Garden of Eden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden 

 

The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man by Jan Brueghel the Elder and Pieter Paul Rubens, c. 1615, depicting both domestic and exotic wild animals such as tigers, parrots and ostriches co-existing in the garden

In Abrahamic religions, the Garden of Eden (Hebrew: גַּן־עֵדֶן, gan-ʿĒḏen) or Garden of God (גַּן־יְהֹוֶה, gan-YHWH and גַן־אֱלֹהִים gan-Elohim), also called the Terrestrial Paradise, is the biblical paradise described in Genesis 2-3 and Ezekiel 28 and 31.

The location of Eden is described in the Book of Genesis as the source of four tributaries. Various suggestions have been made for its location: at the head of the Persian Gulf, in southern Mesopotamia (now Iraq) where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers run into the sea; and in Armenia.

Like the Genesis flood narrative, the Genesis creation narrative and the account of the Tower of Babel, the story of Eden echoes the Mesopotamian myth of a king, as a primordial man, who is placed in a divine garden to guard the tree of life. The Hebrew Bible depicts Adam and Eve as walking around the Garden of Eden naked due to their sinlessness.

Mentions of Eden are also made in the Bible elsewhere in Genesis, in Isaiah 51:3, Ezekiel 36:35, and Joel 2:3; Zechariah 14 and Ezekiel 47 use paradisical imagery without naming Eden.

The name derives from the Akkadian edinnu, from a Sumerian word edin meaning "plain" or "steppe", closely related to an Aramaic root word meaning "fruitful, well-watered". Another interpretation associates the name with a Hebrew word for "pleasure"; thus the Vulgate reads "paradisum voluptatis" in Genesis 2:8, and the Douay–Rheims Bible, following, has the wording "And the Lord God had planted a paradise of pleasure".

Biblical narratives

Genesis

Main articles: Genesis creation narrative and Adam and Eve

 

Expulsion from Paradise, painting by James Tissot (c. 1896–1902)

 

The Expulsion illustrated in the English Caedmon manuscript, c. 1000 CE

The second part of the Genesis creation narrative, Genesis 2:4–3:24, opens with YHWH-Elohim (translated here "the LORD God") creating the first man (Adam), whom he placed in a garden that he planted "eastward in Eden":

And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

— 

The man was free to eat from any tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which were taboo. Last of all, God made a woman (Eve) from a rib of the man to be a companion for the man. In Genesis 3, the man and the woman were seduced by the serpent into eating the forbidden fruit, and they were expelled from the garden to prevent them from eating of the tree of life, and thus living forever. Cherubim were placed east of the garden, "and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way of the tree of life".

Genesis 2:10-14 lists four rivers in association with the garden of Eden: Pishon, Gihon, Hiddekel (the Tigris), and Phirat (the Euphrates). It also refers to the land of Cush—translated/interpreted as Ethiopia, but thought by some to equate to Cossaea, a Greek name for the land of the Kassites. These lands lie north of Elam, immediately to the east of ancient Babylon, which, unlike Ethiopia, does lie within the region being described. In Antiquities of the Jews, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus identifies the Pishon as what "the Greeks called Ganges" and the Geon (Gehon) as the Nile.

Ezekiel

Main article: Ezekiel's cherub in Eden

In Ezekiel 28:12-19 the prophet Ezekiel the "son of man" sets down God's word against the king of Tyre: the king was the "seal of perfection", adorned with precious stones from the day of his creation, placed by God in the garden of Eden on the holy mountain as a guardian cherub. However, the king sinned through wickedness and violence, and so he was driven out of the garden and thrown to the earth, where now he is consumed by God's fire: "All those who knew you in the nations are appalled at you, you have come to a horrible end and will be no more." (Ezekiel 28:19).

According to Terje Stordalen, the Eden in Ezekiel appears to be located in Lebanon. "[I]t appears that the Lebanon is an alternative placement in Phoenician myth (as in Ez 28,13, III.48) of the Garden of Eden", and there are connections between paradise, the Garden of Eden and the forests of Lebanon (possibly used symbolically) within prophetic writings. Edward Lipinski and Peter Kyle McCarter have suggested that the garden of the gods, the oldest Sumerian analog of the Garden of Eden, relates to a mountain sanctuary in the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges.

Proposed locations

Map showing the rivers in the Middle East known in English as the Tigris and Euphrates

The location of Eden is described in Genesis 2:10–14:

And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads. The name of the first is Pishon; that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon; the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is Tigris; that is it which goeth toward the east of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

Suggestions for the location of the Garden of Eden include the head of the Persian Gulf, as argued by Juris Zarins, in southern Mesopotamia (now Iraq and Kuwait) where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers run into the sea; and in the Armenian Highlands or Armenian Plateau. British archaeologist David Rohl locates it in Iran, and in the vicinity of Tabriz, but this suggestion has not caught on with scholarly sources.

Some religious groups have believed the location of the garden to be local to them, outside of the Middle East. Some early leaders of Mormonism held that it was located in Jackson County, Missouri. The 20th-century Panacea Society believed it was located at the site of their home town of Bedford, England, while preacher Elvy E. Callaway believed it was on the Apalachicola River in Florida, near the town of Bristol. Some suggested that the location is in Jerusalem.

On his third voyage to the Americas in 1498, Christopher Columbus thought he may have reached the Earthly Paradise upon first seeing the South American mainland.

Parallel concepts

Map by Pierre Mortier, 1700, based on theories of Pierre Daniel Huet, Bishop of Avranches. A caption in French and Dutch reads: Map of the location of the terrestrial paradise, and of the country inhabited by the patriarchs, laid out for the good understanding of sacred history, by M. Pierre Daniel Huet

A number of parallel concepts to the biblical Garden of Eden exist in various other religions and mythologies. Dilmun in the Sumerian story of Enki and Ninhursag is a paradisaical abode of the immortals, where sickness and death were unknown. The garden of the Hesperides in Greek mythology was also somewhat similar to the Jewish concept of the Garden of Eden, and by the 16th century a larger intellectual association was made in the Cranach painting. In this painting, only the action that takes place there identifies the setting as distinct from the Garden of the Hesperides, with its golden fruit.

The word "paradise" entered English from the French paradis, inherited from the Latin paradisus, from the Greek parádeisos (παράδεισος). The Greek, in turn, was derived from an Old Iranian form, itself from the Proto-Iranian *parādaiĵah-, "walled enclosure", which was derived from the Old Persian 𐎱𐎼𐎭𐎹𐎭𐎠𐎶 (p-r-d-y-d-a-m, /paridaidam/, whence from the Avestan 𐬞𐬀𐬌𐬭𐬌⸱𐬛𐬀𐬉𐬰𐬀, pairi-daêza-. The literal meaning of this word is "walled (enclosure)", from pairi- 'around' (cognate with the Greek περί and the English peri-, of identical meaning), and -diz, "to make, form (a wall), build" (cognate with the Greek τεῖχος, 'wall'). The word's etymology is ultimately derived from a PIE root, *dheigʷ, "to stick and set up (a wall)", and *per, "around".

