Is gender discrimination a problem at your institution? Are female student athletes provided with the same access to housing and dining facilities as their male counterparts? Is everyone, regardless of gender, provided with an equal opportunity to develop to their fullest potential? These are obviously important questions. And the answers you provide can have serious repercussions for you, your department and your institution.

     It is an understatement to assert that Student Affairs professionals have a heightened responsibility to enhance their knowledge and skills in a number of critical areas. This is especially true for those who work in campus housing. Therefore, the purpose of this brief primer is to address two concerns which demand expertise from everyone in residence life: Title IX and the N.C.A.A. guidelines.

Title IX

     Student Affairs professionals are often faced with huge challenges when dealing with issues related to compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. In essence, the legislation prohibits gender discrimination at any educational institution which receives federal financial assistance in any form. Title IX has had a profound impact on the collegiate experience; its implications are an integral part of modern college administration.

     All colleges and universities that receive federal financial assistance are required to comply with Title IX. While all programs and activities of the institution are subject to Title IX mandates, intercollegiate athletics are specifically covered. Failure to comply with Title IX could result in the Office of Civil Rights suspending or terminating federal financial assistance to the entire institution. A lawsuit based on Title IX could also result in the institution's being required to pay both compensatory and punitive damages.

     Three areas related to intercollegiate athletics are addressed by Title IX: (1) participation opportunities; i.e., athletic programs provided for men and women student athletes, (2) availability of athletic scholarships, and (3) athletic program components. Participation opportunities are defined as the number of male and female athletes on each team in each sport sponsored by the institution individually as well as collectively. Compliance with Title IX is established by meeting one of three tests: proportionality, history, and no additional interest. Proportionality implies that the athletic participation rates of men and women students should equal the full-time undergraduate enrollment rates of men and women students. History involves the continuing practice of equitable program expansion, whereas no additional interest is determined by proving that the current sports offerings for women fully meet their interests.

     As we discuss these issues, please keep in mind that there is a common misconception among those associated with collegiate athletics that the general public 'naturally' considers men's sports to be more important (relevant/marketable/revenue-enhancing) than women's sports. This is simply not the case. At many colleges and universities, for example, it is the women's athletic programs that draw the largest crowds. (Just imagine Tennessee without the Lady Vols!)

     Housing and dining facilities must be viewed as components of Title IX compliance. As indicated in the guidelines, "...equivalence is measured by such factors as quality, availability and exclusivity of use." As such, any college or university that does not provide equal availability of housing for both male and female student athletes is technically in violation of Title IX. This, in turn, could lead to fines, lawsuits and suspension of financial assistance to other institutional programs.

     At a majority of colleges and universities, student athletes are provided housing on campus, whether through scholarships or other financial aid. A key element in Title IX compliance is whether or not athletic scholarships have been awarded in substantial proportion to the participation rates (using a head count) of men and women student athletes; i.e., if 50% of student athletes are female, then roughly 50% of the total athletic financial assistance available should be awarded to females.

     With specific reference to the provision of university housing facilities, Title IX mandates gender equity in housing and dining benefits that are available during the regular academic year as well as when classes are not in session. Pre/post game meals are also included in the requirement. Moreover, institutions must make sure that room and board and men's/women's basketball vacation stipends are equitable. The amount budgeted for pre-season housing and pregame meals for sports traditionally associated with women (such as volleyball) must be comparable to that budgeted for sports traditionally associated with men (such as football).

     Institutions must establish policies that clearly state that they have an equitable policy for all sports for pre/post season stipends, meal allocations, and semester housing. Furthermore, if any team has not completed its regular season by the end of classes in the spring, the student athletes who constitute that team must be provided with residence hall accommodations and access to dining facilities (or their financial equivalent).

     The goal of any effort to comply with Title IX should be the ability to demonstrate conclusively that the provision of housing and dining services is equivalent for both men and women -- in practice as well as in policy. The Office of Civil Rights is increasingly intolerant of institutional 'game-playing' with this issue.

N.C.A.A. Guidelines

     In 1991, the National Collegiate Athletic Association implemented regulations prohibiting athletics residence halls in Division I institutions. The guidelines forbid blocks of rooms consisting of more than 49% student athletes. The idea was that athletes need to be treated the same as other students on campus.

     Prior to implementation of the new guidelines, most Division I colleges and universities had residence halls devoted exclusively to student athletes, while many others had athletes-only wings or floors. Most schools assigned student athletes together as roommates and often prohibited them from rooming with non-student athletes. Such accommodations obviously helped to build team unity and made it easier to arrange study halls and enforce curfews. On the other hand, there were questions about the potential disadvantages of this approach. A major concern was that housing student athletes together was not developmentally defensible and tended to precipitate feelings of isolation.

     In the late 60s and early 70s, many institutions built residence halls which were intended solely for student athletes. Many of these were fairly extravagant by traditional standards, with larger than normal rooms and semi-private bath facilities. In an effort to neutralize the recruiting advantages associated with these accommodations, in 1983 the N.C.A.A. stipulated that athletic residence halls had to be analogous to the on-campus housing that was available to the general student population.

     Housing 'regular' students in residence halls that have been traditionally reserved for student athletes also created logistical problems related to compliance. Some housing professionals have experienced difficulty keeping the proportion of non-student athletes in their residence halls above 49%. Others have found it challenging to find students who are willing to share residence hall rooms and floors with student athletes.

     In addition, by placing student athletes in environments less conducive to the special needs of their schedules and routines, housing officials are in fact putting them at a higher risk for failure. Compliance with N.C.A.A. regulations, even when it is acknowledged that the original intent of those regulations was to encourage student athletes to make academics more of a priority, should never be allowed to preempt the developmental considerations innate to the Student Affairs profession. It is imperative that the spirit of the guidelines be continually reaffirmed -- even when the details of how those guidelines are implemented are subject to debate.

Conclusion

     Although vitally important from an administrative standpoint, the legal and ethical consequences associated with failure to comply fully with either Title IX or N.C.A.A. regulations should not be the primary impetus for pursuing compliance. As Student Affairs professionals, our first priority should always be the perpetual enhancement of the collegiate experience for all students. When institutions do not attempt to adhere to Title IX or N.C.A.A. guidelines as judiciously as they should, everyone loses. And the message that is often sent to student athletes is that their academic and social success is not as important as it is for their counterparts across campus.