2004-2005

Dr. Christine H.B. Grant

Title IX

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 educational program or activity receiving federal

financial assistance.

Title IX requirements

• Financial assistance

• Effective accommodation of students’ interests and abilities

• Benefits, opportunities and treatment

Benefits, opportunities and treatment

• Equipment and supplies• Scheduling of practice and competition• Travel and per diem• Opportunities for coaching and academic tutors• Assignment and compensation of coaches and

academic tutors• Locker room, practice and competitive facilities• Medical and training facilities and services• Housing and dining facilities and services• Publicity

Effective accommodation of students’ interests and abilities

• Opportunities for males and females substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments

• Where one sex has been underrepresented, a history and continuing practice of program expansion responsive to the developing interests and abilities of that sex.

• Where one sex is underrepresented and cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by that present program.

History• 1972 • passage of Title IX.• 1974 • Javits Amendment: HEW must issue Title IX regulations. “…with

respect to intercollegiate athletic activities, reasonable provisions, considering the nature of particular sports.”

• 1974 • Amendment to exempt revenue-producing sports from Title IX rejected.

• 1975 • Bills to alter Title IX athletics coverage die in committee• 1975 • HEW issues final regulations, reviewed by Congress, signed into

law with provisions banning sex discrimination and establishes 3-year time frame to be compliant.

• 1975 • Congress reviews Title IX regulations and doesn’t disapprove.• 1975 & 1977 • Senate refuses to act on bills to curtail Title IX

enforcement.• 1979 • HEW issues final policy interpretations - Rather than relying on

presumption of compliance, final policy focuses on institution’s obligation to equal opportunity and details factors to assess compliance.

• 1980 • DOE established, OCR given oversight responsibilities.

History• 1984 • Grove City vs. Bell: only programs/activities receiving

direct Federal assistance held to Title IX.• 1988 • Civil Rights Restoration Act: mandated all educational

institutions receiving federal aid be bound by Title IX.• 1990 • Title IX investigational manual published.• 1992 • Franklin vs. Gwinnett County Public Schools. Supreme

Court ruled unanimously that Title IX plaintiffs are eligible for punitive damages when intentional action to avoid Title Ix compliance is established.

• 1992 • Gender Equity Study.• 1994 • Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA).

Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act

• Number of male/female participation slots• Total operating expenses for men’s and women’s sports• Number of male/female head coaches• Number of male/female assistants• Amount of athletics scholarship money allocated to

males/females• Salaries for coaches• Amount of recruiting dollars for men/women

High School Athletic Participation

2,806,998

3,666,9173,960,517

294,015

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

1971 2001-02

2002 National Federation of State High School Associations

Girls

Boys

NCAA Championship Sports Participation

88206 92473 94922 97978 102994 107605

125250 129289 133445145873 146617

155698 153601

175539182836 183675 184732 186939 186607

206385199391 200030

207685 208481 214186 209890

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02

Women Men

(Provisional members included from 1995-96 to present.)

NCAA data

NCAA Football Team Growth

470

490

510

530

550

570

590

610

630

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

NCAA data

Trends in Men's Sports

04080

120160200240280320360400440480520560600640

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Football Wrestling Gymnastics

NCAA data

NCAA Men's and Women's Gymnastics Team Decline

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Men's Gymnastics Women's Gymnastics

NCAA data

THE NET OUTCOME OF MEN'S SPORTS ADDED AND ELIMINATED

DURING 1978 - 1996 BY NCAA DIVISION

NCAA Division

Number of Sports Added

Number of Sports Eliminated

Net Outcome

I-A 22 113 -91

I-AA 68 129 -61

I-AAA 93 56 +37

II 344 286 +58

III 400 269 +131

Total 927 853 +74

THE NET OUTCOME OF WOMEN'S SPORTS ADDED AND ELIMINATED

DURING 1978 - 1996 BY NCAA DIVISION

NCAA Division

Number of Sports Added

Number of Sports Eliminated

Net Outcome

I-A 235 81 154

I-AA 283 90 193

I-AAA 161 37 124

II 653 201 452

III 907 172 735

General Accounting Office

Study on NCAA & NAIA men’s teams

1981-1982 1998-99 Difference

# of men’s teams 9,113 9,149 36 teams

Courtesy of Women’s Sports Foundation

General Accounting OfficeStudy on NCAA & NAIA men’s teams

1981-1982 1998-1999 Difference

# of men’s teams 9,113 9,149 +36 teams

# of male student athletes 220,178 231,866 11,688

(+5%)