By the 6th/5th century BCE, the Old Iranian word had been borrowed into the Akkadian language as pardesu, "domain". It subsequently came to indicate the expansive walled gardens of the First Persian Empire, and was subsequently borrowed into a number of languages; into Greek as παράδεισος (parádeisos), "park for animals", in Anabasis, the most famous work of the early 4th century BCE Athenian Xenophon; into Aramaic as pardaysa, "royal park"; and into Hebrew as pardes (פַּרְדֵּס), "orchard", appearing thrice in the Tanakh: in the Song of Solomon (4:13), Ecclesiastes (2:5) and Nehemiah (2:8).

In the Septuagint (3rd–1st centuries BCE), the Greek παράδεισος (parádeisoswas) used to translate both the Hebrew פרדס (pardesand) and גן (gan), meaning "garden" (e.g. (Genesis 2:8, Ezekiel 28:13): it is from this usage that the use of "paradise" to refer to the Garden of Eden derives. The same usage also appears in Arabic and in the Quran as firdaws فردوس.

The idea of a walled enclosure was not preserved in most Iranian usage, and generally came to refer to a plantation or other cultivated area, not necessarily walled. For example, the Old Iranian word survives as pardis in New Persian, as well as its derivative pālīz (or jālīz), which denotes a vegetable patch.

The word pardes occurs three times in the Hebrew Bible, but always in contexts other than a connection with Eden: in the Song of Solomon 4:13: "Thy plants are an orchard (pardes) of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits; camphire, with spikenard"; Ecclesiastes 2:5: "I made me gardens and orchards (pardes), and I planted trees in them of all kind of fruits"; and in Nehemiah 2:8: "And a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king's orchard (pardes), that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which appertained to the house, and for the wall of the city." In these examples, pardes clearly means "orchard" or "park", but in the apocalyptic literature and in the Talmud "paradise" gains its associations with the Garden of Eden and its heavenly prototype, and in the New Testament "paradise" becomes the realm of the blessed (as opposed to the realm of the cursed) among those who have already died, with literary Hellenistic influences.

Other views

Jewish eschatology

The Garden of Eden as depicted in the first or left panel of Hieronymus Bosch's The Garden of Earthly Delights triptych. The panel includes many imagined and exotic African animals

In the Talmud and the Jewish Kabbalah, the scholars agree that there are two types of spiritual places called "Garden in Eden". The first is rather terrestrial, of abundant fertility and luxuriant vegetation, known as the "lower Gan Eden" (gan meaning garden). The second is envisioned as being celestial, the habitation of righteous, Jewish and non-Jewish, immortal souls, known as the "higher Gan Eden". The rabbis differentiate between Gan and Eden. Adam is said to have dwelt only in the Gan, whereas Eden is said never to be witnessed by any mortal eye.

According to Jewish eschatology, the higher Gan Eden is called the "Garden of Righteousness". It has been created since the beginning of the world, and will appear gloriously at the end of time. The righteous dwelling there will enjoy the sight of the heavenly chayot carrying the throne of God. Each of the righteous will walk with God, who will lead them in a dance. Its Jewish and non-Jewish inhabitants are "clothed with garments of light and eternal life, and eat of the tree of life" (Enoch 58,3) near to God and his anointed ones. This Jewish rabbinical concept of a higher Gan Eden is opposed by the Hebrew terms gehinnom and sheol, figurative names for the place of spiritual purification for the wicked dead in Judaism, a place envisioned as being at the greatest possible distance from heaven.

In modern Jewish eschatology it is believed that history will complete itself and the ultimate destination will be when all mankind returns to the Garden of Eden.

Legends

In the 1909 book Legends of the Jews, Louis Ginzberg compiled Jewish legends found in rabbinic literature. Among the legends are ones about the two Gardens of Eden. Beyond Paradise is the higher Gan Eden, where God is enthroned and explains the Torah to its inhabitants. The higher Gan Eden contains three hundred and ten worlds and is divided into seven compartments. The compartments are not described, though it is implied that each compartment is greater than the previous one and is joined based on one's merit. The first compartment is for Jewish martyrs, the second for those who drowned, the third for "Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai and his disciples," the fourth for those whom the cloud of glory carried off, the fifth for penitents, the sixth for youths who have never sinned; and the seventh for the poor who lived decently and studied the Torah.

In chapter two, Legends of the Jews gives a brief description of the lower Gan Eden. The tree of knowledge is a hedge around the tree of life, which is so vast that "it would take a man five hundred years to traverse a distance equal to the diameter of the trunk". From beneath the trees flow all the world's waters in the form of four rivers: Tigris, Nile, Euphrates, and Ganges. After the fall of man, the world was no longer irrigated by this water. While in the garden, though, Adam and Eve were served meat dishes by angels and the animals of the world understood human language, respected mankind as God's image, and feared Adam and Eve. When one dies, one's soul must pass through the lower Gan Eden in order to reach the higher Gan Eden. The way to the garden is the Cave of Machpelah that Adam guards. The cave leads to the gate of the garden, guarded by a cherub with a flaming sword. If a soul is unworthy of entering, the sword annihilates it. Within the garden is a pillar of fire and smoke that extends to the higher Gan Eden, which the soul must climb in order to reach the higher Gan Eden.

Islamic view

Mozarabic world map from 1109 with Eden in the East (at top)

The term jannāt ʿadni ("Gardens of Eden" or "Gardens of Perpetual Residence") is used in the Quran for the destination of the righteous. There are several mentions of "the Garden" in the Quran, while the Garden of Eden, without the word ʿadn, is commonly the fourth layer of the Islamic heaven and not necessarily thought as the dwelling place of Adam. The Quran refers frequently over various Surah about the first abode of Adam and Hawwa (Eve), including surat Sad, which features 18 verses on the subject (38:71–88), surat al-Baqara, surat al-A'raf, and surat al-Hijr although sometimes without mentioning the location. The narrative mainly surrounds the resulting expulsion of Hawwa and Adam after they were tempted by Iblis (Satan). Despite the biblical account, the Quran mentions only one tree in Eden, the tree of immortality, from which God specifically forbade Adam and Eve. Some exegesis added an account, about Satan, disguised as a serpent to enter the Garden, repeatedly told Adam to eat from the tree, and eventually both Adam and Eve did so, resulting in disobeying God. These stories are also featured in the hadith collections, including al-Tabari.

Quranic scripture of story

Quranic verses Q.2:35-8, are believed to tell the story of Adam disobeying God’s command and eating the Forbidden Fruit, and of God ordered him out of the Garden. One translation (the Clear Quran) that indicates that the Garden of Eden was in Heaven goes:

• We cautioned, “O Adam! Live with your wife in Paradise (lit. "the Garden") and eat as freely as you please, but do not approach this tree, or else you will be wrongdoers.” (2:35)
• But Satan deceived them—leading to their fall from the [blissful] state they were in,1 and We said, “Descend from the heavens [to the earth] as enemies to each other.2 You will find in the earth a residence and provision for your appointed stay.” (2:36)
• Then Adam was inspired with words ˹of prayer˺ by his Lord, so He accepted his repentance. Surely He is the Accepter of Repentance, Most Merciful. (2:37)
• We said, “Descend all of you! Then when guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows it, there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve. (2:38) 

Location

Quranic verses describe Adam was being expelled from al-Jannah, "the garden", which is the commonly used word for paradise in Islam. However, according to Ibn Kathir (d. 1372) and Ar-Razi (d. 1209), (exegetes of the Quran), four interpretations of the location of the garden prevailed among early Muslims:

• that the garden was Paradise itself,
• that it was a separate garden created especially for Adam and Eve,
• that it was located on Earth,
• that it was best for the Muslims not to be concerned with the location of the garden.

