The Mobilization of Title IX across U.S. Colleges and Universities, 1994-2014

The Mobilization of Title IX across U.S. Colleges and Universities, 1994-2014 Abstract Title IX has been widely recognized as a crucial step toward gender equality in America. Yet, it remains unclear how the law actually functions, particularly how it has been used in response to gender disparities in higher education. This article provides the first systematic analysis of how Title IX has been mobilized at the postsecondary level. Drawing on new data acquired through seven Freedom of Information Act requests, I analyze all resolved Title IX complaints filed with the Office for Civil Rights against four-year nonprofit colleges and universities from 1994 to 2014. I find that the mobilization of Title IX has changed both in frequency and in kind during this period. Filings started to rise after 2000 and exploded after 2009, while sexual harassment complaints nearly equaled academic and athletic filings for the first time in 2014. Private, more selective institutions as well as schools located in states with more women serving in state legislatures face a disproportionate number of complaints relative to enrollment, indicating the importance of institutional context to legal mobilization. gender, higher education, law and society, legal mobilization, sex discrimination, Title IX Title IX, the U.S. civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs, has been called one of the most significant steps toward gender equality in the last century (Ferree and Hess 1995). Yet, research on how the law has been used in response to perceived gender disparities in the academy is lacking. There are recent indications that the mobilization of Title IX—in the form of complaints filed against allegedly noncompliant colleges and universities with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the primary federal administrative agency responsible for implementing the law—has both increased dramatically and shifted from an emphasis on fostering gender equity in athletics to regulating sexual harassment and assault on campus (U.S. Department of Education 2011, 2015b). But there has been no comprehensive analysis of this shift, or of the law’s mobilization more generally, and therefore we have little sense of if and how it took place. How has Title IX been mobilized to combat gender inequalities in higher education? Is it deployed broadly or only to address some forms of sex discrimination in certain types of institutions? Is its use consistent or contradictory? This article provides the first systematic analysis of how Title IX has been mobilized at the postsecondary level over the last two decades. I draw from a new data set I constructed using information acquired through seven Freedom of Information Act requests filed over 18 months. The data include all resolved postsecondary Title IX complaints filed with OCR against allegedly noncompliant schools from 1994 to 2014. Using these data, I seek to rigorously map the phenomenon. First, by tracing changes in the number and kinds of complaints filed, I assess whether the law has been mobilized more often and around certain types of sex discrimination at different points in time. I then examine whether the mobilization of the law is institutionally uneven, for example, whether more complaints are filed against certain types of schools relative to enrollment. I find that over the last two decades the number of Title IX complaints filed against four-year nonprofit institutions skyrocketed in 1999 and again starting in 2013. Individual complainants engaged in mass filings on behalf of others are responsible for both spikes. Net of this effect, I find that the number of Title IX complaints has trended upward since 2000, exploding after 2009 and reaching a record high in 2014. Complaints citing discrimination in academics were the modal type of complaint filed for most of the last 20 years, until 2014 when sexual harassment, academics, and athletics complaints reached near parity. I also find that the mobilization of Title IX is institutionally uneven: relative to total enrollment, a disproportionate number of complaints are filed against private, more selective institutions as well as those located in states with high numbers of women serving in state legislatures. This research fills an important gap in the sociological literature and illuminates a pressing social transformation affecting campus life across America. I show how a powerful legal tool is employed in response to perceived gender inequality in higher education and illustrate the specific kinds of disparities that elicit legal mobilization, which is a first step toward understanding the law’s ability to reduce such disparities. These findings also contribute to the law and society literature by demonstrating that legal mobilization is uneven at the institutional level—not just at the individual or group level, as existing research has emphasized. Finally, this research has significant policy implications that can inform and improve the current national effort to recalibrate how Title IX is implemented in the academy, as evinced by the growing number of schools under federal investigation for allegedly violating the law and by recent changes to federal guidance specifying the terms of compliance. The article proceeds as follows. The first section provides crucial context with an overview of major policies and lawsuits that have shaped the law’s scope and, hence, its capacity for mobilization over the last 20 years. I then draw from the law and society literature to formulate an approach for analyzing Title IX complaints as a case of legal mobilization. After describing data collection and analysis procedures, I present results from my analysis of all resolved postsecondary Title IX complaints filed with OCR from 1994 to 2014. The article ends with a discussion of how this knowledge about Title IX’s mobilization can strengthen its ability to ameliorate gender inequality in the academy today. THE SCOPE OF TITLE IX Gender plays a critical role in higher education, contributing to both different and unequal academic experiences (Conger and Long 2010; DiPrete and Buchmann 2013; Goldin, Katz, and Kuziemko 2006), social experiences (Armstrong, England, and Fogarty 2012), and outcomes (Cotter, Hermsen, and Vanneman 2004; Leicht 2008). Research on academics demonstrates that, although women have outpaced men in college graduation rates since the early 1980s, they remain underrepresented in elite institutions (Bielby et al. 2014) and in STEM fields among others (Charles and Bradley 2002; Shavit, Arum, and Gamoran 2007; Xie and Shauman 2003). Scholarship examining social experiences emphasizes how regressive models of gender relations are reinforced in college through, for example, the Greek system (Armstrong and Hamilton 2013) and hookup culture (Hamilton and Armstrong 2009). And research on outcomes shows how gender biases reproduced in higher education contribute to the gender wage gap (Bobbit-Zeher 2007; Jacobs 1996), sex segregation of the professions (Cech et al. 2011; Correll 2001), and the durability of practices enforcing gender complementarity (Hamilton 2014). Title IX was enacted precisely to reduce such disparities, but how it fits into these important and well-trodden accounts of gender inequality in the academy is surprisingly unremarked.1 Passed in 1972, the law reads: “No 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 education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance” (20 U.S.C. [1681]). Title IX’s vast authority can be categorized into three domains: academics; sexual harassment, including sexual assault; and athletics. For instance, it demands schools offer equal opportunity in STEM programs to students of all genders, eliminate hostile environments created by sexual harassment, and provide comparable athletic facilities for men’s and women’s teams. Yet the law’s scope has always been and still remains contested, which necessarily affects how it can be mobilized. Below, I discuss how the law’s authority in these three key domains has shifted from 1994 to 2014 as a result of policy releases and lawsuits. 1994-2004 Since the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare first defined Title IX compliance requirements for intercollegiate athletics in 1975, they have been under constant debate. The mid-1990s were no exception. Partly in response to Cohen et al. v. Brown University, 101 F.3d 155 (1996), a case in which Brown undergraduate women charged the university with violating Title IX because it demoted the volleyball and gymnastics teams to club status, the House of Representatives again reconsidered the law’s “three-part test.” The test stipulates that a school can be compliant with the law’s athletic requirements by (1) providing athletic opportunities substantially proportionate to its population of men and women students, (2) demonstrating a history and continuing practice of expanding athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, or (3) meeting the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex. Before the Court affirmed the three-part test in Cohen, OCR released its 1996 clarification letter on the test’s requirements to remind schools of their legal obligations. It released a similar reminder in 2003. Title IX’s coverage of sexual harassment was also contested during this decade. Although the courts first recognized sexual harassment as actionable discrimination under the law long before the 1990s (Alexander v. Yale University, 459 F.Supp. 1 [1977]), it was not until 1981 that OCR explicitly added sexual harassment to Title IX prohibitions (Mango 1990-1991:381) and not until 1997 that OCR distributed its first guidance document to schools outlining Title IX compliance requirements around the issue. Supreme Court case Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999) may have precipitated this release: Lashonda Davis sued the Monroe County school board under Title IX for insufficiently responding to repeated incidents of sexual harassment from an elementary school peer. The Court’s decision affirmed peer harassment as actionable discrimination under Title IX.2 It also established that a private right of action exists under the law for peer harassment but only when the defendant responds “with deliberate indifference to known acts of harassment” and the harassment is “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively barred the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit” (p. 633). Soon after Davis, OCR again reminded schools of their obligation under Title IX to address sexual harassment by releasing a revised version of the 1997 sexual harassment guidance in 2001. Simultaneously, the law was invoked in cases alleging discrimination in college admissions. One notable case is Johnson v. Board of Regents, 263 F.3d 1234 (2001) wherein three white female applicants to the University of Georgia sued the state under Title IX for being denied admission. The plaintiffs alleged that they had experienced reverse discrimination because of the school’s affirmative action policy. The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s ruling in favor of the defendants. Importantly, Johnson was part of a more widespread pushback against the use of affirmative action in college admissions occurring throughout the country during the 1990s and early 2000s (e.g., Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 [1996]; Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 [2003]; Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 444 [2003]). 