As the 20th century began, American girls and women who wished to participate in sport found themselves in a race that would prove to be more grueling than the actual marathons that females are running and setting records in today. At that time, many women were kept from participating in sport and physical activity because such activities were believed to be too strenuous for them. It was also widely believed that athletic competition encouraged unladylike behavior (Spears & Swanson, 1978). These and other archaic cultural beliefs often relegated women to a life of childrearing and homemaking (Eitzen & Sage, 1978).
In an era when these beliefs were rampant, it is not surprising that at the Conference of College Directors of Physical Education in 1924, the membership went on record as disapproving of women's intercollegiate athletic competition. They reasoned that banning women's interscholastic and intercollegiate varsity competition would help women avoid the 'evils' of men's athletics (Spears & Swanson, 1978). This stance was held from the 1920s to the 1960s and largely eliminated competitive sports for girls and women at the nation's educational institutions, which provided the primary training ground for male athletes.
Thus, girls and women aspiring to compete found themselves with limited opportunities. Of the few women who excelled in sports and were recognized for their athletic skills during this time, most participated through industry- or association-sponsored sports programs. Yet, even with these limited opportunities for participation, women found success. One early example of this success was the creation of the Women's National Bowling Association during the first decade of the 20th century. It reported a membership of almost 5,000 women who worked in, and whose membership was sponsored by, industry (Rader, 1983). Eventually, the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) recognized the growing interest of, and lack of opportunity for, girls and women in sport and expanded its programs for women by offering competition in swimming (1916), track and field (1924), basketball (1926), and gymnastics (1931) (Spears & Swanson, 1978). The efforts of the AAU were rewarded when U.S. women swimmers, with four years of AAU competition be hind them, brought home six gold, two silver, and two bronze medals from their first Olympic competition in 1920 (Hickok, 1999). Then, in 1926, Gertrude Ederle shocked the world by swimming the English Channel in 14 hours, 39 minutes, and 24 seconds, a time better than that of the previous five crossings, all by men (Feminist Majority Foundation and New Media Publishing, 1996).
Unfortunately, promoters of early spectator-oriented women's sports programs often highlighted novelty and sex appeal rather than playing skills. Perhaps the best example of this is Marty Fiedler. Hailed as the 'FloZiegfield of sports,' he gave his women's softball teams names such as 'Slapsie Maxie's Curvacious Cuties' and the 'Balian Ice Cream Beauties' (Twin, 1979). Colonel Melvorne McCombs, head of the women's sports program of the Casualty Insurance Company of Dallas, acknowledged that sexual attractiveness rather than athletic skill was the motivation for his company's sponsorship. He claimed that controversies over the shorts worn by the company's AAU women's basketball team in 1926 raised game attendance from 150 to 5,000 (Twin).
In the 1930s, softball became a popular sport when the Amateur Softball Association (ASA) held the first national championship for both men and women (Spears & Swanson, 1978). During this decade, it is estimated that the total number of girls and women's teams grew to over 40,000, a figure that constituted one quarter of all softball teams in the country (Gerber, Felshin, Berlin, & Wyrick, 1974). Then, in 1943, Philip K. Wrigley, owner of the Chicago Cubs, formed a women's professional baseball league. Wrigley feared that major-league baseball would be disbanded during the war. He hoped that a women's league would keep interest for the game alive until the men returned to the playing field (Gerber et al.). The league was a success, expanding into 10 Midwest teams and attracting nearly a million spectators during the 1948 season. Yet, the promoters of the league carefully cultivated a feminine player image, making sure that the 'girls' knew proper posture and etiquette (Gerber et al.).
Following the lead of softball and bowling, professional women's basketball emerged in the form of an exposition team, known as the Red Heads, which played from 1936 to 1954. This famous team toured the country, playing in 46 states before more than two million fans during this time. Sporting red wigs or dyed red hair, the players combined the skills of basketball with showmanship in a manner similar to the Harlem Globetrotters. The team played by men's rules and against local men's teams, often faring well against these opponents (Johnson & Williamson, 1974). Still, attendance was often generated by sexual attractiveness, not athletic skill.
Although the highly competitive leagues sponsored by businesses offered some opportunity for women to participate in sport, these leagues were not embraced by all, nor was opportunity for men and women equal. Moreover, women who played in the industry leagues risked charges of being either masculine or unladylike (i.e., flaunting their sexual attractiveness). Social condemnation was often the price for playing (Sexton, 1978). If women's sports were to grow, then sports opportunities had to be made available to girls and women in K-12 schools and universities.
A Courtroom Marathon
The 1960s are remembered as a time of change: the civil rights movement, protest of the Vietnam war, lifestyle changes, and women demanding the same opportunities as men to fashion their own destinies. Girls and women in sport refused to be left out; they joined the crusade to make their existence known during this decade. For one thing, the stance taken by the nation's educational systems had to be changed. Although the majority of female physical educators continued to oppose varsity competition for females well into the 1960s, a growing number of them recognized the merits of participation in girls' and women's sports. In 1964, at the national convention of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, the Division for Girls' and Women's Sports (DGWS) devoted an entire program to 'Competition for the Highly Skilled Girl' and adopted a statement that essentially reversed the famous 1924 position on interscholastic and intercollegiate competition (Spears & Swanson, 1978). Two years la ter, a small group of women within DGWS formed the Commission for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women, which held national championships in seven sports from its inception until 1971 (Hult, 1999). In 1971, the Commission became the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (Hult). At last, the vehicle for competition at the collegiate level was in place; the only thing missing was funding (Sexton, 1978).