According to one T.O. Shanavas however, contextual analysis of Quranic verses suggests the Garden of Eden could not have been in Paradise and must have been on earth. (For example a sahih hadith reports Muhammad said: “Allah says: I have prepared for my righteous servants that which has neither been seen by eyes, nor heard by ears, nor ever conceived by any man.” i.e. no man has ever seen Paradise. Since Adam was a man, he could not have seen paradise, therefore he could not have lived there.)

Doctrine of "The Fall of Man"

Islamic exegesis does not regard Adam and Eve's expulsion from paradise as punishment for disobedience or a result from abused free will on their part. Instead, ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (1292-1350) writes, God's wisdom (ḥikma) destined humanity to leave the garden and settle on earth. This is because God wants to unfold the full range of his attributes. If humans were not to live on earth, God couldn't express his love, forgiveness, and power to his creation. Further, if humans were not to experience suffering, they could neither long for paradise nor appreciate its delights. Khwaja Abdullah Ansari (1006–1088) describes Adam and Eve's expulsion as ultimately caused by God. Nonetheless, despite the paradoxical notion that man has no choice but to comply to God's will, this does not mean that humans should not blame themselves for their "sin" of complying. This is exemplified by Adam and Eve in the Quran (Q.7:23 “Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If You do not forgive us and have mercy on us, we will certainly be losers”), in contrast to Iblis (Satan) who blames God for leading him astray (Q.15:37).

Latter Day Saints

See also: Adam and Eve (LDS Church)

Followers of the Latter Day Saint movement believe that after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden they resided in a place known as Adam-ondi-Ahman, located in present-day Daviess County, Missouri. It is recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants that Adam blessed his posterity there and that he will return to that place at the time of the final judgement in fulfillment of a prophecy set forth in the Bible.

Numerous early leaders of the Church, including Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and George Q. Cannon, taught that the Garden of Eden itself was located in nearby Jackson County,^[32] but there are no surviving first-hand accounts of that doctrine being taught by Joseph Smith himself. LDS doctrine is unclear as to the exact location of the Garden of Eden, but tradition among Latter-Day Saints places it somewhere in the vicinity of Adam-ondi-Ahman, or in Jackson County.

Gnosticism

The 2nd-century Gnostic teacher Justin held that there were three original divinities, a transcendental being called the Good, an intermediate male figure known as Elohim and Eden who is an Earth-mother. The world is created from the love of Elohim and Eden, but evil later is brought into the universe when Elohim learns of the existence of the Good above him and ascends trying to reach it.

Art and literature

Art

One of oldest depictions of Garden of Eden is made in Byzantine style in Ravenna, while the city was still under Byzantine control. A preserved blue mosaic is part of the mausoleum of Galla Placidia. Circular motifs represent flowers of the garden of Eden. The Garden of Eden motifs most frequently portrayed in illuminated manuscripts and paintings are the "Sleep of Adam" ("Creation of Eve"), the "Temptation of Eve" by the Serpent, the "Fall of Man" where Adam takes the fruit, and the "Expulsion". The idyll of "Naming Day in Eden" was less often depicted. Michelangelo depicted a scene at the Garden of Eden on the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

• 

  The Garden of Eden by Lucas Cranach der Ältere, a 16th-century German depiction of Eden

• 

  Fifth century "Garden of Eden" mosaic in mausoleum of Galla Placidia in Ravenna, Italy. UNESCO World Heritage Site.

• 

  The Garden of Eden by Thomas Cole (c. 1828)

• 

  After wandering through the Garden of Eden, Eve takes the forbidden fruit while Lilith speaks to Adam (by Carl Poellath, c. 1886)

• 

  The Garden of Eden by Adi Holzer (2012)

Literature

For many medieval writers, the image of the Garden of Eden also creates a location for human love and sexuality, often associated with the classic and medieval trope of the locus amoenus.

In the Divine Comedy, Dante Alighieri places the Garden at the top of Mt. Purgatory. Dante, the pilgrim, emerges into the Garden of Eden in Canto 28 of Purgatorio. Here he is told that God gave the Garden of Eden to man "in earnest, or as a pledge of eternal life," but man was only able to dwell there for a short time because he soon fell from grace. In the poem, the Garden of Eden is both human and divine: while it is located on earth at the top of Mt. Purgatory, it also serves as the gateway to the heavens.

Much of Milton's Paradise Lost occurs in the Garden of Eden.

The first act of Arthur Miller's 1972 play Creation of the World and Other Business is set in the Garden of Eden.

Title IX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX 

 

Title IX

Long title	An Act to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, the Vocational Education Act of 1963, the General Education Provisions Act (creating a National Foundation for Postsecondary Education and a National Institute of Education), the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress, and related Acts, and for other purposes.
Nicknames	Education Amendments of 1972
Enacted by	the 92nd United States Congress
Effective	June 23, 1972
Citations
Public law	92-318
Statutes at Large	86 Stat. 235
Codification
Acts amended	Higher Education Act of 1965 Vocational Education Act of 1963 General Education Provisions Act Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
Titles amended	20 U.S.C.: Education
U.S.C. sections created	20 U.S.C. ch. 38 § 1681 et seq.
Legislative history
Introduced in the Senate as S. 659 by Birch Bayh (D–IN) on February 28, 1972 Committee consideration by House Subcommittee on Higher Education Passed the Senate on March 1, 1972 (88–6) Passed the House on May 11, 1972 (275–125) Reported by the joint conference committee on May 24, 1972; agreed to by the Senate on May 24, 1972 (63–15) and by the House on June 8, 1972 (218–180) Signed into law by President Richard Nixon on June 23, 1972
United States Supreme Court cases
Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979) North Haven Bd. of Ed. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512 (1982) Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982) Iron Arrow Honor Soc. v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67 (1983) Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555 (1984) Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992) Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998) NCAA v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459 (1999) Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999) Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, 544 U.S. 167 (2005) Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, 555 U.S. 246 (2009)

Title IX is the most commonly used name for the federal civil rights law in the United States that was enacted as part (Title IX) of the Education Amendments of 1972. It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government. This is Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688.

Senator Birch Bayh wrote the 37 words of Title IX. Bayh first introduced an amendment to the Higher Education Act to ban discrimination on the basis of sex on August 6, 1971 and again on February 28, 1972, when it passed the Senate. Representative Edith Green, chair of the Subcommittee on Education, had held hearings on discrimination against women, and introduced legislation in the House on May 11, 1972. The full Congress passed Title IX on June 8, 1972. Representative Patsy Mink emerged in the House to lead efforts to protect Title IX against attempts to weaken it, and it was later renamed the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act following Mink's death in 2002. When Title IX was passed in 1972, only 42 percent of the students enrolled in American colleges were female.

The purpose of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 was to update Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned several forms of discrimination in employment, but did not address or mention discrimination in education.

Text

The following is the original text as written and signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1972:

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 any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

— Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute (20 U.S. Code § 1681 – (men and women) Sex)

Historical background

Foundations and hearings

Rep. Edith Green of Oregon laid the foundation for Title IX.