GAO 1999

NCAA all divisionsMen’s teams dropped and added 1988-2002

# Added teams 1,938

# Dropped teams 1,877

Net gain + 61 teams

NCAA 2003 data

Men’s teams dropped and added 1988-2002

Division III# Added 1002# Dropped 790 Net gain + 212 teams

Division II# Added 494# Dropped 471 Net gain: +23 teams

Division I# Added 442# Dropped 616 Net Loss -174 teams

NCAA 2003 data

Summary: Losses/gains in NCAA men’s teams

Division III +212 teams

Division II +23 teams

Division I-AAA -31 teams

Division I-AA -38 teams

Division I-A -109 teams

NCAA 2003 data

* Wrestling -99 Tennis -53* Rifle -33* Gymnastics -32* Fencing -23 Swimming/diving -22

* Lost teams in all 3 divisions

NCAA men’s teams (all divisions): greatest number lost 1988-2002

NCAA 2003 data

NCAA and High School Female Participation Levels

153,601

2,856,358

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

High School NCAA

2003 National Federation of State H.S. Associations (for 2002-03)NCAA Participation Report (for 2001-02)

2002-03 2001-02

Percentage of Women's Teams Coached by Females

58% 54%47% 46% 44%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

1972 1978 1984 1990 2000 2002Acosta & Carpenter, 2002

90% PLUS

Total Expenses In Men's and Women's Athletic Programs

1.5

4.308

6.158

7.8826.984 7.354

8.2629.54

10.9

00.502 0.799

1.805 1.8062.291

3.118

4.64.222 4.6915.917

7.7

3.74

3.9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1972 1981 1985 1989 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

Daniel L. Fulks 2001

Mil

lio

ns

Men

Women

Administration

Division I-A

Nongender-specific items were reported as Administrative Expenses (no further definition was provided).

Men's & Women's Program (Sport) Expenses in 1993-2001

$6.98$7.35

$8.26

$9.54

$10.90

$1.81$2.29

$3.12$3.74

$4.60

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

(mill

ion

s o

f d

olla

rs)

Men Women

Daniel L. Fulks - 19992001

$2.39

$0.62

$5.26

$1.58

$6.17

$1.97

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

Mill

ion

s

1985 1999 2001

Average Budget for Football and Men's BasketballDivision I-A

Football

Men's Basketball

Daniel L. Fulks, 2001

Average Expense Per Athlete in Division I-A(in thousands)

24 22 2327

3134

13 14 15 17 18 20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1989 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

Men Women

NOTE: In Divisions I-AA, I-AAA, II w/FB, II w/o FB, the current average expense per athlete is the same for men and women or within $1,000.

Daniel L. Fulks - 2001

Daniel L. Fulks, 2001

Comparison of Gender Equity Survey (92) and EADA (97, 02) Division IA

1992 1997 2002

Male Female Male Female Male Female

Participation 71% 29% 66% 34% 56% 44%

Scholarships 72% 28% 66% 34% 59% 41%

Op. Budget 80% 20% 79% 21% 71% 29%

Recruiting 84% 16% 75% 25% 70% 30%

Female undergraduate population in Division IA: 52% From the Chronicle of Higher Education

Changes in operating expenses NCAA gender equity survey results

Division I-A1992 1997 Increase

Men 1,049,000 2,429,000 1,380,000Women 263,000 663,000 400,000

Division II1992 1997 Increase

Men 190,470 177,500 -12,970Women 73,300 91,500 18,200

Division III1992 1997 Increase

Men 112,400 127,200 14,800Women 56,120 73,400 17,280

NCAA data

2001Percentage of Institutions Reporting Profits and

Deficits Excluding Institutional Support

(Total Program)

