Title IX and Financing Intercollegiate Athletics

2012 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-292
Author(s):  
Angela Lumpkin
2007 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 46-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen J. Staurowsky ◽  
Heather Lawrence ◽  
Amanda Paule ◽  
James Reese ◽  
Kristy Falcon ◽  
...  

As a measure of progress, the experiences today of women athletes in the state of Ohio are far different from those attending institutions of higher learning just after the passage of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. But how different, and how much progress has been made? The purpose of this study was to assess the level of progress made by compiling and analyzing data available through the Equity in Athletics Disclosure reports filed by 61 junior colleges, four year colleges, and universities in the State of Ohio over a four year span of time for the academic years 2002-2006.2 The template for this study was the report completed by the Women’s Law Project examining gender equity in intercollegiate athletics in colleges and universities in Pennsylvania (Cohen, 2005), the first study of its kind. Similar to that effort, this study assesses the success with which intercollegiate athletic programs in Ohio have collectively responded to the mandates of Title IX in areas of participation opportunities and financial allocations in the form of operating budgets, scholarship assistance, recruiting and coaching.3


2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-34
Author(s):  
Nina Compton ◽  
J. Douglas Compton

Title IX of the Education Reformation Act was passed in 1972 for the purpose of providing equality between males and females in intercollegiate sports. Since its inception the disparity between mens and womens varsity athletics programs has persisted throughout American colleges and universities. Discrimination and equal protection concerns define the continuing debate of gender equality under the Act. Campuses across the Nation have seen athletic departments add womens varsity sport programs and cut mens programs in order to remain compliant under the Act. This paper explores the equal protection concerns of proportionality amongst enrollment rates and participation rates in intercollegiate athletics. The state of Title IX today remains clouded with questions by college administrators who, after over three decades of enforcement, are employing proportionality concepts as a measure to obtain gender equality in sports. The proportionality practice of cutting mens programs instead of adding womens programs may undermine the purpose of Title IX. This paper is an analysis of the Court decisions and lawsuits that characterize the controversy of Title IX and its legal application to claims of gender bias associated with female athletic programs. The study of this concern is imperative and will shape how college athletic programs are administered in the future.


1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 33-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia Lee A. Pemberton ◽  
Robert B. Everhart

The purpose of the project described in this study was to develop and field-test an educational workshop designed to lower individual and organizational resistance to change relative to the issues of gender equity in intercollegiate athletics. The effectiveness of the workshop was assessed by addressing three questions: (a) Did participants believe that their participation in the workshop increased their awareness and understanding of Title IX?; (b) Did participants believe that their participation in the workshop increased their awareness and understanding of the gender specific value of sport?; and, (c) Do/did participants indicate that they intended to initiate actions to facilitate further gender equity on their own campuses?Workshop participants included intercollegiate athletic personnel from two National Athletic Intercollegiate Association and/or National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III member institutions. The institutions and participants were selected based on their willingness to participate in the workshop fiel, d-tests.The workshop content addressed Title IX and the gender specific value of sport using a combination lecture and small group activity format. The effectiveness of the workshop was assessed using a post-workshop survey, workshop facilitator notes and reflections, and in the case of the first workshop field-test, focus group and follow-up interviews.The findings were: (a) Both workshop field-tests were effective in lowering change resistance as defined in this project, with the revised workshop being more effective than the original workshop; and, (b) The workshop was improved through consideration and implementation of selected education change strategies and adult learning theory.


2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie B. Lane

Media coverage of Title IX over the past several decades has both praised the law and the achievements of female athletes who have benefited from it and highlighted claims that men’s college sports have been the unanticipated victims of the effort to increase opportunities for women. This study sought to understand how coverage of the debate in 1974–1975 over the Title IX regulations helped shape discourse about the law with regard to intercollegiate athletics. Through a combination of archival research and qualitative media analysis, I identified arguments made by Title IX critics and advocates and analyzed coverage of the debate in the New York Times and the Washington Post, paying particular attention to the presence or absence of what Dunja Antunovic called conflict and celebratory narratives. I found that conflict narratives that reflected concerns of Title IX critics overwhelmed celebratory narratives as well as anticommercialism narratives that I also detected. I concluded that these newspapers allowed critics, led by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, to shape the discourse about the meaning of Title IX and its consequences, thereby reinforcing male dominance of the American sport culture and missing an opportunity to question the commercialization of intercollegiate athletics.


2006 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah J. Anderson ◽  
John Jesse Cheslock ◽  
Ronald G. Ehrenberg

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document