Title IX Pros And Cons

Title IX is a provision of the U.S. Education Amendment Act of 1972 whose enactment was motivated by the need to curb sex-based discrimination in American academic institutions, on matters pertaining to participating or benefiting from state-funded college programs (Smith, 2011). Since its inception, the provision has continued to receive a lot of praise and criticism in equal measures. Proponents of the provision usually cite the important role Title IX has played in enhancing the participation of female students in college athletics (Smith, 2011). However, its critics are convinced that the provision prevents many hardworking student athletes (especially male ones) from financially benefiting from their participation in revenue-generating
A study commissioned by the National Players College Association (NPCA) and Drexel University Sport Management Program in 2011 debunked this belief by revealing that the scholarship offered to student athletes by National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) as articulated by Title IX only covers the tuition and accommodation fees (Staurowsky, 2012). As a result of this, recipients of such scholarships end up footing other academic costs that can’t be classified as accommodation or tuition charges. Therefore, considering that NCAA scholarships can’t even offer absolutely free education to student athletes, it goes without saying that Title IX is totally unfair to thousands of students who generate millions of dollars for their universities while participating in different athletic competitions and activities (Miller,
Staurowsky (2012) shed more light on this issue by narrating how the provision continues to encourage universities to treat their successful athletes as mere students while in real essence they should be regarded as genuine workers. This status recognition loophole has continued to provide an avenue for universities to garner millions of dollars through exploiting their student athletes. If Title IX was really fair, it would have advocated for revenue producing student athletes to be regarded as employees who deserve a significant share of the millions they generate for their respective universities (Staurowsky, 2012). Therefore, it can be asserted that whereas the provision is meant to curb discrimination, it actually perpetrates unfairness as a result of its failure to articulate whether revenue producing athletes ought to be regarded as students or genuine