2005-2014 Title IX continued to exhibit a broad scope of application into the twenty-first century, but contestation over the law’s coverage of athletics, academics, and, especially, sexual harassment persisted. The three-part test remained a focal point of the athletics debate, illustrated by the Office of Civil Rights release of several guidance documents again clarifying the test and defining athletic activities liable under Title IX (U.S. Department of Education 2007, 2008, 2010). Most notably, the 2010 letter announced that schools must use multiple indicators, not just a single survey measuring students’ interest in athletic participation, to demonstrate effective accommodation of athletic interests and abilities. The law’s coverage of discrimination in academics did, however, undergo significant change during this period in the form of an amendment to the regulation itself. The 2006 amendment introduced a new exception to Title IX’s prohibition of sex-segregated classes in elementary and secondary schools: a school could offer single-sex classes if they met the “particular, identified educational needs” of students or sought to improve students’ educational achievement (U.S. Department of Education 2007:2). Though the amendment does not apply to tertiary institutions, it demonstrates that discrimination in academics remained an active area of Title IX’s implementation throughout the 2000s. Perhaps the most prominent changes to the law’s application during this period concern sexual harassment. In 2006, OCR released its 2001 sexual harassment guidance for the third time with an accompanying letter emphasizing that sexual harassment is sex discrimination under Title IX (U.S. Department of Education 2006). It released a revised version again in 2008. Meanwhile, Jennings v. UNC-Chapel Hill, 482 F.3d 686 (2007) established employee-student verbal harassment of a sexual nature as actionable discrimination under the law. Soon afterwards in Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, 555 U.S. 246 (2009), the Supreme Court ruled that individuals who experience sex discrimination in school, particularly sexual harassment, can sue those schools under Title IX. Finally, in 2011, OCR released a Dear Colleague Letter outlining compliance requirements under Title IX vis-à-vis sexual assault, followed by a “Questions & Answers” clarification in 2014. The letter mandated the use of the preponderance of evidence standard in school disciplinary procedures for sexual harassment and assault, which means it must be “more likely than not” (as opposed to “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “clear and convincing”) that the alleged discrimination occurred for an individual to face disciplinary action. OCR also broadened the definition of actionable harassment to “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” from the Davis standard (U.S. Department of Education 2011:3). Three years later, President Obama established the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, illustrating that the issue of sexual harassment in schools had gained national prominence.3 Clearly, the capacity to mobilize Title IX in response to sexual harassment, discrimination in academics, and discrimination in athletics has shifted over the last two decades. Aside from key lawsuits and policy releases, however, it remains unclear how the law has been used to combat gender disparities in the academy, making it difficult to measure its ability to ameliorate the dynamics described above and, more generally, to foster social change. This article takes the initial step towards answering these questions by providing the first analysis of all resolved postsecondary Title IX complaints filed with OCR from 1994 to 2014. TITLE IX COMPLAINTS AS A CASE OF LEGAL MOBILIZATION Title IX complaints represent one form of legal mobilization, a focal point of law and society research since the 1960s and 1970s. Frances Kahn Zemans’s (1983) conceptualization of the term is useful and widely accepted (McCann 2009): “The law is … mobilized when a desire or want is translated into a demand as an assertion of rights” (p. 700). Legal mobilization is a kind of civic participation and public power that involves “the act of invoking legal norms to regulate behavior” (Zemans 1983:700). Filing a federal Title IX complaint is thus a form of legal mobilization because it is an assertion of rights, specifically the equal right to education, made to the Office for Civil Rights in response to what complainants perceive as a school’s failure to implement the law. This perception usually results from an injurious experience that is either personal or witnessed. While the specific demands of each complaint vary, they share an overarching demand for OCR to effect institutions’ compliance with the law and, hence, for institutional change. In cases where OCR investigates a school as the result of a complaint, the school must cooperate and ultimately enter into a resolution agreement; otherwise, OCR may ask the Department of Justice to seek in-court enforcement action.4 Most research on legal mobilization in the United States examines the conditions surrounding its occurrence, revealing how use of the legal system, though “quintessentially democratic” in theory, is uneven across society (Zemans 1983:693). One approach focuses on characteristics of the system that exacerbate inequalities in legal mobilization by, for example, privileging “repeat players” with greater resources (Galanter 1974; see also, Bumiller 1988; Felstiner, Abel, and Sarat 1980; Kritzer and Silbey 2003). Others emphasize individuals’ demographic characteristics, demonstrating that subsets of the population, such as older people and the highly educated, more often mobilize law (Bobo and Suh 2000; Kaiser and Major 2006; Uggen and Blackstone 2004). This research often intersects with the literature on legal consciousness, or how ordinary citizens experience and understand law (Ewick and Silbey 1998; Merry 1985; Nielsen and Nelson 2005). A series of early studies in this tradition established that legal awareness and competence vary across social classes (Carlin, Howard, and Messinger 1967; Curran 1977; Levine and Preston 1970), and more recent work expands on this claim by showing that the disadvantaged are more likely than privileged groups to perceive legally actionable behaviors but no more or even less likely to mobilize the law in response (Morrill et al. 2010; Nielsen 2004).5 The organizational conditions of legal mobilization, however, have received less attention, which is surprising given the central role organizations occupy in the legal environment as both regulated and regulators (Dobbin 2009; Edelman 1992; Edelman, Uggen, Erlanger 1999). An emergent literature assesses how institutional and organizational factors—such as firm size, demographic composition, control structures, minority management, and industrial sector—affect understandings of discriminatory behavior at work, the incidence of employment discrimination complaints, and complaint outcomes (Albiston 2005; Hirsh 2014; Hirsh and Kornrich 2008; Hirsh and Lyons 2010). I engage and extend this literature by analyzing institutional variation in the targets of Title IX complaints. I focus on four factors—control structure, institution type, political environment, and selectivity—but also include others identified in existing research as relevant. In the workplace, control structure refers to authority arrangements, namely the degree and style of supervisory oversight (Marsden, Cook, and Kalleberg 1994). This concept maps onto the higher education context as schools’ governance structures or whether they are public, private secular, or private religious. Public and private institutions may be held to different standards or subjected to different oversight based on state and federal government involvement in their administration, particularly as a source of funding (Bowen and Tobin 2015; Hearn and McLendon 2012; Loss 2012), which could contribute to variation in the number and kinds of complaints filed against them. Different types of institutions may have different norms and expectations surrounding gender equity in education, as is the case for equal opportunity in employment across industrial sectors (Charles and Grusky 2004). Large research universities, baccalaureate colleges, and special focus institutions, for example, may be differentially targeted based on such variation. Schools’ embeddedness in “rights-conscious environments,” specifically rights concerning gender equity, may also be key dimension of variation (Hirsh and Kornrich 2008:1405; see also, Edelman et al. 1999:420). Existing research shows that women’s presence in lawmaking bodies gives rise to increased political mobilization around gender issues (Boyle, Kim, and Longhofer 2015). Thus, I use the proportion of women’s representation in state legislatures as an indicator for the gender-political environments surrounding schools (Paxton, Kunovich, and Hughes 2007; Thomas 1991).6 Organizational selectivity or prestige is a factor not directly examined in the literature on legal mobilization but it has been identified as important in research examining other modes of mobilization, such as social movement activism (Bloom 1987; Lipset 1971; Soule 1997; Van Dyke 1998). Prestigious institutions may face more stringent standards of compliance given their position as focal actors in the field but they also may be targeted more frequently due to their visibility. I assess this possibility in the higher education context, though organizational prestige could operate similarly in corporate firms. In sum, this analysis of Title IX complaints contributes to an emerging literature on the organizational context of legal mobilization by assessing how filings vary across institutional settings. DATA AND METHODS Filing a Title IX Claim Understanding how to file a Title IX grievance is crucial to understanding what my data do and do not capture. The Department of Education, the courts, and schools implement the law. Hence, the aggrieved may lodge a complaint in any or all of these three settings and may do so in any order. Various factors influence the decision of where to file. Internal complaints typically incur the lowest transaction costs, have minimal or no time limits on when a complaint can be filed after an incident, and take less time to resolve. Though policies differ across institutions, usually only members of the school community can file internally. Local complaints generally, but not always, produce individual-level outcomes: in cases of peer harassment, for instance, the alleged perpetrator may be moved into another dormitory or class section. Lawsuits incur the highest transaction costs, have a statute of limitations ranging from one to six years depending on the state jurisdiction, and take the longest time to resolve. Only the affected person(s) can file suit against their university. Settlements can yield individual-, organization-, and society-level outcomes: the plaintiff may receive damages; the ruling may require a school to change how it implements Title IX locally; or, as in Supreme Court cases, the decision may affect the law’s application more broadly by redefining its scope. OCR complaints are a middle ground between internal grievances and lawsuits. Anyone can file a charge against an educational program. They incur no direct monetary costs but may take years to resolve and are also more formal than local internal complaints, which may deter those who want quick and private resolutions. Complainants must file within 180 days of the incident or request a wavier to this limit. OCR complaints are unique in that individual-level outcomes are usually subsidiary to organization- or society-level change: a resolution may require a school to modify its Title IX compliance procedures and encourage other schools to do the same. Although OCR can order schools to reimburse complainants for university-related expenses accrued as a result of discrimination, this is almost always part of a broader set of directives to bring the school into compliance (see, for example, OCR’s voluntary resolution agreement with Southern Methodist University in 2014 [U.S. Department of Education 2014]). Thus, those filing OCR complaints often seek some kind of larger, community-level change in Title IX’s application. Table 1 summarizes the differences between filing an internal grievance, OCR complaint, and lawsuit.7 Table 1. Ways to File a Title IX Claim Internal Grievance OCR Complaint Lawsuit Who can file Member of school Anyone Affected person Time limitations Varies by school 180 days or wavier 1-6 years by state Transaction costs Lowest Medium Highest Outcome Individual-level Individual-level Organization-level Organization-level Society-level Society-level Internal Grievance OCR Complaint Lawsuit Who can file Member of school Anyone Affected person Time limitations Varies by school 180 days or wavier 1-6 years by state Transaction costs Lowest