1. 2004-2005 Dr. Christine H.B. Grant

2. Title IX No person in the United States, shall on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

3. Title IX requirements Financial assistance Effective accommodation of students’ interests and abilities Benefits, opportunities and treatment

4. Equipment and supplies Scheduling of practice and competition Travel and per diem Opportunities for coaching and academic tutors Assignment and compensation of coaches and academic tutors Locker room, practice and competitive facilities Medical and training facilities and services Housing and dining facilities and services Publicity

5. Effective accommodation of students’ interests and abilities Opportunities for males and females substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments Where one sex has been underrepresented, a history and continuing practice of program expansion responsive to the developing interests and abilities of that sex. Where one sex is underrepresented and cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by that present program.

6. History 1972 passage of Title IX. 1974 Javits Amendment: HEW must issue Title IX regulations. “…with respect to intercollegiate athletic activities, reasonable provisions, considering the nature of particular sports.” 1974 Amendment to exempt revenue-producing sports from Title IX rejected. 1975 Bills to alter Title IX athletics coverage die in committee 1975 HEW issues final regulations, reviewed by Congress, signed into law with provisions banning sex discrimination and establishes 3-year time frame to be compliant. 1975 Congress reviews Title IX regulations and doesn’t disapprove. 1975 & 1977 Senate refuses to act on bills to curtail Title IX enforcement. 1979 HEW issues final policy interpretations - Rather than relying on presumption of compliance, final policy focuses on institution’s obligation to equal opportunity and details factors to assess compliance. 1980 DOE established, OCR given oversight responsibilities.

7. History 1984 Grove City vs. Bell: only programs/activities receiving direct Federal assistance held to Title IX. 1988 Civil Rights Restoration Act: mandated all educational institutions receiving federal aid be bound by Title IX. 1990 Title IX investigational manual published. 1992 Franklin vs. Gwinnett County Public Schools. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Title IX plaintiffs are eligible for punitive damages when intentional action to avoid Title Ix compliance is established. 1992 Gender Equity Study. 1994 Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA).

8. Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act Number of male/female participation slots Total operating expenses for men’s and women’s sports Number of male/female head coaches Number of male/female assistants Amount of athletics scholarship money allocated to males/females Salaries for coaches Amount of recruiting dollars for men/women

10. NCAA data

14. General Accounting Office Study on NCAA & NAIA men’s teams 1981-19821998-99Difference # of men’s teams9,1139,14936 teams Courtesy of Women’s Sports Foundation

15. General Accounting Office Study on NCAA & NAIA men’s teams 1981-19821998-1999Difference # of men’s teams9,1139,149+36 teams # of male student athletes220,178231,86611,688 (+5%) GAO 1999

16. NCAA all divisions Men’s teams dropped and added 1988-2002 # Added teams 1,938 # Dropped teams 1,877 Net gain + 61 teams NCAA 2003 data

17. Men’s teams dropped and added 1988-2002 Division III # Added1002 # Dropped790 Net gain+ 212 teams Division II # Added 494 # Dropped 471 Net gain: +23 teams Division I # Added 442 # Dropped616 Net Loss -174 teams NCAA 2003 data

18. Summary: Losses/gains in NCAA men’s teams Division III +212 teams Division II +23 teams Division I-AAA-31 teams Division I-AA-38 teams Division I-A -109 teams NCAA 2003 data

19. * Wrestling-99 Tennis-53 * Rifle-33 * Gymnastics-32 * Fencing-23 Swimming/diving-22 * Lost teams in all 3 divisions NCAA men’s teams (all divisions): greatest number lost 1988-2002 NCAA 2003 data

23. 2001

24. Daniel L. Fulks, 2001

26. Comparison of Gender Equity Survey (92) and EADA (97, 02) Division IA 199219972002 MaleFemaleMaleFemaleMaleFemale Participation71%29%66%34%56%44% Scholarships72%28%66%34%59%41% Op. Budget80%20%79%21%71%29% Recruiting84%16%75%25%70%30% Female undergraduate population in Division IA: 52% From the Chronicle of Higher Education

27. Changes in operating expenses NCAA gender equity survey results Division I-A 19921997Increase Men1,049,0002,429,0001,380,000 Women263,000663,000400,000 Division II 19921997Increase Men 190,470 177,500 -12,970 Women 73,300 91,50018,200 Division III 19921997Increase Men112,400127,20014,800 Women56,12073,40017,280 NCAA data