Title IX was enacted as a follow-up to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 1964 Act was passed to end discrimination in various fields based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in the areas of employment and public accommodation. The 1964 Act did not prohibit sex discrimination against people employed at educational institutions. A parallel law, Title VI, had also been enacted in 1964 to prohibit discrimination in federally funded private and public entities. It covered race, color, and national origin but excluded sex. Feminists during the early 1970s lobbied Congress to add sex as a protected class category. Title IX was enacted to fill this gap and prohibit discrimination in all federally funded education programs. Congressman John Tower then proposed an amendment to Title IX that would have exempted athletics departments from Title IX.

The Tower amendment was rejected, but it led to widespread misunderstanding of Title IX as a sports-equity law, rather than an anti-discrimination, civil rights law. While Title IX is best known for its impact on high school and collegiate athletics, the original statute made no explicit mention of sports. The United States Supreme Court also issued decisions in the 1980s and 1990s, making clear that sexual harassment and assault is a form of sex discrimination. In 2011, President Barack Obama issued guidance reminding schools of their obligation to redress sexual assaults as civil rights matters under Title IX. Obama also issued guidance clarifying Title IX protections for LGBT students through Dear Colleague letters.

The precursor to Title IX was an executive order, issued in 1967 by President Lyndon Johnson, forbidding discrimination in federal contracts. Before these orders were issued, the National Organization for Women (NOW) had persuaded him to include the addition of women. Executive Order 11375 required all entities receiving federal contracts to end discrimination on the basis of sex in hiring and employment. In 1969, a notable example of its success was Bernice Sandler who used the executive order to retain her job and tenure at the University of Maryland. She utilized university statistics to show how female employment at the university had plummeted as qualified women were replaced by men. Sandler then brought her complaints to the Department of Labor's Office for Federal Fair Contracts Compliance, where she was encouraged to file a formal complaint; later citing inequalities in pay, rank, and admissions, among others.

Sandler soon began to file complaints against the University of Maryland and other colleges while working with NOW and the Women's Equity Action League (WEAL). Sandler later filed 269 complaints against colleges and universities, which led to the events of 1970. In 1970, Sandler joined U.S. House Representative Edith Green's Subcommittee on Higher Education of the Education and Labor Committee, and observed corresponding congressional hearings relating to women's issues on employment and equal opportunity. In these hearings, Green and Sandler initially proposed the idea of Title IX. An early legislative draft aimed at amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was then authored by Representative Green. At the hearing, there were mentions of athletics. The idea behind the draft was a progressive one in instituting an affirmative action for women in all aspects of American education.

Steps from a draft to legislative act to public law

Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana

Title IX was formally introduced in Congress by Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana in 1971 who then was its chief Senate sponsor for congressional debate. At the time, Bayh was working on numerous constitutional issues related to women's employment and sex discrimination—including but not limited to the revised draft of the Equal Rights Amendment. The ERA attempted to build "a powerful constitutional base from which to move forward in abolishing discriminatory differential treatment based on sex". As he was having partisan difficulty in later getting the ERA Amendment out of committee, the Higher Education Act of 1965 was on the Senate Floor for re-authorization; and on February 28, 1972, Bayh re-introduced a provision found in the original/revised ERA bill as an amendment which would become Title IX. In his remarks on the Senate Floor, Bayh stated, "we are all familiar with the stereotype [that] women [are] pretty things who go to college to find a husband, [and who] go on to graduate school because they want a more interesting husband, and finally marry, have children, and never work again. The desire of many schools not to waste a 'man's place' on a woman stems from such stereotyped notions. But the facts contradict these myths about the 'weaker sex' and it is time to change our operating assumptions." He continued: "While the impact of this amendment would be far-reaching, it is not a panacea. It is, however, an important first step in the effort to provide for the women of America something that is rightfully theirs—an equal chance to attend the schools of their choice, to develop the skills they want, and to apply those skills with the knowledge that they will have a fair chance to secure the jobs of their choice with equal pay for equal work". Title IX became public law on June 23, 1972. When U.S. President Nixon signed the bill, he spoke mostly about desegregation busing, and did not mention the expansion of educational access for women he had enacted.

Implementation

Each institution or organization that receives federal funding must designate at least one employee as Title IX coordinator. Their duty is to oversee that Title IX is not being violated and to answer all questions pertaining to Title IX. Everyone must have access to the Title IX coordinator's name, address, and telephone number. In order to ensure compliance with Title IX, programs of both male and females must display no discrimination. This applies to athletics participation numbers, scholarships, program budgets, expenditures, and coaching salaries by gender.

Senator Bayh exercises with Title IX athletes at Purdue University in the 1970s.

Title IX's statutory language is brief. U.S. President Nixon therefore directed the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) to publish regulations clarifying the law's application. In 1974, U.S. Senator John Tower introduced the Tower Amendment which would have exempted revenue-producing sports from Title IX compliance. Later that year, Congress rejected the Tower Amendment and passed an amendment proposed by U.S. Senator Jacob Javits directing HEW to include "reasonable provisions considering the nature of particular sports" adopted in its place. In June 1975, HEW published the final regulations detailing how Title IX would be enforced. These regulations were codified in the Federal Register in the Code of Federal Regulations Volume 34, Part 106 (34 CFR 106). Since 1975, the federal government has issued guidance clarifying how it interprets and enforces those regulations.

Further legislation

Representative Patsy Mink of Hawaii, Title IX co-author, for whom the law was renamed in 2002

The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988 is tied to Title IX which was passed in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1984 ruling Grove City College v. Bell. The Court held that Title IX applied only to those programs receiving direct federal aid. This case was initially reached by the Supreme Court when Grove City College disagreed with the Department of Education's assertion that it was required to comply with Title IX. Grove City College was not a federally funded institution; however, they did accept students who were receiving Basic Educational Opportunity Grants through a Department of Education program. The Department of Education's stance was that because some of its students were receiving federal grants, the school was thus receiving federal assistance and Title  IX applied to it. The Court decided that since Grove City College was only receiving federal funding through the grant program that only this program had to comply. This ruling was a major victory for those opposed to Title IX as it then made many athletic programs outside the purview of Title IX, and thus reduced its scope.

Grove City's court victory, however, was short-lived. The Civil Rights Restoration Act passed in 1988, which extended Title IX coverage to all programs of any educational institution that receives any federal assistance, both direct and indirect. In 1994, the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, sponsored by Congresswoman Cardiss Collins required that federally-assisted educational institutions disclose information on roster sizes for men's and women's athletic teams; as well as budgets for recruiting, scholarships, coaches' salaries, and other expenses, annually. In 1992, the Supreme Court decided monetary relief was available under Title IX in the case Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools. In October 2002, less than a month after the death of U.S. Rep. Patsy Mink, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution to rename Title IX the "Patsy Takemoto Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act," which President George W. Bush signed into law. On November 24, 2006, Title IX regulations were amended to provide greater flexibility in the operation of single-sex classes or extracurricular activities at the primary or secondary school level; this was largely to introduce federal abstinence-only programs, which may have been a partial basis for the support of President Bush.

On May 15, 2020, the Department of Education issued a letter stating that the policy of the state of Connecticut which allows transgender girls to compete in high school sports as girls was a violation of the civil rights of female student-athletes and a violation of Title IX. It stated that Connecticut's policy "denied female student-athletes athletic benefits and opportunities, including advancing to the finals in events, higher-level competitions, awards, medals, recognition, and the possibility of greater visibility to colleges and other benefits."