Medium Highest Outcome Individual-level Individual-level Organization-level Organization-level Society-level Society-level Table 1. Ways to File a Title IX Claim Internal Grievance OCR Complaint Lawsuit Who can file Member of school Anyone Affected person Time limitations Varies by school 180 days or wavier 1-6 years by state Transaction costs Lowest Medium Highest Outcome Individual-level Individual-level Organization-level Organization-level Society-level Society-level Internal Grievance OCR Complaint Lawsuit Who can file Member of school Anyone Affected person Time limitations Varies by school 180 days or wavier 1-6 years by state Transaction costs Lowest Medium Highest Outcome Individual-level Individual-level Organization-level Organization-level Society-level Society-level Data Through seven Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted over 18 months, I acquired the list of all resolved postsecondary Title IX complaints filed with OCR from FY1994 to FY2014 (N = 10,225).8 To protect complainants, OCR does not typically release information about open complaints. OCR staff compiled the list by entering targeted queries into their internal database, which contains information dating back to October 1, 1993. All previous records were retired as part of the Department’s 20-year standard of retention for civil rights cases (U.S. Department of Education 2009). The database is updated when the status of a case changes. The data presented here were last updated on September 14, 2015. I replicated the FOIA request that produced this list as an additional check on its completeness. The list includes the following information for each complaint: the name and location of the school facing the complaint, dates of filing and resolution, and issue(s) allegedly violated under Title IX. It is structured by issue, as one complaint can allege violation of multiple issues. To analyze the complaint data, I merged them with school data provided through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). I limit this analysis to four-year, nonprofit, degree-granting schools that consistently appear in IPEDS from 1994 to 2013 (N = 1,955) and the population of Title IX complaints filed against them (N = 6,654). Lumping four-year, two-year, and for-profit programs into a single analysis, I believe, inhibits the development of meaningful conclusions about the mobilization of Title IX in any one of these contexts, especially given the varying demographic compositions across these school types (Gelbgiser 2016). Organizational characteristics, such as institution type and selectivity, are also conceptualized and often measured differently across these settings. Analyzing this diverse range of institutions together would therefore imply a level of comparability in both the measures and the institutions themselves that is not reflected in reality. Additionally, the problem of sex discrimination may look vastly different across these programs. Two-year and for-profit schools, for example, usually include more commuter students and often do not provide residential housing, which likely affects the kinds of sex discrimination occurring on campus (e.g., peer sexual violence may be less common). Focusing on a subset of schools also enables the development of targeted suggestions for policymakers about how to improve the implementation of Title IX, which is another goal of the article. Future research can take these results as a baseline for investigating Title IX complaints filed against two-year and for-profit institutions. Measures Dependent Variables As discussed above, Title IX’s expansive authority can be categorized into three broad domains linked to different ways the law has been mobilized: discrimination in athletics, sexual harassment, and discrimination in academics. I construct outcomes based on these different kinds of mobilization using OCR’s issue codebook, which lists 76 different types of discrimination actionable under Title IX. When a regional office receives a complaint, an OCR staff member categorizes the issue allegedly violated using the codebook (see Appendix A for a more detailed discussion of the OCR complaint process).9 I collapse the issue codes into four outcomes: there are 19 issues for discrimination in athletics, 5 for sexual harassment, 28 for discrimination in academics, and 24 for other types of discrimination (see Table A1 for the issue codebook and which issues I include in each outcome category). These outcomes allow me to assess changes in the counts of complaints filed over time as well as differences in the types of schools targeted in specific kinds of complaints. My dependent variables are thus complaint counts per school: the overall count, the count of complaints citing athletics issues, the count of complaints citing sexual harassment issues, the count of complaints citing academic issues, and the count of complaints citing other issues that do not fall into the former three categories. Complaints are counted more than once if they cite issues from more than one of the four outcome categories (e.g., one complaint citing athletics and sexual harassment issues is counted twice) but only once if they cite more than one issue within a single outcome category (e.g., one complaint citing two sexual harassment issues is counted once).10Figures 1a-1e display histograms of each dependent variable.11 Figures 1a-1e. View largeDownload slide Histograms of Title IX Complaint Counts Figures 1a-1e. View largeDownload slide Histograms of Title IX Complaint Counts Independent Variables I examine institutional variation in the targets of Title IX complaints across four dimensions: control structure, institution type, selectivity, and political environment. IPEDS includes a variable for institutional control—whether the school is public, private secular, or private religious—used as my measure for control structure. It also includes Carnegie Classification, used as my measure for institution type. I constructed a measure for selectivity using students’ SAT math and verbal scores at the 25th percentile from 2001 to 2013 (Bowen and Bok 1998; Dale and Krueger 2002; Loury and Garman 1995).12 I use the 25th rather than the 75th percentile because schools are likely more discriminating at the lower end of the distribution. I calculated a cumulative mean composite score for each school then used the distribution of scores to construct a categorical variable for selectivity. Finally, I use women’s representation in state legislatures as an indicator for the gender-political environments surrounding schools. I created this measure by calculating the cumulative mean percent of women state representatives for each state from 1994 to 2014 using data available through Rutgers University’s Center for American Women and Politics (2014). States in the upper quintile of the distribution are considered to have the highest levels of women’s representation, while states in the lower quintile are considered to have the lowest levels. For Washington, DC, I used data on city councilmembers (DC Board of Elections 2014).13 Control Variables Following existing research on the organizational conditions of legal mobilization, I adjust for demographic factors potentially related to Title IX complaint filings, specifically the cumulative mean percentage of women enrolled from 1994 to 2013 (sample median: 56.86 percent), and the cumulative mean percentage of black non-Hispanic (sample median: 5.25 percent), Hispanic (sample median: 2.76 percent), and Asian students (sample median: 1.88 percent) enrolled from 1994 to 2013, all of which derive from IPEDS variables. I also adjust for athletic conference membership, as member schools may see a disproportionate number of athletics complaints.14 Using IPEDS data, I constructed binary measures for conference membership from 1998, the earliest year available, to 2013 (1 if the school was ever a member of the conference during this period and 0 if it was never a member during this period). I include measures for the two largest conferences, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the National Intercollegiate Athletic Association (NAIA). These measures are not mutually exclusive. Finally, I adjust for OCR regional office to reduce potential bias in the classification of complaints.15 Analysis Plan The analysis proceeds in two stages. I first examine how the mobilization of Title IX, specifically in the form of complaints filed with OCR against schools, has changed both in number and in kind from 1994 to 2014. I show the overall count of complaints filed annually and then show counts by type of complaint. Next, I assess institutional variation in the targets of Title IX complaints, specifically by control structure, institutional type, political environment, and selectivity. Because the dependent variables are counts and exhibit overdispersion, I use negative binomial models to predict complaint counts by school characteristic (Fox 2008).16 I predict overall counts as well as counts for each of the four types of complaints to examine whether certain schools tend to face certain types of complaints. Following existing research on the mobilization of civil rights law, I use an exposure term in all models that takes into account variation in schools’ cumulative mean total enrollment (sample median: 2,055 students), as the number of charges made is partially a function of the size of the protected class (Edelman et al. 1999:425-6; Hirsh and Kornrich 2008:1412). Students typically form the largest portion of that class, as indicated by OCR Serial Reports and Dear Colleague Letters, nearly all of which published since the law’s passage focus on reducing discrimination against students. Though outsiders unaffiliated with schools may file complaints, one would expect schools with larger enrollments to face more complaints, as there are more students on whose behalf others may file. RESULTS Changes in the Number and Kinds of Title IX Complaints For the first time in the research literature, Figure 2a displays the number of resolved Title IX complaints filed annually from 1994 to 2014. The annual count hovers between 150 and 300 complaints with two exceptions: 1999, when it nearly quadruples to 526, and starting in 2013, when it reaches 1,379, climbing even higher to 1,446 in 2014. Figure 2a. View largeDownload slide Total Number of Postsecondary Title IX Complaints Filed, 1994-2014 Figure 2a. View largeDownload slide Total Number of Postsecondary Title IX Complaints Filed, 1994-2014 Figure 2b shows the number of resolved complaints filed annually citing athletics, sexual harassment, academics, or other issues. Figure 2b demonstrates that an increase in complaints citing academic issues, representing nearly 80 percent of the total filings for 1999, accounts for most of the spike. Sixty percent of the total filings for 1999 specifically cite discrimination in admissions (106.21). Figure 2b. View largeDownload slide Total Number of Postsecondary Title IX Complaints Filed by Issue Cited, 1994-2014 Figure 2b. View largeDownload slide Total Number of Postsecondary Title IX Complaints Filed by Issue Cited, 1994-2014 A sharp increase in athletics complaints accounts for the more recent spike, comprising 78 percent of the total filings in 2013 and 75 percent in 2014. Complaints citing one athletic issue, meeting the requirements of part three of the three-part test (106.41c1-3), represent 66 percent of the total filings for 2013. Complaints citing three athletic issues—interests and abilities (106.41c1), equal opportunity (106.41c), and meeting the requirements of part three of the three-part test (106.41c1-3)—represent 74 percent of the total filings in 2014. The large number of athletics complaints is surprising given the recent media attention to Title IX’s coverage of sexual harassment and assault (e.g., Wilson 2014), but OCR’s 2015 (U.S. Department of Education 2015b) serial report confirms this finding. Even more surprising is that many of the 2013 and 2014 complaints are filed on the same days: 76 percent on March 25 and 26, 2013; 66 percent on January 13, 2014. I interpreted these mass filings as possible indications of organizational action on behalf of individuals. To assess this possibility, I contacted legal advocacy organizations potentially responsible. An American