Patsy T. Mink Equality

Advocacy and Opposition to Title IX

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal assistance."
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964

[Title IX Amendment of the Higher Education Act is now officially known as Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act as of 2002 upon the death of Patsy T. Mink, the author of the amendment. But for ease, throughout this paper I will refer to the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act as Title IX.]

Since the 1972 conception of Title IX of the Education Amendments, the number
Although Title IX opponents acknowledge the good intent of Title IX, they feel strongly that opportunities for women's athletic participation should not come at the expense of men. They also value equality, but take a different stand on what they believe equality is: every willing participant having the chance to play. Title IX opponents say the law has been unjustly interpreted over the past 20 years. J. Robinson believes "feminist radicals have hijacked the current interpretation" of the law, placing thousands of prospective male athletes on the chopping block (B7). Robinson points to specific language in the law that says it should not be interpreted to require an institution to provide special treatment in cases where imbalances exist between male and female athletic programs (B7). Epstein illustrates the popular Title IX opponent belief that "instead of maximizing total participation regardless of sex, Title IX is committed to minimizing the difference in participation by sex" (35). This means taking away opportunities for men. Opponents also say that Title IX "instantly creates male queues and female shortages," according to Epstein (35). This means there are more males searching for a chance to participate in athletics than females are currently able to fill, leaving many male athletes high and dry. Title IX opponents are also skeptical about whether the law was responsible at all
They applaud the effects of Title IX (increased female participation), but believe changes must be made in the proportionality standards which are used to gauge Title IX compliance. Title IX proportionality reformers value not equal numbers of participants, but providing enough opportunities for men to compete. According to Charles M. Neinas, it is obvious that "male students are more likely to participate in a sport… than female students" (B8). Neinas points out that this is also the case in intramural and club sports (B8). It is on these premises that proportionality reformers seek to alter proportionality standards which keep many men off the playing field. University of Maryland Athletic Director Deborah Yow, according to Michelle R. Davis, has suggested implementing a 50-50 athletic ratio, regardless of the general student body's ratio, while providing universities with a five- percent cushion (22). Another Title IX proportionality reformer idea includes counting only students of traditional college age (18-23) in determining an institution's proportions of men to women. Davis argues that this would have a profound effect on calculating proportionality since a "high percentage of older students, many of them women" are likely not to participate in athletics (22). Dan Gable says, "Let's keep Title IX, but get rid