User:Whitakeml

= Title IX at The University of Michigan =

What is Title IX?
Title IX was passed in 1972 which prevented the discrimination against female athletes in college athletics. However, the history of female athletics extends before the implementation of this law. Since its inception in 1817, the University of Michigan has always been known for its excellence in academics and athletics. During the early 20th century, there weren’t any varsity female sports and interest in athletics was low. The first women intercollegiate event took place in 1898 when U-M women’s basketball team competed against Eastern Michigan University. The Women’s Athletic Association was then founded in 1905 to increase female participation in sports and was the first organization of its kind. However, the WAA operated within a certain university or college rather than acting as a sanctioning body which meant that female athletic competition remained within a school. While the organization had its flaws, it ultimately increased female participation in athletics. From 1910 to 1920, a number of female varsity sports were added including basketball, swimming, golf, and hockey. During the 1930s and 1940s, the majority of female students on campus participated in sports which is a major improvement compared to previous decades. During the next few decades, female participation waned but there was an increasing spotlight placed on the difference in treatment between male and female athletes. Most famously, the Department of Physical Education for Women was eradicated which highlighted the difference in resource available to male and female athletes.

After Title IX
Before title IX, female intercollegiate athletics at the University of Michigan was virtually nonexistent. In the 1972 legislature, females were given the opportunity to receive an education  and participate in competitive sports. Title IX made discrimination based on gender illegal and created equal opportunity within athletics. Although the legislation was passed in 1972, it wasn’t until 1976 that women began seeing financial support from the Michigan Athletic Department. In the 1976 to 1977 academic year, scholarships for seven women’s sports became a reality, starting at nearly 20,000 dollars, select female athletes were given scholarship aid from the athletic department. One academic year later, nine female sports were supported and given 50,784 dollars for scholarship aid, a significant difference from the year before. By the 1984 to 1985 academic year, scholarship aid for female athletes was up to 433,586 dollars, remarkably different from less than ten years before. "In 1974, the average men's athletic budget was 22 times larger than the women's; in 1979, it 9 was only five times larger" per the United States Department of Education. One year after the 1972 legislation, Michigan Women’s basketball, field hockey, swimming, synchronized swimming, tennis and volleyball participated in 38 competitions. By 1977, women’s basketball, field hockey, golf, gymnastics, softball, swimming and diving, synchronized swimming, tennis, track and field, and volleyball participated in 125 competitions, illustrating the major changes to female athletics from title IX.

Against Title IX
As the Title IX law became a reality for the University of Michigan, there was major controversy and upheaval about implementing it into the athletic department. There was consistent resistance at universities across the country but few were as noncompliant as Michigan. Specifically, Don Canham and Glenn “Bo” Schembechler, the athletic director and head football coach during the 1970’s, were the leaders of the opposition. Both coaches were said to think, “ Title IX would mean the demise of intercollegiate athletics.” As well, Canham’s endorsement of women’s athletics meant that funding couldn’t come from the Athletic Department. The overall view on Title IX within the athletic department administration was defiant.

In 1975, Ann Arbor news covered the athletic department’s reaction to Title IX closely. Stating that, “The new guidelines have been strongly criticized by U-M sports officials as incompatible with the present status of major intercollegiate sports, particularly football.” Because university administrators determined most of their decisions based on financials, female athletics were portrayed as a liability to the university’s athletic revenues. Don Canham, the Athletic Director from 1968 to 1988, favored male athletics strongly because of the financial stipulations female athletics would bring. The Ann Arbor News quoted his opinions on the matter, “don't tell me I have to spend the $800,000 on tennis that I put into football which brings in $3 million. We can't have equal scholarships and expenditures for women's sports which have no revenues coming in.” Because Canham held strong authority, his decisions persuaded the university’s department. Further controversy arose when athletic awards were debated. The University of Michigan has a long tradition of awarding student athletes with the Block M award, when the time came to award female athletes with the Block M award, the Athletic Department was opposed. Don Canham stated, “there is no law in this land that indicates that we must give identical awards. We plan to give an equal award, but we do not and should not be forced into giving an identical award. The Block M has stood for excellence in men's athletics since the turn of the century, and I think to dilute it by giving it to synchronized swimming for women or softball for women would be a tragedy. . .”. Strong opposing views by the athletic department leaders were given, creating a regrettable history for UM’s athletic department. Along with Canham’s statements, the Ann Arbor News quoted Glenn “Bo” Schembechler saying, “I am the first to feel that women should have an equal award. I believe you should spend the same amount of money on the women's awards as you do on the men's, but I am absolutely opposed, and my staff is absolutely opposed, to an identical award.” Their opposing views on Title IX made implementing the legislation at the University of Michigan difficult. Luckily, the University’s Board of Control of Intercollegiate Athletics had different attitudes. In June of 1975 the board voted 17-1 in favor of allowing females to earn the Block M. The Block M award protest further displayed the administrations objections to Title IX and equal opportunity within intercollegiate athletics.

