By Ellen J. Staurowsky, Ed.D.
Mass media accounts about Title IX and college sport often depict issues associated with compliance and enforcement as problems. Average citizens, journalists, and higher education officials maintain a range of views regarding Title IX’s value. Some argue the promise of Title IX to achieve equity in college and university athletic departments has fallen short, others call for reform of the enforcement scheme, some long for the days when football will be exempted from Title IX analysis, and others wish to exempt athletic departments from Title IX regulations entirely.
While opinions abound, research documenting basic levels of Title IX knowledge among NCAA college coaches and athletic administrators reported by my research partner, Dr. Erianne Weight and I at the College Sport Research Institute Conference at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill a few weeks ago reveals that opinions about Title IX appear to be formulated at times in a vacuum without the aid of accurate information.
In the largest study conducted to date assessing Title IX literacy among college coaches, we found that of the more than a thousand coaches who responded to a survey distributed to them by email:
• 30 percent were not familiar with or did not know how the basic three part test (substantial proportionality or history and continuing practice of program expansion or accommodating the interests and abilities of athletes) to assess participation opportunities under Title IX worked;
• Just over 30 percent understood that the enforcement scheme does not constitute a quota system while nearly 50 percent were unsure or did not know;
• About a third of coaches believed correctly money generated by boosters does need to be accounted for in a Title IX analysis while another third believed that booster money was not covered by Title IX. The final third were not sure or did not know if Title IX applied to booster money.
Over 80 percent of the coaches reported never being taught about Title IX as part of their formal job training. Their primary information source about Title IX issues is mainstream media accounts followed by the NCAA News and individual coaching association publications. Interestingly, while 79 percent of coaches in this study expressed a belief that their athletic department was in compliance with Title IX, 82 percent of coaches indicate that they do not review the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) report on a yearly basis. Further, over 50 percent of coaches reported that their institution does not have a Gender Equity Committee.
When compared with coaches, NCAA athletics administrators (nearly 75 percent of whom held the title of senior woman administrator) were more knowledgeable than coaches, with 90 percent indicating an understanding that an institution can reach compliance in the participation area in one of three ways and that booster money does need to be taken into account when doing a Title IX analysis (71 percent). Over half of the administrators surveyed understood that Title IX is not a quota system but over 40 percent were unsure or did not know. In contrast to coaches, athletic administrators report that their primary sources of information about Title IX are NCAA workshops followed by colleagues with mainstream news sources being much farther down on the list. Similar to coaches, however, few athletic administrators (18 percent) report having received formal instruction about Title IX as part of the preparation for their jobs.
When asked if they felt a responsibility to bring up issues pertaining to Title IX compliance and gender equity, more administrators perceived this to be a responsibility than coaches (79 percent of administrators compared to 60 percent of coaches). At the same time, both coaches and administrators reported a climate of fear within their athletic departments that discouraged raising these issues. One in ten women administrators responding to our survey felt that they might lose their jobs if they were to advocate for gender equity and one in ten coaches reported feeling the same kind of pressure.
Given the fact that college and university athletic departments have been dealing with Title IX compliance for over four decades, it might seem reasonable to expect that those who are working in those departments would be more knowledgeable about what Title IX requires and feel a shared responsibility to address issues as they arise. For so few administrators and coaches to report having a formal education in Title IX reveals a level of dysfunction that may explain why compliance is so problematized.
At some level, the source of this dysfunction stems in part from the failure of Title IX compliance officers to fulfill their responsibility. While nearly 80 percent of the administrators in this study indicated that they knew who the Title IX compliance officer was on their campus, only 30 percent of coaches did. This information is instructive because the Title IX enforcement scheme places the expectation for proactive education of constituencies impacted by Title IX on the compliance officer. This role is developed in the Title IX Grievance Procedures: An Introductory Manual from 1975 where the designated Title IX expert within individual schools was to develop preventive activities “…such as the periodic assessment of the awareness of employees and students regarding Title IX requirements…and updating services to staff regarding compliance responsibilities (Matthews & McCune, 1975, p. 51).
In 2004, Kenneth Marcus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement Delegated the Authority of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the United States Department of Education, reported on findings of a review of Title IX compliance status among selected institutions where Title IX violations had occurred. According to Marcus, “The most frequently cited problem was the failure to effectively disseminate notice of the Title IX coordinator’s identity and contact information as required by Title IX regulations.”
As the 40th anniversary of Title IX’s passage approaches, we recommend that an investment be made in increasing Title IX literacy among all constituencies that have a stake in college and university athletic departments to create Title IX buy-in. Through education, the passion so often expressed in opinions about Title IX will be anchored in fact and may potentially be directed to decision making processes that lead to healthier and more transparent athletic departments. NCAA coaches are already required to participate in required education programs in order to fulfill part of their job responsibilities in the area of recruiting by passing a test before they recruit. Thus, mechanisms for ongoing education do exist. By making Title IX education a part of professional development programs for athletics department staff and as part of education programs offered to athletes, the climate of fear that has grown up around Title IX will hopefully be addressed, replaced with a will to do right by all parties within athletics departments. Title IX need not be characterized as a problem but an opportunity for athletic departments to demonstrate a commitment to equity and diversity.
Staurowsky is the Professor & Graduate Chair in the Department of Sport Management & Media at Ithaca College. She can be reached at staurows@ithaca.edu