On March 8, 2021, President Joe Biden issued Executive Order 14021 entitled "Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free From Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity," reversing changes made by the Trump administration to limit the scope of Title IX to biological sex only, excluding gender identity and sexual orientation. The executive order also provided a timeline for the Secretary of Education and Attorney General to "review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions (collectively, agency actions) that are or may be inconsistent with the policy set forth" in the order.

On June 16, 2021, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights issued a Notice of Interpretation explaining that it will "enforce Title IX's prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex to include: (1) discrimination based on sexual orientation; and (2) discrimination based on gender identity." The review set out in E.O. 14021 is still ongoing as of April 2022.

Impact on American schools

The introduction of Title IX was followed by a considerable increase in the number of females participating in organized sports within American academic institutions followed by growing interest in initiating and developing programs which would pursue feminist principles in relationship to concerns surrounding issues dealing with girls and women's equality and equity in sport.

Institutional requirements

Athletic equality requirements were later set by the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. In order to meet the requirements, schools must pass at least one of three tests measuring gender equality among athletics the school offers. These tests consist of proportional numbers of males and females participating, whether or not the school is making an effort to increase the number of the unrepresented sex, if the school has a certain history of one specific sex dominating the numbers of athletes in a given sport, and whether or not the school is showing an effort to expand the program to the other sex.

Challenges

There have been different interpretations regarding Title IX's application to high school athletics. The American Sports Council sued the Department of Education in 2011 seeking a declaratory judgment that its policy interpreting Title IX's requirement for equity in participation opportunities is limited to colleges and universities. The American Sports Council argued that "The three-part test and its encouragement of quotas, has no relevance to high schools or high-school sports, and no federal regulation or interpretation has ever said that high schools must abide by the three-part test". On the other hand, the Department of Education insists that Title IX is a "valuable tool" for ensuring a level playing field for all students" and "plays a critical role in ensuring a fundamental level of fairness in America's schools and universities".

Coaching and administration

Although Title IX has helped increase the participation rate of female student athletes, several challenges remain for girls and women, including for females who aspire to become involved in professional roles within sport. The growing exposure of female sports has led to an increasingly dominant representation of males in coaching positions and roles involving the governance of female athletics.

In regards to coaching roles, in spite of the fact that the legislation has helped create more and better opportunities for women, the number of women coaches has surprisingly decreased while the number of male coaches have subsequently increased. Men have also gained a larger role in directing female athletics. For example, the male-dominated National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which had been content to let the female-dominated Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) run female championships, decided to offer female championships themselves, leading to the eventual demise of the AIAW. The NCAA later tried to claim that Congress had not intended to include athletics under Title IX's coverage, but the record lacks any sustained discussion of the matter.

Increasing participation

Advocates of Title IX's current interpretation cite increases in female athletic participation, and attribute those increases to Title IX. One study, completed in 2006, pointed to a large increase in the number of women participating in athletics at both the high school and college level. The number of women in high school sports had increased by a factor of nine, while the number of women in college sports had increased by more than 450%. A 2008 study of intercollegiate athletics showed that women's collegiate sports have grown to 9,101 teams, or 8.65 per school. The five most frequently offered college sports for women are in order: (1) Basketball, 98.8% of schools have a team; (2) Volleyball, 95.7%; (3) Soccer, 92.0%; (4) Cross Country; 90.8%, and (5) Softball; 89.2%. The lowest rank for female sports teams is bowling. The exact percentage is not known, however there are only around 600 students on women's bowling teams in all three divisions in the NCAA.

Impact on men's programs

There have been concerns and claims that the current interpretation of Title IX by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has resulted in the dismantling of men's programs, despite strong participation in those sports. Some believe that the increase in athletic opportunity for girls in high school has come at the expense of boys' athletics. Because teams vary widely in size, it is more common to compare the number of total participation opportunities between the sexes. Additionally, the total number of college participation opportunities has increased for both sexes in the Title IX era, though solely for women when increased enrollment is accounted for, as men's participation has remained static relative to university enrollment, and men's opportunities outnumber women's by a wide margin.

Between 1981 and 1999, university athletic departments cut 171 men's wrestling teams, 84 men's tennis teams, 56 men's gymnastics teams, 27 men's track teams, and 25 men's swimming teams. While some teams—both men's and women's—have been eliminated in the Title IX era, both sexes have seen a net increase in the number of athletic teams over that same period. When total enrollment (which had likewise increased) is controlled for however, only women had an increase in participation.

Though interest in the sport of wrestling has consistently increased at the high school level since 1990, scores of colleges have dropped their wrestling programs during that same period. The OCR's three-prong test for compliance with Title IX often is cited as the reason for these cuts. Wrestling historically was the most frequently dropped sport, but other men's sports later overtook the lead, such that according to the NCAA, the most-dropped men's sports between 1987 and 2002 were as follows:

1. cross country (183)
2. indoor track (180)
3. golf (178)
4. tennis (171)
5. rowing (132)
6. outdoor track (126)
7. swimming (125)
8. wrestling (121)

Additionally, eight NCAA sports—all men's sports—were sponsored by fewer Division I schools in 2020 than in 1990, despite the D-I membership having increased by nearly 60 schools during that period.

In 2011, the American Sports Council (formerly called the College Sports Council) stated, "Nationwide, there are currently 1.3 million more boys participating in high school sports than girls. Using a gender quota to enforce Title IX in high school sports would put those young athletes at risk of losing their opportunity to play." High school participation rates from the National Federation of High School associations report that in 2010–11, there were 4,494,406 boys and 3,173,549 girls participating in high school athletics.

In a 2007 study of athletic opportunities at NCAA institutions the Women's Sports Foundation reported that over 150,000 female athletic opportunities would need to be added to reach participation levels proportional to the female undergraduate population. The same study found that men's athletics also receives the lion's share of athletic department budgets for operating expenses, recruiting, scholarships, and coaches salaries.

Sexual harassment and sexual violence

Title IX applies to all educational programs and all aspects of a school's educational system. In the late 1970s, a group of students and one faculty member sued Yale University for its failure to curtail sexual harassment on campus, especially by male faculty. This case, Alexander v. Yale, was the first to use Title IX to argue and establish that the sexual harassment of female students can be considered illegal sex discrimination. The plaintiffs in the case alleged rape, fondling, and offers of higher grades for sex by several Yale faculty. Some of the cases were based on a 1977 report authored by plaintiff Ann Olivarius, now a feminist attorney known for fighting sexual harassment, "A report to the Yale Corporation from the Yale Undergraduate Women's Caucus." Several of the plaintiffs and lawyers have written accounts of the case.

Advocates such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) likewise maintain that "when students suffer sexual assault and harassment, they are deprived of equal and free access to an education." Further, according to an April 2011 letter issued by the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, "The sexual harassment of students, including sexual violence, interferes with students' right to receive an education free from discrimination and, in the case of sexual violence, is a crime."