30. Growing deficits in athletic programs 199319992001 I-A-$2.10-$3.30-$3.80 I-AA-$1.91-$2.69-$3.60 I-AAA-$1.44-$2.61-$3.10 II with FB-$0.91-$1.24-$1.40 II w/o FB-$0.55-$0.98-$1.20 Daniel L. Fulks, 2001

33. NCAA Gender equity report Women’s percentages 2001-2002 Division Undergrad percent D-I Ave. percent Participation D-I Ave. percent Scholarship D-I Ave. percent Recruiting D-I Ave. percent Total ExpenseD-I Ave. percent IA5253.54344414430333034 IAA554243356934 IAAA585055444834 II5639423641 III5640--3441 Average 54.5 From Gender Equity report 2001-2002

34. NCAA Gender equity report Travel, equipment, uniforms DivisionMenWomen I-A6733 I-AA6139 I-AAA5446 All D-I6436 II5842 III5842 NCAA Gender Equity report 2001-02

35. NCAA Gender equity report Women’s coaching percentages DivisionHead coach Salaries Assistant Salaries I-A36 (-2%)27 I-AA4329 I-AAA4546 II4730 III4532 NCAA Gender Equity report 2001-02

36. April 16, 1993 US Court of Appeals Cohen, et al vs. Brown University Class action. Effective accommodation of interests/ abilities. Reinstated women’s gymnastics and volleyball. July 16, 1993 Settled Sanders et al vs. U. Texas at Austin Class action. Added softball, soccer, increased walk-ons, and capped men. July 19, 1993 Settled Kiechal et al vs. Auburn U Class action followed by Title IX complaint. $140,000 to plaintiffs, started women’s varsity soccer with $200,000 budget, field and scholarship timetable. Oct. 21, 1993 Settled California NOW vs. California State University system Class action. Timetable for progress. Opportunities and aid within five percent and funding within 10 percent. Title IX Lawsuits

37. Commission on Opportunities in Athletics, 2002-3 Commission on Opportunities in Athletics 2002-3

38. Atlanta Journal-Constitution Dec. 1999 8-part special: The Gender Gap Day 1: More than 27 years after a federal law mandated that school athletic programs for boys and girls be given comparable support, gender equity is still not the standard in most Georgia high schools. Not even close. Day 2: First-class sports amenities are not new to boys sports, thanks to booster clubs that perpetuate inequities and continue to leave girls with second-class facilities. Day 3: From coaches’ compensation to sports budgets, football programs get the lion’s share of everything in high schools across Georgia. Day 4: Participation in Florida high school athletics has risen sharply since the state passed laws to ensure equality of sports opportunity. Day 5: With college scholarships at stake, parents increasingly insist Georgia schools address disparities in opportunities that girls receive. Day 6: Oconee County High School has made strides since becoming Georgia’s first high school with a Title IX complaint filed against it. Day 7: Padding the participation numbers for girls, the Georgia High School Association classifies competitive cheerleading as a sport, over the objections of Title IX watchdogs. Day 8: A bipartisan pair of legislators is preparing to introduce a bill that would give Georgia power to monitor and enforce Title IX compliance in the state’s high schools. Plus: Readers comment on the Gender Gap series and inequities in high school sports in Georgia.

39. Georgia High School Sports 5 women2495 men Executive Committee of Georgia High School Association 1486 Legislative grants 595 Extended pay supplements 2575 Salary supplements GirlsBoys From Georgia High Schools 1999

40. Georgia vs. Florida 75,76045,678Female Athletes, 98-99 108,28981,960Male Athletes, 98-99 YesNoWas an equity seminar conducted by the State Education Department this year? YesNoAre districts required to submit annual self-reviews of gender equity in athletics? YesNoAre there state-imposed penalties for failure to comply? YesNoIs there a state law prohibiting gender discrimination in schools? 420How many schools were out of compliance with gender equity laws last year as determined by the state? 601How many state Education department staff members are assigned to gender equity in sports? FloridaGeorgia From Georgia High School Association, Florida and Georgia departments of education

41. Universities have the right to reduce number of male athletes Cal-State Bakersfield Preliminary injunction to keep wrestling in Feb. 1999, Panel of U.S. Court of Appeals did not uphold. Illinois State Dropped men’s soccer and wrestling and added women’s soccer. Panel of U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed lawsuit.

