and for the people, ultimately responsible to the needs of the people. In the absence of a requirement for the investigation of individual complaints, the regulation loses a dimension of accountability which has been of great service to aggrieved American citizens. The fact that these regulations leave HEW largely to its own devices is particularly dangerous in the light of the agency's deplorable record in civil rights enforcement. Although during the 1960's HEW terminated the funds of over two hundred school systems and noticed for hearings six to eight hundred others, since 1970, HEW has terminated the funds of only four school systems and noticed for hearings only a handful of others. Furthermore, HEW has not once noticed a system on the basis of sex discrimination under the provisions of Title IX. HEW now justifies its proposed regulations by claiming that its present resources are incapable of investigating individual complaints, but for fiscal year 1976, the Office of Civil Rights did not request a single new position in the Elementary and Secondary Education Division, and only requested six new positions in the Higher Education Division. In addition, the Office of Civil Rights estimates that during fiscal year 1976, over 40% of the full-time staff in the regional offices in Philadelphia, Chicago, and Los Angeles will be performing "big city reviews", enormous projects expected to require years of work which completely ignore the needs of non-urban areas. Finally, although the regulations provide that systemic discrimination will be detected through sources other than individual complaints, beginning in the fall of 1975, the Office of Civil Rights is reducing the scope of its civil rights high school survey, thereby cutting back a major source of necessary information. The Federation of Organizations for Professional Women is extremely disappointed in HEW's performance in civil rights enforcement. In view of this poor record, we feel it incumbent upon us to resist the adoption of these regulations, and to oppose them in every forum. They would have a far reaching negative impact on the civil rights freedoms guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of this nation. Finally, the Federation calls attention to the fact that that unlike the Title IX regulations, the proposed procedural regulations are signed only by HEW Secretary Caspar Weinberger. The President of the United States would not endorse them, and neither do we. FLORIDA SOUTHERN COLLEGE, Hon. AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, DEAR MR. HAWKINS: Please let me bring to your attention a most serious concern many of us in private higher education have about the regulations regarding "nondiscrimination based on sex," Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, which were drawn up by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, signed by the President, and passed on to Congress for review. I understand that the regulations will take effect July 21, 1975, unless Congress acts before that date. Perhaps the most deleterious of the regulations from the point of view of a small, private college is the one mandating identical dormitory regulations for men and women students. It is an incontrovertible fact that the safety requirements for men and women students differ on a college campus. Women students are far more likely to be victims of sexual assaults and rape than men. Greater security arrangements are necessary in women's housing than in men's. I do not believe it was the intent of Congress when it passed the education Amendments of 1972 to go so far as to force a private college administration arbitrarily to implement identical dormitory regulations for men and women students in situations where there clearly exists a reasonable relationship between the regulations of a women's dormitory and the safety requirements of those women students living there and at the same time a reasonable relationship between the regulations of a men's dormitory and the safety reguirements of the men students housed there. Surely in America a private college has the right as well as the responsibility to implement housing regulations commensurate with the safety requirements of students housed in its dormitories. Furthermore, the regulation will deter private educational institutions from the pursuit of their legitimate educational goal of preparing men and women for living in the world that actually exists. The precautions for personal safety which a woman must take in our society do in fact differ from those of men. It is the right of a private college to teach this fact by reflecting it in its philosophy and structure. For a private college, against its best judgment and conscience, to pretend that the safety requirements for men and women are identical in our society and to govern itself accordingly, so ordering its life and teaching its students, would misguide students creating a dangerous illusion in the minds of both men and women students. We as a private college are in the business of preparing persons to live wisely in the world that is, not in a world that exists only in someone's Utopian fancy. Such a regulation if forced on a small, private, residential college will take away from private higher education the right to be distinctive and reflect legiti mate parental concerns and will have a homogenizing effect on American colleges and universities. It will so alter private higher education as to threaten the existence of the creative pluralism which makes American higher education great, composed as it is of both the public and private sector. I urgently plead for enough latitude in the regulation to permit a private college to meet adequately the differing safety requirements of its male and female students in regard to college housing and to proceed with its legitimate educational task in a way that does not discriminate against either sex but rather rationally provides for the well-being of all of its students. This regulation patently exceeds the intent of Congress. I implore you to do all you can to delay the implementation of the regulation so that Congress will have time to bring it into line with what the Congress intended when it passed the law in 1972. Sincerely, [Mailgram] WALTER Y. MURPHY, Executive Vice President. Representative AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, Washington, D.C. Learned today that House Subcommittee on Equal Opportunities solicits written comments regarding Title IX of 1972 Education Amendments. Please know the National Federation opposes Section 86.41. The section is illegal. Interscholastics athletics receive no Federal financial assistance and were not intended to be regulated by Title IX. The inclusion