[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUILDING ON THE SUCCESS
OF 35 YEARS OF TITLE IX
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION,
LIFELONG LEARNING, AND COMPETITIVENESS
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 19, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-48
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-961 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Ranking Minority Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Kenny Marchant, Texas
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Tom Price, Georgia
Linda T. Sanchez, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Louisiana
David Loebsack, Iowa Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania York
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky Rob Bishop, Utah
Phil Hare, Illinois David Davis, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Joe Courtney, Connecticut Dean Heller, Nevada
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION,
LIFELONG LEARNING, AND COMPETITIVENESS
RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas, Chairman
George Miller, California Ric Keller, Florida,
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Ranking Minority Member
David Wu, Oregon Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Joe Courtney, Connecticut York
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Susan A. Davis, California Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Judy Biggert, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 19, 2007.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of............... 83
Hinojosa, Hon. Ruben, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher
Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness.......... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Prepared statement of Joyce M. Roche, president and CEO,
Girls Incorporated..................................... 77
Keller, Hon. Ric, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby,'' a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virginia, questions for the record....... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Greenberger, Marcia D., co-president, National Women's Law
Center..................................................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Internet address to three amicus briefs.................. 14
Layne, Margaret Edith, P.E., past president of the Society of
Women Engineers............................................ 55
Prepared statement of.................................... 57
Maatz, Lisa M., director of public policy and government
relations, American Association of University Women;
interim director, AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund................. 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Additional materials submitted........................... 21
Mowatt, Jack, commissioner, Maryland-DC Amateur Softball
Association................................................ 44
Prepared statement of.................................... 46
Additional materials submitted: ``Commitment to Resolve'' 48
Pearson, Eric, chairman, College Sports Council.............. 60
Prepared statement of.................................... 62
Simon, Rita J., university professor, American University.... 64
Prepared statement of.................................... 65
BUILDING ON THE SUCCESS
OF 35 YEARS OF TITLE IX
----------
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Higher Education,
Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ruben Hinojosa
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hinojosa, Tierney, Bishop of New
York, Scott, Davis of California, Hirono, Keller, Petri, Foxx,
Kuhl, Walberg, and McKeon.
Staff Present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Lamont Ivey,
Staff Assistant, Education; Danielle Lee, Press/Outreach
Assistant; Ricardo Martinez, Policy Advisor for the
Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and
Competitiveness; Lisette Partelow, Staff Assistant, Education;
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director; Robert Borden, Minority General
Counsel; Kathryn Bruns, Minority Legislative Assistant; Kirsten
Duncan, Minority Professional Staff Member; Amy Raaf Jones,
Minority Professional Staff Member; Victor Klatt, Minority
Staff Director; Chad Miller, Minority Professional Staff; Susan
Ross, Minority Director of Education and Human Services Policy;
Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General
Counsel; and Sally Stroup, Minority Deputy Staff Director.
Chairman Hinojosa. A quorum is present. The hearing of the
subcommittee will come to order. Pursuant to Committee rule
XII(a), any member may submit an opening statement in writing
which will be made part of the permanent record.
I now recognize myself and will be followed by the ranking
member for an opening statement. In 1972, Congresswoman Patsy
Mink of Hawaii introduced a simple legislative proposal stating
that no person in the United States shall on the basis of sex
be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of,
or be subjected to discrimination under any education program
or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
With the passage of Title IX, now known as the Patsy
Takemoto Mink Equal Opportunity and Education Act, a new era of
opportunity was ushered in for women and girls in America.
Title IX ended the days of women being denied admission into
academic programs based on their gender. That year, in 1972,
just as Title IX was enacted, women earned merely 28 percent of
the bachelors degrees in the fields of science, technology,
engineering and math. They are known as the STEM fields. Today,
women earn 49 percent of the bachelors degrees in these fields.
Title IX shattered the myth that women and girls were not
interested in competing in interscholastic athletics. Since the
enactment of Title IX, the number of women participating in
intercollegiate athletics has increased fivefold. The number of
female high school athletes has grown almost 900 percent. As
athletic opportunities for women have increased, their interest
has soared. Our professional women's sports leagues are the
byproduct of the doors that were opened by Title IX.
Despite these successes we still have work to do to achieve
the promise of full equality and freedom from discrimination
that is at the heart of Title IX. There are still gaps in
support for women's athletics, gaps in participation in various
disciplines in the STEM fields, and disparities in career and
technical education programs.
More critically, there is still much to be done to ensure
that our educational institutions are free from sexual
harassment. We have seen ongoing efforts to undermine the
protection of Title IX through regulation or through
litigation. Over the course of the last 35 years, we have
learned that we can never take equal opportunity for granted.
As we celebrate the success of Title IX, we also must look
to the future and the work that remains to be done. In closing,
I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today. We
are eager to hear your views and recommendations about how
Title IX can strengthen opportunities for the next generation
of women and girls in our schools and on our college campuses
throughout the Nation. Thank you for joining us today.
And I would now like to yield to my colleague from Florida,
the ranking member, Mr. Ric Keller, for his opening statement.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Reuben Hinojosa, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness
In 1972, Congresswoman Patsy Mink of Hawaii introduced a simple
legislative proposal stating that ``No person in the United States
shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any
education program or activity receiving Federal Financial assistance.''
With the passage of Title IX, now known as the Patsy Takemoto Mink
Equal Opportunity in Education Act, a new era of opportunity was
ushered in for women and girls in America.
Title IX ended the days of women being denied admission into
academic programs based on their gender.
In 1972, just as Title IX was enacted, women earned merely 28
percent of the bachelor's degrees in the fields of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics--better known as the STEM fields. Today,
women earn 49.2 percent of the bachelor's degrees in these fields.
Title IX shattered the myth that women and girls were not
interested in competing in interscholastic athletics.
Since the enactment of Title IX, the number of women participating
in intercollegiate athletics has increased five-fold. The number of
female high school athletes has grown by almost 900 percent.
As athletic opportunities for women have increased, their interest
has soared. Our professional women's sports leagues are the by-product
of the doors that were opened by Title IX.
Despite theses successes, we still have work to do to achieve the
promise of full equality and freedom from discrimination that is at the
heart of Title IX. There are still gaps in support for women's
athletics, gaps in participation in various disciplines in the STEM
fields, and disparities in career and technical education programs.
More critically, there is still much to be done to ensure that our
educational institutions are free from sexual harassment.
We have seen on-going efforts to undermine the protections of Title
IX through regulation or through litigation. Over the course of the
last 35 years, we have learned that we can never take equal opportunity
for granted.
As we celebrate the success of Title IX, we also must look to the
future and the work that remains to be done. I would like to thank our
witnesses for joining us today. We are eager to hear your views and
recommendations about how Title IX can strengthen opportunities for the
next generation of women and girls in our schools and on our campuses
throughout the nation.
Thank you for joining us today. I would now like to yield to my
colleague from Florida, the ranking member, Mr. Ric Keller for his
opening statement.
______
Mr. Keller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join with
you in welcoming our outstanding witnesses today. And I want to
welcome everyone to today's hearing celebrating 35 years of
Title IX. In addition to this hearing yesterday, the House
voted to pass a resolution offered by Representative Hirono to
honor the 35th anniversary of this law. Today we are here to
discuss the success of Title IX and to review the issues that
have emerged since the law was enacted back in 1972. Title IX
simply states that, quote, no person in the United States shall
on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of or be subject to discrimination under
any education program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance, closed quote.
While Title IX affects many aspects of education from
admissions to employment, most people associate it with school
athletics. Institutions often struggle to comply with Title IX
in this arena. While there are three different ways to comply
with the law, most institutions attempt to comply with what is
called the proportionality prong. I'm sure we will hear more
about that today. Some institutions also point to Title IX when
examining the number of women in areas like math and science. I
look forward to today's discussion on the successes and
challenges of Title IX, and I thank today's panel of witnesses
for being here to share their views and experiences.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ric Keller, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing celebrating 35 years
of Title IX. In addition to this hearing, yesterday the House voted to
pass a resolution offered by Representative Hirono to honor the 35th
anniversary of this law. Today we are here to discuss the success of
Title IX and to review the issues that have emerged since this law was
enacted back in 1972.
Title IX states simply that ``No person in the United States shall
on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any education
program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.''
While Title IX affects many aspects of education from admissions to
employment, most people associate it with school athletics.
Institutions often struggle to comply with Title IX in this arena.
While there are three different ways to comply with the law, most
institutions attempt to comply with the proportionality prong. I am
sure we will hear more about that today. Some institutions also point
to Title IX when examining the number of women in areas like math and
science.
I look forward to today's discussion on the successes and
challenges of Title IX, and I thank today's panel of witnesses for
being here to share their views and experiences. I yield back.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Without objection, all members will have
14 days to submit additional materials or questions for the
hearing record. Now I would like to give the introductions of
each and every one of our witnesses, and then we will begin
hearing from the first one.
[Questions submitted by Mr. Scott to Ms. Greenberger and
Ms. Maatz follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Hinojosa. Marcia Greenberger is the founder and
co-president of the National Women's Law Center established
nearly 35 years ago in Washington, D.C. She has been a leader
in developing strategies to secure the successful passage of
legislation protecting women and counsel in landmark litigation
establishing new legal precedents for women. And she is the
author of numerous articles. She is nationally renowned with
awards too numerous to delineate in this brief introduction.
Marcia received her JD from the university of Pennsylvania in
1970. Has also worked in private practice and, since 1972, has
dedicated herself to the center.
Lisa Maatz is the director of public policy and government
relations for the American Association of University Women. She
came to her position from the National Organization of Women's
Legal Defense Fund. And before that, she was legislative aid to
Congresswomen Carolyn Maloney of New York. Lisa has also
received numerous awards and was recently a mayoral appointment
to the Washington, D.C., Commission on Women. She is a graduate
of Ohio University and holds two masters degrees from Ohio
State University. At the pleasure of attending and having a
field hearing on your university campus, I was very impressed.
Margaret Edith ``Peggy'' Layne is currently the Advance
project director at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg,
Virginia. The National Science Foundation sponsored program is
designed to increase the number of women faculty in science and
in engineering. She has been a Director of Diversity for the
National Academy of Engineering, as well as a fellow on the
staff of Senator Bob Graham. Peggy has degrees in environmental
and water resources engineering from Vanderbilt University and
the University of North Carolina School for Public Health. She
is a registered professional engineer.
Jack Mowatt was born in Washington, D.C., went to high
school in Maryland and then spent 8 years in the Air Force.
Jack is a past president of the Maryland Fire Chiefs
Association. And he retired from the Federal Aviation
Administration after serving for 40 years. Jack was appointed
softball commissioner in 1982, and in 2007, he is slated to be
inducted into the American Softball Association, the National
Hall of Fame in Louisville, Kentucky. Congratulations for the
honor that will be bestowed upon you.
Eric Pearson is chairman of the Board of the College Sports
Council, a national coalition of coaches, athletes, parents and
sports alumni founded in the year 2002. The council is
dedicated to preventing the elimination of college sports
teams. He has served as the chairman of the Ivy League
Wrestling Coaches Association. Eric has been a spokesman for
the council's interests on various national networks, and he is
a graduate of Princeton University.
Dr. Rita Simon, a professor at American University, whose
research interests and primary areas of concentration include,
among others, law and society. The jury system, the immigration
issues, are really society and women's issues. She recently
published her 50th book on these many issues. She is currently
the editor of Gender Issues.
And we welcome you too, Rita.
Again, I welcome, together with all the Members of
Congress, all of you as our witnesses. For those of you who
have not testified before this subcommittee, please let me
explain our lighting system and the 5-minute rule. Everyone,
including members, is limited to 5 minutes of presentation or
questioning. The green light is illuminated when you begin to
speak. When you see the yellow light, it means you have 1
minute remaining and that you should bring your comments to a
close. When you see the red light, it means your time has
expired and you need to conclude your testimony. Please be
certain as you testify to turn it on and speak into the
microphone in front of you. A record is being kept, and we will
certainly be very pleased to share what happens today with all
the Members of Congress as we proceed. We will now hear from
our first witness.
Ms. Greenberger, would you please start?
STATEMENT OF MARCIA D. GREENBERGER, CO-PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
WOMEN'S LAW CENTER
Ms. Greenberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National
Women's Law Center. And thank you very much for the invitation
to appear today to mark the 35th anniversary of Title IX. And I
appreciate that my full statement will be part of the record.
The National Women's Law Center was founded in 1972, the
year that Title IX was enacted. And enforcement of Title IX,
the realization of its great promise, has been a major priority
of the center's ever since. And I am proud to say that
Congresswoman Patsy Mink four times served on the board of the
National Women's Law Center.
Women have certainly made significant and laudable progress
in education in the last 35 years, as, Mr. Chairman, you have
identified. But the job is not yet finished. The playing field
is not yet level. Much remains to be done to ensure that women
have true equal access and true equal opportunity in all areas
of education, including athletics. And it is the area of
athletics which will be the focus of my testimony today,
although the National Women's Law Center is concerned and works
on all of the facets of educational opportunity that Title IX
covers.
The continuing support and need for Title IX is underscored
by the results of a national survey that the center is
releasing today. Over eight in ten adults, actually 82 percent,
support Title IX. And this support crosses the political
spectrum: 86 percent of Democrats; 78 percent of Republicans;
78 percent of Independents favor the law.
And the survey dramatically demonstrates as well that
discrimination against young women remains alive and well on
our Nation's playing fields. An astounding 22 percent of the
survey respondents, a sample that represents more than actually
50 million adults, if you apply it across the population, were
themselves personally aware of recent situations in which
girls' sports teams were treated less favorably than boys'
teams. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that 88 percent of
survey respondents support girls or their parents taking action
to correct situations in which girls' teams are treated
inequitably. And this support, too, is consistent across
genders and political affiliation. But only 40 percent of
respondents knew what to do to enforce the law.
With the public largely ill-equipped to enforce Title IX on
its own, the center also undertook and is releasing today a
report analyzing the results of its just concluded examination
of enforcement efforts by the Department of Education's Office
for Civil Rights over the last 5 years and the nature of the
athletic complaints that it has received. This report,
``Barriers to Fair Play,'' shows, by the complaints filed and
the relief secured, that 35 years after the enactment of Title
IX women are still getting fewer opportunities than males to
participate in sports and that even when schools give girls a
chance to play, too often the opportunity comes with second-
rate facilities, equipment, coaching, publicity and other
services.
It is striking to see how many complaints involve high
schools. And the Women's Sports Foundation recently released a
report documenting that young women are short-changed in
intercollegiate sports as well.
The center's report also documents that the Office for
Civil Rights is not doing its job as it should. It is the
Office for Civil Rights that has the chief responsibility for
enforcing Title IX and making sure that our taxpayer dollars
are spent by educational institutions in a fair and equitable
way. They are, the Office for Civil Rights, is supposed to be
conducting their own reviews, compliance reviews, of federally
funded schools across the country, in addition to investigating
complaints of discrimination that the Office for Civil Rights
receives. But as the center's investigative report shows,
during the last 5 years, the Office for Civil Rights initiated
only one compliance review of a school's athletics program. And
this is really an abdication, a serious abdication of OCR's
enforcement responsibilities.
Because OCR enforcement efforts have fallen so short,
ordinary people must shoulder the burden themselves. And you
will hear from one of our heroes, Mr. Mowatt, who has done that
very thing. We need more people who will be able to vindicate
their own rights, and, as a result, the center is issuing,
``Breaking Down Barriers,'' also today, a new report, which we
prepared with DLA Piper law firm to explain to advocates how to
vindicate those rights.
We call on Congress, however, to step up also to help with
the enforcement of Title IX. First of all, to engage in
oversight responsibilities with the Office for Civil Rights, to
ensure that it is doing its job, which we think our report
documents it is not doing as it should. Second, Congress must
pass the High School Athletics Accountability Act that would
require high schools to provide the gender breakdown of their
treatment of sports teams, their support for it, to shine that
spotlight on high school athletics as there is a report now
available for intercollegiate athletic participation and
support. And, finally, Congress must secure nullification of
the so-called additional clarification that the Department of
Education issued late on a Friday afternoon in March 2005 with
no notice or opportunity for public comment that cuts back
substantially and dramatically on Title IX's interpretation.
[The statement of Ms. Greenberger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President, National
Women's Law Center
I am Marcia Greenberger, Co-President of the National Women's Law
Center. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to mark
the 35th anniversary of enactment of Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), the bedrock federal law that bans sex
discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities.
On this anniversary, there is much to celebrate; women have made
significant progress in education in the last three and one half
decades. But the job is not yet finished and the playing field is not
yet level; much remains to be done to ensure that women have truly
equal access and opportunities in all areas of education.
The Center is a non-profit organization that has worked since 1972
to advance and protect the legal rights of women and girls across the
country. The Center focuses on major policy areas of importance to
women and their families, including education, employment, health and
reproductive rights, and economic security--with particular attention
paid to the concerns of low-income women. Founded in the year that
Title IX was passed, the Center has devoted much of its resources to
ensuring that the promise of Title IX becomes a reality in all aspects
of education.
In recognition of this year's anniversary, the Center is today
releasing a variety of informational and enforcement materials which I
will discuss in my testimony. These include a national survey of 1,000
likely voters that measures support for and understanding of Title IX;
an analysis of the athletics complaints filed with, and compliance
reviews conducted by, the Department of Education's Office for Civil
Rights over the last five years; a legal manual that provides a step-
by-step approach to educate those subject to discrimination in
athletics, as well as their advocates and attorneys, on how to assert a
Title IX claim; and a website designed to enable the public to hold
their schools accountable for compliance with the law. These resources
are intended to help to realize Title IX's as yet unfulfilled promise
of true gender equity in the classrooms and on the playing fields.
Title IX was enacted in 1972 as a broad proscription against
discrimination in any federally funded education program or activity.
It states simply:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of or be
subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity
receiving Federal financial assistance.1
Title IX applies to all public elementary and secondary schools and
to virtually every college and university. It was intended to ensure
equal opportunity for women and girls in all aspects of education--from
access to higher education, to equal opportunities and fair treatment
in elementary and secondary classrooms, to equal chances to participate
in athletics programs. In passing Title IX, Congress recognized the
critical role that education plays in promoting economic security for
women and their families and mandated the broadest scope of protection
against sex discrimination in school.
Congress' vision has borne fruit. Thirty-five years after enactment
of the law, we have more female doctors and lawyers. The number of
girls going to college has exploded; young women today comprise over
half of the undergraduate students in the country, an increase of more
than 160% from their representation in 1972.2 The explicit exclusions
of, and quotas for, women in education that were so prevalent 35 years
ago have long since disappeared--or at least been driven underground.
In athletics as well, the progress of women and girls has been
transformative. When Congress passed Title IX in 1972, fewer than
32,000 women competed in intercollegiate athletics.3 Women received
only 2 percent of schools' athletics budgets, and athletic scholarships
for women were nonexistent.4 Today, the number of college women
participating in competitive athletics is now five times the pre-Title
IX rate. In 2004-05, a record number of 166,728 women competed at the
college level, representing 42% of college athletes nationwide.5
Title IX has also had a tremendous impact on female athletic
opportunities at the high school level. Before Title IX, fewer than
300,000 high school girls played competitive sports.6 By 2005, the
number had climbed to 2.95 million, an increase of almost 900%.7
And Title IX has garnered overwhelming public support. The national
survey the Center is releasing today confirms that more than eight in
ten voters--or 82% of adults--support Title IX.8 In fact, support for
the law is intense, with nearly two-thirds (65%) strongly supporting
the law and fewer than one in ten (9%) strongly opposing it. This
support crosses the political spectrum; 86% of Democratic voters and
78% of Republican and independent voters favor the law.9
Moreover, Americans are nearly unanimous in backing those who take
action to redress discrimination. Eighty-eight percent of respondents
to the survey support girls or their parents taking action to address
situations in which girls' high school teams are being treated worse
than the boys' teams. This support is consistent across genders and
political affiliation.10
But despite this progress, significant problems remain. Girls, like
their male peers, are dropping out of high school at dangerously high
rates. In fact, one in four girls overall, and nearly one in two
African American, Hispanic, and Native American female students, fail
to graduate with a diploma each year.11,12
While girls in each racial and ethnic group fare better than boys
of the same race or ethnicity, moreover, Black, Hispanic, and American
Indian/Alaskan Native female students graduate at significantly lower
rates than White and Asian-American males. And tellingly, the
consequences for girls who fail to graduate from high school are
profound and deeply disturbing. Female dropouts are at much greater
risk than their male peers of being unemployed. They make significantly
lower wages and are more likely to rely on public support programs to
provide for their families.
Another example of the pervasive barriers that remain can be found
in career and technical education (CTE). The divide between boys and
girls in CTE has barely narrowed since Congress passed Title IX 35
years ago. Just as in the 1970s, high school girls are the vast
majority of those who enroll in traditionally female courses, such as
cosmetology and child care, while boys make up all but a tiny
percentage of the students in traditionally male fields such as auto
mechanics and construction and repair. This sex segregation in the
nation's vocational classrooms--and the relegation of girls to
traditionally female programs--has deep impact on the earning power and
job prospects of the young women who graduate from these programs.
Girls who take up traditionally female occupations can expect to earn
half--or less--what they could make if they went into traditionally
male fields like auto repair, welding, or engineering.13
As my colleagues on the panel today will discuss, similar problems
plague women in science, technology, engineering and math--the STEM
disciplines. And as you will also hear, sexual harassment remains all
too widespread, creating hostile educational environments for far too
many young women at every level of education. All of these are areas in
which Congress must act--to ensure that the strongest possible legal
standards exist to protect the civil rights of young women; to mandate
that the Department of Education and other Title IX enforcement
agencies take the proactive and comprehensive steps necessary to
enforce the law; and to ensure that Title IX's promise of true gender
equity becomes a reality.
