(In)equity in athletics: U.S. antidiscrimination law and the white, middle-class advantage

ABSTRACT Equity in Athletics, Inc., v. Department of Education (2011) questioned whether schools could cut men’s sports for Title IX compliance. The case uniquely wedded racial and gender antidiscrimination precedents to argue Title IX harms men and therefore is unconstitutional. The courts disagreed and validated Title IX’s constitutionality. We argue this case did far more than endorse Title IX. Equity in Athletics showcases how antidiscrimination laws failed to redress the roots of racism, capitalism, and sexism all while ignoring harms done at the intersections. We use Crenshaw’s (1988, 1989, 1991) intersectional legal framework – single-axis, essentialism, and restrictive view of equity – to analyze Equity in Athletics. An intersectional reading of the case showcases three areas of the law – constitutionality tests, quotas, and segregation – that increase the athletic advantages for white, middle-class cis-gender girls and women at the expense and exclusion of lower-income, Girls and Women of Color, and transgender athletes.