The OCR (Office for Civil Rights) hit it right on the head with this article posted in the U.S. Department of Education website. It states that 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 program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
Mr. Perez is a journalist who works for the AAUW (American Association of the University Women). They of course are very active Title IX. Actually the have a program formed to make sure that the TItle IX of 1972 is being enforced. TO make sure young women know what and how Tille IX works, they hold regular conventions at schools or .
In analyzing the scope of coverage under Title IX, it is critical to understand the role of the CRRA. As discussed in Chapter I, the CRRA amended Title IX, Title VI, Section 504, and the Age Discrimination Act by adding an explicit and expansive definition of "program or activity" that encompasses "all of the operations of" a covered entity, any part of which receives federal financial assistance, in order to establish the principle of institution-wide coverage. However, Title IX, unlike the other statutes amended by the CRRA, prohibits discrimination only in "education" programs or activities. Thus, it is necessary to reconcile the institution-wide coverage mandated by the CRRA with the fact that Title IX’s ban on sex discrimination is limited to education programs or activities.
Guttmann, Allen. Women's Sports A History. 1st. New York: Columbia Universoty Press, 1991. Guttmann 220-233)
This book spoke about women sports in todays society. What I learned form this book was that it was doubtful that the rate of sports participation was an important consideration in the legislative battles that culminated in the passage of Title IX of the Education Act of 1972, but the increases in participation in women's interscholastic and intercollegiate sports have certainly been abetted by Title IX. Did you know in 1972, Notre Dame University spent over 1 million dollars to aid male althletes and not a penny for women. The Syracuse, New York, school board's 1969 budget for extracurricular sports allocated $ 90,000 to the boys' team and $200 for the girls. In Seattle in 1973-74, the men received $2,582,000 and for women's sports $9,150.
Douglas, Janet. "Title IX." Title IX. March 2001. Women's Sports Foundation. 29 Oct 2008 < www.dadsanddaughters.org/TitleIX%20Info.htm >.
That one little word in a law passed by Congress in 1972 has led to a mini-revolution in all aspects of a girl's education, from kindergarten through graduate school. What's less well-known is that Title IX has also helped girls and women make inroads into other aspects of their education.The law does not say that educational institutions must provide equal opportunity for women and girls in athletics. The law does not say that women coaches must be compensated fairly for coaching women's and girls' sports. The law does not say that woman and girls must be free from sexual harassment in school. The law does not say that each school district must have a Title IX coordinator, that is, a person responsible for helping to ensure compliance with all aspects of Title IX, and a complaint procedure so that a student can safely bring these issues to the school's attention. But Title IX has spawned all of these things. In 1992, a group of women students sued Brown University, claiming that its decision to lower the varsity status and funding of its women's gymnastic and volleyball teams denied women equal opportunity under Title IX. It looked as if the University was "cutting and de-funding" equally, because the school had also demoted men's water polo and golf. But after evaluating the University's entire athletic program, the women students argued that the cuts to the women's teams disproportionately affected their opportunities to participate in athletics. After a five-year court battle, in the case of Cohen v. Brown University, the federal court of appeals agreed with the women students and sent the matter back to the University to work out an athletic program that complied with Title IX.
Scott, Miller. "Title IX and Sex Discrimination." U.S. Department of Education. 25 May 2003. Office for Civil Rights. 28 Oct 2008 <http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html>. \
The OCR (Office for Civil Rights) hit it right on the head with this article posted in the U.S. Department of Education website. It states that 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 program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
Perez, Filmor. "Title IX: Ensuring Equity in Education for Women and Girls." AAUW's Position on Title IX . 6 Decmber 2007. AAUW. 28 Oct 2008 <http://www.aauw.org/advocacy/issue_advocacy/actionpages/titleix.cfm>.
Mr. Perez is a journalist who works for the AAUW (American Association of the University Women). They of course are very active Title IX. Actually the have a program formed to make sure that the TItle IX of 1972 is being enforced. TO make sure young women know what and how Tille IX works, they hold regular conventions at schools or .
"TITLE IX LEGAL MANUAL." Civil Rights Division. 11 Janurary 2001. U.S. Department of Justice. 28 Oct 2008 http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/coord/ixlegal.php.
In analyzing the scope of coverage under Title IX, it is critical to understand the role of the CRRA. As discussed in Chapter I, the CRRA amended Title IX, Title VI, Section 504, and the Age Discrimination Act by adding an explicit and expansive definition of "program or activity" that encompasses "all of the operations of" a covered entity, any part of which receives federal financial assistance, in order to establish the principle of institution-wide coverage. However, Title IX, unlike the other statutes amended by the CRRA, prohibits discrimination only in "education" programs or activities. Thus, it is necessary to reconcile the institution-wide coverage mandated by the CRRA with the fact that Title IX’s ban on sex discrimination is limited to education programs or activities.
Guttmann, Allen. Women's Sports A History. 1st. New York: Columbia Universoty Press, 1991. Guttmann 220-233)
This book spoke about women sports in todays society. What I learned form this book was that it was doubtful that the rate of sports participation was an important consideration in the legislative battles that culminated in the passage of Title IX of the Education Act of 1972, but the increases in participation in women's interscholastic and intercollegiate sports have certainly been abetted by Title IX. Did you know in 1972, Notre Dame University spent over 1 million dollars to aid male althletes and not a penny for women. The Syracuse, New York, school board's 1969 budget for extracurricular sports allocated $ 90,000 to the boys' team and $200 for the girls. In Seattle in 1973-74, the men received $2,582,000 and for women's sports $9,150.
Douglas, Janet. "Title IX." Title IX. March 2001. Women's Sports Foundation. 29 Oct 2008 < www.dadsanddaughters.org/TitleIX%20Info.htm >.
That one little word in a law passed by Congress in 1972 has led to a mini-revolution in all aspects of a girl's education, from kindergarten through graduate school. What's less well-known is that Title IX has also helped girls and women make inroads into other aspects of their education.The law does not say that educational institutions must provide equal opportunity for women and girls in athletics. The law does not say that women coaches must be compensated fairly for coaching women's and girls' sports. The law does not say that woman and girls must be free from sexual harassment in school. The law does not say that each school district must have a Title IX coordinator, that is, a person responsible for helping to ensure compliance with all aspects of Title IX, and a complaint procedure so that a student can safely bring these issues to the school's attention. But Title IX has spawned all of these things. In 1992, a group of women students sued Brown University, claiming that its decision to lower the varsity status and funding of its women's gymnastic and volleyball teams denied women equal opportunity under Title IX. It looked as if the University was "cutting and de-funding" equally, because the school had also demoted men's water polo and golf. But after evaluating the University's entire athletic program, the women students argued that the cuts to the women's teams disproportionately affected their opportunities to participate in athletics. After a five-year court battle, in the case of Cohen v. Brown University, the federal court of appeals agreed with the women students and sent the matter back to the University to work out an athletic program that complied with Title IX.