Entry
Reader's guide
Entries A-Z
Subject index
Title IX and Athletics
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits public and private educational institutions that receive federal funds from discriminating because of gender in any aspect of their operations. If any aspect of a college or university's operations receives federal funds, then all aspects of their operations are subject to Title IX. Insofar as virtually all institutions of higher education receive federal funds in the form of student financial aid, just about all colleges and universities in the United States are covered by Title IX. This entry reviews the impact of Title IX with regard to intercollegiate athletics in American higher education.
The statute explicitly forbids quotas, and judicial interpretations of the law in a wide array of cases are both broader and narrower than the prohibitions against gender discrimination that are provided for by the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although there is no mention of intercollegiate or interscholastic athletics in the actual statute, its implementing regulations make it clear that athletics is covered by Title IX. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S.
Department of Education is the agency charged with the enforcement of Title IX.
Under the OCR's interpretation, which has been universally endorsed by the federal appellate courts, institutional officials must do one of three things in order to achieve compliance with Title IX in the context of athletic participation. Officials may ensure that the representation of each gender is substantially proportionate; they may demonstrate a continuing history of expanding opportunities for students of the underrepresented gender; or they may demonstrate that they are currently accommodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented gender.
Substantial Proportionality
The first way in which institutions may comply with Title IX is to ensure that each gender's representation in varsity athletics is substantially proportionate to its representation in the student body. Of course, the fact that the OCR expects a gender's representation among athletes to be “substantially proportionate” to that gender's representation in the student body necessarily begs the question of what is meant by “substantially proportionate.” In 1996, the OCR clarified that athletic opportunities are “substantially proportionate when the number of opportunities that would be required to achieve proportionality would not be sufficient to sustain a viable team, meaning a team for which there is a sufficient number of interested and able students as well as enough available competition to sustain an intercollegiate team.” In plain English, the OCR first decides how many additional opportunities must be offered to the underrepresented gender in order to achieve perfect proportionality. If this number is sufficient to field a viable team, then institutions are not considered substantially proportionate and must add a team.
As an illustration of how the OCR test works, suppose that university with a student body that is 55% female presently offers 700 athletic participation opportunities. Of these chances, men have 385 athletic participation opportunities while women have 315 participation opportunities. Under this example, this means that women represent 45% of the athletes (315 divided by 700) even though they account for 55% of the full-time undergraduate students. The first step for institutional officials would be to consider how many opportunities they must add for women in order to achieve perfect proportionality of 55%. If male participation remains constant, which is the assumption that the OCR employs, university officials must add 156 participation opportunities for women. If university officials did so, then there would be 471 female opportunities (315 current + 156 additional) and 385 male opportunities (all current). The second step is for officials to address whether the number of new participation opportunities required, 156 in this example, is sufficient to field a viable team. Clearly, this would be sufficient. In fact, a university could field seven or eight new women's teams with 156 additional opportunities.
...
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Affirmative Action and Race-Based Admissions
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Disability
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Faculty Issues
- Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
- Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York
- Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents
- Knight v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York
- Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association
- National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University
- Perry v. Sindermann
- Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing
- Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City
- Sweezy v. New Hampshire
- Urofsky v. Gilmore
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Finance and Governance
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Gender Equity
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Religion and Freedom of Speech
- Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth
- Bob Jones University v. United States
- Healy v. James
- Hunt v. McNair
- Locke v. Davey
- Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri
- Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland
- Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
- Tilton v. Richardson
- Widmar v. Vincent
- Concepts, Theories, and Legal Principles
- Academic Abstention
- Academic Dishonesty
- Academic Freedom
- Affirmative Action
- Catalogs as Contracts
- Conflict of Commitment
- Conflict of Interest
- Copyright
- Disparate Impact
- Due Process, Substantive and Procedural
- Educational Malpractice
- Equal Protection Analysis
- Ex Corde Ecclesiae and American Catholic Higher Education
- Fair Use
- Hate Crimes
- Intellectual Property
- Student Moral Development