35%8% 7% 5% 6%

65%93% 95% 94%92%

0%

50%

100%

I-A I-AA I-AAA II w/ FB II w/o FB

Daniel L. Fulks - 2001

Profit Deficit

2001 Reported DeficitsExcluding Institutional Support

(Total Program)

-3.8-3.6

-3.1

-1.4-1.2

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

I-A I-AA I-AAA II w/ FB II w/o FB

Daniel L. Fulks - 2001

Mill

ion

s o

f D

olla

rs

Growing deficits in athletic programs

-$4.00

-$3.50

-$3.00

-$2.50

-$2.00

-$1.50

-$1.00

-$0.50

$0.00

1993 1999 2001

I-A

I-AA

I-AAA

IIwithFBIIw/oFB1993 1999 2001

I-A -$2.10 -$3.30 -$3.80

I-AA -$1.91 -$2.69 -$3.60

I-AAA -$1.44 -$2.61 -$3.10

II with FB -$0.91 -$1.24 -$1.40

II w/o FB -$0.55 -$0.98 -$1.20 Daniel L. Fulks, 2001

Expenses in Football and Men's Basketball - Division I

39%

55% 56%

10%

17% 18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1985 1999 2001

Football Men's Basketball

49%

72% 74%

Daniel L. Fulks, 2001

Average NCAA Division 1-A Men's Programs Expenses

2001

56%

18%21%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Football Basketball Other Men's Sports Unrelated

Daniel L. Fulks, 2001

NCAA Gender equity report Women’s percentages 2001-2002

Division Undergradpercent

D-I Ave.percent

Participation D-I Ave. percent

Scholarship D-I Ave.percent

Recruiting D-I Ave.percent

Total Expense D-I Ave.percent

IA 52 53.5 43 44 41 44 30 33 30 34

IAA 55 42 43 35 69 34

IAAA 58 50 55 44 48 34

II 56 39 42 36 41

III 56 40 -- 34 41Average 54.5

From Gender Equity report 2001-2002

NCAA Gender equity reportTravel, equipment, uniforms

Division Men Women

I-A 67 33

I-AA 61 39

I-AAA 54 46

All D-I 64 36

II 58 42

III 58 42

NCAA Gender Equity report 2001-02

NCAA Gender equity reportWomen’s coaching percentages

Division Head coach

Salaries

Assistant

Salaries

I-A 36 (-2%) 27

I-AA 43 29

I-AAA 45 46

II 47 30

III 45 32

NCAA Gender Equity report 2001-02

April 16, 1993 US Court of Appeals

Cohen, et al vs. Brown University

Class action. Effective accommodation of interests/ abilities. Reinstated women’s gymnastics and volleyball.

July 16, 1993 Settled

Sanders et al vs. U. Texas at Austin

Class action. Added softball, soccer, increased walk-ons, and capped men.

July 19, 1993 Settled

Kiechal et al vs. Auburn U

Class action followed by Title IX complaint. $140,000 to plaintiffs, started women’s varsity soccer with $200,000 budget, field and scholarship timetable.

Oct. 21, 1993 Settled

California NOW vs. California State University system

Class action. Timetable for progress. Opportunities and aid within five percent and funding within 10 percent.

Title IX Lawsuits

IMPACT OF PROPOSED REVISIONS ON FEMALE ATHLETIC PARTICIPATIONExample assumes: (1) institution w ith 53% female enrollment, (2) no loss in opportunities for men and (3) illustrates low est

permissible number of female participants under Prong One

300

261(-39)

246(-54)

227(-73)231(-69)

218(-82)

201(-99)

