Today (June 23) marks the 40th anniversary of Title IX, the U. S. Congress’s “Education Amendments of 1972”, which was signed into law by Richard Nixon on June 23, 1972. In 37 brief words, Congress eliminated discrimination against women in educational institutions.
Section 1681. Sex
(a) Prohibition against discrimination; exceptions. 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. . .
(There follow some exceptions, including the Boy and Girl Scouts, fraternities and sororities, and military institutions.)
The amendment was introduced by Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana, who made this eloquent statement in Congress:
“While the impact of this amendment would be far-reaching,” Bayh concluded, “it is not a panacea. It is, however, an important first step in the effort to provide for the women of America something that is rightfully theirs—an equal chance to attend the schools of their choice, to develop the skills they want, and to apply those skills with the knowledge that they will have a fair chance to secure the jobs of their choice with equal pay for equal work.”
Wikipedia gives the tortuous history and implementation of this landmark legislation, which extended rights to women that had been given to blacks nine years before. Importantly, the bill extended to school athletic programs, even if they weren’t supported by Federal funds, for such programs were subject to Title IX if any part of an educational institution received federal funds. All of them do, of course: scientists, for example, get federal grants.
Although Title IX applies to all aspects of education (dormitories, sex-segregated classes, and so on), the big disparity in women’s access was in athletics. I was just out of college when this passed, and heard all the dire predictions from men that it would lead to the death of male athletics, like football and wrestling, by diverting those funds to women’s teams. Well, the former didn’t happen, and there are a ton more women participating in sports now than 40 years ago. I’m sure that Title IX led to the burgeoning of women’s soccer and basketball and the subsequent rise of the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA).
It was a great piece of legislation, but it’s sad that it took two hundred years after the founding of our Republic to get it.
I think this “Women are Students, Too” legislation probably aided the transformation of several all-female colleges into co-ed universities that offered more opportunities to everyone.
Now if we could only pass the “Women are People” law, we might take another step in the right direction.
http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/default.htm
We’re too busy taking steps in the wrong direction I fear, driven by a combination of ignorance, magical thinking, and disinterest in public affairs. Unless the people start thinking and paying attention in a lot larger numbers, I don’t see how any progress can be made in anything.
I wonder if, after they complete their present agenda and need new trgets, the religious right won’t just decide that women are not people at all and should be treated in a Biblical sort of way.
From what I can see, they already are.
It’s especially disconcerting to not have this in a world where corporations are people.
It surprises me that this legislation came out of Indiana.
Things can change allot in forty years.
Oh, not at all. Birch Bayh was one of the great ones (still is really). He was the principal architect of both the 25th an 26th Amendments to the Constitution. He also was the principal proponent of the Equal Rights Amendment, which passed both houses but wasn’t ratified by the states or he would have had 3 Amendments to his credit.
By 1980 though, the christian right was well established, especially in states like Indiana. He lost his re-election bid to that moron Dan Quayle. When Reagan made a pact with the christian right, he ruined the once respectable Republican Party. Great men like Bayh were replaced by buffoons like Quayle. And here we are in 2012, still suffering the consequences.
Something about Reagan worth keeping in mind: he died from Alzheimer’s, and it’s certain that he was in the early stages while still president.
Like Bush Jr, in my view Reagan was just a hand puppet generally controlled by shadowy people in the background. In person he may have been a nice affable guy, but when push came to shove, his handlers called the shots — which was easy, given his decaying mind and the involvement of that wife of his.
But UU was at the height of his intellectual prowess during his reign as christian ‘n chief.
We had two progressive Senators from Indiana in those days! I think the contraction in labor unions here, and in many other places of course, probably had a lot to do with Dmocrats losing so much ground.
That’s funny – I read one part as “when Reagan made a pact with the satan right”- no big deal – satan and christian are all the same to me.
Title IX has undoubtedly caused far more good than harm; it is wonderful that it has been so successful in promoting women’s sports, and the only real shame seems to be that it was necessary in the first place.
However, Title IX *has* caused harm to wrestling programs. This is unfortunate, but okay – resources are clearly spread not only more equitably under T9 but also more efficiently (in terms of achieving social utility). But we should not pretend that this rearrangement of resources has not caused *any* harm. Wrestling (and even Men’s Track to a newer and much smaller degree) has been eliminated from many schools, and T9 is a big part of the reason.
It appears that it is used a good excuse but there is actually no evidence that Title IX has harmed wrestling. There were a few years when Title IX did not apply to programs in the 1980’s (due to a court case) yet wrestling was still dropped at a higher rate.
In any case, there are still more men involved in sports than before Title IX, hardly an indication of harm. If you want to look for a source of harm, you might want to consider those football programs. They use a lot of money. And they don’t all make a profit.
Not that athletic programs are the most important issue, but there has been redistribution of expenses–i.e. you can’t spend anything on the men unless you do the same to women regardless of how many women actually participate or how many people actually are interested in attending the sport.
This is where a form of ideological artifice comes in, rather than letting the number of participants and the number of spectators (in spectator sports) influence the decision. This is where I have a problem, because it’s an attempt to shoehorn ideology over human nature. It’s not about legal rights, it’s about an artifact.
We are mammals, and in general combat and ritualized combat is common in male mammals and rare in female. So it’s no surprise that many active competitive sports are primarily driven by males (both as competitors and as spectators).
BTW, successful football programs (and I have not interest in college football) are actually very effective both in direct fundraising and in raising the prestige and overall attraction of the school. I can guarantee you that if women’s football attracted as much fan attention, it would be as prominent.
This is 100% right. Of course, what Jay calls ‘ideological artifice’ I would call ‘encouraging women’s sports’, which I think is a good enough thing that it justifies the other harms discussed. But other than that difference in connotation (and hence perhaps in implied message) I think that Jay’s comment is right on the money.
Just because we like Title IX overall doesn’t mean we should lie to ourselves about its effects on things other than equality.
The “equal pay for equal work” part is still incredibly ass-backwards – many other nations are way ahead of the USA on that part. Why is the USA still refusing to pay women what they’ve earned?
Good on US!