Talk:Title IX/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discussion

The article says, "Title ix eventually expanded to prohibit gender discrimination in any United States educational institution." What did it cover before the expansion?

There is no talk about the legal implications of Title IX. Such as cases or even how Title IX affects sexual harassment in schools.

• • if anyone has more information about title IX regarding funding for public school sports or activities please edit this page*
  • The opening paragraph of this article is inaccurate. Title IX did not initially focused on sports then later expanded. I have made an edit to start improving the article, and I will continue to edit as time permits. --Cougs2000 19:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The side effct of this is that the first and second paragraphs now say the same thing as each other; I'll try to squeeze them together, then. --Ray Radlein 21:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Only Athletics?

Does Title Nine only apply to athletics? My reading of the act begs the question -- where are all the "Men's Studies" departments, the Men's Centers, etc. Men do seem to face discrimination in enrollment (most universities are now 60 percent female), so some really tough quotas might be required. Scott Adler 19:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Title IX is more then just athletics. Many clubs/organizations on campuses were affected. While your general/social fraternities and sororities were excluded, all other single-gender groups were 'fair game'. Many all-male service groups and honor societies were more or less forced to go co-ed. One group, Iron Arrow at the University of Miami, was kicked off campus because it refused to go co-ed. ---emb021

I have talked to the Department of Education and the Office of Civil Rights to ask this question, and want to just post it here for comment as well. Title IX applies to the educational institutions that take federal funding, but not to the organizations that exist on those campuses. Meaning that the group, let's say all-female iron welders club, cannot be found in violation of Title IX (does not take federal funds) but the university may be found in violation of Title IX and may ask the group to accept men or leave campus. The ED and OCR both agreed. Thoughts? IlliniFlag (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding on to my previous comment. Under the Application section of this article: "It applies to an entire school or institution if any part of that school receives federal funds; hence, athletic programs are subject to Title IX, even though there is very little direct federal funding of school sports."

I find this compound statement a bit contradictory. The first half states that Title IX applies to the institution. The second half states that it applies to the athletic program. It is the University that must ensure that it provides athletic programs that are compliant with Title IX. Think about who is named on a compliant. A person would file a complaint against the institution, not the athletic program. IlliniFlag (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Private institutions

This title does not apply to private colleges, correct?

If somebody "in the know" could discuss these issues in the article, that would be great. Kundor 02:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe it does, if they accept any federal monies including student financial aid (i.e. almost all colleges/universities outside perhaps of a few religious institutions, and a much smaller number of private secondary schools).[1] jesup 19:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. Private universities that have students receiving student loans from the government are also covered by Title IX. mkm670 20:00. 07 January 2007

Auto Racing

A few non-college sports leagues have opened competition to men and women in the same events, such as ... auto racing

for the most part, I don't think auto racing series' ever really "opened" competition to men and women. It's probable that women were discouraged or discriminated against, and its possible that some races barred women from completing ( i think indy might have). However from the beginning of auto racing, there have been some female drivers. Auto racing seems different from other sports that recently "opened competition" and have separate events for women. For the most part, there are no women only auto races.--RA64 04:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

Title IX may have been a contributing factor in some universities' decisions to not add "non-revenue" men's sports, but it is just that: A contributing factor. Title IX has not, as was claimed, been "detrimental" to the development of some men's sports. This viewpoint is opinion, and should only be included if it is referenced from some credible source. Cougs2000 14:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

We need to find references, but many colleges and universities do cut "non-revenue" mens sports (and in some cases womens sports) in order to comply with Title IX while continuing to have a big, expensive football team (or basketball, and occasionally other sports). "Minor" mens sports like fencing, archery, wrestling, crew, etc all have been cut at various institutions to avoid reducing the size or competitiveness of "major" mens sports (to bring in Alumni dollars, or for prestige reasons). References should be possible to find. Women's sports sites mention this, and basically say "if the university does that, well, that's the university's problem".

