles Joiner of the Eastern District of Michigan ruled on February 23, 1981 that Title IX does not cover athletics i n the Ann Arbor (MI) Public Schools. Assuming that no federal funds went directly into athletics, the judge argued that Title IX did not apply t o educational institutions generally, b u t only to those individual programs which "receive direct Federal financial a s s i s t a n ~ e . ~ The father of two g i r l s who sought a g i r l s ' golf team brought the suit. The decision applies only to the geographical area covered by the Eastern District of Michigan. An appeal is planned. (See below, Ye1 low Springs Exempted School District, Note) - Title IX Developments 0 - page five Yellow Springs Exempted School District 1. Ohio H i h School Circuit ~ o u r m $L ppeamed m i c Association: T28, 1981 that if a girl qualifies to play on a boys' contact sport team and no similar girls' team exists, then the school must be allowed to permit her to play on the boys' team. The court's 2-1 decision struck down a state athletic associ ation rule that prohibited mixed, contact competi tion under a1 1 circumstances. The majority opinion partially upheld a lawer court's finding. They ruled that mixed teams must be permitted when a school chooses them as the best option for achieving equal athletic opportunity. Therefore, a s t a t e athletic association could not punish the school for having mixed teams. on The Yellow S rin s decision could have an impact on the Othen case; the t en decision i s being appealed to. t h i s s a m e x u i t court. m o w Springs did not address the issue assistance that was the subject of direct federal fin= of Othen. Yet, both the Ye1 low Springs and Ann Arbor school districts receive the same kind of federal financial assistance. The 6 t h Circuit Appeals Court assumed that Title IX covered the Yellow Springs schools. Hence, the appeals court might find i n the Othen appeal that general federal assistance t o a school d i s t r i c t fs a sufficient criterion for Title IX coverage. NOTE: %+ O'Connor v. Board of Education of School District 23: The ls U.5. ~u~7Zme Court 7 t h u T t E t 3A ~ ~ e a alZkwitt.la Justice has ruled that' i f a girlsi team exists, then athlete Karen OIConnor does not have a legal right to try out for the boys' team this year. The appeals court blocked an injunction originally granted by the District Court that would have forced the school to allow OIConnor to try out for the boys' team this year. OIConnor's attorney argued that she was being denied a fundamental right to education and that the Title IX regulations, i n permitting sex-segregated teams, violated the intent of the Title IX statute. The appeals court and Justice 3 . P . Stevens held that neither education nor a ' r i g h t to develop" s k i l l s are fundamental r i g h t s . A full examination of O f Connor's claims i s s t i l l to come, b u t observers are not optimistic that OIConnor will be granted access to the boyst team. 8 In other court cases dealing w i t h h i g h school athletic associations: The Supreme Court, i n refusing to hear a case involving the Texas Interscholastic Sports League, may have forced the athletic association to be liable for a studentf s attorneys fees. The case involved a handicapped youth who had been barred from athletic participation by a Texas Interscholastic Sports League rule. The youth won a preliminary injunction against the league which, in t u r n , may make him eligible for attorneys fees. T i t l e I X Developments - - page s i x The. Louisiana State Supreme Court ruled that the Louisiana High School A t h l e t i c Association i s a public body and, consequently, i s subject t o the state Open Meetings (Sunshine) Law. The case was brought by a t e l e v i s i o n newsman who had been denied access without reason t o a Louisiana High School A t h l e t i c Association meeting, 0 WEAL v. Be11 (Department o f Education) : I n 1974 WEAL and other groups concerned w i t h equal educational opportunity f i l e d s u i t against the federal government for, i n part, f a i l u r e t o enforce T i t l e I X . This lawsuit resulted i n a court decree requiring the Office o f C i v i l Rights t o respond t o individual complaints and t o i n i t i a t e overall investigations o f school compliance w i t h T i t l e I X w i t h i n c e r t a i n specified timefrarnes. I n June 1981 attorneys f o r WEAL went back i n t o court,,asserting t h a t i n 60% of the cases OCR i s not f i n i s h i n g investigations w i t h i n the timeframes required by the WEAL Order. The Court may find the Department of Education i n contempt o f court. 0 T i t l e I X and Employment: Whether T i t l e f X covers employment may be decided by the U S . Supreme Court i n the coming months. Although one case, Seattle university v. HEW, was scheduled t o be heard by the -bitteda motion t o withdraw because the Department o f Labor, i n the process of investigating a complaint, claimed i t could not f i n d any sign i f i c a n t evidence o f discrimination a t the school. The Court has not y e t ruled on Seattle's motion t o w i thdraw. Other T i t l e I X and employment cases before the Suoreme Court are North Haven ~ o a r do f Education v. ~ u f s t e d l e rand Trumbuil Board of Education v. U.S. Department o f E d u c a t i o w e cases, accepted for review i n bebruary 1981, w i l l be reviewed i n the f a l l . For more information c a l l the to11-free SPRINT-1 ine: 800-424-51 62 CONGRESSIONAL --=Am AMENDMEXT OF EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972 FGLA!TING TO SEX DISCRIMINATION the concept of Oovemmmt in the eighties. I t Is time to r e a m that there are some areas, more areas than not, where the Federal Ckwernment should not act and where its interventtop i s counterproductive U not constitutionally unwise. It Is time to realize that there are some things. even worthy thines.the PWeral Guvernment just m o t and should not do, though i t could in tact do them through the abuse of its power. Nowhere has the Fedeml alvemmenth interventionism left a sorrier legacy than in the area of education, a field long cansidered especially sated for localcontrol. Says Prof. Joseph Adelson of the University oi Michlgan in an article prlnted in the March issue of Commentary, spesktng of the loss of discipline in public schools and of their resulting loss of public confidence: Petbe most important murw of *be .chool'# dl-lshed authoriQ tr the grwrth-z .m tcmptad to my the anwmur fudlckl m d b w \ ~ ~ ~ iOWt l C vention. generally at the Peeoral lwel. It la an extrtmely t r o u b l ~ m edevelopment, dnce name? the oourFc%ven *ti? rdv m u W rtylbnor the bum&given tbelr tsndency tomud Bpnntlne lne m c l a ~ - a m tb. appropriate ronrm iw the ~ ~ t h e ~ e t . d u o U o n d b . .. . OWOCU... Ln.hor2.U1tbsthrsebrurcbaafOoranrnent. rp4 ~ u r u w m x mm t e or overping or comprting t~& -*in th& brrncha W e It u thelr pflollega tn Otcrvene in sduortion. Tbey do mo wirPlth .)moat no n g r d to the nrmcla~a r a~ rolvd. ~ n ond they haw bon. m, thcir declelonr. boaemr emonsour or ahowlghtad thee t u n out to k la pmctlce, prow narly tmpaabla m m cwclnd. ?bru the authorlty of c d u a a t l w t .U 1eveb-h w w e r today, f u weaker, than m y other mOmcnt In memory. The r c h d do not fully govern thmrsclvea: they do not fraely choose thelr own gorlr; they w not gulded bJ tbe1r owa Tam. Indeed our echaob often ue not gulded by w values other than those sanctltled by publlcatlon in the Pederal Reeister. On the national level education has departcd from basic values. We bave indulged in a swcles of roclal fanaticism a c h led us to W e v e that Amerlcsn society should and could be nsheped in a particular mold by the brute i m p i tlon of Federal wealth and power upon local schools, colleges. boards of educatlon. indeed upon individual students and famillas. Now is the t i e to mssefsthat course. The proud sail of federalism Is napping feebly in the alnd. and we feel we drift powerless as the allegiance, the devotion of our citizens for their Qovernmtnt fade. The Fkdersl Government has a role to play in education: The role of facilitator, s u ~ ~ ~re rsour^^; t . not the role of headmistress, enforcer, despot. We have before us an opportunity to turn our feet agafn to the peth of reason. I am introduchg a bW whrch makes a limlted but significant start in restoring restraint to Federal involvement ln education. The subject ls title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination In activities which reMfve Federal fmancial aYlstance. