Title IX and Gender-Based Discrimination in Athletics
- WULR Team
- May 8
- 4 min read
An analysis of the legal challenges and systemic disparities in collegiate athletics
Published May 8th, 2026
Written by Kathryn McKinney
The path to a world free of gender-based discrimination has been and will continue to be a hard fight. In 2016, ten female athletes from St. Cloud State University and the Minnesota State College and University Systems filed a lawsuit against the universities. The AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund claimed they were in violation of Title IX, following the removal of both the women’s tennis and Nordic ski teams in March of that year. To stay in compliance with Title IX, there has been an established three-pronged test. Federally funded athletics programs must adhere to one of the three guidelines: ensuring equal opportunities for all athletes, demonstrating a history of commitment and involvement in program expansion and fully accommodating the underrepresented gender in their pursued interests. When filing the lawsuit, the SCSU athletes alleged the university was in violation of prong one and three. In the 1960s and 70s, the United States made great strides towards a more inclusive tomorrow, but all the legislation was leaving out one crucial component of everyday American life: Education. Title IX created a legal framework behind gender-based discrimination in all aspects of education that involve federal money in accordance with the U.S Department of Education. This includes sexual harassment, sex-based discrimination, equal athletic opportunity, and more in primary, secondary, and post-secondary institutions. The scope of Title IX is broad because gender inclusion is vital everywhere, not just one specific time or place.
In Portz et al. v. St. Cloud State University;Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and filed a permanent injunction forcing the university to amend their policies in compliance with federal law according to Justia. After the university appealed to the 8th Circuit District Court, the decision was altered. While the appellate court agreed that SCSU was in violation of Title IX due to their actions regarding the dissolution of certain female intercollegiate programs, they ruled against the permanent injunction. This sparked a long-winded legal battle where the university fought to dissolve the injunction, but the court found them still in violation of the U.S Department of Health and Human Services Title IX’s “treatment and benefits” provision. The case continued in this fashion, with the university petitioning for dissolution of the injunction and the plaintiffs fighting back. In 2024 the court removed the injunction after SCSU was able to provide documentation they were adhering to Title IX. After almost ten years and thousands of dollars in legal fees later, female athletes at St. Cloud State University finally got the justice they deserved.
The case against SCSU was not one of a kind. In 2023, the University of Oregon was under pressure to adhere to Title IX regulations after a case was filed against them in a similar fashion. The plaintiffs included 26 members of the women’s varsity beach volleyball team and six members of the women’s club rowing team. The athletes claimed that the unequal treatment of women’s sports were seen in all aspects: nutrition, transportation, clothing, scholarships, medical treatment, mental health services, or proper facilities. In adhering to the 1994 Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, post-secondary institutions such as the University of Oregon must disclose “athletic participation, staffing, and revenues and expenses, by men’s and women’s teams”. This report revealed that women make up 49% of the university’s student athletes yet only receive 25% of its athletics dollars and 15% of its recruiting resources.
One specific instance that the women’s beach volleyball team reported was the university’s delay in building a proper facility for the team to utilize.They reportedly must practice in a public park whose bathroom has no stall doors, has only one small bench for seating, and the closest locker room is back on campus two miles away. Regarding the women’s club rowing team, their motivation for filing the class action lawsuit was the university’s refusal to form an intercollegiate rowing team affiliated with the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Currently, the Big-Ten, the conference the University of Oregon is in, is comprised of eighteen teams with eleven of them having established NCAA rowing teams. While not the only institution within the conference to not have a rowing team, Oregon rowing athletes desire to compete on the next level with fellow collegiate athletes and gain the recognition they’ve trained and fought for.
As of March 2026, the case Schroeder et al v. University of Oregon, is ongoing as both the plaintiffs and the defendants are adamant in their position on the university’s adherence to Title IX. This case represents the continued need for gender-based inclusion within athletics. Female athletes have undergone the same levels of intensity through training and competition that their male counterparts have, thus deserve the same appreciation from educational institutions. Gender equality doesn’t happen overnight, but change continues to happen when brave individuals stand up for what they believe to be right.
Comments