title ix laws and intercollegiate athletics

  research paper by Michael lancaster

In 2002, The Independent Women’s Forum conducted a study based on equity not only in sports, but also throughout the college campuses.  After the study was done, they came to discover that if the courts required gender parity across the board, 96.4% of all female cheerleaders would have to be dropped from the cheerleading programs, 35.8% of female choir members and 25.4% of female orchestra members would be cut. 33% of female debaters would also be denied the chance to compete (Independent Women’s Forum 2003).

In June of 2002, the National Wrestling Coaches Association filed a lawsuit against Title IX.  Later members of the College Gymnastics Coaches Association, the U.S. Track Coaches Association, and United States Diving Association joined in the fight against Title IX.  The groups sued in federal court by charging the Board of Education with reverse discrimination.  The NWCA made claims that college sports such as track and field, wrestling, and swimming programs for men were being jeopardized due to false interpretations of Title IX.  The NWCA failed in its attempt to have Title IX laws changed in regards to intercollegiate athletics (Cook 2004). 

In 1972 there was a mere 30,000 women participating in intercollegiate athletics.  At present there are more than 160,000 competing female athletes.  In the last 20 years female intercollegiate athletic participation has increased by more than 80 percent, with a 66 percent increase in female athletic teams (Lapchick 2003).

There has been much protest over the elimination of men’s teams over the years that has seen many cases in the courts.  The courts have adopted substantial proportionality -- which says that the ratio of female to male varsity athletes must closely mirror the ratio of female to male undergraduate students -- as the only Title IX enforcement mechanism.  Some affected athletes have challenged such results with litigation of their own; to date every case has lost in the courtroom. (Oraker 2002)