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD June 21, 1981 -SENA ~ietyirwearttoresistthe~ toward enforced conformity a d authoritarkdam in Ule name of efftdencg wblch we see in so many other nationa ntie EX ts an example of good tnkntiom gone awry. In their mal to tltminata MX discrimination in eduesUon the Department of Educatioxl and its predenssors in the past have overstepped t M r bounds. To quote Mra. Euhn In conclusion: 'The end of equal educstiollPl opportlmtty does not justify the nrsump tfon ol lelridrtlve iunctiona by an exmUve de@arhat." Mr. Rcsidmt, I ask tmanumnw conmt that the text o: this salutary amendment be printed in the Rtcow. Them being no objection, the bill waa ordered to be minted in the EZlcom, LuAwwa: a. Is61 .-..A- ~e (t MSI w the senate on6 HOWO of neprc~rntoirouof the United Stde? of &mlm in Conpreu otrsmblsd. TM tk m8tter pzsGcdlDO clauae 4 1) of nctlon 901(a ) of tbr Eduuuoa. Ammdmentr of 1971 ls .mcnb.& (1) by IMeruag arter "united 8tst9" the following: "who ir a studentn; "which -1 .ttaI c t i v (1)bJ . ---- .a' ( c ) Inr c due rbto csmy : OOt *e pollcy 01 tbe , M W Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. President, t0brp o w leeialstion with 8ator E I n m which web to omend title bdUcstMP.I ~ t U t l O P 1or ather org.nf- fX of the Educstlon AmenQmtnrb mtlonr conducting oducauoa progrun~as 1972. 1 am tsLfnO thfs SttP to "Uvitlu #ball not exwed the extent of Fed- institutims of higher learnbe from tbt UolW 8t.W a t tarr UUe U t - jWl6dl~UQn under the polldm knd prrcucea WW.l Of - - eml~cllluolrt.nce'"(1) thu Utle applies only O thaa d u r n - tlon progrrm or .ctlvlth. conducted by . aduatlonU lnstltutlon or orgnaierwhich pmgrunn or activities themselm re. =ire -era d ~ . a c w ulslr,t.pw which l Federal deputment or agency 1s expressly 8uthwfad by rtatute to enend by way of grmt. loan, or contract other than a contrrt of inrut.nfc or puursty: and rh.ll not apply to m y education progr~mor activity to which the deprrtmult or agency ~rnot expms~y authotistd by BUtUta to extend FcdcnJ na m c i a -lst.nce, or which does not t w meive such milstance. -la oi whether: (A) the program o r wivlty ir althtn the u m d educational lnstltutlon or org.nur.ti~n. or adminlstmtlve unit or subunit tbersoi, u a prognm = actlvity whlch doe* recave such wistaria. ( 8 ) ~rdcamd to b m a t from u d r t . n a reeelvcd by any other auch program or activity, or (c) ~s Jtharaiw related to much a program or acM t y ; ula I am c zealousness of the Department oi Education which has gone beyond the bormdr of comma3lclaw. 'In 1978, the Departmmt of ReaIth. Education. and Welfare wueht to tarninak all ilnancial rsslstaace to mdents attending Hillsdolt College in Mlchigan under the national dlrrct &Ident loan prdgram, BEOO proersm. thc suuplemental educational opoortmrit~ grant progrrm. and the wamdeed .trio dent Iwn mapran, bemuse the COUC(IC refused to exmtte en ussurance oi mmplience w l t h title X. An ndministrative law Judge NUnQ on t.he case in Airount 1978. found that .1though the NDSL. BEOO. and 6EOQ programs all constitnted M u r l lhmcia1 assistance to HUdale. the GSL prornam fell withtn the e x c e ~ t l min title l%. for contracts of manmty. DREW so- Martha Matthews Shirley McCune Resource Center on Sex Roles in Education National Foundation for the Improvement of Education Washington, D.C. (1977) US. Depmtment of Health, Education, and Welfmr David Mathews, Semtmy Virginh Y. Tbtter, Assistant Secretary for Education Office of Education TN.Bell. Commissimer b p m e d under Contmct 300-754256for the Womens' Rogmm Staff US.Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and We*; research and staffassistance dm supported by funds from the Ford Foundation Reproduced by t h e Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, October, 1980. DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED - No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, or be so treated on the basis of sex under most education programs or activities receiving Federal assistance. For nlc by the Superintendent of Docume~ts.U.S. Oorunment PrInUag Omm Suhtngmn. D.C. 2[Wm SUrk No. 017-(T)016761W WHY TITLE IX? Why Title IX? What is its purpose? Is it really needed? Is there sex discrimination in education programs and institutions? If so, what are its effects? Although Title IX was enacted within the Education Amendments of 1972, most educators remained relatively unaware of its irnplications until the release of its implementing Regulation in June of 1975. Title IX reads that: no person. . . .shall, on the basis of sex, be exchuted from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educutionprogram oractivity receiving Federal financial assistance. The implementing Regulation establishes detailed criteria for identifying and eliminating sex discrimination in education programs and activities, and sets forth fwe major compliance requirements which must be completed by July 2 1,1976. As this deadline approaches, questions regarding the purpose and need for Title IX increase. This pamphlet will focus briefly on some of the answers to these questions. What is the purpose of T i l e IX? The purpose of Title IX is clearly and simply to prohibit sex discrimination against students and employees of education programs and activities receiving Federal funds. The Title IX Regulation provides that females and males must be afforded equal opportunity with regard to: admissions to most education institutions; access to and treatment in curricular and extracurricular programs and activities sponsored by education agencies and institutions; treatment under regulations and policies governing student benefits, services, conduct and dress; access to employment in education agencies and institutions; terms, conditions, and benefits of such employment. Since the 1954 Supreme Court decision regarding Brown v. the Board of Education, the relationships between equality in education and in society, and the nature of equality in education, have been subjects for public and educator concern. A series of Federal and State antidiscrimination laws has been enacted to better define equality and t o ensure its provision. Title IX is the most recent such law. It is patterned after Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity in education agencies and institutions. Title VI and Title IX each address major and continuhg sources of discrimination and inequality in education and in society. I s Title 1X really necessary-is there tax discrimination in education programs and institutions? Testimony presented at the Congressional hearings regarding Title IX and numerous investigations conducted from the late 1960's to the present document the existence and pervasiveness of sex discrimination in our education systems. From early childhood education through graduate education, females and males are exposed t o sex discrimination and sex role stereotyping in the cumculum, in extracurricular programs, in regulations and policies governing student life, in physical facilities, in the behavior of education personnel, and in the structure and organization of education institutions. Sex discrimination and sex-role ,stereotyping, whether overt or covert, direct or indirect, function to deny the equal educational opportunity guaranteed by law. Many of the forms of sex discrimination prohibited under Title IX and its implementing Regulation have been systematically documented. Some of this documentation is summarized below. Admissions practices and policies of institutions of vocational education and higher education have often been found to discriminate on the basis of sex. In practice if not in stated policy, many postsecondary institutions set higher admissions standards for women than for men. A survey conducted by the American Council on Education indicated that of a sample of 188,900 freshmen entering institutions of higher education in 1972,44% of the women had high school grade point averages of B-plus or better. For males, this figure was only 29%. Furthermore, 50% of the women and only 38% of the men were in the top quarter of their high school class. The survey also indicated that of these entering students, women were more likely than men to have been high achievers in all types of extracurricular activities except science and athletics.' Many institutions, especially those of graduate education, use an "equal rejection rate" system under which males and females are sorted into separate categories in order that equal portions of each group may be accepted. This system usually ensures that the women thus admitted are more qualified than the men.