•HRES 735 IH 
Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Guidance 
Regarding Title IX Compliance’’ (‘‘Further Clarifica-
tion’’) which reaffirmed that the three-part test is flexible 
and fair, specifically incorporated the factors and exam-
ples set forth in the 1996 Clarification, and pledged to 
aggressively enforce title IX standards; 
Whereas the 2003 Further Clarification followed the Depart-
ment’s establishment of a Commission on Opportunity in 
Athletics, which Commission made recommendations for 
changes to the title IX athletics policies that would have 
seriously weakened title IX’s protections and resulted in 
significant losses in participation opportunities and schol-
arships to which young women are legally entitled; 
Whereas the recommendations made by the Commission on 
Opportunity in Athletics triggered massive public opposi-
tion and generated thousands of communications to the 
Department, the White House, and the Congress sup-
porting the maintenance of the then-current title IX ath-
letics policies without change; 
Whereas the 2003 Further Clarification represented the De-
partment’s rejection of the Commission’s recommenda-
tions; 
Whereas the Department, without notice or opportunity for 
public input, issued an ‘‘Additional Clarification of Inter-
collegiate Athletics Policy: Three-Part Test—part Three’’ 
on March 17, 2005 (‘‘Additional Clarification’’), which 
allows schools to demonstrate full accommodation of 
women’s athletic interests under the third part of the 
three-part test solely by conducting an e-mail survey and 
further allows schools to treat a lack of response to the 
survey as a lack of interest in playing additional sports; 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
21:49 Mar 17, 2006
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR735.IH
HR735
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
•HRES 735 IH 
Whereas the Additional Clarification is inconsistent with the 
1996 Clarification and with basic principles of equity 
under title IX because it, among other problems (1) per-
mits schools to use surveys alone, rather than the mul-
tiple factors set forth in the 1996 Clarification, as a 
means to demonstrate full accommodation of women’s 
athletic interests, (2) conflicts with a key purpose of title 
IX—to encourage women’s interests in sports and elimi-
nate stereotypes that discourage them from participating, 
(3) allows schools to restrict surveys to enrolled and ad-
mitted students, thereby permitting them to evade their 
legal obligation to measure interest broadly, (4) author-
izes a flawed survey methodology, including by allowing 
schools to count non-responses as evidence of lack of in-
terest in additional sports opportunities, (5) shifts the 
burden to female students to show that they are inter-
ested in and entitled to additional participation opportu-
nities, and (6) makes no provision for the Department of 
Education to monitor schools’ implementation of the sur-
vey or its results; 
Whereas for these reasons, the Additional Clarification makes 
it easier for colleges and universities to evade their legal 
obligation to provide equal opportunity in sports and vio-
lates the Department’s 2003 commitment to strongly en-
force long-standing title IX standards; 
Whereas for these reasons, the Additional Clarification is 
likely to be found to violate the standards of title IX as 
explained in relevant court cases; and 
Whereas for these reasons, the Additional Clarification 
threatens to reverse the enormous progress women and 
girls have made in sports since the enactment of title IX 
and to slow, if not stop, efforts to address the continuing 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
21:49 Mar 17, 2006
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR735.IH
HR735
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS