Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696578185815.pdf (United States)
Equal Access to Education: Forty Years of Title IX United States Department of Justice June 23, 2012 “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.” –Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972 Passed by Congress on June 23, 1972, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 bars sex discrimination in education programs and activities offered by entities receiving federal financial assistance.
As the Supreme Court recognized in the landmark case of United States v. Virginia, “our Nation has had a long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination.”1 But in the forty years since its enactment, Title IX has improved access to educational opportunities for millions of students, helping to ensure that no educational opportunity is denied to women on the basis of sex and that women are granted “equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society based on their individual talents and capacities.”2 In 2011 alone, Title IX covered over 49 million students enrolled in more than 98,000 elementary and secondary schools.3 Title IX also protects more than 20 million students enrolled in postsecondary education.4 Over the past four decades, the Department of Justice’s work to enforce Title IX and other laws prohibiting sex discrimination in education, including its work in partnership with the Department of Education, has significantly advanced educational equity.
However, despite the gains achieved in the last forty years, inequalities in education persist.

The Department of Justice remains committed to pursuing the goal of equality in education through its continued enforcement of Title IX and other federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex.

THE HISTORY OF TITLE IX5 Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities operated by recipients of federal financial assistance.
The fundamental principle underlying Title IX is that students may not be denied educational opportunities based on their sex – a 1 U.S. v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 531 (1996), quoting Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 684 (1973).

2 US v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 532 (1996).


3 “Numbers and Types of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools from the Common Core of Data: School Year 2010-2011,” National Center for Education Statistics available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/pesschools10/tables/table_03.asp#f4.

4 “Digest of Education Statistics, 2011,” National Center for Education Statistics available at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2011menu_tables.asp.
5 “Title IX: 25 Years of Progress,” U.S. Department of Education June 1997 available at http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/TitleIX/index.html.

1 principle that applies to the wide range of activities offered by schools, including admissions to, and financial aid for, post-secondary institutions; student services and counseling; and athletics and physical education.
Schools are also responsible for taking steps to prevent sex-based harassment, including sexual harassment, and for responding quickly and effectively to harassment when it occurs.

Additionally, under Title IX, a school may not retaliate against a person because he or she opposed an unlawful educational practice or policy or took action against discrimination.6 Congress passed Title IX in response to the marked educational inequalities women faced prior to the 1970s.
Before Title IX, women were often excluded from or had only limited access 7 Elite colleges and universities set quotas for the admission of women to educational programs.

or prohibited them from attending altogether; those that accepted applications from women often required higher test scores and grades for their admission.
Once admitted to schools, women had less access to scholarships; were excluded from “male” programs, such as medicine; and faced more restrictive rules, such as early curfews, than their male peers.

Discrimination extended beyond students; women faculty were more frequently denied tenure than their male counterparts, required to take pregnancy and maternity leaves, or prohibited from entering faculty clubs.
In part as a result of these inequalities, only 8 percent of women age 19 and older were college graduates in 1970, compared with 14 percent of men.8 THE IMPACT OF TITLE IX Since 1972, women have made great strides in their educational attainment, benefitting from the protections enacted through Title IX.
In 2009, approximately 87 percent of women had at least a high school education and approximately 28 percent had at least a college degree, up from 59 percent with a high school education and 8 percent with a college degree in 1970.9 Additionally, enrollment in higher education has increased at a greater rate for females than for males; since 1968, the percentage of women between the ages of 25 and 34 with at least a college degree has more than tripled.10 Women now have higher graduation rates and lower high 6 Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html.
7 Men also faced limitations in education; although men benefitted from a majority of the opportunities offered, they were prevented from taking classes in fields stereotypically associated with women, such as home economics and nursing.

8 “Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being,” White House Council on Women and Girls, March 2011, p. 19.

9 “Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being,” White House Council on Women and Girls, March 2011, p. 19.
10 “Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being,” White House Council on Women and Girls, March 2011, p. 21.
2 school dropout rates, take more Advanced Placement exams, and earn more advanced degrees than their male counterparts.11 They also tend to score higher in reading assessment tests than male students.12 Percent of Adults Age 25-34 with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher Source: Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being, White House Council on Women and Girls Title IX has also vastly expanded women’s access to athletic programs.
For example, from 1972 to 2011, female participation in high school sports rose dramatically, as shown in the graph below.13 Women enjoyed similar gains at the college level.

11 “Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being,” White House Council on Women and Girls, March 2011, p. 17.