* One study found that 68% of the women admitted to graduate schools had an undergraduate average of B or better, as opposed to only 54% of the men admitted.3 In a number of large school systems, secondary institutions of vocational education are or have been completely segregated on the basis of sex. In others, males and females are or have been admitted subject only to strict sex-based quotas? Awards of financial assistance are often differentially available t o males and females. Studies have shown that women are less likely than men to receive fmancial assistance in the form of scholarships, fellowships and loans at both the national and institutional leveks A national survey of 3,363 college sophomores found that in 1967, the average award of financial assistance to men was $1,001, while the average award to women was only $786. Student employment awarded as part of instituSional financial aid packages paid men an average of $7 12 and women an average of $401.6 According to 1970 testimony in Congressional hearings on discrimination against women, in 1969, women comprised 33% of the nation's graduate students but received on1 28% of the graduate awards under NDEA, Title IV, and 29% under NDEA, Title VI.Y One report on women and graduate study indicated that only onequarter of the females enrolled in graduate study received stipends, as compared to almost one-half of the men.' Sex-restricted scholarships frequently limit the access of qualified women to financial aid. In one large and prestigious university, only 15% of all sex-restricted funds available in 1969 were restricted to women? Counseling and counseling materials are a significant source of sex disaimination at all levels of education. Research indicates that both male and female counselors hold differential perceptions of appropriate academic and career choices for males and females.10 Counselors appear t o apply traditional role stereotypes t o both college- and noncollege-bound femalesff as well as to female college ~ t u d e n t s . ~ Sex bias has also been documented in instruments used in the counseling process. A number of achievement'tests have been found to contain such bias in both content a n d - b guage.13 Many occupational interest inventories list occupations by sex and fail to offer a complete range of occupational choices t o femaies; many require differential wring and interpretation of male and female Vocational education, which provides a direct link between education and the employment system, is one of the most sex-segregated of all education programs. Of the 136 instructional categories within the nation's vocational education programs, 71% have enrollments of at last 75% one sex or the other; almost one-half have enrollments over 90% one sex or the Females predominate in those programs providing preparation for the lower-paying occupations. Sex segregation in vocational education programs results from factors ranging from overtly di, crirninatory admissions or graduation requirements, through discriminatory counacling or counseling instruments, to student choices which may be made on the basis of subtle or covert ae% role stereotypes. Athletic programs provided or sponsored by education institutions an another source of pervasive sex discrimination. Studies of athletics in secondary schools and colleges and unhxities have repeatedly documented discrepancies in the nature and extent of programs, the availability of coaching services, and the equipment and facilities provided for men's and women's sports.16 Analysis of numerous athletic budgets for secondary and postsecondary athletic prog~ms suggests that at the secondary level, the ratio of expenditures for females and males approximates f 1IS10. At the postsecondary level, the ratio approaches S 1 1 ~ 5 0 . ~ A 1973 study of the athletic program offered by a school district in one Southwestern city revealed that of $10 million worth of athletic facilities and equipment, girls were permitted use of only the tennis courts and tennis balls.'* Although this example may be extreme in degree, it is probably not unique. Policies regarding the marital or parental ststus of students frequently discriminate on the basis of sex. The treatment of pregnant females is a common area of discriminatory policies and practices. Although over 200,000 young women under 18 give birth in the US. each year,'g a large percentage of these young women are expelled from school or are pressured t o withdraw at the first sign of pregnancy. Although some local education agencies have offered specialized programs for pregnant students, a 1970 study indicated that only onethird of the nation's 17,000 school districts offered pregnant students any education services at all.m At some postsecondary institutions, women have been refused financial aid because of pregnancy or Student health sewices in many institutions of higher education provide full coverage services to males while providing no gynecological services to females. A 1970 survey of 750 institutions performed by the American Association of University Women revealed that only 43%provide birth control information or counseling; in the others, students are referred to physicians outside the institution." (An education institution is under no obligation t o provide full-coverage health services t o students, but the Title IX Regulation requires that if a university chooses t o provide such s e ~ c e sthese must include gynecological services for females.) Employment policies and practices which discriminate on the basis of sex not only deny opportunity t o individual applicants or staff members but also result in employment patterns which limit the exposure of both male and female students to role models in nontraditional positions. The existence of discriminatory policies and practices in elementarysccondary education is suggested by an analysis of the sex composition of p e r s o ~ e in l various education positions as compared t o the sex composition of persons receiving undergraduate and graduate degrees in education. Relevant figures are provided below. Percsnt8gm of Female Employow and Dagm Recipients in Education-1970-1971. ................... ........................ ............ 67.2% lnstnrctionrl atafT Principals. 15 3% Assistant Principals .................. I 5 .O% Central office administrators 25 9% Superintendents .................... .6% BA. degrees in education ............... .74% Master's d e w s : -in education. .................... ..56% -in ed. admin. .2M Doctoral degrees: -in education .2 1% -in ed. admin. 85% ..................... ...................... ..................... 