Three former officials from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), who played key roles in interpreting and implementing federal gender equity laws in athletics, have issued a letter condemning the Trump administration’s recent stance that Title IX “says nothing” about how compensation should be allocated among college athletes.
In a press release last month, Craig Trainor, the Department of Education’s acting assistant secretary for civil rights under President Donald Trump, rescinded OCR’s previous guidance under the Biden administration. The new interpretation claims that college athlete compensation, such as through outside NIL deals or revenue-sharing agreements with athletes, should not be subject to the gender equity provisions laid out in Title IX.
Trainor asserted that not only does Title IX itself fail to address compensation matters like NIL, but there is also no “clear legal authority” supporting an interpretation that requires gender equity in this context.
However, in a letter titled “The End of Equity in College Athletics,” Valerie Bonnette, who worked as a senior program analyst in OCR’s policy development division from 1980 to 1994—and who authored the agency’s 1990 Title IX Athletics Investigator’s Manual—said Trainor is wrong on the legislative and legal history of the statute.
“OCR’s policy on revenues and outside funding—including compensation paid directly to students—has been abundantly clear for 50 years,” the letter states. “This approach represents a fundamental principle that is central to all civil rights laws, not just Title IX. Allowing outside funding to circumvent an institution’s obligation to ensure equity is nothing less than condoning rampant discrimination, financed by the highest bidder.”
Bonnette’s letter is co-signed by two other key OCR officials with significant experience in Title IX: Jeanette Lim Esbrook, who played a pivotal role in implementing the 1979 Title IX intercollegiate athletics policy interpretation, and Jean Peelen, who oversaw some of the Department of Education’s first major Title IX athletics cases as OCR’s principal negotiator.
The former officials point to the history of Title IX’s enactment and early implementation as evidence of the statute’s application to athlete compensation.
For example, the letter highlights a 1975 memorandum from the top OCR official under President Gerald Ford, who signed the final Title IX regulations into effect. The memorandum reaffirmed that the statute applies to both non-revenue and revenue-producing sports, stating, “The fact that a particular segment of an athletic program is supported by funds received from various other sources (such as student fees, general revenues, gate receipts, alumni donations, booster clubs and nonprofit foundations) does not remove it from the reach of the statute and hence the regulatory requirements.”
This historical precedent further underscores the ongoing commitment to gender equity in collegiate athletics, regardless of revenue sources, Bonnette contends.
Since 1994, Bonnette has run a Title IX and gender equity consulting firm called Good Sports Inc., which works with a number of high schools and colleges. She declined to comment on her letter when reached by Sportico.
The debate over Title IX’s application is expected to take center stage at next month’s final settlement hearing in House v. NCAA. According to court filings, the first objector slated to speak at the hearing is attorney Steven Molo of MoloLamken, who represents a number of female athletes who contend that the settlement discriminates against women.
Meanwhile, a federal judge overseeing a separate lawsuit filed against the University of Oregon by former female beach volleyball players and rowers is expected to rule by the end of this month on whether the case can go forward. That lawsuit is the first allege Title IX gender equity violations by a school related to NIL.
