Where’s Our Entitlement:
Why Title IX Should Not Be the Only Legislation Protecting Girls in Sports
When the topic of women’s sports comes up, the first and foremost mentioned legislation is always Title IX. As the main legislation addressing the issue of gender inequality in sports, Title IX “prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities in federally funded schools at all levels.” (U.S. Department of Education 5). Despite good intentions, the problem is that while Title IX addresses school athletics, namely high school and college, discrimination in sports starts much sooner. The issue of gender inequality in sports cannot solely be solved by fixing inequality at the college level and expecting equality to trickle down. It must start at the beginning, when girls first start playing sports. Title IX does not address the unequal playing field for young girls playing sports before they reach an age and skill level that it addresses. Legislation must be passed to combat this inequality at the source: adolescent recreational sports.
Even as our society as a whole moves closer to gender equality, the sports world lags far behind. For young girls wanting to become more active in sports, discrimination threatens at every turn. Cultural influences, such as discrimination, can affect young children not only in the present, but can shape them into the adults that they will become (Brake 92). Young children, easily affected by these cultural influences, are the perfect opportunity for legislators to have a larger impact in changing views towards girls in sports. Legislators have taken an unprecedentedly aggressive route for antidiscrimination laws through Title IX in forcing equality in sports, but they are defending the girls who have already survived discrimination. Legislation needs to instead focus on young girls that are starting out, too young to be able to hold their own and much more easily discouraged. Promoting equality at the earliest level will have a bigger impact on women’s equality in sports than focusing on high school and college will (Brake 37).
While Title IX is valuable, having Title IX as the only legislation promoting gender equality in sports only benefits those who have already beaten the inequality that the law was meant to protect them from. It assists the girls who overcame discrimination and, instead of being discouraged, succeeded enough in athletics to rise to a high school or college level. The three-part test (three options for a school to choose from to meet in order to qualify as meeting Title IX) for equal participation opportunities in college sports is Title IX’s most aggressive policy. Most lawsuits filed against schools under Title IX are filed by college students, which highlights its focus on college sports. On average, 55% of high school students make high school teams (Koebler). Of those high school athletes, only about 7% are able to rise to college sports (NCAA), Assuming that the 55% is equally male and female (an assumption that gives the benefit of the doubt), Title IX is at most reaching barely over half of the female high school population. In reality, Title IX’s scope of influence is mostly centered on college athletics, meaning that if the 7% of high school athletes that become college athletes is again equally male and female, then Title IX’s outreach is only really benefiting about 4% of females.
When girls bring up mistreatment in sports they are often met with “this doesn’t happen anymore” or “you’re overreacting.” This is not an overreaction. I live in Montgomery County Maryland, one of the most liberal and diverse areas of this country and yet I have played on rec teams which scheduled my team on a field littered with broken glass, I have played games with less experienced umpires, I have been given worse practice times and hand-me-down equipment from the boys team, and still I have been more privileged than most. Many have argued that Title IX is no longer necessary, that women and men’s sports are equal by now and Title IX is frivolous. In an op-ed piece for ESPN about Title IX, author Gregg Easterbrook wrote, “The…38-year-old rule, designed for circumstances that no longer exist, today mainly [serves] to make government look ridiculous.” Title IX is clearly still necessary–if we examine just the aspect of money in sports we see that for every one dollar that has been added to pay for women’s sports since the passing of Title IX, two have been added to pay for men’s sports (Carpenter 176). Some have argued that even though fewer girls participate in athletics at a higher level than boys, Title IX promotes an unproportionate amount of female athletes to the college level, giving female athletes an advantage in higher sports; therefore groups such as Equality in Athletics, an anti Title IX group, see no need for further legislation. Anti Title IX advocates don’t ask the important question of why fewer girls participate in athletics at a higher level. During the landmark case Cohen v Brown, which shut down the idea that girls are inherently less interested in sports, the First Circuit Court issued this official statement: “Interest and ability rarely develop in a vacuum; they evolve as a function of opportunity and experience. The Policy Interpretation recognizes that women’s lower rate of participation in athletics reflects women’s historical lack of opportunities to participate in sports” (Fd.3 108).
