[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13370-13372]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  IN CELEBRATION OF THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION 
                           AMENDMENTS OF 1972

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, June 23rd marked the 30th 
anniversary of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 which 
prohibits sex discrimination in any educational institution that 
receives federal funds. To commemorate this 30th anniversary, it is 
important that we celebrate the successes of Title IX, acknowledge its 
tremendous and positive impact on the lives of girls and women in our 
country, and rededicate ourselves to the continued pursuit of equal 
educational opportunities for girls and women.
  I was a member of the House Education and Labor Committee in 1972. I 
worked diligently to promote civil rights legislation during my entire 
tenure. I consider Title IX to be one of my most significant efforts as 
a Member of Congress, and I take special pride in honoring its 
contributions to changing our view about women's role in America.
  Title IX has opened the doors of educational opportunity to millions 
of girls and women who otherwise would have been shunned or relegated 
to a secondary place. Title IX has helped to tear down barriers to 
admissions, increase opportunities for women in nontraditional fields 
of study, improve vocational educational opportunities for women, 
reduce discrimination against pregnant students and teen mothers, 
protect female students from sexual harassment in our schools, and 
increase athletic competition for girls and women.
  We have heard much about the many successes of Title IX, particularly 
in athletics. Most do not know of the long arduous course we took 
before the enactment of Title IX and the battles that we have fought to 
keep it intact. On the occasion of this 30th anniversary, it is 
appropriate to take time to reflect on the history of this landmark 
legislation so we may never forget the struggles and we may never 
forget the original purpose.
  From the day at age four when I had my appendix removed, I knew I 
wanted to be a doctor. I went to college drive with this goal. I was 
elected President of our college pre-med organization. No one bothered 
to tell me that my career goal could not be achieved because I was 
female. In my senior year I applied to a dozen or more medical schools. 
Everyone turned me down because I was female. I was stunned. I had a 
degree in zoology and chemistry that could not get me to my coveted 
profession. America the land of the free had closed its doors of 
opportunity to me because I was female.
  Again after I got my law degree I was shut out from employment 
because I was female.
  When I ran for elected office was ostracized because I was ``only a 
woman'' and presumably therefore had nothing to contribute.
  This personal story of my life adds meaning to what happened in 
Congress. Title IX had its origins in a series of hearings on sex 
discrimination and equal opportunities for girls and women held in the 
mid-1960s and early 1970s by the House Education and Labor Committee. 
Throughout that time, the committee had been engaged in the process of 
systematically gathering a large body of evidence of discrimination 
against girls and women in our educational system.
  In 1965, the year I first came to Congress and became a freshman 
member of the Education and Labor Committee, Chair Adam Clayton Powell 
initiated an examination of discrimination in textbooks. Our committee 
scrutinized textbooks and found that they portrayed girls and women in 
stereotypical ways and minimized our potential to lead. We hauled in 
the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare because they were 
issuing brochures and films that consistently portrayed women in 
occupations such as nursing, teaching, or social work, but never as 
scientists, doctors, lawyers, judges, pilots, or engineers. We 
scrutinized vocational education courses and found that girls were 
being taught home economics while boys were being taught skills and 
concepts that would prepare them for higher wage careers. In addition, 
we found that the admissions policies of many institutions 
systematically excluded women from graduate and professional schools 
and rarely if ever afforded them scholarships, fellowships, research 
stipends, or staff assistantships.
  In 1970, Congresswoman Edith Green (D-OR), Chair of the House Special 
Subcommittee on Education, held hearings on a bill she had introduced, 
H.R. 16098. This bill would have amended Title VI of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964--which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, 
color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal 
financial assistance--to also ban sex discrimination.
  On July 3, 1970, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Jerris 
Leonard testified before Congresswoman Green's subcommittee on H.R. 
16098. He said that while the Justice Department would not support 
language to amend the Civil Rights Act, ``we suggest an alternative''. 
The alternative was that the committee should concentrate on developing 
separate legislation that would prohibit sex discrimination in 
education. This was the genesis of Title IX.
  It is important to put this initiative in the context of the times. 