For my testimony today, I would like to focus on Title IX's impact
on athletics and the steps that still must be taken to create a level
playing field for our nation's daughters.
I. Women and Girls Still Face Persistent Discrimination in Athletics
Notwithstanding the extraordinary gains that women have made,
female participation in intercollegiate sports remains below pre-Title
IX male participation: while 170,384 men played college sports in 1971-
1972, only 166,728 women played college sports in 2004-05. 14 In
addition, participation opportunities as well as resources for women's
athletic programs continue to lag behind men's. Women receive only 43%
of the opportunities to participate in college sports,15 even though
they comprise 55% of today's undergraduates.16 In Division I, they
receive only 45% of athletics scholarships, 37% of athletics operating
expenses, and 32% of the dollars spent on recruiti17
The persistence of discrimination is further illustrated by recent
research. The survey being released by the Center today shows that 22%
of respondents--a sample that represents more than 50 million adults--
were aware of recent situations in which girls' sports teams in high
school or college were being treated worse than boys' teams.18
Moreover, the Center has just concluded a new examination of the
athletics complaints filed with, and compliance reviews conducted by,
the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights over the last
five years. This review reveals that 35 years after the enactment of
Title IX, women are still given fewer opportunities than males to
participate in sports, and, when they do play, are treated like second-
class citizens in the facilities, equipment, coaching, publicity and
other support services that they receive. Here are some of the key
findings of the Center's report, ``Barriers to Fair Play.''\19\
Discrimination against girls and women in sports remains
widespread. There were 416 athletics complaints filed with OCR between
January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2006--likely just a fraction of the
number of complaints that were raised informally with schools during
that period. The OCR complaints challenged discrimination against girls
or women 11 times more frequently than they claimed discrimination
against males, demonstrating concretely that the playing field is still
far from level for female athletes.
Schools' second-class treatment of female athletes, even when they
are given a chance to play, is a particular concern. While more than
one-quarter of the complaints overall challenged schools' failures to
provide sufficient participation opportunities for girls and women,
more than half--54%--challenged inequitable treatment of girls' or
women's teams once female athletes were allowed to play. Among
complaints filed by or on behalf of girls, moreover, fully 60% of the
allegations concerned inequities in treatment of female teams. And many
of the treatment complaints--particularly those concerning disparities
between girls' softball and boys' baseball teams, such as in the
quality of softball versus baseball fields--identified blatant and
egregious inequities that had persisted for many years.
Coaches fear retaliation if they complain, so the burden typically
falls on students and their parents to protest discrimination. Although
coaches have greater access to information and are often in the best
position to perceive and challenge discrimination, coaches filed only
just shy of 8% of the 416 complaints made during the relevant period.
Tellingly, a full 50% of those complaints alleged retaliation in
addition to other forms of discrimination against the coaches and their
female athletes.
Discrimination complaints filed by or on behalf of female athletes
were far more likely to be meritorious enough to secure changes than
complaints filed by or on behalf of male athletes. Schools made changes
to their athletics programs in response to complaints filed by or on
behalf of female athletes at close to five times the rate at which they
made changes in response to complaints filed by or on behalf of male
athletes. As a corollary, OCR found no violation in almost double the
number of complaints filed by men as in complaints filed by women.
In addition to, and reinforcing, the report and survey the National
Women's Law Center is issuing today, the Women's Sports Foundation last
week released a new report, ``Who's Playing College Sports,'' which
includes an analysis revealing the disparities that still exist between
men's and women's participation opportunities in intercollegiate
sports. These resources all confirm the persistence of discrimination
against women and girls on the playing field.
II. OCR Enforcement Efforts Have Fallen Short
Significantly, Barriers to Fair Play also reveals that OCR has
failed to take the proactive steps necessary to combat discrimination
in athletics. In some cases, moreover, the agency delayed justice or
placed unreasonable burdens on complainants.
In addition to responding to complaints, OCR is responsible for
initiating assessments of Title IX compliance by federally funded
educational institutions across the country. During the five year
period covered by the Center's review, however, OCR initiated only one
compliance review of a school's athletics program--a record
substantially below that of the preceding Administration. Not only has
the number of compliance reviews noticeably decreased over the past 6
to 7 years; the focus of those reviews has narrowed considerably.
Between 1995 and 2000, OCR annual reports either listed equal
opportunity in athletics as a focus of enforcement efforts or provided
examples of compliance reviews that addressed athletics. But between
2001 and 2005, no annual reports mentioned athletics as a focus for
compliance reviews, and none cited examples of athletics as evidence of
successful reviews. Instead, OCR reports for 2003 through 2005 all
focus on ensuring that state agencies have designated Title IX
coordinators, developed and disseminated antidiscrimination procedures,
and implemented grievance procedures. In fact, 50 of 59 compliance
reviews between 2002 and 2006 dealt exclusively with these procedural
violations.20
Strong internal procedures and policies are, of course, essential
for schools to adequately address substantive Title IX violations. But
the existence of such policies should represent only the beginning of
an inquiry about a school's compliance with Title IX's substantive
requirements. A school's designation of a Title IX coordinator and the
establishment of procedures are necessary but insufficient steps to
ensure that real action is being taken to end sex discrimination. OCR's
failure to go beyond this superficial examination of a school's
policies and practices represents a damaging reduction in its
enforcement efforts.
In addition, the resolution of some of the complaints filed in this
period was unreasonably delayed in a number of instances; in one case,
a complaint languished in the Kansas City regional office for nearly
4\1/2\ years. Moreover, OCR sometimes put onerous evidentiary burdens
on female athletes filing complaints, for example by refusing to
investigate a complaint alleging disparities between a school's
softball and baseball teams unless the complainant could produce
evidence of overall program violations for all teams.21 This represents
an abdication of OCR's enforcement responsibilities, given that
complainants often lack access to the information necessary to evaluate
an athletics program overall, and demonstrates the need for strong
oversight over OCR's enforcement efforts.
III. Private Enforcement is Necessary to Ensure Effective Protection of
Title IX Rights
The inadequacies of OCR's enforcement point up the importance of
educating people about their rights under the law and ensuring that
they have the tools and the representation they need to effectively
challenge violations of Title IX. In fact, the Center's own experience
confirms that individuals can make an enormous difference in leveling
the playing field. Here are just a few examples of individuals we have
worked with and supported over the past five years:
As you will later hear from Mr. Jack Mowatt, in 2006 the Prince
George's County Public Schools Board of Education approved a county-
wide Title IX settlement with the Center to ensure that girls in each
of the county's middle and high schools are given equal treatment of
their teams and equal opportunities to participate in sports. The
settlement resulted after Mr. Mowatt brought attention to the unsafe
conditions at county softball fields; as a Washington Post article,
Title IX Deal Transforms Dreams to Fields, demonstrated during the
spring, female athletes in Prince George's County were elated with the
improvements the County has already begun to make.
In 2003, Washington-Lee High School in Arlington, Virginia agreed
to take significant steps toward correcting inequities that pervaded
the girls' sports program. The settlement resulted after Christine
Boehm, a senior and four-year member of the field hockey team, realized
there were serious disparities between the treatment of male and female
athletes, including the absence of a locker room for female athletes,
poorly maintained field hockey fields, and fewer amenities such as
permanent scoreboards and covered dugout areas. Ms. Boehm first brought
the problems to the school's attention in 2002. The Center, along with
the law firm of DLA Piper, negotiated the settlement to remedy the
inequalities.
In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held that Title IX
provides protection from retaliation to those who challenge
discrimination. In Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, Roderick
Jackson sued the Birmingham Board of Education for firing him as the
girls' high school basketball coach after he complained about the
inequalities his team endured, including inferior facilities, travel
arrangements to games, amenities, and financial support from the city.
Following the Supreme Court ruling, the Board reached an agreement with
Coach Jackson in November 2006. He returned to coaching at Jackson-Olin
High School and was compensated for his financial losses.
Significantly, the Board also agreed to district-wide modifications to
their athletics programs to ensure that all of its schools were in
compliance with Title IX.
Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court denied review in
Communities for Equity v. MHSAA, in which the lower courts consistently
found that the Michigan High School Athletics Association had violated
the U.S. Constitution, Title IX and Michigan state law by scheduling
six girls' sports, and no boys' sports, in nontraditional and
disadvantageous seasons. A group spearheaded by two local parents,
Communities for Equity, brought suit to challenge MHSAA's scheduling
decisions, which meant that girls across the state had limited
opportunities to be seen by college recruiters, to compete for athletic
scholarships, and to play club sports. The Supreme Court's denial of
review means that justice for Michigan girls should finally be around
the corner, when the Association implements a plan that will equalize
the seasons in which boys and girls play in the state.
IV. More Must Be Done to Ensure that Students, Parents, Coaches and
Advocates Have the Tools They Need to Enforce the Law
As the examples above illustrate, individuals, including students,
parents, coaches and other advocates, have a tremendous ability to make
a difference in leveling the playing field for female athletes. But the
poll the Center is releasing today shows that they need information and
guidance. In the national survey, only 40% of respondents said they
knew what steps to take to enforce Title IX.22 Similarly, Barriers to
Fair Play reveals that more must be done to educate high school
students and parents about their rights. Although female high school
athletes file a greater absolute number of complaints than their
college-aged counterparts, female college athletes file complaints at
significantly higher rates than high school students. This trend, which
likely reflects high school students' lack of knowledge about Title IX
or their rights under the law, is particularly troubling because it is
most often through participation in sports in their teenage years that
girls not only learn life skills but become prepared to play in college
and to maintain healthy lifestyles into the future.
In order to provide this education--and in the absence of adequate
government enforcement of the law--the Center is today unveiling two
new resources designed to enable individuals to effectively assert
their rights under Title IX. The first is Breaking Down Barriers, a
comprehensive manual that takes a step-by-step approach to educate
those subject to discrimination in athletics, as well as their
advocates and attorneys, on how to assert a Title IX claim. The second
is a new website, FairPlayNow.org, which the Center is maintaining with
the Women's Sports Foundation and regional partners from around the
country including the Women's Law Project in Philadelphia, the
California Women's Law Center and the Northwest Women's Law Center.
FairPlayNow is designed to provide one-stop shopping for students,
parents, coaches, advocates, and attorneys to learn about Title IX,
find tools to evaluate their schools' compliance with the law, and use
materials that can help them hold their schools accountable for
remedying discrimination.
VI. Congress Must Do More to Ensure Effective Protection From Sex
Discrimination
My colleagues today will address some of the ways in which
Congressional action is necessary to address the barriers that persist
in STEM disciplines and the sexual harassment that continues to limit
educational opportunities for far too many young women. With regard to
athletics, there are three specific and concrete actions that Congress
can, and must, take to ensure effective protection of the law.
First, given the rampant discrimination that still exists, Congress
must exercise more oversight over OCR. With its enforcement powers, OCR
can effect great changes, but this requires a targeting of resources
and a greater commitment to enforce Title IX in all areas of education.
Congressional oversight can help to ensure that OCR uses all of the
enforcement tools available to it, including compliance reviews and
proactive measures like the provision of technical assistance, as well
as that OCR applies strong legal standards and seeks effective remedies
for discrimination.
Second, Congress can vastly improve the ability to address
discrimination at the high school level by passing the High School
Athletics Accountability Act. This bipartisan bill, which was
introduced in the House by Representatives Louise Slaughter and Shelley
Moore Capito, would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 to direct coeducational elementary and secondary schools to make
publicly available information on equality in school athletic programs.
The bill would require schools to provide information about the gender
breakdown of students who participate in athletics, as well the
expenditures the schools make for each team. This information is
already required at the college level, and is largely collected, but
not disclosed, by high schools. The bill would thus fill a gaping hole
in access to information that is necessary to evaluate whether schools
are fulfilling their obligations under Title IX and would thereby
improve the ability of students, parents and others to ensure
enforcement of the law.
Third, Congress must take steps to overturn and limit the
Additional Clarification that the Department of Education issued in
March 2005 without notice or opportunity for public comment. This new
policy is dangerous because it allows schools to show compliance with
Title IX's participation requirements simply by sending an email survey
to female students and then claiming that a failure to respond
indicates a lack of interest in playing sports. The Clarification
weakens the law by eliminating schools' obligations to look broadly and
proactively at whether they are satisfying women's interest, and
threatens to reverse enormous progress women and girls have made in
sports since the enactment of Title IX.
Conclusion
While much progress has been made over the last 35 years under
Title IX, many battles still must be fought to eradicate sex
discrimination in education and enable women and girls to realize their
full potential. Women and girls still face unacceptable and unlawful
barriers to athletic opportunity, which continue to contribute to the
``corrosive and unjustified discrimination against women'' that Title
IX was intended to eliminate.23 We must use this anniversary to
recommit ourselves to making the letter and the spirit of the Title IX
law a reality across all areas of education.
endnotes
\1\ Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Sec.
1681 et seq.
\2\ U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES), The Condition of Education, table 8-1, available at
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2007/section1/table.asp?tableID=672.
\3\ See Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Policy
Interpretation, 44 Fed. Reg. at 71419 (1979).
\4\ Remarks of Senator Stevens (R-AL), 130 Cong. Rec. S 4601 (daily
ed. April 12, 1984).
\5\ National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), 1981-82--2004-
05 NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates Report 72 (2006).
\6\ National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS),
1971 Sports Participation Survey (1971).
\7\ National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS),
2005 High School Athletics Participation Survey 2 (2005).
\8\ Memorandum from The Mellman Group, Inc. on Title IX to the
National Women's Law Center, 1 (June 8, 2007) (on file with the
National Women's Law Center.)
\9\ Id.
\10\ Id. at 2.
\11\ Greene, J. and Winters, M., Leaving Boys Behind: Public High
School Graduation Rates, Manhattan Institute Civic Report 48 (2006).
\12\ Orfield, G., et al., Losing Our Future: How Minority Youth are
Being Left Behind by the Graduation Rate Crisis, Cambridge, MA: The
Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Contributors: Urban
Institute, Advocates for Children of New York, and The Civil Society
Institute (2004).
\13\ See National Women's Law Center, Tools of the Trade: Using the
Law To Address Sex Segregation In High School Career and Technical
Education (2005), available at http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/
NWLCToolsoftheTrade05.pdf.
\14\ See Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Policy
Interpretation, 44 Fed. Reg. at 71419 (1979).
\15\ National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), 1981-82--
2004-05 NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates Report 72
(2006).
\16\ National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) 2003-04
Gender-Equity Report 12 (2007).
\17\ Id. at 25.
\18\ The Mellman Group, Inc., Title IX Survey, Conducted May 22-24,
2007 1 (on file with the National Women's Law Center).
\19\ Each of the following points is drawn from the National
Women's Law Center's report Barriers to Fair Play, available at http://
www.nwlc.org.
\20\ National Women's Law Center, Barriers to Fair Play (2007).
\21\ Id.
\22\ Memorandum from The Mellman Group, Inc. on Title IX to the
National Women's Law Center, 2 (June 8, 2007) (on file with the
National Women's Law Center.)
\23\ 118 Cong. Rec.5803 (1972) (remarks of Sen. Bayh).
______
[Internet address to three amicus briefs, submitted by Ms.
Greenberger, follows:]
http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/3%20Amicus%20Briefs-
%20Neal,%20Wrestlers,%20Cohen.pdf
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you very much for your
presentation. As stated earlier, the entire testimony which you
presented will be made part of today's congressional hearing.
And I must move forward, because we have quite a few
witnesses to speak today. With that, I recognize Ms. Maatz.
STATEMENT OF LISA M. MAATZ, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY AND
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN
Ms. Maatz. Thank you, Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking Member
Keller. Thank you very much for having me here today.
My name is Lisa Maatz. I am the director of public policy
and government relations for the American Association of
University Women. And I appreciate the opportunity to testify
today in honor of Title IX's 35th anniversary and, more
specifically, about the law's impact on sexual harassment in
education.
Founded in 1881, the American Association of University
Women has over 100,000 members and a proud 125-year history as
a vocal advocate for education and equity for women and girls.
AUW has been in the forefront of research on sexual harassment
in schools for more than a decade, releasing its first report
in 1993, just one year after the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly
recognized sexual harassment as a violation of Title IX.
Before Title IX, there was little remedy for addressing
sexual harassment in education settings. However, legal rulings
have determined that Title IX offers protections from sexual
harassment for both students and employees. While awareness and
reporting have increased, AUW has found that sexual harassment
continues to be an exceedingly common occurrence in our
Nation's schools. Further, while it is clear that it
disproportionately affects women, boys and men experience
sexual harassment as well and, like women, have used Title IX
in an attempt to improve their situations.
Increased awareness to proactive efforts on behalf of
educational institutions and Title IX advocates and legal
remedies have all resulted in better efforts to confront the
issue, but they have not solved the problem. Since AUW's first
research into this area, we have found that while students have
become much more aware of schools' harassment policies and the
resources available to them, this has not translated into fewer
incidents, nor has it increased the likelihood that a person
would actually report an incident of sexual harassment. In
fact, more than one-third of college students tell no one after
being harassed, and only 7 percent actually tell a college
official.
While not every incident of sexual harassment reported in
AUW studies is necessarily representative of a violation
reaching Title IX proportions, these statistics do depict a
campus climate that, at a minimum, is likely to be fertile
ground for Title IX violations. AUW urges schools to go beyond
the policies and take proactive measures and practical
strategies to combat the range of sexual harassment. In so
doing, we hope to promote the best learning environment
possible as well as to avoid potential litigation.
According to our research, 80 percent of students at the
secondary level report that they have experienced sexual
harassment. Over one in four say that they experience it often.
And these persistently high rates disrupt students' abilities
to learn and succeed in their studies. At the post-secondary
level, nearly two-thirds of college students say that they have
been sexually harassed, and 41 percent of students admit that
they have sexually harassed another student.
AUW's research also shows that sexual harassment takes an
especially heavy toll on female students. Among women college
students who encountered harassment, a third stated that they
felt afraid. Almost half tried to avoid the harasser, and
almost 10 skipped a class or dropped a course so that they
could do so. Girls at the secondary level are even more likely
to change their behaviors, including not talking in class and
also going to extreme measures to avoid their harassers.
So how does Title IX protect students? It protects them in
all of a school's programs or activities, whether the
harassment takes place in the facilities of the school, on a
school bus or at a class or training program that is sponsored
by the school. Title IX also prohibits sexual harassment by
employees of the school. Covered institutions must have a
procedure in place that provides for the equitable resolution
of any sexual harassment complaints which may at the same time
be the procedure that is also set up for general Title IX
complaints.
The groundwork for protecting students from sexual
harassment was first laid in 1972 with the passage of Title IX.
In 1992, the Supreme Court case Franklin v. Gwinnet County
Public Schools made it possible for students to seek monetary
damages for sexual harassment by a teacher. In 1997, the U.S.
Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights issued a
policy guidance making it clear that inaction is never the
right response to sexual harassment and urging schools to adopt
policies and procedures that would help to prevent such
misconduct.
However, the harsh liability standards under the 1998
Gebser and the 1999 Davis decisions by the Supreme Court have
been damaging for students. Schools are liable only if those in
authority have actual knowledge about harassment and responded
with deliberate indifference. This creates a perverse incentive
for schools to insulate themselves from knowledge of
harassment.
AUW and its coalition partners believe that Congress should
overturn the liability standards set in Gebser and the Davis
decisions and provide the same remedies and protections to
students that are available to employees who experience sexual
harassment.
So what else can we do? AUW believes that parents,
educators and advocates should focus on changing the culture of
harassment in schools and promote students' use of existing
resources to address the problems. The Federal Government also
has a role to play in preventing sexual harassment, as well as
a role in responding to it when it does happen.
School policies aren't enough, and we must have strong,
proactive and effective Title IX enforcement. First,
educational programs and institutions must perform their Title
IX responsibilities, including naming a Title IX compliance
officer. Second, educational institutions at all levels must
create publicized and enforce clear and accessible sexual
harassment policies so that we can proactively educate all
members of a school community. They should be a part of student
codes of conduct, clarify expectations, spell out ramifications
and protect students after harassment has occurred. Third,
educational institutions must take all sexual harassment
behaviors seriously. Incidents brushed off as harmless joking
or bullying can sometimes turn into bigger problems. And
lastly, the United States Department of Education must
vigorously enforce all portions of Title IX in all aspects of
education. Undertaking proactive compliance reviews to identify
problems in both policies and climate should be important
strategies of solid enforcement.
Sexual harassment defies a simple solution, but the problem
is unlikely to go away on its own. While many schools have
taken the first step in creating policies, more could be done
and should be done to help alleviate the culture of harassment
that impacts the lives and educational experiences of so many
students. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I
look forward to answering your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Maatz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lisa M. Maatz, Director of Public Policy and
Government Relations, American Association of University Women; Interim
Director, AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund
Chairman Hinojosa and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today about Title IX and this wonderful
civil rights law's impact on sexual harassment in education since its
inception 35 years ago.
Founded in 1881, AAUW has over 100,000 members and 1300 branches
across the country. AAUW also has a long and proud 125-year history as
an advocate for education and equity for women and girls, releasing its
first report on women and education in 1885. Today, AAUW continues its
mission through education, research, and advocacy.