'Figures derived from 1972 National Education Association Research data and the 1974 Digest of Eduationol S~utistics,published by the National Center for Education Statistics, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The underutilization of qualified women within elementary-secondary education (suggested by the figures which show more women holding advanced degrees in education than are employed in the administrative positions for which such degrees could qualify them) indicates the probable existence of discriminatory policies and practices. Data regarding the employment of women within higRer education faculties likewise suggest the existence and prevalence of sex discrimination. -Although women received 12.91% of the doctoral degrees conferred between 1920 and 1973, in 1974, women were only 10.4% of all full professors. This 1974 figure represents an increase of .5 percent from 1972.23 -A survey by the Educational Testing Service of women and men who earned their Ph.D's in 1950, 1960, and 1968, indicated that as time passed, women fell farther behind their male colleagues in both salary and rank.% Although some of the differential in pay and rank may be attributable to relatively fewer years of continuous full-time work by the women, a number of the women surveyed stated that they had experienced career interruptions which were themselves due to anti-nepotism rules applied with discriminatory impact upon women. -National figures regarding the employment of women in postsecondary education indicate that women are heavily concentrated in the lower academic ranks. In 1974, women were: 10.3% of all professors; 16.9% of all associate professors; 27.1 % of all assistant professors; 40.6% of all instructors.* Many other forms of sex dircriminetion exist in education programs and institutions. Some, possibly because of their very pervasiveness, have not been subject to the systematic documentation which has been previously described. They do, however, function t o deny equal education to males and females. They include such policies or practices as those which establish: differential course or graduation requirements for females and males; education programs which differentiate between males and females in required activities and available facilities; a physical extracurricular activities which are provided on a sex-segregated basis; honors and awards for which students are selected on the basis of sex; policies governing student dress, conduct or residence which diifenntiate on the basis of sex; student employment services which differentiate on the basis of sex. All of the above constitute policies or practices which are prohibited under Title IX. One additional area which has been the subject of much public attention is sex-role stereotyping and sex discrimination in textbooks and instructional materials. Numerous studies have documented that from preschool through graduate level, texts and instructional materials in virtually every subject area or discipline present limiting and stereotyped images of both females and males. Females are largely invisible; when they do appear, they are usually portrayed as passive and emotional creatures defined primarily by their relationships t o men, or as curious diversions briefly interrupting the male course of political, economic, scientific or artistic endeavor. Males are generally portrayed in opposite but equally stereotyped roles: they are usually striving and achieving in adventure, career or public roles, with little family or emotional life and few human limitation^.^ Bias in textbooks and instructional materials is explicitly not covered in the body of the Title IX Regulation. The Preamble to the Regulation does, however, acknowledge the issue as one of concern, particularly at the elementary-secondary level. It further ncornmends the development by State and local education agencies of criteria for the selection of nonbiased materials. What are the effects of sex discrimination in education programs and activities? Sex discrimination in education programs and activities functions not only to deny the rights of individuals to that equality of opportunity to which they are legally entitled but also to affect the ability of individuals to participate fully in other societal institutions and benefits. Although it is difficult to separate the direct effects of sex discrimination in education from a larger pattern of societal sex stereotyping, several recent studies suggest possible relationships , between discrimination and stereotyping in education and academic and career outcomes. Recent data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress indicate that there are significant differences in academic achievement by males and females. According t o Assessment figures published in 1975: Males outperform females in four of the eight major subject areas examined: mathematics, science, social studies and citizenship. In the other four learning areas, females consistently outperform males in only one, writing, and maintain a slight advantage in one other, music. In the other twg subjects, reading and literature, females outperform males until age 9, and then decline in relative performance urltil, by ages 26-35, they lag behind males. In the male-dominated areas (mathematics, science, social studies and citizenship), males and females show scholastic understandings that are fairly equal until the onset of adolescence. By age 13, however, females begin a decline in performance which continues downward through age 17 and into a d ~ l t h o o d . ~ A review of research regarding basic psychological sex differences suggests that the extent and degree of these sex differences in achievement are not explainable by basic sex differencesin abilities.= Although research indicates that males do exceed females in mathematical and visualspatial ability, which is consistent with their superior performance on the mathematics sections of the Assessment, it also indicates that females have greater verbal ability than do males. It is thus difficult to explain the consistent performance deficits of females in such largely verbal areas as social studies and citizenship and their ultimate decline in reading and literature achievement on the basis of basic ability differences. It is more plausible, however, to identify some of the sources of these differences in education programs which discriminate and stereotype on the basis of sex. Male achievement in science may be facilitated by science textbooks which, beginning at elementary school, are the most mrlr-1' -,inat, -' a m subiect area? it may be reinforced by guidance counselors who discourage the partic~pationof females in science programs;30 and it may be shaped by relative dominance of men in science teaching positions. The performance deficit of females in an area as apparently neutral as citizenship may be in part accounted for by government textbooks which largely omit or denigrate the role of females in the political institutions of the nation.31 tf Another study suggests the effect which sex discrimination in educational employment may have upon student outcomes and achievement. In a sample of women derived from three successive editions of Who's Who of American Women, there was a strong positive correlation between the number of women faculty on a campus and the number of women achievers graduating from that campus.* Women students on campuses where women are denied faculty positions as a result of sex dis( rimination are thus denied role models to support their academic success and ultimate achievement. 7 itle IY is an important tool for the improvement of education practice and institutions so that they m y more effectively meet the individual needs of all students and the needs of our society for the fuller utilization of the talents within it. The criteria and procedures for compliance which are specified in its implementing Regulation provide guidelines for efforts by education agencies and institutions t o modify policies and practices which discriminate on the basis of sex and remedy their vffects. The Jata summarized in this pamphlet suggest that this process cannot begin too soon. l8 women's Equity Action League, Texas Division,Sravey of Sex Diccn'rnination in the Waco Independent School Disnict (Houston, Texas: Women's Equity Action League, 1973). 19~ationalSchool Public Relations Association, School@l RrgMncy: Old P m M e m , New Solutions (Washington, D.C.: National School Public Relations A d t i o n , 1972), p. 1. 21 Sheila Tobias, E. Kwetz and D. Spitz, eds., fioceedings of the Cornell Confhme on Women (Ithaca, New York: Cornen University, 1969). 