Menu

Title ix

0 Comment

Furthermore, while Title IX legally prohibits discriminatory practices in state funded programs, it does not order the maintenance of strict ratio between the proportions the two genders in the institution’s athletic programs and its student body (Cohen v. Brown University). Furthermore, as far as the scope of Title IX is concerned, academic institutions have had to make tough decisions regarding which athletics programs fall within the scope of this law. The existing state of sports budget was such that in most institutions, the largest part of sports budgets were allocated to men’s athletics which did not reflect the percentage of men in the student body (Cohen v. Brown University).
Keeping in view the above confusion, a law was passed in 1984 with respect to Title IX. In 1984 the U.S Supreme Court had passed the law that Title IX applied exclusively to those programs that were funded by state money (Cohen v. Brown University). This law was enforced in the context of Grove vs. City Bell (which shall be discussed later). This implied that discrimination was not illegal in activities or programs that were not funded by state money. This means that discrimination on the basis of gender in athletic sports would not be considered unlawful because very few of such programs are funded by the state or have funds allocated specifically for them. Additionally, athletic programs can be considered as subunits of an institution’s programs that receive state money for a wide range of reasons including funds for construction, student aids, feeding programs and research grants.
The first case to be analyzed is the case of United States vs. Virginia. The Virginia Military Institute (VMI) has been noted for its lack of co-education and being an exclusively male undergraduate institute. This institution was sued by the United States with the argument that exclusive admissions to males were unconstitutional. This stance