Title IX1, Sports_&_Recreation, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Sports & Recreation

Title IX1

Title IX1 In 1972 Congress passed the Educational Amendments. One section of this law, Title IX, prohibits discrimination against girls and women in federally funded education, including athletic programs. As a result of Title IX, women and girls have benefited from more participation opportunities and more equitable facilities. Women who were under 10 when Title IX passed have much higher sports participation rates than women who grew up before Title IX. Fifty-five percent of the "post-Title IX" generation participated in high school sports, compared to 36% of the "pre-Title IX" generation.35 Because of Title IX, more women have received athletic scholarships and thus the opportunity for higher education than would have not been possible otherwise. In fact, many women Olympic athletes credit Title IX for the opportunity to attend college through athletic scholarships and to participate in sports.36 In addition, because of Title IX the salaries for coaching women's teams have increased. But the progress women and girls have made under Title IX falls far short of gender equity. From the start, the implementation of Title IX has been subverted. Title IX passed with little controversy in 1972. Soon after Title IX passed, however, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and high school administrators complained that boys' sports would suffer if girls' sports had to be funded equally. Regulations about how to implement the law were not released until two years later, and these regulations did not go into effect until July 1975. Even then, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) did not enforce the law. Few complaints were investigated and resolved. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush, enforcement of Title IX came to a halt. First, the agencies in charge of enforcing the law - the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and later the Department of Education - dragged their feet. Then, in a 1984 decision, Grove City v. Bell, the U.S. Supreme Court 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 that? This question arises as athletic departments try to cope with the challenge of making an equitable situation for female athletes while preserving the stream of revenue generated by men's football and basketball programs. One of the easiest ways of complying with the Amendments of 1972 is to make the number of female athletes proportional to the number of women enrolled in the institution. Activists, athletic directors and government officials all side differently on the issue, however a coalition of conservative groups all agree that it is unfair to both men as well as women to cut men's sports due to gender-equity. Besides all that a poll was taken in the Salt Lake Tribune stating that men were more likely to be inclined to play sports versus women. Depriving men of opportunities just to meet proportionality guidelines is a load of trash, besides that it's plain out discriminatory. I believe Title IX applies to our Political Science class because of many reasons, the most identifiable being that Title IX is a law governing how sports programs are organized and since it is an amendment it's easy to relate this to our class. Furthermore I think there always needs to be great regards towards working for equality whether it's in school, in the work place or on the field. I do not however agree with cutting men's athletics just so women can be labeled equal; chances are good that there will never be a professional women's football league. Now don't quote me on that, but there just isn't enough demand to see ladies strap up pads and knock each other down, granted that would be cool to see but then they'd be making a mockery of the sport and themselves. Is it sport or spoof? If women want to compete I have no problem with that, let 'em knock themselves out organizing a rugby team, just don't penalize men for women not being as genetically aggressive. My goal in composing this paper was not to offend anyone but on the contrary, to inform you with a brief introduction of Title IX and my opinion. Bibliography:

Word Count: 988