22 RM. Oltman, Cmnpus 1970: W h m Do We Stand? (Washington, D.C.: American Associntion of University Women, 1971). 23 National Center for Education Statistics, published in ?he Chmicle of Hfghcr &dudon 9,10 Februu y 1975. 2 4 h e CAronicIc of H r g b Education, 13 January 1975, cited in RfpmrOtive Action: Steps TdEqufty in HMer Education (Washington,D.C. Natiod Education Association, 1975). 25 National Education Amciation, AfprmmiVe Action: Steps Towurd Equity in Hi* ington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1975), p. T-I. Educntion (Wash- 26 Lenore J. Weitman and Diane Rtzzo,Biend Textbooks: A R e d Pmpcctfve and Action Steps You Cmr Take (Washington, D.C.: Resource Center on Sex Roles in Education, National Foundation for the Improvement of Education, 1974); Janice L. Trecker, "Women in US. History High School Textbooks," Sociul Ed-don 35 (February 1971): 249-261; Women on Words and Images,Dickand Jmeas Victim&' Sex S t m e o m in W r e n S R e d i m (Rinceton, New J e w : Women on Words and Images, 1972). 27 National Assessment of Educational Progress, W e s Dominate in Educati~nalSuccess," NREP New$letter, October 1975. (NAEP is a project of the Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colorado.) 28 Eleanor Maccoby and Carol Jacklin, h e PsychologV of Sex DzjYermccs (Stanford, California: Stanford Universi@Prerr,1974). 29 Lenon J. Weitman and Diane Riw,BiPsed Textbook. 30"Perspectives on Counselor Bias: Implications for Counselor Education." 31Jennifer Macleod and Sandra Silverman, You Won4 Do: What Textbooks on US. Government Teach High School Girls (Pittsburgh, Pa.: KNOW, Inc., 1973). 3 2 ~ b e t hTidball, "Perspective on Academic Women and Affmative Action," Eduartionol Record (Spring 1973): 130-135. DEPARTMENT OF IIEALTH, EDUCATION, Am WELFARE JUNE 1975 Office for Civil Rights Washington, D.C. 20201 TITLE IX QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS QUESTION : What is Title 1x3 ANSWER : Title IX is that portion of the Education Amendments of 1972 which forbids discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs or activities which receive Federal funds. QUESTION : Who is covered by Title 1x3 ANSWER : Virtually every college, university, elementary and secondary school and preschool is covered by some portion of the law. Many clubs and other organizations receive Federal funds for educational programs and activities and likewise are covered by Title IX in some manner. QUESTION: Who is exempt from Title IX's provisions? ANSWER : Congress has s~ecificallyexempted all military schools .and has exempted religious schools to the extent that the provision. of Title IX would be inconsistent with the basic religious tenets of the school. .Not included with regard to admission requirements ONLY are private undergraduate colleges, nonvocational elementary and secondary schools and those public undergraduate schools which have been traditionally and continuously single-sex since their establishment. However, even institutions whose admissions are exempt from coverage must treat all students without discrimination once they have admitted members of both sexes. QUESTION : Does the law cover social sororities and fraternities? . -ANSWERCongress has exempted the membership practices of social fraternities and sororities at the postsecondary level, the Y.M.C.A., Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Camp Fire Girls, Y.W.C.A., and certain voluntary youth services organizations. However, i f a n y ' o f t h e s e o r g a n i z a t i o n s conduct e d u c a t i o n a l programs which r e c e i v e F e d e r a l funds open t o nonmembers, t h o s e programs must be o p e r a t e d i n a nondiscriminatory manner. QUESTION: May a v o c a t i o n a l school l i m i t enrollment o f members of one s e x because of l i m i t e d a v a i l a b i l i t y of job o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r members of t h a t sex? ANSWER : No. F u r t h e r , a s c h o o l may not a s s i s t a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y employer by r e f e r r a l of s t u d e n t s o r any o t h e r manner. p7ESTION: I n a t h l e t i c s , what is e q u a l o p r n t u n i t y ? ANSWER : I n determining whether e q u a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s a r e a v a i l a b l e , such f a c t o r s a s t h e s e w i l l be considered: -whether t h e s p o r t s s e l e c t e d r e f l e c t t h e i n t e r e s t s and a b i l i t i e s of b o t h sexes: -provision o f s u p p l i e s and equipment: -game and p r a c t i c e schedules; - t r a v e l and per diem allowances; -coaching and academic t u t o r i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s and t h e assignment and pay of t h e coaches and t u t o r s ; - l o c k e r rooms, p r a c t i c e and c o m p e t i t i v e facilities; * -medical and t r a i n i n g s e r v i c e s ; -housing and d i n i n g f a c i l i t i e s and s e r v i c e s ; QUESTION: Must an i n s t i t u t i o n provide e q u a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n each o f these categories? ANSWER : Yes. However, e q u a l e x p e n d i t u r e s i n each category a r e not required. QUESTION: What sports does the term "athletics" encompass? ANSWER: The term "athletics" encompasses sports which are a part of interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural programs. QUESTION: When are separate teams for men and women .allowed? ANSWER : When selection is based on competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport, separate teams may be provided for males and females, or a single team may be provided which is open to both sexes. Xf separate.teams are offered, a recipient institution may not discriminate on the basis of Rex in providing equipment or supplies or in any other manner. Moreover, the institution must assure t b t the sports offered effectively accommodate the interest and abilities of members of both sexes. QUESTION : If there are sufficient numbers of women interested in basketball to form a viable women's basketball team, is an institution which fields a men's basketball team required to provide such a team for women? ANSWZR: One of the factors to be considered by the Director in determining whethey equal opportunities are provided is whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes. Therefore, if a school offers basketball for men and the only. way in which the institution can accommodate the interests and abilities of women is by offering a separate basketball team for women, such a team must be provided. QUESTION : If there are insufficient women interested in participating on a women's track team, must the institution allow-an i~terested woman to compete for a slot on the men's track team? ANSWER : If athletic opportunities h v e previously been limited for women at that school, it must allow women to compete for the men's team if the sport is a noncontact sport such as track. The school may preclude women from participating on a men's team in a contact sport. A school may preclude men or women from participating on teams for the other sex if athletic opportunities have not been limited in the past for them, regardless of whether the sport is contact or noncontact. QUESTION : Can a school be exempt from Title IX if its athletic conference forbids men and women on the same noncontact team? ANSWER No. Title IX preempts all state or local laws or other requirements which conflict with Title IX. QUESTION: How can a school athletics department be covered bv Title IX if the department itself reqeives no direct Federal aid? - ANSWER: Section 844 of the Education Amendments of 1974 specifically states that: "The Secretary shall prepare and publish...proposed regulations implementing the provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 relating to the prohibition of sex discrimination in Federally-assisted education programs which shall include with respect to intercollegiate athletic activities reasonable provisions considering the nature of particular sports. " In addition, athletics constitutes an integral part of the educational