Mercer V. Duke University

The literature review of this article focuses on Title IX itself, as well as statistical numbers that provide the reader knowledge about the impact it has had. Title IX is a comprehensive federal law that has removed many barriers that once prevented people, on the basis of sex, from participating in educational opportunities and careers of their choice (Bower & Hums, 2013). Acosta and Carpenter (2012) reported that the number of female athletes playing college sports has risen from 16,000 in 1968 to over 200,000 in 2012. Although the increased number of opportunities has provided women the chance to participate in the sport, the percentage of women coaching women’s teams has decline over time from 90% in 1972 to 42.9% in 2012 (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012). Alongside coaching is the lack of women working in intercollegiate administration. In 1972, the percentage of female athletic directors overseeing women’s programs was 90%, Today, the percentage of female athletic directors is 20.3%, a small increase from 2010

Before Title IX was signed by President Nixon on June 23 and went into effect on July 1 of 1972, both women and young girls were excluded from many activities that men and young boys were allowed to do. Since the passing of Title IX, women have excelled in all sports tremendously. This essay will argue that because of Title IX, women can now participate in various activities and sports. Title IX of Educational Amendments prohibits sex discrimination in any educational program or activity receiving any type of financial aid, and because of this enactment made by Congress in 1972, women have left their mark on sports history.

In mid-1999, a student by the name of B.J. Durham transferred schools as a result of his mother’s divorce and financial struggles. B.J. was a cross-country/track star at his previous school, Park Tudor Private High School, and was rumored to be moving for athletically-motivated reasons. Because of the hearsay, B.J. was not granted full-eligibility by the IHSAA but partial. B.J., the plaintiff in this case, was also denied access to the Hardship Exception which would’ve granted him athletic eligibility in full. B.J. and his family took their case to court. The court issued a permanent injunction against the IHSAA’s decision, to which the IHSAA later appealed. The court stood on their decision,

While the development of this bill speaks some to the progressive spirit of the 1960s and 1970s, the public backlash to this bill says even more about the lasting impact of discrimination in educational contexts. As Edwards (2010, p. 307) notes, some of the emphasis on Title IX and athletics came from the executive branch as they tried to construct these regulations; gender discrepancies were easy to examine in the context of athletics. However, much of the public attention on Title IX and athletics—and the intense controversy surrounding Title IX—came from the backlash against women athletics. Edwards (2010) suggests that “[The] focus turned to athletics primarily because of those groups fighting against Title IX. Those opposed to Title IX, such as the NCAA and the American Football Coaches Association, drew attention to an issue that the women’s groups originally fighting for Title IX had ignored," (p. 307). Thus, in attempt to quell the encroaching threat of female athletics, groups that opposed Title IX’s role in defending female athletes stoked the flames of controversy that transformed the public understanding and the meaning of the bill.

Seven years later, the Supreme Court, in Ewing, revisited the question of whether a university student has a property interest in his education. In Ewing, the University of Michigan dismissed a student for failing an

Hopkins v. Price-Waterhouse is a very detailed case, that features many aspects of the patriarchy, and lingering ways of thinking about gender that are hopefully being phased out of modern society. The Supreme Court chose not to make a ruling, which was the right decision in a legal sense, though there was more proof that Hopkins was discriminated against.

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision of Warford v. Lexington News-Herald is an example of how the court defined an assistant basketball coach at the University of Pittsburgh as a private figure. Reggie Warford complained about allegations of recruiting improperties that he committed as an assistant basketball coach. The issue at hand was originally posted in the 1985 Lexington Herald, but were reprinted in 1986 under a special NCAA reprint publication entitled 1985: A Year of Crisis in College Athletics. The 1986 publication is the source of the libel dispute.

Facts: Safford Unified School District and April Redding, The dispute of this case is when Savannah’s privacy became violated when Safford School District stripped search her and revealed some private areas and her upper chest area. It got to the Supreme Court, when the district court reward a motion, then the Ninth circuit court reversed the ruling on the strip search because it was unconstitutional for them to strip search Savannah the second time.., The Supreme Court used New Jersey VS. T.L.O in the process of helping in the decision because in that case it was school officials searching a girls pursue because they had reasonable doubt that she was carrying cigs and had a list of the people that owed

In some cases a schools decision to cut sports in order to comply with Title IX has lead to a lawsuit. An example of this would be Miami University. The university formed a committee to address the issue of Title IX compliance and hired a consultant as well. "The committee and consultant determined that in order to comply with Title IX, the university had the option of eliminating a few sports for men. As a result, the university eliminated the men's soccer, wrestling and tennis teams, effective at the end of the 1999 spring semester (Challenge 2002)." On November 18, 1999, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendants, claming that the defendants' elimination of the men's wrestling, tennis and soccer programs at Miami University, a state university of the State of Ohio and a recipient of federal funds, constituted gender discrimination in violation of the 20 U.S.C.& et seq. And violated their rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment (United 2002). The court found that the plaintiffs failed

Over two decades have passed since the enactment of Title IX, a federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded education, including athletics. As a result of Title IX, women and girls have benefited from more athletic participation opportunities and more equitable facilities. Because of Title IX, more women have received athletic scholarships and thus opportunities for higher education that some may not have been able to afford otherwise. In addition, because of Title IX the salaries of coaches for women's teams have increased. Despite the obstacles women face in athletics, many women have led and are leading the way to gender equity.

This article specifically focuses on gender issues and the possible harm that Title IX has caused on male sports while trying to help females. It discusses the college’s decisions about how to adjust to Title IX, such as whether cutting male programs is really a

The landmark Supreme Court cases of Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas have had a tremendous effect on the struggle for equal rights in America. These marker cases have set the precedent for cases dealing with the issue of civil equality for the last 150 years.

Legal Question: The legal issue presented in this case ultimately questioned the University of Michigan’s admission policy which sought a more diverse student body. The court addressed whether the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in the admission process violated

In 1994, a new case, Hopwood v. The University of Texas, was ruled on by the circuit court and interpreted in such a manner as to effectively end affirmative action in higher education for the states of Texas and Louisiana. The plaintiffs for the case were four applicants to the law school of The University of Texas, each of whom were denied admission while minority applicants with lower

Title IX, a federal law prohibiting exclusion or limitation of participation in athletics or any other activity based on gender, in all aspects supersedes the state law cited by the coaches who administered the test. Seeing as this test blatantly disregards this law, Miss Ham is requesting that either all hopefuls must be subjected that which what she and Miss Srikumar were, or this convention must stop being practiced. Either this ridiculous and biased practice must stop or this will be required for all hopeful participants to make this test no longer biased, unjust, and