Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of
Education
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
United States Senate
Wednesday, October 18, 1995
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Introduction
Thank you for the invitation to appear and testify
today about Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972 ["Title IX] and the promise of equal opportunities
for men and women in the area of athletics. As the Chairman has noted, I've
been asked to talk about the role of Title IX in the area of
athletics, and the
way in which it has opened doors for athletes by ensuring nondiscriminatory
participation opportunities for members of both sexes. As you know,
the Office for Civil Rights
in the Department
of Education ["OCR"] does not administer or enforce the Amateur Sports Act
of 1978
["the Act"]. However, it is important to note that the Act specifically recognizes
the need for, and promotes efforts that will provide assistance to, amateur
athletic activities for women, a segment of our population that has not historically
benefited
from equal opportunities in the world of athletics. In this regard, then, Title
IX and the
Act promote comparable objectives.
As recently as May 9, 1995, I had the opportunity
to testify before the House Subcommittee on Post secondary Education,
Training, and Lifelong Learning, on
Title IX as it relates to athletics. It was evident from the testimony of various
individuals at that hearing and the positive response of the members of the
subcommittee that there is widespread, bipartisan support for the goals of
Title IX in the area of intercollegiate athletics. Indeed, consistent with
this support, I believe that the record shows that there have been many gains
made in the effort to ensure equal opportunities for all students since the
passage of Title IX; however, there is still much work to be done if we are
to fulfill the promise of that landmark legislation.
Overview of Testimony
One of the nation's landmark civil rights laws is Title IX
of the Education Amendments of 1972. This law was enacted by the Congress to
eliminate sex discrimination
in all aspects of American education — in the classroom, in course offerings,
in the school workplace, and on the athletic fields. Congress has charged OCR
with the responsibility of enforcing Title IX in the context of athletics,
which is considered an integral part of an institution's education program
and is,
therefore, covered by the Title IX statute. OCR also provides technical assistance
to schools around the country to help them understand the meaning of Title
IX and to assist them in complying with this law.
In seeking to ensure a level playing field for all, OCR's enforcement
is faithful to the clear and unequivocal Congressional mandate of nondiscrimination
in Title IX: that members of both sexes be provided equal opportunities to
participate in athletics. Indeed, OCR's guiding principle in this area — and
in other areas of civil rights enforcement — is to ensure that all students
are afforded equal opportunities. Title IX is a basic nondiscrimination requirement,
intended to expand, not limit, opportunities. That is the driving force of
OCR's enforcement, which is faithful to the expressed will of Congress, flexible
in its dealings with colleges and universities, and fair in its protection
of boys and girls.
The Need for and Benefits of Title IX
I'd like to begin my remarks by addressing the real needs of
real students that Title IX was designed to remedy — needs that existed in
1972, and needs that exist
today. Before its passage, athletic scholarships for women were rare. After
winning two swimming gold medals in the 1964 Olympics, Donna de Varona was,
in effect,
forced to retire at the age of 17; scholarships at colleges for women in swimming
did not exist. Meanwhile, her best friend, a fellow gold medalist in swimming,
Don Schollander, received a full scholarship to Yale. Even by 1974 — two
years after the passage of Title IX — there had been little progress:
it was estimated that 50,000 men were attending college on athletic scholarships
that year,
compared with less than 50
women.
This visible and dramatic inequality was not just limited to scholarships.
At one large southwestern university, women had 10 sports and a total budget
of $200. At a Big Ten school, women received $40,000 out of a $6 million athletic
budget. And, at an Atlantic Coast Conference school, women received $30,000
of the $2.2 million committed to intercollegiate athletics.
Even today, despite much progress, we are finding that women
are being denied comparable opportunities and necessary operating, recruiting,
and scholarship dollars. In addition, in recent years, OCR has investigated
cases in which a school provided each of its men's teams separate, well-furnished
locker rooms, while all women's teams were forced to use the same locker room.
At this same school, men could use weight training equipment at no charge;
women, on the other hand, were required to pay for this opportunity. And, in
another case, both the men's and women's crew teams were provided shells designed
for men that were too heavy for women to use in practice or competitions. At
that same school, the locker room at the boathouse was available only to men
when men and women competed on weekends.
The story is not entirely anecdotal, however. Let us look at the statistics
reflecting the participation of women at NCAA member institutions in 1971,
the year before Title IX's passage, and in 1994 [see Exhibit 1, Intercollegiate
Athletics Participation by Men & Women in NCAA Member Institutions]. Two
observations are apparent: [1] Since the passage of Title IX, women have made
significant strides in their participation in intercollegiate athletics; and
[2] Despite those gains, there is still much work to be done if the promise
of Title IX is to be fulfilled.