processes of schools and colleges and, thus, are fully subject to the requirements of Title IX, even in absence of Federal funds going directly to the athletic programs, The courts have consistently considered athletics sponsored by an educational institution to be an integral part of the institution's education program and, therefore, have required institutions to provide equal opportunity. QUESTION : goes a school have to provide athletic scholarships for women ANSWER: Specifically, the regulation provides: "To the extent that a recipient awards athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid, it must provide reasonable opportunities for such awards for members of each sex in proportion to the number of students of each sex participating in interscholastic or intercollegiate athletics. " QCESTION : ow can schools and colleges interested in a positive apgroach to Title IX deal-with-itsprovisions? PJJSWER: TO encourage each school and college to look at its policies in light of the law, the final regulation now includes a self-evaluation provision. This requires that during the next year the educational institution look at its policies and modify them to comply with the law as expressed by the regulation. This includes remedying the effects of any past discrimination. '-4 QUZSTION : Does Title I X cover textbooks? ANSWER: No. While the Department recognizes that sex stereotyping in curricula and educational material is a serious matter, it is of the view that any specific regulatory requirement in this area raises constitutional questions under the First Amendment. The Department believes that local education agencies must deal with this problem in the exercise of their traditional authority and control over curriculum and course content. QUESTION : Many universities administer substantiai sums of scholarship money created by wills and trusts which are restricted to one sex. If the will or trust cannot be changed to remove the restriction, must the universities cease administration of the scholarship? ANSWER: Where colleges administer domestic or foreign scholarships designated by a will, trust or similar legal instrument, exclusively for one sex or the other, the scholarship recipients should initially be chosen without regard to sex. Then, when the time comes to award the money, sex may be taken into consideration in matching available money with students to be awarded the money. Scholarships, awards or prizes which are not created by a will, trust, or similar legal instrument, may not be sexrestricted. I Y I m c c c 0- 0 -aY a+ aaa 0 C 3 C- P2E E - mC=-m - e ~ o r a m E L 0 V L a 0 aw 0 . -ax+ m e > > =- --UC J O - - 8 ELxSG Q 1XW Y N m - 0m-I-Y m I C 0 ) a L .c ->*-a La->an a+' O C L - ( r L C Z oacm3 aom- 0 m a *-* . L W Y 0 a KO>* - 1 m=:g-c:24 c>-uc I - Y g o CoK ~? o r. L 3y o I QE-a oo m a c ~ o a - r - D moc L m- 0 e** 5-2 $ ea . .1- . a - Y L c LIB 0 C Q X E M + .-C m 0 -0 E-z mu- a uQ YL e Y - Q 0C L L Q Y 'L m u m 0- C Y -0 3 a LRS8O-17949 Hunter, Lisa,ed. Marzone. Jean.ed. Funding tor women's educational equity. Washhgton. American Educational Research Association. 1980. 6 9 p. -- Sex discrimination in sports-U.S. --Law and legislation / Women athletes-- U.S. / College sports-U.S. / Nondiscrimination provisions U.S. / Federal aid to education-U.S. HO 1428 U.S. B ... Howland. Courtney W. Sex discrimination and intercollegiate athletics: putting some muscle on title IX. Vale law journal. v. 1 8 . May 1979: 1254-1279. nIntercollegiate athletics have been and continue to be a male domain that is particularly vulnerable to charges of sex discrimination. Congress addressed the general problem of sex discrimination in education by enacting Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basts of sex in any educational program receiving federal aid. Although the statute wtll alter the manner in which women are treated in education, the changes anticipated in intercollegiate athletics have received the most publlc attentton and caused the greatest controversy." Comment argues "that the general language of the statute, together with certatn specific features of it, strongly suggest that HEW should develop more stringent and demanding regulations. It further suggests that in developing these regulations HEW should look to social policy considerations concerning sex discrfmination in intercollegiate sports. " LRS7S-12728 -- LRS78-2318 1.mplementing title IX: tho HEW regulations. University of Pennsylvania law review. v. 124. Jan. 1976: 806-842. "Comment wlll first develop from the legislative history. from executive and judicial Interpretation of Titles VI and VII of the Civtl Rights Act of 1964, and from relevant constitutional adjudication. a framework with which to approach Title IX. The framework wlll then be applied to evaluate the HEW regulations as an implementatton of the mandate of Title IX in the substantive areas of admissions and recruitment, access to classes and activities. behavior and appearance rules, use of marital or parental status, facilities. and athletics.* Women's education-- U.S. Conferences / Grants-tn-aid-- U.S. Conferences / Federal aid programs-U.S. --Conferences G (Gladstone) -- 'Papers presented at the April 1979 AERA Symposium 'Funding for Women with a Special Emphasis on S w r c e s for Women's Educatlonal Equitye Son Franctsco. Californta: Partial contents.--Practical pP0blbmS in obtaintng research and development funds for women. by L. Hunter.--Women and contracting for the Federal Government. by 0. Kooi.-Federal funding of RLO programs for women's educational equity: possible sources in the Department of Labor and other agencies. by A. Herman.-Science education efforts on behalf of women. by L. 1ngison.--The National Institute of Education. by P. Graham.--The Women's Educational Equity Act program. by M. Smalley.-Funding *closetL RID at FIPSE. by A. Berstein.--An overview of foundation and corporate fundlng for women's equity in education. by J. Lyman.-The Ford Foundation. by T. Saario.--A review of resources to help women learn how to secure RBD funds. by P. Templ in. - -- College sports-- U.S. --Law and legislation / Sex discrimination in sports-- U.S. --Law and legislation / Sex discrimfnation against women-U.S. --Law and legtslation / Affirmative action programs-- U.S. Law and legislatton / Women athletesU.S. --Law and legislation HO 1428 U.S. B LRS79-21108 Jensen. June E. Tttle IX and intercollegiate athletics: HEW gets serious about equaltty in sports? New England law review. v. 15. no. 3. 1979-19880: 573596. Comment wconsiders the policy interpretatton issued by HEW on Dec. if. 1979. The policy interpretation is an attempt by HEW to clarify the standard of equality in athletics for colleges and universities. The interpretation deals with athletics. both intramural and intercollegiate. but was specifically intended to answer questlons concerning intercollegiate sports. The policy statement tu first analyzed with regard to the sppropriatenesss of including athletics wlthin Tttle IX'u mandate. Second, its effecttveness in dealtog with the problems women encounter in tntercollegiate athletics are examined." Women's education-- U.S. / Higher education-- U.S. / Physical education and trafning-- U.S. / Affirnattve action programs-- U.S. W 1428 U.S. 8 LRS7S-200SS An interview on tftle IX with Shirley Chisholn. Holly Knox, Leslie R. Wolfe. Cynthia G. Brown. and Mary Kaaren Jolly. Hsrvard educational review. v . 