Linda Purrington (lpurring@earthlink.net)
Sat, 12 Dec 1998 13:57:03 -0800
Argh! Hey! Please note that this newspaper article (below)
makes--intentionally?--the mistake of calling Title IX a law that make
athletic discrimination illegal. It does that, but only in the context
of schools/colleges receiving federal dollars,and in addition Title IX
is MUCH more. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is the
federal law that bans ALL discrimination on the basis of sex in
schools/colleges. Singling Title IX out as only for athletes permits the
right wing to isolate and silence those who understand that sexual
harassment, for example, is one of the most prevalent and effective
tools of women's oppression, especially in school.
And it is under ferocious attack--of course. The latest attack
last summer was Gebser v. Lago Vista, which raised the standard of proof of
violation. The next is Davis v. Monroe County, which the U.S. Supreme
Court will hear in January. Davis will raise the question of whether or
not schools/colleges have any obligation at all to prevent or stop
sexual harassment by a student's peers. A long list of women's
organizations and civil rights organizations, including Title IX
Advocates, have signed on the amicus curiae [friend of the court] brief
prepared by the National Women's Law Center, NOW Legal Defense and
Education Fund [independent of National Organization of Women], and the
law offices of Horvitz & Levy in Encino, CA.
If Aurelia Davis and all the other female students in the United
States are left to fight alone against the barrage of sexual harassment they
face every day, they will not be able to secure and advance the gains
the women's movement has made to date. It is time for women who have
made their mark in the world to begin to give money, time, and thought
to Title IX. Take the next generation seriously; they are our children,
whether or not we gave them birth. And they are the future of the
world.
Would you like the names of the organixations who have signed on
to the amicus brief? These organizations need our support. Let's do a little
Ho-Ho-Hoing in celebration of the season!
Linda Purrington
Title IX Advocates
lpurring@earthlink.net
tixad@hotmail.com
Jennifer Gagliardi wrote:
>
> LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Discrimination complaints to be filed
> against Southern California and UCLA allege the schools aren't in
> compliance with Title IX, a law requiring equal opportunities for
> female athletes.
> The California National Organization for Women planned to file
> the complaints today with the U.S. Department of Education's Office
> for Civil Rights, said Linda Joplin, head of NOW's Athletic Equity
> Committee.
> ``I hope that both USC and UCLA take a serious look at their
> compliance at all levels, and use this opportunity to make the
> changes that should have been made 10, 15, 20 years ago,'' she said
> Thursday.
> Congress passed Title IX in 1972, requiring schools that receive
> federal money to provide equal opportunities for female athletes.
> NOW wants the Office for Civil Rights to conduct in-depth
> investigations of athletic compliance at both universities.
> If violations are found, the schools can negotiate a compliance
> agreement with the OCR. Law allows for the withholding of federal
> funding for schools not in compliance, but that rarely occurs,
> Joplin said.
> NOW said it reviewed the last three years of Equity in Athletics
> Disclosure Act reports for UCLA and the last two years for USC.
> Among its findings was that UCLA's women's basketball team was
> allocated $295,684 for operating expenses in 1997-1998, while the
> men's team received $552,241 -- 1.8 times as much.
> ``I think we can stand behind what we've done for our women
> student-athletes. What we're doing isn't a smoke screen,'' said
> Betsy Stephenson, associate athletics director at UCLA. ``I believe
> we have a commitment and a plan to be in compliance with Title
> IX.''
> Joplin doesn't agree that because UCLA men's basketball
> generates more revenue than the less successful women's team, the
> men should receive greater funding. The UCLA men were national
> champions in 1995.
> ``There's a lot of cases around the country where women's teams
> are filling up the available space in the auditoriums and bringing
> in just as much money,'' Joplin said. ``With the proper support,
> that can happen, and that brings in more money for the whole
> program.''
> Stephenson said UCLA doesn't compare funding for the men's and
> women's basketball teams. ``We fund our programs to be nationally
> competitive,'' she said.
> At USC, the women's basketball team received $129,626 for
> expenses in 1996-1997, while the men's team received $809,570 --
> more than six times as much.
> Todd Dickey, general counsel for USC, said the football and
> men's basketball teams raise most of the money needed to support
> the athletic program.
> ``At USC, most of the women's teams are funded by money that's
> raised from the two men's sports,'' he said. ``Men's basketball
> generates many times the revenue that women's basketball
> generates.''
> NOW also wants UCLA to upgrade women's lacrosse and women's crew
> to varsity status by the start of the 1999-2000 academic year. They
> have been club sports since 1992, the last year UCLA added soccer
> and water polo as varsity sports for women.
> Stephenson said lacrosse and crew would not be upgraded.
> USC added soccer and water polo for women in 1993, and now has
> 10 women's sports compared with nine for men. NOW wants the school
> to add varsity women's softball and lacrosse. Dickey said USC would
> consider it.
> ``We have been looking into various ways to increase
> participation in women's sports and to generally equalize the men's
> and women's sports programs,'' he said. ``I think most universities
> with athletic programs have room for improvement.''
>
Forwarded by Linda Purrington
Title IX Advocates
lpurring@earthlink.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Dec 14 1998 - 09:52:09 EST