hletes (Business Week 112). The people arguing against Title IX are not totally against the law, but claim there is a place to draw the line. The example of taking the law to far happened recently at Brown University. Here, a potential student-athlete sued the school because it was attempting to drop women’s gymnastics, women’s volleyball, along with two male sports. She claimed that Brown’s attempt to due away with women’s gymnastics was against Title IX laws. This is where the argument begins. Brown University, at the time of the case offered 17 female sports, and 16 male sports (Wulf 80). Women made up 51% of the student body at Brown, but only 38% of varsity athletes. This discrepancy in numbers is against Title IX law. However, the school argued that due to the size of the football roster comprised of some eighty males skewed this ratio. They claimed that the ratio of varsity of athletes to student body was deeper than the surface. According to the university, possible spots on the female teams, from 65-80, went empty, while not a single one on the men’s teams was open. Brown claimed that females had the chance to equal the ratio, but failed to attempt to fill the teams (Guenin 37). Brown spent over one million dollars defending themselves in court. This money could have been used to possibly expand female’s athletics.. The school ended up losing the court battle almost four years later. Like all laws, how one interprets them determines their effectiveness. Since President Richard Nixon signed the Education Amendments Act of 1972, women’s sports have taken a giant leap. Part of this new law, Title IX, outlawed sexual discrimination in intercollegiate athletics. This gave women the necessary step to reach the same level as men. “Women don’t have to have 50% of the varsity positions to succeed in athletics. They need equal opportunity.”(Mahoney 78). Titl...