- Tax Exemptions for Colleges and Universities
- Tenure
- U.S. Supreme Court Cases in Higher Education
- Zoning
- Constitutional Rights and Issues
- Affirmative Action
- Age Discrimination
- Bill of Rights
- Civil Rights Movement
- Disciplinary Sanctions and Due Process Rights
- Disparate Impact
- Drug Testing of Students
- Due Process, Substantive and Procedural
- Eleventh Amendment
- Equal Protection Analysis
- Federalism
- Fourteenth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment Rights of Faculty
- Fourth Amendment Rights of Students
- Free Speech and Expression Rights of Students
- Hate Crimes
- Hostile Work Environment
- Loyalty Oaths
- Political Activities and Speech of Faculty Members
- Privacy Rights of Faculty Members
- Privacy Rights of Students
- Religious Activities on Campus
- Sexual Harassment of Students by Faculty Members
- Sexual Harassment, Peer-to-Peer
- Sexual Harassment, Quid Pro Quo
- Sexual Harassment, Same-Sex
- Sexual Orientation
- Sports Programming and Scheduling
- State Aid and the Establishment Clause
- Student Press
- Title IX and Athletics
- Title IX and Retaliation
- Title IX and Sexual Harassment
- Unions on Campus
- Faculty Rights
- Governance and Finance
- Academic Dishonesty
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act
- Boards of Trustees
- Catalogs as Contracts
- Cheating and Academic Discipline
- Collective Bargaining
- Conflict of Commitment
- Conflict of Interest
- Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act
- Due Process Rights in Faculty and Staff Dismissal
- Equal Pay Act
- Extracurricular Activities, Law, and Policy
- Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
- Grading Practices
- Graduation Requirements
- Hazing
- Hostile Work Environment
- Loans and Federal Aid
- Personnel Records
- Sports Programming and Scheduling
- Student Press
- Tenure
- Unions on Campus
- Organizations and Institutions
- American Association of University Professors
- American Association of University Women
- Association for the Study of Higher Education
- Boards of Trustees
- Community or Junior Colleges
- Education Law Association
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Historically Black Colleges and Universities
- National Association of College and University Attorneys
- National Collegiate Athletic Association
- Proprietary or For-Profit Colleges and Universities
- Religious Colleges and Universities
- Single-Sex Colleges
- U.S. Department of Education
- Unions on Campus
- Primary Sources: Excerpts from Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Cases
- Berea College v. Kentucky
- Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
- Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth
- Cannon v. University of Chicago
- DeFunis v. Odegaard
- Gratz v. Bollinger
- Grove City College v. Bell
- Grutter v. Bollinger
- Healy v. James
- Hunt v. McNair
- Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York
- Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association
- Locke v. Davey
- McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education
- Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan
- National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University
- Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri
- Perry v. Sindermann
- Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
- Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing
- Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
- Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights
- Southeastern Community College v. Davis
- Sweatt v. Painter
- Sweezy v. New Hampshire
- Tilton v. Richardson
- Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward
- United States v. Virginia
- University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Religion and Freedom of Speech
- Academic Freedom
- Civil Rights Act of 1871, Section 1983
- Due Process, Substantive and Procedural
- Ex Corde Ecclesiae and American Catholic Higher Education
- Federalism
- Free Speech and Expression Rights of Students
- Religious Activities on Campus
- Religious Colleges and Universities
- Religious Freedom Restoration Act
- State Aid and the Establishment Clause
- Student Press
- Statutes
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Civil Rights Act of 1871, Section 1983
- Civil Rights Act of 1964
- Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987
- Clery Act
- Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act
- Digital Millennium Copyright Act
- Equal Educational Opportunities Act
- Equal Pay Act
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
- Higher Education Act
- Immigration Reform and Control Act
- Morrill Acts
- National Labor Relations Act
- Rehabilitation Act, Section 504
- Religious Freedom Restoration Act
- Stafford Act
- Tax Exemptions for Colleges and Universities
- Title IX and Athletics
- Title IX and Retaliation
- Title IX and Sexual Harassment
- Title VI
- Title VII
- Student Rights and Welfare
- Academic Dishonesty
- Assistive Technology
- Cheating and Academic Discipline
- Cyberbullying
- Disciplinary Sanctions and Due Process Rights
- Disparate Impact
- Drug Testing of Students
- Extracurricular Activities, Law, and Policy
- Fourth Amendment Rights of Students
- Free Speech and Expression Rights of Students
- Grading Practices
- Graduation Requirements
- Hate Crimes
- Hazing
- Loans and Federal Aid
- Privacy Rights of Students
- Sexual Harassment of Students by Faculty Members
- Sexual Harassment, Peer-to-Peer
- Sexual Harassment, Quid Pro Quo
- Sexual Harassment, Same-Sex
- Sexual Orientation
- Sports Programming and Scheduling
- Student Moral Development
- Student Press
- Student Suicides
- Student Teachers, Rights of
- Video Surveillance
- Technology
- Loading...
Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL
-
Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
-
Read modern, diverse business cases
-
Explore hundreds of books and reference titles
Sage Recommends
We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.
Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches