Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiTitle IX: Ensures Equality in Education
Recent efforts by federal agencies to verify university compliance with Title IX are under scrutiny. Some claim Title IX compliance reviews are a "new" way to apply the law to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), but this law has been applicable to all educational programs receiving federal funds for 36 years. Title IX compliance can open the doors to the so-called "male-typical pursuits" in STEM fields to women, just as equal opportunity mandates have done for once-closed careers of firefighters, police officers and military personnel.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. It requires gender equity for boys and girls, men and women in every educational program that receives federal funding -- not just in college sports. It also authorizes and directs federal funding agencies to implement the provisions of the law.
A 2004 Government Accountability Office report noted that the federal agencies have not discharged their obligations to ensure that educational institutions comply with the statues. In fact, most only passively receive statements of compliance with Title IX -- usually in the form of a pro forma assertion.
Title IX compliance reviews can help to confirm that academic institutions receiving federal funding establish a climate that ensures a representation of women in STEM disciplines that reflects their level of interest. Any difference in participation, then, is a result of the personal interests of women and not due to environmental factors that discourage them from entering or remaining in these fields.
There have been several recent articles arguing that women don't want to be scientists and engineers, and that those of us advocating for more women in these fields are not acknowledging innate gender-specific career inclinations. In fact, the problems encountered by women considering a STEM career vary by discipline. The low number of women earning degrees in physics, chemistry, computer science and engineering is often attributed to a lack of interest, but the fact that many women with excellent academic performance enter but later abandon these fields suggests otherwise.
Asking federal agencies to complete Title IX compliance reviews will not lead to a quota system. No one is suggesting that the number of men participating in science careers be cut to achieve gender parity in participation. Rather, such reviews can help to create an academic environment in which more women -- and men -- can succeed.
The arguments against conducting compliance reviews completely ignore a large body of recent research exploring reasons for the poor retention of women in science and engineering fields and examining the issues that female students and faculty confront. They avoid the question of why women scientists are not showing expected career advancement even in fields where they earn 50 percent of the degrees.
Women enter faculty positions in engineering and physics roughly in proportion to their presence in the PhD pool, but then gradually disappear from higher ranks. This pattern suggests a discouraging environment once they join the faculty. The existence of a discouraging environment is supported by the trends seen in life sciences, where women have earned close to 50 percent of the PhDs for several decades. Biology departments rarely have more than 30 percent women faculty, and women average less than 25 percent of the full professors in biomedical departments at research universities. Isn't this alone sufficient reason for federal agencies to examine what is going on?
To remain competitive in the global economy, our country must educate and retain the brightest minds in science and engineering to provide the needed talent and diversity in our workforce. Providing federal Title IX oversight helps America compete, and ensures that a large segment of our population is not left out of the educational, economic and other opportunities STEM fields present. Forty years of experiences have shown us that when the gates to opportunity are questioned, the entryways become larger, and all of us benefit. This is what Title IX reviews will help achieve. To be competitive in this new global economy, women -- and the nation -- cannot afford to wait.
Koster is the executive director of the Association for Women in Science. Shanahan is the executive director of the Society of Women Engineers.
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 7/08
6 Comments so far
Show Allhi Rockerbabe1: it is obvious in my post that I agree with you that we are FAR BETTER off as a result of Title IX.
So, given the choice of not losing the 'thousands' (saying "a number" diminishes the effect, imo) of men's teams but having little access for women VERSUS losing the men's teams we've lost and continue losing but with equal access to sports for women, I'm with you: I'll take the lost men's teams and new women's teams.
However, does something really have to give? My alma mater wrestling program was at Marquette University. We were able to raise enough money to fund the entire program, so that we did not cost the university a cent. They eliminated it any way, b/c it was cheaper for them to do that than to create a new woman's team.
Again, I agree that we have moved in a better direction. However I disagree that the only way to create sports opportunities for women is to reduce opportunity for men, and feel that there must be better solutions available.
bejugo: I know that a number of men's sports teams have been discontinued in a number of schools. I also know that money or funding is the big issue. Most of the sports that remain have very good player participation as well as fan support. Something has to "give" in order for women to have a chance at playing sports and often times it is the less favored endeavors. But remember, for more than a century, women were denied the most basic of education and up to recently, sports was also off limits (even though we girls paid the same money and that includes taxes, as the men and got a lot less for it). The men have had opportunity in spades and for the longest; it is time for them to share the bounty with their sisters.
Gender slavery now, gender slavery tomorrow, gender slavery forever. How American can you get? Of course in a medieval slave pit, none of u will be getting "advanced training" that's only for the Overseer Class. Eliminating "females" from participation is only a first step.
Remember, "females" brought sin into the world and were made 2nd, after MALES. Says so in our flat earth genocidal holy books. They knew what to do with their gender slaves. They beat them. So do we. 'Specially them uppity bitches. Worse than uppity niggers. Right?
Sometimes articles are published, not to present evidence, but to make a case for further investigation.
I'm a male, and I wrestled in college. My former team has been eliminated, one of hundreds since Title IX, in order to meet the requirements of Title IX.
Yet, I applaud what Title IX has achieved. The # young women participating in college sports has exploded since, and due in large part to, Title IX. This is an excellent thing for all of us!
Is Title IX to blame for the elimination of thousands of men's wrestling, track, gymnastics, and swimming teams throughout the nation?
That's still debated. Universities have choices in their strategies for achieving proportionality (meeting the Title IX requirements.) Unfortunately the route many of them take ends up reducing the sports opportunities for men. See:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E1DF1030F93AA35756C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewante...
I am currently a high school math teacher, and I strongly encourage all of my students to excel in challenging math courses, males and females. As a math major, my undergrad class was highly disproportionately male, and yet as a teacher I witness females doing just as well with regards to achievement, aptitude, and interest in mathematics.
Therefore, I have no doubt that applying Title IX to "STEM" in our universities will be a positive development. HOWEVER, hopefully this can happen without decreasing the opportunities for men, as has happened with men's sports at U.S. universities.
Garvey: you maybe right, but there has been a concerted
effort for the last 8 years or so to hinder collection of the career data you are questioning. I know for a fact, that when I was in undergrad school (1970-1974), harrassment of women in the physics, business and engineering schools at the University of Louisville was the cause of much grief for quite a few women- so much so, many transferred out to other schools or changed majors just to have a decent environment in which to learn and develop the skills needed to succeed. The law school wasn't much better and neither was the dental or medical schools. Women in those field at the time rarely broke more than 15% of the population in each school.
If my physics class hadn't been so horrendous, I might have opted for something other than my current profession, but sometimes you just get tired of the hostility and look for a "better" avenue to pursue your dreams. Title IX was a great gift to women seeking to develop their God given talents, exercise the benefits of education on the same level as men and pursue a favorite sport. I applaud the women who have managed to overcome the obstacles. Let's not let the dark side take away from our daughters and granddaughters, that which is their right- to fair and equal treatment under the law.
While I agree with the article's premise that there needs to be compliance reviews of Title IX, it seems the authors are drawing conclusions (i.e. that women encounter some sort of barriers when they enter STEM faculties) without the evidence (i.e. from the very compliance reviews).
I don't doubt that women face enormous barriers and discrimination (probably harassment as well). However, without any supporting evidence it's hard to support this conclusion.
It could be that, for example, many women who earned a SMET PhD. and initially went into faculty work opted for the private sector (for whatever reason).
The point is, we do not know; we can only speculate. As such, this article is presenting a hypothesis and not much more.