This was right around the time of the big push for the Equal Rights 
Amendment. The women's movement was active and growing and supporters 
of equal rights for women were pursuing equal protection under the 
Constitution. Under the leadership of Representative Martha Griffiths 
(D-MI) Congress voted for the ERA in 1971 by a vote of 354 to 24, 
sending it to the states for ratification. While Congresswoman Green's 
bill to prohibit sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
would have provided broader protections for women, prohibiting sex 
discrimination in education would be a giant step forward in the fight 
for equal rights for girls and women.
  The opportunity to add Title XI came in 1971 when the House turned 
its attention to consideration of amendments to the Higher Education 
Act, H.R. 7248. It was initially Title X of H.R. 7248 and it prohibited 
discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational institution 
receiving federal funds. It also authorized

[[Page 13371]]

the Civil Rights Commission to investigate sex discrimination, removed 
the exemption of teachers from the equal employment coverage of the 
1964 Civil Rights Act, and eliminated the exemption of executives, 
administrators, and professions from the Equal Pay Act.
  The bill was reported out of the House Education and Labor Committee 
on September 30 1971 and was considered by the full House on October 
27, 1971.
  During consideration by the full House, Representative John Erlenborn 
(R-IL) offered an amendment to exempt undergraduate admissions policies 
of colleges and universities from the prohibition of sex 
discrimination. This amendment won by a 5-vote margin, 194 to 189.
  The provision that would have authorized the Civil Rights Commission 
to investigate sex discrimination (section 1007) was eliminated during 
the floor debate on a point of order by House Judiciary Committee Chair 
Emanuel Celler (D-NY) because it came under the jurisdiction of his 
committee.
  At the same time, the Senate was working on amendments to its Higher 
Education Act. The Senate also argued bitterly over the inclusion of a 
provision banning sex discrimination in schools.
  During the Senate floor debate on August 6, 1971, Senator Birch Bayh 
(D-IN) offered an amendment, along with Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) 
and Phil Hart (D-MI), to ban sex discrimination in any public higher 
education institution or graduate program receiving federal funds. 
Senator George McGovern (D-SD) also submitted an amendment prohibiting 
sex discrimination in education, but decided not to offer it and 
instead supported the Bayh amendment.
  As the Bayh amendment was considered, Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) 
raised a point of order against it on the grounds that it was not 
germane. The point of order was sustained by the Chair, who agreed and 
ruled that ``the pending amendment deals with discrimination on the 
basis of sex. There are no provisions in the bill dealing with sex.'' A 
50 to 32 roll call vote sustained the ruling of the Chair.
  The Senate reconsidered the higher education legislation in early 
1972 because it objected to the House version that included provisions 
prohibiting the use of federal education funds for busing. Again, the 
bill that came out of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare did not 
include any provisions banning sex discrimination in schools.
  Fortunately, Senator Birch Bayh was persistent on the issue of sex 
discrimination in education. During the floor debate that began on 
February 22, 1972 he offered an amendment that would prohibit sex 
discrimination in educational institutions receiving federal funds but 
would exempt the admissions policies of private institutions. Later, 
Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) offered an amendment to the Bayh amendment 
that also provided an exemption for public single-sex undergraduate 
institutions. Both amendments passed by voice vote. This time, a 
provision prohibiting sex discrimination in schools was included in the 
bill passed by the Senate.
  Negotiations in the House-Senate Conference Committees, held in the 
spring of 1972, finally yielded Title IX. The final language prohibited 
sex discrimination in educational institutions receiving federal 
funding and applied to institutions of vocational education, 
professional education, and graduate higher education, and to public 
institutions of undergraduate higher education. The conference report 
was filed in the Senate on May 22 and in the House on May 23. The bill 
was approved by Congress on June 8. On June 23, 1972--30 years ago--
President Nixon signed it into law.
  Since its passage most people have come to associate Title IX with 
gains made by girls and women in athletics. Certainly, this is the most 
visible, spectacular, and recognized outcome of Title IX. However, many 
are surprised to learn that the topic of athletics did not even come up 
in the original discussions about Title IX. Our primary goal was to 
open up educational opportunities for girls and women in academics, and 
the most controversial issue at that time was the application of Title 
IX to institutional admissions policies.