12 “Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being,” White House Council on Women and Girls, March 2011, p. 18.
13 “2010-11 High School Athletics Participation Survey,” The National Federation of State High School Associations; “Trends in Education Equity of Girls & Women,” National Center for Education Statistics.
3 Male and Female Participation in High School Athletics Male Female 5,000,000 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 s t n a p i c i t r a P f o r e b m u N 1971-1972 2010-2011 Source: 2010-11 High School Athletics Participation Survey, The National Federation of State High School Associations Because education is linked to other benefits, such as participation in the labor force, increased earnings, better health and increased access to healthcare,14 the benefits of Title IX extend far beyond those experienced in school.15 Additionally, the benefits of Title IX reach beyond those realized by women.
By prohibiting schools from treating students differently on the basis of sex, Title IX allows both men and women to equally take advantage of any course of study regardless of gender stereotypes about traditionally “male” or “female” coursework or professions.

Title IX’s protections against harassment also apply to both sexes, and schools must take action to prevent sex-based harassment that interferes with the education of both males and females.
DOJ’S ENFORCEMENT OF TITLE IX AND OTHER LAWS PREVENTING DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION In addition to Title IX, the Department of Justice also enforces other laws to ensure equal access to education.

 The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires that all people must be treated equally under the law, regardless of their sex.

14 “Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being,” White House Council on Women and Girls, March 2011, p. 17.
15 “Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being,” White House Council on Women and Girls, March 2011, p. 32.

4  Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national origin by public elementary, secondary, and post- secondary schools.
 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers, including educational institutions, from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

 Executive Order 13160, signed in 2000, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, disability, religion, age, sexual orientation, and status as a parent in federally conducted educational and training programs.
The Department of Justice enforces these laws through coordinating enforcement across federal agencies, conducting its own and joint investigations with the Department of Education, filing and participating in lawsuits, filing briefs to assist courts with interpreting Title IX, and negotiating settlement agreements requiring schools to remedy violations.
The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division enforces these laws primarily through its Educational Opportunities, Appellate, Federal Coordination and Compliance, and Employment Litigation Sections.

In cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Solicitor General’s Office of the Department of Justice represents the interests of the United States.

The following examples identify some of the highlights of this critical enforcement work.
Enforcement to Ensure Equal Educational Opportunities To enforce and enhance protections for those who are denied equal educational opportunities on the basis of sex, the Department has worked to:  Support Access to Justice for Individual Victims and Hold Schools Liable for Violations.
 In Cannon v. University of Chicago (1979), the Supreme Court adopted the Department’s position that individuals can hold schools liable for discrimination under Title IX, ruling that a woman could sue the university that denied her admission to medical school.

This seminal decision, making clear that individuals can hold schools accountable for discriminating against them, made possible future Title IX cases against schools and created a powerful enforcement tool for all students.
 In Pederson v. Louisiana State University (2000), the court ruled in favor of the Department, holding that private parties can bring suits against states under Title IX to challenge unequal educational opportunities.

5  Prevent Retaliation Against Those Who Exercise Their Rights.
 In Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education (2005), the Supreme Court adopted the Department’s view, articulated in its amicus brief, that Title IX bars retaliation, in a case where a male coach was removed from his position after he complained of unequal funding for the girls’ basketball team.

The Court ruled that the coach could file a claim under Title IX against the school district.
This decision confirmed protection against retaliation for those who report sex discrimination, and more broadly established that all anti-discrimination laws must include protection from retaliation to effectively and meaningfully protect against discrimination itself.

 Eliminate Discriminatory School Policies That Deny Women Admission.
 In the landmark case United States v. Virginia (1996), the Department of Justice prevailed in its argument that denying admission to females at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title IV.

The Supreme Court held that there was insufficient justification for excluding women from VMI.
It further held that a separate program created for women that was based on female stereotypes was inadequate to protect their constitutional rights because it denied women the full benefits of a VMI education, including VMI’s alumni network, funding, rigorous training and access to prestigious faculty.
Through this case, the Court made clear that sex-based classifications are allowed under the Equal Protection Clause only in the very limited circumstances in which they are substantially related to an exceedingly persuasive justification.

 In Doe v. Vermilion Parish School Board (2011), the court held that students could challenge a middle school’s decision to establish single-sex classes based on falsified data about the benefits of same-sex education.
The Department filed an amicus brief explaining that the policy violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause because, among other things, the educational quality in the coeducational classes was not substantially equal to that of the single-sex classes, and because parents were pressured by the principal into choosing same-sex classrooms.
Enforcement to Prevent Sexual Harassment and Assault To ensure safe and non-discriminatory school environments, the Department has actively enforced Title IX and other laws prohibiting sexual harassment and violence.