Sexual harassment has long been a part of the educational
experience, affecting students' well-being and their ability to succeed
academically. The term ``sexual harassment,'' coined in the early
1970's, became more commonly used in the 1980's. Sexual harassment is
unwanted and unwelcome sexual behavior--including comments and
actions--that directly deprives a person of educational benefits or is
sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment,
thereby limiting full access to education and work. Before Title IX,
there was little remedy for addressing sexual harassment in educational
settings. However, legal rulings have conclusively determined that
Title IX offers protections from sexual harassment for students and
employees--indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly recognized sexual
harassment as a violation of Title IX in 1992.\1\
Despite these court holdings, sexual harassment continues to
undermine equal opportunity in education. While awareness and reporting
have increased, AAUW research has demonstrated the reality that sexual
harassment continues to plague our nation's schools and students. When
a student experiences sexual harassment on campus or in the classroom,
the hostile environment it creates can undermine their educational
opportunity. Awareness of the issue, proactive efforts on behalf of
educational institutions and Title IX advocates, and legal remedies
have resulted in more efforts to address the problem in recent years--
but those efforts have not cured the problem. Further, while it is
clear that sexual harassment in the schoolroom and on college campuses
disproportionately affects women, boys and men experience harassment as
well, and they have used various Title IX remedies in an attempt to
improve their situations. While improvements must be noted and praised,
and best practices should be shared to create a better educational
climate for all, sexual harassment remains a pervasive problem.
AAUW has been at the forefront of research on the topic for more
than a decade.\2\ Since AAUW's first research into this area in 1993,
students have become more aware of their schools' harassment policies
and the resources available to them.\3\ Unfortunately, students'
increased awareness has not translated into fewer incidents of sexual
harassment, nor has it increased the likelihood that students will
report such incidents.\4\ Sexual harassment has serious implications
for students, some of whom may experience a hostile educational
environment on a daily basis. However, most students do not report it
or even talk openly about sexual harassment as a serious issue.\5\ In
fact, according to AAUW's 2006 research, Drawing the Line: Sexual
Harassment on Campus, more than one-third of college students tell no
one after being harassed; almost half (49 percent) confide only in a
friend; and only 7 percent of students report the incident to a college
employee.\6\ While not all the harassment incidents reported in the
2006 research would necessarily represent a violation of Title IX,
these statistics raise serious concerns about barriers that continue to
exist for women on our nation's campuses and depict a campus climate
that, at a minimum, is likely to be a breeding ground for Title IX
sexual harassment violations.\7\
Scope of the Problem
AAUW research reveals a significant climate problem, which if fixed
could prevent the need for people to go to file sexual harassment suits
to protect their rights. By taking a broad approach in analyzing this
issue, AAUW's research seeks to identify the scope of the problem so
that schools can take proactive steps to address sexual harassment. In
so doing, we hope to promote the best learning environment possible as
well as avoid potential litigation. Improving the climate is critical,
because sexual harassment on college and university campuses has a
damaging impact on the educational experience of many college
students.\8\ Similarly, persistently high rates of sexual harassment
among students at the secondary level disrupt students' ability to
learn and succeed in their studies.\9\ Most students have an intuitive
understanding of what defines sexual harassment, and when asked to
provide a definition, describe it as physical and non-physical
behaviors including touch, words, looks, and gestures.\10\ According to
AAUW's own research, student reports of sexually harassing behavior
remain high:
80 percent of students at the secondary level report that
they experience sexual harassment; over one in four say they experience
it often.\11\
At the postsecondary level, nearly two-thirds of college
students (62 percent) say they have been sexually harassed,12 including
nearly one-third of first year students;\13\ 41 percent of students
admit they have sexually harassed another student.\14\
Consequences of Sexual Harassment in Schools
A college education is increasingly becoming a prerequisite for
many career paths and for lifelong economic security. With a college
student population that has topped 10 million and continues to grow,
creating a climate that is free from bias and harassment is a necessary
concern for the entire higher education community. Young adults on
campus are shaping behaviors and attitudes that they will take with
them into the workplace and broader society. A campus environment that
tolerates inappropriate verbal and physical contact and that
discourages reporting these behaviors undermines the emotional,
intellectual, and professional growth of millions of young adults.
AAUW's research shows that sexual harassment on campus takes an
especially heavy toll on young women. Among female students who
encountered harassment, a third stated that they felt afraid, and about
one in five women who report being harassed said that they were
disappointed in their college experience as a result of the
harassment.\15\
Commonly, students at the secondary and postsecondary level are
often resigned that sexual teasing and harassment is just something
they have to live with, though they find the incidents troubling and
distressing.\16\ Girls are far more likely than boys to feel ``self
conscious'' (44 percent to 19 percent), ``embarrassed'' (53 percent to
32 percent), and ``less confident'' (32 percent to 16 percent) because
of an incident of harassment.\17\
How Title IX Protects Students
Title IX protects students from unlawful sexual harassment in all
of a school's programs or activities, whether the harassment takes
place in the facilities of the school, on a school bus, at a class or
training program sponsored by the school at another location, or
elsewhere. Title IX protects both male and female students from sexual
harassment, regardless of who the harasser may be.\18\
Title IX also prohibits sexual harassment by any employee or agent
of the school. Covered institutions must have a procedure in place that
provides for equitable resolution of sexual harassment complaints,
which may be the same procedure set up for general Title IX
complaints.\19\ While many schools and universities have taken the
first step in creating policies to address this problem, more must be
done to help alleviate the culture of harassment that impacts the lives
and educational experiences of so many students.
Case Law and Regulations Addressing Sexual Harassment in Schools
The ground work for protecting students from sexual harassment was
first laid in the educational arena in 1972, when Title IX was passed
and sex discrimination was prohibited in any educational program or
activity that receives federal funding. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court
first recognized what is now known as hostile environment sexual
harassment in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson.\20\ The decision was
based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but was immediately
adopted under Title IX as well.\21\ The 1992 Supreme Court case,
Franklin v. Gwinnet,\22\ resulted in the landmark Title IX ruling that
made it possible for students to seek monetary damages for sexual
harassment by a teacher. Since then, the number of sexual harassment
cases against colleges and universities, as well as elementary and
secondary public schools, has grown substantially.
In 1997, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights
issued policy guidance on sexual harassment, outlining Title IX's
requirements in this area and providing schools with much-needed help
in defining, addressing, and preventing sexual harassment.\23\ The 1997
guidance makes clear that inaction is never the right response to
sexual harassment, and urges schools to adopt policies and procedures
that help prevent such misconduct.
In 1998, Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District,\24\ the
U.S. Supreme Court created a new Title IX standard not used in
virtually any other anti-discrimination law. The court held that
regardless of the absence of policies, grievance mechanisms or other
reasonable actions, schools cannot be held financially responsible for
the harm done when a teacher sexually harasses a student unless a
school official with authority to take corrective measures had ``actual
knowledge'' of the specific harassment and responded to it with
``deliberate indifference.'' \25\ The court rejected standards of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, resulting in fewer protections for
students than for employees of a school system, and making students
vulnerable to sexual harassment.
In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled again on sexual harassment in
schools in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education.\26\ The court
found that school districts can be held liable under Title IX for
student-to-student sexual harassment if the school district knew about
the harassment and responded with deliberate indifference. The
harassment must be severe, pervasive, and offensive, and it must
interfere with the student's ability to get an education. Schools
cannot, however, be held responsible for teasing and bullying.
These harsh standards for liability have been extraordinarily
damaging for students and have resulted in the dismissal of dozens of
harassment claims since the Gebser and Davis decisions were issued.
They create a perverse incentive for schools and school districts to
insulate themselves from knowledge of harassment, and provide an
inadequate level of protection to students. For these reasons, AAUW and
its coalition partners believe that Congress must step in and overturn
the liability standards set in the Gebser and Davis decisions, and
restore effective legal protection by providing the same remedies and
protections to students that are available to employees who are victims
of sexual harassment.
In 2001, U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights
released important new policy guidance on sexual harassment to clarify
a school's obligations in light of the Gebser and Davis decisions.\27\
The new 2001 guidance reinforces the 1997 guidance that schools are
responsible for recognizing and remedying sexual harassment. Further,
schools are potentially liable for failing to recognize or remedy such
harassment.
In an investigation into sexual harassment complaints filed by
students with OCR between 1998 and 2005, conducted by the AAUW Legal
Advocacy Fund and to be released this fall, it was found that OCR
allowed all university and colleges they found to be in violation of
title IX to agree to changes in their policies and procedures rather
than institute any form of sanction against the institution--regardless
of the egregiousness of the violation. This approach is damaging and
sends the implicit message that institutions may as well wait until a
complaint is filed than be proactive in ensuring their sexual
harassment policies are clear, accessible, effective and enforced.\28\
Recommendations
AAUW believes that parents, educators, and advocates should focus
on changing the culture of harassment in schools, and promote students'
use of existing resources to address the problems. The federal
government also has a role to play in preventing sexual harassment in
educational situations, as well as a role in responding when it does
happen. Policies aren't enough--follow up action is critical in
addressing this problem at all levels of education. While many schools
and universities have taken the first step in creating policies and
procedures to address this problem, more must be done to help alleviate
the culture of harassment that disrupts the educational experience of
so many students.
Sexual harassment defies a simple solution but still demands
action. As AAUW's research over the last decade demonstrates, the
problem is unlikely to go away on its own. Dialogue is a good first
step in the right direction. Students, faculty and staff, and parents
and guardians must begin to talk openly about attitudes and behaviors
that promote or impede our progress toward a harassment-free climate in
which all students can reach their full potential.
AAUW believes we also must commit ourselves to strong Title IX
enforcement at the local, state, and federal levels and ensure
policymakers maintain a commitment to Title IX.
First, education programs, activities, and institutions
must comply with their Title IX responsibilities and ensure that
programs do not discriminate on the basis of sex, including designating
an employee to be responsible for compliance with Title IX (typically
known as a Title IX coordinator).
Second, educational institutions at all levels must create
and enforce clear and accessible sexual harassment policies to
proactively protect and educate students, and post them in an
accessible place and on web sites. These policies should be part of
school discipline policies and student codes of conduct, and include
provisions for effectively protecting students after harassment has
occurred.\29\
Third, educational institutions must take sexual
harassment behaviors very seriously, even if those behaviors are not
immediately legally actionable. These behaviors can quickly turn into
serious sexual harassment and should not be brushed off as harmless
joking or minor bullying.
Fourth, Title IX coordinators and their respective schools
or universities must proactively disseminate information in the school
and campus community to ensure that students and employees are aware of
sexual harassment policies, as well as the school's process for filing
complaints.
Lastly, the U.S. Department of Education must vigorously
enforce all portions of Title IX in all aspects of education.
Undertaking proactive compliance reviews to identify problems of sex
discrimination and fully implementing Title IX regulations are
important strategies of solid enforcement.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and for holding
this hearing to mark the 35th anniversary of Title IX. It continues to
be a truly transformative civil rights law. I look forward to answering
your questions.
endnotes
\1\ Franklin v. Gwinnet County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992).
\2\ In 1993, AAUW released Hostile Hallways: The AAUW Survey on
Sexual Harassment in America's Schools, which revealed that four out of
five students in grades eight to 11 had experienced some form of sexual
harassment. In 2001, the AAUW Educational Foundation released the
follow-up report, Hostile Hallways: Bullying Teasing and Sexual
Harassment in School, which found that nearly a decade later, sexual
harassment remained a major problem and a significant barrier to
student achievement in public schools. In response, AAUW developed a
resource guide, Harassment-Free Hallways (2002), which provides
guidelines and recommendations to help schools, students, and parents
prevent and combat sexual harassment. The AAUW Educational Foundation
released Drawing the Line: Sexual Harassment on Campus, on Jan. 24,
2006. This report presents the most comprehensive findings to date on
sexual harassment on college campuses. All of these publications,
including Drawing the Line, are available at www.aauw.org/research.
\3\ AAUW Educational Foundation. Hostile Hallways: Bullying,
Teasing, and Sexual Harassment in School, p.4. 2001.
\4\ AAUW Educational Foundation. Hostile Hallways: Bullying,
Teasing, and Sexual Harassment in School, p.5. 2001.
\5\ AAUW Educational Foundation. Drawing the Line: Sexual
Harassment on Campus, p.33. 2006.
\6\ AAUW Educational Foundation. Drawing the Line: Sexual
Harassment on Campus, p. 32. 2006.
\7\ For its research, AAUW used the following definition of sexual
harassment: ``unwanted or unwelcome sexual behavior that interferes
with your life.''
\8\ AAUW Educational Foundation. Drawing the Line: Sexual
Harassment on Campus, p.4. 2006.
\9\ AAUW Educational Foundation. Hostile Hallways: Bullying,
Teasing, and Sexual Harassment in School, p.4. 2001.
\10\ AAUW Educational Foundation. Drawing the Line: Sexual
Harassment on Campus, p. 9-10. 2006. AAUW defines sexual harassment in
school as any unwanted and unwelcome sexual behavior that interferes
with the student's ability to perform in an educational setting
(Hostile Hallways: Bullying, Teasing, and Sexual Harassment in School,
p. 2. 2001.)
\11\ AAUW Educational Foundation. Hostile Hallways: Bullying,
Teasing, and Sexual Harassment in School, p. 4. 2001.
\12\ AAUW Educational Foundation. Drawing the Line: Sexual
Harassment on Campus, p. 15. 2006.
\13\ AAUW Educational Foundation. Drawing the Line: Sexual
Harassment on Campus, p 2. 2006.
\14\ AAUW Educational Foundation. Drawing the Line: Sexual
Harassment on Campus, p. 22. 2005.
\15\ AAUW Educational Foundation. Drawing the Line: Sexual
Harassment on Campus, p. 29. 2006.
\16\ AAUW Educational Foundation. Hostile Hallways: Bullying,
Teasing, and Sexual Harassment in School, p. 32. 2001.
\17\ AAUW Educational Foundation. Hostile Hallways: Bullying,
Teasing, and Sexual Harassment in School, p. 32. 2001.
\18\ U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. Title IX
and Sexual Harassment. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/
ocrshpam.html Accessed April 12, 2005.
\19\ U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. Title IX
and Sexual Harassment. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/
ocrshpam.html Accessed April 12, 2005.
\20\ Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).
\21\ In Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979), the
U.S. Supreme Court held that Title IX was patterned after Title VII.
\22\ Franklin v. Gwinnet Country Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60
(1992).
\23\ U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. ``Sexual
Harassment Guidance 1997.'' http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/
docs/sexhar01.html Accessed April 12, 2005.
\24\ Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274
(1998).
\25\ U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. Federal
Register, page 2. http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2000-
4/110200b.pdf Accessed April 12, 2005.
\26\ National Women's Law Center. Sexual Harassment, Davis v.
Monroe Brief. http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/DavisBrief.pdf Accessed April 12,
2005. Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999).
\27\ U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. Title IX
and Sexual Harassment http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/
2000-4/110200b.html Accessed April 12 2005.
\28\ This research was conducted based on student sexual harassment
complaints filed with and then obtained from OCR through an AAUW FOIA
request. The final findings will be released by the AAUW Legal Advocacy
Fund in fall 2007.
\29\ AAUW Educational Foundation, Harassment Free-Hallways: How to
Stop Harassment in School, 2004, p. 17.
______
[Additional materials submitted by Ms. Maatz follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you Ms. Maatz.
Jack, you are next.
STATEMENT OF JACK MOWATT, COMMISSIONER, MARYLAND-D.C. AMATEUR
SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION
Mr. Mowatt. Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking Member Keller and
members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify
before you today. I would like to share with you the story of a
gender equity problem that I saw in the girls' athletics
programs in Prince George's County, Maryland, and how those
problems were resolved in a way that could be replicated in
other communities across the country.
I have been an active softball umpire in the metropolitan
Washington, D.C. Area since 1968 and have seen many softball
fields in Maryland. Over the years, I became more concerned
about the many safety issues that I saw in the girls' high
school softball fields in Prince George's County, Maryland.
Several years ago during a game, I thought that these young
women deserve more than this. It had been my belief that
athletes who play on good fields play better and enjoy the game
much more.
I talked to a fellow umpire who had also been officiating
for a number of years, and we decided to go around the schools
in Prince George's County to take pictures of the safety
hazards on the girls' fields and see what could be done to get
the school district to make the improvements to the fields. Our
main concern was the unsafe conditions which these young women
were exposed to on the school softball fields.
At first I did not think it was a gender equity problem but
now realize by not taking care of the softball fields, the
county was sending a message to the girls that their sport was
not as important as the boys. Our photographs of the fields
showed problems that go beyond safety concerns. The girls'
softball fields did not have basic things that the boys' fields
had, such as benches for the team and protective fences to
protect them. For example, at Largo High School, the boys'
baseball field had perimeter fencing, dugouts and a scoreboard.
The girls' softball field had none of these.
After we had taken the pictures of every high school
softball field in Prince George's County, we presented the
county athletic director with the photographs and asked him to
make improvements to the fields. We also requested help from
the former school superintendent. Unfortunately, after numerous
conversations, nothing was done to improve the girls' fields.
After a year, when we saw that Prince George's County was
not responding, one of the softball coaches and I contacted the
National Women's Law Center in 2003. Together with the center
we did a more comprehensive investigation of the treatment of
female athletes as compared to male athletes in Prince George's
County. We found serious problems in the way girls' teams were
treated, including the number of participation opportunities
offered to the girls and the amount of money that the school
districts spend on girls' sports.
The center sent a letter to the attorneys for Prince
George's County schools in the fall of 2004 describing all the
ways in which the girls were not being treated fairly and
reminded the county of its Title IX obligation. Fortunately,
the county stepped up to the plate and recognized that it
needed to make changes.
Over the next year and a half, the center, together with
the attorneys from the D.C. Office of Steptoe & Johnson
negotiated an agreement that included all middle and high
schools in the county require equal treatment for girls in
opportunities to practice and play, funding and facilities and
many other areas. Some of these areas included, by the
beginning of the 2007 softball season, the Board had to improve
the softball fields and the conditions to play, which some
schools required that it install backstops and fencing to
protect players and fans from balls; eliminate jagged edges
around fencing; and make sure fields were free of other safety
hazards.
These small changes, which the Board had already made, has
led the girls' softball to feel like, for the first time, they
are important. See Josh Barr, ``Title IX Deal Transforms Dreams
to Fields,'' in the Washington Post on March 22 of 2007.
By the beginning of the 2008 softball season, the Board
will make additional improvements to the softball field to
provide girls with the same amenities that are already provided
for the boys' baseball teams. In some cases, they include
covered dugouts, scoreboards and bleachers.
Beyond softball, the Board agreed to provide equal funding
for the boys' and girls' sports to make the outside fundraising
not create inequities between boys' and girls' programs. The
board will also provide girls' and boys' teams with equal
facilities, and the male and female athletes will receive an
equal quality of publicity.
People of Prince George's County will be able to hold the
Board to its word that they will provide these equal
opportunities to the male and female students. The agreement
requires the Board to regularly evaluate the athletic program
and its compliance with the agreement.
I am so glad the board of education agreed to do the right
thing and correct the problems. The action sends a strong
message to girls that they mean just as much as the boys. And
providing girls with equal opportunities to play sports is an
investment in their future. Studies show that girls who play
sports have higher grades, are less likely to drop out and have
higher education rates than those that do not play sports.
Athletes are less likely to smoke or use drugs. And female
athletes have a lower rate of both sexual activity and
pregnancy than females that do not play sports. Playing sports
also deprives our young women of chances to develop heart
disease, breast cancer and depression.
Unfortunately, I have learned the problems we found in
Prince George's County are not unique. Title IX turns 35 this
week. While women and girls have come a long way since the law
was passed in 1972, a lot of work still needs to be done. For
example, there are many reports that girls across the country
and even in your district are playing in run-down, bare-bones
softball fields while boys are playing on Major League baseball
teams.
[The statement of Mr. Mowatt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jack Mowatt, Commissioner, Maryland-DC Amateur
Softball Association
Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking Member Keller, and members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. I
would like to share with you my story of the gender equity problems
that I saw in the girls' athletics programs in Prince George's County,
Maryland and how those problems were resolved in a way that could be
replicated in other communities across the country.
I have been an active softball umpire in the Washington, D.C.
metropolitan area since 1968 and have seen many softball fields in
Maryland. Over the years, I became more and more concerned about many
of the safety issues that I saw on the girls' high school softball
fields in Prince George's County, Maryland. Several years ago during a
game, I thought: These young women deserve more than this. It has been
my belief that athletes who play on good fields play better and enjoy
the game much more.
I talked to a fellow umpire who has also been officiating for a
number of years, and we decided to go around to the schools in Prince
George's County and take pictures of the safety hazards at the girls'
fields and see if we could get the school district to make improvements
to the fields. Our main concern was the unsafe conditions to which
these young women were exposed on their school softball fields. At
first, I did not think of the problems as gender equity problems, but
now I realize that by not taking care of the softball fields, the
county was sending a message to girls that their sports are not as
important.
Our photographs of the fields showed problems that go beyond safety
concerns. The girls' softball fields did not have basic things that the
boys' fields had, such as benches for the team and fencing to protect
them. For example, at Largo High School, the boys' baseball field there
had perimeter fencing, dug outs and a scoreboard. The girls' softball
field had none of those amenities.
After we had taken pictures of every high school softball field in
Prince George's County, we presented the County Athletic Director with
the photographs and asked him to make improvements to the girls'
fields. We also requested help from the former superintendent.
Unfortunately, after numerous conversations, nothing was done to
improve the girls' fields.
After a year, when we saw that Prince George's County was not
responding, one of the softball coaches and I contacted the National
Women's Law Center in 2003. Together with the Center, we did a more
comprehensive investigation of the treatment of female athletes as
compared to male athletes in Prince George's County. We found serious
problems in the way girls' teams were treated, including in the number
of participation opportunities offered to girls and the amount of money
the school district spends on girls' sports.
The Center sent a letter to attorneys for the Prince George's
County Public Schools in the fall of 2004 describing all the ways in
which girls were not being treated fairly and reminding the county of
its Title IX obligations. Fortunately, the county stepped up to the
plate and recognized that it needed to make changes. Over the next year
and a half, the Center, together with attorneys from the D.C. office of
Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, negotiated an agreement that includes all
public middle and high schools in the county and requires equal
treatment for girls in opportunities to practice and play, funding and
facilities, and many other areas. Some of the details include:
By the beginning of the 2007 softball season, the Board
had to improve its softball fields and conditions of play, which at
some schools required that it install backstops and fencing to protect
players and fans from balls, eliminate jagged edges around fencing, and
make sure that fields are free of gaping holes and other safety
hazards. These small changes, which the Board has already made, have
led girls playing softball to feel like for the first time, they are
important. (See Josh Barr, ``Title IX Deal Transforms Dreams to
Fields,'' Wash. Post, March 22, 2007, at E7.)
