Supporting standards comprise 35% of the U. S. History Test 17 (D)

Supporting standards comprise 35% of the U. S. History Test 17 (D)

Supporting Standard (17)The student understands the economic effects of World War II & the Cold War. The Student is expected to: (D) Identify actions of government & the private sector such as the Great Society, affirmative action, & Title IX to create economic opportunities for citizens & analyze the unintended consequences of each

Supporting Standard (17)The student understands the economic effects of World War II & the Cold War. The Student is expected to: (D) Identify actions of government & the private sector such as the Great Society, analyze the unintended consequences

The Great Society was a set of domestic programs in the United States first announced by President Lyndon B. Johnson at Ohio University, then at University of Michigan, and subsequently promoted by him and fellow Democrats in Congress in the 1960s. Two main goals of the Great Society social reforms were the elimination of poverty and racial injustice. New major spending programs that addressed education, medical care, urban problems, and transportation were launched during this period. The Great Society in scope and sweep resembled the New Deal domestic agenda of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Great Society was a set of domestic programs in the United States first announced by President Lyndon B. Johnson at Ohio University, then at University of Michigan, and subsequently promoted by him and fellow Democrats in Congress in the 1960s. Two main goals of the Great Society social reforms were the elimination of poverty and racial injustice. New major spending programs that addressed education, medical care, urban problems, and transportation were launched during this period. The Great Society in scope and sweep resembled the New Deal domestic agenda of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

President Lyndon B. Johnson during commencement exercises at the University of Michigan on May 22, 1964 President Johnson’s first ever public reference to the “Great Society”took place during a speech to students on May 7, 1964, at Ohio University in Athens “And with your courage and with your compassion and your desire, we will build a Great Society. It is a Society where no child will go unfed, and no youngster will go unschooled.” He later formally presented his specific goals for the Great Society in another speech at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor on May 22, 1964. “We are going to assemble the best thought and broadest knowledge from all over the world to find these answers. I intend to establish working groups to prepare a series of conferences and meetings—on the cities, on natural beauty, on the quality of education, and on other emerging challenges. From these studies, we will begin to set our course toward the Great Society.”

Unlike the old New Deal, which was a response to a severe financial and economic calamity, the Great Society initiatives came just as the United States’ post-World War II prosperity was starting to fade, but before the coming decline was being felt by the middle and upper classes. Some Great Society proposals were stalled initiatives from John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier. Johnson’s success depended on his skills of persuasion, coupled with the Democratic landslide in the 1964 election—61% of the vote, the largest percentage since the popular vote first became widespread in 1824— that brought in many new liberals to Congress, making the House of Representatives in 1965 the most liberal House since 1938. Unlike the old New Deal, which was a response to a severe financial and economic calamity, the Great Society initiatives came just as the United States’ post-World War II prosperity was starting to fade, but before the coming decline was being felt by the middle and upper classes. Some Great Society proposals were stalled initiatives from John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier. Johnson’s success depended on his skills of persuasion, coupled with the Democratic landslide in the 1964 election—61% of the vote, the largest percentage since the popular vote first became widespread in 1824— that brought in many new liberals to Congress, making the House of Representatives in 1965 the most liberal House since 1938.

In 1965, the first session of the Eighty-ninth Congress created the core of the Great Society. The new Congress began by enacting long-stalled legislation such as Medicare and federal aid to education and then moved into other areas, including high-speed mass transit, rental supplements, truth in packaging, environmental safety legislation, new provisions for mental health facilities, a teachers’ corps, manpower training, Operation Headstart, aid to urban mass transit, a demonstration cities program, a housing act that included rental subsidies, and an act for higher education. The Johnson Administration submitted eighty-seven bills to Congress, and Johnson signed eighty-four, or 96%, arguably the most successful legislative agenda in U.S. Congressional history. In 1965, the first session of the Eighty-ninth Congress created the core of the Great Society. The new Congress began by enacting long-stalled legislation such as Medicare and federal aid to education and then moved into other areas, including high-speed mass transit, rental supplements, truth in packaging, environmental safety legislation, new provisions for mental health facilities, a teachers’ corps, manpower training, Operation Headstart, aid to urban mass transit, a demonstration cities program, a housing act that included rental subsidies, and an act for higher education. The Johnson Administration submitted eighty-seven bills to Congress, and Johnson signed eighty-four, or 96%, arguably the most successful legislative agenda in U.S. Congressional history.