The Department has worked to: 6  Establish that Title IX Prohibits Sex-Based Harassment by Both Students and Teachers, and that Schools Must Address Harassment and Prevent its Recurrence.
 Through its amicus briefs in the Supreme Court cases of Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District (1998) and Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999), the Department helped to establish the principle that schools are required to provide a safe environment for their students and must address sexual harassment of students by both teachers and peers.
In accordance with the Department’s Title IX interpretation, the Court recognized in Davis that students who experience harassment can challenge their schools’ failure to effectively address that harassment and can seek court orders requiring that the school take additional steps to ensure a safe educational environment.
In both cases, the Court further held that a student may seek monetary relief from a school district, as the Department urged, but made clear that the student must show that an official of the school with authority to respond actually knew of and was deliberately indifferent to the harassment.

 Clarify that Sex Discrimination Includes Both Harassment Based on Biological Sex and Harassment Based on a Failure to Conform to Gender Stereotypes.

 In J.L.
 In J.L.

v. Mohawk Central School District (2010), the Department argued that the school district failed to prevent and remedy sex-based harassment when a student was harassed for failing to conform to gender stereotypes.

The Department negotiated a settlement agreement in which the school district agreed to train school staff and to compile and monitor harassment complaints.
Through its actions in this case and others, like Pratt v. Indian River Central School District (2010), the Department helped to clarify for the courts and schools that Title IX prohibits not only discrimination based on biological sex, but also discrimination when a student’s appearance or behavior do not conform to stereotypes about how individuals of the student’s gender are supposed to act.
 In Putman v. Board of Education of Somerset Independent School (2000), the Department filed an amicus brief in support of a male student who claimed that his school failed to prevent ongoing and severe sexual harassment by his peers based on gender stereotypes and his actual or perceived sexual orientation.
The Department clarified that Title IX prohibits sexual harassment based on gender stereotyping and that sex-based harassing conduct is not insulated from Title IX because it also relates, in part, to actual or perceived sexual orientation.

As a result, the school district modified its sexual harassment policies to prohibit discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation.

7  Secure Protections Against Sexual Harassment for Students with Disabilities.
 In Lopez v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville (2010), a case involving alleged sexual assaults on a special education bus, the Department’s involvement resulted in the school district agreeing to take substantial measures to enhance the security of, and prevent sexual harassment and assault against, students with disabilities traveling on public school transportation systems.
Among other provisions, the school committed to provide bus monitors for disabled students, implement an extensive reporting system for sexual harassment complaints, and provide training to bus monitors and drivers on transporting students with disabilities and laws governing student transportation.

Agreement reached in Lopez.
 Establish School-Wide Systems to Prevent and Address Sex- and Gender-Based Harassment  In Doe v. Anoka Hennepin School District (2012), following an extensive investigation into allegations of peer harassment against students who did not conform to gender stereotypes, the Department secured a far-reaching agreement in which the school district agreed to develop and implement a comprehensive plan to prevent and address student-on-student sex- based harassment; to enhance training for school staff on how to prevent and respond to harassment; to retain an expert consultant to review the district’s policies and procedures concerning harassment; to appoint a Title IX coordinator to ensure the district’s compliance with Title IX; and to improve investigations and recordkeeping.
Attorney General Eric Holder presented an award to the students and attorneys who brought the Anoka Hennepin case.
 In a combined Title IX and Title IV investigation of the Tehachapi Unified School District (2011), the Department of Justice and the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education reached a settlement in which the school district agreed to take preventive measures to protect students from sexual and gender- 8 based harassment, to respond appropriately to harassment that occurs, and to eliminate the hostile environment resulting from harassment.
Specifically, the school agreed to include gender-based harassment in its sexual harassment policy; specify procedures for investigating complaints; provide training to staff and students; and conduct student surveys to assess the school environment.

The Department’s investigation followed the tragic suicide of a middle school student who was harassed based on his nonconformity with gender stereotypes.
 In AB v. Rhinebeck Central School District (2006), a case involving alleged sexual harassment by a high school principal, the Department negotiated an agreement with the school district in which it promised to: develop and implement a comprehensive plan that would ensure a discrimination-free educational environment for all students; revise its sex-based harassment policies; and train board members, employees, and students.
Enforcement to Ensure Equal Opportunity in Athletics To promote equal access to school athletic opportunities, the Department has helped to:  Expand Women’s Opportunities to Participate Equally in Athletic Activities.
 In Biediger v. Quinnipiac University (2010-2011), for example, the Department filed amicus briefs at the district court and appellate levels to provide the courts with guidance as to what constitutes an “athletic participation opportunity” and a “sport” under Title IX, in a case alleging that the University failed to provide female students with equal opportunities to participate in varsity athletics.
The Department’s briefs made clear that athletic opportunities may be counted only if they provide actual athletes with real benefits.

