Title IX does not currently achieve the bill’s original purpose of equal opportunity between the sexes because the tests used to measure compliance are flawed, the required balance of funding between male and female sports teams is skewed due to revenue sports, and there is a vast amount of misinformation about the results of Title IX hiding its failures.
Bentley, Eric (2005) Title IX: The Technical Knockout For Men's Non-Revenue Sports. Journal of Law & Education, 33, 139-166. This provides an argument that men’s intercollegiate sports should not be dropped in order to reach Title IX compliance. The article states that colleges should look to increase women’s sports to achieve substantial proportionality rather than the cheaper, quicker option of decreasing the amount of men’s sports. It states that while most athletic departments operate at a deficit of $600,000 dollars, coaches are paid such high salaries that adding an additional $15,000-20,000 female sport should take president over cutting already active men’s sports. The articles cites Title IX’s wording as reasoning, stating that “If Congress intended financial considerations to be a factor in determining if the institution is denying a person participation in an educational program, it would have so provided” (Bentley, 2005). This source is credible because it was published in the Journal of Law & Education with relevant information regarding the cutting of men’s teams, and it provides exact situations where they apply. Dubois, Paul E. (1999). Title IX: A Critique From the Underclass. Physical Educator, 56(3), 159-168. This article discusses some of the major problems with using the “proportionality prong” of Title IX as the main indicator of whether or not a school is in compliance. It goes on to explain how school manipulate the size and number of their men’s non-commercial sports to keep the number of male participants down and how it is counterintuitive to the goals expressed by Title IX. The article continues that Title IX was never meant to be an affirmative action law, but rather “like Title VI and Title VII, Title IX is an anti-discrimination statute” and has just been twisted to become different than what it was originally intended to be. The article finally proposes some long and short-term solutions to the problems it presented (Dubois, 1999). This source is credible because it is a peer reviewed paper with relevant information regarding the cutting of men’s teams’ funding and discusses errors with football being such a big sport. Gavora, Jessica (2002) Tilt! TIME'S UP FOR TITLE IX SPORTS. American Spectator, 35(3), 64-68. This article begins by quoting a study that has determined that males and females are born with differences and that expecting the same from all men and women when they are older does not make sense. It then goes on to complement the original Title IX, but almost immediately rebuke it by stating that it has “interpreted and twisted and bent” and that it has changed to discriminate against men (Gavora, 2002). It states that many colleges are dropping men’s sports like crew, swimming and diving due to both finical problems and Title IX compliance. The article continues that rising cost of sports, along with the forced equality, is not allowing colleges to expand their options; rather they are forced to cut back, and women’s sports are untouchable. This source is credible because it is a peer reviewed paper with relevant information regarding the problems associated with all the forms of testing done by the Office for Civil Rights in regards to Title IX. Haglund, Eric (2005) Staring Down the Elephant: College Football and Title IX Compliance. Journal of Law & Education, 34, 439-452. This article recommends that schools cut sports and in general downgrade the faculties for the “overrepresented gender [males] while keeping opportunities stable for the underrepresented gender [females].” It proposes some alternate reasons, other...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document