t gutted Title IX. In that ruling, the court said Title IX did not cover entire educational institutions - only those programs directly receiving federal funds. Other programs, such as athletics, that did not receive federal funds, were free to discriminate on the basis of gender.But women's rights groups fought back. Four years later, over Reagan's veto, Congress passed the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988. This act nullified the effects of the Grove City v. Bell ruling by outlawing sex discrimination throughout an entire educational institution if any part of the institution received federal funding. In addition to the Act, the OCR publicly renewed its commitment to ending gender discrimination, calling Title IX a "top priority," and publishing a "Title IX Athletic Investigator's Manual" to strengthen enforcement procedures.In February of 1992, in the Supreme Court further (Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools) held that victims might be awarded monetary damages in sex discrimination cases. The case involved a high school woman who said she was sexually harassed and abused by a teacher. She filed for damages in Federal District Court, which dismissed the complaint, saying Title IX does not authorize an award of damages. The Court of Appeals agreed. But the U.S. Supreme Court held that compensatory and punitive damages were available under Title IX.37. This case was crucial in putting "teeth" into Title IX, this allowed women to find lawyers willing to take their cases because of the possibility of damages awards, and threatening colleges in their pocketbooks if they refused to comply with Title IX. College coaches are constantly cutting out of shape, poor, and just plain crappy player's everyday. For the most part I believe that is totally fair, the only people I see having a hard time with this is the cut players. But what is up when a university drops an entire team of good male players to comply with Title IX? How fair is...