Supporters of Title IX
Despite opposition from the athletic administration, Michigan student activists were critical supporters of equal opportunity, specifically in athletics. Because athletics were largely discriminatory, student activists realized that change was necessary. Along with student activists, women’s rights activist and the first Associate Athletic Director for Women, Marie Hartwig, proposed endorsement for women’s athletics at higher education institutions, her compelling statements received a more positive reaction from Canham. Hartwig played an important role in gaining support for female athletics at the University of Michigan. She highlighted the problematic defiance from athletic administration which preceded in “the Board in Control and the University President be charged with fulfilling the needs of women’s athletics”. Hartwig’s support of Title IX and equal opportunity allowed for much needed change in discrimination among the University of Michigan athletic department. Today the university has implemented a Title IX coordinator within the Office of Institutional Inequality, this has further promoted equal opportunity at the University, as well as athletics.

Implementation
The passing of Title IX had a significant impact on the University of Michigan as its athletic program is one of its core identities. This paved the way for female intercollegiate competition as athletes were able to compete with other schools. However, competition largely remained at the club level until Eunice Burns established the Burns committee. He served in the University of Michigan Commission for Women and advocated for the funding of female varsity sports including basketball, swimming, tennis, and volleyball. Within 5 years, the University was able to fund 10 female varsity programs. Over the next few decades, support for female supports has allowed funding to increase from $100,000 to $2,400,000.

While Title IX increased female participation in intercollegiate sports, a major point of concern is whether male athletic programs would receive less funding. This is due to the fact that male sports were able to generate significantly more income than their female counterparts due to cultural biases. Don Canham, who served as the Athletic Director infamously wanted the Michigan football team to be exempted from Title IX since it was privately funded. When it was initially passed in 1972, the wording of the law was vague which left space for interpretation. In the following years, several adjustments were made which addressed some concerns. The updated law didn’t force institutions to allocate the same amount of money to female programs but schools have to ensure that there’s an equal ratio of male and female athletes.

During the late 1970s, women’s athletics received increasing support under the leadership of Phyllis Ocker who served as the Director of Athletics for Women Athletics. Under his leadership, women varsity teams competed in the Big Ten conference, similar to their male counterparts. While different female athletics programs began to gain support over the next few decades, it wasn’t until 1989 that the University started to award scholarships to female athletes under Title IX regulations.

Court Case
In January 2016, a female freshman at the University of Michigan attend a party at fraternity house. There, she consumed a shot of alcohol and eventually partied with another male student. Afterwards, she left the party with the male student and returned to his room where they had sex. Following this, she went to the university hospital where a rape kit was applied. While no criminal charges were pressed, the University's Office for Institutional Equity conducted its own private investigation. Even though the office claimed that the male student didn't violate any conduct policies, the decision was overturned in May 2016. Deborah Gordan Law is an attorney representing the male student who argue that he was given an unfair ruling. She argued that he wasn't given an opportunity to cross examine the female student which resulted in a ruling that went against his favor. In a 2017 decision, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that students accused of sexual assault must be given the opportunity to cross-examine the accuser.