# Some educational institutions have chosen to cut men’s non-revenue sports and maintained that this was necessary in order to comply with Title IX, thereby making women’s programs the easy scapegoat to blame for the loss of these men’s programs. However, it is the school’s choice to cut back in this unfortunate manner.
# Title IX is not to blame for school priorities that short-change men’s minor sports. During the 1980s, when few schools were expanding opportunities for women to play sports, men’s minor sports were being eliminated in order to spend more money on football and other men’s revenue-producing sports.[2]

Sometimes smaller or more-expensive women's sports are cut as well due to the requirements of an equal quality of support (not equal money, but quality of equipment, etc).

jesup 19:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

An important example of a men's program killed to make way for women's program was the men's gymnastics program at UCLA, once the leading program in the country and the training ground for Olympic champions. It's gone, a victim of title nine, along with men's swimming and rowing. Go check http://uclabruins.cstv.com/s-finder/ucla-s-finder.html Scott Adler 19:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Second external link

The link description seems kind of inflammatory. Any objection to changing

"a coalition of groups defending Title IX from continuing political assault keeps updated news and data about the act"

to

"proponents of Title IX"? Gordongekko909 23:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hearing none, I have changed it. -Gordongekko909 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

College enrollment

I think the anon-IP edit (male->female) is wrong and also confusing. I'm going to revert it and suggest they talk here if they want to challenge that statement. jesup 03:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Opportunities vs. Participants

The entry now reads "Although there are now more teams available to women than to men, the total number of participation opportunities available to men still significantly outnumber those available to women; in 1998-99 there were 232,000 males participating in college athletics and 163,000 females." I have an issue with this. I'm unaware of any study done to determine the number of "opportunities" available for women. All studies I have seen have only looked at the actual number of participants. There is a difference. Measuring opportunities was introduced as a recommendation during the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics hearings several years ago. This recommendation was approved but not used when the Secreary of Education decided only unanimous recommendations would be instituted, essentially giving veto power to the memebers of Womens Sports Foundation on the commission. Title IX has nothing to do with opportunity as it now stands; only actual particiapation. mkm670 21:55, 07 January 2007 (UTC)

To be entirely accurate, it gave veto power to everyone on the COA. Also, the arguments about "opportunity" were discussed and ruled against in the Cohen v Brown line of cases. Brown University tried making the same argument about "opportunity" being different than participation and the Court, and every Court since then that has ruled on the matter, has ruled that hypothetical opportunity is "illusory" and not a valid measurement for Title IX analysis. Thus, "opportunity to participate" is defined as actual, not illusory, participation. Good Agnostic 04:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Good Agnostic

Imbalance?

This article seems to have a problem: Much more time is spent addressing the implications of Title IX for men. While this is an important part of the story, the story of where Title IX comes from, the huge positive impact Title IX has had one women's athletics at every level should be addressed. Someone wanting to know about Title IX would read this, and think that it's main, primary impact has been on men (not true).

This would be a little like having an entry on the Affirmative Action, and making 90% of the entry about white people's complaints about people of color getting the jobs they want. Again, those complaints are part of the story, but they aren't the *main* part of the story.

How about some statistics about scholarships at division I schools, about what title IX has meant for high school athletics, or it's impact beyond athletics?? Judyholliday (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. This page is biased and not up to the usual standards I expect from Wikipedia. As a result, it is not usable for my research. I also consider a bias is on this page to be irresponsible given the subject matter. --Breona

If you find the "bias" to be "irresponsible", then please contribute and make it better. If you have reliable sources that can be [{WP:V|verified]] and will add to this article, then share them instead of complain :) Justinm1978 (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Three Prong Test

This portion does not seem to fit with the sources provided, specifically note 3. In the policy interpretation presented by the department of health, education, and welfare it presents both the new policy and the old policy. The first and third 'prong' in the wiki are accurate to the updated policy but the second 'prong' presented in the wiki is based on the section explaining the old interpretation of Title IX. The second 'prong' presented by the policy update is equivalent treatment, benefits and opportunities such as equipment, practice times, coaching, facilities, and publicity. Also I see no mention of only having to meet one requirement to be in compliance.