By the beginning of the 2008 softball season, the Board
will make additional improvements to the softball fields to provide
girls with the same amenities that are already provided to boys'
baseball teams. In some cases this will include covered dugouts,
scoreboards and bleachers.
Beyond softball, the Board agreed to provide equal funding
for boys' and girls' sports and to make sure that outside fundraising
does not create inequalities between boys' and girls' programs. The
Board will also provide girls' and boys' teams with equal facilities
and the male and female athletes will receive equal amounts--and equal
quality--of publicity.
Finally, the people of Prince George's County will be able
to hold the Board to its word that it will provide these equal
opportunities to its male and female students. The Agreement requires
that the Board regularly evaluate its athletics program and its
compliance with the Agreement, and that it make its reports public.
A copy of the agreement is attached to my testimony.
I am so glad that the Board of Education agreed to do the right
thing and correct these problems. Their actions send a strong message
to girls that they matter just as much as boys. And providing girls
with equal opportunities to play sports is an investment in their
future. Studies show that girls who play sports have higher grades, are
less likely to drop out and have higher graduation rates than those who
do not play sports. Athletes are less likely to smoke or use drugs, and
female athletes have lower rates of both sexual activity and pregnancy
than females who do not play sports. Playing sports also decreases a
young woman's chance of developing heart disease, breast cancer and
depression. (See National Women's Law Center, ``The Battle for Gender
Equity in Athletics in Elementary and Secondary Schools,'' June 2007,
available at http://www.nwlc.org/details.cfm?id=2735&
section=athletics.)
Unfortunately, I learned that the problems we found in Prince
George's County are not unique. Title IX turns 35 this week, and while
women and girls have come a long way since the law was passed in 1972,
there is lots of work still to do. For example, there are many other
reports of girls across the country playing on run-down, bare bones
softball fields, while boys play on fields fit for minor league
baseball teams.
I am so glad that the Board agreed to make changes that will
benefit girls throughout Prince George's County and I hope school
districts nationwide follow the school board's lead. Several years ago
I decided that the conditions were too unsafe for me to continue
umpiring in the County. But because of this agreement, I decided to go
back to being an umpire and I am so excited to see the changes first
hand. Thank you.
______
[Additional submission by Mr. Mowatt follows:]
Commitment to Resolve
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The parties--Prince George's County Public Schools (``PGCPS'') and
the National Women's Law Center (``NWLC'')--have jointly agreed through
their designated representatives that the interests of male and female
students at Prince George's County Public Schools are best served by
reaching agreement regarding the manner in which each individual school
in the county will comply with Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972. The parties concur that providing equal athletic participation
opportunities and benefits to male and female students is essential to
Title IX compliance. Believing that these objectives can best be
achieved through a cooperative effort joining Title IX's requirements
with the parties' dedication to providing an athletics program that
treats all PGCPS students fairly, the parties have entered into this
Commitment to Resolve (or ``Agreement''), the provisions of which apply
to each individual school that PGCPS comprises, and which is effective
as of the date of execution by the parties (``Effective Date'').
II. GENERAL TITLE IX PRINCIPLES
PGCPS agrees to comply with the general mandates of Title IX, its
Regulations, 1979 Policy Interpretation, and 1996 Clarification of
Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Guidance. Title IX prohibits gender-
based discrimination under educational programs receiving federal
financial support.
PGCPS is not required to have or maintain an athletics program, but
if it does, Title IX requires that it provide equal opportunities to
male and female students to play sports. In particular, the interests
of female students must be effectively accommodated insofar as they
continue to be underrepresented in athletics programs. Accommodation of
interests may be accomplished through the initiation of new sports
teams, through the addition of appropriate levels of teams in
connection with existing sports, or through the addition of slots on
existing teams as long as they represent meaningful participation
opportunities.
In addition, Title IX requires PGCPS to provide male and female
athletes with equal benefits and services. These benefits and services
for elementary and secondary schools include, but are not limited to,
the following:
1. Funding of interscholastic and other school-sponsored sports
programs;
2. Equipment and supplies;
3. Uniforms;
4. Scheduling of games and practice times;
5. Travel and related expenses;
6. Opportunity to receive coaching and the assignment and
compensation of coaches;
6. Provision of locker rooms, practice facilities, and competitive
facilities;
7. Provision of medical and training facilities and services; and
8. Provision of publicity.
The parties acknowledge that the Title IX Regulations and Policy
Interpretation indicate that unequal aggregate expenditures for members
of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams alone
will not constitute non-compliance with Title IX, but that a failure to
provide necessary funds for teams of one sex is relevant to assessing
equality of opportunity for members of each sex. Furthermore, identical
benefits, opportunities, or treatment are not required, provided the
overall effects of any differences are negligible. PGCPS may be in
compliance with Title IX in the event that a comparison of program
components shows that treatment, benefits, or opportunities are not
equivalent in kind, quality or availability, if due to
nondiscriminatory factors, such as unique aspects of particular sports
or athletic activities, rules of play, the nature of equipment, rates
of injury resulting from participation, the nature of the facilities
required for competition, or the maintenance/upkeep requirements of
those facilities. Other factors may include legitimate sex-neutral
factors related to special circumstances of a temporary nature as long
as any such special circumstances do not disproportionately burden
members of one sex. Moreover, activities directly associated with the
operation of a competitive event in a single-sex sport, may, under some
circumstances, create unique demands or imbalances in particular
program components and resulting differences would not be
discriminatory if any special demands associated with the activities of
sports involving participants of the other sex are met to an equivalent
degree and according to neutral rules that do not relate to the sex of
the team. Examples would include, but not be limited to, the costs of
managing athletic events due to crowd size.
The above is a brief review of Title IX as it relates to secondary
school athletics programs. It is not intended to be comprehensive or
dispositive of the schools' obligations or individual rights or
responsibilities. It is, however, the statutory and decisional
framework upon which this Commitment to Resolve has been considered and
reached. The purpose of this Commitment to Resolve is to ensure that
PGCPS meets the requirements of Title IX; no provision contained herein
is intended to require PGCPS to take any actions beyond what is
required by Title IX.
III. PROVISION OF ATHLETIC OPPORTUNITIES, BENEFITS, AND SERVICES
A. Participation
1. To ensure that it is providing its middle and high school female
students with equal participation opportunities, PGCPS will:
a. Provide participation opportunities for male and female students
in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments;
or
b. Expand participation opportunities in response to the developing
interests of its female students; or
c. Fully and effectively accommodate the interests of its female
students.
Regardless of which of the above three ways PGCPS chooses to comply
with Title IX's participation requirements, the burden will be on
PGCPS, as opposed to the students, to ensure that it is providing equal
opportunities for female students.
2. In determining whether its athletics program fully and
effectively accommodates the interests and abilities of its female
students, PGCPS may choose to use a student interest survey or any
other nondiscriminatory method to ascertain the level of interest in
sports that are not currently offered, as long as the method it chooses
uses straightforward techniques that reach all middle and high school
female students and is open-ended regarding the sports students can
express interest in. As set forth in paragraph 3 below, if a survey or
other nondiscriminatory method is utilized, it will be only one among
several factors used to evaluate interest and will be conducted at
least every other academic year so that PGCPS can identify and respond
in a timely manner to the developing interests of its female students.
Students' non-responsiveness to any such survey or instrument may not
be interpreted as lack of interest in athletics. Any survey will be
vetted through a public process and the Title IX Coordinator before
use, and the resulting data will be documented after receipt and made
available publicly to ensure that multiple constituencies have an
opportunity to express comments.
3. PGCPS will not rely exclusively on the results of any interest
survey in showing that it is fully and effectively accommodating its
female students' athletic interests. Rather, PGCPS will also consider
the following to ascertain likely interests and abilities of its female
students in particular sports and to further identify potential
additions to PGCPS' athletic offerings for its female students:
opinions of the Title IX Coordinator, coaches, middle school, and high
school students that a particular sport be added; a review of the
participation surveys that appear in the National Federation of High
Schools Handbook; and input from the MPSSAA, Prince George's County
Athletic Association, Prince George's County Middle School Athletic
Association, representatives of the Maryland National Capital Park and
Planning Commission, and the local Boys and Girls Clubs, with whom
PGCPS will meet at least annually.
4. PGCPS currently operates a middle school interscholastic
athletics program. In the 2004-2005 school year, 28 out of 29 middle
schools participated; there were 23 girls' teams, 23 boys' teams, and 5
schools which had coed teams, available for both boys and girls. In the
2005--2006 school year, all 30 middle schools received baseball and
softball equipment. There are 28 girls' softball teams, 29 boys'
baseball teams, 30 boys' basketball teams, and 29 girls' basketball
teams. All 30 middle schools are expected to field boys' and girls'
soccer teams in Spring 2006. To the extent that PGCPS continues to
offer sports for middle school students, it will provide male and
female students with equal opportunities to participate in these
sports, and equal benefits and services to male and female athletes.
5. PGCPS will review all of its policies related to athletic
participation and, if necessary to comply with Title IX, will adopt,
ensure distribution of, and publicize policies to encourage and not
discourage girls' and boys' sports participation.
6. For purposes of measuring participation rates, PGCPS will not
count cheerleading as a sport unless 1) the primary purpose of a
cheerleading squad is athletic competition and not support of other
sports; and 2) the squad is treated like other athletic teams with
respect to the requirements it is subject to and the athletic benefits
and services it receives, including but not limited to, coaching,
recruitment, budget, try-outs, eligibility, and practice sessions and
competitive opportunities.
B. Other Benefits and Services
1. Softball
Specific concerns about the treatment of softball teams were
brought to the attention of the NWLC and prompted the program-wide
athletics investigation that subsequently led to the negotiation of
this Commitment to Resolve. PGCPS agrees to take the following specific
actions with respect to its softball teams and to provide to the NWLC
monthly written updates on the progress it makes in satisfying these
obligations, commencing on November 1, 2006 and terminating on the date
on which all of the obligations are met, at which time PGCPS shall so
advise NWLC in writing of its compliance.
a. With regard to all its softball fields, PGCPS will by no later
than the first day of practice for the 2007 softball season:
(1) Install protective fencing of an adequate height (at least 6
feet) and width in front and, where necessary due to the location of
the backstop, on the side closest to the batter of all player benches.
PGCPS will determine where it is necessary to install protective
fencing on the sides of the player benches with input from the NWLC or
its designated representative;
(2) Install backstops and make necessary safety adjustments/repairs
to existing backstops;
(3) Install field perimeter fencing where there are obstacles or
barriers around the circumference on the fields. The NWLC has raised
special concerns about the fields at Northwestern High School, Charles
H. Flowers High School, Crossland High School and Oxon Hill High
School. In response to these concerns, PGCPS will install a retaining
wall and fencing on the left field line connected to the outfield fence
at Charles H. Flowers High School; fencing on the right field line at
Crossland High School; and fencing around the scoreboard at
Northwestern High School. The parties understand that Oxon Hill High
School will not require additional perimeter fencing because the
concerns raised by the NWLC will be addressed by campus construction in
the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 academic years;
(4) Install safety capping on all fences to protect players from
exposure to sharp or jagged edges;
(5) Provide warning tracks, where needed for safety when the field
has fencing in the outfield;
(6) Ensure that fields are level and free of any holes,
depressions, raised sprinkler heads or other obstacles and clear the
fields of any poison ivy/poison oak, debris or foreign objects;
(7) Inspect fields before practices or games, to reasonably ensure
their condition for safe use;
(8) Inspect benches/stands/bleachers for structural soundness and
safety and make necessary repairs; and
(9) Provide transportation to and from home fields that are not
located on the school's campus.
(10) All steps taken under this section will meet standard National
Federation of State High School Association regulations, if any, with
regard to layout, dimensions and fixtures, unless it is physically
impossible to adhere to such regulations.
b. To the extent that a school's baseball field has any of the
following benefits or accommodations, not available at the softball
field at that school, PGCPS will provide to the softball team, by no
later than the beginning of the softball season in 2008:
(1) Stationary, covered dugouts that include player benches, except
at Bowie High School, where PGCPS asserts that space is not available;
(2) Field perimeter fencing if the baseball field has such fencing
for purposes other than to demarcate property lines;
(3) Storage sheds for equipment;
(4) Bleachers of equal type and quality;
(5) Scoreboards of equal type and quality, except that the parties
acknowledge that the scoreboards currently existing at Bowie High
School do not need to be modified pursuant to this section;
(6) Fields that meet standard National Federation of State High
School Association regulations, if any, with regard to layout,
dimensions and fixtures, except for Frederick Douglass High School,
Parkdale High School and Potomac High School, where PGCPS asserts that
it is physically impossible to adhere to such regulations;
(7) Tarps for covering the fields;
(8) Batting cages; and
(9) Warm-up pitchers' areas.
2. Funding
a. Subject to the provisions referenced hereinabove, in Section II,
PGCPS will use its best efforts to allocate funding proportionately to
the participation ratio of male and female student-athletes. However,
as PGCPS works to increase the number of female student-athletes and to
remedy inequities in the treatment of female athletes, additional
funding for girls' sports may be needed to ensure Title IX athletic
compliance.
b. PGCPS will make every possible attempt not to cut participation
opportunities or other athletic benefits and services for boys' teams
in order to implement the terms of this Agreement.
c. PGCPS will ensure that donor gifts and concession receipts do
not create a disparity between boys' and girls' sports on a program-
wide basis. To that end, PGCPS will draft and approve a formal policy
stating its commitment to gender equity in the funding of its athletics
programs.
3. Equipment, Supplies, and Uniforms
a. PGCPS will provide athletes of both genders with uniforms and
other apparel of equal quality and durability. The uniforms for teams
of one gender will not be replaced more frequently than the uniforms
for teams of the other gender unless the wear-and-tear on such uniforms
clearly necessitates more frequent replacement. Each school shall
maintain a purchase schedule for uniforms, equipment and supplies.
b. To the extent that PGCPS provides athletes of one gender with
equipment and supplies, it will also provide an equal percentage of
athletes of the other gender with equipment and supplies necessary to
compete effectively.
c. PGCPS will allocate to teams of both genders equipment storage
space that is equal in terms of quality, accessibility by the teams,
and the percentages of the total amount of equipment accommodated.
4. Scheduling of Games and Practice Times
a. PGCPS will ensure that male and female teams have equal amounts
of practice time.
b. PGCPS will ensure that if boys' and girls' teams both require
the use of the same practice facility, then the teams shall rotate
practice times so that teams of each gender have an equal opportunity
to practice during the ``prime'' practice hours, unless there are
safety concerns for athletes and/or when coaches' schedules preclude
them from doing so, provided that neither safety concerns nor coaches'
schedules disproportionately advantage or disadvantage athletes of one
gender. Practice times will be communicated to each team, posted, and
made publicly available.
c. PGCPS will provide male and female teams with equal numbers,
levels, and quality of competitive events, and equal opportunities to
engage in available pre-season and post-season competition. In
addition, PGCPS will ensure that the seasons (i.e., time of year) when
competitions are scheduled do not disproportionately advantage/
disadvantage athletes of one gender.
d. If boys' and girls' competitions are scheduled for the same day
in the same facility, then PGCPS will arrange the schedules such that
neither the boys' nor the girls' teams are disproportionately
advantaged or disadvantaged in terms of being able to play at ``prime''
times.
5. Travel and Related Expenses
a. To the extent that PGCPS provides transportation to and from
games or practices, it shall provide an equal amount and quality of
transportation to teams of both genders. In determining whether
transportation is provided equally to teams of both genders, PGCPS will
consider whether a team's ``home'' field is located on-campus or off-
campus.
b. To the extent that PGCPS provides hotel accommodations, ``per
diem,'' or other amenities for out-of-town competitions, it will do so
equally for teams of both genders.
6. Coaching
a. PGCPS will provide coaches (both head and assistant coaches) to
teams of each gender in an equitable manner such that the ratio of the
total number of coaches to the total number of participants is similar
for both the boys' and girls' programs. The parties understand that the
nature of the sport of football, including the number of participants
needed to field a team, the rate of injury, and the rate of severe
injury, often justifies the assignment of several assistant coaches.
b. PGCPS shall make its best efforts to ensure that the coaches for
teams of each gender have similar levels and types of experience. For
example, if PGCPS requires that coaches for the boys' teams have
substantial experience as successful coaches, then it shall seek
equivalent levels of experience in coaches for the girls' teams.
c. PGCPS will ensure that uniform criteria are used to determine
the compensation and benefits (including emoluments), hiring, firing,
and promotion of coaches and athletics personnel. The criteria used
will be applied equally to coaches for teams of both genders and to
male and female athletics personnel.
d. To the extent that PGCPS assigns other duties to its coaches and
athletics personnel, it will ensure that those assignments do not
disproportionately burden the coaches of teams of one gender or
personnel of one gender. Coaches of male and female teams shall also be
provided with equal support staff and office resources.
e. Consistent with applicable law, PGCPS will make every effort to
increase the representation of women among its coaches, athletic
administrators, and athletic directors.
7. Practice and Playing Facilities and Locker Rooms
a. Practice and Playing Facilities
(1) PGCPS will provide its male and female teams with practice and
playing facilities that are equal in terms of quality, size (taking
into account sport-specific needs), exclusivity of use, and the
quality, quantity and accessibility of fixtures and amenities, subject
to Part III.B.1.
(2) PGCPS will ensure that practice and playing facilities,
including fixtures and amenities, are prepared and maintained equally
and in good, safe, and playable conditions for teams of both genders.
(3) If boys' and girls' teams are scheduled to practice or play in
interchangeable facilities of different quality, then PGCPS will rotate
the use of such facilities so that each gender has an equal opportunity
to practice and play in the better facility.
(4) PGCPS will not permit the teams of one gender to displace the
teams of the other gender in the use of facilities when such facilities
have been reserved in advance or when such facilities are regularly
used or known to be used by a team of the other gender during that
time; where teams are displaced due to emergency circumstances, teams
of one gender shall not be disproportionately advantaged or
disadvantaged.
(5) To the extent that scorekeepers, referees, or other officials
are used at athletic competitions, PGCPS shall ensure that they are
provided to teams of both genders on an equal basis.
(6) PGCPS will use its best efforts to provide adequate access to
the various school-sponsored organizations using its facilities. To the
extent that facilities are overused, however, PGCPS will schedule use
of the facilities such that teams of one gender are not
disproportionately advantaged/disadvantaged.
(7) To the extent that new high schools are built or existing high
schools are renovated, PGCPS shall distribute available field and
practice space at such new or renovated schools equitably between
girls' and boys' teams;
(8) PGCPS will provide restroom facilities that are reasonably
accessible from the fields, such that teams of one gender are not
disproportionately advantaged or disadvantaged by the location of the
restroom facilities.
b. Locker Rooms
(1) PGCPS will provide female athletes with locker rooms and
lockers of at least the same quality and size (taking into account
sport-specific needs) as those provided to male athletes and shall use
its best efforts to allocate lockers in numbers that reflect and are in
proportion to the percentages of athletes that are male versus female.
(2) To the extent that an athletic facility provides locker rooms
or individual lockers for sports teams, PGCPS will ensure that they are
provided equally to teams of both genders.
(3) PGCPS will ensure that the proximity of teams' locker rooms to
the facilities in which they practice/compete does not
disproportionately burden teams of one gender.
8. Training and Medical Services
a. To the extent that PGCPS provides training and medical services
to its athletes, it shall ensure that such services are provided
equally to athletes of each gender.
b. PGCPS will ensure that male and female athletes have equal
access to and use of any weight-rooms or training facilities. PGCPS
will also ensure that appropriate weights and other items are equally
available to athletes of both genders. If PGCPS permits teams to
schedule the exclusive use of a weight room for a certain time period,
it shall ensure that permission to schedule exclusive use is granted
equally to male and female teams and that teams of one gender do not
monopolize the most popular times for use. Any such schedule will be
posted and publicly available.
c. To the extent that PGCPS provides off-season training or access
to certain training facilities and services to its student-athletes,
PGCPS will ensure that they are available equally to male and female
athletes.
9. Publicity
a. PGCPS will provide equal amounts and quality of publicity to its
male and female athletes.
b. To the extent PGCPS provides the following types of publicity,
it will do so equally for its male and female athletes
(i) Information to the media;
(ii) Media guides and other school sponsored materials;
(iii) Announcement of athletics events or scores over a school's
public announcement system;
(iv) Printed competitive schedules;
(v) Promotional events such as pep rallies;
(vi) Displays of trophies, banners, and other marks of
accomplishment;
(vii) Cheerleading squads at competitive events, with the
understanding and recognition that efforts will be made not to
interfere with the squads' competitive events, as long as such efforts
do not disproportionately advantage or disadvantage athletes of one
gender; and
(viii) Coverage of athletics teams in PGCPS yearbooks and other
school-sponsored materials.
10. Security
PGCPS will provide its male and female athletes with equal levels
of security and supervision at athletic competitions and events, based
upon attendance, location (including location of off-campus home
fields), day and time of the event, and other factors. In evaluating
whether levels of security are equal, PGCPS shall consider that off-
campus home fields may require enhanced security.
11. Educating and Training Employees About this Agreement
The provisions of this agreement will be explained to all relevant
PGCPS employees, including but not limited to the county supervisor of
athletics, principals, athletics administrators, coaches, trainers,
maintenance staff, and high school administrators. In addition, PGCPS
will provide a training every other academic year, beginning the 2006-
07 academic year for all of the above groups of people about the
requirements of this agreement and Title IX. The training will explain
PGCPS-specific strategies for compliance with this agreement and Title
IX.