The letter, referred to as the "Dear Colleague Letter", states that it is the responsibility of institutions of higher education "to take immediate and effective steps to end sexual harassment and sexual violence." The letter illustrates multiple examples of Title IX requirements as they relate to sexual violence and makes clear that, should an institution fail to fulfill its responsibilities under Title IX, the Department of Education can impose a fine and potentially deny further institutional access to federal funds. However, critics and later the Department of Education noted that this change was adopted without a rulemaking process to provide public notice and comment.

On March 15, 2011, Yale undergraduate student and alleged sexual violence survivor Alexandra Brodsky filed a Title IX complaint along with fifteen fellow students alleging Yale "has a sexually hostile environment and has failed to adequately respond to sexual harassment concerns."

In October 2012, an Amherst College student, Angie Epifano, wrote an explicit, personal account of her alleged sexual assault and the ensuing "appalling treatment" she received when coming forward to seek support from the college's administration. In the narrative, Epifano alleged that she was raped by a fellow Amherst student and described how her life was affected by the experience; she stated that the perpetrator harassed her at the only dining hall, that her academic performance was negatively affected, and that, when she sought support, the administration coerced her into taking the blame for her experience and ultimately institutionalized her and pressured her to drop out.

The fact that such a prestigious institution could have such a noxious interior fills me with intense remorse mixed with sour distaste. I am sickened by the Administration's attempts to cover up survivors' stories, cook their books to discount rapes, pretend that withdrawals never occur, quell attempts at change, and sweep sexual assaults under a rug. When politicians cover up affairs or scandals the masses often rise in angry protestations and call for a more transparent government. What is the difference between a government and the Amherst College campus? Why can't we know what is happening on campus? Why should we be quiet about sexual assault?"

When the Amherst case reached national attention, Annie E. Clark and Andrea Pino, two women who were allegedly sexually assaulted at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill connected with Epifano, Brodsky, and Yale Law School student Dana Bolger to address the parallel concerns of hostility at their institution, filing Title IX and Clery Act complaints against the university in January 2013, both leading to investigations by the U.S. Department of Education.

Following the national prominence of the UNC Chapel Hill case, organizers Pino and Clark went on to coordinate with students at other schools; in 2013, complaints citing violations of Title IX were filed against Occidental College (on April 18), Swarthmore College and the University of Southern California (on May 22). These complaints, the resulting campaigns against sexual violence on college campuses, and the organizing of Bolger, Brodsky, Clark, Pino and other activists led to the formation of an informal national network of activists. Bolger and Brodsky also started Know Your IX, an organization of student activists focused on legal education and federal and state policy change.

Title IX has been interpreted as allowing private lawsuits against educational institutions as well as formal complaints submitted to the Department of Education. In 2006, a federal court found that there was sufficient evidence that the University of Colorado acted with "deliberate indifference" toward students Lisa Simpson and Anne Gilmore, who were sexually assaulted by student football players. The university settled the case by promising to change its policies and to pay $2.5 million in damages. In 2008, Arizona State University was the subject of a lawsuit that alleged violations of rights guaranteed by Title IX: the university expelled a football player for multiple instances of severe sexual harassment, but readmitted him; he went on to rape a fellow student in her dorm room. Despite its claim that it bore no responsibility, the school settled the lawsuit, agreeing to revise and improve its official response to sexual misconduct and to pay the plaintiff $850,000 in damages and fees.

The Trump administration made changes to guidelines that were implemented during the Obama administration. These changes shifted the standard of evidence used in Title IX investigations from "preponderance of the evidence" to a "clear and convincing" evidence standard, which is typically used for civil cases in which serious allegations are made (as opposed to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases). On September 22, 2017, US Department of Education Secretary Betsy Devos rescinded the Obama-era guidelines which had prodded colleges and universities to more aggressively investigate campus sexual assaults. On May 7, 2020, the U.S. Department of Education released final regulations governing campus sexual assault under Title IX, the first Title IX guidance published by the Office of Civil Rights to go through a formal notice-and-comment process since 1997. Some of the new regulations made in May 2020 involve defining sexual harassment to include “sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking,” as discrimination, as well as require schools to offer attainable options for anyone to report a sexual harassment case. Unlike guidance issued by the Obama administration in 2011 and 2014, they will have the force of law behind them. Colleges and universities will be required to comply with the regulations by Aug. 14.

On June 23, 2022, the Biden Administration issued a proposed rule to reverse the changes made by the final rule and to expand coverage regarding gender identity and pregnancy.

Transgender students

Main article: Gender identity under Title IX

Between 2010 and 2016, under the Obama administration the U.S. Department of Education-issued guidance—which was not part of the original amendment passed by Congress—explained that transgender students are protected from sex-based discrimination under Title IX. In particular, Title IX of its Education Amendments of 1972 bars schools that receive financial aid assistance from sex-based discrimination in education programs and activities. It instructed public schools to treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity in academic life. A student who identifies as a transgender boy, for instance, is allowed entry to a boys-only class, and a student who identifies as a transgender girl is allowed entry to a girls-only class. This also applies to academic records if that student is over the age of eighteen at a university. The memo states in part that "[a]ll students, including transgender students, or students who do not conform to sex stereotypes, are protected from sex-based discrimination under Title IX. Under Title IX, a recipient generally must treat transgender, or gender non-conforming, consistent with their gender identity in all aspects of the planning, implementation, enrollment, operation, and evaluation of single-sex classes."

However, starting in 2017 with the Trump administration, several of these policies have been rolled back. In February 2017, the Departments of Justice and Education (headed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, respectively) withdrew the guidance on gender identity. The Education Department announced on February 12, 2018 that Title IX did not allow transgender students to use the bathroom of their gender identities.

Dwayne Bensing, a lawyer for the Office of Civil Rights within the United States Department of Education and who was in its LGBTQ affinity group, had unsuccessfully asked DeVos not to withdraw the Obama administration guidance. Two years later, in the summer of 2019, Bensing discovered that the Education Department was fast-tracking the Alliance Defending Freedom's complaint against transgender student-athletes, even though the Department's attorneys did not understand the legal basis for doing so and the Department had to pressure other employees. Bensing leaked this information to the Washington Blade and was forced to resign in December 2019. Bensing did not qualify as a whistleblower under the Whistleblower Protection Act, since the act only protects federal employees if they disclose suspected crimes and abuses to their supervisor during normal business hours, among other requirements.

In October 2018, The New York Times obtained a memo issued by the Department of Health and Human Services that would propose a strict definition of gender for Title IX, using the person's sex as determined at birth and could not be changed, effectively limiting recognition of transgender students and potentially others. The memo stated that the government needed to define gender "on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable". The news brought immediate protests in several locations as well as online social media under the "#WontBeErased" hashtag.

In May 2020, the Trump administration's Department of Education contended that the rights of cisgender (biological) women are infringed upon by transgender women. The Education Department started to withhold federal funding to schools which affirm the identities of transgender athletes.

In August 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a 2018 lower court ruling in Adams v. The School Board of St. Johns County, Florida that discrimination on the basis of gender identity is discrimination "on the basis of sex" and is prohibited under Title IX (federal civil rights law) and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

In December 2020, the "Protect Women in Sports" Act was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives. It would block schools from receiving federal funding if transgender girls and nonbinary people are allowed to compete on girls' sports teams at those schools. It was sponsored by Representatives Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat, and Markwayne Mullin, a Republican.

