Formal Legal Rationality in Law Enactment vs. Actual Behavioral Change: The Sex Equity in Education Act in California.

N

17

Practitioners

Civil Rights; Civil Rights Legislation; Colleges; Court Litigation; Equal Education; Higher Education; Justice; Sex Discrimination; Sex Fairness; State Departments of Education; State Legislation; Universities

Legislative mandates on sexual discrimination do not necessarily guarantee enduring change, as is demonstrated by the reinterpretation by the United States Supreme Court of Title IX of the Education Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the landmark decision in "Grove City College v. Bell" in 1984, the court ruled that Title IX, which states that no person shall be subjected to discrimination under any educational program receiving federal assistance, was applicable only to the college's student financial aid program because it was the only program receiving federal funds. This article presents a case study of political action in California where a "State Title IX" law, which became known as the Sex Equity in Education Act, was signed into law in 1982. An account is provided of follow-up actions occurring as a result of women organizing and preparing a model for implementing the new law. Development and enactment of the California State "Title IX" bill is outlined, along with steps taken and the benefits received. Project ARISE is described, outlining model regulations for sex equity in education. Figures on women's employment and education are given citing slow or nonexistent growth. Nine references conclude the paper. (WTH)

1987

ED280173