KU's Unique Title IX Case

KU Sports is reporting on a fairly uncommon type of Title IX complaint lodged against Kansas University. The complaint, filed in 2009 by a male (Ron Neugent, former KU swimmer), alleges that the University was out of compliance with Title IX because males were underrepresented. To rectify the lack of proportionality, Mr. Neugent would like for KU to add more men's teams.

Unusual case or not, it demonstrates how schools that are consumed with ensuring participation and population numbers are proportional based on gender miss out on addressing whether both male and female students have enough opportunities to satisfy their interests in sports.

According to the article:

"In this case, KU chose to show it was in compliance with the first option.

“We are doing what we’re supposed to do in the spirit of the law,” said Jim Marchiony, associate athletics director.

Judy Pottorff, corporate counsel with Kansas Athletics, said the change made at KU was a very minor one. Though KU has never received specific direction on what “substantially proportional” meant, Pottorff said the school was told it was compliant in 2007 when its male-female participation in sports differed by 1.8 percent from the enrollment figures.

“It’s something we’ve always done,” she said. “We wanted to tighten it up to get it a little bit closer.”

After the complaint, KU’s sports participation exactly matched the percentages of men and women enrolled at the university. In December, KU had 294 men participating in sports and 283 women, which was almost exactly the same percentages of the 8,846 men and 8,484 women enrolled on the Lawrence campus.

Debbie Van Saun, Kansas Athletics’ senior woman administrator, watches the rosters carefully, and works with coaches to ensure their participation numbers stay proportional to enrollment percentages. While one person dropping out might not be significant, if the percentages get off by 10 people or more, the school will work with coaches to adjust roster sizes for upcoming seasons."

Solely focusing on the numbers should not be the go-to method to enforce Title IX. Aside from the fact that proportionality ensures that students' interests are wholly ignored or are second-tier considerations, it inevitably causes discrimination based on gender and cuts spots and/or whole teams.

As one of the article's commentators, AlBerg, sums up:

"There are more women in the arts programs but the NCAA doesn't make them equal it out. I wish there was a little more research done by the NCAA to make the men's and women's sports programs proportional to the desire to play by men vs. women. Kind of tragic."

Addressing the Real Harms of Title IX Policy

In the Atlantic essay, “How Title IX Hurts Female Athletes,” Linda Flanagan and Susan H. Greenberg cite the prevalence of injuries and eating disorders, as well as the tremendous pressure to win games as evidence proving Title IX’s negative impact on girls. Those issues are serious and do deserve attention, but male athletes face the same challenges — and that’s a separate discussion. Flanagan and Greenberg fail entirely to illustrate real, direct harms to female athletes caused by current Title IX enforcement. They do exist — and it’s a shame the authors overlooked them, to the detriment of young women everywhere.

The real issue is that most activists, schools and officials ignore what the statute is really about — ensuring equal opportunity to participate in sports — and instead demand proportionality of male and female athletes in student sports programs. The difference is profound; the law guarantees a fair shot, but the enforcement demands a rigged outcome.

Let’s look at a few examples of erroneously-applied Title IX policy that do create real harm to women and men:

Gender quotas. Schools cut men’s teams to balance the numbers, but when they are eliminated in symmetric sports, women are actually negatively affected. At the most basic level, females miss out on the beneficial effects of inter-gender camaraderie and companionship when male teams are sent packing. When young women cannot practice with male counterparts, they lose out on chances to improve their competitiveness by pitting themselves against a diverse field of adversaries. Coaches at all levels, from high school to the Olympics, recognize that male practice partners improve their female athletes’ game.

Roster management. Schools favor women’s teams with large rosters to boost the on-paper totals of female athletes. That means administrators eliminate smaller roster sports entirely, and replace them with big-bench teams like bowling and rowing. Unfortunately, those sports have minimal interest at the high school level and therefore do not generate as much participation as the schools expect, nor a level of excellence that serves the student athletes’ personal development.

Lack of surveys. When schools manipulate the rosters, they often act unilaterally and allow no input from female students on what new, larger teams they should instate. Instead, schools should provide students with interest surveys to get more truthful indicators as to what teams they want (and would actually play on.)

Failure to recognize cheerleading. Competitive cheer, which is one of the most popular sports at the high school level, is not recognized by the government or the NCAA at the college level. This means girls are forced to choose whether they want to settle for club pom or dance, which exclude a gymnastics element, or whether they should quit a sport they’ve already become exceptional at. This is unfair to those girls who have dedicated years (or even just one) learning gymnastics, performing complicated stunts and forming and emotional connection to the sport.

Time for reform

Halting Title IX’s unintended consequences requires serious reform. Implementation of the law should respect individuals’ preferences and ensure that both male and female students have equal opportunities to play sports.

It does not, however, necessitate “mak[ing] the athletic experience more responsive to female sensibilities,” as proposed by Flanagan and Greenberg. This is patronizing to tough female competitors and does not account for those who have chosen to endure hardship and make sacrifices in order to dominate in their chosen sport.

The whole point of Title IX is to give women, who are indeed as competitive, talented and deserving as men, the chance to shine. But arcane policies, numbers games and backward-thinking gender politics actually stands in the way of female athletes getting the respect — and field time — they deserve. True and fair competition fuels self-respect, discipline, loyalty and creativity, qualities that American adults need, both male and female, long after their NCAA days are over.

The Media's Incomplete Take on Title IX

More often that not, news and opinion stories centered around Title IX follow the same formula:

1). Cite the history of the law's passage.
2). Emphasize the importance of sports to the mental and physical development of young children and adults.
3). Applaud the growth of girls' participation rates and reflect on what still needs to be accomplished.
4). If, at all, include a one to two sentence disclaimer summarizing points put forth by critics of the law and, again, as a consolation, name one or two male teams frequently cut.
5). Praise the law despite all of its unintended consequences such as discriminating against boys, eliminating opportunities, cutting practice partners and ignoring students' interests and needs.

Since the 40th anniversary of Title IX is only 4 months away, these types of one-sided, congratulatory articles will appear more and more.

One of the many recent examples is written by Neal Simon at the Hornell Evening Tribune in Hornell, New York. Below is the formula laid out with Simon's writing as a perfect example of the media's lack of commitment to reporting on all facets — pleasant or not — of Title IX.

1). History. "Passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by Republican President Richard Nixon on June 23, 1972, Title IX requires schools and colleges that receive federal funds to offer equal opportunities to both males and females in every area of the institution. Even though there has never been much direct federal funding to school sports, athletic programs were ruled to be subject to Title IX’s rules."

2). Benefits. "Participation in sports benefits an individual’s physical fitness and overall health. It builds leadership skills, teaches teamwork and develops character. Every coach who has ever blown a whistle knows this. "

3). Applause. "According to a recent study that was highlighted in the New York Times, within six years of Title IX’s passage, the number of girls participating in high school sports increased from about 4 percent to almost 1 in 4. Another study, completed in 2006, showed the number of women in high school sports had increased by a factor of nine, while the number of women in college sports has grown by more than 450 percent. Finally, a 2008 study of intercollegiate athletics showed that women’s collegiate sports had grown to 9,101 teams, or about 8.65 per school."

4). Consolation. "Over the years, Title IX has had its critics. At the intercollegiate level, detractors have blamed the legislation for the elimination of non-revenue producing men’s sports like wrestling and cross-country at some major universities."**

**Note: Cutting male teams is not a phenomenon contained to "major universities," as Simon claims. Students at community colleges and at small state and private schools are also affected. Just because the news does not spread to national media does not mean that local papers and affiliates are not covering male cuts in schools closest to them — or that they're not happening at all.

5). Incomplete wrap-up. "Vocal critics of Title IX, however, are in the minority. As the popularity of women’s sports grows, it becomes more difficult to imagine a country where only boys go for the gold."

Essentially, articles showing the rise and continuance of Title IX incompletely capture its impact and promote the widespread notion that it is more than okay to sacrifice opportunities for males to benefit of girls. More athletic opportunities for students should be positively recognized, but they do not justify discrimination based on sex.

Which Is It: Budget or Title IX?

In yet another instance in which a school cuts sports because of budget — and oh, wait, also because of Title IX — Millersville University announced last week that it is dropping men's cross country and men's indoor and outdoor track and field teams. 30 boys and one coach will be cut as a result.

According to the University, "In addition to financial impact, the decision also factored each sport's history of competitive success, moving closer to compliance with Title IX and the principles of gender equity as well as improving Millersville athletics' competitive standing."

Millerville University's press release is confusing because it cites budget reasons, but then later admits that gender quotas definitely factored into its decision. If only financials were considered, the school would not have repeatedly emphasized that 30 male athletes were cut.

The press release also includes an FAQ section:

2. How did Title IX factor into the decision?

With approximately 10 student-athletes participating in cross country, indoor track and field and outdoor track and field and approximately 20 competing in indoor track and field and outdoor track and field, the elimination of the three teams accounts for more than 70 participant opportunities, which increases the ratio of female to male student-athletes and more accurately reflects Millersville University's student-body.

Rightly so, the affected students and alumni protested the decision. As Jim Boyer, 2011 alumnus, expressly describes in a letter to the local CBS affiliate in Pennsylvania:

In the last decade just in this region of the country alone, James Madison University, West Virginia University, Towson University, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, the University of Delaware, and the University of Maryland have all cut their men’s cross country and track and field programs that competed at the Division I and II level and produced an abundance of coaches, and professional and world class athletes.

Institutions like these have distorted Title IX legislation (demanding equality for women in sports) to pretend that they have quickly fixed budget issues of their athletic departments. Men’s programs such as cross country and track and field are some of the least expensive sports to fund because they use the same coaches and travel mechanisms as the women’s programs.

Men’s cross country and track programs have become easy targets because a distance runner can count as three athletes since they participate in three sports: cross country, indoor track, and outdoor track. Title IX cannot restrict schools from cutting men’s programs but is strongly opposed to it, yet it has become an epidemic that is destroying opportunities for thousands of collegiate athletes and laying ruin to the sport.

Predictably, their outcry was not enough for the school; Millersville University followed up with those students and informed them that the 3 teams would not be reinstated.

Millersville University, along with all of the other universities that have sent out similar releases and/or were not as upfront about reasons — Title IX enforcement, proportionality, gender quotas, "future" Title IX considerations — owe it to their students to frankly explain what's really going on. Disproportionately male cuts in cheap sports that have a history of success and dedicated athletes deserve a real explanation.

WSJ Fails to Tell Whole Story on Title IX Enforcement

Our last blog post focused on New York City's Department of Education's irrational and discriminatory response to a Title IX lawsuit filed by the National Women's Law Center: Ban all new schools in the Public Schools Athletic League (PSAL) from creating any boys' teams. So much for equality of opportunity.

So when Wall Street Journal reporter Sumathi Reddy asked us to comment on that lawsuit and the result — the prevention of hundreds of boys from playing sports — we gladly welcomed the platform.

Leo Kocher, President of American Sports Council, explained in clear language the impact of:

• Gender quotas. "Schools are now, due to the quota pressure, required to have the exact same number. People who feel they need to dictate exact same number for boys and girls are actually starting girls teams and denying boys who want a chance to play on a team."

• Sex discrimination. "What matters is they’re singling out a population of boys. If that’s not the definition of sex discrimination, I don’t know what is...How blatant can sex discrimination get?"

• Special interests. "It’s horrifying that government agencies do this kind of thing from pressure from special interest groups."
  

Leo also touched upon the serious implications of the Pittsburgh School System's December 2011 decision to cut opportunities for boys in the K-5 basketball program if more girls don't sign up.

Unfortunately, nowhere in Ms. Reddy's February 17th article, "Boys Being Sidelined," is Leo quoted. But it's more than that — nowhere in the article does Ms. Reddy really address the underlying issues that are causing such inequality based on gender.

Sure, she quotes outraged parents whose boys are affected by the new policy. She also gives a lot of space to City Council Member Elizabeth Crowley who has young boys and is equally affected. But they, too, advocate for proportionality at individual schools, just not at the systemic level. And that's not the approach we want.

First off, officials implemented a new rule without actually proving why there is a difference in the number of male and female athletes in city schools. As Ms. Reddy notes, the there is a "continuing federal probe." Since when is it appropriate and fair for schools to make decisions without any proof backing them up?

Perhaps if schools surveyed their students and investigated the types of activities students choose to participate in, they may find that a discrepancy among boys and girls in athletics exists because girls are happily choosing other activities and pursuing other interests. What is certain is that girls should be allowed to participate in whatever activities they want. The system has not failed them if they're not playing sports but are fulfilling other opportunities (please take note, Women's Sports Foundation).

