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, Enclosure. MICHAEL SCOTT. 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 S6.41) 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 (assuming that comparable interest is shown) are in every respect from coaching salaries to travel schedules-the same as those available to male studentathletes. Moreover, the regulations require that where athletically-related scholarships are granted, they are to be allocated between males and females in a predetermined ratio, corresponding to the relative numbers of total participants in an institution's athletic program. Meeting these directives will require either a massive increase in funding of programs for women or drastic curtailment of existing programs for men. In imposing these new financial imperatives, HEW has adamantly refused to recognize that men's football and basketball programs frequently are successful in generating substantial revenues which provide support for their own continuation-and which at many institutions supply important financial support for other programs as well-while other programs generally provide no revenues and must be supported from other sources. Funds of the magnitude necessary to match major revenue-producing programs (particularly football) with nonincome programs for women are simply not available at most institutions. HEW's attempt to impose rigid uniformity upon college athletic programs without regard to the sources of financial support of those programs will yield absurd and disastrous results, results which we feel are not required by the language of Title IX and never were intended by Congress. We believe that HEW's direction to eliminate all differences between the athletic programs available to men and women student-athletes without regard to the source of financial support for the individual programs concerned goes beyond the elimination of sex-based distinctions and seeks to require the elimination of differences based on economics and spectator interest. For example, the gap between an institution's football program and many of its other sports programs for men is as wide or wider than the gap between its football program and its intercollegiate sports programs for women. In each case, however, the differences are due to revenue-producing experience, not sex-based distinctions. We also believe that the imposition of a sex test for athletic scholarships contemplated by HEW's regulations is not only not authorized by Title IX, but that such a requirement constructs an artificial sex barrier in direct conflict with the provisions and objectives of the law. We understand that HEW takes the position that under Title IX as written by Congress it does not have the authority necessary to avoid these irrational results and the damage which its regulations would impose on college athletics. In particular, HEW asserts that it has no authority to make special provisions in its regulations for revenues produced by particular sports activities. In view of the distinctions which HEW has seen fit to draw between sports where selection for teams is "based on competitive skill" and those where it is not, the distinction between "contact" and "non-contact" sports, and the special "separate but equal" provisions which it has written into the athletic provisions, to say nothing of other exceptions and distinctions-for example, the special rules regarding sex education classes-found elsewhere in the regulations, all without any mention of such distinctions or exceptions in the law, we can make no sense of HEW's position. For the reasons outlined above, we believe the athletic provisions of the HEW regulations exceed the authority delegated by Title IX, are inconsistent with the plain language of the statute and do not reflect Congressional intent. We urge that they be disapproved by Congress. CENTER FOR NATIONAL POLICY REVIEW. U. S. Representative AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, DEAR CHAIRMAN HAWKINS: We appreciate the opportunity given us by your phone call and press release of June 12, 1975, to comment upon the proposed HEW regulations implementing Title IX and abolishing the current procedures for the investigation of individual complaints of civil rights violations. Since we believe that many other organizations will focus their comments upon the substance of the Title IX regulations, we have chosen to focus our response on the revised complaint procedure regulations. We believe that these latter regulations are doubly important because they will largely nullify the effectiveness of the Title IX standards, as well as those of all of the other programs to which they will be applied, if they are adopted. Sincerely, WILLIAM L. TAYLOR, Director. COMMENTS OF THE CENTER FOR NATIONAL POLICY REVIEW, CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, WASHINGTON, D.C. On May 4, 1973, the Director of the Office of Civil Rights, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Mr. Peter Holmes, told his executive staff ". . . there is no domestic program that is more important to the well-being of the country than enforcement of the civil rights provisions under our jurisdiction. And the law doesn't give us the choice to postpone the enjoyment of rights under these provisions...." Exactly twenty-five months later, on June 4, 1975, the Federal Register contained the long awaited proposed regulations designed to implement the prohibition of sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. It also contained proposed new regulations which would relieve HEW-OCR of any obligation to investigate and resolve complaints filed by individuals of alleged violations of those rights under Title IX and the various other civil rights programs which it administers. Simultaneously, the Office of Civil Rights went into court to obtain a delay in the timetables for the investigation of nearly 200 such complaints concerning discrimination in elementary and secondary education programs in seventeen Southern and Border states. The rationale provided in both instances was similar: the investigation of individual complaints makes excessive demands upon the agency's limited personnel and diverts it from other more important duties. Further, individual complaints do not accurately reflect enforcement needs since some groups, especially women in higher education are over represented in the complaints currently being filed. These explanations, even if they were true, would not justify the elimination of an essential civil rights enforcement mechanism. But they are clearly undermined by OCR's past behavior and even by past statements of OCR's incumbent director. If these new regulations are allowed to go into effect, many Americans will lose the only realistic hope for redress of their civil rights grievances available to them. Whether the complainant is the parent of a child denied educational opportunities because of his or her handicap or a non-English speaking child provided with no bi-lingual/bi-cultural instruction, or an elderly black man denied admittance to a nursing home because of his race, or a young woman denied admittance to a vocational training program because of her sex-all are victims of policies and practices which if the new regulations go into effect may now go uninvestigated and unredressed. If additional staff is required to expeditiously investigate and resolve allegations of denial of civil rights, it should have been requested. Only once in its history has Congress denied OCR additional staff when it was requested. The request was reduced-not denied-in that instance because of the excessive number of unfilled positions on its staff roster. In fact no additional staff has been requested for several years in the important area of elementary and secondary education enforcement personnel. In fact, only on June 4, 1975, did the agency come forth with the argument that it was so understaffed that it could not comply with a two year old court order to investigate specific allegation of denials of civil rights. As an alternative to the investigation and redress of individual complaints, OCR proposes to define its own investigation and enforcement priorities. This position might be tenable, if its past record of self-initiated reviews were more impressive (See Justice Delayed and Denied: HEW and Northern School Desegregation, Washington, 1974.) The credibility of OCR's proposed alternative further suffers from its simultaneous plans to eliminate some of its most basic information gathering devices (forms 101 and 102). This information is of critical importance in discerning patterns of discriminatory activities which can be used in determining priorities for self-initated reviews. Of course some individual complaints are clearly unfounded-obviously lacking in jurisdiction or the work of cranks-but as recently as July 7, 1975, Mr. Holmes admitted under oath that approximately 50% are generally meritorious |