Title IX's Uncertain Future Under Department Of Education Cuts

Forbes

28-03-2025

Before 1972, girls' locker rooms were often converted storage closets. If girls and women's teams existed at all, they often wore hand-me-down uniforms and practiced at inconvenient hours in older, less modernized facilities. Then came Title IX, signed into law by President Nixon, and championed by trailblazers like Representatives Patsy Mink and Edith Green. This groundbreaking legislation banned gender discrimination in schools receiving federal funding. Though the law never specifically mentioned sports, it quickly sparked a revolution on courts and fields across the nation. Unfortunately, the initial pushback was both immediate and fierce. The NCAA filed lawsuits, lawmakers tried creating loopholes for profitable men's sports, and schools dragged their feet towards compliance. But by 1978, the deadline for compliance had arrived, and a new era in sports had begun for women and girls.
Unfortunately, the battle for equity continued to face serious setbacks. In the 1980s, for example, the Supreme Court's Grove City decision temporarily stripped most athletic programs of Title IX protection. As a result, women and girl athletes watched as their hard-won opportunities were threatened until Congress stepped in with the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, which reinstated the law's power across entire institutions. The 1990s brought crucial reinforcements and schools were hit with financial penalties for violations, and the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) forced colleges to publicly report their gender equity numbers. Then, when Brown University argued in court that women were simply less interested in sports than men, both district and appeals courts rejected this common excuse. These victories gave Title IX real teeth, transforming it from a noble ideal into an enforceable reality.
The results have been monumental. Since Title IX's passage, girls' participation in high school sports skyrocketed by 1,000%, with college women's participation growing 500%. The "three-prong test" established in the policy interpretations of 1979 continues to guide schools on fair athletic opportunities. Yet, despite five decades of progress, stubborn inequalities persist and women's teams still receive less funding, inferior facilities, and coaches earn smaller paychecks than their counterparts in men's sports. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed these disparities when the 2021 NCAA basketball tournaments revealed drastically different accommodations for men and women athletes. Fortunately, these revelations have since resulted in marketing, travel, accommodation, and facility upgrades, along with 2025 unit payouts, across the women's basketball tournament.
Now, after half a century of progress, Title IX enforcement faces perhaps its greatest challenge yet. The current administration's March 2025 executive order calling for the dissolution of the Department of Education has thrown gender equity in sports into uncharted waters. The department's Office for Civil Rights, which has historically been responsible for investigating complaints, setting compliance standards, and collecting critical data on athletic opportunities, suddenly faces an uncertain future. With 199 pending investigations into sex discrimination in athletics hanging in the balance, stakeholders across the educational landscape are left wondering who will ensure equity for women and girls in sport is still the mission.
The timing couldn't be more critical. College athletic departments are preparing to distribute direct payments to student-athletes for the first time this summer which could amount to over $20 million annually per school following an NCAA antitrust settlement. Unfortunately, it is becoming clear that many institutions plan to allocate the vast majority of this money to revenue-generating men's sports, with women's programs set to receive less than 5% of these funds. The Department of Education under the Biden Administration had initially classified these payments as "athletic financial assistance" - requiring proportional distribution between genders, but the new administration recently reversed course, creating a potential loophole in Title IX's reach just as this new opportunity of athlete compensation for both men and women athletes emerges.
Additionally, it is important to note that there are currently no guidelines on NIL data transparency or disclosure requirements for any parties involved in the process (e.g., schools, states, collectives/boosters, student-athletes, or the NCAA). Existing data is incomplete and fails to fully address gaps and inequities at the intersections of gender, race, economic background, disability, etc. As a result, greater transparency and additional Department of Education oversight would undoubtably help athletes, advocates, administrators, and legislators pinpoint equity problems and put pressure on institutions to develop equitable pathways and solutions.
While the White House has pledged to preserve certain "core necessities" like Title I funding for low-income schools and Pell Grants, the fate of civil rights enforcement remains visibly undefined. Some suggest the Office for Civil Rights might migrate to the Department of Justice, but critical questions loom: Will expertise be lost in transition? Will new staff understand the nuanced history and application of Title IX in athletics?
The truth is that even before the Department of Education's dismantling began, Title IX enforcement was falling woefully short. "2024 data from the U.S. Government Accountability Office showed that 93% of athletic departments were not meeting Title IX's regulatory requirement that the genders receive equal athletic opportunities," explains Alicia Jessop, professor at Pepperdine University, practicing attorney, and founder of Ruling Sports. 'Female college students received 14 percent less athletic opportunities than their male college student peers. Yet, despite the existence of this government gathered and reported data, no meaningful action has been taken by the Department of Education to address it.'
Ellen Staurowsky, a Professor and Title IX expert at Ithaca College, paints an even starker picture of the pre-existing inequities: "More than 50 years after the passage of Title IX, athletic departments are still not offering athletic opportunities proportional to enrollment, women athletes receive roughly $260 million less in athletic scholarship allocations per year and if opportunities were provided proportionally to women athletes, that translates into nearly a billion in athletic scholarship that at present they do not have access to."
Against this backdrop of widespread non-compliance, Jessop offers a sobering assessment: "Historically, the Department of Education has underused its authority to enforce the law. Any restructuring or dismantling of the department will only exacerbate the historic non-enforcement of Title IX in intercollegiate athletics."
If current federal enforcement mechanisms weaken or disappear entirely, what recourse remains for ensuring gender equity in sports? In an official statement released on March 21, 2025, the Women's Sports Foundation emphasized that regardless of administrative changes, 'Education is the cornerstone of many sports experiences for boys and girls in the United States and Title IX is responsible for the exponential growth we have seen for girls and women. Title IX has stood strong for almost 53 years and will continue to be the law. Regardless of where oversight for Title IX sits, schools must continue to comply with it and we expect enforcement of the law, including its regulations around athletics.'
Staurowsky suggests increased vigilance from various stakeholders: "While it is unclear where Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) reports would be filed if the Department of Education is completely disbanded, the EADA does require schools to complete a report annually and to post that report on its institutional website and/or make it available to the public. Reviewing that report and asking critical questions about how resources are allocated between men's and women's sport is something that any interested party can do."
Both Jessop and Staurowsky emphasize that regardless of enforcement changes, Title IX itself remains the law of the land. "Well-run institutions always seek to comply with the full letter of the law. Athletics departments should already ensure that they are in full compliance with Title IX, and should continue doing so regardless of the status of the Department of Education," advises Jessop. She suggests that athletes experiencing discrimination "should always consider consulting legal counsel to discuss the possibility of causes of action other than and in addition to Title IX that could exist in their unique scenario."
Staurowsky predicts a shift toward alternative watchdog mechanisms: "My sense is that this is an area where we may see more efforts on the part of journalists to scrutinize what is happening in athletic departments. And while pursuing relief from sex discrimination under Title IX through lawsuits can be costly and stressful, that is an avenue that remains as well."
The future of Title IX enforcement likely hinges on congressional action. "If the Department of Education ceases to exist, it would be in Congress' best interest to delegate power to enforce Title IX to another department or agency that continues to exist," notes Jessop. She adds that "it's critical that all engaged with and interested in intercollegiate athletics stay up-to-date with current legal maneuvering to ensure they know where power to enforce Title IX lies."
Staurowsky agrees that the uncertainty around enforcement doesn't negate the law itself: "To be clear, Title IX is a federal law. That does not go away even if there is uncertainty as to the future of the federal agency that enforces it. College and university administrators should be aware that this is an area that people are going to be watching carefully, especially in light of the fact that women's college sport has never been more popular."
With the significant gutting of the Department of Education – including a 50% reduction in workforce and the closing of six of twelve regional Offices for Civil Rights – Staurowsky warns that these changes 'raise questions regarding the enforcement of all federal civil rights laws, not just Title IX.'
After 53 years of progress, the playing field for women's sports once again faces the prospect of an uphill battle. While the law itself stands firm, its power has always depended on vigilant enforcement. As the institutional structures that have guarded gender equity in athletics face an uncertain future, the responsibility increasingly falls on athletes, parents, coaches, and advocates to ensure that half a century of progress isn't erased.