Title IX Pros And Cons

Title IX is a provision of the U.S. Education Amendment Act of 1972 whose enactment was motivated by the need to curb sex-based discrimination in American academic institutions, on matters pertaining to participating or benefiting from state-funded college programs (Smith, 2011). Since its inception, the provision has continued to receive a lot of praise and criticism in equal measures. Proponents of the provision usually cite the important role Title IX has played in enhancing the participation of female students in college athletics (Smith, 2011). However, its critics are convinced that the provision prevents many hardworking student athletes (especially male ones) from financially benefiting from their participation in revenue-generating
college athletics activities and competitions.
This paper seeks to build on this overview to extensively discuss why Title IX is unfair to thousands of student athletes whose participation in intercollegiate athletics continue to generate millions of dollars for their universities and who lack the capacity to compete at the professional level in future. The study will commence by providing an overview of the provision before proceeding to articulate how unfair it is, as far as enabling students to profit from their participation in college athletes is concerned.
Overview of Title IX
As pointed out earlier, Title IX seeks to avert cases of students being subjected to discrimination on the basis of their sex, particularly as it pertains to federally funded education activities such as securing academic scholarships. However, the provision is mostly synonymous with imposing quotas on participation in a wide range of education athletic activities and competitions in U.S (Dosh, 2011). The enactment of the provision has proved to be of great significance in breaking numerous barriers that used to inhibit female students from taking part in various sports and athletic activities normally organized by their schools, colleges and universities. Title IX realizes the objective of preventing gender-based discrimination by making it mandatory for academic institutions to comply with the three-prong test requirement (Dosh, 2011). The latter is a stipulation intended to spearhead comparative treatment of male and female student athletes through compelling educational institutions and organizations to at least uphold any of the three important prongs, namely: proportionality, continuous expansion and full accommodation. The principle of proportionality emphasizes on the need to ensure schools, colleges and universities provide equal athletics-participatory opportunities to both their male and female students, based on the actual enrolment figures for each gender (Dosh, 2011). On the other hand, the concept of continuous expansion makes it imperative for institutions to introduce new athletic opportunities particularly through creating new sporting activities that can facilitate equal participation. The last prong (i.e. full accommodation) strives to ensure that the participatory opportunities being offered by academic institutions are capable of meeting the individual needs and interests of both male and female students (Dosh, 2011).
How Title IX is unfair to Thousands of Successful Revenue Generating Student Athletes Debates about whether or not student athletes who generate millions of dollars for their respective universities should be paid have been wedging on in the country for many years. The controversy surrounding such debates normally emanates from the fact that Title IX fails to exclusively authorize academic institutions to pay their male and female student athletes for their participation in college athletics activities and competitions (Dosh, 2011). A better understanding of these assertions can be realized by considering the three key requirements that form the basis of compliance with Title IX. As per Dosh (2011), Title IX compliance requires that colleges and universities foster equal athletics participation, offer financial assistance to student athletes and create an environment that facilitates comparable treatment of male and female athletes. However, it is worth noting that the provision fails to extensively detail the nature of financial assistance that ought to be offered to student athletes. Marks (2014) concurred with these assertions by explaining how Title IX only mandates academic institutions to proportionally allocate scholarships to their revenue producing students. The impression created by this requirement is that offering male and female student athletes scholarships is the most appropriate way of compensating them for their dedication, hard work and contribution (Miller, 2012). This perception is totally inappropriate considering that college athletics is currently regarded as a big booming business that generates enormous revenues for virtually all colleges and universities across the country. Staurowsky (2012) was even categorical that the moneymaking approach that defines college athletics bears a lot of similarities to the way professional U.S. leagues such as NFL, Major League Baseball and Super Bowl are run. The unfairness of the provision can be illuminated by considering the existing notion that universities compensate their student athletes through offering them free education.
A study commissioned by the National Players College Association (NPCA) and Drexel University Sport Management Program in 2011 debunked this belief by revealing that the scholarship offered to student athletes by National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) as articulated by Title IX only covers the tuition and accommodation fees (Staurowsky, 2012). As a result of this, recipients of such scholarships end up footing other academic costs that can’t be classified as accommodation or tuition charges. Therefore, considering that NCAA scholarships can’t even offer absolutely free education to student athletes, it goes without saying that Title IX is totally unfair to thousands of students who generate millions of dollars for their universities while participating in different athletic competitions and activities (Miller,
2012). In addition to this, Title IX is unfair to thousands of revenue generating student athletes due to the fact that it doesn’t articulate how differences in status can impact on the way male and female student athletes are treated.
Staurowsky (2012) shed more light on this issue by narrating how the provision continues to encourage universities to treat their successful athletes as mere students while in real essence they should be regarded as genuine workers. This status recognition loophole has continued to provide an avenue for universities to garner millions of dollars through exploiting their student athletes. If Title IX was really fair, it would have advocated for revenue producing student athletes to be regarded as employees who deserve a significant share of the millions they generate for their respective universities (Staurowsky, 2012). Therefore, it can be asserted that whereas the provision is meant to curb discrimination, it actually perpetrates unfairness as a result of its failure to articulate whether revenue producing athletes ought to be regarded as students or genuine
employees. In conclusion, it is important to note that Title IX was incepted with a view of ensuring that both male and female students are given equal athletic-participatory opportunities by their respective academic institutions. The paper began by providing a brief overview of the provision where it was established that it facilitates the comparative treatment of all student, irrespective of their gender, through compelling schools, college and universities to uphold the three-prong test requirement. However, this stipulation has also been identified as one of the major factors that position Title IX as being unfair to thousands of revenue producing student athletes since it advocates for such students to be given scholarships instead of being paid for their enormous contribution. The paper has also classified Title IX as unfair because the scholarships that student athletes receive from NCAA fail to guarantee totally free education since they fail to cover all learning costs. More importantly, the provision continues to treat the athletes who generate millions of dollars for their respective universities as mere students who don’t deserve a share of such enormous revenues.