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?