IV. SELF-EVALUATION
A. PGCPS will ensure the appointment of a county-wide Title IX
Coordinator. PGCPS will also designate one person in each Regional
Office to serve as a Title IX Regional Coordinator. The functions of
these positions will be 1) to carry out the duties dictated by the
Title IX Regulations; 2) to oversee the implementation of this
Agreement; 3) and to serve as a liaison between students, staff, and
administrators on all Title IX issues, including but not limited to,
athletics. PGCPS will publish the name and contact information of each
Title IX coordinator, taking all necessary steps to notify all
students, parents, and employees of Title IX coordinators' identities
and functions. In addition, this information will be posted and
regularly updated on the PGCPS website.
B. PGCPS must have a sex discrimination and sexual harassment
policy and grievance procedure that meets the requirements of Title IX.
PGCPS shall notify all middle and high school students, parents, and
employees of its discrimination policy and grievance procedure. In
addition, this information will be posted and regularly updated on the
PGCPS website. Individuals who report instances of potential sex
discrimination or non-compliance with Title IX's requirements will
receive an additional copy of the grievance procedure.
C. Beginning December 1, 2006, PGCPS will annually produce,
publicize and post a report outlining the progress made towards serving
the principles of this Agreement and Title IX (``progress report'').
The reports will be delivered to the NWLC by December 1 of the
reporting year. The NWLC will have 90 days to review the report and
provide feedback to PGCPS. In the event that the report leads the NWLC
to conclude that PGCPS is not meeting the terms of this Agreement, the
NWLC will take steps to notify PGCPS in accordance with Section VI
below. For the years that PGCPS produces an audit report in accordance
with Section IV. D below, the reporting requirements of this section
may be incorporated into the audit report. Each progress report will
include an outline of:
1. Steps taken and accomplishments (since the date of this
Agreement or the previous year) to meet PGCPS' obligations to increase
participation opportunities for females in accordance with this
Agreement;
2. Steps taken and accomplishments (since the date of this
Agreement or the previous year) to meet PGCPS' obligations to ensure
equality in the treatment of and benefits and services provided to
female and male teams in accordance with this Agreement.
3. A list of any complaints received alleging inequities between
the girls' and boys' athletics programs or deficiencies in complying
with this Agreement or Title IX;
4. An outline of actions that will be taken to correct any
identified deficiencies;
5. An outline of PGCPS' plans under this Agreement for the upcoming
academic year; and
6. A copy of all procedures and policies adopted by the PGCPS Board
of Education relating to gender equity.
D. PGCPS will self-evaluate its compliance with this Agreement and
Title IX by conducting an audit every other academic year beginning the
2007-08 academic year, and by producing, publicizing and posting a
report of the findings and conclusions (``audit report''). The audit
report will be delivered to the NWLC by December 1 of that same
academic year. The NWLC will have 90 days to review the report and
provide feedback to PGCPS. In the event that the report leads the NWLC
to conclude that PGCPS is not meeting the terms of this Agreement, the
NWLC will take steps to notify PGCPS in accordance with Section VI
below. Each audit report shall include:
1. A full accounting, by each high school, and by the system as a
whole, of: the student enrollment and athletic participation rates,
broken down by gender; the expenditures of school-based or school-
controlled funds related to athletics, broken down by gender and
category of expenditure (i.e., travel, publicity, etc.); the number of
head coaches and assistant coaches per team, broken down by gender of
the team and gender of the coach; and the name and gender of each
school's and the county-wide athletic director or supervisor;
2. A full accounting, by each high school, and by the system as a
whole, of funds or in kind benefits received by each team, broken down
by gender, from each of the following sources: 1) the school system, 2)
game and concession receipts, 3) fundraising or boosters, 4) donations,
5) the individual school's budget, 6) grants and 7) any other sources;
3. The plans, if any, for expenditures of funds for the upcoming
academic year for boys' and girls' teams by each high school and
district-wide;
4. An outline of the steps taken and accomplishments (since the
date of this Agreement or last report) to meet PGCPS' obligations to
increase participation opportunities for females in accordance with
this Agreement (same as Section IV.C.1);
5. An outline of steps taken and accomplishments (since the date of
this Agreement or last report) to meet PGCPS' obligations to ensure
equality in the treatment of and benefits and services provided to
female and male teams in accordance with this Agreement (same as
Section IV.C.2);
6. In the event that NWLC has reason to believe that a Title IX
compliance problem has arisen at one or more PGCPS middle schools, then
NWLC may request in writing that the audit report obligations set forth
in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Subsection IV.D. be expanded to
specifically include information for the relevant middle school or
middle schools. In the event of such a request, PGCPS shall thereupon
include the requested audit information for the relevant middle school
or schools in its next scheduled audit report.
7. The format of the audit report is left to the discretion of
PGCPS, provided that the selected format produces reasonably clear and
comprehensible reports. PGCPS will make available a knowledgeable
representative to answer any questions the NWLC or its designee might
have regarding the reports.
V. NON-RETALIATION
A. PGCPS and its agents will not retaliate against anyone for his/
her participation in investigating or reporting violations or potential
violations of this Agreement or any Title IX matter. Prohibited
retaliation against students includes, but is not limited to, reduction
in playing time, refusal to provide letters of recommendation, or
withholding of athletic awards. Prohibited retaliation against
employees includes, but is not limited to, reduction in wages and/or
benefits or changes in coaching/teaching assignments.
B. PGCPS will take affirmative steps to inform its Board of
Education members, administrators and employees that retaliation is
illegal and against PGCPS policy. PGCPS will take disciplinary action
against any such person found to be engaged in retaliatory conduct.
C. PGCPS employees shall not take any action (directly or
indirectly) to discourage, threaten, or otherwise dissuade girls from
participating in any sport. Nor shall any PGCPS employee encourage
(directly or indirectly) any other person to discourage, threaten, or
otherwise dissuade girls from participating in any sport.
VI. ENFORCEMENT
A. If the Title IX Coordinator or the NWLC suspects or learns that
PGCPS has failed to meet any of the terms of this Agreement, its first
step will be to notify PGCPS of this failing through correspondence.
PGCPS will respond within 10 days to any such correspondence and will
take the steps necessary to correct the problem(s). PGCPS will give
notice to the NWLC of the steps it so takes.
B. If the problem(s) remains unresolved within 90 days of the Title
IX Coordinator or the NWLC's initial correspondence, and if the parties
mutually agree, the parties may refer the dispute to mediation before a
mediator agreed upon by the parties. Costs for any such mediation will
be the responsibility of PGCPS.
C. If mediation fails to provide an adequate resolution, or if the
parties fail to agree to mediate, the parties reserve the right to seek
a remedy in a court with jurisdiction over the matter in dispute.
Maryland law shall govern this Commitment to Resolve.
D. This Agreement will terminate on June 30, 2010, provided that
PGCPS has timely fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement,
except that PGCPS agrees that it is committed to continued full
compliance with Title IX after the termination of this Agreement and
that the periodic audits provided for in Section IV.D and the
enforcement provisions in Section VI of this Agreement will survive
termination.
AGREED:
National Women's Law Center,
Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President; Neena K. Chaudhry, Senior
Counsel; Fatima Goss Graves, Senior Counsel.
Prince George's County Public Schools,
Dr. John Deasy, Chief Executive Officer.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you very much for your
presentation.
Ms. Layne.
STATEMENT OF MARGARET EDITH LAYNE, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, ADVANCE
VT, VIRGINIA TECH UNIVERSITY, ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY OF WOMEN
ENGINEERS
Ms. Layne. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I
am a past president of the Society of Women Engineers, a 20,000
member educational and service organization committed to
establishing engineering as a highly desirable career for
women. I am currently employed as the Advance program director
at Virginia Tech, but I would like you to know that I am
speaking today on behalf of the Society of Women Engineers and
not on behalf of my employer. I want to thank you for providing
us opportunity to discuss how Title IX relates to science,
technology, engineering and math, referred to as STEM fields,
and the law's impact on STEM over the past 35 years. My
comments will focus primarily on discrimination that still
exists in the academic STEM community today and how Title IX
can be used as a tool to increase the participation of women in
engineering.
Women's participation in STEM fields has increased
considerably since Title IX was enacted. As you noted in your
opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, in 1972, women earned only 28.8
percent of STEM bachelors degrees. By 2004, that number
increased to 49.2 percent. But the proportion of women varies
widely among the individual STEM disciplines. Currently, women
make up about 13 percent of the U.S. engineering work force, up
from about 5.8 percent 25 years ago. The number of women
earning engineering degrees in the United States increased
dramatically following the passage of Title IX from around 2
percent in 1975 to 15 percent in 1985.
I witnessed that increase firsthand as an engineering
student in the late 1970s. When I earned my first engineering
degree in 1980, Ifully expected that increase to continue and
for women engineers soon to no longer be unusual. When I found
20 years into my engineering career that women were still only
10 percent of the engineering work force, I decided to change
careers and work full time on this problem so we won't still be
talking about these same issues 20 years from now.
Gains in women's share of bachelors and doctoral degrees in
STEM disciplines have not translated into work place parody,
particularly in academia. Women are fewer than one in five
faculty members in computer science, math, engineering and the
physical sciences. In engineering in particular, women account
for just over one in ten faculty members and are concentrated
in the more junior ranks. At Virginia Tech, only 6 of the 138
faculty members holding the highest rank of professor in the
College of Engineering are female. And we are not unusual in
that regard. In fact, the American Society for Engineering
Education reported in the fall of 2005, Virginia Tech had the
third highest number of women in tenured and tenure track
engineering in the U.S.
At Virginia Tech, we found that 78 percent of male faculty
but only 41 percent of female faculty believe that all faculty
members are treated fairly regardless of gender. In an
interview, a male engineering faculty member told us that the
way women are treated in his department is a big issue. He
said, quote, I am friends with many of the women. They tell me
stories about what's been going on. I can scarcely believe what
people say to them.
These findings are, again, not unique to Virginia Tech. A
National Academy of Sciences study highlights the issues that
impede women's progress in STEM. The report, ``Beyond Bias and
Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science
and Engineering,'' points out that both bias and structural
barriers built into academic institutions and occupation of
professor limits many women's ability to be hired and promoted.
It also notes that women faculty are slower to gain promotion
than men, are less likely to reach the highest academic rank,
have lower salaries and are awarded less grant money than their
male colleagues.
A 2004 GAO report requested by Senators Wyden and Boxer
revealed that many educational institutions can't show
compliance with the most basic requirements of Title IX.
Following the report, NSF and NASA conducted Title IX reviews
of a few STEM departments during 2006. While these selective
reviews are a start, more widespread and systematic reviews are
needed. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, in many
ways, the story of women and STEM is a positive one. Women are
making progress in STEM education and careers, although more
slowly than we would like. And societal and institutional
factors that slow women's advancement can be overcome with
continued attention and tools such as Title IX.
Therefore, I would like to make the following
recommendations: Conduct oversight hearings and call for
enhanced agency enforcement, particularly an increase in the
number and frequency of compliance reviews to ensure that
federally funded education programs provide equal access and
opportunity to all students and make those reviews available to
the public. Authorize and fund a comprehensive public education
campaign to raise awareness of Title IX and the importance of
gender equity in education among students, parents, teachers
and administrators. Increase funding for programs that focus on
attracting and retaining women and girls to nontraditional and
STEM careers and removing institutional barriers to their
success. Thank you again for the opportunity to present our
views today.
[The statement of Ms. Layne follows:]
Prepared Statement of Margaret Edith Layne, P.E., Past President of the
Society of Women Engineers
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Good morning. My name
is Peggy Layne. I am a Past President of the Society of Women Engineers
(SWE), and I am currently employed as the ADVANCE Program Director at
Virginia Tech. ADVANCE is a National Science Foundation funded program
to increase the number and success of women faculty in the sciences and
engineering. I am speaking today on behalf of the Society of Women
Engineers (SWE) and not on behalf of my employer or the National
Science Foundation.
I want to thank the Subcommittee for providing me with this
opportunity to discuss how Title IX relates to science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (referred to as STEM) fields, and the
law's impact on STEM over the past thirty-five years. My comments will
focus primarily on the discrimination that still exists in the academic
STEM community today, and how Title IX can be used as a tool to
increase the participation of women in engineering.
SWE is a 20,000 member educational and service organization that is
committed to establishing engineering as a highly desirable career
aspiration for women. Currently, women make up approximately 13% of the
U.S. engineering workforce, or 200,000 engineers, which is up from 5.8%
25 years ago.\i\ The proportion of women, however, has remained
relatively flat for the past ten years, and women represent only 10.6%
of the faculty in U.S. engineering schools today.\ii\
In January of 2005, Harvard president Lawrence Summers suggested
that ``intrinsic aptitude'' might help to explain why few women reach
the highest ranks of STEM careers in academia. While the ensuing media
storm brought much needed attention to the under-representation of
women in STEM, fascination with perceived differences in men's and
women's brains unfortunately diverted attention from what evidence
shows to be the all too real culprits: socialization and
discrimination.
Women's participation in the STEM fields has increased considerably
since Title IX was enacted. In 1972, women earned 28.8% of STEM
bachelor's degrees, and by 2004, they earned 49.2%, with differing
proportions within the individual STEM disciplines. Women's share of
STEM doctorate degrees more than tripled over that time, with women
earning only 11.1% of STEM-related doctorates in 1972, but 37.4% in
2004.\iii\
Overall, women now comprise nearly 60 percent of all undergraduate
college students, and nearly half of all master's, doctoral, law and
medical students.\iv\ Women still remain under-represented in
engineering and the physical sciences, however, earning only 20 percent
of all bachelor's degrees granted in engineering and physics, and a
decreasing share of bachelor's degrees in mathematics and computer
science.\v\ Although women's share of STEM degrees earned still lags
men's, the number of women in STEM fields has steadily increased over
the past 35 years, while the number of men earning STEM degrees has
remained constant over the same period of time.\vi\
Despite this progress, stigmatizing and stereotyping behaviors
regarding girls' abilities in STEM persist. Attrition along the
pipeline still has much to do with a culture that presents obstacles to
the success of women and girls. Although the obstacles are becoming
more subtle than the overt discrimination of the past, girls continue
to receive less attention in K-12 mathematics and science courses;
undergraduate women transfer out of STEM fields before graduating
because of unsupportive classroom environments characterized by lack of
role models, a limited peer group, and outdated pedagogy; and women
scientists and engineers earn less and advance more slowly than men in
both academia and the private sector.\vii\ And while some of these
differences could result from personal choices, the culture of STEM
fields too often creates circumstances that isolate and exclude girls
and women, dissuading them from pursuing these careers.
The number of women earning engineering degrees in the United
States increased dramatically following the passage of Title IX, from
around 2% in 1975 to 15% in 1985.\viii\ I witnessed that increase first
hand as an engineering student in the late 1970s. When I earned my
first engineering degree in 1980, I fully expected that increase to
continue and for women engineers to no longer be an anomaly by the time
I reached the midpoint of my career. If women's participation in
engineering had continued to increase at that same rate for the last 25
years, I would not be speaking to you today. Women engineers would be
commonplace in the workforce, and when I introduce myself, I would no
longer be told that ``you don't look like an engineer.'' When I found
that 20 years into my engineering career women were still only 10% of
the engineering workforce in the U.S., I decided to change career paths
and work full time on this problem, so we would not be here talking
about these same issues again twenty years from now.
I am now the ADVANCE Program Director at Virginia Tech, in
Blacksburg, Virginia. Virginia Tech is the recipient of an ADVANCE
Institutional Transformation grant from the National Science
Foundation. The ADVANCE program is designed to support innovative and
comprehensive programs for institution-wide change that promotes the
increased participation and advancement of women scientists and
engineers in academe. The ADVANCE program at Virginia Tech recognizes
that there are structures, policies, and practices at academic
institutions that inherently disadvantage women, and seeks to create a
more equitable environment for women faculty.
At the university level, gains in women's attainment of bachelor's
and doctoral degrees in STEM disciplines still have not translated into
workplace parity--particularly in academia. Women represent fewer than
one in five faculty members employed in computer science, mathematics,
engineering and the physical sciences. In engineering in particular,
women account for just over one in ten faculty members, and are
concentrated in the more junior ranks of the faculty.\ix\ At Virginia
Tech, only six of the 138 faculty members holding the highest rank of
professor in the College of Engineering are female, and we are not
unusual in that regard. In fact, the American Society for Engineering
Education reported that in the fall of 2005 Virginia Tech had the third
highest number of women in tenured and tenure track engineering faculty
positions in the U.S.\x\
Through our research at Virginia Tech, we have found that while 94%
of the male faculty believe that their department is supportive of the
success of women faculty, only 75% of those women agree. Seventy-eight
percent of male faculty, but only 41% of female faculty believe that
faculty members are treated fairly regardless of gender. When it comes
to balancing professional success with personal obligations, 75% of
women believe that it is difficult to be promoted or earn tenure and
have a personal life, compared with 55% of the men.
A female faculty member stated in a focus group that ``Expectations
at this university are built around men who have stay-at-home wives.''
In an interview, a male faculty member told us that the way women are
treated in his department is a big issue. He said, ``I am friends with
many of the women. They tell me stories about what has been going on. I
can scarcely believe what people say to them.'' These findings are
again not unique to Virginia Tech, but are consistent with data
reported by the American Association of University Professors in their
report, AAUP Faculty Gender Equity Indicators 2006.\xi\
A National Academy of Sciences study further explores the issues
that impede women's progress in STEM. The report, entitled Beyond Bias
and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and
Engineering, points out that ``both bias and structural barriers built
into academic institutions and the occupation of professor limit many
women's ability to be hired and promoted.'' \xii\ The report notes that
women faculty are slower to gain promotion than men, are less likely to
reach the highest academic rank, and have lower salaries and are
awarded less grant money than their male colleagues. In fact, as
recently as the period from 2001 to 2003, female grant applicants
received only 63% as much funding as male applicants at the National
Institutes of Health (NIH).\xiii\
Sex discrimination also exists in academia with regard to
laboratory space, compensation, access to grants, and leave policies.
While not always deliberate, this discrimination can be undeniable. In
the late 1990s, Dr. Nancy Hopkins, a professor of molecular biology at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), requested an extra 200
square feet of lab space. When her request was denied and she learned
her lab was actually 1,500 square feet smaller than those of her male
counterparts, she realized that discrimination still existed and became
an advocate at MIT for change.\xiv\ Through Dr. Hopkins' efforts and
those of many other individuals and committees, educational
institutions are beginning to address these inequities. The
accumulation of such small, lingering day-to-day inequities, however,
ultimately results in a significant overall equity gap, as documented
by Professor Virginia Valian in her book Why So Slow? The Advancement
of Women.\xv\
In response to Professor Hopkins' findings, MIT took action to
identify and address inequities and increase the hiring of women
faculty, and those actions drew national attention in 2001, but last
year when Professor Hopkins looked at the impact of those actions she
saw that women had made progress for a few years but that progress
stalled following the departure of a particular administrator.\xvi\
MIT's experience emphasizes why continued attention to these issues is
critical to removing the entrenched barriers to women's participation
in science and engineering careers.
A 2004 GAO report requested by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and
Barbara Boxer (D-CA) revealed that many educational institutions cannot
show compliance with the most basic requirements of Title IX. The
report, entitled Gender Issues: Women's Participation in the Sciences
Has Increased, but Agencies Need to Do More to Ensure Compliance with
Title IX, looked at Title IX compliance practices at three federal
agencies that support significant basic research in the STEM
disciplines: the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of
Energy (DOE), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
as well as the Department of Education (DOEd).\xvii\ The report pointed
out that these agencies have not fulfilled their statutory obligations
to ensure that grant recipients comply with Title IX. Furthermore, the
report noted that grant recipients cannot prove compliance with even
the most basic of Title IX requirements.\xviii\ Moreover, because the
responsibility for gathering compliance data rests with the individual
granting agencies, there is no centralized way to determine whether a
particular school has conducted the required self-assessment, and no
cross-agency standard for what a self-assessment should look like.
Instead, when granting funding, federal agencies tend to accept as
proof of compliance the educational institution's own pro forma
statement that merely attests to the fact that the educational
institution complies with Title IX in all respects.\xix\ Additionally,
the report pointed out that female faculty and students do not file
Title IX complaints against their institutions either because they
believe Title IX applies only to athletics, or because they fear
retribution.\xx\
In the wake of the GAO report, NSF and NASA began to conduct Title
IX reviews of STEM departments at postsecondary institutions during
2006. While these selective reviews are a start and may uncover
interesting information relevant to the institutions involved, more
widespread and systematic reviews are needed to bring about change on
the scale necessary to increase the percentage of women in STEM fields.
In particular, such reviews should focus on the culture and climate of
relevant STEM departments to understand whether women and men face
different barriers to success.
Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee: In many ways, the
story of women in STEM is a positive one. Women are making progress in
STEM education and careers, although more slowly that we would like,
and the societal and institutional factors that slow women's
advancement can be overcome with continued attention and tools such as
Title IX.
Title IX cannot (and should not) correct for the personal choices
that lead women and girls to select certain fields of study. The law
can and must, however, address barriers to pursuing educational
programs that reflect individual interests and abilities. Proper
enforcement of and compliance with the law will help to create
conditions that allow women and girls the opportunity to succeed in
STEM fields by eliminating conduct and practices that disadvantage
students or employees on the basis of their gender.
The persistent discrimination against women and girls in STEM,
coupled with widespread concerns about American competitiveness in the
global marketplace, demonstrate that enforcement of Title IX in these
fields is critical. Thus far, too little has been done to realize the
promise of this law in the area of STEM. Therefore, we would like to
recommend the following policy recommendations to you:
Conduct oversight hearings and call for enhanced agency
enforcement, particularly an increase in the number and frequency of
compliance reviews conducted by the U.S. Department of Education's
Office for Civil Rights to ensure that federally-funded education
programs provide equal access and opportunity to all students. Then
make those reviews available to the public to ensure transparency of
process.
