Womens Rights Title Ix Paper

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 148
  • Published : April 28, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
1
Audrey Sanders
Dr. Day
Final Paper
23 April 2013

The Title IX Education Amendments of 1972 stated that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” (Title 20 U.S.C. Sections 1681). There were several exceptions to the amendment including religious educational institutions that the amendment conflicts with their religion. Schools that train primarily for the military and single sex schools were also exempted. Youth organizations like the Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts that are voluntary and single sex are also exempt. In general single sex organizations and schools are not committed to complying with the Title IX amendment. This amendment is overseen by the federal department but is subject to judicial review. The key purpose of this amendment is to have the institution and organization offer activities in a proportion that is the same proportion of that gender’s population that the institution or organization serves. The following cases reviewed, Kelley v. Board of Trustees,35 F.3d 265 (7th Circuit 1994)(Pittman 2008), and Roberts v. Colorado State Board of Agriculture, 998 F.2d 824 (10th Circuit 1993) (Pittman 2008) deal with whether compliance has been met in a sports program. The compliance factors include both sexes have had interests and abilities accommodated when offering sports teams, equally providing supplies, equipment, and time for 2

games and practice. Other compliance factors include travel allowances, academic help, coach pay, and scholarships. The final compliance factors deal with equal access to training and medical facilities and services, similar quality and access of facilities, housing and dining equity, publicity, and equitable recruiting budgets. The final case review of Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools 503 U.S. 60 (1992) reviews a Title IX complaint of sexual harassment and the awarding of damages (Pittman 2008). Kelley v. Board of Trustees is a Title IX case that was brought before the 7th Circuit Court in May of 1993 (Pittman 2008). Earlier that month the University of Illinois announced that it planned to eliminate four varsity athletic teams including men’s swimming. The athletic department‘s decision was based on a $600,000 deficit in the budget. The entire men’s swimming program filed suit against the university’s Board of Trustees, the chancellor, and the athletic and associate athletic directors. The suit was filed on the grounds of a Title IX violation as well as citing the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The men’s swimming team was asking the court for damages as well as an injunction that kept the university from eliminating the men’s swimming team. In terms of the injunction, the district court found in favor of the university’s motion for summary judgment meaning the university could move forward and eliminate the swimming team. In 1982 the university had been found to be out of compliance by not offering female athletes equal athletic opportunities. Because the university agreed to remedy the inequity in a reasonable amount of time, the school was considered not in violation of Title IX. Ten years later the female athlete population was still disproportional to the female population of the university. The university’s female population was 44% compared to 23.4% females in the school’s athletic 3

programs (Sharpe 1). Although the initial reason for eliminating the varsity team was financial, the university had to consider the need to remain in compliance with Title IX. The claim that the university violated was Title IX was rejected. The courts explained to the plaintiff that the rule in place to increase athletic opportunities for in this case women, do not always result in the expansion of opportunities or sports teams for women. The court’s decision...
tracking img