Senator Hatch has perhaps best captured the essence of the meaning and promise
of Title IX. In 1984, on the Senate floor, he observed that there were few,
if any, Senators who did not want "Title IX implemented so as to continue to
encourage women throughout America to develop into Olympic athletes, to develop
in educational activities or in any other way within our schools of higher
education." .Indeed, Title IX and Olympic sports enjoy a symbiotic relationship.
As participation opportunities for women and girls on the elementary, high
school and college levels increase as a result of Title IX, more women are
successfully able to compete internationally in Olympic sports. The role of
Title IX in ensuring increased opportunities for women in sports is undisputed.
As one Olympic athlete, Cheryl Miller, noted: "Without Title IX, I'd be nowhere." Likewise,
new and emerging Olympic sports for women provide increased opportunities for
women and girls on all levels, as school districts and educational institutions
begin to take notice of women's interest in athletics.
Also, we should not lose sight of the many benefits off the
playing field that result from providing equal opportunities in athletics.
According to the
Institute for Athletics and Education, girls who participate in sports are
three times more likely to graduate from high school, 80 percent less likely
to have an unwanted pregnancy, and 92 percent less likely to use drugs. Also,
the health benefits are extensive. For example, studies report that women who
participate in sports lower their risk of breast cancer. There are psychological
benefits, as well. Women athletes have a higher level of self-esteem and confidence
and a lower rate of depression than non-athletes. The availability of athletic
scholarships dramatically increases the ability of athletes to pursue a college
education and to select from a greater range of institutions. Eventually, this
has implications for future employability of persons who will go on to become
productive members of our society.
And then there are the important values we learn from participation
in sports — teamwork, standards, leadership, discipline, work ethics, self
sacrifice,
pride in accomplishment, strength of character. These values are as important
to women as they are to men.
A number of former women athletes point to communication learned
in sports competition as key to their upward career mobility. Ninety-three
percent of
women in one study agreed that women who participated in sports would be better
able to compete successfully later in life. Another interesting statistic —
80 percent of women who were identified as key leaders in their Fortune 500
companies
had sports backgrounds.
Title IX and Department of Education Regulations. Policy and Enforcement
To ensure that all people, regardless of sex, have the opportunity to participate
based on their abilities and willingness to work, and in a spirit of bipartisanship,
Congress passed Title IX in 1972. Following the passage of Title IX, Congress
has on several occasions reaffirmed the non-discrimination guarantee in the context
of
athletics, and has rejected attempts to curtail the enforcement of Title IX. [See
Exhibit 2, History of Title IX Legislation, Regulation and Policy
Interpretation.]
On June 20, 1974, HEW published proposed regulations, which included specific
provisions for college athletics. In response to the notice of the proposed
regulations, HEW received over 9700 comments, which were considered prior to
publication of the final regulations. President Ford signed the Title IX regulations
on May 27, 1975. These were submitted to Congress for review pursuant to the
General Education Provisions Act, and during the review, the House Subcommittee
on Postsecondary Education conducted hearings. The regulations, which became
effective on July 21, 1975, established a three-year transition period to give
secondary and postsecondary institutions sufficient time to comply with the
equal athletic opportunity requirements-a period that expired in 1978.
To complement the regulations. OCR issued a Title IX policy interpretation
on intercollegiate athletics to provide colleges and universities with more
detailed guidance on how to comply with the law. This policy interpretation
was issued on December 11, 1979, after OCR reviewed more than 700 comments
on a proposed interpretation issued a year earlier, and after extensive consultation
with educators, athletic directors, coaches, athletic associations, civil rights
groups. and education organizations. OCR also visited several colleges to obtain
more information on their athletic programs and to assess how the policy would
apply in actual practice to the athletic programs at individual campuses.
The Title IX policy interpretation sets forth responsibilities in three general
areas:
- athletic financial assistance;
- athletic benefits and opportunities; and
- accommodation of student interests and abilities.
This policy interpretation, along with the Title IX statute and implementing
regulations, have guided OCR's enforcement in this area for almost two decades,
enjoying the bipartisan support of Congress and full support of the courts.
