To Comply or Not To Comply? That Is Not The Question: A Multi-Content Analysis of Title IX Policies at Historically Black Land Grant Universities

Abstract

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) enforces, among other statutes, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. While Title IX is directed towards the prevention of discrimination in collegiate athletics, Title IX does not explicitly remedy only issues in college athletics. Rather, the statute’s heart is a broad prohibition of gender-based discrimination in all-programmatic aspects of educational institutions: “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 education programs or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…” (Cohen v. Brown University, 991 F.2d 888)

Reports of sexual discrimination on college campuses have escalated over the past decade (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). As a response to public outcry, analysis and review of institutional Title IX policies have permeated public discourse and contributed to significant debate over how higher education institutions are responding to sexual discrimination on their campuses (Lowentheil, 2013). This dissertation analyzes how compliant the Title IX policies at three (3) historically Black land grant universities, Alabama A & M University, Southern University and A & M College, and Florida A & M University, are with federal guidelines and regulations and how each institution compares with one another in terms of compliance.

Keywords: Title IX, land grant, HBCU, compliance, higher education, policy analysis