During this era, females hoping to compete on school-sponsored athletic teams were routinely denied the opportunities afforded to male athletes. It was common practice for female athletes to depend on car washes, bake sales, and other fundraisers as their primary source of funding. Furthermore, transportation to games was provided primarily through parent car pools, team uniforms were often hand-me-downs from boy's junior-varsity teams, tournaments were called 'play days,' and coaches of girls' and women's teams earned gratitude rather than salaries.
Determined not to let another decade pass before female athletes received institutional support, advocates of equality sought relief using the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These three pieces of legislation were considered the cornerstones for the advancement of the gender and racial civil-rights movements. Geadelmann (1977a) stated that when females were not allowed to participate on school-sponsored male teams, participation suits were brought against public schools and colleges based on sex-discrimination violations of the equal-protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires that no state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Gender discrimination claims made under the Fourteenth Amendment are reviewed under the middle-tier scrutiny standard; to be permissible, the exclusion of females from athletic participation would have to serve an important state interest. Generally, public schools were unable to prove this argument, and the courts determined that preventing females from participating in publicly funded male sports programs when no comparable programs existed for females was not permissible (Sharp, 1990). Under the equal-protection argument, the courts have ruled consistently that females cannot be excluded from public-school sports teams solely because of their sex if they qualify under other criteria normally used in the selection of a team (e.g., see the following court cases: Reed v. Nebraska School Activities Association, 341 F. Supp. 258, D. Neb., 1972; Brenden v. Independent School District, 477 F. 2d. 1296, 1973, U.s. Court of Appeals, Cir. 8; Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 36 L.Ed. 2d 538, 93 5. Ct. 1764, 1973).
Even as female athletes fought for participation rights using the Fourteenth Amendment, other concerns regarding equity in sport surfaced and worked their way through the justice system. Female coaches claimed discrimination in employment under the Equal Pay Act based on salary differences between themselves and their male counterparts. Geadelmann (1977b) reported that the Equal Pay Act requires an employer to pay equal salaries to women and men holding jobs that involve like skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. In Brennan v. Woodbridge School District, the plaintiff brought suit against her employer when she was paid less for coaching girl's softball than was the male who coached boy's baseball. The court found that the school was in violation of the Equal Pay Act because the amount of practice time and number of games were the same and the job duties required the same skills and effort (Brennan, 8 Empl. Prac. Dec. 9640, D. Del. 1974).
Other suits involving equal pay were filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law states that 'it unlawful for any employer to fail o refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of a person's race color, religion, sex, or national on gin' (Wong, 1988). When Title VII was first passed, educational institutions were exempt; however, the act was eventually extended to include all educational institutions, public or private, whether or not they receive federal aid. Through the years, female coaches have had significant success in gaining equality in employment using Title VII and now Title IX (e.g. see the following court cases: Tyler v Howard University, CIV. No. 91. CA11239, 1993; Pitts v. Oklahoma. CIV No. 93-1341-A, W.D.Okla., 1994: Stanley v. University of Southern California, 13 F.3d. 1313,1994).
Title IX: The Homestretch?
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. [ss] 1681) was a century highlight for girls and women in sport; it was the most important athletic legislation ever mandated. It provides that '[n] o 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 educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.' Although Congress and advocates of females in sport believed that Title IX would eliminate gender discrimination in education, it has fallen short of that goal. No one would deny that it focused immediate national attention on sports programs for females. There is also no doubt that it forced many educational institutions to address the inequalities in their educational and athletic programs. From the beginning, Title IX has had a positive impact on the growth, opportunities, and participation of females in sport.
However, the years following the passage of Title IX-even before full compliance was required--were marked by challenges in the courts and pleas to Congress by opponents who wanted to narrow its scope and application, especially with regard to football. Congress held fast and refused to diminish the strength of the requirements. The marathon continued, and girls' and women's athletic programs enjoyed tremendous growth both at the high school and college levels. It seemed that the course was becoming less challenging. Each year, more participants joined the race with their spirits high, believing that equity was imminent.
Then, in 1984, less than a decade after compliance was required and had yet to be achieved, Title IX was dealt a devastating blow. Grove City College, a small private school in Pennsylvania, argued before the Supreme Court that Title IX did not apply to college athletics. The Supreme Court agreed, determining that the language of Title [IX made it program-specific and that only those programs that directly received federal funds were subject to its regulations (Grove City v. Bell, 465 US 555, 104 S.Ct. 1211, 79 L. Ed. 2d. 516, 1984). The Court said that Grove City College athletics, like most college athletics programs, received no direct federal financial assistance; therefore, Title IX did not apply.
