This chapter explores private institutions that adjudicate criminal disputes, from professional organizations to universities to religious organizations. These institutions can choose the level of due process they want to follow, although universities are bound by Title IX requirements and face some constitutional restrictins. The institutions also follow their own distinctive interests in meting out punishment if they adjudicate the accused as guilty. Their procedures often provide a level of procedural justice and restorative justice beyond what the public criminal justice system provides.

We begin with a narrative about the vast inequalities between the 2021 women’s and men’s college basketball championships (sponsored by the National Collegiate Athletic Association). These disparate events exemplify systemic inequalities across college athletics that we document with data showing sex-based disparities in participation, resource allocation, and leadership. We introduce a critical perspective on Title IX – the celebrated 1972 U.S. sex nondiscrimination law – arguing that aspects of institutions employed under nondiscrimination policy can nevertheless undermine the quest for equality. We outline a set of policy proposals to address gender inequalities. These include more aggressive enforcement of Title IX, policies to ensure equal resource allocation and protections for women student-athletes, and initiatives to increase opportunities for women’s industry leadership. We then theorize three routes to policy change – from the bottom up, top down, and outside in – as well as the institutional hurdles that stand in the way of change. Throughout this discussion, we make a concerted effort to highlight how sex segregation, inadequate representation, androcentric organizational culture, and market demands are hurdles faced not just by those seeking equality in athletics but by other marginalized groups as well.

Much has changed in the fifty years since the passage of Title IX. Although opportunities for women have shifted from wholesale exclusion, full equality remains unrealized. Our findings reveal a series of institutional barriers, many of which are baked into the structure of college sports. Sex segregation, intransigent androcentric culture, and lackluster market demands impede women’s progress. This concluding chapter includes discussion of steps that could be taken to move toward improving equality, addressing the hurdles, and making inroads on the way to major policy shifts. We also consider the implications of our findings for understanding the possibilities for using policy to address the concerns of marginalized groups more generally. We discuss the ways in which addressing these concerns will also benefit inclusion for transgender and gender-diverse athletes. Institutional context and embedded hierarchies of power can constrain such groups’ possibilities in their quest toward equality and inclusion.

We offer details of our empirical approach. Our method involved multiple distinct representative surveys of key college athletic stakeholders (i.e., student-athletes, coaches, athletic administrators, and the American public including nonfans and fans). Our surveys measure opinions on a set of gender equity policy proposals (e.g., equal spending, requiring schools to interview at least one woman for athletic director jobs, etc.). We also include an exercise that requires respondents to confront inevitable policy tradeoffs. Respondents are asked to allocate a fixed budget to fund gender equity initiatives or benefit initiatives (e.g., paying college student-athletes versus guaranteed scholarships). Our measures allow us to explore the empirical evidence for our argument while making generalizable statements about the relevant stakeholders. The chapter provides details of our measurement approach and samples, as well as how we connect our theory to our analyses. Our data allow us to excavate important dynamics within and across group that have interests in college athletics.

Chapter 2 traces how a piece of legislation, Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments, became the primary vehicle for addressing campus sexual assault. Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational program or activity that receives federal financial assistance. Although the legislation was intended to increase educational opportunities for women, it quickly became a means for increasing athletic opportunities, and then later a tool for combatting sexual violence. The chapter begins with a brief explanation of the administrative process before moving in chronological order through actions by the Department of Education and the courts. It then explains why even once sexual assault was recognized as a form of discrimination, it still took a long time to extend Title IX to peer assault.

The demographic composition of campuses has changed dramatically in recent decades, both among students and faculty. This chapter documents those trends as well as persistent demographic inequalities. It then reviews the policies that created such inequalities as well as more recent attempts to mitigate them. It also reviews recent protests and controversies surrounding campus diversity.

This chapter examines the history of efforts to ensure gender equity in education. Special attention is paid to the provisions, case law, and enforcement actions of Title IX of the Eduational Act of 1972. Key precedents are examined, including Grove City, Cannon, Gebser, and Davis. The chapter also examines the use of the Equal Protection Clause to create equal educational opportunities for women - most notably exemplified by Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion in United States v. Virginia. The chapter compares the disparate approaches to Title IX enforcement taken by the Obama and Trump adminstrations, contrasting the standards, emphases, and procedures outlined in their respective regulatory documents. Finally, the chapter examines the ongoing prevalence of gender discrimination in American education and American society at large. The tenets of social constructivism promise to help mitigate both harmful tendencies.