is arbitrary. Why is there no similar section for band activities, English courses or most other parts of school curricular and extracurricular life? The section is excessive in its involvement in school programs. Schools must constantly document programs and participation for potential proof of compli ance. The ambiguity of the regulations permits inconsistent interpretation and enforcement. Schools will be unable to establish programs with confidence. The section is unwarranted. Schools have achieved near equality without regulations which will only cause confusion, frustration and expense. We urge disapproval of 86.41. CLIFFORD B. FAGAN, Executive Secretary, National Federation of State High Schools Association, Elgin, Ill. BAYLOR UNIVERSITY, Waco, Tex., June 18, 1975. Hon. AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, DEAR CONGRESSMAN HAWKINS: The President approved the HEW draft of the Title IX regulations on May 27 and sent them to Congress for its approval by July 21. I urge you to vote against such approval. I believe the federal regulations should be restricted just to educational programs which receive federal aid and not to entire school systems. Under the HEW interpretation, if one student on the GI Bill attends a university with 10,000 students, the whole university with all its programs and schools is subject to Federal regulation. As one educator put it: "The federal government has furnished the thread to sew on a button and demands the right to design the whole suit." Particularly onerous are the regulations concerning intercollegiate athletics, which in many cases might be called an unrelated business conducted by some universities for the amusement of alumni and local citizens. This business will likely be destroyed by these regulations under which bureaucrats will inevitably require the same expenditures on women as men's sports. The regulations should allow the revenue produced by a sport to be spent on that sport. I hope you will use your influence in Congress in an effort to bring about these changes. Sincerely, ABNER V. MCCALL, President. Cox, LANGFORD & BROWN, Washington, D.C., June 23, 1975. Hon. AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, U.S. House of Representatives, DEAR CONGRESSMAN HAWKINS: At the request of Bill Foster, President of the National Association of Backetball Coaches, I send you herewith copy of his statement opposing the application of HEW Title IX regulations to intercollegiate athletics. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know. Very truly yours, MICHAEL SCOTT. Enclosure. STATEMENT FROM BILL FOSTER, DUKE UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BASKETBALL COACHES PRESIDENT The National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC) Board of Directors has adopted the position that the Title IX regulations promulgated by HEW will place intercollegiate athletics under the full control of the Federal Government and will eventually destroy many intercollegiate programs. The NABC Board made a strong appeal to its 2,000 member coaches to join its efforts to delay application of the regulations until HEW has studied the impact on college programs. The NABC also encourages basketball fans throughout the country who have enjoyed and supported intercollegiate basketball, to be aware of this position and join the membership in contacting Congressmen to support the Association's concern. The regulations, written under the pretense of eliminating sex-discrimination, are not responsive to the financial and social realities of intercollegiate athletics, the NABC stated. Basketball and football have produced revenues which have benefited many male and female collegiate sports, and implementation of this legislation could place each of these activities in danger of collapse, the NABC added. JUNE 18, 1975. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, Hon. AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, New York, N.Y., June 20, 1975. Chairman, Subcommittee on Equal Opportunities, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HAWKINS: Enclosed please find the statement of the National Council of Jewish Women commenting on Title IX Regulations and on the Proposed Procedural Regulation for Civil Rights Enforcement. While the Title IX Regulation does not address all of our concerns, we need the regulation now, so that schools and colleges can comply with the law. The implementation of the Procedural Regulation would thwart the national commitment to equality. It therefore, should not be permitted to go into effect and Congress should take every possible step to achieve this end. Sincerely yours, Encl. MRS. DOROTHY LASDAY, Chairwoman, STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES Throughout its 83-year history the National Council of Jewish Women, a social action and community service organization of 100,000 women in communities across the country, has been committed to the principle of equal opportunity for all, including equal legal rights, equal access to educational services, and equal employment opportunities. At every level of government our members have worked consistently in support of legislation to ban discrimination and to protect the rights of the individual. However, we are well aware that the passage of legislation is but a first step in bringing about desirable change; the manner in which legislation is implemented is of critical importance in achieving the intended results. Guidelines, regulations--all the procedures promulgated by the Executive Departments of the government-determine to a large degree the substance of any piece of legislation and the Executive disposition to adhere to the legislative intent and spirit. Nowhere is this fact more dramatically illustrated than in the proposed regulations for Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and in the Proposed Procedural Regulation for Civil Rights Enforcement--both issued by the Department of Health. Education and Welfare on June 4, 1975 The unconscionable delay in issuing Title IX Regulations has already blocked implementation of the law for 3 years. Public and private statements by HEW Secretary Caspar Weinberger have made it abundantly evident that he was under no compulsion to carry out the mandate of the Congress. To compound this deplorable delay, the proposed Title IX Regulations have several major defects, which in our judgment will thwart the will of Congress to bar sex discrimination in education. Among the more serious shortcomings we note the following: (1) the absence of any requirement that remedial and affirmative action plans be made mandatory, and that relevant guidelines be developed to accomplish the same. Although the provision for self-evaluation