Civil Liberties Union staff member mentioned Herb Dempsey, a septuagenarian and retired high school teacher in Washington State, who filed many athletics complaints against high schools in the 1990s. In our phone conversation, I asked Mr. Dempsey if he had information about the 1999 or 2013 spikes. He responded, “I may know something about 2013 and 2014.” Mr. Dempsey provided me with lists of postsecondary schools against which he and another individual filed complaints in 2013 (1,558 schools) and 2014 (1,545 schools). The broader effects of his mass filings aside, Mr. Dempsey feels he is acting on behalf of those protected under Title IX. The causes of the 1999 spike were more difficult to identify, in part because it occurred 16 years ago. One potential explanation is that it relates to the 1990s and early 2000s pushback against the use of affirmative action in college admissions. Targeted searches in the Chronicle of Higher Education and the U.S. Newspapers database in LexisNexis, however, did not yield additional information. I then requested a random sample of the original complaints filed in 1999. Most all of those citing discrimination in admissions had blank admissions applications attached and shared a similar coversheet with checkable boxes denoting whether the alleged discrimination concerned disability, ethnicity, or marital status. Further, OCR’s 1999 serial report states, “1,614 [complaints] were filed by an individual complainant,” which strongly indicates that what I term the “Herb effect”—a single or small group of individuals engaging in mass filings on behalf of others—also caused the 1999 spike. To better understand average trends in the law’s mobilization, I adjust for this effect in subsequent analyses by dropping many complaints comprising the 1999 and 2013 spikes (see Appendix B for details). The adjusted total of complaints is 4,260; the adjusted total of schools, 1,572.17 Without accounting for the Herb effect, our understanding of how Title IX has been mobilized would be distorted, suggesting that inequalities in athletics elicit the law’s mobilization more than any other form of gender inequality in the academy today. Adjusted Trends Figure 3a shows the adjusted number of complaints filed annually. There is some volatility in filings before 2000 but a general increase afterwards. The increase starts at a slower rate, accelerating through the mid-2000s and exploding after 2009. Figure 3b displays trends in the types of complaints filed. Figure 3a. View largeDownload slide Adjusted Number of Postsecondary Title IX Complaints Filed, 1994-2014 Figure 3a. View largeDownload slide Adjusted Number of Postsecondary Title IX Complaints Filed, 1994-2014 Figure 3b. View largeDownload slide Adjusted Number of Postsecondary Title IX Complaints Filed by Issue Cited, 1994-2014 Figure 3b. View largeDownload slide Adjusted Number of Postsecondary Title IX Complaints Filed by Issue Cited, 1994-2014 For most of the past 20 years, academics complaints are the modal type of complaint filed, while athletics complaints are least frequently filed. There is a substantial spike in athletics complaints in 1997, which may relate to the Cohen case; however, these counts remain low overall, which is unexpected considering popular conceptions of the law’s mobilization around women’s sports. The recent sharp increase in athletics complaints is likely due to a small number of Mr. Dempsey’s complaints that remain in the data. The number of sexual harassment complaints consistently falls below the count of academics complaints but above the count of athletics complaints, until 2014 when sexual harassment complaints nearly equal athletic and academic filings. This is perhaps unsurprising, given current national attention to the issue. However, sexual harassment complaints have been climbing since 2006, long before the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter and other top-down efforts.18 This indicates that the issue’s prominence resulted from bottom-up processes, such as movement activity or school-level compliance efforts, but also leaves open questions about why sexual harassment vis-à-vis Title IX has gained heightened attention now, as the law has been actively mobilized around the issue for many years. The Uneven Mobilization of Title IX Table 2 displays descriptive statistics comparing the percentage of complaints filed from 1994 to 2014 by school type and the cumulative mean percentage enrollment by school type. It indicates that mobilization of the law is uneven by control structure, institutional type, political environment, and selectivity but in different ways across complaint types. Table 2. Cumulative Mean Percentage Enrollment and Percentage of Title IX Complaints by School Characteristic Enrollment Percentage of Complaints (n) School Characteristic Percent (SD) All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Total 100.00 (.00) 100.00 (4,260) 100.00 (470) 100.00 (1,093) 100.00 (1,918) 100.00 (1,607) Institutional control  Public 69.96 (.43) 62.16 (2,648) 63.62 (299) 59.74 (653) 61.00 (1,170) 63.72 (1,024)  Private secular 17.10 (.39) 20.82 (887) 11.91 (56) 23.79 (260) 22.94 (440) 20.22 (325)  Private religious 12.92 (.09) 17.02 (725) 24.47 (115) 16.47 (180) 16.06 (308) 16.05 (258) Carnegie classification  Not in Carnegie universe .02 (.02) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .06 (1)  Associate's college .10 (.01) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .00 (0)  Research university I 29.29 (.45) 27.32 (1,164) 15.96 (75) 30.10 (329) 27.63 (530) 28.25 (454)  Research university II 17.48 (.14) 16.62 (708) 13.62 (64) 17.29 (189) 17.83 (342) 16.68 (268)  Doctoral research university 6.88 (.04) 6.48 (276) 5.11 (24) 6.68 (73) 7.19 (138) 5.97 (96)  Master's college and university 35.06 (.53) 33.78 (1,439) 45.74 (215) 31.20 (341) 31.96 (613) 32.36 (520)  Baccalaureate college 7.81 (.12) 10.16 (433) 18.94 (89) 9.88 (108) 8.08 (155) 11.57 (186)  Special focus institution 3.33 (.14) 5.56 (237) .64 (3) 4.85 (53) 7.14 (137) 5.10 (82)  Tribal school .03 (.00) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .00 (0) Selectivity  Extreme (95th percentile) 5.79 (.11) 7.91 (337) 4.04 (19) 10.25 (112) 7.56 (145) 9.15 (147)  High (90th percentile) 6.28 (.20) 6.34 (270) 3.62 (17) 8.23 (90) 5.89 (113) 6.41 (103)  Moderate (75th percentile) 20.47 (.33) 16.27 (693) 15.74 (74) 18.12 (198) 15.22 (292) 17.24 (277)  Low (50th percentile) 24.66 (.21) 24.20 (1,031) 22.34 (105) 22.51 (246) 26.96 (517) 22.46 (361)  Very low (< 50th percentile) 30.53 (.15) 32.70 (1,393) 45.74 (215) 29.28 (320) 30.71 (589) 32.23 (518)  Unknown 12.26 (.43) 12.58 (536) 8.51 (40) 11.62 (127) 13.66 (262) 12.51 (201) Women’s state leadership  Lowest 17.98 (.16) 17.91 (763) 30.21 (142) 14.09 (154) 17.47 (335) 19.04 (306)  Moderately low 18.11 (.28) 15.42 (657) 25.32 (119) 13.82 (151) 12.62 (242) 14.87 (239)  Moderate 29.61 (.19) 27.30 (1,163) 18.30 (86) 27.26 (298) 28.83 (553) 28.69 (461)  Moderately high 20.72 (.36) 23.92 (1,019) 16.17 (76) 28.73 (314) 24.09 (462) 22.65 (364)  Highest 12.47 (.15) 14.98 (638) 9.57 (45) 16.01 (175) 16.42 (315) 14.25 (229)  Unknown 1.11 (.04) .47 (20) .43 (2) .09 (1) .57 (11) .50 (8) OCR region  Boston 6.28 (.19) 6.01 (256) 3.40 (16) 7.32 (80) 6.00 (115) 6.41 (103)  NYC 11.75 (.14) 11.20 (477) 5.53 (26) 11.71 (128) 13.87 (266) 10.52 (169)  Philadelphia 9.03 (.06) 8.03 (342) 7.66 (36) 7.14 (78) 8.29 (159) 8.53 (137)  Atlanta 10.02 (.37) 9.44 (402) 11.70 (55) 6.40 (70) 10.48 (201) 11.14 (179)  Dallas 10.77 (.13) 10.54 (449) 28.72 (135) 8.05 (88) 6.31 (121) 10.14 (163)  Washington, DC 7.17 (.28) 8.99 (383) 8.30 (39) 9.79 (107) 8.29 (159) 9.21 (148)  Chicago 11.61 (.38) 12.09 (515) 9.36 (44) 13.91 (152) 11.99 (230) 11.82 (190)  Cleveland 8.03 (.22) 5.99 (255) 5.32 (25) 6.13 (67) 5.89 (113) 6.10 (98)  Kansas City 5.94 (.05) 6.06 (258) 4.26 (20) 5.03 (55) 6.10 (117) 6.41 (103)  Denver 5.50 (.10) 5.09 (217) 4.04 (19) 3.75 (41) 5.84 (112) 4.85 (78)  San Francisco 9.12 (.26) 10.07 (429) 7.66 (36) 13.54 (148) 9.65 (185) 8.15 (131)  Seattle 4.79 (.07) 6.50 (277) 4.04 (19) 7.23 (79) 7.30 (140) 6.72 (108) Conference membership  Ever NAIA 7.94 (.30) 10.21 (435) 18.72 (88) 9.15 (100) 8.50 (163) 9.83 (158)  Ever NCAA 88.29 (.50) 85.68 (3,650) 89.15 (419) 86.09 (941) 84.36 (1,618) 86.37 (1,388) Enrollment Percentage of Complaints (n) School Characteristic Percent (SD) All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Total 100.00 (.00) 100.00 (4,260) 100.00 (470) 100.00 (1,093) 100.00 (1,918) 100.00 (1,607) Institutional control  Public 69.96 (.43) 62.16 (2,648) 63.62 (299) 59.74 (653) 61.00 (1,170) 63.72 (1,024)  Private secular 17.10 (.39) 20.82 (887) 11.91 (56) 23.79 (260) 22.94 (440) 20.22 (325)  Private religious 12.92 (.09) 17.02 (725) 24.47 (115) 16.47 (180) 16.06 (308) 16.05 (258) Carnegie classification  Not in Carnegie universe .02 (.02) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .06 (1)  Associate's college .10 (.01) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .00 (0)  Research university I 29.29 (.45) 27.32 (1,164) 15.96 (75) 30.10 (329) 27.63 (530) 28.25 (454)  Research university II 17.48 (.14) 16.62 (708) 13.62 (64) 17.29 (189) 17.83 (342) 16.68 (268)  Doctoral research university 6.88 (.04) 6.48 (276) 5.11 (24) 6.68 (73) 7.19 (138) 5.97 (96)  Master's college and university 35.06 (.53) 33.78 (1,439) 45.74 (215) 31.20 (341) 31.96 (613) 32.36 (520)  Baccalaureate college 7.81 (.12) 10.16 (433) 18.94 (89) 9.88 (108) 8.08 (155) 11.57 (186)  Special focus institution 3.33 (.14) 5.56 (237) .64 (3) 4.85 (53) 7.14 (137) 5.10 (82)  Tribal school .03 (.00) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .00 (0) Selectivity  Extreme (95th percentile) 5.79 (.11) 7.91 (337) 4.04 (19) 10.25 (112) 7.56 (145) 9.15 (147)  High (90th percentile) 6.28 (.20) 6.34 (270) 3.62 (17) 8.23 (90) 5.89 (113) 6.41 (103)  Moderate (75th percentile) 20.47 (.33) 16.27 (693) 15.74 (74) 18.12 (198) 15.22 (292) 17.24 (277)  Low (50th percentile) 24.66 (.21) 24.20 (1,031) 22.34 (105) 22.51 (246) 26.96 (517) 22.46 (361)  Very low (< 50th percentile) 30.53 (.15) 32.70 (1,393) 45.74 (215) 29.28 (320) 30.71 (589) 32.23 (518)  Unknown 12.26 (.43) 12.58 (536) 8.51 (40) 11.62 (127) 13.66 (262) 12.51 (201) Women’s state leadership  Lowest 17.98 (.16) 17.91 (763) 30.21 (142) 14.09 (154) 17.47 (335) 19.04 (306)  Moderately low 18.11 (.28) 15.42 (657) 25.32 (119) 13.82 (151) 12.62 (242) 14.87 (239)  Moderate 29.61 (.19) 27.30 (1,163) 18.30 (86) 27.26 (298) 28.83 (553) 28.69 (461)  Moderately high 20.72 (.36) 23.92 (1,019) 16.17 (76) 28.73 (314) 24.09 (462) 22.65 (364)  Highest 12.47 (.15) 14.98 (638) 9.57 (45) 16.01 (175) 16.42 (315) 14.25 (229)  Unknown 1.11 (.04) .47 (20) .43 (2) .09 (1) .57 (11) .50 (8) OCR region  Boston 6.28 (.19) 6.01 (256) 3.40 (16) 7.32 (80) 6.00 (115) 6.41 (103)  NYC 11.75 (.14) 11.20 (477) 5.53 (26) 11.71 (128) 13.87 (266) 10.52 (169)  Philadelphia 9.03 (.06) 8.03 (342) 7.66 (36) 7.14 (78) 8.29 (159) 8.53 (137)  Atlanta 10.02 (.37) 9.44 (402) 11.70 (55) 6.40 (70) 10.48 (201) 11.14 (179)  Dallas 10.77 (.13) 10.54 (449) 28.72 (135) 8.05 (88) 6.31 (121) 10.14 (163)  Washington, DC 7.17 (.28) 8.99 (383) 8.30 (39) 9.79 (107) 8.29 (159) 9.21 (148)  Chicago 11.61 (.38) 12.09 (515) 9.36 (44) 13.91 (152) 11.99 (230) 11.82 (190)  Cleveland 8.03 (.22) 5.99 (255) 5.32 (25) 6.13 (67) 5.89 (113) 6.10 (98)  Kansas City 5.94 (.05) 6.06 (258) 4.26 (20) 5.03 (55) 6.10 (117) 6.41 (103)  Denver 5.50 (.10) 5.09 (217) 4.04 (19) 3.75 (41) 5.84 (112) 4.85 (78)  San Francisco 9.12 (.26) 10.07 (429) 7.66 (36) 13.54 (148) 9.65 (185) 8.15 (131)  Seattle 4.79 (.07) 6.50 (277) 4.04 (19) 7.23 (79) 7.30 (140) 6.72 (108) Conference membership  Ever NAIA 7.94 (.30) 10.21 (435) 18.72 (88) 9.15 (100) 8.50 (163) 9.83 (158)  Ever NCAA 88.29 (.50) 85.68 (3,650) 89.15 (419) 86.09 (941) 84.36 (1,618) 86.37 (1,388) Table 2. Cumulative Mean Percentage Enrollment and Percentage of Title IX Complaints by School Characteristic Enrollment Percentage of Complaints (n) School Characteristic Percent (SD) All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Total 100.00 (.00) 100.00 (4,260) 100.00 (470) 100.00 (1,093) 100.00 (1,918) 100.00 (1,607) Institutional control  Public 69.96 (.43) 62.16 (2,648) 63.62 (299) 59.74 (653) 61.00 (1,170) 63.72 (1,024)  Private secular 17.10 (.39) 20.82 (887) 