  The impact of Title IX on athletics became apparent almost 
immediately. We were thrilled to see that athletic opportunities were 
starting to open up to girls and women, although these changes also 
sparked controversy. When coaches and male athletes began to realize 
that they would have to share their facilities and budgets with women, 
they became outraged. In 1975, this anger prompted the first and most 
significant challenge to the law.
  Opponents of Title IX proposed an amendment to the education 
appropriations bill to prohibit the Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfare from promulgating Title IX regulations to apply to college 
and university athletics. They paraded a number of college and 
professional athletes through the committee room to testify that Title 
IX hurt men's athletics. At the time, women athletes were so few and 
unknown that the only well-known athlete we could bring in to testify 
was Billie Jean King. The fact that there were virtually no prominent 
women athletes in our country was a testament in itself to the 
necessity of Title IX.
  The amendment was agreed to by the House and was included in the 1975 
House appropriations bill (H.R. 5901), but it was not agreed to by the 
Senate and was stricken in conference.
  On July 16, 1975, I managed the House floor debate against a motion 
by Representative Robert Casey (R-TX) to insist on the House position. 
In the midst of vigorous debate on the issue and just prior to the 
vote, I was sent word that my daughter had been in a life-threatening 
car accident in Ithaca, New York. I left the floor immediately and 
rushed off to Ithaca to be with her. After I left, the Casey motion 
carried on a vote of 212 to 211. The House had voted to exclude college 
athletics from Title IX regulations. The newspapers reported that I had 
left the floor ``crying'' in the face of defeat. Without checking with 
my office the paper indulged in the very stereotypical smear that we 
were fighting against.
  The following day, the Senate voted 65 to 29 to insist on the Senate 
position and strike the amendment from the bill.
  On the next legislative day, July 18, 1975, Speaker Carl Albert (D-
OK) and Representative Daniel Flood (D-PA) took the House floor and 
explained the circumstances of my departure. Representative Flood then 
offered a motion ``to recede and concur in the Senate position''. An 
affirmative vote on this motion would reverse the vote taken by the 
House two days prior and would reject both the Casey position and the 
amendment. It carried by a vote of 216 to 178. Title IX's application 
to athletics for preserved.
  While the story of Title IX is a story of celebration, it also a 
story of struggle to defend it against persistent challenges. Although 
we celebrate the year 1972 as the year of enactment of Title IX, in 
retrospect it is clear that I was engaged in efforts to pass a Title IX 
law since I first arrived in Congress in 1965. There is also a clear 
pattern of repeated attempts to weaken or undermine Title IX from the 
very beginning. For 30 years, we have constantly needed to be on guard 
to defend it.
  Five years ago, several colleagues and I came together on the House 
floor to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Title IX. Since then its 
story of spectacular successes, coupled with new and significant 
challenges, has continued to evolve. One of the most notable successes 
since the last anniversary was the tremendous victory by the U.S. 
Women's Soccer Team in the 1999 Women's World Cup. Hundreds of 
thousands of spectators attended the games and millions more watched on 
television. These strong, disciplined, and exciting athletes drew 
record-breaking audiences, inspired a whole new generation of girls to 
pursue their dreams, and captivated a nation.
  This victory was significant not only for its impact on women's 
athletics but as a testament to the power of Congress to change the 
nation for the better. Mia Hamm, one of the team's brightest stars, was 
born in 1972--the same year that Title IX was signed into law. Without 
Title IX, she and many of her teammates may have never had the 
opportunity to develop their talents and pursue their dreams.
  Along with recent public celebrations of Title IX however, there have 
also been new and high-profile attacks. In 1998, the Republican 
majority of the Committee on Education and the Workforce inserted an 
11th hour provision into the Higher Education Amendments that would 
have required colleges and universities to report annually any changes 
in funding or in the number of participants on an athletics team. In 
addition, it would have required them to forecast four years in advance 
any decisions to eliminate or reduce athletic programs or funding and 
to ``justify'' their decisions.
  During the House floor debate on the Higher Education Amendments on 
May 6, 1998 Tim Roemer (D-IN) offered an amendment to delete the 
provision.