Does anyone agree or disagree with this? 24.176.171.76 (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Steejans

I completely agree. This page is biased and not up to the usual standards I expect from Wikipedia. As a result, it is not usable for my research. I also consider a bias is on this page to be irresponsible given the subject matter. --Breona

Where is the citation for this statement: "despite the comparatively lower interest levels of those female students."? this is an extremely biased article and not really useful here but more suited for a personal blog. Educonfidential (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

General revisions

I have tried to revise the page to set forth the general framework rather than just focus on the one point of controversy. I have added a separate Impact section, where the effects of Title IX can be presented.

One point still sticks out -- which is the sentence about autoracing, etc. in non-collegiate sports. I don't see any connection between this sentence and Title IX. The reader may get the impression that professional sports are subject to Title IX, even if they are NOT held at federally funded facilities or educational institutions. I am inclined to delete the sentence, but want others to have a chance to comment first. Racepacket (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

“Money Making”

The article refers to revenue generating and money making sports. The two are not the same. Very few sports programs make money. Most have expenditures that exceed the revenue generated, even football, where there can be significant income. Jhlister (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC).

Depends on how you count the money. A lot of schools, such as my alma mater, receive millions of dollars of sponsorship money every year by private corporations. This sponsorship money does not get credited to any specific sport, as it is a contract with the university as a whole, but you'd have to be pretty blind not to recognize that the sponsorship money would not exist if not for the football and men's basketball teams. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is also the problem that if you give a program the right to spend all available money, the amount spent on worthwhile things will always grow to match the amount available. Racepacket (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy" Section

The only support offered (and reverted) for the opinions expressed in this section was a student newspaper op-ed. The most egregious phrasing in the section is "culturally important sports," though all but a sentence or two has an obvious non-neutral point of view.98.204.139.226 (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The Title IX (Athletics) page is not linked to from any other wikipedia page. It has some useful stuff in it, but also has NPOV issues. The main Title IX article also addresses athletics. If the pages are not merged, the main Title IX page should be reworked significantly and link to the athletics page. Updateman (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am going to redirect the Title IX (Athletics) page to the main Title IX page. It seems like all of the Title IX (Athletics) page is covered here to some extent. If editors prefer any part of that page's text, they can find the version in effect immediately before the redirect here, and they can paste in into the main page. Linkfix2001 (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Isn't one problem as to why Title IX (Athletics) was never found or used was that naming conventions dictate using a lower case "a"? This appears to have been a single purpose user who created this article shortly after coming to Wikipedia and not bothering to look for the pre-existing Title IX. I posted a message on her talk page, but she did not respond. Racepacket (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

External links

It seems like of the linkslisted in the External Links section should be incorporated into the references if they are references or removed if they are not useful, per Wikipedia:External_links Updateman (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Education only or allrecieving fed asst

In some part of the article it implies only educational programs are under title ix other parts imply its anyone recieving federal asst which is it?--209.181.16.93 (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This article does fail to consistantly define who is covered by title ix--69.146.108.94 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Which President charged HEW with Title IX interpretation?