Why do fewer girls play sports at a higher level? Is it because higher level teams for girls are harder to find? Or that girls are discouraged from being overly athletic because it makes them seem more masculine? Or the fact that in coed sports, male players are given more playing time than females whether they are better athletes or not? Maybe it’s the fact that female sporting equipment is harder to find, or that female athletes get worse equipment, worse practice times, worse practice facilities, worse coaches, and after a certain point, they may stop playing.
Gender discrimination in sports begins before children are old enough to even play sports. Girls are taught that they are slower, weaker, smaller, and less competitive, before these differences present themselves physically or mentally. Our society quickly separates girls and boys into “feminine” and “masculine” sports which best fit the stereotypes we have for each sex, making sex differences seem more natural and significant than they actually are (Kane 191-218). Young girls are discouraged across the board when it comes to recreational sports. The issue of discrimination starts when a girl signs up for a team. She is faced with a choice: coed or single sex?
Why We Need Change
Choosing between coed and single sex represents a difficult decision for young girls. It is important that the choice between coed and single sex is protected, for each option has advantages (McDonagh). Deborah L. Brake, a law professor, explores the benefits of coed (“integration”) and single sex (“separation”) options: “Separation has the advantage of broadening female participation in sports, avoiding tokenism, and enabling more creative and substantive measures of equality than a gender blind structure would allow. Integration has the advantage of subverting the gender classification system that privileged male athletes and channels them into more ‘masculine’ sports.” Despite these advantages for coed and single sex, both options need reform. No matter which choice she makes between coed and single sex the young girl loses. How then can those two choices at present be allowed to continue the way they are? Until girls are equal in sports, both the coed and single sex option will pose different forms of discrimination against female athletes. Coed teams will limit young girls playing times, opting to play their male counterparts instead, while single sex teams will receive worse treatment from rec organizations, deeming girls teams as second rate to the boys teams which receive more funding. If young girls and their parents are choosing coed or single sex based on factors such as trying to avoid discrimination instead of whether or not young girls want to play with boys or just girls, there is clearly a fundamental flaw in how we treat young female athletes.
On coed teams, young girls face the advantages of better funding, equipment, coaching, fields, practice times, and officials than do young girls on single sex teams. The reason for this better treatment is because they share a team with boys who have gotten better resources from many recreational organizations. With those advantages, though, come major drawbacks. One such drawback is that young girls are given less playing time than their male counterparts regardless of skill level (Wachs 29). Another major drawback is that coaches are more likely to criticize and demean girls abilities as opposed to instructing and encouraging the boys (Landers 92). This discrimination on coed teams creates a vicious cycle proclaiming that girls are naturally less athletic than boys at all ages. Stereotypes regarding girls and boys athletic abilities result in different treatment of male and female athletes, leaving them at a disadvantage athletically and causing at least in part the gap in skill level between boys and girls in coed sports. Sports anthropologist Faye Linda Wachs’ study of adult coed softball revealed there were multiple different strategies to keep women down in coed sports. Women on these teams were “ignored, placed in devalued positions (positions to where the ball is rarely hit), and they do not receive the same instruction and encouragement as the boys” (Wachs 29). Additionally, women were given less playing time and when balls were hit to their position, and their male teammates would call them off and take the ball themselves (Wachs 29). These same tactics are used in adolescent recreational sports when coaches believe that male athletes are superior to female athletes. My father, a softball coach, has many times attempted to convince parents of girls on coed baseball teams to switch over to softball when coaches told parents, “We won’t play your daughter anymore, she has no future in baseball.” Coaches are also more likely to correct and encourage young boys (who they believe have a future in sports and therefore they deem worthy), and criticize young girls (who they believe are inherently not as athletic and therefore a lost cause). The study conducted by Melissa Landers and Gary Fine, sociology professors, found that coaches, whether male or female, reinforce gender inequality in coed sports.
If a young girl chooses a single sex team, she is faced with the advantage of more playing time as well as more encouraging and nurturing coaches. At the same time though, she is faced with the discouragement of less funding, worse equipment, worse instructional coaching, fields, practice times, and officials. Even though young girls increase in skill level and confidence because of single sex teams, they are still often discouraged by the discrimination against their team by their recreational organization. This practice creates a feedback loop of demeaning girls sports through the organization’s treatment of them, but then using the unpopularity of girls sports (at least part of which is caused by organization’s treatment of girls sports) to justify the mistreatment of the single sex girls teams. Mistreating girls teams is very common, as demonstrated by the many Title IX lawsuits filed over mistreatment of girls teams. For example, when Elizabeth Choike and her teammates sued Slippery Rock University “for discriminating against female athletes in the provision of facilities, equipment, coaching, and scheduling for women’s sports” (Brake 143). There have been many lawsuits filed against schools regarding the blatant mistreatment of girls teams under Title IX’s equal treatment standards;
Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodates the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
The provision of equipment and supplies;
Scheduling of games and practice times;
Travel and per diem allowance;
Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;
Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
Provision of locker rooms and practice and competitive facilities;
Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
Publicity.
