Cited page

Citations are available only to our active members. Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

X X

Cited page

Display options
Reset

Eliminating Sports for Title IX Compliance

By: Darnell, Claire; Petersen, Jeffrey | JOPERD--The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, February 2011 | Article details

Look up
Saved work (0)

matching results for page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?
While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.

Eliminating Sports for Title IX Compliance


Darnell, Claire, Petersen, Jeffrey, JOPERD--The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance


Equity in Athletics v. Department of Education

675 F. Supp. 2d 660

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121275

December 30, 2009

On September 29, 2006, James Madison University (JMU) decided to eliminate seven men's sports and three women's sports in an attempt to bring the university's varsity athletic program into compliance with Title IX. The university stated that the decision was based on the first part of Title IX's three-part test, which holds that the gender makeup of the university's athletic program must be "substantially proportionate" to that of the university's undergraduate enrollment. The university considered and analyzed alternatives but deemed any additional sports beyond the university's current total of 28 teams unacceptable. By cutting the ten teams, the gender makeup of JMU's athletic program would better match the current 61 percent female and 39 percent male student enrollment, compared to the student-athlete composition of 50.7 percent female and 49.3 percent male at the time before the proposed cuts.

Individuals opposed to the cuts formed Equity in Athletics, Inc. (EIA), and immediately filed action against the Department of Education, the Secretary of Education, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, and the United States on March 19, 2007, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that would void the allegedly unlawful guidelines and require new interpretations to be issued. At that time, EIA also requested that JMU defer the proposed eliminations until the challenge of the federal guidelines was complete. When JMU declined, EIA amended its …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Select text to:

Select text to:

  • Highlight
  • Cite a passage
  • Look up a word
Learn more Close
Loading One moment ...
Highlight
Select color
Change color
Delete highlight
Cite this passage
Cite this highlight
View citation

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?