In this edit, the President involved was changed from Johnson to Nixon. Unfortunately, the source appears to be paywalled. Can anyone with access to the source confirm this? From this source, the timeline would seem to indicate Nixon, but I wanted more confirmation than an unexplained IP edit. Johnson seems almost certainly wrong, and Ford is only a small possibility, but again, if someone with the source material could confirm and/or post a relevant quote, that would be handy. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

After signing the Civil Rights Act in 1964, President Johnson made executive orders in order to make some clarifications. The N.O.W (National Orginazation for Women) had pruswaded him to to enclude women in the orders. One of the most notable orders was the order 11246. it said that all entities had to end all discrimination in hiring. in 1969, Bernice sandler used that order to protect her job at maryland university. she started to file complants at collages that were discriminating agenst women. in all she filed 250 complants.in 1970 she joiend represenitive edith green to the congressional meetings where womans rights are discussed. there, her and green preposed title IX.
          during the hearing, athletics were not discused much at all. in fact, by the time it was realized to be very importent, the law had alredy been passed. what had happend was the law was passed on june 23d. presidint nixon charged the clarifications on the law to the department of health, education and welfare (HEW) with this task. it was then that pepole realized what affect this new law had on athletics. some pepole tryed to limit the law without sucsess. in June 1975 the HEW announced how the law would be enforced. Universitys were to be given three years to get used to the law.  in 1979, the HEW issued a polociy called the three prong test of an institution's compliance
        

1.Prong one - Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment, OR 2.Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, OR 3.Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.98.224.203 (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Copied and pasted paragraphs

[3] Enigma^msg 20:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTREPOSITORY applies here. The text should be taken to Wikisource. The only thing we should put in the article about that text is analysis by reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. You want to remove it? Enigma^msg 23:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge Title IX impact to male athletics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge --Jtalledo (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Regarding the proposal to merge Title IX impact on male athletics into this article, I agree. The "impact" and "controversy" sections deal with the issues raised in the article. I'm not sure what the point is to have a separate article that deals with the same topic (which is why I changed the page to a redirect to this article that was reverted).--10:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. A separate article on 'Title IX impact on athletics' might be reasonable, though I don't think this article (i.e. 'Title IX') is so long that such a split is currently necessary. An article on 'Title IX impact on male athletics' immediately struck me as odd when I saw it in the 'See also' section of 'Title IX'. I'd never even heard of Title IX until earlier today (forgive me, I'm not in the U.S.) so perhaps I'm a reasonably neutral observer. Qwfp (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. That other article is clearly a POV fork, and should be folded back into this article. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Synth

I completed the merge with Title IX impact on male athletics, but some issues remain with the content. Its main assertions center around contrasting claims with statistics, which appears to run contrary to WP:SYNTH. I tagged the section accordingly. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

definitions of equality

I came to this article looking for information on the following issue: To what extent does money limit the application of Title IX? For example, can a university define equality as spending the same amount of money per student, regardless of gender, and then give twice as much money to a men's team with 40 players as it does to a women's team with 20 players (assume same sport, needs, etc.)?

This would be good info ot have in the article. Also, I'd like to know!! Strangesad (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Education Amendments of 1972

I've stubbed the topic, perhaps some could expand it? While Title IX was the most important, I think the EA in general are notable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It IS legal to Discriminate -- it just depends on how and why it is done.

Currently the article says:

Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights act says that any institution receiving federal or state funding may not discriminate against anyone in any way.

This clearly isn't true. Colleges are allowed to discriminate on the basis of SAT scores and grades. They also discriminate on the basis of residency -- frequently charging more if you are from out of state ... and recently giving preference to out of state students because they pay more.

The definition of discrimination is not necessarily defined. It could be changed to "Based on sex". The specifics could also be listed.Cowsgomoo22 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You can also discriminate on the basis of age. A college may say you must be at least 15, and an elementary school can deny you admission if you're too old (say over 18). Hoping To Help (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, Congress felt they were correcting institutional discrimination at colleges by implementing Title IX, which requires colleges to spend the same amount of money on women's sports as they do on men's sports -- regardless of how popular the sports are to fans, students and alumni. So sports funding at the college level can't rely upon typical market forces for survival, but instead is at the mercy of legislative tinkering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.178.8 (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding "The Hunting Ground" documentary

