Washmgton. D.C. 2054
Congressional Research Service
The Library of Congress
SEX DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION: TITLE IX
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
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
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.
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 . )
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.,
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.,
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
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.
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.,
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,
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.
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.
Washington Information Directory, 1981-82.
NEW YORK TIM@
~ ~ G 1 5 1 9 8 1D.
Study of Title LX
ISNo Big Surprise
dlgnrttoaud tile rlmaa blasCrt.t
ment o! Margo Polivy. "It must
hve ken rn dull QY rftb Caaprcsr
ncp for che ~ t i o for
AthlM6 k?WOmen, rrid
Mlu hpbm. tbc romen'r A*
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
T i t l c M . n u y b w r ~ .. ~
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.
I condud Wmuen's cham
the FaYexd Education Amcab
f ~ ,
tm a d
for ncartp A
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
Bush quom Fa*
.'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
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
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-
r019 s u m ¶ '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-
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
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
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.
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
805 15th Street. N.W . Su~te822
washmgton. D.C 20005
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
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
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:
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
RECENT TITLE IX DEVELOPMENTS
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).
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
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.
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
Copies o f H.R.
311, and H.R.
1904 can be obtained free
The House Documents Room
Washington, DC 20515
Copies o f S. 1378, S. 1361, and S. 1091 can be obtained free by
The Senate Documents Room
Washington, DC 20510
I n The Office o f Management and Budget
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
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
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
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
- page five
Yellow Springs Exempted School District 1. Ohio H i h School
Circuit ~ o u r m
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
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
O'Connor v. Board of Education of School District 23: The
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.
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
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,
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.
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:
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
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 .
Ln.hor2.U1tbsthrsebrurcbaafOoranrnent. rp4 ~ u r u w m x mm t e or overping or comprting t~&
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
?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
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
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
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.
June 21, 1981
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,
~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
(1) by IMeruag arter "united 8tst9" the
following: "who ir a studentn;
.ttaI c t i v (1)bJ
---- .a' ( c ) Inr c due rbto csmy
OOt *e pollcy 01 tbe
Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. President, t0brp
w leeialstion with 8ator E
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
the polldm knd prrcucea
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.
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
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
'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-
Resource Center on Sex Roles in Education
National Foundation for the Improvement of Education
US. Depmtment of Health, Education, and Welfmr
David Mathews, Semtmy
Virginh Y. Tbtter, Assistant Secretary for Education
Office of Education
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
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
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
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%
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
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
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.
Assistant Principals .................. I 5 .O%
Central office administrators
Superintendents .................... .6%
BA. degrees in education ............... .74%
Master's d e w s :
-in education. .................... ..56%
-in ed. admin.
-in ed. admin.
'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
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;
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
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
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
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.
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,
Office for Civil Rights
TITLE IX QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
What is Title 1x3
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.
Who is covered by Title 1x3
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.
Who is exempt from Title IX's provisions?
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
However, even institutions whose admissions are exempt
from coverage must treat all students without discrimination
once they have admitted members of both sexes.
Does the law cover social sororities and fraternities?
has exempted the membership practices of social
fraternities and sororities at the postsecondary level, the
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.
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?
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.
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 ?
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
-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 ;
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?
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
What sports does the term "athletics" encompass?
The term "athletics" encompasses sports which are a part
of interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural programs.
When are separate teams for men and women .allowed?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Can a school be exempt from Title IX if its athletic
conference forbids men and women on the same noncontact
No. Title IX preempts all state or local laws or
other requirements which conflict with Title IX.
How can a school athletics department be covered bv
Title IX if the department itself reqeives no direct
Section 844 of the Education Amendments of 1974
specifically states that: "The Secretary shall prepare
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
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
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.
goes a school have to provide athletic scholarships for
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
ow can schools and colleges interested in a positive
apgroach to Title IX deal-with-itsprovisions?
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.
