To understand the situation properly you will need to know some basic history of Title IX. In 1972 Title IX was passed to end the discrimination against women in educational institutions. Then in 1979 the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare issued a policy interpretation, which created a three-prong test to measure compliance with Title IX. In her article for Penthouse, Jan Golab does a

nice job of describing these three prongs: (1) “substantial proportionality,” which requires that an educational institution have approximately the same percentage of female athletes as its percentage of female undergraduates; (2) demonstrating a “continuing history of expansion” for female programs; (3) by “fully accommodating the interests and abilities” of female students (47). In reality, prong one, or simply, proportionality, is the only method of compliance accepted by the Office for Civil Rights or the courts (Anderson). Proportionality needs to be stopped for several reasons, including: its eliminating thousands of athletic opportunities for deserving male athletes, it promotes reverse discrimination (which is contradictory to Title IX), and it is simply unnecessary and illogical.

Proportionality has come to the point where it is now encouraging reverse discrimination, which is discrimination against men. Proportionality discriminates against male athletes in more ways than one. First of all, if telling males to clean out their locker simply because they’re male and the institute has too many of them isn’t discrimination what is? Second, there are already more opportunities for female athletes than male athletes. (There are currently 7,796 sports programs for men and 8,315 for women.) Women also receive more money on a per athlete ratio. In fact, as Jessica Gavora points out, “over half of NCAA Division II and III colleges and universities now find themselves in violation of Title IX for giving too much financial assistance to female athletes” (34). Yet, male opportunities continue to be cut. Third, by trying to conform to proportionality, universities have created an unfair ratio of collegiate sports to prep sports. Wrestling, a men’s sport, has a high school program to college program ratio of about 32:1. Women’s soccer on the other hand has a ratio of about 10:1 (Gavora 24). “Females fill the rosters of more than 65 percent of nonsports extracurriculars, yet there is no hue and cry to reduce their numbers to achie

Some topics in this essay:
Title IX, Jan Golab, Little League, Demise Sports, Leo Kocher, Wrestling Mall, Anderson Proportionality, title ix, IX Hopefully, Education Amendments, Education Welfare, female athletes, percentage female, male athletes, collegiate sports, article penthouse jan, article penthouse, athletic opportunities, proportionality makes, penthouse jan golab, proportionality proportionality, percentage female athletes, enforced proportionality, ix enforced proportionality, female athletes percentage,