I'd like to suggest adding a mention of The Hunting Ground, a 2015 documentary about rape at American universities, in the Impact on sexual violence section -- perhaps in the sentence that introduces Andrea Pino and Annie E. Clark, who are the main subjects of the movie. I work for the director, so I'm proposing it here on the talk page rather than immediately adding to the article. -Edwardpatrickalva (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Title IX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120616091004/http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2003/02/02262003a.html to http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2003/02/02262003a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080630035926/http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org:80/Content/Articles/Issues/Title-IX/S/State-Title-IX-Laws.aspx to http://www.WomensSportsFoundation.org/Content/Articles/Issues/Title-IX/S/State-Title-IX-Laws.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography

Luce Fonrose (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible Revisions/Plans

1. There are certain points in the implementation section, and history section that are not necessary. It would be best to just start with the history of Title IX by explaining the origin of the need. Then proceed with the groups involved and the different steps they to implement. The article should add the different challenges that Title Ix created within society, and how these challenges were faced by the female population. Some of the unnecessary things to take out were the remarks by senator Birch Bayh of Indiana; The information about the Civil rights restoration act of 1988 and the basic educational opportunity grants. I feel that it is unnecessary to mention many people's remarks, it's better to stick to the general public's understanding. In addition the relation to athletics was also unnecessary because title is mainly has to do with education. Also it would be better to talk more about well known cases that had to do with Title IX. I would also like to mention more up to date controversy.

(Plans) 2. The way I would want to do this is by explaining exactly what used to happen before Title IX came about. For example in the past women were known as being inferior to men, and I would want to discuss some of the past history that took place before it got to this point. Luce Fonrose (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Luce Fonrose (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Luce Fonrose: Do you under stand that your sources would need to discuss Title IX? Doug Weller talk 06:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I do understand that, and the sources all discuss Title IX, I'm not sure if you looked at the sources but they all have to do with Title IX, I wouldn't cite them otherwise. Luce Fonrose (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

3. Some of the references cited on the page no longer have valid links such as number 33 on the list--Mlaraba (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

In 1972 women held 33% of administrative positions in schools that service grades K-12 by 2002 that number changed to 62%. A study by Young-joo Lee and Doyeon Won published in the Journal of Diversity in Higher Education (2015) found that in a comparison of universities both public and private that there was a difference in the number of women with leadership roles. At a public institution 40.97% of leadership roles were filled by women compared to only 29.57% by their private school counterparts. There is also a difference in where their money comes from public schools rely on federal and state funding which requires them to adhere to Title IX. Private schools do not need these same sources for funding and therefore are not forced to follow Title IX to the same degree. In 2014 the International Review for the sociology of sport looked at attitudes toward Title IX and women’s sports among athletic directors. Almost 75% of respondents believed that women are incapable of working with men’s sports. 73.5% also agreed that enforcing Title IX at schools should be the top priority for their respective athletic departments. Homophobia was also addressed with 45.2% believing homophobia to be a problem in women’s sports and 59.6% believing it to be a problem in men’s sports.

Impact on female athletics

This entire section is a single quote. It uses unencyclopaedic phrases like "leaped to", without indicating that the change was a progressive one. It's also a subscription-only source. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC).
The impact isnt just on athletes but women in athletics. There are statistics about how women continue in athletics after leaving college Quarterman, J., DuPreé, A. D., & Willis, K. P. (2006). Challenges confronting female intercollegiate athletic directors of NCAA member institutions by division. College Student Journal, 40(3), 528-545. If women want to continue in athletics after graduating they are rarely given administrative positions in athletics at any level. Title IX specifically addresses women as athletes but provides no protection for women who want to continue in athletics as a career.--Mlaraba (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Title IX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100624070911/http://www.now.org/issues/title_ix/history.html to http://www.now.org/issues/title_ix/history.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_10_31/ai_59580155
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mvc-sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=36296&SPID=2895&DB_OEM_ID=7600&ATCLID=1380502
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030105092313/http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1997/03/03-28-97tdc/03-28-97d03-017.htm to http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1997/03/03-28-97tdc/03-28-97d03-017.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130609020944/http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/06/01/2932161/unc-ch-women-wage-national-campaign.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/06/01/2932161/unc-ch-women-wage-national-campaign.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120815140834/http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=5752 to http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=5752
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100702185451/http://www.epi.soe.vt.edu/perspectives/policy_news/pdf/TitleIXFR.pdf to http://www.epi.soe.vt.edu/perspectives/policy_news/pdf/TitleIXFR.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120613043424/http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2012-06-11/title-ix-documentary-debuts-june-23 to http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2012-06-11/title-ix-documentary-debuts-june-23

