iscrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance (Lapchick and Slaughter 33).
The Department of health, Education, and Welfare did not issue the regulations designed to implement Title IX for three years, and during that time a number of misconceptions about the law were promulgated and disseminated. In practice, and to save money, most of the collegiate men's and women's athletic programs were merged under single administrative structures, with the director of the men's program, taking the top administrative position. This meant that women administrators lost decision-making power and control of the development of women's programs, and concern was expressed by HEW regarding this possibility (Lapchick and Slaughter 33).
The courts and the regulations interpret the Title IX statute in such a way as to state that it is not required that there be equal per capita expenditures of dollars on male and female athletes, but the pattern of expenditures is expected to be sufficient so as not to result in a disparate effect on opportunity (Lapchick and Slaughter 34). Other factors can also be cited, such as funds for scholarships and recruiting practices. The law calls for the total amount of scholarship aid made available to men and women to be substantially proportionate to their participation rates (Lapchick and Slaughter 34).
Under Title IX, what is required is equal participation opportunities rather than equal numbers of sport programs for male and female athletes. The average number of sports now offered for women has grown to 7.31 per school, as opposed to 5.61 before Title IX. This is deceptive, however, for when women's sports are added to college athletics programs, they are often low-participation sports such as cross-country, golf, or tennis, all of which require minimal funding. Collegiate sports has faced a financial crunch in recent years, and this has produced budget cu...