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

ProportionalityStandard

Females = 53%

Proportionality w /Variance =+/- 3.5%

Range=7%Females=49.5%

Proportionality w /Variance = +/- 5%

Range=10%Females=47%

50%F/50%MStandard w /

Variance= +/- 3.5%Range=7%

Females=46.5%

Proportionality w /Variance= +/- 7%

Range=14%Females=46%

Reg. Average H.S.Participation (current42%) + 3% Standard

Females= 45%

50-50% StandardVariance= +/- 7%

Range=14%Females=43%

Nu

mb

er o

f F

emal

e A

thle

tes

Commission on Opportunities in Athletics, 2002-3

Commission on Opportunities in Athletics 2002-3

Atlanta Journal-ConstitutionDec. 1999 8-part special: The Gender GapDay 1: More than 27 years after a federal law mandated that school athletic programs

for boys and girls be given comparable support, gender equity is still not the standard in most Georgia high schools. Not even close.

Day 2: First-class sports amenities are not new to boys sports, thanks to booster clubs that perpetuate inequities and continue to leave girls with second-class facilities.

Day 3: From coaches’ compensation to sports budgets, football programs get the lion’s share of everything in high schools across Georgia.

Day 4: Participation in Florida high school athletics has risen sharply since the state passed laws to ensure equality of sports opportunity.

Day 5: With college scholarships at stake, parents increasingly insist Georgia schools address disparities in opportunities that girls receive.

Day 6: Oconee County High School has made strides since becoming Georgia’s first high school with a Title IX complaint filed against it.

Day 7: Padding the participation numbers for girls, the Georgia High School Association classifies competitive cheerleading as a sport, over the objections of Title IX watchdogs.

Day 8: A bipartisan pair of legislators is preparing to introduce a bill that would give Georgia power to monitor and enforce Title IX compliance in the state’s high schools. Plus: Readers comment on the Gender Gap series and inequities in high school sports in Georgia.

Georgia High School Sports

5 women2495 menExecutive Committee of Georgia High

School Association

1486Legislative grants

595Extended pay supplements

2575Salary supplements

GirlsBoys

From Georgia High Schools 1999

Georgia vs. Florida

75,76045,678Female Athletes, 98-99

108,28981,960Male Athletes, 98-99

YesNoWas an equity seminar conducted by the State Education Department this year?

YesNoAre districts required to submit annual self-reviews of gender equity in athletics?

YesNoAre there state-imposed penalties for failure to comply?

YesNoIs there a state law prohibiting gender discrimination in schools?

420How many schools were out of compliance with gender equity laws last year as determined by the state?

601How many state Education department staff members are assigned to gender equity in sports?

FloridaGeorgia

From Georgia High School Association, Florida and Georgia departments of education

Universities have the right to reduce number of male athletes

Cal-State Bakersfield• Preliminary injunction to keep wrestling in

Feb. 1999, Panel of U.S. Court of Appeals did not uphold.

Illinois State• Dropped men’s soccer and wrestling and added

women’s soccer. Panel of U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed lawsuit.

Equal pay and/or wrongful termination

Sex discrimination. Earned $70,000, seeks parity with men’s coach, seeking $8 million and reinstatement.

Marianne Stanley v. USC

Pending, filed Aug. 5, 1993

1st amendment and breech of contract. VB coach assisted players settle lawsuit, awarded $1.35 million and undisclosed amount of punitive damages.

James Huffman v. California State University System

Feb. 8, 1994 Jury decision

Sex discrimination lawsuit, first Title IX case awarding monetary damage, $1.1 million.

Sanya Tyler v. Howard U

June 23, 1993 Jury decision

Anti-Title IX Websites

• Iowans against quotas (@iaq2000.org)• Americans against quotas (@aaq2000.org)• Independent women’s forum (@iwf.org)• National Coalition for athletic equity• Simply common sense (

scs@the_wrestling_mall.com)• Citizens against quotas

Percent difference between female undergrads and female athletes (Big Ten, Pac 10, Big XII)

