User:Carajs94/sandbox

Title IX
Although Title IX requires gender equity for boys and girls in every educational program that receives federal funding, the law has specifically made a significant impact on the gender distribution of college athletes since its passing in 1972. The law states that "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..."

In 1975, the final clause of Title IX was signed into law and included provisions prohibiting sex discrimination in athletics. The regulations pertaining to athletics require that an institution which sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club or intramural athletics shall provide “equal athletic opportunity” for members of both sexes. . Since the passing of Title IX, many NCAA institutions have had problems with the compliance of these regulations. In order to successfully comply with Title IX requirements, NCAA institutions must meet one of the requirements in the "three prong test" as follows:
 * 1) Prong one - Provide athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to student enrollment. This part of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollment.
 * 2) Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This part of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).
 * 3) Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This part of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.

As Title IX compliance has become A significant body of literature currently exists concerning institutional compliance and gender equity issues surrounding Title IX. Research has found that:
 * Division I-AAA schools are more likely to comply with Title IX requirements than Division I-A or Division I-AA schools, which sponsor football.
 * Smaller institutions are more likely than larger institutions to be in compliance with Title IX.
 * Southern schools are less likely to comply with requirements.
 * The attitudes of key individuals (i.e., university president or athletic director) are critical components in determining whether an institution’s athletic program complies with Title IX.
 * A college’s reputation for academic integrity and for success in women’s athletics suggests greater enthusiasm towards creating equal athletic opportunities for women.

Title IX has had a considerable impact on college athletics. Since its passing, Title IX has allowed for female participation in high school sports to increase nearly tenfold and almost double at the college level. Though Title IX is just 37 words in length, it has been both credited with and blamed for a lot of things that have happened in college athletics in the past four decades. Studies on the gender equity of sports found on college campuses have provided an examination of how Title IX is perceived. Questions have been raised over the equity between male and female student athletes. Females, regardless of whether an administrator, coach, or athlete, thought there to be less equity than males when it comes to these five factors: program support, financial support, sports offerings, scheduling, and changes in the past two to three years. .

In regards to the concept of "pay-for-play," (see section above, "Debate over paying athletes") Title IX is generally seen as a substantial roadblock, only because of the differences between big-time men’s sports (football/men's basketball) and women's sports, but also because of the gap between those "big two" sports' profit-producing programs and virtually all other collegiate sports, both male and female. Depending on how one views "pay for play," this can be either a positive of negative effect of Title IX.

In addition, Title IX legislation has affected male athletes as well as male coaches. Title IX has been associated with the cutting of opportunities available for men and boys. As budgets are stretched to accommodate additional programming requirements for women and girls. More than 2,200 men’s athletic teams have been eliminated since 1981 to comply with the proportionality prong of Title IX requirements. Thousands of male athletes have been kept from participating in collegiate sports while men’s athletic scholarships and coaching positions have diminished as well. However, increases in opportunities for male coaches have resulted from Title IX legislation. In coaching before Title IX, 90 percent of women's intercollegiate sport teams were coached by women: same sex coaching was the norm. By 1978, when all educational institutions were required to comply with Title IX, the percentage of same sex coaching had plunged to 58.2 percent. Although the actual number of female coaches increased between 1979 and 1986, the percentage of female coaches continued to decline over that same period. The all-time low of 47.3 percent of women coaching female sports was achieved in 1990. In addition, although men have found it relatively easy to break into coaching female athletes, female coaches have not experienced the same opportunities to coach male athletes. In 1972, 99 percent of collegiate men's teams were coached by men and the same is true today.

Women have greatly benefitted from Title IX and have had increased opportunities in college athletic participation. Research evidence shows that increasing female participation in sports has had a direct effect on women’s education and employment. The changes set in motion by Title IX have explained about 20 percent of the increase in women’s education and about 40 percent of the rise in employment for 25-to-34-year-old women.