The lack of media attention to this disturbing "enforcement" measure is mind-boggling. Schools are not just cutting teams — they're preventing them from existing in the first place.

"Ending" Discrimination by Encouraging It: How NYC Went Down the Wrong Path

In response to a Title IX lawsuit last year alleging unequal athletic opportunities for males and females, the New York City Department of Education created a rule that new schools can only allow for girls' teams. To put it bluntly, no creation of boys' teams in new schools is permitted.

The plan, which outright condones discrimination based on gender, is a pretty egregious attempt at complying with Title IX, a law that states "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

As expected, the mainstream press in New York City and elsewhere failed to pick up on such a blatant violation of the law. Only the Queens Chronicle has covered what's going on: two articles and an op-ed by Elizabeth Crowley, NYC Councilwoman for the 30th District in west-central Queens. Unfortunately, while they oppose the new policy, their rationale on what would constitute a "fair" rule is all wrong.

Support for proportionality measures is the culprit. After citing discrepancies in sports participation rates among boys and girls in NYC (about 8 percent), Ms. Crowley writes, "A more fitting solution would be to evaluate each school based on its individual merits. Just as the NCAA would not punish St. John’s University if Ohio State were non-compliant, the DOE should not punish a brand-new school with no established imbalance because another has a large participation gap. The discrepancies between boys’ and girls’ sports teams need to be evaluated on a school-by-school basis so that we can target the individual schools with well-documented inequalities and allow new schools to grow diverse, robust sports programs."

In other words, it's permissible for the City to target schools who have unbalanced gender ratios for participation and school enrollment. That's still discriminatory, as readers of this blog already know, because proportionality measures encourage results like cut and capped mens' teams, roster management schemes and many unhappy students. Disparate numbers do not necessarily mean discrimination; instead, they could reflect a lack of interest, emphasis on other extracurricular activities or any number of reasons. School administrators and government officials fail to recognize that, and in a way, that distracts them from addressing inequalities like distinctly different facilities, equipment or overall treatment.

Instead of responding to a lawsuit by playing into proportionality management and grossly promoting discrimination against boys, the New York City Department of Education should have accounted for the perverse outcomes of their decisions and figured out ways to determine whether the difference in numbers meant lack of opportunities or just lack of interest.

When Reaching for "Fairness" Achieves the Opposite

We'll say it once, and we'll say it again. And again. Booster clubs are the new targets of Title IX regulatory overreach and overzealous, if not downright unfair attempts to equalize and redistribute private, voluntary funds to sports teams.

But, if you don't believe us, here's another current example out of Minnesota. The Albert Lea Tribune reported that school and booster club administrators are going to streamline their communications on inventory and funding. While that itself isn't bad, and is of course expected, the following logic is worrisome. The reporter refers to assistant principal John Double:

"The biggest issue, he said, would be following the rules of Title IX. The 1972 federal law requires the school to provide equal opportunities regardless of gender. If boosters are helping out one team and not another, it becomes the school’s problem, even if it is a donation. Double said with the way things will be run now, the school can help with the fairness before it becomes an issue."

We can only hope that officials see the impracticality of implementing rules that will inevitably discourage money from trickling in, not to mention damper the involvement and passion shown by parents. Last time we checked, parental support was the holy grail for scholastic and athletic achievement.

Update: Pacific Legal Foundation has also posted on booster clubs affected by Title IX. Check it out here.

What's With All the Hoopla?

This past Tuesday was not just any National Girls and Women in Sports Day (NGWSD). Rather, as this year marks the 40th anniversary of Title IX, it was an occasion for many activist groups and lawmakers to preach to young girls that they must get involved in sports for fear that other activities won't allow them to learn discipline, teamwork, leadership and confidence. Unfortunately, this line of thinking is wrong, especially because it pressures girls into making choices they can arrive at themselves.

As Wendy Parker smartly points out, "NGWSD has become an agent in a never-ending nostalgia parade that traffics in emotion and ignores the necessity of moving forward. Sports is seamlessly incorporated into the everyday lives of the women involved in them. We celebrate it daily by doing what we love the most."

