Title IX
Mari Matsuda, former Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Excerpt from Patsy Mink: Ahead of the Majority, 2008. (Video unavailable after 2022 in accordance with licensing arrangement.)
The Law
Title IX of the 1972 education amendments prohibits sex-based discrimination in public undergraduate institutions and all vocational, graduate and professional institutions that receive federal funding. It also applies to preschools, elementary schools, and secondary schools. Though Title IX is closely associated with sports, athletics is not mentioned explicitly in the text of the law.
"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 education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."
Public Law 92-318, June 23, 1972
Early challenges required vigilance
President Nixon signed the education amendments into law on June 23, 1972. But this did not mean that Congress’s work was done. In fact, this was just the beginning of a lengthy process that determined how the law would be implemented and enforced. Indeed, the scope and application of Title IX was–and continues to be–affected by legislation, the rulemaking process, court decisions, guidance and interpretation from executive agencies, lobbying, and public opinion and advocacy.
Amendments proposed during Title IX’s legislative journey as well as after its passage, sought to limit the application of the law. Proposed amendments attempted to exempt athletics programs from compliance with Title IX, to exempt revenue-generating sports from compliance, and to exempt undergraduate institutions altogether.
One of the most serious legislative challenges to Title IX came in 1975, with Representative Bob Casey’s (D-TX) amendment to exempt physical education classes and honorary, service, and social groups and societies from Title IX compliance. The amendment was defeated.
July 16, 1975 letter from Representative Casey to members of the House, requesting support for an amendment that would exempt physical education classes and certain campus groups from Title IX compliance.
July 16, 1975 letter from Representatives Abzug, Chisholm, Mink, and others, calling on members to reject the “regressive” Casey amendment.
May 11, 1976 letter from Representative Chisholm, urging colleagues to reject anticipated amendments to Title IX.
June 23, 1976 letter from Representatives Abzug, Mink, and Hawkins, urging colleagues to reject another amendment that would exempt physical education classes from Title IX compliance.
June 20, 1975 letter from the NCAA to members of Congress urging them to reject DHEW’s Title IX regulations.
Regulations: Title IX prohibited sex-based discrimination in education, but it did not provide details about how the law should be implemented and enforced. That information came in the form of regulations issued by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare’s Office for Civil Rights. During the 1974 public review period for Title IX draft regulations, OCR received nearly 10,000 public comments.
"We cannot in good conscience continue to allow our educational institutions to deny women and girls the educational opportunities that have been the assumed right of their brothers. The Title IX regulation provides a start in the direction of providing equal educational opportunity regardless of sex. I urge the Congress to demonstrate its commitment to equal educational opportunity by allowing the Title IX regulation to take effect in its entirety on July 21, 1975. Such an action would be consistent with the spirit of International Women’s Year and would serve to reinforce the principles of equal opportunity upon which this country was founded two centuries ago."
Patsy Mink, urging Congress to allow the DHEW regulations to go into effect, Sex Discrimination Regulations: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, June 1975
Marilyn Moniz, former Associate Athletics Director, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. Excerpt from Patsy Mink: Ahead of the Majority, 2008. (Video unavailable after 2022 in accordance with licensing arrangement.)
Lawsuits also sought to challenge or clarify the law. For example, Supreme Court decisions clarified that employees at educational institutions are also covered under Title IX; determined that revenue-generating sports are included in Title IX jurisdiction; and determined that monetary damages are available to Title IX plaintiffs.
In some cases, court decisions significantly limited Title IX’s applicability. The 1984 Grove City College v. Bell decision determined that Title IX jurisdiction did not apply to institutions as a whole, but only to units and subunits receiving federal financial assistance. This decision essentially exempted athletic programs, which typically did not receive federal financial assistance, from Title IX compliance. These protections were restored by Congress, over presidential veto, in 1988.
21st-century changes and challenges
Application and enforcement of Title IX continues to change. The Department of Education and Department of Justice under the Obama administration, for example, issued more guidance around campus sexual violence, and interpreted Title IXʻs prohibition on sex discrimination to include discrimination based on a student’s gender identity, thereby protecting transgender students. During the Trump administration, regulations were revised again, this time to revoke protections for transgender students and to grant more protections to individuals accused of sexual violence. The Biden administration is expected to issue proposed Title IX guidelines in April 2022.