42. Equal pay and/or wrongful termination Sex discrimination. Earned $70,000, seeks parity with men’s coach, seeking $8 million and reinstatement. Marianne Stanley v. USC Pending, filed Aug. 5, 1993 1 st amendment and breech of contract. VB coach assisted players settle lawsuit, awarded $1.35 million and undisclosed amount of punitive damages. James Huffman v. California State University System Feb. 8, 1994 Jury decision Sex discrimination lawsuit, first Title IX case awarding monetary damage, $1.1 million. Sanya Tyler v. Howard U June 23, 1993 Jury decision

43. Anti-Title IX Websites Iowans against quotas (@iaq2000.org) Americans against quotas (@aaq2000.org) Independent women’s forum (@iwf.org) National Coalition for athletic equity Simply common sense (scs@the_wrestling_mall.com)scs@the_wrestling_mall.com Citizens against quotas

44. Percent difference between female undergrads and female athletes (Big Ten, Pac 10, Big XII) Institution% undergrad % athleteDifference Michigan50.4751.771.30 Purdue41.6342.100.47 Texas A&M48.7748.45-0.32 Oklahoma St.48.1747.00-1.17 Michigan St.53.7252.41-1.31 Minnesota52.0450.66-1.38 Kansas St.47.4946.06-1.43 Penn St.47.0745.62-1.45 Iowa St.44.6643.18-1.48 USC49.8147.89-1.92 Wisconsin53.2751.03-2.24 Washington51.2948.80-2.49 Illinois47.0043.07-3.93 Northwestern52.4748.34-4.13 Kansas52.1347.98-4.15 Colorado47.0042.06-4.94 UCLA55.0049.86-5.14 Texas50.9645.80-5.16 Texas Tech46.3440.95-5.39 Arizona52.6846.93-5.75 Indiana52.9146.73-6.18 California53.0245.84-7.18 Missouri52.2443.73-8.51 Oklahoma49.1840.29-8.89 Iowa54.6144.67-9.94 Oregon State46.1235.32-10.80 Arizona St.52.1540.57-11.58 Nebraska47.0834.66-12.42 Oregon53.3940.30-13.09 Baylor57.7940.10-17.69 2001-02

45. Chronicle of Higher Education SEC numbers 2001-02 InstitutionUndergradsAthletesDifference Mississippi51.3132.72-18.59 Georgia56.4740.39-16.08 LSU52.6637.97-14.69 Alabama52.7738.35-14.42 Kentucky51.6637.66-14.00 South Carolina54.2744.17-10.10 Arkansas48.8939.62-9.27 Mississippi St.45.7236.58-9.14 Florida53.2844.85-8.43 Tennessee51.6945.60-6.09 Auburn47.9942.11-5.88 Vanderbilt52.2948.93-3.36

46. Percentage difference between female undergrads and female athletes 2001-02 1. 13 or 29 percent in compliance or within 3 percent a. Big Ten – 6 b. Big 12 – 4 c. Pac 10 – 3 d. SEC – 0 2. 20 or 44 percent in compliance or within five % points a. Big Ten – 9 b. Big 12 – 6 c. Pac 10 – 4 d. SEC – 1 3. 27 or 60 percent in compliance or within 7 % points a. Big Ten – 10 b. Big 12 – 8 c. Pac 10 – 6 d. SEC – 3 4. 18 or 40 percent greater difference than 7 points a. Big Ten – 1 b. Big 12 – 4 c. Pac 10 – 4 d. SEC – 9

47. Title IX websites http://bailiwick.lib.uiowa.edu/ge www.ncwge.org Title IX athletic policies, Aug. 2002 www.womenssportsfoundation.org

48. June 2003 Poll By Wall Street Journal and NBC News (from Chronicle of Higher Education, January 2003) ApproveDisapprove 1.Approve/Disapprove of Title IX68%20% 2.“Cutting back on men’s athletics to ensure equivalent athletic opportunities for women”66%27% 3.Attitudes toward changing Title IX: 20% Strengthen the law 50%No changes to law 21%Weaken the law i.e. 7 of 10 adults familiar with the law want Title IX strengthened or left alone. Title IX “does not require colleges to give the same amount of money to men’s and women’s sports programs or to have equal numbers of male and female athletes; it does require colleges to provide equitable resources and opportunities in a non-discriminatory manner.”

49. The Bottom Line NCAA Division I-A EADA Data 1999-2000 MENWOMEN Participation5743 Scholarships5941 Operating budget7030 Recruiting budget7030 Female and college participation High school: 2.9 million or 42 percent College: 153,601 or 42 percent

50. Gender Equity “Gender equity is an atmosphere and a reality where fair distribution of overall athletic opportunity and resources are proportionate to women and men and where no student-athlete, coach or athletic administrator is discriminated against in any way in the athletic program on the basis of gender.” “That is to say, an athletic program is gender equitable when the men’s sports program would be pleased to accept for its own the overall participation, opportunities and resources currently allocated to the women’s program and vice versa.” NCAA Gender Equity Task Force