11.91 (56) 23.79 (260) 22.94 (440) 20.22 (325)  Private religious 12.92 (.09) 17.02 (725) 24.47 (115) 16.47 (180) 16.06 (308) 16.05 (258) Carnegie classification  Not in Carnegie universe .02 (.02) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .06 (1)  Associate's college .10 (.01) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .00 (0)  Research university I 29.29 (.45) 27.32 (1,164) 15.96 (75) 30.10 (329) 27.63 (530) 28.25 (454)  Research university II 17.48 (.14) 16.62 (708) 13.62 (64) 17.29 (189) 17.83 (342) 16.68 (268)  Doctoral research university 6.88 (.04) 6.48 (276) 5.11 (24) 6.68 (73) 7.19 (138) 5.97 (96)  Master's college and university 35.06 (.53) 33.78 (1,439) 45.74 (215) 31.20 (341) 31.96 (613) 32.36 (520)  Baccalaureate college 7.81 (.12) 10.16 (433) 18.94 (89) 9.88 (108) 8.08 (155) 11.57 (186)  Special focus institution 3.33 (.14) 5.56 (237) .64 (3) 4.85 (53) 7.14 (137) 5.10 (82)  Tribal school .03 (.00) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .00 (0) Selectivity  Extreme (95th percentile) 5.79 (.11) 7.91 (337) 4.04 (19) 10.25 (112) 7.56 (145) 9.15 (147)  High (90th percentile) 6.28 (.20) 6.34 (270) 3.62 (17) 8.23 (90) 5.89 (113) 6.41 (103)  Moderate (75th percentile) 20.47 (.33) 16.27 (693) 15.74 (74) 18.12 (198) 15.22 (292) 17.24 (277)  Low (50th percentile) 24.66 (.21) 24.20 (1,031) 22.34 (105) 22.51 (246) 26.96 (517) 22.46 (361)  Very low (< 50th percentile) 30.53 (.15) 32.70 (1,393) 45.74 (215) 29.28 (320) 30.71 (589) 32.23 (518)  Unknown 12.26 (.43) 12.58 (536) 8.51 (40) 11.62 (127) 13.66 (262) 12.51 (201) Women’s state leadership  Lowest 17.98 (.16) 17.91 (763) 30.21 (142) 14.09 (154) 17.47 (335) 19.04 (306)  Moderately low 18.11 (.28) 15.42 (657) 25.32 (119) 13.82 (151) 12.62 (242) 14.87 (239)  Moderate 29.61 (.19) 27.30 (1,163) 18.30 (86) 27.26 (298) 28.83 (553) 28.69 (461)  Moderately high 20.72 (.36) 23.92 (1,019) 16.17 (76) 28.73 (314) 24.09 (462) 22.65 (364)  Highest 12.47 (.15) 14.98 (638) 9.57 (45) 16.01 (175) 16.42 (315) 14.25 (229)  Unknown 1.11 (.04) .47 (20) .43 (2) .09 (1) .57 (11) .50 (8) OCR region  Boston 6.28 (.19) 6.01 (256) 3.40 (16) 7.32 (80) 6.00 (115) 6.41 (103)  NYC 11.75 (.14) 11.20 (477) 5.53 (26) 11.71 (128) 13.87 (266) 10.52 (169)  Philadelphia 9.03 (.06) 8.03 (342) 7.66 (36) 7.14 (78) 8.29 (159) 8.53 (137)  Atlanta 10.02 (.37) 9.44 (402) 11.70 (55) 6.40 (70) 10.48 (201) 11.14 (179)  Dallas 10.77 (.13) 10.54 (449) 28.72 (135) 8.05 (88) 6.31 (121) 10.14 (163)  Washington, DC 7.17 (.28) 8.99 (383) 8.30 (39) 9.79 (107) 8.29 (159) 9.21 (148)  Chicago 11.61 (.38) 12.09 (515) 9.36 (44) 13.91 (152) 11.99 (230) 11.82 (190)  Cleveland 8.03 (.22) 5.99 (255) 5.32 (25) 6.13 (67) 5.89 (113) 6.10 (98)  Kansas City 5.94 (.05) 6.06 (258) 4.26 (20) 5.03 (55) 6.10 (117) 6.41 (103)  Denver 5.50 (.10) 5.09 (217) 4.04 (19) 3.75 (41) 5.84 (112) 4.85 (78)  San Francisco 9.12 (.26) 10.07 (429) 7.66 (36) 13.54 (148) 9.65 (185) 8.15 (131)  Seattle 4.79 (.07) 6.50 (277) 4.04 (19) 7.23 (79) 7.30 (140) 6.72 (108) Conference membership  Ever NAIA 7.94 (.30) 10.21 (435) 18.72 (88) 9.15 (100) 8.50 (163) 9.83 (158)  Ever NCAA 88.29 (.50) 85.68 (3,650) 89.15 (419) 86.09 (941) 84.36 (1,618) 86.37 (1,388) Enrollment Percentage of Complaints (n) School Characteristic Percent (SD) All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Total 100.00 (.00) 100.00 (4,260) 100.00 (470) 100.00 (1,093) 100.00 (1,918) 100.00 (1,607) Institutional control  Public 69.96 (.43) 62.16 (2,648) 63.62 (299) 59.74 (653) 61.00 (1,170) 63.72 (1,024)  Private secular 17.10 (.39) 20.82 (887) 11.91 (56) 23.79 (260) 22.94 (440) 20.22 (325)  Private religious 12.92 (.09) 17.02 (725) 24.47 (115) 16.47 (180) 16.06 (308) 16.05 (258) Carnegie classification  Not in Carnegie universe .02 (.02) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .06 (1)  Associate's college .10 (.01) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .00 (0)  Research university I 29.29 (.45) 27.32 (1,164) 15.96 (75) 30.10 (329) 27.63 (530) 28.25 (454)  Research university II 17.48 (.14) 16.62 (708) 13.62 (64) 17.29 (189) 17.83 (342) 16.68 (268)  Doctoral research university 6.88 (.04) 6.48 (276) 5.11 (24) 6.68 (73) 7.19 (138) 5.97 (96)  Master's college and university 35.06 (.53) 33.78 (1,439) 45.74 (215) 31.20 (341) 31.96 (613) 32.36 (520)  Baccalaureate college 7.81 (.12) 10.16 (433) 18.94 (89) 9.88 (108) 8.08 (155) 11.57 (186)  Special focus institution 3.33 (.14) 5.56 (237) .64 (3) 4.85 (53) 7.14 (137) 5.10 (82)  Tribal school .03 (.00) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .00 (0) Selectivity  Extreme (95th percentile) 5.79 (.11) 7.91 (337) 4.04 (19) 10.25 (112) 7.56 (145) 9.15 (147)  High (90th percentile) 6.28 (.20) 6.34 (270) 3.62 (17) 8.23 (90) 5.89 (113) 6.41 (103)  Moderate (75th percentile) 20.47 (.33) 16.27 (693) 15.74 (74) 18.12 (198) 15.22 (292) 17.24 (277)  Low (50th percentile) 24.66 (.21) 24.20 (1,031) 22.34 (105) 22.51 (246) 26.96 (517) 22.46 (361)  Very low (< 50th percentile) 30.53 (.15) 32.70 (1,393) 45.74 (215) 29.28 (320) 30.71 (589) 32.23 (518)  Unknown 12.26 (.43) 12.58 (536) 8.51 (40) 11.62 (127) 13.66 (262) 12.51 (201) Women’s state leadership  Lowest 17.98 (.16) 17.91 (763) 30.21 (142) 14.09 (154) 17.47 (335) 19.04 (306)  Moderately low 18.11 (.28) 15.42 (657) 25.32 (119) 13.82 (151) 12.62 (242) 14.87 (239)  Moderate 29.61 (.19) 27.30 (1,163) 18.30 (86) 27.26 (298) 28.83 (553) 28.69 (461)  Moderately high 20.72 (.36) 23.92 (1,019) 16.17 (76) 28.73 (314) 24.09 (462) 22.65 (364)  Highest 12.47 (.15) 14.98 (638) 9.57 (45) 16.01 (175) 16.42 (315) 14.25 (229)  Unknown 1.11 (.04) .47 (20) .43 (2) .09 (1) .57 (11) .50 (8) OCR region  Boston 6.28 (.19) 6.01 (256) 3.40 (16) 7.32 (80) 6.00 (115) 6.41 (103)  NYC 11.75 (.14) 11.20 (477) 5.53 (26) 11.71 (128) 13.87 (266) 10.52 (169)  Philadelphia 9.03 (.06) 8.03 (342) 7.66 (36) 7.14 (78) 8.29 (159) 8.53 (137)  Atlanta 10.02 (.37) 9.44 (402) 11.70 (55) 6.40 (70) 10.48 (201) 11.14 (179)  Dallas 10.77 (.13) 10.54 (449) 28.72 (135) 8.05 (88) 6.31 (121) 10.14 (163)  Washington, DC 7.17 (.28) 8.99 (383) 8.30 (39) 9.79 (107) 8.29 (159) 9.21 (148)  Chicago 11.61 (.38) 12.09 (515) 9.36 (44) 13.91 (152) 11.99 (230) 11.82 (190)  Cleveland 8.03 (.22) 5.99 (255) 5.32 (25) 6.13 (67) 5.89 (113) 6.10 (98)  Kansas City 5.94 (.05) 6.06 (258) 4.26 (20) 5.03 (55) 6.10 (117) 6.41 (103)  Denver 5.50 (.10) 5.09 (217) 4.04 (19) 3.75 (41) 5.84 (112) 4.85 (78)  San Francisco 9.12 (.26) 10.07 (429) 7.66 (36) 13.54 (148) 9.65 (185) 8.15 (131)  Seattle 4.79 (.07) 6.50 (277) 4.04 (19) 7.23 (79) 7.30 (140) 6.72 (108) Conference membership  Ever NAIA 7.94 (.30) 10.21 (435) 18.72 (88) 9.15 (100) 8.50 (163) 9.83 (158)  Ever NCAA 88.29 (.50) 85.68 (3,650) 89.15 (419) 86.09 (941) 84.36 (1,618) 86.37 (1,388) A series of negative binomial models predicting complaint counts provide a more rigorous assessment of whether the mobilization of Title IX is institutionally uneven. I omit from the models schools in categories with fewer than 100 complaints overall because estimates for such sparsely populated subgroups would not be meaningful.19Table 3 displays the model estimates (see Appendix C, Table C1 for chi-square test statistics). Table 4 compares the observed and predicted mean counts of complaints by school characteristic. Predicted counts represent the mean count of complaints for a school in a given category holding all other variables at their mean and adjusting for exposure. Table 3. Negative Binomial Estimates Predicting Count of Title IX Complaints by School Characteristic All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Institutional control (ref. public)  Private secular .22** (.08) .05 (.20) .28* (.13) .32** (.10) .04 (.12)  Private religious .29*** (.07) .27† (.15) .29* (.12) .37*** (.09) .14 (.11) Carnegie classification (ref. R1)  Research university II .08 (.09) .20 (.24) .20† (.13) .12 (.11) .13 (.12)  Doctoral research university −.11 (.12) −.11 (.31) −.06 (.19) −.05 (.15) −.05 (.16)  Master's college and university −.03 (.09) .56* (.22) −.09 (.15) −.20† (.11) .03 (.14)  Baccalaureate college .23* (.10) 1.16*** (.24) .16 (.17) −.15 (.14) .50** (.14)  Special focus institution .56*** (.16) −.62 (.68) .34 (.26) .62** (.18) .63** (.24) Selectivity (ref. extreme)  High (90th percentile) −.30** (.12) −.39 (.41) −.24 (.19) −.16 (.16) −.58*** (.16)  Moderate (75th percentile) −.44*** (.11) −.33 (.34) −.49** (.18) −.28* (.14) −.66*** (.16)  Low (50th percentile) −.32** (.12) −.30 (.35) −.56** (.19) −.03 (.16) −.70*** (.17)  Very low (< 50th percentile) −.29* (.14) −.21 (.38) −.61** (.23) −.10 (.18) −.56** (.19)  Unknown −.40** (.15) −.51 (.42) −.74** (.24) −.20 (.19) −.66** (.21) Women’s state leadership (ref. highest)  Lowest −.28* (.11) .20 (.26) −.53** (.19) −.19 (.13) −.24* (.14)  Moderately low −.36** (.11) −.25 (.27) −.38* (.18) −.45*** (.13) −.44** (.15)  Moderate −.28* (.11) −.32 (.30) −.39* (.18) −.36** (.13) −.17 (.15)  Moderately high .05 (.11) .19 (.28) −.10 (.17) −.01 (.14) .16 (.15) Demographic controls  Cumulative mean % women students .01*** (.00) −.01* (.01) .01† (.00) .02*** (.00) .00 (.00)  Cumulative mean % black students .01*** (.00) .00 (.00) .01*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .00 (.00)  Cumulative mean % Hispanic students .00 (.00) −.00 (.00) −.00 (.00) .01 (.00) .00 (.01)  Cumulative mean % Asian students .01 (.00) −.05** (.02) .00 (.01) .01* (.01) .01 (.01) Constant −8.25*** (.21) −10.59*** (.53) −8.87*** (.37) −9.48*** (.28) −8.77*** (.31) N 1,529 1,529 1,529 1,529 1,529 All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Institutional control (ref. public)  Private secular .22** (.08) .05 (.20) .28* (.13) .32** (.10) .04 (.12)  Private religious .29*** (.07) .27† (.15) .29* (.12) .37*** (.09) .14 (.11) Carnegie classification (ref. R1)  Research university II .08 (.09) .20 (.24) .20† (.13) .12 (.11) .13 (.12)  Doctoral research university −.11 (.12) −.11 (.31) −.06 (.19) −.05 (.15) −.05 (.16)  Master's college and university −.03 (.09) .56* (.22) −.09 (.15) −.20† (.11) .03 (.14)  Baccalaureate college .23* (.10) 1.16*** (.24) .16 (.17) −.15 (.14) .50** (.14)  Special focus institution .56*** (.16) −.62 (.68) .34 (.26) .62** (.18) .63** (.24) Selectivity (ref. extreme)  High (90th percentile) −.30** (.12) −.39 (.41) −.24 (.19) −.16 (.16) −.58*** (.16)  Moderate (75th percentile) −.44*** (.11) −.33 (.34) −.49** (.18) −.28* (.14) −.66*** (.16)  Low (50th percentile) −.32** (.12) −.30 (.35) −.56** (.19) −.03 (.16) −.70*** (.17)  Very low (< 50th percentile) −.29* (.14) −.21 (.38) −.61** (.23) −.10 (.18) −.56** (.19)  Unknown −.40** (.15) −.51 (.42) −.74** (.24) −.20 (.19) −.66** (.21) Women’s state leadership (ref. highest)  Lowest −.28* (.11) .20 (.26) −.53** (.19) −.19 (.13) −.24* (.14)  Moderately low −.36** (.11) −.25 (.27) −.38* (.18) −.45*** (.13) −.44** (.15)  Moderate −.28* (.11) −.32 (.30) −.39* (.18) −.36** (.13) −.17 (.15)  Moderately high .05 (.11) .19 (.28) −.10 (.17) −.01 (.14) .16 (.15) Demographic controls  Cumulative mean % women students .01*** (.00) −.01* (.01) .01† (.00) .02*** (.00) .00 (.00)  Cumulative mean % black students .01*** (.00) .00 (.00) .01*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .00 (.00)  Cumulative mean % Hispanic students .00 (.00) −.00 (.00) −.00 (.00) .01 (.00) .00 (.01)  Cumulative mean % Asian students .01 (.00) −.05** (.02) .00 (.01) .01* (.01) .01 (.01) Constant −8.25*** (.21) −10.59*** (.53) −8.87*** (.37) −9.48*** (.28) −8.77*** (.31) N 1,529 1,529 1,529 1,529 1,529 Notes: All models use cumulative mean enrollment (logged) as an offset and adjust for OCR regional office, whether the school has ever been a member of the National Intercollegiate Athletic Association, and whether the school has ever been a member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Robust standard errors clustered by school are in parentheses. †p <.10 *p <.05 **p <.01 ***p <.001 (two-tailed tests) Table 3. Negative Binomial Estimates Predicting Count of Title IX Complaints by School Characteristic All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Institutional control (ref. public)  Private secular .22** (.08) .05 (.20) .28* (.13) .32** (.10) .04 (.12)  Private religious .29*** (.07) .27† (.15) .29* (.12) .37*** (.09) .14 (.11) Carnegie classification (ref. R1)  Research university II .08 (.09) .20 (.24) .20† (.13) .12 (.11) .13 (.12)  Doctoral research