  Several colleagues and I argued strenuously in support of the Roemer 
amendment. We believed that this provision would have been 
extraordinarily intrusive on the decision-making processes of colleges 
and universities. We believed that it was impractical because it would 
have been virtually impossible for institutions to know four years in 
advance whether or not they would need to cut programs. Most 
importantly, we opposed this provision because of its potential for 
severe and adverse impact on the enforcement of Title IX. This 
provision had been supported by opponents of Title IX who

[[Page 13372]]

wanted to force colleges and universities into blaming Title IX for 
their decisions to make reductions or cuts to minor, non-revenue men's 
sports teams.
  The argument that Title IX is to blame for the reduction of some 
men's minor, non-revenue teams is patently false. Title IX regulations 
do not require schools to cut men's teams in order to comply with Title 
IX. Instead, reductions or cuts to some men's sports teams--and to many 
women's minor sports teams as well--are due to choices made by college 
administrators in favor of the big budget, revenue-generating programs 
such as football and basketball. To blame Title IX is disingenuous and 
just plain wrong! The goal of Title IX is not to disadvantage men but 
to provide equal opportunities for women.
  After a vigorous debate on the House floor, the Roemer amendment was 
agreed to by a vote of 292-129. The provision was deleted from the 
Higher Education Amendments of 1998.
  Unfortunately, the myth that Title IX is to blame for the reduction 
of men's minor sports teams on college campuses has continued to 
persist. In January of this year, the National Wrestling Coaches 
Association and other groups filed a high-profile lawsuit in federal 
court against the U.S. Department of Education, arguing that colleges 
and universities have cut wrestling teams and other men's minor sports 
teams in order to comply with Title IX.
  This argument is unsupportable. The Department of Education's 
regulations regarding Title IX do not require schools to cut men's 
teams in order to comply with Title IX. Rather, ``proportionality'' is 
only one of three ways that schools can comply with the law. They may 
(1) offer athletic opportunities in substantial proportion to male and 
female enrollment, or (2) show that the institution is steadily 
increasing opportunities for women students overtime, or (3) show that 
the athletic interests and abilities of female students are being met. 
Institutions do not need to demonstrate all three.
  While the Department of Justice filed a motion to seek dismissal of 
this lawsuit on May 29, 2002, the final disposition of the case is 
pending.
  New challenges and questions have also been raised recently about 
Title IX and single-sex education. On May 8, 2002 the U.S. Department 
of Education announced its intention to encourage single-sex education 
in the nation's public schools by filing a notice of intent to propose 
amendments to the regulations implementing Title IX. According to the 
announcement in the Federal Register, the Bush Administration wants to 
``provide more flexibility for educators to establish single-sex 
classes and schools at the elementary and secondary levels''. This 
announcement marked a reversal of three decades of federal education 
policy regarding single-sex education.
  While advocates of this proposal cite research studies indicating 
that students may perform better in same-sex educational environments, 
opponents fear that the proposal endorses a form of segregation. In 
addition, many others worry that tampering with the current Title IX 
regulations is risky and dangerous and may have the ultimate effect of 
weakening Title IX.
  Given difficult challenges such as these, it is especially important 
that we celebrate the many successess of Title IX. However, it is even 
more important that we not become complacent about Title IX. Many young 
girls and women today do not even know about Title IX and take it for 
granted that equal educational opportunities are safeguarded by the 
Constitution. While it is wonderful that equity has become the expected 
norm, we must also teach each new generation that there was a time when 
Title IX did not exist. Further, we all need to be reminded that since 
Title IX was put in a place by a legislative body, it can also be taken 
away by a legislative body. We need to be vigilant. Title IX must be 
protected and defended to ensure that equal educational opportunities 
for girls and women are preserved for all generations to come.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have recounted this story here tonight, you can see 
that the pursuit and enforcement of Title IX has been a personal 
crusade for me for three decades. I am proud to have been a part of the 
enactment of Title IX in Congress 30 years ago, and I continue to be 
proud of its rich and lasting legacy of equal educational opportunities 
for girls and women. On this 30th anniversary, let us rededicate 
ourselves to the goals of dignity, equality, and opportunity for all 
that characterized our dreams for Title IX 30 years ago. These goals 
are every bit as worthy and important today, in 2002, as they were in 
1972.

                          ____________________