Institution % undergrad

% athlete Difference

Michigan 50.47 51.77 1.30

Purdue 41.63 42.10 0.47

Texas A&M 48.77 48.45 -0.32

Oklahoma St. 48.17 47.00 -1.17

Michigan St. 53.72 52.41 -1.31

Minnesota 52.04 50.66 -1.38

Kansas St. 47.49 46.06 -1.43

Penn St. 47.07 45.62 -1.45

Iowa St. 44.66 43.18 -1.48

USC 49.81 47.89 -1.92

Wisconsin 53.27 51.03 -2.24

Washington 51.29 48.80 -2.49

Illinois 47.00 43.07 -3.93

Northwestern 52.47 48.34 -4.13

Kansas 52.13 47.98 -4.15

Colorado 47.00 42.06 -4.94

UCLA 55.00 49.86 -5.14

Texas 50.96 45.80 -5.16

Texas Tech 46.34 40.95 -5.39

Arizona 52.68 46.93 -5.75

Indiana 52.91 46.73 -6.18

California 53.02 45.84 -7.18

Missouri 52.24 43.73 -8.51

Oklahoma 49.18 40.29 -8.89

Iowa 54.61 44.67 -9.94

Oregon State 46.12 35.32 -10.80

Arizona St. 52.15 40.57 -11.58

Nebraska 47.08 34.66 -12.42

Oregon 53.39 40.30 -13.09

Baylor 57.79 40.10 -17.69

2001-02

Chronicle of Higher Education SEC numbers 2001-02

Institution Undergrads Athletes Difference

Mississippi 51.31 32.72 -18.59

Georgia 56.47 40.39 -16.08

LSU 52.66 37.97 -14.69

Alabama 52.77 38.35 -14.42

Kentucky 51.66 37.66 -14.00

South Carolina 54.27 44.17 -10.10

Arkansas 48.89 39.62 -9.27

Mississippi St. 45.72 36.58 -9.14

Florida 53.28 44.85 -8.43

Tennessee 51.69 45.60 -6.09

Auburn 47.99 42.11 -5.88

Vanderbilt 52.29 48.93 -3.36

Percentage difference between female undergrads and female athletes 2001-02

1. 13 or 29 percent in compliance or within 3 percenta. Big Ten – 6b. Big 12 – 4c. Pac 10 – 3d. SEC – 0

2. 20 or 44 percent in compliance or within five % pointsa. Big Ten – 9 b. Big 12 – 6c. Pac 10 – 4d. SEC – 1

3. 27 or 60 percent in compliance or within 7 % pointsa. Big Ten – 10b. Big 12 – 8 c. Pac 10 – 6d. SEC – 3

4. 18 or 40 percent greater difference than 7 pointsa. Big Ten – 1b. Big 12 – 4c. Pac 10 – 4d. SEC – 9

Title IX websites

• http://bailiwick.lib.uiowa.edu/ge

• www.ncwge.org

Title IX athletic policies, Aug. 2002

• www.womenssportsfoundation.org

June 2003 PollBy Wall Street Journal and NBC News

(from Chronicle of Higher Education, January 2003)Approve Disapprove

1. Approve/Disapprove of Title IX 68% 20%2. “Cutting back on men’s

athletics to ensure equivalentathletic opportunities for women” 66% 27%

3. Attitudes toward changing Title IX:20% Strengthen the law50% No changes to law21% Weaken the law

i.e. 7 of 10 adults familiar with the law want Title IX strengthened or left alone.

Title IX “does not require colleges to give the same amount of money to men’s and women’s sports programs or to have equal numbers of male and female athletes; it does require colleges to provide equitable resources and opportunities in a non-discriminatory manner.”

The Bottom LineNCAA Division I-A EADA Data 1999-2000

MEN WOMEN

Participation 57 43

Scholarships 59 41

Operating budget 70 30

Recruiting budget 70 30

Female and college participationHigh school: 2.9 million or 42 percentCollege: 153,601 or 42 percent

Gender Equity

“Gender equity is an atmosphere and a reality where fair distribution of overall athletic opportunity and resources are proportionate to women and men and where no student-athlete, coach or athletic administrator is discriminated against in any way in the athletic program on the basis of gender.”“That is to say, an athletic program is gender equitable when the men’s sports program would be pleased to accept for its own the overall participation, opportunities and resources currently allocated to the women’s program and vice versa.”

NCAA Gender Equity Task Force