university −.11 (.12) −.11 (.31) −.06 (.19) −.05 (.15) −.05 (.16)  Master's college and university −.03 (.09) .56* (.22) −.09 (.15) −.20† (.11) .03 (.14)  Baccalaureate college .23* (.10) 1.16*** (.24) .16 (.17) −.15 (.14) .50** (.14)  Special focus institution .56*** (.16) −.62 (.68) .34 (.26) .62** (.18) .63** (.24) Selectivity (ref. extreme)  High (90th percentile) −.30** (.12) −.39 (.41) −.24 (.19) −.16 (.16) −.58*** (.16)  Moderate (75th percentile) −.44*** (.11) −.33 (.34) −.49** (.18) −.28* (.14) −.66*** (.16)  Low (50th percentile) −.32** (.12) −.30 (.35) −.56** (.19) −.03 (.16) −.70*** (.17)  Very low (< 50th percentile) −.29* (.14) −.21 (.38) −.61** (.23) −.10 (.18) −.56** (.19)  Unknown −.40** (.15) −.51 (.42) −.74** (.24) −.20 (.19) −.66** (.21) Women’s state leadership (ref. highest)  Lowest −.28* (.11) .20 (.26) −.53** (.19) −.19 (.13) −.24* (.14)  Moderately low −.36** (.11) −.25 (.27) −.38* (.18) −.45*** (.13) −.44** (.15)  Moderate −.28* (.11) −.32 (.30) −.39* (.18) −.36** (.13) −.17 (.15)  Moderately high .05 (.11) .19 (.28) −.10 (.17) −.01 (.14) .16 (.15) Demographic controls  Cumulative mean % women students .01*** (.00) −.01* (.01) .01† (.00) .02*** (.00) .00 (.00)  Cumulative mean % black students .01*** (.00) .00 (.00) .01*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .00 (.00)  Cumulative mean % Hispanic students .00 (.00) −.00 (.00) −.00 (.00) .01 (.00) .00 (.01)  Cumulative mean % Asian students .01 (.00) −.05** (.02) .00 (.01) .01* (.01) .01 (.01) Constant −8.25*** (.21) −10.59*** (.53) −8.87*** (.37) −9.48*** (.28) −8.77*** (.31) N 1,529 1,529 1,529 1,529 1,529 All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Institutional control (ref. public)  Private secular .22** (.08) .05 (.20) .28* (.13) .32** (.10) .04 (.12)  Private religious .29*** (.07) .27† (.15) .29* (.12) .37*** (.09) .14 (.11) Carnegie classification (ref. R1)  Research university II .08 (.09) .20 (.24) .20† (.13) .12 (.11) .13 (.12)  Doctoral research university −.11 (.12) −.11 (.31) −.06 (.19) −.05 (.15) −.05 (.16)  Master's college and university −.03 (.09) .56* (.22) −.09 (.15) −.20† (.11) .03 (.14)  Baccalaureate college .23* (.10) 1.16*** (.24) .16 (.17) −.15 (.14) .50** (.14)  Special focus institution .56*** (.16) −.62 (.68) .34 (.26) .62** (.18) .63** (.24) Selectivity (ref. extreme)  High (90th percentile) −.30** (.12) −.39 (.41) −.24 (.19) −.16 (.16) −.58*** (.16)  Moderate (75th percentile) −.44*** (.11) −.33 (.34) −.49** (.18) −.28* (.14) −.66*** (.16)  Low (50th percentile) −.32** (.12) −.30 (.35) −.56** (.19) −.03 (.16) −.70*** (.17)  Very low (< 50th percentile) −.29* (.14) −.21 (.38) −.61** (.23) −.10 (.18) −.56** (.19)  Unknown −.40** (.15) −.51 (.42) −.74** (.24) −.20 (.19) −.66** (.21) Women’s state leadership (ref. highest)  Lowest −.28* (.11) .20 (.26) −.53** (.19) −.19 (.13) −.24* (.14)  Moderately low −.36** (.11) −.25 (.27) −.38* (.18) −.45*** (.13) −.44** (.15)  Moderate −.28* (.11) −.32 (.30) −.39* (.18) −.36** (.13) −.17 (.15)  Moderately high .05 (.11) .19 (.28) −.10 (.17) −.01 (.14) .16 (.15) Demographic controls  Cumulative mean % women students .01*** (.00) −.01* (.01) .01† (.00) .02*** (.00) .00 (.00)  Cumulative mean % black students .01*** (.00) .00 (.00) .01*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .00 (.00)  Cumulative mean % Hispanic students .00 (.00) −.00 (.00) −.00 (.00) .01 (.00) .00 (.01)  Cumulative mean % Asian students .01 (.00) −.05** (.02) .00 (.01) .01* (.01) .01 (.01) Constant −8.25*** (.21) −10.59*** (.53) −8.87*** (.37) −9.48*** (.28) −8.77*** (.31) N 1,529 1,529 1,529 1,529 1,529 Notes: All models use cumulative mean enrollment (logged) as an offset and adjust for OCR regional office, whether the school has ever been a member of the National Intercollegiate Athletic Association, and whether the school has ever been a member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Robust standard errors clustered by school are in parentheses. †p <.10 *p <.05 **p <.01 ***p <.001 (two-tailed tests) Table 4. Observed and Predicted Mean Counts of Title IX Complaints by School Characteristic All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Institutional control  Public 5.00 2.94 .56 .19 1.23 .67 2.21 1.16 1.93 1.23  Private secular 1.82 3.66 .11 .20 .53 .89 .90 1.59 .67 1.27  Private religious 1.31 3.92 .21 .25 .32 .90 .55 1.67 .46 1.42 Carnegie classification  Research university I 10.88 2.85 .70 .16 3.07 .72 4.95 1.33 4.24 .96  Research university II 7.45 3.07 .67 .17 1.99 .88 3.60 1.51 2.82 1.09  Doctoral research university 4.06 2.54 .35 .14 1.07 .68 2.03 1.27 1.41 .92  Master's college and university 2.94 2.76 .44 .28 .70 .66 1.25 1.10 1.06 .99  Baccalaureate college 1.20 3.59 .25 .52 .30 .85 .43 1.15 .52 1.58  Special focus institution .54 4.99 .01 .09 .12 1.02 .31 2.48 .19 1.81 Selectivity  Extreme (95th percentile) 6.48 4.88 .37 .29 2.15 1.47 2.79 1.67 2.83 2.40  High (90th percentile) 5.29 3.61 .33 .20 1.76 1.16 2.22 1.43 2.02 1.34  Moderate (75th percentile) 4.50 3.15 .48 .21 1.29 .91 1.90 1.26 1.80 1.24  Low (50th percentile) 3.95 3.56 .40 .22 .94 .84 1.98 1.61 1.38 1.20  Very low (< 50th percentile) 2.69 3.63 .42 .24 .62 .80 1.14 1.51 1.00 1.37  Unknown 1.00 3.27 .07 .18 .24 .70 .49 1.36 .38 1.24 Women’s state leadership  Lowest 2.51 3.16 .47 .27 .51 .65 1.10 1.49 1.01 1.18  Moderately low 2.77 2.91 .50 .17 .64 .75 1.02 1.15 1.01 .96  Moderate 2.48 3.17 .18 .16 .64 .74 1.18 1.26 .98 1.26  Moderately high 3.05 4.42 .23 .27 .94 .99 1.38 1.79 1.09 1.74  Highest 3.31 4.19 .23 .22 .91 1.10 1.63 1.81 1.19 1.49 Cumulative mean % women students  25th percentile 3.89 3.34 .31 .22 1.16 .79 1.68 1.34 1.62 1.28  75th percentile 2.48 3.73 .33 .19 .58 .86 1.17 1.65 .87 1.36 Cumulative mean % black students  25th percentile 2.60 3.26 .27 .20 .71 .73 1.17 1.33 .96 1.26  75th percentile 3.15 3.45 .22 .21 .78 .80 1.52 1.44 1.26 1.30 Cumulative mean % Hispanic students  25th percentile 2.04 3.45 .30 .21 .44 .81 .89 1.42 .83 1.29  75th percentile 3.06 3.49 .20 .21 .89 .81 1.50 1.46 1.12 1.31 Cumulative mean % Asian students  25th percentile 1.97 3.42 .37 .25 .42 .80 .77 1.38 .78 1.27  75th percentile 3.88 3.49 .28 .21 1.10 .82 1.84 1.46 1.35 1.31 All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Institutional control  Public 5.00 2.94 .56 .19 1.23 .67 2.21 1.16 1.93 1.23  Private secular 1.82 3.66 .11 .20 .53 .89 .90 1.59 .67 1.27  Private religious 1.31 3.92 .21 .25 .32 .90 .55 1.67 .46 1.42 Carnegie classification  Research university I 10.88 2.85 .70 .16 3.07 .72 4.95 1.33 4.24 .96  Research university II 7.45 3.07 .67 .17 1.99 .88 3.60 1.51 2.82 1.09  Doctoral research university 4.06 2.54 .35 .14 1.07 .68 2.03 1.27 1.41 .92  Master's college and university 2.94 2.76 .44 .28 .70 .66 1.25 1.10 1.06 .99  Baccalaureate college 1.20 3.59 .25 .52 .30 .85 .43 1.15 .52 1.58  Special focus institution .54 4.99 .01 .09 .12 1.02 .31 2.48 .19 1.81 Selectivity  Extreme (95th percentile) 6.48 4.88 .37 .29 2.15 1.47 2.79 1.67 2.83 2.40  High (90th percentile) 5.29 3.61 .33 .20 1.76 1.16 2.22 1.43 2.02 1.34  Moderate (75th percentile) 4.50 3.15 .48 .21 1.29 .91 1.90 1.26 1.80 1.24  Low (50th percentile) 3.95 3.56 .40 .22 .94 .84 1.98 1.61 1.38 1.20  Very low (< 50th percentile) 2.69 3.63 .42 .24 .62 .80 1.14 1.51 1.00 1.37  Unknown 1.00 3.27 .07 .18 .24 .70 .49 1.36 .38 1.24 Women’s state leadership  Lowest 2.51 3.16 .47 .27 .51 .65 1.10 1.49 1.01 1.18  Moderately low 2.77 2.91 .50 .17 .64 .75 1.02 1.15 1.01 .96  Moderate 2.48 3.17 .18 .16 .64 .74 1.18 1.26 .98 1.26  Moderately high 3.05 4.42 .23 .27 .94 .99 1.38 1.79 1.09 1.74  Highest 3.31 4.19 .23 .22 .91 1.10 1.63 1.81 1.19 1.49 Cumulative mean % women students  25th percentile 3.89 3.34 .31 .22 1.16 .79 1.68 1.34 1.62 1.28  75th percentile 2.48 3.73 .33 .19 .58 .86 1.17 1.65 .87 1.36 Cumulative mean % black students  25th percentile 2.60 3.26 .27 .20 .71 .73 1.17 1.33 .96 1.26  75th percentile 3.15 3.45 .22 .21 .78 .80 1.52 1.44 1.26 1.30 Cumulative mean % Hispanic students  25th percentile 2.04 3.45 .30 .21 .44 .81 .89 1.42 .83 1.29  75th percentile 3.06 3.49 .20 .21 .89 .81 1.50 1.46 1.12 1.31 Cumulative mean % Asian students  25th percentile 1.97 3.42 .37 .25 .42 .80 .77 1.38 .78 1.27  75th percentile 3.88 3.49 .28 .21 1.10 .82 1.84 1.46 1.35 1.31 Table 4. Observed and Predicted Mean Counts of Title IX Complaints by School Characteristic All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Institutional control  Public 5.00 2.94 .56 .19 1.23 .67 2.21 1.16 1.93 1.23  Private secular 1.82 3.66 .11 .20 .53 .89 .90 1.59 .67 1.27  Private religious 1.31 3.92 .21 .25 .32 .90 .55 1.67 .46 1.42 Carnegie classification  Research university I 10.88 2.85 .70 .16 3.07 .72 4.95 1.33 4.24 .96  Research university II 7.45 3.07 .67 .17 1.99 .88 3.60 1.51 2.82 1.09  Doctoral research university 4.06 2.54 .35 .14 1.07 .68 2.03 1.27 1.41 .92  Master's college and university 2.94 2.76 .44 .28 .70 .66 1.25 1.10 1.06 .99  Baccalaureate college 1.20 3.59 .25 .52 .30 .85 .43 1.15 .52 1.58  Special focus institution .54 4.99 .01 .09 .12 1.02 .31 2.48 .19 1.81 Selectivity  Extreme (95th percentile) 6.48 4.88 .37 .29 2.15 1.47 2.79 1.67 2.83 2.40  High (90th percentile) 5.29 3.61 .33 .20 1.76 1.16 2.22 1.43 2.02 1.34  Moderate (75th percentile) 4.50 3.15 .48 .21 1.29 .91 1.90 1.26 1.80 1.24  Low (50th percentile) 3.95 3.56 .40 .22 .94 .84 1.98 1.61 1.38 1.20  Very low (< 50th percentile) 2.69 3.63 .42 .24 .62 .80 1.14 1.51 1.00 1.37  Unknown 1.00 3.27 .07 .18 .24 .70 .49 1.36 .38 1.24 Women’s state leadership  Lowest 2.51 3.16 .47 .27 .51 .65 1.10 1.49 1.01 1.18  Moderately low 2.77 2.91 .50 .17 .64 .75 1.02 1.15 1.01 .96  Moderate 2.48 3.17 .18 .16 .64 .74 1.18 1.26 .98 1.26  Moderately high 3.05 4.42 .23 .27 .94 .99 1.38 1.79 1.09 1.74  Highest 3.31 4.19 .23 .22 .91 1.10 1.63 1.81 1.19 1.49 Cumulative mean % women students  25th percentile 3.89 3.34 .31 .22 1.16 .79 1.68 1.34 1.62 1.28  75th percentile 2.48 3.73 .33 .19 .58 .86 1.17 1.65 .87 1.36 Cumulative mean % black students  25th percentile 2.60 3.26 .27 .20 .71 .73 1.17 1.33 .96 1.26  75th percentile 3.15 3.45 .22 .21 .78 .80 1.52 1.44 1.26 1.30 Cumulative mean % Hispanic students  25th percentile 2.04 3.45 .30 .21 .44 .81 .89 1.42 .83 1.29  75th percentile 3.06 3.49 .20 .21 .89 .81 1.50 1.46 1.12 1.31 Cumulative mean % Asian students  25th percentile 1.97 3.42 .37 .25 .42 .80 .77 1.38 .78 1.27  75th percentile 3.88 3.49 .28 .21 1.10 .82 1.84 1.46 1.35 1.31 All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Institutional control  Public 5.00 2.94 .56 .19 1.23 .67 2.21 1.16 1.93 1.23  Private secular 1.82 3.66 .11 .20 .53 .89 .90 1.59 .67 1.27  Private religious 1.31 3.92 .21 .25 .32 .90 .55 1.67 .46 1.42 Carnegie classification  Research university I 10.88 2.85 .70 .16 3.07 .72 4.95 1.33 4.24 .96  Research university II 7.45 3.07 .67 .17 1.99 .88 3.60 1.51 2.82 1.09  Doctoral research university 4.06 2.54 .35 .14 1.07 .68 2.03 1.27 1.41 .92  Master's college and university 2.94 2.76 .44 .28 .70 .66 1.25 1.10 1.06 .99  Baccalaureate college 1.20 3.59 .25 .52 .30 .85 .43 1.15 .52 1.58  Special focus institution .54 4.99 .01 .09 .12 1.02 .31 2.48 .19 1.81 Selectivity  Extreme (95th percentile) 6.48 4.88 .37 .29 2.15 1.47 2.79 1.67 2.83 2.40  High (90th percentile) 5.29 3.61 .33 .20 1.76 1.16 2.22 1.43 2.02 1.34  Moderate (75th percentile) 4.50 3.15 .48 .21 1.29 .91 1.90 1.26 1.80 1.24  Low (50th percentile) 3.95 3.56 .40 .22 .94 .84 1.98 1.61 1.38 1.20  Very low (< 50th percentile) 2.69 3.63 .42 .24 .62 .80 1.14 1.51 1.00 1.37  Unknown 1.00 3.27 .07 .18 .24 .70 .49 1.36 .38 1.24 Women’s state leadership  Lowest 2.51 3.16 .47 .27 .51 .65 1.10 1.49 1.01 1.18  Moderately low 2.77 2.91 .50 .17 .64 .75 1.02 1.15 1.01 .96  Moderate 2.48 3.17 .18 .16 .64 .74 1.18 1.26 .98 1.26  Moderately high 3.05 4.42 .23 .27 .94 .99 1.38 1.79 1.09 1.74  Highest 3.31 4.19 .23 .22 .91 1.10 1.63 1.81 1.19 1.49 Cumulative mean % women students  25th percentile 3.89 3.34 .31 .22 1.16 .79 1.68 1.34 1.62 1.28  75th percentile 2.48 3.73 .33 .19 .58 .86 1.17 1.65 .87 1.36 Cumulative mean % black students  25th percentile 2.60 3.26 .27 .20 .71 .73 1.17 1.33 .96 1.26  75th percentile 3.15 3.45 .22 .21 .78 .80 1.52 1.44 1.26 1.30 Cumulative mean % Hispanic students  25th percentile 2.04 3.45 .30 .21 .44 .81 .89 1.42 .83 1.29  75th percentile 3.06 3.49 .20 .21 .89 .81 1.50 