Anti-war Democrats complained that spending on the Vietnam War choked off the Great Society. While some of the programs have been eliminated or had their funding reduced, many of them, including Medicare, Medicaid, the Older Americans Act and federal education funding, continue to the present. The Great Society’s programs expanded under the administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Historian Alan Brinkley has suggested that the most important domestic achievement of the Great Society may have been its success in translating some of the demands of the civil rights movement into law. Four civil rights acts were passed, including three laws in the first two years of Johnson’s presidency. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade job discrimination and the segregation of public accommodations. Anti-war Democrats complained that spending on the Vietnam War choked off the Great Society. While some of the programs have been eliminated or had their funding reduced, many of them, including Medicare, Medicaid, the Older Americans Act and federal education funding, continue to the present. The Great Society’s programs expanded under the administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Historian Alan Brinkley has suggested that the most important domestic achievement of the Great Society may have been its success in translating some of the demands of the civil rights movement into law. Four civil rights acts were passed, including three laws in the first two years of Johnson’s presidency. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade job discrimination and the segregation of public accommodations.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 assured minority registration and voting. It suspended use of literacy or other voter-qualification tests that had sometimes served to keep African-Americans off voting lists and provided for federal court lawsuits to stop discriminatory poll taxes. It also reinforced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by authorizing the appointment of federal voting examiners in areas that did not meet voter-participation requirements. The Immigration and Nationality Service Act of 1965 abolished the national-origin quotas in immigration law. The Civil Acts of 1968 banned housing discrimination and extended constitutional protections to Native Americans on reservations. President Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act of 1965 The Voting Rights Act of 1965 assured minority registration and voting. It suspended use of literacy or other voter-qualification tests that had sometimes served to keep African-Americans off voting lists and provided for federal court lawsuits to stop discriminatory poll taxes. It also reinforced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by authorizing the appointment of federal voting examiners in areas that did not meet voter-participation requirements. The Immigration and Nationality Service Act of 1965 abolished the national-origin quotas in immigration law. The Civil Acts of 1968 banned housing discrimination and extended constitutional protections to Native Americans on reservations.

LBJ signing the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 War on Poverty The most ambitious and controversial part of the Great Society was its initiative to end poverty. The Kennedy Administration had been contemplating a federal effort against poverty. Johnson, who, as a teacher had observed extreme poverty in Texas among Mexican-Americans, launched an “unconditional war on poverty” in the first months of his presidency with the goal of eliminating hunger and deprivation from American life. The centerpiece of the War on Poverty was the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which created an Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to oversee a variety of community-based antipoverty programs. The War on Poverty began with a $1 billion appropriation in 1964 and spent another $2 billion in the following two years. The most ambitious and controversial part of the Great Society was its initiative to end poverty. The Kennedy Administration had been contemplating a federal effort against poverty. Johnson, who, as a teacher had observed extreme poverty in Texas among Mexican-Americans, launched an “unconditional war on poverty” in the first months of his presidency with the goal of eliminating hunger and deprivation from American life. The centerpiece of the War on Poverty was the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which created an Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to oversee a variety of community-based antipoverty programs. The War on Poverty began with a $1 billion appropriation in 1964 and spent another $2 billion in the following two years.

Among a host of other things, the War on Poverty spawned dozens of programs. The most important educational component of the Great Society was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The Social Security Act of 1965 authorized Medicare and provided federal funding for many of the medical costs of older Americans. In 1966 welfare recipients of all ages received medical care through the Medicaid program. Medicaid was created on July 30, 1965 under Title XIX. LBJ signing Medicare & Medicaid into law, July 30, 1965 Among a host of other things, the War on Poverty spawned dozens of programs. The most important educational component of the Great Society was the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The Social Security Act of 1965 authorized Medicare and provided federal funding for many of the medical costs of older Americans. In 1966 welfare recipients of all ages received medical care through the Medicaid program. Medicaid was created on July 30, 1965 under Title XIX.

The Legacies of the Great Society Interpretations of the War on Poverty remain controversial. The Office of Economic Opportunity was dismantled by the Nixon & Ford administrations, largely by transferring poverty programs to other government departments. One of Johnson’s aides, Joseph A. Califano Jr. has countered that “from 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century.” The percentage of African Americans below the poverty line dropped from 55 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1968. Interpretations of the War on Poverty remain controversial. The Office of Economic Opportunity was dismantled by the Nixon & Ford administrations, largely by transferring poverty programs to other government departments. One of Johnson’s aides, Joseph A. Califano Jr. has countered that “from 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century.” The percentage of African Americans below the poverty line dropped from 55 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1968.

Thomas Sowell, a conservative, argues that the Great Society programs only contributed to the destruction of African American families, saying “the black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.” African-American family structure Thomas Sowell, a conservative, argues that the Great Society programs only contributed to the destruction of African American families, saying “the black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”

Supporting Standard (17)The student understands the economic effects of World War II & the Cold War. The Student is expected to: (D) 2 Identify actions of government & the private sector such as affirmative action to create economic opportunities for citizens & analyze the unintended consequences

Affirmative action or positive discrimination (known as employment equity in Canada, and positive action in the UK) is the policy of providing special opportunities for, and favoring members of, a disadvantaged group who suffer discrimination. The concept of affirmative action was introduced in the early 1960s in the United States, as a way to combat racial discrimination in the hiring process and, in 1967, the concept was expanded to include sex. The principle of affirmative action is to promote societal equality through the preferential treatment of socioeconomically disadvantaged people. Often, these people are disadvantaged for historical reasons, such as oppression or slavery. Affirmative action or positive discrimination (known as employment equity in Canada, and positive action in the UK) is the policy of providing special opportunities for, and favoring members of, a disadvantaged group who suffer discrimination. The concept of affirmative action was introduced in the early 1960s in the United States, as a way to combat racial discrimination in the hiring process and, in 1967, the concept was expanded to include sex. The principle of affirmative action is to promote societal equality through the preferential treatment of socioeconomically disadvantaged people. Often, these people are disadvantaged for historical reasons, such as oppression or slavery.

Origins The term “affirmative action” was first used in the United States in Executive Order 10925 and was signed by President John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961. The Order required that government employers “not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin” and “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” It was used to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination. In the U.S. affirmative action’s original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Origins The term “affirmative action” was first used in the United States in Executive Order 10925 and was signed by President John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961. The Order required that government employers “not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin” and “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” It was used to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination. In the U.S. affirmative action’s original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In 1965, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to take “affirmative action” to “hire without regard to race, religion and national origin.” The Order affirmed the Federal Government’s commitment “to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency.” In 1967 through Executive Order 11246, sex was added to the anti-discrimination list. In 1965, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to take “affirmative action” to “hire without regard to race, religion and national origin.” The Order affirmed the Federal Government’s commitment “to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency.” In 1967 through Executive Order 11246, sex was added to the anti-discrimination list.

Affirmative action is intended to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the privileged majority population. It is often instituted for government and educational settings to ensure that certain designated “minority groups” within a society are included “in all programs.” The stated justification for affirmative action by its proponents is that it helps to compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture, and to address existing discrimination. Affirmative action is intended to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the privileged majority population. It is often instituted for government and educational settings to ensure that certain designated “minority groups” within a society are included “in all programs.” The stated justification for affirmative action by its proponents is that it helps to compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture, and to address existing discrimination.

WomenSeveral different studies investigated the effect of affirmative action on women. Kurtulus (2012) in her review of affirmative action and the occupational advancement of minorities and women during 1973-2003 showed that the effect of affirmative action on advancing black, Hispanic, and white women into management, professional, and technical occupations occurred primarily during the 1970s and early 1980s. During this period, contractors grew their shares of these groups more rapidly than non-contractors because of the implementation of affirmative action. But the positive effect of affirmative action vanished entirely in late 1980s, which Kurtulus says may be due to the slowdown into advanced occupation for women and minorities because of the political shift of affirmative action started by President Reagan. Becoming a federal contractor increased white women’s share of professional occupations by 0.183 percentage points, or 7.3 percent, on average during these three decades, and increased black women’s share by 0.052 percentage points (or by 3.9 percent). Becoming a federal contractor also increased Hispanic women’s and black men’s share of technical occupations on average by 0.058 percent and 0.109 percentage points respectively (or by 7.7 and 4.2 percent). These represent a substantial contribution of affirmative action to overall trends in the occupational advancement of women and minorities over the three decades under the study. WomenSeveral different studies investigated the effect of affirmative action on women. Kurtulus (2012) in her review of affirmative action and the occupational advancement of minorities and women during 1973-2003 showed that the effect of affirmative action on advancing black, Hispanic, and white women into management, professional, and technical occupations occurred primarily during the 1970s and early 1980s. During this period, contractors grew their shares of these groups more rapidly than non-contractors because of the implementation of affirmative action. But the positive effect of affirmative action vanished entirely in late 1980s, which Kurtulus says may be due to the slowdown into advanced occupation for women and minorities because of the political shift of affirmative action started by President Reagan. Becoming a federal contractor increased white women’s share of professional occupations by 0.183 percentage points, or 7.3 percent, on average during these three decades, and increased black women’s share by 0.052 percentage points (or by 3.9 percent). Becoming a federal contractor also increased Hispanic women’s and black men’s share of technical occupations on average by 0.058 percent and 0.109 percentage points respectively (or by 7.7 and 4.2 percent). These represent a substantial contribution of affirmative action to overall trends in the occupational advancement of women and minorities over the three decades under the study.