Across the country, female athletes and their advocates--fearing that a weakened Title IX would set back if not destroy the strides that they had made in the years since its passage-- immediately began lobbying Congress. Title IX needed to be amended in a manner where there could be no disputing its comprehensive application. Congress listened and, four long years after the Grove City case, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 was passed (20 U.S.C. [ss] 1687). Included in this act was a stronger Title IX and a victory for girls and women in sport. This time, Title IX required that all educational institutions receiving any type of federal financial assistance, whether direct or indirect, must comply with it (20 U.S.C. [ss][ss] 1681-1686).
The race continued, with each new year bringing more competitors with greater skills. Ultimately, the marathon course brought us to the 1990s, a time that provided girls and women in sport with high school state championships in all 50 states, 17 NCAA national championships in different sports and divisions, professional basketball and softball leagues, and a professional circuit in track and field. Perhaps most telling of the progress that female athletes had made was the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, where more than a third of the participants were women for the first time in Olympic history (Eitzen & Sage, 1997). This was the Title IX generation, and with every broken record and gold medal, early runners in the century marathon knew a victory they themselves had never experienced firsthand.
Yet, even as we celebrate our growth, we know that the marathon is far from over. Both the spirit and letter of Title IX are still being challenged, as if equity is not a value that ought to be embraced. For example, in 1992, Brown University reduced two women's sports teams (gymnastics and volleyball) and two men's sports teams (golf and water polo) to club status, claiming a lack of financial resources. Female athletes at the university filed a complaint alleging that the equal-opportunity requirement of Title IX was being violated and that the interests of female student-athletes were not being met (Cohen et al. v. Brown University et al., 991 F. 2d 888, 1st Cir., 1993). Ultimatelyy, the court required that the women's teams be restored to their previous varsity status. In spite of the court's proactive action, such violations of the spirit of equality are nevertheless frustrating for girls and women in sport. The courts continue to require compliance on a case-by-case basis. Yet, the spirit of Title IX c annot be 'enforced' through legal proceedings, and it has yet to be embraced by many of America's educational institutions.
Conclusion
Even as we begin the new millennium, females have yet to celebrate true equality of opportunity in sports. Today, female intercollegiate athletes, on average, receive only 30 percent of the scholarship dollars, 23 percent of the athletic operating budget, 17 percent of the recruiting dollars, and, perhaps most disappointing, only 35 percent of the participation opportunities (Feminist Majority Foundation and New Media Publishing, 2000). Undeniably, girls and women made significant gains in sports during the last century, enough to be optimistic that, sometime in this new millennium, they will have the same opportunities as their male counterparts. It is high time, as Billie Jean King once said, that we '[t]reat our daughters as well as we treat our sons' (Women's Sport Foundation, 1977). Today, girls and women in sport dream of a better tomorrow because of the dreams of their mothers, aunts, teachers, neighbors, and all the other runners of the 'Century Marathon.'
Mary L. Motley is the coordinator of undergraduate programs, and Mary E. LaVine is an assistant professor, in the Department of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH 44115.
References
Eitzen, S. D., & Sage, G. H. (1978). Sociology of American sport. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.
Feminist Majority Foundation and New Media Publishing. (1996). Quick facts: Looking through the female Olympic lens [Online]. Available: http://www.feminist. org/archive/olympics/fact.html
Feminist Majority Foundation and New Media Publishing. (2000). Women in sports and the Olympics: Increasing girls' and women's shorts opportunities [On line]. Available: http://www.feminist. org/archive/olympics/caption.html
Geadelmann, P. L. (1977a). Court precedents. In P. L. Geadelmann, C. Grant, Y. Slatton, & N. P. Burke (Eds.), Equality in sport for women (pp. 67-88). Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance.
Geadelmann, P. L. (1977b). What does the law say? In P. L. Geadelmann, C. Grant, Y. Slatton, & N. P. Burke (Eds.), Equality in sport for women (pp. 33-55). Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance.
Gerber, E., Felshin,J., Berlin, P., & Wyrick, W. (1974). The American woman in sport. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hickok, R. (1999). The 1920 Olympics: Antwerp, Belgium [On-line]. Available: http: //www. Hickoksports. com/history/o11920.shtml
Hult, J. S. (1999). NAGWS and AIAW: The strange and wondrous journey to the athletic summit, 1950-1990. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 70(4), 24-31.
Johnson, W., & Williamson, N. (1974, May 6). All red, so help them henna. Sports Illustrated, 40, 76-91.
Rader, B. G. (1983). American sports. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Sexton, M. (1978). Women in sport. Wooster Alumni Magazine, August, 8-12.
Sharp, L. (1990). Sport law. Dayton, OH National Organization of Legal Problems of Education.
Spears, B., & Swanson, R. (1978). History of sport and physical education in the United States. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.
Twin, S. L. (Ed.). (1979). Out of the bleachers: Writings on women and sport. Old Westbury, NY: Feminist.
Women's Sport Foundation. (1977). Gender equity report. New York: Author.
Wong, G. M. (1988). Essentials of amateur sport law. Dover, MA: Auburn House.