1.46 1.12 1.31 Cumulative mean % Asian students  25th percentile 1.97 3.42 .37 .25 .42 .80 .77 1.38 .78 1.27  75th percentile 3.88 3.49 .28 .21 1.10 .82 1.84 1.46 1.35 1.31 The model estimates and predicted counts provide additional evidence of the law’s uneven mobilization. First, they demonstrate variation by control structure. Private schools are associated with higher counts of Title IX complaints overall, despite the fact that public schools have larger enrollments and thus larger populations of individuals legally protected under Title IX. This holds across complaint types, with the exceptions of athletics complaints and complaints classified as other. Private religious schools’ association with higher counts is particularly interesting because these institutions can obtain exemptions from Title IX requirements inconsistent with religious beliefs, such as LGBTQI rights. Baccalaureate colleges and special focus institutions (e.g., theological seminaries, engineering schools, and art schools), compared to Research I universities, are associated with higher complaint counts overall, indicating that institutional type is another key organizational condition of legal mobilization. Additionally, baccalaureate colleges have the highest predicted counts of athletics complaints, whereas special focus institutions are associated with the highest count of academics and other complaints. Complaint counts also vary by schools’ selectivity or prestige. Extremely selective institutions are associated with higher numbers of complaints overall. School selectivity appears to have little to no effect on the count of athletics and academics complaints, but the most selective institutions have the highest predicted counts of sexual harassment and other complaints. The political environment in which schools are situated has an effect on the count of Title IX complaints they face. Institutions located in states with more women serving in the legislature have higher predicted counts of complaints overall. Women’s representation in state legislatures also has a fairly strong effect on the counts of sexual harassment, academics, and other complaints, where schools in states with moderately high as well as the highest representation have higher predicted counts. To summarize, this analysis indicates that the mobilization of Title IX is uneven across institutional settings. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The analysis presented above points to three primary conclusions. First, the mobilization of Title IX has increased substantially in the last 15 years. The number of Title IX complaints filed with OCR against four-year nonprofit colleges and universities began to trend upward in 2000. Filings skyrocketed after 2009, reaching a record high in 2014. This indicates that people are increasingly turning to both Title IX and the OCR complaint process as tools to address sex discrimination in higher education, which may point to a growing sense of enfranchisement among the beneficiaries of the law and their advocates, specifically recognition of the right to equal educational opportunity and an expectation that schools respect that right. The elaborated use of Title IX could also suggest a larger shift in legal consciousness around what constitutes actionable sex discrimination in higher education or, in other words, a broadening of public understandings of sex discrimination. Second, Title IX has been mobilized in response to different issues over time. Complaints citing discrimination in academics were the most common type filed for nearly all of the last 20 years; athletics complaints, the least commonly filed. Complaints citing sexual harassment started a general uptrend in 2006, proliferating at an even faster rate beginning in 2009, and approaching parity with athletics and academic filings by 2014. This provides additional evidence of a larger shift in legal consciousness: people are increasingly recognizing and claiming sexual harassment as actionable sex discrimination under Title IX. Sexual harassment is neither a new concept (Farley 1978) nor a new arena of legal mobilization under Title IX (Alexander v. Yale University, 459 F. Supp. 1 [1977]), but growing social movement activity around the issue of sexual assault on college campuses (Pérez-Peña 2013) may have contributed to the recent rapid rise in sexual harassment complaints (a 63 percent increase from 2013 to 2014). It is also possible that OCR’s broadening of the definition of actionable sexual harassment to “unwelcome conduct” facilitated the increase (U.S. Department of Education 2011). Third, the mobilization of Title IX is institutionally uneven relative to enrollment. More complaints are filed against private schools that are highly selective, as indicated by students’ SAT scores, and located in states with greater women’s representation in the legislature. Further, certain types of complaints are more often filed against certain types of institutions. Perhaps most interesting is that the most selective schools and schools in states with higher levels of women’s representation in the legislature face higher numbers of sexual harassment complaints. This indicates that the capacity and/or willingness to file a complaint against certain types of institutions varies. One explanation for this could be that some schools are less transparent about the rights Title IX affords, effectively disempowering the protected as well as others who may act on their behalf from filing complaints. It could also result from social structural factors, such as the demographic characteristics of potential mobilizers, which would resonate with existing research on legal mobilization showing that the privileged tend to use legal tools more than the disadvantaged. Future research can assess in greater depth how school demographic composition is associated with Title IX complaint filings by merging the complaint data with other data sources that provide detailed information about student characteristics and outcomes (e.g., the Educational Longitudinal Survey of 2002). This research contributes to at least two sociological literatures: gender inequality in higher education and law and society. It fills a surprising gap in both by offering the first systematic analysis of how Title IX has been mobilized at the postsecondary level over the past 20 years. Existing research on gender inequality in higher education primarily focuses on documenting its persistence and its effects on later life outcomes, which is crucial. This article instead shows how people employ a legal tool to take action in response to perceived inequality. It also develops our understanding of gender inequality in higher education by illustrating the specific kinds of inequalities that elicit legal mobilization. Gender inequality in the academy takes many forms, almost all of which Title IX prohibits but only some of which lead to legal action. The large number of academics complaints filed over the last 20 years indicates that curricular-based inequalities, in the eyes of complainants, have long been considered legitimate grievances under the law. The rapid rise of sexual harassment complaints indicates that this form of gender inequality in the academy is becoming an increasingly legitimate Title IX grievance. Equally important are the kinds of sex-based discrimination that have seen less mobilization, such as discrimination in athletic programs. The types of complaints that are and are not filed reveal something about how people recognize gendered experiences as discriminatory, which relates to the much larger question of how cultural beliefs about gender that perpetuate inequality (e.g., Ridgeway 2011) operate within the very institutions expected to ameliorate inequality. This article also contributes to the law and society literature. Most research on legal mobilization examines how features of the legal system or individuals’ characteristics explain the uneven mobilization of law across society. This analysis extends an emergent literature on the relationship between organizational context and legal mobilization by demonstrating institutional unevenness in the mobilization of Title IX across colleges and universities. Consistent with existing research I find support for control structures, institution type, and surrounding political environment as key dimensions of variation. Selectivity or prestige, a factor not yet examined in this literature, also received support. Its relevance as an organizational condition of legal mobilization should be assessed in other settings, such as corporate firms, as it may shed new light on why the law is mobilized unevenly across society. I cannot conclude that organizational characteristics caused the variation observed here, but the findings raise important questions about the mechanisms driving the uneven mobilization of Title IX across institutions. Finally, this article has significant policy implications. By showing that certain types of schools tend to face higher numbers of specific kinds of complaints, the analysis suggests that the problem of sex discrimination in higher education may look different in different institutional settings. Thus, it is important that top-down efforts to modify Title IX allow schools some autonomy to implement the law in ways that address the idiosyncrasies of local institutional cultures. Relatedly, the high numbers of complaints filed against private religious schools, relative to their comparatively low enrollments, may indicate that it is time to rethink the exemption process. With the increased mobilization of Title IX overall, it is also critical that OCR ensures procedural fairness. Under both Obama and Trump—although using different approaches—OCR has recently focused on expediting complaint processing (DeSantis 2017; Kingkade 2016). Yet as Tom Tyler (2006) has demonstrated in his work on legitimacy, fairness of procedure is far more important to the aggrieved than swiftness of resolution. Transparency around the complaint process is one aspect of procedural justice that can be strengthened, especially since the process is often lengthy. Despite these implications, it is critical to note the study’s limitations, many of which relate to broader issues concerning administrative data (Kitsuse and Cicourel 1963). These data do not measure the prevalence of sex discrimination in education or which schools are the worst offenders. Not every incidence results in an OCR complaint, and people may tend to file certain types of complaints with the Department of Education. This analysis does not capture the efficacy of OCR complaints in reducing discrimination; it remains unclear what schools did in response to receiving a complaint. Additionally, OCR does not release information about complainants. Who acts on behalf of the legally protected through the complaint process is a fascinating topic for future inquiry that would engage larger questions about agency relations, legal protections, and claims-making. Finally, I limited my analytical scope to Title IX as my aim was to map its mobilization but subsequent studies might consider laws working alongside Title IX, including Clery, VAWA, and FERPA. In a speech commemorating Title IX’s 40th anniversary, President Obama (2012) concisely summarized its importance: “From addressing inequality in math and science education to preventing sexual assault on campus to fairly funding athletic programs, Title IX ensures equality for our young people in every aspect of their education.” But until the principles of Title IX become culturally embedded norms, the law’s impact is largely conditional on its mobilization. How the law can and should be mobilized to address gender inequality in education remains contested. In September 2017, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos revoked Obama-era guidelines instructing schools how to address sexual misconduct under Title IX. This decision was prompted by concerns that the guidelines systematically disadvantaged the accused (Saul and Taylor 2017). Sexual harassment and assault survivors, activists, and advocates have responded, arguing that the guidelines in fact reaffirmed schools’ obligation to protect the rights of all parties involved in sexual misconduct cases (Brodsky and Bolger 2017). Secretary DeVos will soon draft new guidance specifying the terms of Title IX compliance. Whether schools will align with it or exercise their local authority and adhere to prior standards is an open question with major implications for the shape that “gender equality in education” will take in the future. The author wishes to thank Julia Adams, Rene Almeling, Emily Erikson, Lloyd Grieger, Marissa King, Vida Maralani, Michael Weaver, Christopher Wildeman, Tom Tyler, and the anonymous reviewers. Research for this article was supported by the National Science Foundation (SES-1539872) and the Horowitz Foundation for Social Policy. Footnotes 1 The three most recent articles in the Annual Review of Sociology on gender inequality in education do not mention the law (Buchmann, DiPrete, and McDaniel 2008; Gerber and Cheung 2008; Xie, Fang, and Shauman 2015). 