Authorize and fund a comprehensive public education
campaign to raise awareness of Title IX and the importance of gender
equity in education among students, parents, teachers, and
administrators.
Increase funding for programs that focus on attracting and
retaining women and girls to non-traditional and STEM careers and
removing institutional barriers to their success.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present our views.
endnotes
\i\ National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources
Statistics, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science
and Engineering: 2004, NSF 04-317 (Arlington, VA, 2004).
\ii\ Gibbons, Michael T. A Year in Numbers 2005, American Society
for Engineering Education.
\iii\ Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology. Four
Decades of STEM Degrees, 1966-2004: The Devil is in the Details. STEM
Workforce Data Project: Report No. 6. https://www.cpst.org/STEM/STEM6--
Report.pdf.
\iv\ Ibid
\v\ National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources
Statistics, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science
and Engineering: 2004, NSF 04-317 (Arlington, VA, 2004).
\vi\ Ibid
\vii\ National Academies of Science. Beyond Bias and Barriers:
Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering:
2006, National Academies Press (Washington, D.C., 2006).
\viii\ Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology. Four
Decades of STEM Degrees, 1966-2004: The Devil is in the Details. STEM
Workforce Data Project: Report No. 6. https://www.cpst.org/STEM/STEM6--
Report.pdf.
\ix\ Gibbons, Michael T. ``A Year in Numbers 2005'', American
Society for Engineering Education.
\x\ Gibbons, Michael T. ``A Year in Numbers 2005'', American
Society for Engineering Education.
\xi\ American Association of University Professors, AAUP Gender
Equity Indicators 2006.
\xii\ National Academies of Science. Beyond Bias and Barriers:
Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering:
2006, National Academies Press (Washington, D.C., 2006).
\xiii\ The Rand Corporation. Gender Differences in Major External
Federal Grant Programs: Technical Report sponsored by NSF 2005.
\xiv\ Rimer, Sarah. ``For Women in Sciences, Slow Progress in
Academia,'' New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/
education/15women.html?ex=1271217600&en=e5322d3fd78dddf3&ei=5088&partner
=rssnyt&emc=rss
\xv\ Valian, Virginia. Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women, MIT
Press: 1998.
\xvi\ Hopkins, Nancy. ``Women's Gains in Sciences at MIT Have
Stalled, Study Finds.'' Chronicle of Higher Education, April 28, 2006
\xvii\ U.S. G.A.O., Women's Participation in the Sciences Has
Increased, but Agencies Need to Do More to Ensure Compliance with Title
IX, GAO-04-639 (Washington, DC, 2004).
\xviii\ Ibid
\xix\ Ibid.
\xx\ Ibid.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you. Thank you for your
presentation. Now I would like to call on Mr. Eric Pearson.
STATEMENT OF ERIC PEARSON, CHAIRMAN, COLLEGE SPORTS COUNCIL
Mr. Pearson. Thank you, Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking Member
Keller, and all members of the committee. I would like to thank
you for giving me this opportunity today to share with you the
College Sports Council's concerns about Title IX. I have been
invited here today to discuss Title IX and its impact on
collegiate sports. However, any discussion of Title IX must
first acknowledge the fact that there is a widening disparity
between the enrollment rates of male and female students in our
Nation's colleges and universities. This gender disparity is
most severe among our African American and Hispanic
communities. For example, our Nation's historically Black
colleges and universities have enrollment ratios averaging in
the range of 65 percent female to 35 percent male. This gender
disparity creates very real problems for schools trying to
dutifully comply with the current regulations governing Title
IX. The CSCfully supports the spirit of Title IX. We don't want
anyone to be discriminated on the basis of their gender.
The CSC takes issue only with how the law has been
regulated, or more precisely, we are critical of the
proportionality prong of the three-part test. A school is
deemed to be in compliance with proportionality if the gender
ratio of its intercollegiate athletes mirrors its undergraduate
student enrollment. In most athletic departments, male athletes
are the majority; yet most schools have a student body that is
majority female, hence the dilemma. Pressure to achieve
proportionality places incentives on college administrators to
decrease the number of their male athletes. As a result, we are
witnessing an unrelenting decimation of men's sports programs.
Just in the last year, James Madison University announced that
it would eliminate ten teams in order to bring its athletic
department in line with proportionality. Other schools, like
Rutgers University, Slippery Rock and Ohio University, have
also recently instituted cuts of multiple teams.
Since 1996, proportionality has been recognized as the safe
harbor for complying with Title IX. Every time someone mentions
a school is out of compliance, whether right or wrong,
proportionality is almost always referenced as the measure of
noncompliance. A case in point is the report card recently
created by the Women's Sports Foundation. It rates schools
assigning letter grades based on proportionality alone.
Unfortunately, HBCU member schools rate poorly. For
example, Howard University, located here in the District of
Columbia, received an F grade. Howard University is typical of
most of the HBCU member schools. Its undergraduate ratio is 67
percent female. In 2002, Howard eliminated its baseball and
wrestling programs despite offers from its alumni to help with
funding. As a result of proportionality, opportunities for
young male students to play sports are being severely limited.
For example, there is only one NCAA division one men's soccer
team in the entire state of Texas despite its popularity at the
scholastic and club levels. Funding is frequently cited as the
reason for these limitations. But from the CSC's experience
this simply is not the case. CSC is regularly contacted by
athletes and former athletes who would like to start and fully
fund teams for male students. But they are told by school
administrators that proportionality prevents them from adding
any men's teams. The sport of football sometimes cited as the
root of all the problems, but fully 41 percent of the member
schools in the NCAA don't even sponsor football teams.
In addition, among the NCAA Division 1A schools that are
considered the big time programs, there are only 118 football
teams, which represents only 11 percent of the total of NCAA
schools. Therefore, it is unfair and untrue to say that all the
problems of Title IX compliance are due to football. Title IX
was never intended to limit participation. When you speak with
coaches of women's teams, they will tell you that what they
want is to have equal access to facilities, equivalent funding
for their teams, good locker rooms, uniforms and sufficient
travel budgets. They are not interested in how many players are
on the men's rosters. And they certainly don't want to see
teams eliminated.
We believe that reform of Title IX can go hand in hand with
efforts to increase enrollment of male students on campus. If
schools like those included among the HBCUs didn't have to
worry about proportionality, they could use athletics to
attract more male students to their campuses rather than
narrowing down opportunities for male athletes.
With slight modification, a solution may be found in the
third prong of Title IX's three-part test which already has an
interest and abilities component. Currently the regulations
only protect the interest of the underrepresented gender, in
other words the female athletes. The CSC recommends that male
students also be included in any and all measurements of
interest. Through regular student surveys, athletes should be
given a voice of record and a degree of influence in the
process that determines the a school's sports sponsorship.
Reforming prong three of Title IX will create incentives not
only to retain programs but also to add new teams.
The current system of Title IX enforcement is
unsustainable. If left unchanged, we will continue to see the
widespread limitation of athletic opportunity for male
athletes. In the end, the harm done to male students will
continue to disproportionately affect those athletes from our
minority communities.
In closing, I would like to say, it has been 35 years since
Title IX was passed into law. And the environment of today's
college campuses is very different from the era of the 1970s.
Female undergraduate enrollment now surpasses male enrollment.
And today, NCAA schools sponsor over 1,000 more teams for women
than they do for men. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Pearson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eric Pearson, Chairman, College Sports Council
Chairman Hinojosa, Ranking member Keller, and all members of the
Committee, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to
speak today, and share with you the College Sports Council's (CSC)
concerns about Title IX.
The CSC is a national coalition of coaches, athletes, parents, and
former athletes founded in 2002. The majority of our members are
involved with the traditional Olympic sports of track and field,
swimming, wrestling, and gymnastics. We are devoted to the preservation
and promotion of the student athlete experience. We place the highest
value on the opportunity to participate in organized athletics, and we
measure the overall state of health of America's sports system by the
total number of participants involved. In our view, the more students
that get to play, the better.
I have been invited here today to discuss Title IX, and its impact
on collegiate sports. However, any discussion of Title IX must first
acknowledge the fact that there is a widening disparity between the
overall enrollment rates of male and female students in our nation's
colleges and universities. This gender disparity is most severe among
our African American and Hispanic communities. For example, our
nation's Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) have
enrollment ratios averaging in the range of 65% female to 35% male.
This gender disparity creates very real problems for schools trying to
dutifully comply with the current regulations governing Title IX.
The CSC fully supports the spirit of Title IX. We don't want anyone
to be discriminated against on the basis of their gender. The CSC takes
issue only with how the law has been regulated, or more precisely, we
are critical of the proportionality prong of the three-part test. A
school is deemed to be in compliance with proportionality if the gender
ratio of its intercollegiate athletes mirrors its undergraduate student
enrollment.
In most athletic departments male athletes are the majority, yet
most schools have a student body that is majority female, hence the
dilemma. Pressure to achieve proportionality places incentives on
college administrators to decrease the numbers of their male athletes.
As a result, we are witnessing an unrelenting decimation of men's
sports programs.
Just in the last year, James Madison University announced that it
would eliminate 10 teams in order to bring its athletic department in
line with proportionality. Other schools like Rutgers University,
Slippery Rock, and Ohio University have also recently instituted cuts
of multiple teams.
Since 1996, proportionality has been recognized as the `safe
harbor' for complying with Title IX. Every time someone mentions that a
school is out of compliance, whether right or wrong, proportionality is
almost always referenced as the measure of non-compliance. A case in
point is the report card recently created by the Women's Sports
Foundation. It rates schools, assigning letter grades based on
proportionality alone. Unfortunately, HBCU member schools rate poorly.
For example, Howard University, located here in the District of
Columbia, received an `F' grade. Howard University is typical of most
of the HBCU members. Its undergraduate ratio is 67.1% female. In 2002,
it eliminated its baseball and wrestling programs, despite offers from
its alumni to help with funding.
Athletic administrators are often praised for pursuing a `gender
equity' plan even if it merely consists of the elimination of teams and
the limitation of men's squad sizes. The current environment of Title
IX compliance creates incentives to drive male students away from
athletic programs, shrink squad sizes, and drop teams entirely.
As a result of proportionality, opportunities for young male
students to play sports are being severely limited. For example, there
is only one NCAA Division I men's soccer team in the entire state of
Texas despite its growing popularity at the scholastic and club level.
Funding is frequently cited as the reason for these limitations, but
from the CSC's experience this simply is not the case. The CSC is
regularly contacted by athletes and former athletes who would like to
start and fully fund teams for male students, but are told by school
administrators that proportionality prevents them from adding any men's
teams.
The sport of football is sometimes cited as the root of all
problems, but fully 41% of the member schools in the NCAA don't even
sponsor football teams. In addition, among the NCAA Division IA schools
that are considered the `big time' programs, there are only 118
football teams, which represents only 11% of the total of NCAA schools.
Therefore, it is unfair and untrue to say that all the problems with
Title IX compliance are due to football.
In addition to the outright elimination of men's teams, and the
refusal to add new teams, administrators have developed other
strategies designed to reduce the number of male participants in their
athletic departments. One notorious practice is commonly referred to as
`roster management.' It is a strict limit placed on male teams only. It
is important to understand that these squad caps are created by
administrators, not by the coaches of these teams. In most sports,
men's coaches prefer to be inclusive, allowing participation to all who
want to try out as long as they respect the rules of the program.
Administrators like to justify the practice of `roster management'
by saying that they are managing their resources by managing the squad
sizes. But this practice is not, by any means, gender neutral. It is
not uncommon to see a men's swimming or track team given strict limits,
while their female counterparts are asked to inflate their rosters.
Women's coaches don't like this practice either, because it interferes
with the control that they have over their teams, especially with the
problem athletes who they'd prefer to cut. There is no more clear cut
example of discrimination on the basis of gender than the practice of
`roster management.'
Title IX was never intended to limit participation. When you speak
with coaches of women's teams they will tell you that they want to have
equal access to facilities, equivalent funding for their teams, good
locker rooms, uniforms, and sufficient travel budgets. They are not
interested in how many players are on the men's rosters, and they
certainly don't want to see teams eliminated.
We believe that reform of Title IX can go hand in hand with efforts
to increase enrollment of male students on campus. If schools, like
those included among the HBCUs, didn't have to worry about
proportionality, they could use athletics to attract more male students
to their campuses, rather than narrowing down opportunities for male
athletes.
With slight modification, a solution may be found in the third
prong of Title IX's three-part test, which already has an interest and
abilities component. Currently, the regulations only protect the
interest of the underrepresented gender, in other words, the female
athletes. The CSC recommends that male students also be included in any
and all measurements of interest. Through regular student surveys, the
athletes would be given a voice of record, and a degree of influence in
the process that determines a school's sports sponsorship. Reforming
prong three of Title IX will create incentives to not only retain
programs, but also to add new teams.
In the present system, the athletes have no real power over the
decisions that impact the very existence of their programs. Just look
at the protests on campuses across the country where sports teams have
been dropped. Fresno State, Rutgers, and James Madison University have
all recently dropped programs despite the outcries of students, both
male and female, who don't want to see athletic teams terminated.
The current system of Title IX enforcement is unsustainable. If
left unchanged, we will continue to see the widespread limitation of
athletic opportunity for male athletes. In the end, the harm done to
male students will continue to disproportionately affect those athletes
from our minority communities.
In closing, I'd like to say that it's been 35 years since Title IX
was passed into law, and the environment of today's college campus is
very different from the era of the 1970's. Female undergraduate
enrollment now surpasses male enrollment, and today NCAA schools
sponsor over 1,000 more teams for women than they do for men. We cannot
overlook this significant change if we want to create a more fair and
reasonable system to comply with Tile IX, one that continues to protect
young women from discrimination, but doesn't harm young men.
Again, I thank you for including the CSC in this very important
dialogue.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you, Mr. Pearson.
Now I would like to call on Dr. Rita Simon.
STATEMENT OF RITA J. SIMON, UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR, AMERICAN
UNIVERSITY
Ms. Simon. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
testify today before the committee. In my capacity as a member
of the Title IX Commission and as a strong supporter of the
principle of equal opportunity for boys and girls to
participate in collegiate sports, I strongly urge the
collection of systematic information on the interest, desires
and plans of high school boys and girls to participate in
athletic programs when they become university students.
I should say, as a sociologist, I believe very strongly in
the collection of empirical data to help assess and resolve
public policy issues. Now, what I mean by the collection of
systematic information is the sending out of surveys on a
regular basis to a random sample of high schools throughout the
country. For example, surveys should be sent from State
universities to a sample of high schools in that State at the
beginning of the academic year. The high schools will then
distribute the questionnaires to boys and girls who have just
entered their senior year. The questionnaires would contain a
series of items on a respondent's interest and their
participation in athletics. They would be asked to indicate
whether they have been and are currently involved in any kinds
of high school sports; swimming, track, basketball, et cetera.
Are they on the school's team in some sport?
The next series of questions would ask about future plans
and hopes. Respondents would be asked if they plan to go on to
college after high school graduation. The completed surveys
would be divided into two categories, boys and girls. The
responses will tell us the percentage of boys and girls who do
participate in athletic programs in their high schools and the
specific sports that they play. And the percentage by gender
who would like to participate in athletics at the collegiate
level. What percentage plan to apply for an athletic
scholarship and for what sport? The questionnaire responses
will provide us with empirical data about the overall
percentage of boys and girls who are interested in and plan to
participate in collegiate sports. Other responses close to the
50 percent in scholarships that have been set aside for full
time boy and girl undergraduates, are the responses more like
70 percent boys and 30 percent girls who express interest or 65
percent girls and 35 percent boys who express interest in
athletics. And for the different sports, what percentage of
boys and girls express interest in participating, what
percentage would like to be on swim teams, wrestling teams,
basketball teams, tennis, et cetera. Now, I do not claim that
the survey results should determine university policies. But I
do strongly urge that the findings be taken into account. The
survey results would be the only empirical data that the
universities have about the relative interests and plans of
incoming freshman boys and girls.
Now, this is very important. The surveys should not be a
one-time event. They should be sent out on a regular yearly
basis for the foreseeable future. And if I might just add a few
more details. Probably what we are talking about is, when I say
a random sample of high schools, perhaps 150 high schools in
the country; the largest high school in any given State, the
high school in a major urban center and a high school in a
rural area. As to who will administer the surveys, it could be
an independent survey research center, perhaps the Department
of Education, the Office of Civil Rights, et cetera. Who will
analyze the data, and who will write the report? Again, these
can be independent researchers or the staff of the Civil Rights
Commission or what have you. And what I strongly want to
emphasize is that the survey data may show that the issue is
not discrimination against women, but the need to publicize
athletic programs that women can apply for, can be involved
with and arouse greater interest on the part of women to
participate in collegiate sports. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Simon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rita J. Simon, University Professor, American
University
In my capacity as a member of the Title IX Commission and as a
strong supporter of the principle of equal opportunity for girls and
boys to participate in collegiate sports, I strongly urge the
collection of systematic information on the interests, desires, and
plans of high school boys and girls to participate in athletic programs
when they become university students.
By systematic information I mean the sending out of surveys on a
regular basis to a random sample of high schools throughout the
country. For example, surveys should be sent from state universities to
a sample of high schools in that state at the beginning of the academic
year. The high schools would then distribute the questionnaire to boys
and girls who have just entered their senior year. The questionnaire
would contain a series of questions on the respondent interests and
participation in athletics. They would be asked to indicate whether
they have been and are currently active in some sport: i.e. track,
basketball, swimming, etc. Are they on the school's team or do they
play with friends on a regular basis? The next series of questions
would ask about future plans and hopes. Respondents would be asked if
they plan to go to college after high school graduation.
The completed surveys will be divided into two categories: boys and
girls. The responses will tell us the percentages of boys and girls who
participate in athletic programs in high school (the specific sports)
and the percentages by gender who would like to participate in
athletics at the collegiate level. What percentage plan to apply for an
athletic scholarship and for what sport?
The questionnaire responses will provide us with empirical data
about the overall percentage of boys and girls who are interested in
and plan to participate in collegiate sport. Are the responses close to
the 50 percent in scholarships that have been set aside for full time
boy and girl undergraduates? Are the responses more like 70 percent
boys and 30 percent girls who express interest or 65 percent girls and
35 percent boys with athletic interest? And for the different sports,
what percentage of boys and girls express interest in participating,
eg. what percentage would like to be on swim teams, wrestling teams,
basketball, tennis, etc.?
I do not claim that the survey results should determine university
policies, but I do strongly urge that the findings be taken into
account. The survey results would be the only empirical data that the
universities would have about the relative interests and plans of
incoming freshmen boys and girls.
These surveys should not be a one time event. They should be sent
out on a regular yearly basis for the foreseeable future.
______
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you very much, Dr. Simon.
Having heard from all of the witnesses, we are now going to
start a line of questioning. And I give myself 5 minutes. My
first question is to Commissioner Jack Mowatt. Your efforts
seem to be having an effect as a model in Prince George's
County. Can you tell us if the Maryland State Department of
Education or even the U.S. Department of Education, are they
supporting your efforts? If so, how?
Mr. Mowatt. I guess what is happening here with the Title
IX agreement in Prince George's County is, I would say that it
is going to be supported by everybody because it is a great
role model for the entire country. And a lot of things have
been done in the last year for these fields. And there are
other counties in the State of Maryland that need to be done
and probably around the county also.
Chairman Hinojosa. Dr. Simon, your testimony suggests
sending out surveys regularly.
Ms. Simon. Yes?
Chairman Hinojosa. To a random sample of high schools
throughout the country.
Ms. Simon. Yes?
Chairman Hinojosa. Do you envision the Secretary of
Education doing this, and have you proposed it to Secretary
Spellings?
Ms. Simon. When I served on the Title IX Commission, this
was something that we did discuss. My memory is, I am not
positive, that many members of the commission also strongly
supported the idea of surveys. And people on the Civil Rights
Commission, I know Jerry Reynolds for example, very strongly
supported the idea.
Chairman Hinojosa. Would you support Congress passing some
type of an amendment that would require the Department of
Education to do this?
Ms. Simon. Yes.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
Eric Pearson, many pro-Title IX advocates tell us that the
Department of Education does a very poor job of enforcing
compliances with the regulations. However, you indicated that
the current system of Title IX is unsustainable. Is your point
that there is too much or too little enforcement?
Mr. Pearson. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to
say, College Sports Council is a pro-Title IX group. We do
support Title IX. We don't believe anybody should be
discriminated on the basis of gender. We are a pro-reform
group. But whether there is too much enforcement or too little,
I think that question has to be narrowed down to how you
enforce. For example, Mr. Mowatt's testimony, there are many
things that we agree with in his testimony. For example, the
fair access to facilities, equal access to equivalent
facilities, equivalent funding; those things are all very
important, and we support that. My concern and our concern as
an organization is, if we focus only on proportionality,
inevitably it incentivizes administrators to decrease the
opportunities for male athletes to compete.
Chairman Hinojosa. Do you remember that the gap is so big
that, unless we leap frog the improvement, we will not see that
there will be fair opportunity and equality for young women? It
seems to me that, listening to the testimony and what we hear
out in the field, is that there is insufficient enforcement and
there isn't a mind-set at the Federal level to try to inject
the Federal investment to close that gap. So how would you
propose to speed this up?
Mr. Pearson. I think, in your question, there is a very
important question. And that is, what is gender equity, and how
do we define it, and when do we know we are there? Is gender
equity strictly proportionality? Then, perhaps, we will never
achieve gender equity without eliminating almost all
opportunities for males. Is gender equity fair treatment and no
bias based on gender? Then I believe that we can achieve that.