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Title IX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207111650/http://media.www.smithsophian.com/media/storage/paper587/news/2008/12/04/Sports/Smith.Professor.Speaks.On.Title.Ix-3567623.shtml to http://media.www.smithsophian.com/media/storage/paper587/news/2008/12/04/Sports/Smith.Professor.Speaks.On.Title.Ix-3567623.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Title IX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325215837/http://www.campussafetymagazine.com/Channel/University-Security/Articles/Print/Story/2011/04/How-to-Comply-With-the-Dept-of-Ed-s-Title-IX-s-Sexual-Violence-Guidance.aspx to http://www.campussafetymagazine.com/Channel/University-Security/Articles/Print/Story/2011/04/How-to-Comply-With-the-Dept-of-Ed-s-Title-IX-s-Sexual-Violence-Guidance.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

comprehensibility

This article is borderline incomprehensible and badly re/written in spots. I don't think I can clear it up, as I am not able to do the research to clarify.

Exammples: -"President Barack Obama used Title IX to apply to sexual orientation, gender identity, and physical/mental handicap through a series of "Dear Colleague" letters that remain in legal limbo.[5][6] Under U.S. President Donald Trump, this has been rescinded back to the original protections under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[7][8]"

'limbo'is negated by the next sentence, it seems to me.

-On November 24, 2006, Title IX regulations were amended to provide greater flexibility in the operation of single-sex classes or extracurricular activities at the primary or secondary school level; this was largely to introduce federal abstinent-only programs, which may have been a partial basis for the support of President Bush.[27]'

-Though views differ as respects the impact of Title IX, discussion typically focuses on whether or not Title IX has resulted in increased athletic opportunities for females, and whether and to what extent Title IX has resulted in decreased athletic opportunities for males.[by whom?] In addition, the legislation had impacts on aspects other than athletes.

-When it comes to the wording of Title IX, it is unusually very brief and thus required specific, and concise language as well as clarifications to be soon articulated in its implementing regulations. U.S. President Nixon later directed the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) to carry this out.[4] As a result, this law affected the statistical proportion of men's athletics; not its importance nor popularity. It soon prompted concern by critics, and as those concerns grew; they found ways to limit its impact. Senator Bayh later spent the next three years in keeping watch over HEW in order to get further regulations passed through the U.S. Congress; in which were soon carried out with its legislative intent of eliminating sex discrimination in educational institutions on the basis of sex.[12] When these regulations were issued during Summer 1975, they were partisan contested; thus resulted in hearings that were held by the House Subcommittee on Equal Opportunities on the discrepancies between the regulations, and the law. Then in 1974, U.S. Senator John Tower introduced the Tower Amendment which would have exempted revenue-producing sports from Title IX compliance.[19] Later that year, the Tower Amendment was thus rejected and the Javits Amendment soon proposed in return by U.S. Senator Jacob Javits in now stating that HEW must include "reasonable provisions considering the nature of particular sports" adopted in its place.[4] ' help, anyone? thanks in advance Actio (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Let us not cover up What Betsy Devos did

She did in fact rescind the sexual assault policy of the Obama Administration.68.47.65.239 (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Ajderr3377.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Luce Fonrose.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mlaraba.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)