Worried about how Title IX would affect men’s athletics, many people became concerned and looked for ways to limit the influence of Title IX. One such attempt was made in 1974 by Senator John Tower who introduced the Tower Amendment. It turns out that the NCAA also rejected the initial Title IX wording and as a result Nixon's administration passed a "watered-down" version of the amendment.
Instead of framing this change as a capitulation to the NCAA, Nixon's aides described the watering down of Title IX as a feminist act. Or, at least, a kind of paternalism meant to prevent "serious backlash against women's rights." Please look below to see some excerpts from a May 31, 1974 memorandum from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) to President Nixon.
The NCAA opposed Title IX so vehemently that it filed a lawsuit against the legality of Title IX in 1976.
arguing that HEW was exceeding its sphere of influence by venturing into intercollegiate athletics.
Below is an image of the cover of the NCAA newsletter from February 15, 1976. The full issue can be found here: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAANewsArchive/1976/19760215.pdf
The court dismissed the case in 1978, deciding that the NCAA did not have sufficient legal standing to sue on its members' behalf on this issue. However, the NCAA's outcry was shared by a number of other entities. It became clear that people were having a lot of trouble interpreting Title IX. Therefore in 1979 the HEW published a guide explaining Title IX further and clarifying the parameters that it would take to be compliant with Title IX. An excerpt of the article is below followed by the link to the entire piece.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Office for Civil Rights
II. Purpose of Policy Interpretation
By the end of July 1978, the Department had received nearly 100 complaints alleging discrimination in athletics against more than 50 institutions of higher education. In attempting to investigate these complaints, and to answer questions from the university community, the Department determined that it should provide further guidance on what constitutes compliance with the law
The Policy Interpretation is divided into three sections:
Compliance in Financial Assistance (Scholarships) Based on Athletic Ability: Pursuant to the regulation, the governing principle in this area is that all such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution's athletic program.
Compliance in Other Program Areas (Equipment and supplies; games and practice times; travel and per diem, coaching and academic tutoring; assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors; locker rooms, and practice and competitive facilities; medical and training facilities; housing and dining facilities; publicity; recruitment; and support services): Pursuant to the regulation, the governing principle is that male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities.
Compliance in Meeting the Interests and Abilities of Male and Female Students: Pursuant to the regulation, the governing principle in this area is that the athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9interp.html
Unfortunately, HEW's clarification did not please everybody as the three-pronged approach drew a lot of heavy criticism that carries on to today. We will continue on this topic in our current development's section. Below is one of the criticism against the three-pronged approach as articulated by the Honorable Donald E. Shelton, a Michigan judge with over 20 years of experience.
Compliance in Financial Assistance (Scholarships) Based on Athletic Ability: Pursuant to the regulation, the governing principle in this area is that all such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution's athletic program.
Compliance in Other Program Areas (Equipment and supplies; games and practice times; travel and per diem, coaching and academic tutoring; assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors; locker rooms, and practice and competitive facilities; medical and training facilities; housing and dining facilities; publicity; recruitment; and support services): Pursuant to the regulation, the governing principle is that male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities.
Compliance in Meeting the Interests and Abilities of Male and Female Students: Pursuant to the regulation, the governing principle in this area is that the athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9interp.html
Unfortunately, HEW's clarification did not please everybody as the three-pronged approach drew a lot of heavy criticism that carries on to today. We will continue on this topic in our current development's section. Below is one of the criticism against the three-pronged approach as articulated by the Honorable Donald E. Shelton, a Michigan judge with over 20 years of experience.