Chairman Hinojosa. Let me reclaim my time because it is
running out. I want to say that, just as has been pointed out,
that in the athletics, there is a huge gap. Ms. Layne has made
it very clear that in engineering, and I can certainly testify
for architects because I am married to one, women do not get
the same investment in effort by Congress or by State
legislators to be able to increase the numbers that get into
that field into that career path, so that they, too, can be
professionals, in examples as Ms. Layne gave, which was the
STEM careers. So, with that, I am going to close and give an
opportunity to my good friend and colleague, Mr. Keller, from
Florida.
Mr. Keller. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I have
questions for several of our witnesses.
Mr. Mowatt, let me begin by thanking you for your service
on behalf of girls' softball teams. One of the things I learned
from your testimony is that, beginning in the 2008 softball
season, the school board is going to make sure that the girls
have equal facilities in terms of dugouts, score boards and
bleachers similar to the boys' baseball teams. Have you ever
encountered a situation where you have a large high school and
the boys' baseball team has lights on their facility for night
games and the girls' softball field does not? And do you
consider that common or an inequity that you feel needs to be
addressed?
Mr. Mowatt. Well, you are talking about lights on softball
fields and baseball fields. I don't think there is a lighted
field in Prince George's County for the girls' high school
softball. Boys do have some baseball fields with lights on
them. The girls don't have any. If they had some, they would
probably have their parents out here at night watching the
games. When they play all the games in the afternoon, it is
tough for parents to get there. But softball fields with lights
would be a plus.
Mr. Keller. I notice you didn't mention the lighting in
your comments, and I kind of heard feedback from some folks
back in my hometown that they think lights should be there if
the boys have them. But you didn't ask for the lights, but you
think that would be a good idea as well?
Mr. Mowatt. I think it would be a great idea, but money is
the biggest root of all evil around here.
Mr. Keller. Let me ask you about another part of your
testimony. You said that National Women's Law Center hired this
law firm and they pursued legal remedies against Prince
George's County which resulted in a binding and negotiated
agreement that said, according to your testimony, male and
female athletes will receive equal amounts and equal quality of
publicity, closed quote. And you think this agreement should be
a role model for this country to follow. I am somewhat
concerned that, despite your good intentions and heart, that
that is somewhat unenforceable and unrealistic. And let me give
you just one example. LaBron James, the star of the Cleveland
Cavaliers, went to St. Vincent-St. Mary High School in Akron,
Ohio. He was a three time All-American, led his team to three
State championships. As a high school student, he appeared on
the cover of Sports Illustrated with the headline, ``The Chosen
One.'' now, I don't know who the star shortstop on the girls'
softball team at the same St. Vincent-St. Mary High School is
in Akron, but I know that she wasn't on the cover of Sports
Illustrated. And so, by definition, there is no way that she
received an equal amount or an equal quality of publicity as
LaBron James. If this sort of binding agreement were to become
a national model and into law, would that school district in
Ohio be able to be sued for not providing an equal amount and
equal quality of publicity to the female athletes, Mr. Mowatt?
Mr. Mowatt. I personally don't think so, to tell you the
truth. I think what you are looking for is equal opportunity
for the male and the female.
Ms. Greenberger. That is absolutely right. And in fact----
Mr. Keller. Let me just--Ms. Greenberger I'll ask you a
question when I am ready for you.
Ms. Greenberger. Just so I could clarify?
Mr. Keller. I'll give you a chance, but I have got some
other things.
You realize, Mr. Mowatt, because this is your testimony
that I am asking you about, that a school can send out a press
release saying, hey, we have a female shortstop and she has a
600 batting advantage, and she is a three time all-State
shortstop, and she has led her team to three national
championships, but Sports Illustrated is not going to put that
on the cover. It is their decision. We don't control the media.
So my point is, that is a pretty hard thing to enforce, however
good your intentions are.
Mr. Mowatt. I think you are looking at something different
here than with LaBron James and all that. What we are talking
about is equal publicity for everybody for what they do. And
I'll give you an example. Right here in this area, you have a
women's professional softball team that played Team China last
week and beat them three times, and you couldn't get anything
in the paper.
Mr. Keller. That's right. That's right. And I'll give you
an example. We know that Michael Jordan is considered by most
to be the best basketball player ever. There is a female that
just retired, Shamika Holdsclaw considered the Michael Jordan
of the WNBA, and she is not exactly a household name. But let
me close.
Ms. Greenberger, if you want to have a chance to follow up
on what I asked, my time is expired after to.
Ms. Greenberger. I think there was a misunderstanding that
what the agreement went to is an effort on the part of the
school and certainly not what happens with respect to the media
and what they pick up on, because you are certainly right; what
Sports Illustrated may choose to cover is not within the
purview of the agreement. But what the school newspaper covers,
the publicity that the school sends out, the notices that it
sends out, just as you mentioned, with respect to a high school
sending that information out, that is what the agreement was
dealing with, not whether or not the private media actually
picks it up. So I think we are actually--it is an agreement
that, by your own question, I think you were reflecting,
looking at what the school's efforts are, not what the private
media responds to.
Chairman Hinojosa. The gentleman's time has expired. And I
would like to say that, ordinarily, I allow Members of Congress
to speak in the order in which they arrived. But at this time,
I want to exercise a point of privilege and call on the
Congresswoman from Hawaii, Mazie Hirono, who is very special to
this Title IX in that she went to the House floor yesterday and
called to our attention the 35th anniversary of Title IX and
the author of that legislation Patsy Mink, with whom we served
here in Congress on this Education Committee, and I would like
to call on her for her 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing; and I would like to thank all of the members of
the panel for appearing.
I think it is really important as we celebrate the 35th
anniversary of Title IX that we bring out some of the remaining
issues and challenges before us, and I note that the panelists
focused on different aspects of Title IX, but one area that I
am interested in----
Before I proceed further, I would like to thank Mr. Mowatt
for literally going to bat for the young women in your
jurisdiction. It just goes to show that private citizens have a
major role to play in the enforcement of Title IX. I thank you
very much.
I am interested in pursuing this idea of sending out
surveys. I think, Ms. Greenberger, your testimony was cut short
because your time ran out, and I think you were getting into
this area.
Dr. Simon, you indicated that you thought this was a good
idea; and, in fact, I think that is what the DOE was
contemplating doing, is sending out surveys as a way to
determine whether there was real interest among, presumably,
women in pursuing athletic opportunities.
The concern I have here is that this kind of survey could
merely confirm to a large extent the effects of socialization
and discrimination and the attitudes and notions that young
women may have as far as the opportunities for them in
athletics; and, therefore, the survey, as I said, would reflect
socialization and culturalization, as opposed to a true
understanding of the potential for them under Title IX.
Ms. Greenberger, if you would like to react or respond to
my concern about a survey.
Ms. Simon. And may I respond afterwards?
Ms. Greenberger. As is always the case, the devil is in the
details of what kind of survey we might be talking about and
then what use those surveys are put to and whether they are
misinterpreted.
The Office for Civil Rights in this clarification that they
issued said that--and this is for the first time--at the
collegiate level, not the high school level as Ms. Simon was
recommending, that schools be allowed to send out e-mails to
students. A notoriously unreliable way of expecting to get
feedback, of course, is sending out e-mails to students or to
virtually anybody and then to determine what their interest is
in playing and then the lack of response. This is the most
outlandish part of the whole proposal, the lack of response
that schools would be allowed to interpret as a lack of
interest, and they would not have to look at another thing. So
it is a way of eliminating schools' obligations to take a
serious look to see what is the real interest of young women in
playing sports on their campuses.
I have to say that, to the credit of the NCAA, they urged
all of their member institutions not to follow that and to take
advantage of that enormous loophole that the Office for Civil
Rights was creating because it was, on its face, so
irresponsible to tell schools that an e-mail is enough and that
a lack of response equates a lack of interest.
I wanted to just make one other quick point, if I could,
and that has to go to the interrelationship between all of the
different forms of discrimination that we have been talking
about. I was glad to hear Mr. Pearson say that he could
understand the kinds of problems with those fields in Prince
George's County; and if you had seen the photographs that Mr.
Mowatt took, you would be pretty taken aback at the quality of
the fields.
Well, once those fields were improved, not only did we have
a safer situation for those young girls in Prince George's
County, but it will not surprise you to know that we have seen
a dramatic increase in the number of girls interested in
playing. So the interest of girls is there if they are given a
safe opportunity to play, as Mr. Mowatt said, if they are given
publicity so they know the opportunities are there to play.
Ms. Hirono. Before I go to you, Dr. Simon, is this a rule
that was--or this proposal, is that in place already, to allow
schools to take this kind of e-mail survey, and is there
anything we can do? Those of us who have a concern about the
lack of scientific, really, basis for that kind of survey being
the deciding factor, is there something we can do to stop this?
Ms. Greenberger. Yes. Well, the Office for Civil Rights
issued it as a final interpretation without notice, without
comment on, as I said, a late Friday afternoon and in the
spring when many schools were on break. So we have asked the
Office--we have called on Congress to do several things: first
of all, to ask the Office for Civil Rights to explain itself on
how it could possibly justify this kind of interpretation.
Secondly, Congress should be directing the Office for Civil
Rights, and it has a variety of tools at its disposal to do
that, not to be using that clarification as a justification in
the way that it enforces Title IX. We think it does a
disservice to schools because it would never be held up in a
court.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, is my time up?
Chairman Hinojosa. Yes, it is.
Ms. Hirono. I am sorry we could not get to you. Perhaps
someone else could offer you the opportunity to respond, Dr.
Simon.
Thank you.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
I would like to now call on the gentleman from Virginia,
Congressman Robert Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Greenberger, I wanted to follow up on that same issue.
In your response, you attack the notoriously unreliable
aspect of sending out these e-mails. You did not respond to the
idea that you may be perpetuating stereotypes. I am sure if you
sent out an e-mail on STEM science, technology, engineering,
mathematics that you would have a gross disparity between boys
and girls which, by virtue of an accurate sample, would suggest
that these colleges do not have to comply.
Can you say a little bit about the perpetuation of the
stereotype part of the question?
Ms. Greenberger. Yes. Congressman Scott, that is very true.
There are many ways of criticizing this clarification beyond
what I got to, and that is a key way.
Surveying the students in the schools themselves, just the
college survey and looking at nothing else, courts have held to
be inappropriate even if they had used a better mechanism than
this e-mail mechanism for several reasons.
First of all, if a school, a college or a university does
not offer a particular team for young women, many of the most
serious high school athletes will not come to that school to
play because it does not have the team to offer. So they have
already screened out many of the most likely players for
particular teams if all they do is survey the students who are
currently at the school and do not look at the teams offered in
high schools around the area that might be the recruiting area
for the university or for the college or if they do not look at
what the teams are at other universities or colleges and the
like. So it certainly perpetuates the discrimination and the
stereotyping that the school, itself, created.
One other very quick note: There are close to 3 million
high school girls playing sports today and not quite 170,000
opportunities for young women to play at colleges and at
universities. So the notion that there are not enough to have
that expanded equal opportunity, on its face, is pretty
bizarre.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Does your organization have a brief on the constitutional
issue of Title IX that equal protection requires a compelling
State interest and the remedy being narrowly tailored? Have you
briefed those issues?
Ms. Greenberger. We have; and there have been a number of
challenges, some brought by Mr. Pearson's organization and some
others, arguing that Title IX, in making lots of different
arguments, is unconstitutional and the like. And every Court of
Appeals to consider it--and there have been, I think, about
eight of them--uniformly have upheld the legality of Title IX,
the constitutionality of Title IX, the appropriateness of Title
IX, and we have participated and briefed in many of those
cases.
Mr. Scott. If you could provide that briefing to the
committee, I would appreciate it.
Ms. Greenberger. We would be happy to.
Mr. Scott. Now, another question, Ms. Greenberger:
Title IX exempts military institutions. I note several of
the military institutions have been sued presumably in the
other laws. Are the other laws sufficient to prohibit the
discrimination that women could find in military institutions
without eliminating the exemption?
Ms. Greenberger. Well, it is an interesting question.
Title IX has some exceptions to it, especially in the area
of admissions and in other areas as well, as you point out.
When we are dealing with a governmental entity like a U.S.
military academy, the Constitution does--of course, we cannot
exempt from the constitutional requirements, so those still
pertain, and there are other protections in military academies,
but they do not have the enforcement mechanism of Title IX and
the like.
During the Clinton administration, actually, the Defense
Department schools were not covered by Title IX or by Title VI;
and during the Clinton administration, at the 25th anniversary
of Title IX, President Clinton issued an executive order to
cover for Title VI and Title IX purposes the Defense Department
schools, which is, of course, the largest school district in
the world. The Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel,
which are private--well, they are State-run institutions--were
actually sued under the Constitution because they were
excluding women, and Title IX did not cover them. So Title IX
does not have the full reach that, ideally, it might.
Mr. Scott. To get into compliance, we have heard great
theater about some male programs being cut.
How many schools got into compliance by increasing
opportunities for women?
Ms. Greenberger. Well, the General Accounting Office did a
study several years ago, and I think they found that over 70
percent of schools had expanded opportunities in order to come
into compliance with Title IX, so the great majority did not
cut any men's sports. The General Accounting Office study, we
understand, is under way now to update that study, and its
conclusions should be made public soon, but I do want to say a
couple quick things.
When JMU dropped sports, as Mr. Pearson said, he did not
mention that they also dropped women's teams as well as men's
teams. Clearly, Title IX does not require that any one
particular team must be kept in perpetuity. Schools have
flexibility to add and to subtract teams. In fact, what studies
have shown is that men's baseball, men's Lacrosse, men's soccer
and, it will not surprise you to know, men's football have
shown dramatic increases over the years. Unfortunately, it is
true that men's wrestling has been dropped by schools, but the
biggest drop actually took place during a period when Title IX,
for a variety of reasons before Congress passed the Civil
Rights Restoration Act, did not even apply to intercollegiate
athletics.
Mr. Scott. I want to pose another question for which I
probably do not have time to get an answer, and that is whether
or not there are issues in elementary and secondary education
that we ought to be looking at in terms of No Child Left
Behind. If any of the members of the committee would respond
after the hearing, I would appreciate it, because we are going
to be redoing not only the Higher Education Act but also No
Child Left Behind.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
I am now going to go to the other side of the aisle and
call on Congressman Timothy Walberg from Michigan.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry for being late
and sorry for leaving early, but I have to go have lunch with
the Detroit Tigers, so it kind of fits here, huh?
Mr. Pearson, you have stated that, while your organization
supports the spirit of Title IX, you find the law's regulatory
mechanisms, the three-pronged test and specifically
proportionality as an inappropriate way of measuring
compliance. How then does the College Sports Council suggest
that the Department of Education manage and regulate compliance
with the law?
Mr. Pearson. Well, first of all, we support Title IX and
the good that it has done in specific areas of providing access
to facilities. It is very important that the female athletes
and the male athletes are able to get access to facilities in a
fair and unbiased way. The access to facilities, the funding
for teams, the access to locker rooms, things like that are
extremely important, and it does make a difference, and I
believe that is the main way that Title IX has really helped
female athletes.
Let us go back to what Title IX is. It is a law that says
discrimination based on gender is illegal, all discrimination
based on gender. So how do we measure that discrimination, and
are we going to allow discrimination against one gender like
male athletes? Is that permitted in Title IX? There has not
been much discussion about the gender disparity overall in
enrollment. I think that is something that we, as a society,
are going to have to deal with, and we feel that athletics
could be part of a fix to that wide gender disparity.
To answer your question, in the end, what do we see as a
solution? As I said in my testimony, we feel that the third
prong, the three-part test, accounts for interest and
abilities, and we feel that you should include male students in
any measurements of interest and abilities, and that includes
surveys. However you do them, they should be comprehensive,
they should be ongoing, and I think Dr. Simon, who is an expert
in that area, could comment as well.
Thank you.
Mr. Walberg. Dr. Simon, I would ask you to follow up on
that then.
Ms. Simon. Well, I was going to say that it seems to me
that the surveys provide empirical data so we are not making
policy on the basis of ideology. I would hope that we would
also include empirical data when we make policy, and I want to
say, in terms of response rate, there was criticism about what
would be the response rate of surveys. The surveys, as I
suggest they be carried out, by sending them to high schools at
the beginning of the academic year and distributing them to
seniors--the questionnaires would be filled out in the
classroom so that, in terms of a response rate, it would be
almost a 100 percent response rate that we would be getting
from the high school seniors who receive the questionnaire;
and, therefore, that would be a reasonably good basis for
suggesting public policies.
Mr. Walberg. Okay. Thank you.
I would yield to my ranking member, Mr. Keller.
Mr. Keller. Well, thank you, Mr. Walberg.
Back to you, Dr. Simon. I know that Ms. Greenberger and Ms.
Hirono were questioning you a little bit about the surveys. You
just had a chance to respond a little bit to the response rate
issue and how you would address that. Is there anything----
Ms. Simon. Which is very important.
Mr. Keller. Is there anything else you would like to
respond to, based on the questioning of this survey system as
someone who has actually served on this Title IX Commission?
Ms. Simon. Well, one of the other things that, of course,
the survey would do is it could arouse curiosity and interest
on the part of, perhaps, some of the recipients as to, gee,
maybe it would be fun to participate in collegiate sports--it
could be--and it may be more high school girls than boys who
had not considered it, but getting a survey and asking them
these questions might say it might be fun to run track or it
might be fun to try out for the tennis team or something like
that. So the surveys could also stimulate interest in it as
well as provide data.
Mr. Keller. Could the surveys also have a benefit by being
applied to areas outside of athletics such as careers in math
and science?
Ms. Simon. It could be.
Mr. Keller. Okay. What about your service on that
commission led you to feel so strongly about this data
collection issue?
Ms. Simon. I will start out by telling you, as a
sociologist, I am always interested in data. Of the 55 books
that I have written, all of them are empirical monographs in
which I address issues of public policy like immigration or
women in crime, et cetera, by looking at data. So I came on to
the Commission being concerned with ``What do we know?''
Mr. Keller. Your Ph.D. is from?
Ms. Simon. The University of Chicago.
Mr. Keller. Which I know, as a sociology minor, that is
considered, I would say, the Harvard of sociology but even
higher than Harvard, actually, in the field of sociology.
Ms. Simon. Right, we always felt that way.
Mr. Keller. Absolutely. Well, thank you.
Ms. Simon. I also taught at the University of Chicago.
Mr. Keller. You bet. Folks who could not get into my alma
mater at East Tennessee State had no choice but to go to
Harvard or to the University of Chicago. I am just teasing.
Thank you for your testimony, all of you.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Hinojosa. Thank you.
Now I would like to call on the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Congressman John Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will tell the ranking member that it is similar in my
State. People who could not quite get into Salem State College
ended up going to Harvard.
I just think it is appropriate, Mr. Chairman--you and I
both had an opportunity to serve with Patsy Takemoto Mink, and
it is appropriate to be talking about a bill that she authored
and did such a great job on. She was such a tremendous Member.
Congresswoman Hirono is certainly doing a great job in
following in that seat.
Ms. Layne, you mentioned earlier the barriers to women in
STEM courses in some of the higher education institutions.
Would you talk a little bit about what some of those barriers
are and what we might do to deal with them?
Ms. Layne. Well, there are barriers along the entire
pathway of interest in and pursuit of STEM careers. Many of
them are highlighted in the National Academies' report, as I
mentioned, so I would refer you and your staffers to that for
details, but they include teachers and guidance counselors at
the K through 12 levels who continue to discourage girls from
pursuing math- and science-related careers to the atmosphere
and the teaching methods used in college classrooms that in
many cases do not appeal to girls in the same way that they
appeal to boys, even to the level of the kinds of examples used
in college classrooms that are areas that are typically of more
interest to boys than to girls.
My particular focus in my current position is on faculty
careers, and we have done a lot of work in trying to revise
university policies that allow women faculty to have the same
kinds of opportunities to reach their fullest potential as the
male faculty. A particular problem for women in tenure-track
position is the timing of the tenure decision for young
faculty, which often coincides with the prime child-bearing
years, so women are put in the position of trying to either
postpone having children until after they have achieved tenure
or in trying to balance establishing their research and
academic careers at the same time that they are raising young
children. So all of those issues are described in more detail
in the National Academies' report.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Ms. Maatz, would you care to respond to Mr. Pearson's
discussion on proportionality? We have not heard as much from
you as perhaps we should have on that.
Ms. Maatz. Thank you, Congressman.
Well, first of all, I think part of what we are talking
about here is that the survey that Ms. Simon is talking about
is not what the Office of Civil Rights is proposing. That is
the first thing to make clear. It is basically civil rights
enforcement through spam in terms of what the Office of Civil
Rights has proposed. Part of what they are trying to do, which
I think is fundamentally problematic, is they are requiring
that girls and women prove their interest in sports, which in
many ways is completely contrary in terms of perpetuating the
various stereotypes that Title IX was actually implemented to
address. So, in some ways, we are actually, I think, going a
step backwards in terms of what they are proposing.
In terms of proportionality, the thing that is really clear
that I think the committee needs to know is that there are
three prongs. Any school can use any one of those prongs. Each
one of those prongs is equal to the other in terms of being
able to satisfy compliance with Title IX; and, in fact, the
vast majority of schools use prongs two and three. So part of
what we are talking about here, I think, in some ways is, you
know, chasing an argument.
The reality is that girls and women are still
underrepresented in sports. There are still the stereotypes out
there, as Mr. Mowatt has talked about, in terms of how we
provide services for them; and I think that that is critically
important.
If I may make one other point in terms of the STEM fields
as to what my other colleague was just talking about, this is
also an area where we need to consider the sexual harassment
issue. Because we do know that, in terms of the pipeline for
women and girls interested in STEM fields, sexual harassment is
actually one of the reasons that they jump out.
