HEW's Sex Rules

When the Department of Health, Education and Welfare released its first set of proposed rules to end sex discrimination in education, it drew criticism from all sides. Last week, after a year of tinkering with the original document in an effort to placate critics, HEW laid down a new set of rules. But its summer rerun is in the same old trouble. Some feminists say that HEW has been too timid. Some colleges and the National Collegiate Athletic Association say the department has come on too strong. The N.C.A.A. thinks the provision for equal opportunity for women in college sports "may well signal the end of intercollegiate athletic programs as we have known them."

Vague Phrases. The new rules, required by Title 9 of the Education Amendments of 1972, were approved by President Ford and apply to institutions receiving federal funds. Though patched by compromise and pocked with loopholes and vague phrases, they essentially demand equal treatment for males and females in gym classes, faculty hiring, vocational training, financial aid, athletics and many other activities.

Compulsory segregation by sex is banned in nearly all classes and extracurricular activities. (Among the exceptions: Boy and Girl Scout programs, sex-education classes and phys.-ed. classes featuring contact sports.) Pregnant girls cannot be excluded from class because of their condition. Sexual discrimination is barred in scholarship aid and admissions at the 2,700 or so federally aided colleges and universities. Despite feminist pressure, HEW refused to bar textbooks that might contain "sex stereotypes," fearing court battles on First Amendment grounds.

In sports, the regulations demand equality of opportunity for females but stop short of requiring a school or college to set up a girls' team to match every boys' team. The language is vigorous, but vague. In noncontact sports such as tennis and baseball, schools are required to let girls try out for the boys' team if there is not enough interest in an all-girl team. In football, basketball and other contact sports, colleges and schools need not let girls try out for men's teams, but somehow must provide equal opportunity to play. Presumably this means women's teams if the demand is there, though HEW's rules do not flatly say so. Nor must schools spend as much per capita on girls' athletic programs as they do on boys'. If they did, Ohio State, for one, might have to sharply increase its spending on women's sports by slicing off a sizable chunk of the more than $3 million that it devotes to its big and lucrative men's program.

Nonetheless, the rules force schools and colleges to make some increase in spending on women's sports. HEW regional directors will require "necessary" funding for girls' teams and will be looking for rough equality in travel and uniform allowances, training facilities and coaching. The rule on athletic scholarships is even vaguer: there must be "reasonable opportunities" for women to receive as much aid as men based on the level of participation in school sports.

Schools will have one year to comply with the athletic provisions, and colleges will have three years--a delay irritating to some feminists. ("That would be six years after the 1972 law was passed," complains Holly Knox, director of NOW's Project on Equal Education Rights.) For its part, the N.C.A.A. fears drastically reduced spending on its male programs. It plans a major lobbying effort with Congress, which has until July 21 to accept or reject the new rules.

Though feminists seem to consider the athletic provisions a qualified disaster, the biggest blow was HEW Secretary Caspar Weinberger's announcement that the department will stop investigating all individual complaints of sex discrimination as a matter of routine. His reason: HEW cannot cope with "the mailbag" approach to enforcement. He has a point. But feminists will be lobbying hard with Congress to get a modification. Since most people cannot afford to go to court, Knox maintains, the end of the open-season complaint system would mean "no remedy whatsoever in most cases."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.