Opponents of affirmative action believe that affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of people who are chosen based on the social group to which they belong rather than their qualifications, thus rendering affirmative action counterproductive. Opponents, who sometimes say that affirmative action is “reverse discrimination” further claim that affirmative action has undesirable side-effects in addition to failing to achieve its goals. They argue that it hinders reconciliation, replaces old wrongs with new wrongs, undermines the achievements of minorities, and encourages individuals to identify themselves as disadvantaged, even if they are not. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups at the expense of the least fortunate within majority groups (such as lower-class whites). Opponents of affirmative action believe that affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of people who are chosen based on the social group to which they belong rather than their qualifications, thus rendering affirmative action counterproductive. Opponents, who sometimes say that affirmative action is “reverse discrimination” further claim that affirmative action has undesirable side-effects in addition to failing to achieve its goals. They argue that it hinders reconciliation, replaces old wrongs with new wrongs, undermines the achievements of minorities, and encourages individuals to identify themselves as disadvantaged, even if they are not. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups at the expense of the least fortunate within majority groups (such as lower-class whites).

In some cases, race becomes an important factor in deciding who gets admitted to the university, and Fisher argued that discriminating and accepting students according to their race is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures equal protection of the law and the citizen’s privilege as a citizen of United States. The constitutionality of affirmative action in college admissions is now before the Supreme Court in the 2013 landmark case Fisher v. University of Texas.

Dr. Thomas Sowell writes that affirmative action policies encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups (i.e., primary beneficiaries of affirmative action) to take advantage of group preference policies; that they tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g., upper and middle class blacks), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g., poor whites or Asians); that they reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best – the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile – thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and that they increase animosity toward preferred groups. Dr. Thomas Sowell writes that affirmative action policies encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups (i.e., primary beneficiaries of affirmative action) to take advantage of group preference policies; that they tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g., upper and middle class blacks), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g., poor whites or Asians); that they reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best – the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile – thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and that they increase animosity toward preferred groups.

Mismatching is the term given to the negative effect that affirmative action has when it places a student into a college that is too difficult for him or her. For example, according to the theory, in the absence of affirmative action, a student will be admitted to a college that matches his or her academic ability and have a good chance of graduating. However, according to the mismatching theory, affirmative action often places a student into a college that is too difficult, and this increases the student’s chance of dropping out. Thus, according to the theory, affirmative action hurts its intended beneficiaries, because it increases their dropout rate. Mismatching is the term given to the negative effect that affirmative action has when it places a student into a college that is too difficult for him or her. For example, according to the theory, in the absence of affirmative action, a student will be admitted to a college that matches his or her academic ability and have a good chance of graduating. However, according to the mismatching theory, affirmative action often places a student into a college that is too difficult, and this increases the student’s chance of dropping out. Thus, according to the theory, affirmative action hurts its intended beneficiaries, because it increases their dropout rate.

Supporting Standard (17)The student understands the economic effects of World War II & the Cold War. The Student is expected to: (D) 3 Identify actions of government & the private sector such as Title IX to create economic opportunities for citizens & analyze the unintended consequences

Title IX is a portion of the Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. sections 1681 through 1688, co-authored and introduced by Senator Birch Bayh; it was renamed the Patsy Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act in 2002, after its House co-author and sponsor. It states (in part) that: 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. Title IX is a portion of the Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. sections 1681 through 1688, co-authored and introduced by Senator Birch Bayh; it was renamed the Patsy Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act in 2002, after its House co-author and sponsor. It states (in part) that: 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.

