Editing Title IX (section)

==OCR's test for Title IX compliance==
{{main|Office for Civil Rights}}
Title&nbsp;IX has been a source of controversy in part due to claims that the OCR's current interpretation of Title&nbsp;IX, and specifically its three-prong test of compliance, is no longer faithful to the anti-discrimination language in Title&nbsp;IX's text, and instead discriminates against men and has contributed to the reduction of programs for male athletes.<ref name="Shelton 2001"/><ref name="Irving 2003">{{cite news |title=Wrestling With Title&nbsp;IX |work=[[The New York Times]] |first=John |last=Irving |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/opinion/28IRVI.html?pagewanted=3 |date=January 28, 2003 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160311175231/http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/opinion/28IRVI.html?pagewanted=3 |archive-date=March 11, 2016 }}</ref><ref name="Gavora 2003">{{cite news |title=Tilting the Playing Field: Schools, Sports, Sex and Title&nbsp;IX |first=Jessica |last=Gavora |year=2003}}</ref>

Critics of the three-prong test contend that it operates as a "quota" in that it places undue emphasis on the first prong (known as the "proportionality" prong), which fails to take into account any differences in the genders' respective levels of interest in participating in athletics (despite the third prong, which focuses on any differences in the genders' respective levels of interest in participation). Instead, it requires that the genders' athletic participation be substantially proportionate to their enrollment, without regard to interest.  Prong two is viewed as only a temporary fix for universities, as universities may only point to the past expansion of opportunities for female students for a limited time before compliance with another prong is necessary. Critics say that prong three likewise fails to consider male athletic interest despite its gender-neutral language, as it requires that the university fully and effectively accommodate the athletic interests of the "underrepresented sex", even though ED regulations expressly require that the OCR consider whether the institution "effectively accommodate[s] the interests and abilities of members of both sexes". As such, with a focus on increasing female athletic opportunities without any counterbalance to consider male athletic interest, critics maintain that the OCR's three-prong test operates to discriminate against men.<ref name="Shelton 2001"/><ref name="Gavora 2003"/>

Defenders of the three-prong test counter that the genders' differing athletic interest levels are merely a product of past discrimination, and that Title&nbsp;IX should be interpreted to maximize female participation in athletics regardless of any existing disparity in interest. Thus while defenders argue that the three-prong test embodies the maxim that "opportunity drives interest",<ref>{{cite news |title=Smith professor speaks on Title&nbsp;IX |work=The Smith College Sophian |year=2008 |url=http://media.www.smithsophian.com/media/storage/paper587/news/2008/12/04/Sports/Smith.Professor.Speaks.On.Title.Ix-3567623.shtml |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081207111650/http://media.www.smithsophian.com/media/storage/paper587/news/2008/12/04/Sports/Smith.Professor.Speaks.On.Title.Ix-3567623.shtml |archive-date=December 7, 2008 }}</ref> critics argue that the three-prong test goes beyond Title&nbsp;IX original purpose of preventing discrimination, and instead amounts to an exercise in which athletic opportunities are taken away from male students and given to female students, despite the comparatively lower interest levels of those female students. Author and self-described women's rights advocate [[John Irving]] opined in a ''[[New York Times]]'' column that on this topic, women's advocates were being "purely vindictive" in insisting that the current OCR interpretation of Title&nbsp;IX be maintained.<ref name="Irving 2003"/>

On March 17, 2005, OCR announced a clarification of prong three of the three-part test of Title&nbsp;IX compliance. The guidance concerned the use of web-based surveys to determine the level of interest in varsity athletics among the underrepresented sex.<ref>{{cite web |title=Additional Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy: Three-Part Test – Part Three |url=http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/title9guidanceadditional.html |publisher=[[U.S. Department of Education]] |access-date=October 13, 2009 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091018094908/http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/title9guidanceadditional.html |archive-date=October 18, 2009 }}</ref> Opponents of the clarification – including the NCAA Executive Committee, which issued a resolution soon afterward asking Association members not to use the survey – claimed the survey was flawed in part because of the way it counted non-responses.<ref>{{cite web |title=OCR rescinds 2005 Title&nbsp;IX clarification |url=https://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/association-wide/ocr+rescinds+2005+title+ix+clarification_04_20_10_ncaa_news |publisher=[[National Collegiate Athletic Association]] |access-date=April 25, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110416001218/http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=%2Fncaa%2Fncaa%2Fncaa+news%2Fncaa+news+online%2F2010%2Fassociation-wide%2Focr+rescinds+2005+title+ix+clarification_04_20_10_ncaa_news |archive-date=April 16, 2011 }}</ref> On April 20, 2010, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights abandoned the 2005 clarification that allowed institutions to use only Internet or e‑mail surveys to meet the interests and abilities (third prong) option of the three-part test for Title&nbsp;IX compliance.

In February 2010, the [[United States Commission on Civil Rights]] weighed in on the OCR's three-prong test, offering several recommendations on Title&nbsp;IX policy to address what it termed "unnecessary reduction of men's athletic opportunities".<ref name="USCCR 2010 report">{{cite web |title=Title IX Athletics: Accommodating Interests and Abilities |url=http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/TitleIX-2010.pdf |publisher=[[U.S. Commission on Civil Rights]] |access-date=February 1, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101214210606/http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/TitleIX-2010.pdf |archive-date=December 14, 2010 }}</ref><ref name="Brady 2010">{{cite news |title=Commission: Title&nbsp;IX interpretation unnecessarily hurts men's sports |work=USA Today |first=Erik |last=Brady |url=https://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-04-01-title-ix_N.htm |date=April 2, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120305151642/http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-04-01-title-ix_N.htm |archive-date=March 5, 2012 }}</ref>  The commission advocated use of surveys to measure interest, and specifically recommended that the Department of Education's regulations on interest and abilities be revised "to explicitly take into account the interest of both sexes rather than just the interest of the underrepresented sex", almost always females.<ref name="Brady 2010"/>