One of her concerns — moving forward — is rightly justified. As a country, we finally need to recognize that Title IX legislated equality of opportunity to ensure that boys and girls would be able to participate in any activity, not just sports. "Evangelizing," as Parker describes how activist groups try to plant their own rigid thinking on the female masses, is not going to convince girls to suddenly drop their favorite hobbies to play sports. After all, the law was not created to make every girl an athlete; it was passed to halt discrimination on the basis of gender.

Now that athletic opportunities for girls have expanded so that they can play an on array of teams in multiple seasons, we have to let go to enable girls to decide for themselves whether sports are right for them. If they chose arts and crafts, choir or band instead of athletics, what's the big deal so long as they're enjoying themselves? The important thing is that they're afforded the freedom of choice.

What all this hype, rhetoric and constant plea for more female athletes will do is strengthen calls for equal numbers of male and female athletes. And as many athletes and administrators can attest to from first-hand experience, attempting to create an even gender ratio translates into cutting male (and even female) teams, losing practice partners and crushing young people's aspirations. That's nothing to celebrate, and that's why we're hoping that Title IX's 40th year will bring with it a fresh, fair approach to implementation that will expand, not limit opportunities.

Trickle-Down Effect of College Sports: a California Case Study

For years, colleges and universities in California have had more than a rough time maintaining their wrestling programs; more than 20 teams have been axed since 1972. That's why Simpson University's announcement this week that it will be adding men's wrestling next fall is not only positive news for its students but also for the rest of Californian wrestlers and wrestler-hopefuls in middle school, high school and college.

Despite the void left by so few colleges with competitive wrestling opportunities, interest in the sport still plentifully exists. Anderson High wrestling coach Don Williams, named athletic coach for Simpson's U.'s wrestling team, should have no problems scouting out for competent athletes. In a public note, Williams writes, "The number of outstanding wrestlers out there far exceeds the number of colleges with wrestling. I am looking for young men who are serious about their wrestling and academics, who can compete well at the NAIA level, and who have a strong moral character." We hope he's inundated with requests for tryouts!

Williams should also should have minimal challenges building a roster because, as Simpson University athletic director Joe Griffin explains, Williams "has a great chance of success with his experience and his contacts that he has built up over the years.”

As word spreads of this team's creation, we will likely see more springing up over the next few years. After all, those wrestlers will need more teams to compete with in-state, especially given that the nearest match-up will be at Southern Oregon University. Just one added wrestling program has the potential to rebuild and strengthen the sport for all of California.

The anticipated success and reach of Simpson University's addition should be a lesson for all schools debating whether to add or reinstate, as well as cut a sport because of Title IX. The impact of unfair, counterproductive policies, like gender quotas and proportionality, commonly touches more than just the one team under consideration. Young athletes hoping to compete in the future at varsity levels or simply practice their athletic skills on intramural teams have a harder time finding easily-available opportunities and may become discouraged that after years of playing, will not be able to do so at the university level.

Dept. of Education: Power, Lobbyists More Important Than Student Athletes

Last Friday, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) led a tweet-up with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to "kick off 2012 and to recognize the 40th anniversary of Title IX this year." 



Here’s what actually happened:

Our Secretary of Education went to the offices of Title IX lobbyists. The lobbyists were so brazen that they even typed his answers while sitting right next to him. Secretary Duncan ignored all follow up questions from critics of Title IX enforcement. Throughout the chat, lobbyists and trial lawyers from American Association of University Women, National Women’s Law Center and Women’s Sports Foundation tweeted congratulations and applause for him, even as fair-minded questions were disregarded or whitewashed. Here’s what the Secretary had to say to the many thousands of young men who have had their teams, scholarships and dreams dashed because of his enforcement policy: nothing.

We at American Sports Council anticipated that the hosts would avoid discussing the hard truths about the impact of gender quotas, proportionality, and the three-prong test on high school and college athletic programs, so we decided to confront them with a series of questions leading up to the event. Some that we asked include:

• @arneduncan @EDcivilrights What do you tell booster parents that can’t have bake sales because of your #T9 enforcement method?

• When will @WomensSportsFdn @AAUW get that gender quotas and proportionality don’t create equal opportunities, they destroy them?

• @arneduncan @EDcivilrights how do you say you’re promoting #T9 if your enforcement choices cut so many opps?

