More than 50 years have passed since Title IX’s implementation and yet many schools are not in compliance and many people don’t fully understand their rights under the law. Learn more about the Title IX’s requirements for equitable participation opportunities, scholarships and benefits.
Title IX consultants should always be used in conjunction with a comprehensive Title IX self-assessment by the educational institution. Title IX regulations are extremely broad and complex and individual athletic program practices too varied for any consultant to have a grasp of all athletic program practices in a school without the assistance of a comprehensive self-assessment.
It has come to our attention that there are athletic governance associations, schools and colleges who are attempting to recognize drill team, cheerleading, danceline, marching bands, twirling and similar extracurricular activities as bona fide sports and varsity athletic program offerings in order to comply with Title IX. The purpose of this position paper is to comment on the use of an appropriate definition of varsity sport and the conditions under which physical activities should be considered sports for the purpose of compliance with Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments Act.
The regular use of male practice players may take practice and participation opportunities away from female athletes on varsity teams. Did you know that the regular use of male practice players may be a Title IX violation?
When is it appropriate or necessary that females and males participate with and against each other in sports? When are single-sex teams necessary or appropriate? On what basis can schools restrict participation? Find out the answers to these questions and more when we explain co-ed participation in physical activity settings.
The Women’s Sports Foundation is often asked whether it has a position on the elimination of sports opportunities for men as a method of complying with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs or activities at schools and colleges that receive federal funds. This question usually stems from situations in which schools cite insufficient finances to add more sports opportunities for women, cut a men’s non-revenue sport and use these funds to start a new women’s team. When alumni and students complain about the decision, the institution blames the law (Title IX requires no such reduction in opportunities for men) and female athletes. The Foundation is not in favor of reducing athletic opportunities for men as the preferred method of achieving Title IX compliance.
Did you know that some athletic associations are regulating when girls have their sports seasons? The disadvantages that come with this practice are not just wrong, they’re against the law. Requiring female student-athletes to participate in sports during seasons which are different than traditional seasons discriminates against these female athletes and takes away from their athletic opportunities and experiences.
Schools should be expected to retain all men’s sports programs while they bring women’s sports into compliance with Title IX. Remedying discrimination does not mean bringing formerly advantaged men’s sports down to where women’s sports were — with no opportunities to play.
Division II and III schools, the poorest colleges and universities, are not dropping men’s sports. It’s the richest Division I athletic programs that are cutting men’s swimming, gymnastics and wrestling programs (Olympic sports). Whenever a men’s sport is eliminated, these educational institutions blame Title IX and women’s sports. The problem is not Title IX.
