The newest interpretation makes it necessary for universities to have strict parity between men's and women's sports, or more precisely, the number of men and women athletes must mirror the ratio of men to women in the student body.

In the court case, several female students sued Brown University when it cut two women's sports teams in 1991. At the time of the suit, Brown's overall enrollment was 51 percent female. Budget cuts left the school with 14 varsity sports for men and 14 for women, but only 38 percent of all varsity athletes were female. Brown's lawyers argued that the disparity reflected a difference of interest, not discrimination.

Title IX opponents, such as groups of US college officials and men's sport associations, say that boys simply like sports more than girls. Strict parity, these groups say, is forcing the nation's colleges to cut men's teams or else increase the overall athletic budget--a near impossible feat in this era of cost cutting. Indeed, a recent study by the NCAA shows t

Subsection (1), the "proportionate to enrollment" test, would require institutions to create positions for women students irrespective of their athletic interest or ability. This would be a form of affirmative action prohibited by the statute. 53

An athlete's opportunity to obtain a varsity position when the athlete has the interest and ability should not be affected by the athlete's sex. Providing opportunities in proportion to the numbers of athletes of each sex with interest and ability avoids sex discrimination; providing opportunities in proportion to overall enrollment creates discrimination.

The proportional to enrollment test appears inconsistent with Title IX in several ways. First, the test requires affirmative action while the statute only prohibits "preferential or disparate treatment to the members of one sex on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of that sex participating in" that program or activity. 106 Adding varsity positions for women until the percentage of women varsity athletes equals the percentage of women students is a form of affirmative action. Second, the use of proportionality as the sole basis of liability conflicts with Title IX's athletic scholarship regulation. The athletic scholarship regulation expressly states that the relevant pool will consist of participants in varsity athletics and not enrolled students. 107 The approach to proportionality taken in the scholarship regulation is also evident in other sections of the Policy Interpretation's discussion of the Athletics Regulation. Thus, the Policy Interpretation states: "If women athletes, as a class, are receiving opportunities and benefits equal to those of male athletes, individuals within the class should be protected thereby." 108 Third, and more importantly, the decisions overlook the fact that achieving proportionality requires discrimination on the basis of sex, a violation of the Title IX law in the statute and the Athletics Regulation.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Title IX, Athletics Regulation, NCAA Division, Brown University, Policy Interpretation, Title VI, Title IX's, Roberts Favia, Athletics Regulation's, title ix, Colorado State's, athletics regulation, proportional enrollment, policy interpretation, varsity athletics, varsity athletes, women's teams, enrollment test, proportional enrollment test, program expansion, varsity positions, statute athletics regulation, history program expansion, title ix liability, male female athletes,
Approximate Word count = 6339
Approximate Pages = 25 (250 words per page double spaced)