Indeed, federal courts across the country have consistently
recognized that the standards by which OCR assesses compliance with Title
IX are faithful to
the will of congress. Courts have observed that OCR's policy standards
draw their essence from Title IX. Moreover, OCR's guidance in this area of
Title
IX enforcement avoids any absolute requirement Of numerical proportionality
between the numbers of sports opportunities offered to men and women and
the numbers of students, by sex, and recognizes that different expenditures
on
men's and women's. sports may be permissible.
The Clarification of the Three-Part Test
To better explain the flexibility, of the standards that guide
the enforcement of Title IX in the area of athletics, the Office for Civil
Rights on September
20, 1995,
issued in draft a "Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Guidance:
The Three-
Pan Test" ["the Clarification"], specifically elaborating upon existing standards,
contained in the Title IX regulation and 1979 Policy Interpretation [See
Exhibit 3, "Dear Colleague Letter and "Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy
Guidance: The Three-Part Test"]. The Clarification. was circulated for comment
to over 4,000 interested parties, and a notice of its availability to the public
was
published in the Federal Register on October 2, 1995.
The Clarification focuses on what is commonly referred to as the "three-part
test," which is pan of a larger analytical framework reflected in the 1979
Policy Interpretation. One of the purposes of the Clarification is to respond
to requests for specific guidance about existing standards that have guided
OCR's enforcement of Title IX in the area of athletics for over a decade. Another
purpose of the Clarification is to confirm that a school will be found to provide
nondiscriminatory participation opportunities if it meets any part of a three-part
test: (1) by providing athletic participation opportunities in numbers that
are substantially proportionate to enrollment by gender; or (2) by establishing
a history. and continuing practice of program expansion for members of the
underrepresented sex; or (3) by fully, and effectively accommodating the interests
and abilities of the underrepresented sex. No one pan of the three-pan test
is preferred by OCR or used exclusively by OCR over another as a method of
ensuring compliance with the law; rather, the three-part test furnishes three
individual avenues for compliance.
Of course, I have heard the argument, as you may have, that because of budgetary
constraints, compliance with Title IX means, in effect, that men's sports must
be cut. In the past several years, a number of colleges and universities have
experienced budgetary constraints. As a result, some have eliminated or "capped" men's
teams, such as wrestling, swimming, and gymnastics.
OCR does not advocate eliminating or "capping" teams as a means for achieving
compliance with the law. Nor has OCR required that men's teams be cut in order
for institutions to come into compliance with Title IX. [See Exhibit 4,
Title IX Athletics: OCR Enforcement Activities (FY 1989-94)]. In fact,
the Clarification specifically states that "nothing in the three-part test
requires an institution to eliminate participation opportunities for men." OCR's
preference is that there be sufficient athletic opportunities for all students.
Individual institutions must make their own decisions about their athletics
programs, including the distribution of. athletic opportunities within the
men's program and within the women's program. Indeed, the idea that "if women
gain, men must lose" presents a false dichotomy. The federal court in the recent
decision of Cohen v. Brown quoted one of the expert witnesses who stated:
I believe that philosophically in any case where you have a previously
disadvantaged population that you're trying to bring up to snuff to the advantaged
population, that it's a bad idea to bring the advantaged population down to
the level of the disadvantaged population.
Title IX has helped girls and women realize more of the benefits and educational
opportunities afforded by athletic participation. Let us not lose sight of the
fact that a year before Title IX became law, only 32,000 women participated in
intercollegiate athletics. Today, that number is around 105,000. Women are participating
in
volleyball, soccer, and crew, in addition to the traditional sports.
Conclusion
While I applaud the progress that has been made, the task of providing equal
athletic opportunity remains unfinished. OCR continues to find serious violations
in many of its cases, as do the courts, which are ruling with increasing frequency
that women are not receiving equal athletic opportunity. OCR will continue to
respond to complaints, and it also will continue to work actively with many schools
and associations to address problems and issues before they become the subject
of
complaints.
Rest assured, we will continue to enforce Title IX fairly and to help institutions
comply with the law. Many colleges and universities are striving to provide
equal athletic opportunity, and we will work with them to find creative and
innovative practical approaches to ending sex discrimination in intercollegiate
athletics.
Mr. Chairman, there is no place for discrimination in sports. Discrimination
goes against the very grain of what competition is all about. In sports we
encourage and reward performance. In our history, sports have allowed us to
cross all artificial social and class distinctions and barriers. We should
showcase sports as a model of equality in American society as we continue to
set examples for all countries around the world with our Olympic participation.
Thank You
Return to main page
|