To that extent, an attempt is made to get a balanced legal perspective by employing at least two bodies of legal expertise. Ann Weatherall, like Harrimon, will be utilized to gain a supporting and, or, contrasting social, environment, political and relationship perspective on gender equity. Weatherall approaches the issues by looking at several different facets of information than does Hariman. In this way, we get an expanded view of those areas not covered by Hariman, but nonetheless of social, political, academic and personal significance in the relationship between men and women.

Madeline Arnot (2002) contributes a collection of essays on educational theory and feminist politics. Arnot explains the usefulness of her work this way:

This book charts my contribution over the last twenty-five years to the emerging field of gender scholarship in education. This is a field which comprises some of the most sophisticated research in education. It engages with diverse theoretical problematics and explanatory frameworks; it develops its own methodological approaches; and it actively engages with the concerns of practitioners and students in a range of educational contexts and settings (from early years schooling through to higher education and adult education). The richness and originality of the field of gender and education research lies in its commitment to social analysis linked to critical praxis (p. 1)."

At the heart of the arguments for and against gender equity is the threat that the non-discrimination portions of the Act pose for sports in schools and colleges. To explore the relationship between sports and the non-discrimination criteria of Title IX, the research will cite the work of Deborah J. Anderson, John J. Cheslock, and Ronald G. Ehrenberg's (2006). Their book examines Title IX, at the 30-year anniversary mark. About the progress made since the passage of the amended Act, they say:

Although the scope of Title IX includes all aspects of education, the application of Title IX to college athletics has been especially complicated because athletics programs, unlike most academic classes, usually are sex-segregated by sport. As explained in more detail below, Title IX essentially requires that all institutes of higher education provide student access to sport participation on a gender-neutral basis. As a result, athletic opportunities for female undergraduates have expanded significantly since 1972. For example, the female share of college athletes rose to 42% in 2001/02 from only 15% in 1972 (U.S. Department of Education, 1997, 2003). Despite this progress, gender equity is far from complete. Estimates from our data show that at the average institution in 2001/02, women comprised 55% of all students but only 42% of the varsity athletes (p. 1)."

There is, of course, much more to dynamics that have lead to the group's 2006 anniversary examination of the conditions in schools and colleges, and much to analyze as to where those institutions are today in the Title IX picture. The group's research focuses specifically on the non-compliance issues with Title IX, specifically, the gender issue. This book will contribute to the understanding of the gap in interpretation and application.

To understand why the effort to keep young men and women, boys and girls, separate, we need to understand how the two genders are perceived (and we are not singling out gender reassignments or identity conflicts) Contributing to this understanding in the research are the works of Joan Roughgarden (2004), and Stephanie L. Witt (1990).

Other works, peripheral to the elements introduced in this literature review, will be utilized and introduced as they are become significant in addressing the points made and in answering the questions asked.

In selecting the professional books and journal articles to be used here, it quickly becomes apparent that there is much work left to be done to accomplish the implementation of the gender requirements stipulated in Title IX. To that end, the research will examine the law suits, which really are the measurement of the success and failures within the various systems as concerns eradicating gender-based bias. For the specific legal cases, we will look to gain an understanding of how the universities and schools are responding to the law suits against them. David E. Tungate and Daniel P. Orie address what seems to be the approach to avoidance of the Title IX gender requirements by some universities and schools. As the researchers have discovered, some institutions in non-compliance simply await the lawsuit, and settle a financial sum on the person suing the institution.

The Stakeholders

In considering the application of the no gender bias component of Title IX, we must consider the players, asking the questions: Who stands to win? Who stands to lose? The answer to both questions is society as a whole stands to win when bias, for any reason, and especially...

Sarah E. Ghoul (2001), writing for Duke Law Journal gives the necessary visualization to understand who the stakeholders are:
young boy sits in English class, staring out the window at the empty basketball court on the playground. He wonders why he has to learn that "ball" is a noun and that "round" is an adjective. He daydreams about the day when he is no longer forced to sit in class, the day when he is a college basketball player who calls his own shots and does not have to study because he is "going pro" someday. Why would he need to go to school when he will be making millions of dollars and having thousands of fans scream for him at every game?

Next to the young boy sits a young girl. She, too, is gazing out of the window at the empty basketball court on the playground. She also dreams of being a college basketball player who is "going pro" someday. She does not wonder why she has to learn that "ball" is a noun and that "round" is an adjective, because she understands that her basketball skills will only take her to a certain level in her life. An education will enable her to go beyond the limits of the basketball court (Ghoul, 2002, p. 1123)."

Whether or not either the girl or boy makes it to the college basketball team, or is selected in a pro-draft, the fact is that they are both dreamers of opportunity whose early and focused interest in basketball deserves to be treated equally in the academic settings where the schools are supported by taxpayer contributions.

What we know, according to Jo Sanders, Janice Koch, and Josephine Urso is that both young boys and girls begin elementary education with very much the same kinds of interests, learning enthusiasm, and abilities (1997, p. 3). At some point, say these researchers:

As females progress through school and into college and graduate school, despite their frequently higher course grades, they score lower on standardized tests than males and take fewer advanced courses, which means they drop out of mathematics, science, and/or technology earlier than males (p. 3)."

Having eliminated other inequities, it becomes possible to focus on the inequities between the benefits derived from the high school and college settings that help boys maintain focus, develop self-esteem and confidence in them selves to take on the MST subjects. This means that they do not have the opportunity for the better paying careers, and that they might come away from their college or graduate programs without the confidence they need to compete against men.

This is in large part what the no sexual bias provision of Title IX was intended to address, and the obstacles that it was intended to eliminate for students.