• @arneduncan 3 part test only for colleges, not HS. How can you let it continue since it violates equal protection + equal treatment?

The responses were nothing less than shameful. Let’s start with those pertaining to men’s cuts:

• (AAUW) @LisaMaatz You know, when mens sports are [c]ut, no one is happy. But it is budget decision by the school. Nothing in T9 says u must cut sports.”

• @arneduncan Contrary to conventional wisdom, since 1972 access to men’s sports has not been diminished

• @arneduncan T9 requires schools to offer equal athletic opps for men & women. It doesn’t require schools to eliminate any teams

• @EDcivilrights Title IX is abt ensuring equal access to athletic opportunity & since its passage opportunities have increased for men & women

Did they already forget that male and female athletes from James Madison University protested outside of the Department of Education in 2007, drawing national public attention to their university’s decision to cut 10 teams? OCR officials even extended an invitation to JMU athletes —which they accepted — to discuss the unfairness of proportionality and team cuts based on gender! But, since we’re all for facts at ASC, here’s a picture proving that both men and women (they lose out on training partners, among other harms) are not only affected by the government’s methods, but that they also care:


Obviously, JMU is not the only school to axe men’s teams. University of Delaware, Rutgers University, Liberty University, and University of Nebraska-Omaha, among countless other schools, have capped rosters and eliminated programs, not because of budget reasons, but due to so-called “gender equity.” In the past two months alone, two community colleges have cut their recognized football programs because they couldn’t balance the numbers; University of Maryland has cut 8 teams — 5 of which are men's — and decreed that the boys will only be saved if their girl counterparts raise enough money and a veteran high school football coach quit because of booster club changes due to Title IX.

Palpable men’s cuts are one thing. Unseen effects are another. What Arne Duncan, et al. also don’t understand is that schools haven’t been able to add popular men’s sports, like soccer and lacrosse, because they preemptively predict the outcry from activists that their numbers don’t add up. Similarly, schools often add women’s teams without surveying their interests; padding the numbers by adding all-girls rosters ensures that they are in compliance with the Department of Education’s version of Title IX compliance.

Next up: tweets demonstrating that groups like the AAUW encourage people to sue their schools. Why? Because it ensures they are still relevant and perpetuates their survival through the revolving door of government officials, activist groups and Title IX consultants:

• @LisaMaatz OCR is open to questions about T9, how to comply, how to ensure equal opp, says @EDcivilrights

• @LisaMaatz Last year, @EDcivilrights received 747 athletics complaints alone

• @LisaMaatz Is your school in compliance with Title IX in all its various aspects? Look at @AAUW’s Know the Score

• @LisaMaatz We get complaints filed on behalf of boys & girls. If any1 believes they r being discriminated against, pls file says @EDcivilrights

Again, these statements are misleading. The OCR received 747 complaints because the National Women’s Law Center filed Title IX complaints in 12 school districts nationwide and emboldened others to do the same. What Lisa Maatz conveniently leaves out is that the OCR is already declining these complaints (albeit at not a fast enough pace). This fall, the OCR turned down the complaints in Oregon, because according to the Department of Education press department, “they did not provide facts in support of the allegations so as to raise a potential violation of the Title IX requirement to equally effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of both sexes."

Despite publicly holding them accountable to their inaccurate statements and their Title IX enforcement system, AAUW, Arne Duncan and the Department of Education proved in their final tweets and post-talk wrap-up that patting themselves on the back is most important — and not the boys and girls whom the law is intended to protect:

• @LisaMaatz Thanks again to @arneduncan for taking out time of his busy day to talk about an issue he cares personally about.

• @LisaMaatz And special thanks to Russlynn Ali, Asst Sec at OCR @EDcivilrights, for her expertise and passion – and even hand.

• @LisaMaatz Holy crap! RT@TrendsDC: Lisa M. Maatz, @lisamaatz is now trending in #DC

• “Talking Title IX on Twitter” – U.S. Department of Education blog

In the lead-up to the 40th anniversary in June, we will undoubtedly see more of the same from our leaders and activist organizations. However, they can be sure that American Sports Council and all of our supporters will not back down in pressing them to promote meaningful discussion and reforms on returning to Title IX’s original intent.