4 9 . Nov. 1979: 504-526. Explores the effects of Tttle IX of the Education Amendnsnts of I972 and the controversy surrounding its implementation. PAGE 3 Sex discrtmfnation in education-U.S. --Law and legislation LB 15 U.S. A xn In3 I . . t -g i - aL u o . am. o m 30 0 0) X -m a - O\_o I I C -f I I - a.C-E 0 - aL n cm - ve te o - L- - C;$? ca -u? C E 0-\\ / Matthews. Martha. McCune. Shlrley. Title IX grievance procedures: an introductory manual. Washington. U.S. Office of Education. for sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off.. 1 v. (various paglngs) 1977 LRS77-11049 Women athletes-- U.S. / Sex discrimination in education-- U.S. Physical education and training-U. s. 1428 U.S. B Ley. Katherine. Women in sports: where do we go from here. boys? Phi Delta Kappan. v. 56. Oct. 1974: 129-131. Examines the possible impact on women's physical educatlon programs of recent steps taken by the Congress to prohibit sexual discrimination under federally asslsted education programs and activities. claiming that many problems still remaln and that under the new provisions the influence of women in decision-making processes may decline. Women athletes-- U.S. / Physical education and training-- U.S. / Sex discrlmination in education-- U.S. / Sex discrimination in sports-- U.S. 1428 U.S. B Leepson. Marc. Women in sports. Washington Editorial Research Reports. 1977. 331348 p. (Editorial research reports. 1977. v. 1. no. 171 Contents.--sexism in the sports world.--Title IX's impact on athletics.--Prospects for change in future. LRS77-4880 Sex discrimination in education-U.S. --Law and legislation / Federal aid to education-- U.S. --Law and legislation / Women athletes-- U.S. HQ 1428 U.S. B LRS77-16818 Project on Equal Education Rights. Stalled at the start: pvernment action on sex bias in the schools. Washington. 1977. 9 0 p. -- Sex discrimination in education-U.S. / Executive departments-U.S. / Nondiscrimlnatlon provisions U.S. / U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare. L8 15 U.S. A Project on Equal Education Rights. Stalled at the start: government action on sex bfas in the schools. Washington. 1977 79 p. Analyzes the way HEW has handlad Title IX colaplaints brought against elementary and secondary schools and finds that HEW has failed to fulfill its responsibility to enforce the taw. LRS77-19408 Women's education-- U.S. --Law and legislation / Sex discrlmination in education-- U.S. --Law and legislation G (Gladstone) Maurer, Kathleen. Women's Educational Equity Act: projects. Washington U.S. Advisory Council on Women's Educational Programs, 1979. 36 p. Defines the Women's Educational Equity Act and discusses its spplicatton to rural schools. career training for women offenders. women's sports. and so forth. LRS79-21246 Sex discrimination in education-U.S. / School administration-U.S. / Admlnfstrative procedure-U.S. O (Keestlng) Sets forth a structure within whlch educatlon agencier and institutions may systematically review. evaluate. modlfy. or further develop their procedures for processing complaints of sex discrimlnation brought under title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments. ... LRS81-8713 Rubin. Kim. Disparate impact suits under title IX. Stanford law review. v . 33. Apr. 1981: 737-751. "In response to widespread genderbased discrimination in education. Congress enacted Tltle IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of SOX In any education program or activlty receivlng federal financial asslstance: Cocmnent ndescribes Title IX and Its implementing regulat1ons.and introduces tha competing standards of 'discriminatory intente and Odisparate impact' in dlscrlmination Argues that the disparate law. impact test should apply to sex dlscrlninatlon suits under Title IX. based on tha legislative hlstory of the Act and by analogy with Titles VII and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ' -- Sex discrimtnation In education-U.S. / Nondiscrimination provisions U.S. / Government regulation-U.S. / U.S. Dept. of Health. Education. and Welfare. LB 15 U.S. A . PAGE 5 *In its role as the protector of the rights Congress guaranteed in Title IX. HEW has three basic responslbillties: to inform the pub1 ic of rights now guaranteed under the law, and let educators know about their responsibilities: to Investlgate charges brought by citizens who have been damaged by. or know of. violations of the law. and to correct those violations in a reasonable time; to initiate checks in other schools to make sure that opportunities are available equally to glrls and boys. and women and men. By all the evidence the project could find. HEW has failed to fulfill Its responslbllitles on all three counts C 0 C 0 Yx- QU 2 355 @ Y O -c 3 Y L K O . oec 0 mm e + - 0 0 Y * - Y C Y c 0) 0 0 L 0 E Q - 0) e-- -- 2 PB D - c a -QL' m - 0 0 a- L C C Q- s?. Y Y Q W Q D C 0: Y m c 0 z'=c O c Q 3 m ac- L P) r c 0.1) E >I! 0 Y Y L m t - ;P 0-- m 0 n m E W Q O 0; 0 -- 0- 0 r m s c - C a Y m z m m -m 3 . cp W .. Q -0 c u m c - c w mC - Y X 0 Q Y 0 0m L Y 0 0 ->s s-Y r C 0 3 3 :: "P \- f m m m a YUgB L L L O O Q I 8Bc:x m u m Q Q Y L U I PO- 0 Q Q - a \ - - o m -- 0 0 8 c m 00:-Q L -- -- 8 \\.cm E 0 C m m c Y m 0 m v c C Y cL Lac- O O C E ce-- --s L m o L m a m M Y 003- W DE ... -- Symposium: sports and the law. Western State U n l v e r s l t y law review. v. 3. s p r l n g 1976: 185-283. Women's organizations-- U.S. D i r e c t o r i e s / Sex d i s c r l m l n a t i o n I n education-- U.S. - - D i r e c t o r i e s (Gladstone) . LRSIO-17128 Smith. D o r i s . Plngree. Suzanne. D l r e c t o r y o f organlzatlons working f o r women's educational e q u l t y . Son Franclsco. Women's Educatlonal Equity Communlcatlons Network. 1980. 128 a. Thls booklet l l s t ; s t a t e . l & a i . n a t i o n a l and reglonal organizatlons whlch have women's concerns as a major focus and whlch are "concerned a t l e a s t i n p a r t w l t h educatlonal I t Includes a subject equlty: Index - -- Sex d l s c r l m l n a t l o n agalnst women-U.S. --Law and l e g l s l a t l o n / Federal o l d t o educatton-- U.S. --Law and l e g l s l a t l o n / Nondlscrlmlnatlon / Sex provlslons-- U.S. d l s c r l m l n a t l o n l n education-- U.S. Law and l e g l s l a t i o n / Sex d l s c r i m l n a t l o n I n employment-- U.S. -Law and l e g i s l a t i o n HO 1428 U.S. C ... ... "Section 901 o f T l t l e I X o f tho Education Amendments o f 1972 p r o h l b l t s d l s c r l m l n a t l o n on the basts o f sex i n educatlonal programs r e c e l v t n g federal f l n a n c l a l o l d . The Department o f Health. Educatlon. and Welfare ('HEW'). pursuant t o s e c t l o n 902 o f the Act. promulgated r e g u l a t i o n s t o fmplement T i t l e I X . Slnce the regulatlons were Issued. several schools have challenged HEW'S Interference w i t h an area o f t h e l r a d m l n i s t r a t l o n over which:they say. the Act and HEW have Thls comment no c o n t r o l . analyzes these cases. examines the l e g l s l a t l v e h t s t o r y o f T i t l e I X , and concludes t h a t s e c t l o n 901 authorizes HEW t o r e g u l a t e employment practices. b u t t h a t the agency must l l m i t the e f f e c t of i t s r e g u l a t l o n s t o s p e c i f i c programs t h a t receive federal f i n a n c i a l aid: LRS74-20223 Todd. James C. T l t l e I X o f the 1972 education amendments: preventlng sex d l s c r l m l n a t l o n i n p u b l i c schools. Texas law review. v. 53. Dec. 1974: 103126. -- - Sox d l s c r i m l n a t l o n i n sports-U.S. --Law and l e g i s l a t i o n / Sox d l s c r i m l n a t l o n agalnst women-- U.S. -Law and l e g i s l a t i o n / Sex d i s c r l n i n a t l o n in employment-- U.S. -Law and I e g i s l a t l o n / Wolnen a t h l e t e s U.S. --Law and I e g t s l a t l o n / Women's education-- U.S. --Law and leglslatlon HQ 1428 U.S. B . LRS7O-I217 Thurston. Paul. J u d l c f a l dismemberment o f T l t l e I X . Phi D e l t a Kappan, v. 60. Apr. 1979: 594596. " T l t l e I X , heralded as b r i n g i n g an and t o sax d i s c r l m l n a t l o n t n the p u b l i c schools, I s I n danger o f betng emasculated by several recent c o u r t Recent c o u r t decislons. declslons. f o r example. have challenged the l e g a l l t y of p a r t o f the athletics s e c t l o n and questlonod the enforceability o f much o f the r e s t o f the T l t l e I X regulations: -- -- / Sports and s t a t e - - U.S. C o l l e c t l v e labor agreements-- U.S. Legal cases / P r o f e s s l o ~ lsports-U.S. --Legal cases / Teleconnunlcatlon law and l e g i s l a t i o n U.S. / Sex d l s c r l m l n a t l o n l n educatlon-- U.S. / Women athlotes-/ A n t i t r u s t law-- U.S. --Legal U.S. cases / Suprema C w r t decislons / Nattonal Collegtate A t h l e t i c Assoclatlon. / Flood v. Kuhn LL Par. Contents.