This obvious mistreatment of girls teams is not limited to high school and college, but occurs in recreational sports all the time. Girls teams are seen as lesser than boys teams by many recreational organizations and are treated as such (Brake 15). Brad Broseker, founder of Red Raiders, an all-girls organization, and coaches like him have broken away from local recreational organizations and formed all-girls leagues because of mistreatment of girls teams.
Discrimination exists regardless of whether a girl chooses to play on coed or single sex teams. When a young child wants to start a sport, he or she needs equipment. When parents enter a sporting goods store with their child, they are instantly surrounded by numerous equipment options for little boys in juxtaposition to the one or two girls options of pink plastic sporting equipment. How are female athletes ever going to be equal when they must, before they have ever even played the sport, find specialized stores and pay more to buy even the most basic equipment? District courts in Michigan have stated psychological damage of treating girls unequally saying, “When girls are treated unequally as compared to boys, girls receive the psychological message that they are “second-class” or that their athletic role is of less value than that of boys” (Supp. 2d 837). The court’s statement applies to all aspects of inequality, including less access to sporting equipment. When young girls walk into a sports store and are only provided with limited and usually non competitive equipment, they are being told that they are not expected to play sports and that their sporting needs are less important. Many girls end up buying boys sporting equipment and play with it up to a certain level. The psychological message to girls is reinforced when they are forced to purchase boys equipment due to a lack of equipment for girls. At a certain point in their athletic participation, girls do need specialized equipment and buying boys equipment will no longer fit the bill. At this time, parents are forced to invest time and money towards finding specialized stores for their daughters, whereas boys the same age can walk into any sports store. Similarly, when young girls look through sports catalogues they are met with little female representation. When we fail to provide accurate representation to girls in sporting catalogues we underplay the role women play in sports, alienating young girls.
The issue of gender inequality is athletics is not hidden, but rather obvious. It is dismissed by many as not important when sexism exists all around us in “more” important forms. Gender equality in sports is important. Being involved in athletic activities has proven to increase self esteem, lower stress levels as well as lower incidences of depression, anxiety, and suicide, cause better performance in schools, better social relationships, improve overall health, and for girls, reduce risk of pregnancy (Brake 6). Sports are not just entertainment, they are an important piece of a healthy lifestyle that is being made more difficult to achieve for half the population because of gender discrimination. Women will never be equal until they are equal on every front, no matter how seemingly small and trivial to some. Creating and passing legislation regarding gender equality in adolescent recreational sports may seem like niche legislation, but its effect would be widespread and more helpful in combating gender inequality than Title IX’s narrower approach. Creating legislation to address gender inequality in adolescent recreational sports is the only viable next step to combating gender inequality in sports.
Legislation
New legislation must be created to address the inequality and discrimination girls face in sports. This legislation must focus on coed teams, single sex teams, and sporting goods stores. It would set standards for recreational organizations to follow, giving female athletes protection under the law and the ability to file suit if they continue to face discriminatory conditions.
Before legislation can be created addressing equality on existing recreational teams, there must be legislation protecting equal opportunities for girls to play on said teams. This can be done by refitting part of Title IX towards recreational sports. One of the lasting legacies of Title IX is the three-part test for equal participation opportunities. The test states that federally funded institutions must:
“Provide ‘intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments’
‘Show a history of continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of [the underrepresented] sex;’or
Demonstrate that ‘the interests and abilities of the members of [the underrepresented] sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.’” (Title IX)
A modification of the three part test, focusing on the third part, could be applied to recreational organizations in order to make sure they provide not only an adequate number of teams for female athletes, but positions on coed teams for female athletes. This part of the test can be applied to recreational organizations in a way which would allow young girls legal protection if their needs are not met. At the same time, the lack of the first part of the test would shield the new legislation from the common complaint of “quota” legislation which Title IX must constantly defend itself from. One of the greatest advantages of Title IX is that the “legal standards that emerged [in Title IX] are unusually substantive and results oriented for U.S. antidiscrimination law” (Brake 68). This aggressive method of legislation, which has made Title IX one of arguably the most effective antidiscrimination laws, must be continued in this new legislation.