So that is one thing that we can do in terms of improving
the climate on campuses and in schools for girls and women who
are interested in going into those fields. As we all know, we
need more--we need more women, we need more men going into
those fields, because that is the engine of the 21st century
economy. It is important for homeland security, and it is
really a high-end job as well.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Let me just end with one general question. Intramural
sports. We have talked a lot about collegiate sports, but are
the opportunities for students on intramural aspects where we
want them to be or is there work to be done in that area as
well?
Ms. Greenberger, you are nodding your head.
Ms. Greenberger. Well, I think certainly in all areas of
sports and at every level there is room for improvement, and I
have to say a couple of things on that front.
First of all, the proportionality is also discussed at a
collegiate level, but those standards and principles apply at a
high school level and below, too. So to the extent that this is
being challenged and attacked, it is really going down to the
younger levels and our public schools' obligation to give broad
opportunities to young girls growing up so that they can see
for themselves the life-long benefits of sports.
And that gets me to your point about intramural sports,
club sports, physical activity in general. As we know, they are
not being provided to people to the degree it should, male or
female, and certainly at younger ages, too, with very
devastating, life-long adverse health consequences.
So as to the whole notion of encouraging physical
participation, whether in the more elite intercollegiate of
teams or intramural sports or club teams or lower-level
participation in sports, all of that, there is a lot of room
for improvement.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Hinojosa. The gentleman yields back.
Now I would like to ask unanimous consent that the
statement--Joyce M. Roche, the President and CEO of Girls,
Incorporated, has presented me with a statement; and I ask
unanimous consent that it be allowed into the permanent record.
Hearing none, so be it.
[The statement of Ms. Roche follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joyce M. Roche, President and CEO, Girls
Incorporated
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit this testimony on the occasion of the 35th
anniversary of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. My name is
Joyce Roche, and I am the President and CEO of Girls Incorporated, the
national non-profit youth organization that inspires all girls to be
strong, smart, and bold. On behalf of Girls Inc., our 78 local
affiliates, and the girls that we serve, I want to share with you the
necessity for continued support for this critical law.
Girls Incorporated has been a supporter of Title IX since its
inception and has seen the vast benefits that the legislation has
provided not only for girls and women, but for society as a whole. We
believe that strong enforcement of the law is key to continue to move
our country forward. We believe in the integrity of the law and want to
be sure that there will be no changes to it. We recognize that although
it has done great work thus far, there is still work to be done.
The focus of my testimony today is the impact of Title IX on
science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), disciplines that we
as an organization have focused on for over 20 years. We know that
Title IX has increased the opportunities for girls and women in STEM,
and yet that barriers persist. With continued enforcement of Title IX,
these barriers can be overcome, gaps between boys and girls closed, and
the full participation of girls and women in STEM achieved. This will
be to the benefit of both our nation's security and competitiveness.
Title IX has unquestionably increased the number and performance of
girls and women in STEM courses and disciplines.
Before Title IX, educators, misled by stereotypes that girls could
not achieve in STEM subjects or careers too often steered high school
girls away from higher-level math and science classes, and frequently
excluded them from extracurricular activities such as science and math
clubs. Not surprisingly, girls' achievement in STEM lagged behind boys'
through much of the last century.
Today that picture has changed dramatically. With the support and
implementation of Title IX over the past 35 years, the 2005 NAEP math
and science assessments for grades 4, 8, and 12, showed a gap no bigger
than 4 points.\i\ Girls now comprise 48% of AP test takers in calculus
AB, 47% in chemistry, and 58% in biology. And, in 2007, half of the 40
finalists in the Intel Science Talent Search were girls.\ii\
Women at the university level have also increased their presence in
STEM. In 1970, women earned 17.5% of bachelor's degrees in natural
sciences and engineering. By 2004, they earned 38.4%, and women are now
over-represented in biological and agricultural sciences. In the same
timeframe, women's share of doctorate degrees in these fields more than
quadrupled from 6.7% to 30.5%.\iii\
Title IX has helped to overcome stale stereotypes and the exclusion
of girls and women from the STEM industry. Women and girls have proven
that they have both the capacity and drive to succeed in these vital
fields.
In spite of this remarkable progress, substantial gaps remain, and
discrimination persists.
The barriers to girls' and women's progress in STEM begin in K-12
education, where messages that are received in schools tend to have
lasting consequences. In a 2006 Girls Inc. survey conducted by Harris
Interactive, 44% of girls and 38% of boys agreed with the statement,
``the smartest girls in my school are not popular,'' and 17% of girls
and 14% of boys thought it was true that ``teachers think it is not
important for girls to be good at math.'' \iv\ The overall pattern has
changed little since a similar survey conducted in 2000, suggesting
that these stereotypes are difficult to eradicate.
These pervasive attitudes and messages influence girls' academic
paths, and future options in STEM may be curtailed by an insufficient
course foundation early on. The Chronicle of Higher Education cites an
anecdote of a girl who was one of two girls in her high-school
programming courses, where the boys in the classes repeatedly told her
that she was not good at programming and out of place. ``One of guys I
grew up with and was in all of the classes with told me that,
scientifically, girls were not programmed to do math like guys could,''
she said. ``And I believed him.'' \v\ According to psychologists, girls
and women are more likely to internalize criticism and biased comments
like this one.
Indeed, girls continue to lag behind boys in computer science and
physics, comprising only 31% of physics AP test takers in 2006 and just
16% in computer science. Of college-bound seniors in 2005, young women
comprised just 13% of those intending to major in computer science, 15%
of those intending to major in engineering, and 40% of those intending
to major in math.
At the university level, women continue to be under-represented in
engineering and the physical sciences. Even though women make up 60% of
the undergraduate college population, they earn only 20% of all
bachelor's degrees granted in engineering and physics, and a decreasing
share of bachelor's degrees in mathematics and computer science.\vi\
Evidence of sex discrimination in academia--in areas such as
compensation, access to grants, leave policies, and laboratory space--
is compelling, even though the discrimination may not be intentional. A
professor of molecular biology at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), Nancy Hopkins said that she entered science
``convinced that civil rights laws had eliminated gender discrimination
from the workplace.'' \vii\ It was not until she asked for, and was
denied, an extra 200 square feet of lab space that she started to
recognize the persistent, though not overt, discrimination. When her
request was denied, she got down on her hands and knees with a tape
measure to see just how much smaller her lab space was when compared to
her male counterparts. She learned that she in fact had 1,500 fewer
square feet.\viii\ After that, she started talking to other female
faculty, and found that there existed several relatively minor areas
where they were being shortchanged, which amounted to a large
difference in the end. Institutions are beginning to address structural
barriers and outdated attitudes that persist in the academy, but women
scientists consistently report we have far to go.
Girls Inc. believes that Congress has a vital role to play in
fulfilling the promise of Title IX in the STEM fields.
According to the report of the Commission on the Advancement of
Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology, there are
four points in life at which girls and women seem to lose interest in
STEM: as they enter middle school, late high school, college and
graduate school, and finally in their professional life.\ix\ Because
Girls Inc. specializes in girls, our recommendations focus on grades K-
12:
Adequately fund the Office for Civil Rights in the U.S.
Department of Education so that this office can be proactive in
monitoring compliance with Title IX in this area. This includes
providing technical assistance to schools concerning their obligations
under Title IX, and enforcing existing requirements for Title IX
compliance officers in every building. Students, parents, and faculty
should be informed of their rights under Title IX, the compliance
officer's name and contact information, and OCR must promptly and
thoroughly investigate any discrimination complaints.
Promote informal STEM education through federally-funded
afterschool programs. For more than 20 years, Girls Inc. has offered a
research-based afterschool program to inspire and nurture girls'
interest in STEM from an early age. Girls Inc. Operation SMART and
other programs like it have the capacity to be more flexible, creative,
and hands-on than school day classes, and feature female role models
and field trips that increase girls' confidence and competence in
science and math. Proven, national programs like ours incorporate the
latest research on girls' engagement and persistence in STEM and can
and should be partners with schools in addressing the under
representation of girls and minorities in STEM.
Enlist classroom teachers and administrators as partners
in promoting STEM to girls. Provide professional development
opportunities to teach gender-fair teaching methods and to help them
foster learning environments (including classrooms and computer rooms)
free of harassment.
We look forward to the opportunity to work with you on these and
other recommendations. With the continued support of Title IX, girls
and women can overcome the barriers standing in their way to be
successful in STEM.
Girls Incorporated(r) is a national nonprofit organization that
inspires all girls to be strong, smart, and boldSM. With local roots
dating to 1864 and national status since 1945, Girls Inc. has responded
to the changing needs of girls and their communities through research-
based programs and advocacy that empower girls to reach their full
potential and to understand, value, and assert their rights. Programs
focus on science, math, and technology, health and sexuality, financial
literacy, sports, leadership and advocacy, and media literacy for girls
ages 6 to 18 throughout the United States and in Canada.
endnotes
\i\ ``2005 Assessment Results, The Nation's Report Card,'' U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nrc/reading--math--2005
\ii\ ``66th Annual Intel Science Talent Search (2006-2007)
Finalists,'' Science Service, Jan 2007. http://www.sciserv.org/sts/
66sts/finalists.asp
\iii\ ``Four Decades of STEM Degrees, 1966-2004: The Devil is in
the Details. STEM Workforce Data Project: Report No. 6,'' Commission on
Professionals in Science and Technology. 10.
\iv\ Girls Incorporated. The Supergirl Dilemma: Girls Grapple with
the Mounting Pressure of Expectations, Summary Findings. Harris
Interactive. Oct 2006: 22.
\v\ Carlson, Scott. ``Wanted: Female Computer-Science Students:
Colleges work to attract and support women in technology majors,'' The
Chronicle of Higher Education. 13 Jan 2006. http://chronicle.com/temp/
email2.php?id=yjmCGg4WqYrYkDvzzjgxgQRgyWCxjrkH
\vi\ National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources
Statistics (2004). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in
Science and Engineering: 2004. (NSF 04-317).
\vii\ Hopkins, Nancy. ``Academic Responsibility and Gender Bias,''
MIT Faculty Newsletter 17.4 (Mar/Apr 2005) 22.
\viii\ Rimer, Sarah, ``For Women in Sciences, Slow Progress in
Academia,'' New York Times. 15 Apr 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/
04/15/education/15women.html?ex=1181966400& en=ccacb449228792b3&ei=5070
\ix\ ``Land of Plenty: Diversity as America's Competitive Edge in
Science, Engineering, and Technology.'' September 2000. http://
www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/cawmset0409/cawmset--0409.pdf
______
Chairman Hinojosa. I am now pleased to call on the
gentleman from the great State of New York, Congressman Timothy
Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much
for holding this hearing.
I want to go back to the issue that Ms. Maatz just spoke
about and put a question to Mr. Pearson.
Proportionality is one of only three prongs that a school
must satisfy in order to be in Title IX compliance. The whole
focus of both your written testimony and your testimony this
morning has been on the issue of proportionality. So if a
school is resorting to proportionality in order to qualify or
to satisfy Title IX obligations, as I understand it, they are
either implicitly or explicitly acknowledging that they have
failed the test on the other two, that they cannot point to
program expansion that is responsive to the interests and
abilities of the underrepresented sex nor can they say that
they have fully accommodated the interests or abilities of the
underrepresented sex.
So if we have a school that is acknowledging their
deficiencies in those two areas, why is it that we should cut
them some slack on proportionality, and how does cutting them
some slack on proportionality advance the general interests of
that school?
Mr. Pearson. Congressman, going back to the three-part
test--and you have heard that there are three ways to comply.
Mr. Bishop. Right.
Mr. Pearson. One is proportionality. One is really just a
step towards proportionality. It is a measurement of whether or
not they have added a team for females in the last 5 years. The
third is measuring interest and abilities, demonstrating that
you have met the interest and abilities, and that prong has
never held up in court. Brown University tried to demonstrate
that they had measured the interest of their student athletes,
and it did not hold up in court.
So what happens is there is a migration towards
proportionality as the safe way to comply, this safe harbor,
and that is why we have advocated ways for schools to have a
concrete way to measure interest and abilities so they can feel
safe with that prong, because a lot of pressure comes from
interest groups threatening lawsuits.
So as far as cutting them slack on proportionality, is
that----
Mr. Bishop. Well, let me try a different approach. Let us
forget interests and abilities and accommodations. A school
would have to acknowledge that they have not been responsive to
the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex if they
are, in effect, foregoing prong two and going to
proportionality, right? So they would have to acknowledge they
have been unresponsive. Now why is it not in the school's
interest to be responsive?
Here is, I guess, the thrust of my question. College
participation rates--college-going rates among women have
increased. Are we aware of any data, either empirical data or
impressionistic data, that says that part of that increase in
college-going rates on the part of females is that they now
have more access to intercollegiate activities and that they
have greater ability to satisfy their interests in college?
I guess where I am going with this is, if Virginia Tech had
a sudden increase in the students who accepted their offers of
admission in math, I would assume that Virginia Tech would have
offered additional sections of entry level math courses for
freshman year to accommodate that interest, correct? Okay.
So why is it that we ought not to be encouraging schools to
meet the expectation levels of those students, and why is it
not in a school's interest? Schools are going to build
enrollment if, in fact, they are satisfying the interests of
their students.
Mr. Pearson. Well, it can go the other way as well.
If you are saying you want to increase enrollment, part of
my presentation was about increasing enrollment on the male
side. We have got a serious problem with the disparity in
enrollment between males and females; and when you apply
proportionality, it is going to exacerbate that disparity.
Proportionality does not help female athletes as well. There
are many sports teams at JMU--Marcia Greenberger mentioned JMU
dropped three women's teams, and we are seeing an alarming
trend of dropping small roster women's teams as well because
schools are just counting numbers. It is easier for them to
have walk-on athletes join a rowing team and have 100 athletes
come out than to have these gymnasts who have practiced all of
their lives but where there are only seven people on their
roster or ten people on their roster. Tennis teams are being
dropped. At JMU, it was also an archery team and a fencing
team. So proportionality, from our experience, is not serving
women well.
What is serving women well when it comes to Title IX is the
equal access to facilities, the funding for teams, equivalent
salaries. These things are very important.
Proportionality has a track record of not working. Not only
is it hurting men, but it is not helping women. When you cut a
men's swimming team, you hurt the female athletes who are on
the team because they train together, and it affects the
culture of the whole team. That is happening across the board.
You are seeing track teams--men's track teams--being dropped,
men's swimming teams being dropped where they keep the women's
teams, and it affects them because they train together.
Mr. Bishop. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hinojosa. The gentleman yields back.
Next, I would like to call on the gentlewoman, Susan Davis,
the congresswoman from California.
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize for having missed your presentations, and I
have a good sense of what you were saying, but I wanted to go
back to the issue of women pursuing higher degrees in the STEM
area, the STEM degrees, and just if you could help, I guess,
all of us understand.
We have been talking a lot about how women can best
compete, but it is really more the global competitiveness as
well that we are concerned about. How much is that really
impacting our ability to compete? Because we do not have women
seeking higher degrees, higher STEM degrees, that means we do
not have the faculty, that means we do not have the people,
really, in front of young women. Beyond that, what do you think
is really happening for the country as well in that area that
we should be very aware of, or is this a big problem?
Ms. Layne. Well, it certainly is a big problem.
For many years now, the majority of Ph.D. degrees in
engineering have gone to non-U.S. citizens. In many cases,
those people have remained in this country and have contributed
greatly to our economic competitiveness and innovation, but we
are seeing that actually less and less.
As some of the economies and as some of the countries that
have been sending us their best and brightest students have
become more productive, many more of these people are going
back to their home countries. So we certainly would like to see
more U.S. citizens pursuing careers in science and in
engineering, underrepresented minorities as well as women. So
there are many things that we can do to encourage more
participation by U.S. citizens in those careers, and I think
those would help men and women as well as the U.S. economy.
Ms. Maatz. One of the things that I think would be
interesting, there was a very well-covered report last year
that came out called The Gathering Storm that talked about the
fact that the United States is falling behind in terms of STEM
education, in terms of people going into those fields and the
repercussions it would have for competitiveness and for
national security.
One of the things, though, that was interesting, despite
all of the enlightening facts in that particular report, was
that they really overlooked women and minorities. The notion of
if we actually could remove some of these barriers and if we
could actually get women and minorities into the STEM fields in
the numbers that they should be going into those fields, how
does that then change the picture? Because I think if we had
that information that would help us in terms of not only
building some of the programs that we already have to move
women and minorities into the STEM fields but to get the
support we need to enlarge them for them to be successful.
AUW has actually asked, together with several of our
coalition partners, for there to be another report from the
National Academies that actually looks at the whole idea of The
Gathering Storm but filters in the whole notion of women and
minorities. Because we think if you do that that that improves
the picture; and then that obviously gives us the tools,
hopefully, and the resolve to do some of the things that we
need to do to get women and minorities into STEM fields.
Ms. Greenberger. I think one of the things that is
important in the context of Title IX is to realize that there
has not been, as was said, the kind of attention to this area
that there needs to be. There is a lot of public attention to
athletics discrimination because it is hard to miss--it is so
visible--but this is an area, the STEM area, where it is less
visible and is much more subtle in the kind of barriers and
discrimination that is still at play; and, therefore, we should
really be making sure that enforcement agencies--the Department
of Education, the Office for Civil Rights--should be looking at
this area.
As the General Accounting Office study had shown a couple
of years ago, our other government agencies that have Title IX
enforcement could be looking at Defense Department contractors
and all kinds of other educational and training grounds that
Title IX addresses to try to encourage this pool. And because
the discrimination continues and builds upon itself from the
lower grades to the higher grades, to faculty, to promotions,
to tenure decisions, to research grants, all of that is a piece
that needs to be addressed for the sake of the country as well
as for individual women and for people of color. I think urging
better Title IX enforcement is very important.
Mrs. Davis of California. I guess I would ask, at those
levels, as you have developed that, all the way up to the
higher levels, if there is one place that we should focus as
key in terms of legislation, perhaps, or oversight, where would
that be? I mean, where do you think the biggest problem lies on
that ladder of opportunity?
Ms. Maatz. In terms of STEM fields particularly?
Mrs. Davis of California. In terms of STEM fields
particularly, yes.
Ms. Maatz. Well, you know, it is interesting. Because there
has been some great work done by groups like Girls, Inc. and
Girl Scouts who have talked about how girls really face a
barrier when they hit adolescence and the whole peer pressure
that comes into play when they might have already developed an
interest in STEM kinds of subjects, but then other things--
parental pressure, school pressure and teaching, you know,
pedagogies as well as their peers--come into play and can
really derail girls in their adolescence. I think that is
certainly a place that we need to look at that would be
particularly important.
I would also, obviously, defer to Peggy.
Chairman Hinojosa. The gentlelady's time has concluded, and
I believe that everyone has had an opportunity to ask
questions.
I would like to make some concluding remarks and say that I
have enjoyed listening to the witnesses and to the important
information that you bring to us here in this 21st century.
I was pleased to hear John Tierney say that he and I had
the pleasure--and Bobby Scott--of serving with Patsy Mink, who
had a real passion and commitment to opening doors of
opportunity for girls and for young women in schools and in
colleges. We followed her. We followed her lead. Look at what
improvements have been made.
I want to----
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hinojosa. Yes. I recognize Congressman Scott.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, apparently, you are not going to
have a second round of questions, but I did have one question
that I had mentioned. That is, what issues may affect
elementary and secondary?
I would also like to pose another question for them to
answer, if they would please; and that is, when you have
programs, STEM programs, to encourage women to get into the
STEM fields, do those programs actually work? Do girls actually
get into those fields? If you could provide some success
stories, we would appreciate it. What can we do to actually
accomplish that goal?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hinojosa. All witnesses are allowed to give
answers to the questions that Congressman Scott asked. I know
that all of the other committees are meeting, and some are
members of those committees, so I have to respect their time
also to be able to get to those committees.
I will say that it has certainly made me realize that--of
my five children, four are daughters and one is a young man. My
two older daughters are teachers, and they were rooting for
this hearing because they said that they had not been recruited
to play sports and that they wish now that somebody had at
least recognized that they could have been college players.
Whereas, of my two youngest who are now in school, one is a
soccer and track star and the other is a basketball and
softball star because the older sisters, who are young
teachers, have stimulated their interest and told them they
could do it. And, sure enough, both of them have straight A's
in their academic work and are also beginning to be recognized
in that they have taken and have kicked the ball and have shot
the basketball and have done those kinds of things. So they are
very proud of themselves.
So, with that, I want to say that, as previously ordered,
members will have 14 days to submit additional materials for
the hearing record. Any member who wishes to submit follow-up
questions, as did Congressman Scott, in writing to the
witnesses should coordinate with majority staff within the
requisite time.
Without objection, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Pennsylvania
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on Title IX's 35
years of success.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognize my colleague,
Representative Mazie Hirono for her work on celebrating the
accomplishments of Title IX. Just yesterday, the House passed H.Res.
406, a resolution introduced by Representative Hirono and of which I am
a cosponsor. Representative Hirono, I commend you for your leadership
and thank you for all of your hard work on this important issue.
Title IX has been remarkably successful in providing new
opportunities for women and girls. Nowhere has the impact of Title IX
been greater than in female athletics. In 1972, the year Congress
passed Title IX, less than 300,000 girls competed in high school
athletics. In 2005, 2.95 million girls competed in high school
athletics, an increase of approximately 900%.
While these statistics demonstrate that Title IX has been an
incredible success, it is important to remember that girls are still
not offered all of the opportunities available to boys. This is why
Title IX remains as relevant today as it was 35 years ago. I look
forward to hearing how the successes that have been achieved by Title
IX can be built upon so this nation can move closer to the ideal of
providing equal opportunity to girls and boys.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again, for holding this hearing. I yield
back the balance of my time.
______
[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]