OCR's test for Title IX compliance

Main article: Office for Civil Rights

Title IX has been a source of controversy in part due to claims that the OCR's current interpretation of Title IX, and specifically its three-prong test of compliance, is no longer faithful to the anti-discrimination language in Title IX's text, and instead discriminates against men and has contributed to the reduction of programs for male athletes.

Critics of the three-prong test contend that it operates as a "quota" in that it places undue emphasis on the first prong (known as the "proportionality" prong), which fails to take into account any differences in the genders' respective levels of interest in participating in athletics (despite the third prong, which focuses on any differences in the genders' respective levels of interest in participation). Instead, it requires that the genders' athletic participation be substantially proportionate to their enrollment, without regard to interest. Prong two is viewed as only a temporary fix for universities, as universities may only point to the past expansion of opportunities for female students for a limited time before compliance with another prong is necessary. Critics say that prong three likewise fails to consider male athletic interest despite its gender-neutral language, as it requires that the university fully and effectively accommodate the athletic interests of the "underrepresented sex", even though ED regulations expressly require that the OCR consider whether the institution "effectively accommodate[s] the interests and abilities of members of both sexes". As such, with a focus on increasing female athletic opportunities without any counterbalance to consider male athletic interest, critics maintain that the OCR's three-prong test operates to discriminate against men.

Defenders of the three-prong test counter that the genders' differing athletic interest levels are merely a product of past discrimination, and that Title IX should be interpreted to maximize female participation in athletics regardless of any existing disparity in interest. Thus while defenders argue that the three-prong test embodies the maxim that "opportunity drives interest", critics argue that the three-prong test goes beyond Title IX original purpose of preventing discrimination, and instead amounts to an exercise in which athletic opportunities are taken away from male students and given to female students, despite the comparatively lower interest levels of those female students. Author and self-described women's rights advocate John Irving opined in a New York Times column that on this topic, women's advocates were being "purely vindictive" in insisting that the current OCR interpretation of Title IX be maintained.

On March 17, 2005, OCR announced a clarification of prong three of the three-part test of Title IX compliance. The guidance concerned the use of web-based surveys to determine the level of interest in varsity athletics among the underrepresented sex. Opponents of the clarification – including the NCAA Executive Committee, which issued a resolution soon afterward asking Association members not to use the survey – claimed the survey was flawed in part because of the way it counted non-responses. On April 20, 2010, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights abandoned the 2005 clarification that allowed institutions to use only Internet or e‑mail surveys to meet the interests and abilities (third prong) option of the three-part test for Title IX compliance.

In February 2010, the United States Commission on Civil Rights weighed in on the OCR's three-prong test, offering several recommendations on Title IX policy to address what it termed "unnecessary reduction of men's athletic opportunities". The commission advocated use of surveys to measure interest, and specifically recommended that the Department of Education's regulations on interest and abilities be revised "to explicitly take into account the interest of both sexes rather than just the interest of the underrepresented sex", almost always females.

Legacy and recognition

On the twenty-fifth anniversary of Title IX the National Women's Law Center lodged twenty-five complaints with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights.

After Title IX was implemented, there was controversy about the amount of athletic integration, especially among female education leaders who worried about girls being injured or bullied by rough boys in coeducational activities. These gym teachers who worried about losing their job as programs were combined, a valid fear, as it turned out. While there were always some parents and administrators who did not like the idea of coed gym classes, that has in fact become the norm as a result of Title IX.

There were several events praising the 40th anniversary of Title IX in June 2012. For example, the White House Council on Women and Girls hosted a panel to discuss the life-altering nature of sports. Panelists included Billie Jean King, All‑American NCAA point guard Shoni Schimmel of the University of Louisville, and Aimee Mullins, the first double-amputee sprinter to compete in NCAA track and field for Georgetown University.

President Barack Obama wrote a pro–Title IX op-ed published in Newsweek magazine.

The Women's Sports Foundation honored over 40 female athletes.

On June 21, 2012, espnW projected a digital mosaic featuring the largest-ever collection of women and girls' sports images (all of which were submitted by the athletes themselves) onto the First Amendment tablet of the Newseum in Washington, D.C. The mosaic also included photos of espnW's Top 40 Athletes of the Past 40 Years.

ESPN The Magazine produced its first "Women in Sports" issue in June 2012, and in the same month ESPN Classic first showed the documentary Sporting Chance: The Lasting Legacy of Title IX, narrated by Holly Hunter. It also showed the documentary On the Basis of Sex: The Battle for Title IX in Sports, and other programming related to women's sports.

In 2013 ESPN Films broadcast Nine for IX, a series of documentaries about women in sports. Good Morning America anchor Robin Roberts and Tribeca Productions co founder Jane Rosenthal are executive producers of the series.

The NCAA announced in April 2019 that it would hold its 2023 Division II and Division III women's basketball championship games at American Airlines Center in Dallas, which had previously been announced as the site for that season's Division I women's Final Four. In its announcement, the NCAA explicitly called the joint championship event "a 50th-year celebration of Title IX" (as that particular basketball season will begin in calendar 2022).

Criticism

Concern has been expressed that colleges have been overly aggressive in enforcing Title IX regulations, particularly about sexual matters. The author Laura Kipnis, author of How to Become a Scandal: Adventures in Bad Behavior (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2010), and others have argued that Title IX regulations have empowered investigators who routinely endanger academic freedom and fair process, presume the guilt of suspects, assign the man full responsibility for the outcome of any social interaction, and minutely regulate personal relationships.

Writing in The Atlantic, Emily Yoffe has criticized the Title IX process for being unfair to the accused, based on faulty science, and racially biased against students of color.

Evidentialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidentialism 

Evidentialism is a thesis in epistemology which states that one is justified to believe something if and only if that person has evidence which supports said belief. Evidentialism is, therefore, a thesis about which beliefs are justified and which are not. Evidentialism enjoys wide popular support and has for centuries. Perhaps the earliest known proponents of evidentialism is David Hume who said "A wise man apportions his beliefs to the evidence." Similarly, Hitchens's Razor states "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan has also stated "Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence." All of these statements imply acceptance of philosophical evidentialism.

For philosophers Richard Feldman and Earl Conee, evidentialism is the strongest argument for justification because it identifies the primary notion of epistemic justification. They argue that if a person's attitude towards a proposition fits their evidence, then their doxastic attitude for that proposition is epistemically justified. Feldman and Conee offer the following argument for evidentialism as an epistemic justification:

(EJ) Doxastic attitude D toward proposition p is epistemically justified for S at t if and only if having D toward p fits the evidence.

For Feldman and Conee one's doxastic attitude is justified if it fits one's evidence. EJ is meant to show the idea that justification is characteristically epistemic. This idea makes justification dependent on evidence.

Feldman and Conee believe that because objections to EJ have become so prominent their defense for it is appropriate. The theses that object EJ are implying that epistemic justification is dependent upon the "cognitive capacities of an individual or upon the cognitive processes or information-gatherings practices that lead to an attitude." For Feldman and Conee, EJ is in contrast to these theses; EJ contends that the epistemic justification for an attitude is only dependent upon evidence.

Criticism

Plantinga's Reformed epistemology is a challenge against evidentialist epistemology. What Plantinga says is that the deliverances of reason consist of both properly basic beliefs and also beliefs based on propositional evidence. This is not the same as fideism, that is to say, "a leap of faith." The properly basic beliefs are deliverances of reason.