The Department’s appellate brief also supported the district court’s determinations that the University’s competitive cheerleading team did not yet qualify as a “sport” under Title IX and that the disparity in the number of female and male athletes at the University violated Title IX.
 In Cohen v. Brown University (1996), the Department filed an amicus brief clarifying that Title IX requires equal participation opportunities for males and females and recognizing that a University can measure its compliance through the Department of Education’s well-established three-part test, including by assessing whether opportunities for male and female athletes are substantially proportionate to their respective levels of enrollment The Court adopted the Department’s interpretation of the three-part test for evaluating whether equal athletic 9 opportunities exist, and required relief for the women’s gymnastics and volleyball teams that the University had demoted from University-funded to donor-funded varsity status.
 Ensure that Schools Provide Equal Treatment of Men’s and Women’s Teams.

 In Cook v. Florida High School Athletic Association (2009), the Department filed an amicus brief arguing that the Florida High School Athletic Association’s decision to exempt nine times as many boys as girls from its reductions in the number of sports competitions constituted intentional discrimination under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.
Within a day of receiving the Department’s amicus brief, the Association rescinded its decision.

 In Pedersen and United States v. South Dakota High School Activities Association (2000-2003), the Department joined a case challenging the South Dakota High School Activities Association’s policy that required female athletes to play certain sports in disadvantageous seasons.
The Department negotiated an agreement requiring the school to schedule girls’ sports in the traditional, advantageous seasons, and defeated subsequent challenges to the agreement.
 In Communities for Equity v. Michigan High School Athletic Association (1999- 2001), the Department filed an amicus brief and argued at trial that the Michigan High School Athletic Association violated Title IX because it refused to sanction additional sports for girls, provided inferior facilities for some girls’ sports tournaments, and required girls to play certain sports in disadvantageous seasons.
The court recognized that the scheduling harmed female players because (unlike their male counterparts) they could not participate in special events for professional teams; often played on school nights because fall weekends were dedicated to football, which negatively impacted their schoolwork; and faced decreased ability to be nationally ranked.

The court ordered a compliance plan to remedy the discriminatory scheduling, and the other issues settled through mediation.
The Department also participated in defeating subsequent challenges to the court’s order.

DOJ’S WORK TO STRENGTHEN COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE IX AND OTHER NON-DISCRIMINATION LAWS In addition to enforcing the provisions of non-discrimination laws, the Department of Justice works to strengthen the requirements of these laws and enhance the public’s understanding of their provisions.
The Department also partners with other government agencies 10 to enforce legal requirements and provides technical assistance to promote compliance with the law.

In pursuit of these efforts, the Department:  Drafted new Title IX regulations in 2000 and developed materials to aid the public in understanding the new regulations.

Among other changes, these regulations broadened the Title IX definitions of “program or activity” and “program,” expanding protections against sex discrimination.
 Created a Title IX Legal Manual and “Questions and Answers Regarding Title IX Procedural Requirements” to assist the public’s understanding of the law by providing an overview of the legal principles of Title IX and clarifying its procedural requirements.

 Worked extensively with several federal agencies to create a Title IX Science, Technology, Education, and Math (STEM) in Higher Education Initiative.
As part of this initiative, the Department provided technical assistance to the Department of Energy, NASA, and the National Science Foundation as they conducted their first Title IX compliance reviews of specific higher education programs.

Additionally, this group organized the Federal Interagency Title IX Symposium on Gender Equity in STEM in July 2008, with approximately 200 attendees from a wide variety of federally funded agencies.
 Developed a guide to Executive Order 13160, addressing the scope of covered educational programs, applicable legal principles, examples of discriminatory conduct, enforcement procedures, remedies, and agency reporting requirements.

The Department was involved in early efforts to ensure outreach for and implementation of the Executive Order, under which the Department has coordinating authority.
THE FUTURE OF EQUALITY IN EDUCATION Despite the great progress made in advancing educational equality in the forty years since Title IX was passed, much work remains to ensure that no student is denied the full and equal benefits of education on the basis of sex.
Women continue to enter science and technology professions at lower rates than men,16 and despite their higher levels of enrollment in postsecondary education, women earn less than half of the postsecondary degrees awarded in mathematics, the physical sciences, engineering, and computer sciences.17 Moreover, women in 16 “Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being,” White House Council on Women and Girls, March 2011, p. 18.
17 “Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being,” White House Council on Women and Girls, March 2011, p. 23.