may prove to be very helpful it is not a substitute for affirmative action; (2) the lack of due process for complainants comparable to the procedures available to recipient institutions; (3) the provision that a federally-funded institution may assist its students to gain admission to an education program which discriminates, if such discrimination is permissible under sub-part B (single-sex private undergraduate institutions); (4) the failure to address the basic problem of sex-biased text books and curriculum materials. The net result of these and other flaws in the regulations is to negate the purpose for which the Act was adopted, namely, to eliminate discriminatory practices in education based on sex. The Proposed Procedural Regulation for Civil Rights Enforcement, also issued by the Department of HEW on June 4, would eliminate investigations of individual compaints of discrimination by the Office of Civil Rights. Instead, the Department would undertake occasional compliance reviews with the objective of removing "systemic discrimination." The proposed Regulation would apply not only to Title IX, but also to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Titles VII and VIII of the Public Health Service Act, and other existing HEW mandates for civil rights enforcement with the exception of Executive Order 11246 (sex discrimination by Federal Contractors). Although HEW is mandated by the law to enforce the non-discrimination provisions in all these Acts, under the new procedures individuals suffering discrimination will no longer be able to petition the HEW Office of Civil Rights for relief. The decision to deal with discriminatory practices by systems and not by redressing the wrongs visited on individuals is contrary both to the spirit and the letter of the law. Our long cherished concept of equality under the law refers to individuals, not to systems. In its announcement of the new procedures, the Department of Health. Education and Welfare details the inability of its staff in the Office of Civil Rights to deal with the increased case load. However, instead of taking steps to provide a more adequate and efficient staff the Secretary has recommended that the problem of case overload be solved by the Department's abrogation of its proper and legal responsibilities. A careful reading of the proposed regulation leads one to question whether the Department of HEW has in fact made a decision not to enforce the various laws dealing with discrimination. Cetrainly there is a notable lack of concern about enforcing legislation relating to discrimination and individual rights. Existing civil rights laws are the result of long years of sustained effort. They reflect the determination of our citizens to end discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, origin or physical disability. This national commitment to equality must not now be thwarted by administrative fiat. We urge the Congress to take every step possible to prevent the implementation of this proposed Regulation. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGIATE DIRECTORS OF ATHLETICS, Hon. AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, Cleveland, Ohio, June 19, 1975. DEAR CONGRESSMAN HAWKINS: Enclosed please find comments of the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics concerning the implementation regulations of Title IX NACDA's members are directly involved in the day-to-day administration of the nation's college athletic programs. On the basis of this expertise, we submit the regulations issued by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare will, if allowed to go into effect, lead to the financial destruction of college athletic programs for both men and women. For this reason, we urge your Subcommittee to sponsor a resolution which would return the regulations to HEW, accompanied with instructions for redrafting which reflect the points made in our comments. We are confident Congress did not intend the regulations to extend to programs such as college athletic which receive no Federal funds, nor to threaten the financial base of athletic programs for men and women, and urge action confirming our position. We appreciate your consideration of our views. Sincerely, Enclosure. HARRY H. FOUKE, President. STATEMENT OF HARRY FOUKE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGIATE DIRECTORS OF ATHLETICS I am Harry Fouke, Director of Athletics at the University of Houston, Houston, Texas. This statement is submitted on behalf of The National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (NACDA) of which I am President. Our members are directors of athletics at the educational institutions that are members of the National Junior College Athletic Association, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics and the National Collegiate Athletic Association. NACDA appreciates this opportunity to submit the views of its members. We believe that the athletics provisions of the HEW regulations (§§ 86.37 (c) and 86.41) and inconsistent with the plain language of Title IX and the intent of Congress, in that: 1. They attempt to regulate programs and activities that do not receive Federal financial assistance. 2. They impose arbitrary and unreasonable requirements which exceed Title IX's non-discrimination mandate and threaten serious damage to existing intercollegiate athletic programs. We recognize that the issues posed in these hearings are in large part legal issues. We are athletic directors, not lawyers, and our training and experience is in the conduct and administration of college athletic programs, not the interpretation of Federal laws and regulations. We can read, however, and we therefore cannot believe that under a statute which applies to education programs or activities “receiving Federal financial assistance" Congress meant to give HEW the authority to tell educational institutions what to do with their football and basketball gate receipts. We know of no Federal program providing financial assistance for intercollegiate athletics and, in view of the well-publicized financial crisis in which college athletics finds itself, I feel sure that if there were any such program, we would have heard of it. Yet, the HEW regulations impose stringent requirements on college athletic programs. We do not believe Congress intended this result. Even if Title IX requirements were properly applicable to privately-financed intercollegiate athletic programs, the rules which HEW proposes are unrealistic, completely unreasonable and inconsistent with the statute. HEW's regulations are not easy to understand, but it appears that they are intended to require colleges and universities to offer intercollegiate athletic programs for women which |