Does Title I X cover textbooks?
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.
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?
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.
c c c
E - mC=-m
- e ~ o r a m
E L 0
a 0 aw 0 .
-ax+ m e > >
J O -
1XW Y N m -
I C 0 ) a L .c
a+' O C L - ( r L
aom- 0 m a *-*
. L W Y
I - Y
o CoK ~? o r. L
m a c ~ o a - r -
.1- . a
C Q X E M +
.-C m 0 -0
'L m u m
0- C Y
-0 3 a
Funding tor women's educational
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
Vale law journal. v. 1 8 . May 1979:
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
1.mplementing title IX: tho HEW
Pennsylvania law review. v. 124. Jan.
"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
'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
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.
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
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
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.
Explores the effects of Tttle IX of
the Education Amendnsnts of I972 and
the controversy surrounding its
Sex discrtmfnation in education-U.S. --Law and legislation
LB 15 U.S. A
I . .
0 - aL
Title IX grievance procedures: an
Office of Education. for sale by the
Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off..
1 v. (various paglngs)
Women athletes-- U.S. / Sex
discrimination in education-- U.S.
Physical education and training-U. s.
1428 U.S. B
Women in sports: where do we go from
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
Women in sports.
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
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
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.
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
Women's education-- U.S. --Law and
legislation / Sex discrlmination in
education-- U.S. --Law and
Women's Educational Equity Act:
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.
Sex discrimination in education-U.S. / School administration-U.S. / Admlnfstrative procedure-U.S.
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
Disparate impact suits under title IX.
Stanford law review. v . 33. Apr. 1981:
"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
Title IX and Its implementing
regulat1ons.and introduces tha
competing standards of
'discriminatory intente and
Odisparate impact' in dlscrlmination
Argues that the disparate
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
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
*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
@ Y O
K O .
mm e +
- 0 0
* - Y
C Y c
0) 0 0
L 0 E
Q - 0)
L C C
W Q D
n m E
W Q O
r m s
c - C
a Y m
z m m
c u m c - c w
r C 0 3 3
m m m a
L L L
O O Q I
Q Q Y L U I
Q Q - a \
- - o m
0 0 8 c m
-- -- 8
m m c Y m
0 m v
c C Y cL
O O C E
m o L
m a m M Y
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
Smith. D o r i s .
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 .
Franclsco. Women's Educatlonal Equity
Communlcatlons Network. 1980.
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
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
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
say. the Act and HEW have
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:
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
HQ 1428 U.S. B
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
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
/ Sex d l s c r l m l n a t l o n l n
/ Women athlotes-/ A n t i t r u s t law-- U.S. --Legal
cases / Suprema C w r t decislons /
Nattonal Collegtate A t h l e t i c
Assoclatlon. / Flood v. Kuhn
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.
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.
Congress. House. Committee on
Educatlon and Labor. Subcommittee on
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.
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.
C t v l l Rights.
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
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
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
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on
Labor and Public Welfare. Subcommittee
Women's Educat ion01 Equity Act of
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.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on
Labor end Public Welfare. Subcommittee
Prohibltion of sex discrimination.
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
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on
Educatlon and Labor. Subcommittee on
Sex discrimination regulations.
Hearings. 94th Cong., ist sess.
Washlngton. U.S. Oovt. Prlnt. Off..
1975. 664 p.
Hearings held June $7...26. 1975.
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
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
Women's education-- U.S.
Educational Equity Act
U.S. Dept. of Educatlon.
Women's Educational Equity Act
program. annual report 1980.
"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.
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
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
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
register. v. 40. June 4. 1975: 2412724145.
Regulations implementing Title IX
of the 1972 Education Amendments.
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
Women's Educational Equity
Resources in women's educational
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
Title IX: equality.
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
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.
Women's employment-- U.S.
Bibliography / Wofa~n--U.S.
Bibliography / Sex discrimination In
education-- U.S. --Bibliography