Opinion ID: 194677
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Policy Interpretation.

Text: following the initial issuance of the regulations, HEW received 9The same regulation also stipulates that: Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but [DED] may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex. 34 C.F.R. 106.41(c) (1992). 14 over one hundred discrimination complaints involving more than fifty schools. In order to encourage self-policing and thereby winnow complaints, HEW proposed a Policy Interpretation. See 43 Fed. Reg. 58,070 (1978). It then promulgated the Policy Interpretation in final form, see 44 Fed. Reg. 71,413 (1979), a matter of months before the effective date of the statute through which Congress, emulating King Solomon, split HEW. The parties are in agreement that, at DED's birth, it clutched the Policy Interpretation, and, as a practical matter, that appears to be the case.10 See, e.g., DED, Title IX Athletics Investigator's Manual 1, 2 (1990) (Manual); see also Complaint Letter from Regional Civil Rights Director, DED, to Dr. Martin Massengale, Chancellor, Univ. of Nebraska (July 10, 1989) (noting that DED ha[s] followed the directions provided in the Policy Interpretation); Complaint Letter from Regional Civil Rights Director, DED, to Dr. Charles A. Walker, Chancellor, Univ. of Arkansas (Sept. 1, 1989) (same). Although we can find no record that DED formally adopted the Policy Interpretation, we see no point to splitting the hair, particularly where the parties have not asked us to do so. Because this document is a considered interpretation of the regulation, we cede it substantial deference. See Martin v. OSHRC, 111 S. Ct. 1171, 1175-76 (1991); 10Congress clearly assigned HEW's regulatory duties in education to the nascent DED. See 20 U.S.C. 3441. Moreover, in taking up its mantle, DED adopted exactly the regulation which the Policy Interpretation purported to interpret sending an unmistakably clear signal of the agency's satisfaction with the Policy Interpretation. 15 Gardebring v. Jenkins, 485 U.S. 415, 430 (1988). In line with the Supreme Court's direction that, if we are to give [Title IX] the scope that its origins dictate, we must accord it a sweep as broad as its language, North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 521 (1982) (quoting United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 801 (1966)) (collecting cases) (brackets in original), the Policy Interpretation limns three major areas of regulatory compliance:11 Athletic Financial Assistance (Scholarships), see 34 C.F.R. 106.37(c); Equivalence in Other Athletic Benefits and Opportunities, see 34 C.F.R. 106.41(c)(2)-(10); and Effective Accommodation of Student Interests and Abilities, see 34 C.F.R. 106.41(c)(1). The court below, see Cohen, 809 F. Supp. at 989, and a number of other district courts, see, e.g., Roberts v. Colorado State Univ., F. Supp. , (D. Colo. 1993) [No. 92-Z-1310, slip op. at 3]; Favia v. Indiana Univ. of Pa., No. 92-2045, 1992 WL 436239, at  (W.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 1993), have adopted this formulation and ruled that a university violates Title IX if it ineffectively accommodates student interests and abilities regardless of its performance in other Title IX areas. Equal opportunity to participate lies at the core of Title IX's purpose. Because the third compliance area delineates this heartland, we agree with the district courts that have so ruled and hold that, with regard to the effective accommodation 11The Manual divides Title IX coverage into the same three areas and notes that an investigation may be limited to less than all three of these major areas. Manual at 7. 16 of students' interests and abilities, an institution can violate Title IX even if it meets the financial assistance and athletic equivalence standards. In other words, an institution that offers women a smaller number of athletic opportunities than the statute requires may not rectify that violation simply by lavishing more resources on those women or achieving equivalence in other respects.12 3. Measuring Effective Accommodation. The parties