The first part that should be addressed in the more specific legislation is inequality on coed teams. Legislation would need to lay out guidelines for recreational organization’s rules on equal playing times for male and female athletes. Specific rules would be created for each sport with the assistance of sports experts. An example of this might be that on baseball teams with both male and female athletes, every player must play a minimum of four innings in a nine inning game or an amount proportionate to the ratio 4:9 depending on number of innings played. Rules such as these set out for every sport would directly combat intentional or unintentional discrimination of coaches sitting girl players out and playing male players instead. It must be clarified that the rules would set minimums for playing times not maximum; individual athletes would still be able to play the whole game. For certain sports, rules would have to be laid out for recreational organizations regarding playing time in each position. Naturally, when creating these rules for each sport, sports experts would have to be consulted. Continuing with the coed baseball example, one example might be that, on baseball teams with both male and female athletes, every player may only play in the same position for a maximum of two innings. Rules such as this would help combat girls being placed in “lesser” positions for all of their playing time. Requiring a minimum playing time for all players and a maximum playing time at one position would encourage coaches to teach the necessary skills for each position equally to boys and girls.
It must be clarified that this legislation is for recreational sports only. Athletes that may feel limited by by a maximum amount of playing time in one position may move on to travel teams in which playing time is determined by skill. The benefit of recreational sports is that they are a place where all children can play no matter their skill level, thus making protection of all athletes playing time important. An educational outreach program should be created in order to inform coaches of common and often unintentional differences in how they treat male versus female athletes. This educational outreach program would not only bring to light the different ways coaches currently treat their athletes of different sexes, but would also outline how coaches can overcome these different treatments and benefit all of their players. This program could be created by child developmental experts as well as coaches in order to effectively address the best methods for helping boys and girls as well as the best coaching methods. This program can be made available online and recreational organizations who use this program can become accredited. Accreditation would give incentive to recreational organizations to use the program in order to appeal to parents of female athletes.
The second part that needs to be addressed is gender equality for all female teams. Once girls are allowed on the field and given a team, we must then protect the equality of all female teams. Organizations that have all male teams, coed teams, and/or all female teams must be governed in order to make sure all teams are treated equally regardless of the sex of the athletes. Legislation should address recreational organizations with teams of multiple sex makeups. These clubs must be required to provide equal funding, equipment, coaching, fields, courts, indoor and outdoor facilities, practice times, and officials to all of their teams of the same sport, no matter the sex of the team’s athletes. We cannot simply declare that certain aspects must be equal, guidelines must be made and set for each individual aspect. An example might be that the fields that an organization plays on throughout the season must be observed before the beginning of the season and their safety and playability be deemed acceptable. Any fields less fit than other fields may not have the games of any one team scheduled on them more frequently than those of other teams in the organization. Rules such as this would not allow for discrimination of all female teams to occur through the recreational club. Earlier, Title IX’s 10 equal treatment standards were laid out. A creation of new equal treatment standards, which would line up with guidelines set out for individual aspects can be made for recreational sports. These standards may relate to quality of officials, uniforms, game times, etc.
The last part of the legislation must address the gender gap in availability of sporting equipment. This section of legislation should target the major sporting good stores around the country with the biggest consumer bases. Sporting goods stores should be encouraged to provide more female equipment options and be given government incentives when this is provided. More female sporting equipment will lead to higher revenues for sporting good stores (Kell), allowing the stores to gain from these incentives. Standards should be established and published for the proportions of female equipment versus male equipment offered in stores. Government incentives will not be offered to stores unless specific and definite criteria are met by stores. These criteria must be strict and ambitious, such as the requirement that sporting goods stores with options of metal and non-metal cleats in store must provide both options to both sexes in stores. Sporting goods stores would not necessarily need to meet every criteria set out, but a certain pre-set percentage in order to qualify for government investment. Legislation must also address female representation in catalogs. Stores must meet standards for not only equipment in store, but also for female representation in sports catalogs by said store in order for that store to qualify for government incentives. Unambiguous standards for female representation in catalogues should be set, such as requiring women to be represented in catalogues that cater to both sexes as not just viewers but participants in athletics. Female representation in catalogues is important in changing the societal perception of women in sports.