--The emancipation o f professional athletes, by L. Sobel.-Congress tackles sports and broadcastlng, by P. Hochberg.--Title I X and the NCAA. by J. Koch.--The aftermath o f Flood v. Kuhn: professional baseball's exemption from a n t t t r u s t regulation, by P. Martln. - Women's education-- U.S. --Law and l e g l s l a t l o n / Educational equalization-- U.S. --Law and l e g l s l a t l o n / Textbooks-- U.S. / Educatlonal c w n s e l t n g - - U.S. RBC 1220 LRS73-27191 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Educatlon and Labor. Subcommittee on Equal Opportunltles. Tho Women's Educational Equity Act. Hearings. 93d Cong.. 1st mess.. on H.R. 208. P a r t 1. Washlngton. U.S. Govt. P r i n t . O f f . . 1973. 622 p . Hearlngs h e l d J u l y 25. ..Sept. 13. 1973. Sex d l s c r i n l n a t l o n i n education-U.S. --Law end l e g l s l a t i o n / Federal a i d t o education-- U.S. --Law and Dept. o f Health. l e g l s l a t l o n / U.S. Educatlon. and Welfare. Office for C t v l l Rights. G (Gladstone) LRSIO-13063 U.S. Commlsslon on C i v i l Rights. Entorclng t l t l e I X : a r e p o r t . Washlngton 1980. 78 p . Concludes t h a t through 1979. HEW'S O f f i c e f o r C l v l l Rights .has been very slow t o Issue important I t has been slow t o guideltnes, process complaints. I t has shown l l t t l e cocnnltment t o d l s c o v e r l n g violations or t o asslstlng l n s t l t u t l o n s t o prevent them: Federal a l d t o aducatlon-- U.S. Law and l e g i s l a t i o n / Sex d l s c r i n l n a t l o n agalnst women-- U.S. -Law and l o g l s l a t l o n LB 75 A -- PAGE 7 A r t i c l e concludes t h a t . T i t l e I X I s more apt t o achieve i t s purposes if tha HEW r e g u l a t l o n s r e f l e c t the I n t e n t behind tho Act and g l v e l t maximum extension: LRS73-28178 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Subcommittee on Education. Women's Educat ion01 Equity Act of 1973. Hear i ngs , 93d Cong.. 1st sess.. on S. 2518. Oct . 17 and Nov. 9. 1973. Washington. U.S. Covt. Print. Off.. 1973. 426 p. Sex discrfmination in education-U.S. --Law and legfslation / Women athletes-- U.S. --Law and legislatton / Physical education and training-U.S. --law and legislation / Hlgher education-- U.S. --Law and legislation / Sports and state-U.S. RBC 1321 LRS78-887 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor end Public Welfare. Subcommittee on Education. Prohibltion of sex discrimination. 1975. Hearings. 94th Cong.. ist SesS.. on S. 2106. Sept. 16 and 18. 1975. Washington. U.S. Oovt. Print. Off.. 1976. 440 p. Legtslatfon to exempt certain revenue productng fntercolleglate athletic actlvities from the provlsion of tltle IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Sex discrlmtnation in education-U.S. --Law and legislatton / Wolnan athletes-- U.S. --Law and legislation / Federal aid to higher education-U.S. --Law and legislation RBC 771 LRS7S-14SB0 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Educatlon and Labor. Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education. Sex discrimination regulations. Hearings. 94th Cong., ist sess. Washlngton. U.S. Oovt. Prlnt. Off.. 1975. 664 p. Hearings held June $7...26. 1975. / Woman's LRS78-4487 U.S. Dept. of Health. Education. and Welfare. Office of Civil Rights. Nondtscrtmlnatlon ln Federally assisted programs: directive on the application of title IX to intercollegiate athletics. Federal regtster. v. 43. May 2. 1978: 1877218775. Memoranda and documentary materials on the implementation of Title IX athletic requirements. Concludes "that institutions of higher education receiving Federal ffnancial . assistance must comply with Title IX in the administration of their . revenue-producing athletic actlvities." Women's education-- U.S. Educational Equity Act COV (Gladstone) ... LRSIl-5731 U.S. Dept. of Educatlon. Women's Educational Equity Act program. annual report 1980. 113 p. Washtngton. 1981 "The Women's Educational Equity Act (WEEA) represents a significant Federal effort to confront the massive problems of sexism in American education, manifested in a variety of discrtminatory attitudes. stereotypes and practices. Durtng Fiscal Year i98O. its fifth year of funding, the WEEA Program targeted Its resources on areas of greatest need. as defined by its five funding priorities: a total of 365 grants have been awarded since 1976: Presents grant summaries for projects in such areas as Title IX compliance: educational equity for ethnic. recial and minority women: and ellmination of barrfers to educational equity. Women@s education-- U.S. --Law and legislation / Educational e~ualiration--U.S. --Law and legislation / Colleges-- U.S. RBC 1308 LRS78-6475 U.S. National Advisory Councll on Women's Educattonal Programs. To provlde educattonal equity for women: third annual report. 1977. Washington. For sate by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Oovt. Print. Off.. i978 31 P. National Advisory Council on Women's Educattonal Programs report discusses the Council's activities during 1977. The Council '.valuated the Women's Educational Equlty Act Program and advised on improvements. It studied sex discriminatlon in the Education bivfsion of the Department of Health. Education and Welfare and made recommendations deal ing with management, funding. communications and products. data. and ragulations. It Investigated the special educational needs of neglected population groups and looked into the status of women*s studies programs in our colleges and uni~erclities.~ Sex discrimination-- U.S. --Law and legfslation / Women's education-U.S. --Law and legislation H0 1428 U.S. B LRSlI-8778 U.S. Dept. of Health. Education. and Welfare. Office of the Secretary. Nondiscrimfnation on basis of sex: education programs and actlvities receiving or benefiting from Federal financial assistance. Federal register. v. 40. June 4. 1975: 2412724145. Regulations implementing Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments. PAGE 8 Sex discrimination in education-U.S. --Law and legislatton / Sex discrimination in sports-- U.S. --Law and legislatlon / Women athletes-U.S. --Law and legislation / College sports-- U.S. --Law and legislation / Federal aid to higher education-U.S. --Law and legislation HO 1428 U.S. 8 LRSBO-13570 Women's Educational Equity Communications Network. Resources in women's educational equity. Sen franlsco. Calif.. for sale by the Supt. of Docs.. U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1980. 341 p. Thls work "contains material entered into computerized data bases from spring 1978 through October 1978.. It cites such works as instructional and training materials: descriptions ot educational curricula and programs: and evaluative studies. It includes materials on such topics as women's education. legal Status of women. career development for women. women's health issues. and sex role. College sports-- U.S. / Women athletes-- U.S. / Associations. institutions, etc.-- U.S. / National Collegiate Athletic Association. HO 1428 U.S. B LRS78-8011 Vlsser. Lesley. Title IX: equality. Boston gl0be. June 14. 1978. p. 2i. 24: June 15. p. 49. 41: June 16. p. 39. 43. Series of three articles discusses the influence of Title IX (which prohibits discrlminatlon on the the basis of sex In educational programs and activities whlch receive Federal funding) on college athletic programs. Also discusses National Collegiate Athletic Association sentiments about the provisions of Title IX and considers the impact of Title IX on the athletic programs at three New England colleges, University of Rhode Island. Boston State College. and Harvard Unlversi ty. -- Women's education-- U.S. / Women educators-- U.S. / Sex discrimination in education-- U.S. / Sex discrimination against women-U.S. / Discrimination in employment U.S. / Women's employment-- U.S. / Federal employees-- U.S. / Executive departments-- U.S. / U.S. Dept. of Health. Education. and Welfare. Education Division. A (Lewis) -- -- Women's employment-- U.S. Bibliography / Wofa~n--U.S. Bibliography / Sex discrimination In education-- U.S. --Bibliography O (Oladstone) PAGE 9