Title IX

Title IX was one of many legislative responses to the movements for equality prominent in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s.  As one of the largest public universities in the nation, the University of Michigan featured substantial student activism directed at political and social concerns during this era. By the late 1960s, many organizational changes had altered the landscape for women’s athletic opportunities: the Women’s Athletic Association which oversaw club sports had disbanded, and the Department of Physical Education for Women had been merged into a general physical education department.[1] These events formed the backdrop for the adoption of Title IX on the U-M campus. More than forty years after the Higher Education Act of 1972 became law, the phrase “Title IX” is often invoked to advocate for equal rights in sports. But what does Title IX actually say?

“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.”[2]

Ironically, when the bill was first passed in Congress, its mandates for athletic programming were not at the forefront of conversation.[3] Primarily, the goal of Title IX was and is to combat discrimination on the basis of sex to ensure equal opportunity in such areas as college admissions and hiring.  But because of the obvious imbalance between men’s and women’s intercollegiate athletic programs, the amount of money involved, and the shifting attitudes about women’s athletics, athletics quickly became “the most hotly debated facet of Title IX.”[4]

The bill calls for proportionate expenditures and opportunities in athletic programs for women, especially in relation to access to facilities, equipment, scheduling, travel funds, coaches, and scholarships.[5] Athletic directors across the country recognized immediately that implementing Title IX would require a complete restructuring of their existing programs, a fact with which many were outraged, including U-M’s Don Canham.   

Because of the complexity and vague wording of the original bill, the federal government and athletic directors spent the next three years clarifying the requirements. Compliance was gauged by a number of factors, including the number of teams available to each sex, equipment and supplies, scheduling, travel and per diem allowances, access to and pay for coaches and tutors, access to a number of facilities, publicity, and scholarships.  Nowhere in the bill does it mandate equal expenditures; rather, HEW assess compliance based on the principle of reasonable proportionality between the programs.[6]