Potential Outcomes
The importance of passing legislation addressing gender equality in recreational sports is not lost on female athletes. Title IX, a law which has many similarities to the proposed legislation, has in its short life increased women’s participation in high school sports from 1 in every 27 to 2 in 5 (Dusenbery). If legislation was to be written and passed, the benefits would be almost immediately apparent. Each of the three main areas that should be addressed in any potential laws regarding gender equality in adolescent recreational sports would demonstrate marked improvement in promoting and creating more equality in sports. The more girls that stay in sports, and the better the resources to girls in sports, the more opportunities for the next Serena Williams or Simone Biles to come from a young girl who may have otherwise been discouraged. Likewise, the more girls that play and continue to stay in sports, the more parents will be able to view women’s sports as competitive sports worth viewing and societal views towards college and professional women’s sports can change.
The first target should be legislation that addresses the inequality female athletes face on coed teams. Coed teams will finally be equal when female athletes play the same amount of time as, play the same caliber of positions as, and receive the same coaching as their male counterparts. This will allow girls to be treated as athletic equals to boys at this young age. Treating girls as athletic equals on coed teams will benefit girls athletic experience overall. Competing with boys can give girls something to strive for competitively and can raise the caliber of female athletes and female athletic competition when these girls later move to single sex teams. Educational outreach to coaches in order to confront them with their, intentional or not, unequal coaching of female athletes, will allow for drastic coaching improvement to occur. Young girls will be lifted up and taught instead of discouraged, allowing them to experience sports in a positive and constructive environment previously barred from them due to their sex. Education outreach towards coaches would assist in dismantling false prejudices against young girl’s athletic abilities. Dismantling these false ideas of girl’s athletic abilities can cause girls to be respected and seen as serious athletes.
In conjunction with the first objective, once female single sex teams are provided with equal treatment to male single sex teams, female athletes on single sex teams will finally be treated as equal. Suddenly, girls who refused to join single sex teams due to fear of bad conditions can join without fear of playing on fields with broken glass, practice times that may make staying on the team nearly impossible, and officials who are incompetent or simply don’t care. Girls that beforehand avoided girls’ teams because of conditions can now enjoy the social experience of bonding with members of their same sex in an athletic setting. The bonds that young girls create with each other in sports can last long past the team has dissolved. Single sex teams also give girls a place where they feel they belong despite whatever else may be occurring in their life. Better treatment of female single sex teams can lead to better teams and raise the level of play in girls sports overall. Contentment with the way they are treated in sports will only add to the benefits of young girls playing sports in the first place and lead to that much better of a quality of life.
The third area of coverage may take the longest to show improvement because of its nature, but is nevertheless important to the equality of female athletes. Once equality is achieved for female athletes, the demand for female sporting equipment will rise to a level justifying sporting goods stores providing equal amounts of sporting equipment for girls and boys. Young female athletes must be given easy access to basic sporting equipment in order to be able to compete with their male counterparts, and so more equipment options will allow girls to start on an equal playing field. Similarly, more representation in sports catalogues will assist in changing societal perception of women as athletes, assisting in the treatment of girls as actual athletes.
Athletics activities are immensely beneficial to young girls and boys, improving their mental health, academic performance, and physical health, to name a few benefits. Participating in sports improves the quality of life for young athletes and prepares them better for adult life. When athletic activities are viewed in this light as opposed to being viewed as just a source of entertainment, it becomes apparent why the barring of females throughout this aspect of our daily life is an issue we as a society should strive to combat. Sexism is a deeply rooted prejudice which must be attacked in all aspects of our society in order to overcome it; sports are not an exception. In fact, sports and their value in our society highlight the idealization of traditionally masculine traits and the rejection of females straying from their traditionally more docile role in society. Sports are one of the most important areas to achieve gender equality in because of its prevalence in shaping our society. Once sports make gains in gender equality, the strong and harmful images of masculinity and femininity that pervade our society through athletics will be dismantled. Overcoming sexism in sports is a crucial step to overcoming sexism in our society. Legislation regarding adolescent recreational sports is the next step we need to take to combat sexism.