During the fall student conferences, we facilitate a workshop called “Leveling the Playing Field,” which explains the basics of Title IX to high school students. At the beginning of the lesson, we always ask students what they know about Title IX. The typical response (if there is one) immediately jumps to sports. “Oh, Title IX means girls get to play sports,” or something to that effect.
The facilitator explains that Title IX extends equal protection under the law to both genders in many areas including sports, but certainly not limited to them. Whether it’s making sure male and females have an equal opportunity to participate in sports, single gender classes don’t result in gender discrimination, or that females feel just as comfortable signing up for shop as males do for home economics, Title IX works to ensure that males and females have equal educational opportunity.
I read an op-ed in the Washington Post yesterday speaking to this very issue. The author, who leads a coalition working to reform Title IX, suggests that in these difficult economic times, it doesn’t make sense to continue applying Title IX the same way to sports teams.
Title IX was added to the Civil Rights Act to extend protections in the 14th amendment to both sexes not just in the times of abundance, but particularly in the difficult times. While public consciousness views Title IX as primarily related to sports teams, the law protects quite a bit more than sports teams. Altering Title IX in any way other than to further extend protections would endanger education for both male and female students. In these difficult times, restricting education for either sex doesn’t really make sense, does it?