11 both high school and college continue to have proportionately fewer athletic opportunities than men.

And despite Title IX protections, some pregnant and parenting students are relegated to separate facilities or are subject to harsh absence policies.
It is because of these and the many other inequalities that still exist that the Department will continue to work aggressively, including in the ways described above, to enforce, and promote understanding of and compliance with, the non-discrimination laws.

In addition, sex-based harassment and assault continue to pose a significant threat to safe and supportive learning environments and equal educational opportunities.
In 2007, both male and female students were victims of gender-related hate words, with a greater percentage of females reporting that they were targets of hateful language related to gender.18 Students also experienced hate words related to sexual orientation.19 stereotypes remain prevalent throughout educational institutions, and both male and female students face harassment and other discrimination when they do not conform to these gender norms.
The Department has been a leader in ensuring that courts and schools interpret Title IX’s prohibition on sex-based discrimination to apply to harassment based on gender stereotypes and will continue to combat this and other odious forms of discrimination.
The Department will continue this vital work and strongly supports protections such as those embodied in the Student Nondiscrimination Act, proposed federal legislation that would expressly prohibit harassment of students in schools based on gender identity and actual or perceived sexual orientation.
Unfortunately, moreover, gender To address the serious issue of sexual assault on college campuses, the Department also recently initiated a Title IX compliance review to ensure that the University of Montana is responding swiftly and effectively to allegations of sexual assault and harassment of its students.

The Department is coordinating its review of the University with that of the U.S. Department of Education.
The Department also simultaneously launched an investigation of the University’s campus police, the local police, and the local prosecutor’s office to determine whether gender discrimination affected the prevention, investigation, or prosecution of sexual assaults by those offices.

As demonstrated by these interlinked investigations, the Department will continue to use Title IX and all of the other legal tools at its disposal to combat sex discrimination.
Moreover, working toward equality in education is necessary to address other disparities faced by women in society at large.

Currently, with 17 seats in the U.S. Senate and 73 seats in 18 Dinkes, R., Kemp, J., and Baum, K. (2009).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2009 (NCES 2010-012/ NCJ 228478).

National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Washington, D.C., p. 37.

19 Dinkes, R., Kemp, J., and Baum, K. (2009).

Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2009 (NCES 2010-012/ NCJ 228478).

National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Washington, D.C., p. 39.
12 the U.S. House, women hold only 16.8 percent of all congressional positions.20 And in a cross- country comparison of female representation in lower or single national legislatures, the United States ranked 79th worldwide.21 In the business world, women held only 14.4 percent of executive officer positions at Fortune 500 companies in 2010, as reported in one analysis,22 and although the earnings gap is narrowing, in 2010 women working full-time earned only 77 percent of the amount earned by their male counterparts.23 traditionally female occupations – unfortunately remains prevalent in the professional world.
Sex segregation – and lower pay for The equal educational opportunities for which the Department advocates will better prepare women for success in the workplace and society at large, and will enable them to take on leadership roles in the public and private sectors.

Additionally, as women achieve increased visibility in positions of leadership, more young women will benefit from these inspiring female role models.
As equality for women in education and in the workplace progresses, gender gaps throughout society, such as those related to earnings, will continue to wane.

To advance progress for women on a variety of critical fronts, the Department of Justice has been instrumental in advancing educational equality for the past forty years by enforcing and strengthening the protections of Title IX, striving to ensure that all members of the school community are protected from discrimination based on sex.
As the Supreme Court recognized in the context of race, equal opportunity in education is needed in order to provide a visible path to leadership “so that all members of our heterogeneous society may participate in the educational institutions that provide the training and education necessary to succeed in America.”24 Department remains deeply committed to ensuring that those paths are open to women as well as men and to the principle of educational equity.
The Department will continue its robust enforcement of the laws prohibiting sex-based discrimination to build on the significant progress achieved through Title IX and to ensure that its promise becomes a full reality.

The 20 “Women in Elective Office 2012,” Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

21 “Women in National Parliaments,” Inter-Parliamentary Union, May 31, 2012.
22 “2010 Catalyst Census: Fortune 500 Women Executive Officers and Top Earners,” Catalyst, December 2010.

23 “Equal Pay Task Force Accomplishments: Fighting for Fair Pay in the Workplace,” The White House, April 2012.

24 Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 332-33 (2003).

13