Critics of evidentialism sometimes reject the claim that a conclusion is justified only if one's evidence supports that conclusion. A typical counterexample goes like this. Suppose, for example, that Babe Ruth approaches the batter's box believing that he will hit a home run despite his current drunkenness and overall decline in performance in recent games. He realizes that, however unlikely it is that his luck will change, it would increase his chances of hitting a home run if he maintains a confident attitude. In these circumstances, critics of evidentialism argue that his belief that p = Babe Ruth will hit a home run is justified, even though his evidence does not support this belief.

Evidentialists may respond to this criticism by forming a distinction between pragmatic or prudential justification and epistemic justification. In Babe Ruth's case, it is pragmatically justified that he believe p, but it is nevertheless epistemically unjustified: though the belief may be justified for the purpose of promoting some other goal (a successful at bat, in Ruth's case), it is not justified relative to the purely epistemic goal of having beliefs that are most likely to be true.

A similar response follows the criticism that evidentialism implies all faith-based beliefs are unjustified. For example, fideism claims that evidence is irrelevant to religious beliefs and that attempts to justify religious beliefs in such a way are misguided. Superficially, fideism and evidentialism have mutually exclusive takes on religious beliefs, but evidentialists use the term "justification" in a much weaker sense than the one in which fideists most likely use it. Evidentialism merely defines the epistemic condition of a belief.

Although evidentialism states that the content of the evidence does not matter, only that it constitutes valid justification towards some proposition, a skeptical criticism may be levelled at evidentialism from uncertainty theories. One's evidence may be objectively disproved at some point or it may be the case that one can never have absolute certainty of one's evidence. Given the logic of arguments concerning principles of uncertainty and randomness, skepticism towards knowledge merely becomes skepticism towards valid justification.

Likewise, some say that the human mind is not naturally inclined to form beliefs based on evidence, viz. cognitive dissonance. While this may be the case, evidentialists admit, evidentialism is only meant to separate justified beliefs from unjustified beliefs. One can believe that evidentialism is true yet still maintain that the human mind is not naturally inclined to form beliefs based on evidence. He would simply have to conclude that the mind is not naturally inclined to form justified beliefs.

The infinite regress argument

Evidentialism also faces a challenge from the infinite regress argument. This argument begins with the observation that, normally, one's supporting evidence for a belief consists of other beliefs. However, it seems that these other beliefs can do the job of justifying only if they themselves are already justified. And evidentialism demands that these supporting beliefs be justified by still further evidence if they are to be justified themselves. But this same reasoning would apply to the new, deeper level of supporting beliefs: they can only justify if they're themselves justified, and evidentialism therefore demands an even deeper level of supporting belief. And so on. According to this argument, a justified belief requires an endless supply of reasons. Some philosophers such as Thomas Nagel posit that this is an absurd conclusion.

In general, responses to this argument can be classified in the following ways:

• Foundationalism: There exist beliefs that are justified, but not because they are based on any other beliefs. These are called properly basic beliefs, and they are the foundation upon which all other justified beliefs ultimately rest.
• Coherentism: Justified beliefs are all evidentially supported by other beliefs, but an infinite set of beliefs is not generated, because the chains of evidential support among beliefs is allowed to move in a circle. On the resulting picture, a person's belief is justified when it fits together with the person's other beliefs in a coherent way in which the person's various beliefs mutually support one another.

A modest reasoner subset of Coherentism would insist that all justifiable beliefs be statements about "some objects" since the negation/complement of a some statement is another some statement.

• Skepticism: There cannot be any justified beliefs.

A modest reasoner subset of Scepticism like the subset of Coherentism would likewise insist and define all justifiable beliefs be statements about "some objects" since the negation/complement of a some statement is another some statement.

• Infinitism: Aside from these responses, some philosophers have said that evidential chains terminate in beliefs that are not justified. Others have said that, indeed, there can exist infinite chains of reasons.

Of the main responses, coherentism and skepticism are clearly consistent with evidentialism. Coherentism allows evidential support for all of our justified beliefs in the face of the regress argument by allowing for circular chains of evidential support among beliefs. And the skeptic here is utilizing an evidentialist demand to arrive at her skeptical conclusion.

But because the resulting skepticism is so sweeping and devastating, and because so many reject the legitimacy of the circular reasoning embraced by the coherentist, foundationalism is the favored response of many philosophers to the regress argument. And foundationalism does not so clearly fit together with evidentialism. At first glance, at least, the "basic" beliefs of the foundationalist would appear to be counterexamples to the evidentialist's thesis, in that they are justified beliefs that are not rational because they are not supported by deeper evidence.

Non-evidentialist theories of knowledge and justification

Many contemporary epistemologists reject the view that evidential support is the whole story about the justification of beliefs. While no sensible epistemologists generally urge people to disregard their evidence when forming beliefs, many believe that a more complete theory would introduce considerations about the processes that initiate and sustain beliefs. An example of one such theory is reliabilism. The most influential proponent of reliabilism is Alvin Goldman. According to a crude form of reliabilism, S is justified in believing p if and only if S's belief in p is caused by a reliable process—a process that generally leads to true beliefs. Some of these reliable processes may require the processing of evidence; many others won't. So, Goldman would argue, evidentialism, on which the justification of a belief always turns completely on the issue of the belief's evidential support, is false. Likewise, evidentialism will be rejected by more sophisticated versions of reliabilism, some of which will allow evidence an important but limited role, as opposed to the all-encompassing role assigned to it by evidentialism.

Other non-evidentialist theories include: the causal theory, according to which S knows p if and only if S's belief in p is causally connected in an appropriate way with S's believing p; and Robert Nozick's truth tracking theory, according to which S knows p if and only if (i) p is true, (ii) S believes p, (iii) S's attitude toward p tracks the truth value of p in that, when p is not true, S does not believe p and when p is true, S does believe p.

Another alternative perspective, promoted by David Hume's 18th-century opponent, Presbyterian philosopher Thomas Reid, and perhaps hinted at by Hume himself, at least in some moods (though this is a very controversial issue in interpreting Hume), has it that some of our "natural" beliefs—beliefs we are led to form by natural features of the human constitution—have what can be called an "innocent-until-proven-guilty" status. Contrary to evidentialism, they can be justified in the absence of any effective evidence that supports them. They are justified just so long as one doesn't have good reason to think them false.

A new account of the extent of our evidence is Timothy Williamson's claim that E=K: one's evidence is what one knows. Going by the "letter of the law," Williamson's resulting theory is not contrary to, but is rather an instance of, evidentialism. By allowing our evidence to encompass everything we know, Williamson is able to give thoroughly evidentialist accounts of many important epistemological concepts. But, traditionally, evidentialists have presupposed much more restrictive accounts of what our evidence is. Thus, Williamson's theory is opposed to the spirit of much traditional evidentialism, primarily because it turns evidentialism from an internalist account of justification to an externalist account (due to the factive nature of knowledge.) However, Williamson's work may point to a quite general way to modify traditional evidentialism to make it better able to meet the challenges it faces: whether or not one goes so far as to accept that E=K, broadening one's view of what constitutes our evidence may provide a way to address many of the objections to evidentialism, especially to those disinclined to swallow skeptical consequences of a view.