Senator Bayh exercises with Title IX athletes at Purdue University, ca. 1970s. Title IX is best known for its impact on high school and college athletics, the original statute made no explicit mention of sports. Title IX became law on June 23, 1972. President Nixon signed the bill. Applicability and compliance The legislation covers all educational activities, and complaints under Title IX alleging sex discrimination in fields such as science or math education, or in other aspects of academic life such as access to health care and dormitory facilities, are not unheard of. It also applies to non-sport activities such as school band and clubs; however, social fraternities & social sororities, sex-specific youth clubs such as Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, and Girls State & Boys State are specifically exempt from Title IX requirements. Title IX is best known for its impact on high school and college athletics, the original statute made no explicit mention of sports. Title IX became law on June 23, 1972. President Nixon signed the bill. Applicability and compliance The legislation covers all educational activities, and complaints under Title IX alleging sex discrimination in fields such as science or math education, or in other aspects of academic life such as access to health care and dormitory facilities, are not unheard of. It also applies to non-sport activities such as school band and clubs; however, social fraternities & social sororities, sex-specific youth clubs such as Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, and Girls State & Boys State are specifically exempt from Title IX requirements.

Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary [of Education for Civil Rights] may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex. Health Education & Welfare’s 1979 Policy Interpretation articulated three ways compliance with Title IX can be achieved. This became known as the “three-part test” for compliance. A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs. Unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the Assistant Secretary [of Education for Civil Rights] may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex. Health Education & Welfare’s 1979 Policy Interpretation articulated three ways compliance with Title IX can be achieved. This became known as the “three-part test” for compliance. A recipient of federal funds can demonstrate compliance with Title IX by meeting any one of the three prongs.

Title IX applies to an entire school or institution if any part of that school receives federal funds; hence, athletic programs are subject to Title IX, even though there is very little direct federal funding of school sports. The Department of Education evaluates the following factors in determining whether equal treatment exists: 1. Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes; 2. The provision of equipment and supplies; 3. Scheduling of games and practice time; 4. Travel and per diem allowance; 5. Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring on mathematics only; 6. Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors; 7. Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; 8. Provision of medical and training facilities and services; 9. Provision of housing and dining facilities and services; 10. Publicity

“All such assistance should be available on a substantially proportional basis to the number of male and female participants in the institution’s athletic program.” “Male and female athletes should receive equivalent treatment, benefits, and opportunities” regarding facilities. “The athletic interests and abilities of male and female students must be equally effectively accommodated.” “Institutions must provide both the opportunity for individuals of each sex to participate in intercollegiate competition, and for athletes of each sex to have competitive team schedules which equally reflect their abilities.” Compliance can be assessed in any one of three ways:

1. Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. This prong of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are “substantially proportionate” to their respective undergraduate enrollment. 2. Demonstrating a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female). 3. Accommodating the interest and ability of underrepresented sex. This prong of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.

Though views differ as respects the impact of Title IX, discussion typically focuses on whether and to what extent Title IX has resulted in increased athletic opportunities for females, and whether and to what extent Title IX has resulted in decreased athletic opportunities for males. In addition, the legislation had impacts on aspects other than athletes. The increased exposure of female sports led to increased dominance by males of the governance of women’s athletics. For example, the male dominated NCAA, which had been content to let the women-dominated AIAW run women’s championships, decided to offer women's championships, which led to the eventual demise of the AIAW. Some believe that the increase in athletic opportunity for girls in high school has come at the expense of boys athletics. Though views differ as respects the impact of Title IX, discussion typically focuses on whether and to what extent Title IX has resulted in increased athletic opportunities for females, and whether and to what extent Title IX has resulted in decreased athletic opportunities for males. In addition, the legislation had impacts on aspects other than athletes. The increased exposure of female sports led to increased dominance by males of the governance of women’s athletics. For example, the male dominated NCAA, which had been content to let the women-dominated AIAW run women’s championships, decided to offer women's championships, which led to the eventual demise of the AIAW. Some believe that the increase in athletic opportunity for girls in high school has come at the expense of boys athletics.

Fini

Supporting standards comprise 35% of the U. S. History Test 17 (D)