This documentary is an informative patchwork quilt of sport and legal experts, archival photos, historical, and legal information detailing the story of Title IX: its origins, its champions, and, most importantly, how women’s lives are different because of it. This film should be required viewing for all students, many of whom are unaware of what life was like for women in schools prior to the passage of Title IX: girls were not afforded the same educational opportunities, were subjected to differential behavioural expectations, often did not have the opportunity to participate in varsity sports, and were not admitted to colleges and universities to the same degree as were men.

Additionally, women who participated in sports either had to pay for their own uniforms, did not have uniforms at all, were given hand-me-down men’s uniforms, or wore "pennies" which looked like aprons worn over clothing with no number or school affiliation. Men had more access to training, practice, facilities, rehabilitation, and were more recognized for their accomplishments. All of this translates to the idea that women are secondary, an idea against which modern day feminists still fight. The film details these facts using oral histories, a classic feminist methodology.

Title IX: Implications for Women in Sport and Education is an inspirational three-disk set covering topics such as history, politics, and the law. Each section concludes with questions for further study, perfect for classroom use. Disc one presents the historical implications of Title IX; the film details the history of the governance of women’s sports, and highlights the inequities of the philosophy of "separate but equal." Women and girls faced many gender based divisions within education which the film compares to segregated schooling based on race. When schools became desegregated after Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) many African-American teachers and administrators lost their positions. Similarly, after Title IX the administrations of men’s sports and women’s sports merged. Consequently, more men were hired as coaches and administrators of women’s sports under the NCAA, whereas previously these fields were led by women. This perpetuated the idea that men were more qualified to lead.

Disc two, dealing broadly with politics, details the unintended consequences of Title IX, including increased gender conflict. For example, in order to comply with Title IX, some schools cut smaller men’s sports instead of redistributing the money used for larger men’s teams (and instead of increasing athletic opportunities for women in general). Women and Title IX are often blamed for these cuts. For those interested in maintaining the status quo, this is an effective strategy, for it takes the onus off the university. When there is one group who disproportionately garners the privilege, conflict ensues. When the privileged are in danger of losing some of their entitlements, they search for someone to blame. This is the essence of the media created myth of feminism: that feminism has caused inequities for men. The reality is that feminism is truly about equity and social justice for all, which the film makes very clear. Everyone can benefit from feminism, and from sharing resources.

Another relevant political issue is Title IX compliance. Universities often have Title IX committees, not for the promotion of gender equity, but for the purpose of maintaining a minimum standard of compliance with the law. In 2005, the Department of Education clarified Title IX compliance regulations and enabled universities to conduct online surveys of the underrepresented sex. Many students not only neglected to respond to these surveys, but also did not understand their importance. Such non-responses were deemed as affirmative indications of lack of interest in sport for women. In short, as Jocelyn Samuels from the National Women’s Law Center states, "...women have to prove that they are entitled to their equal rights, whereas men are assumed to want their equal rights" (as cited in film). In order to achieve educational equity, the onus must be placed back on the university (where it belongs). Fortunately, the Obama administration recently rescinded the use of the survey method to determine Title IX compliance.

Disc three details major court cases using Title IX. Grove City College v. Bell (1984) held that all departments of an institution receiving federal funds are subject to Title IX, and cannot discriminate. Canon v. University of Chicago (1979) set a precedent in granting private rights of action. Franklin v. Gwinnett Public Schools (1992) found that monetary awards for punitive and compensatory damages can be awarded in cases of sexual harassment. Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education (the whistle blower case) (2005) covers retaliation, and retaliation of those in non-protected classes.

Although Title IX has done much to reduce inequities in education, as this film suggests, there is still much more work to do. Teachers must learn about Title IX in their training; this is not the current practice. Inequities still exist in terms of scheduling, use of facilities, and access to resources for girls and women in sport. When striving for educational equity in the distribution of resources, we should heed the advice detailed in the film, and expressed through the apple metaphor: if two children desire the same apple, one child should cut it; the other child should pick which half to take. This is the practice to which we should aspire in order to achieve true equity in the division of resources.

Jennifer Lynn Martin, Educational Leadership, Oakland University, jenm999@twmi.rr.com