2 Seamons v. Snow, 84 F.3d 1226, 1230, 1232-33 (1996) first confirmed Title IX’s coverage of peer harassment but denied relief. 3 See Brake (2010), Carpenter and Acosta (2005), Hogshead-Makar and Zimbalist (2007), and Suggs (2007) for more detail on the history of Title IX. 4 No complaints in my data reached this disposition. 5 An additional approach argues that the kinds of problems people face—debt, divorce, property disputes, etc.—influence whether they mobilize law more so than demographic characteristics (Miller and Sarat 1980–1981; Silberman 1985), but this is not the case for problems of discrimination (Silbey 2005). 6 This is an imperfect measure but one that has received support in existing research and works well for the cross-sectional analysis below. Other potential measures for local gender-political context, such as whether a school’s president is a woman, would require an event history approach allowing covariates to change over time. 7 KnowYourIX.org (2016) provides additional discussion of filing a lawsuit versus OCR complaint. 8 I conduct all analyses in fiscal years to align with OCR serial reports. 9 All complaints, even dismissed ones, are entered into OCR’s case management system. Correspondence that OCR does not consider a complaint, and therefore does not enter into its database, includes “oral allegations not reduced to writing, anonymous correspondence, courtesy copies of correspondence or a complaint filed with or otherwise submitted to another person or other entity, and inquiries that seek advice or information but do not seek action or intervention from the Department” (U.S. Department of Education 2015a:4). 10 Between 1994 and 2014, the mean number of issues cited per complaint ranges from 1.16 and 2 with a standard deviation of .21. 11 These figures are based on the 1,572 schools used in the analyses below. See the results section and Appendix B for more detail. 12 IPEDS does not have data on SAT scores before 2001. 13 The states in each category are as follows. Highest: AZ, MN, OR, VT, MD, NV, NH, CO, KS, WA, and DC. Moderately high: IL, ID, NM, ME, DE, CA, HI, MT, CT, and MA. Moderate: IA, FL, MI, NE, NC, WI, RI, NY, OH, and MO. Moderately low: GA, TX, AR, AK, NJ, UT, WY, WV, SD, and IN. Lowest: OK, VA, ND, PA, LA, AL, SC, TN, MS, and KY. 14 I also tested measures for the cumulative mean ratio of students to full-time faculty and the cumulative mean percentage of students receiving Pell Grants, which I chose not to include in the final models. IPEDS data on faculty counts do not include part-time faculty. Further, student-faculty ratio is somewhat redundant to measures of school size and selectivity (Volkwein and Sweitzer 2006). In IPEDS, information on Pell Grant recipients only dates back to 2007, and it is not available for 271 of the schools analyzed here. 15 Most states remained in the same regional office from 1994 to 2014, except South Carolina, Oklahoma, Iowa, North Dakota, and Montana (U.S. Department of Education 2003). I keep states in their current regional office for the statistical models. There are 19 schools with 112 complaints filed before and after 2003 in states that switched regional offices. 16 I also generated overdispersed Poisson estimates as a sensitivity check. The results are consistent and available upon request; however, the negative binomial model better captures the high variances of schools with many complaints (Rodríguez 2015). 17 I chose to exclude schools that only had Herb-effect complaints filed against them over this period because I did not want to count them has having zero complaints. I also excluded schools that had not been targeted in complaints but only through OCR-initiated compliance reviews and directed inquiries. Thus, all subsequent measures and analyses are based on the subset of 1,572 schools. For example, the measure for selectivity is based on the distribution of SAT scores among these schools rather than all 1,955 four-year nonprofit institutions. As a check, I ran the models with all schools and specified them as having zero complaints. Nearly all of the results are consistent. 18 More generally, the release of OCR guidance focusing on a specific type of discrimination does not consistently coincide with increases in those types of filings. For a comprehensive list of releases, see OCR’s Reading Room (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/readingroom.html; retrieved February 26, 2018). 19 Omitted schools include those not in the Carnegie universe (1 school, 1 complaint), associate’s colleges (6 schools, 1 complaint), tribal schools (2 schools, 1 complaint), and schools located in U.S. territories with different legislative structures (35 schools, 20 complaints). APPENDICES APPENDIX A. THE OCR COMPLAINT PROCESS When an individual or organization decides to file a complaint with the Department of Education, they begin by gathering the required information: the name and contact information of both the person discriminated against (if not themselves) and the institution or agency that engaged in the discrimination; a detailed narrative of the alleged discrimination, specifying names of those involved and any witnesses, and a description of what the complainant would like the school to do in response to the allegations. They must also disclose whether they attempted to resolve the allegations internally or through another federal agency. For a complete list of all required items, see OCR’s discrimination complaint form (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/complaintform.pdf; retrieved February 26, 2018). Complainants submit this information in writing to OCR, which, as of 2001, can be done electronically. Next the OCR regional office responsible for the allegedly noncompliant institution begins processing the complaint. There are 12 regional offices. OCR’s first step is to determine whether the information submitted constitutes a complaint. Oral allegations, anonymous complaints, statistical data alone, and advice-seeking inquiries are not considered complaints (U.S. Department of Education 2015:5). If the information submitted is sufficient, OCR then assigns the complaint a case number and creates a file in its case management system (CMS). The file includes the case open date, which corresponds to when OCR received the complaint or the nearest business day, and the issue(s) allegedly violated under Title IX, which an OCR staff member determines by coding the complainant’s description of the discrimination along one or several of the 76 issues under Title IX (see Table A1). OCR then evaluates allegations made in the complaint for dismissal, administrative closure, or investigation. Figure A1 displays how a complaint moves through OCR up to this point. For a more detailed discussion of resolution processes and investigation procedures, see the Case Processing Manual (U.S. Department of Education 2015). Table A1. OCR Issue Codebook for Title IX and Outcomes Code Description Outcomes 106.3 Remedial and affirmative action and self-evaluation (i.e., if a program engages in discriminatory behavior it will take steps to overcome the effects of such discrimination) Other 106.4 Assurance required (i.e., assurance to OCR that the program is eliminating discrimination and the effects of past discrimination) Other 106.5 Transfers of property Other 106.6 Effects of other requirements Other 106.7 Effect of employment opportunities Other 106.8a Designation of responsible employee (i.e., Title IX coordinator) Other 106.8b Grievance procedures Other 106.9 Dissemination of policy Other 106.12 Educational institutions controlled by religious organizations Other 106.13 Military and merchant marine educational institutions Other 106.14 Membership practices Other 106.15 Application of Title IX: Exceptions Other 106.17 Transition plans (i.e., from single sex to coeducational) Other 106.21 Admissions Academic 106.21b1 Specific—individuals Academic 106.21b2 Specific—disproportionate adverse effect Academic 106.21c1 Marital or parental status Academic 106.21c2 Pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Academic 106.21c3 Disabilities related to pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Academic 106.21c4 Pre-admission inquiry into marital status Academic 106.22 Preference in admission Academic 106.23 Recruitment Academic 106.31 Different treatment/denial of benefit Academic 106.31-1 Discipline Academic 106.31-2 Gifted and talented Academic 106.31-3 Grading Academic 106.31-4.1 Sexual harassment (insults, slurs, derogatory expressions, verbal intimidation) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.2 Sexual harassment (sexual violence) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.3 Sexual harassment (physical harassment or intimidation) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.4 Sexual harassment (gender stereotyping) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.5 Sexual harassment (other) Sexual harassment 106.31-5 Gender harassment (not of a sexual nature) Academic 106.31-6 Extracurricular activities (not athletics) Academic 106.31-7 STEM Academic 106.31-8 Career and technical education Academic 106.31-99 Different treatment (other) Academic 106.32 Housing Other 106.33 Comparable facilities Other 106.34 Access to course offerings Academic 106.34-1 Single sex Academic 106.34-2 Math/science Academic 106.35 Access to schools Academic 106.35-1 Single sex Academic 106.35-2 Math/science Academic 106.36 Counseling and tutoring Academic 106.37 Financial assistance/scholarships Academic 106.37a Financial assistance (non-athletic) Academic 106.37c Athletic financial assistance Athletics 106.38 Employment assistance to students Other 106.39 Health and insurance benefits and services Other 106.40a Marital or parental status Other 106.40b Pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Other 106.41a Athletics—general Athletics 106.41b Separate teams Athletics 106.41c Equal opportunity Athletics 106.41c1 Interests and abilities Athletics 106.41c1-1 Interests and abilities (part 1 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c1-2 Interests and abilities (part 2 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c1-3 Interests and abilities (part 3 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c2 Equipment and supplies Athletics 106.41c3 Scheduling of games and practice times Athletics 106.41c4 Travel and per diem Athletics 106.41c5 Coaching and tutoring Athletics 106.41c6 Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors Athletics 106.41c7 Provision of locker rooms and practice and competitive facilities Athletics 106.41c8 Medical training facilities and services Athletics 106.41c9 Housing and dining Athletics 106.41c10 Publicity Athletics 106.41c11 Recruitment Athletics 106.41c12 Support services Athletics 106.42 Textbooks and curricular material Academic 106.51 Employment Other 106.71 Procedures by reference to Part 100 (i.e., compliance review and investigation regulations) Other 106.71-1 Compliance information Other 106.71-2 Retaliation Other 106.999 Service issue not related to education Other Code Description Outcomes 106.3 Remedial and affirmative action and self-evaluation (i.e., if a program engages in discriminatory behavior it will take steps to overcome the effects of such discrimination) Other 106.4 Assurance required (i.e., assurance to OCR that the program is eliminating discrimination and the effects of past discrimination) Other 106.5 Transfers of property Other 106.6 Effects of other requirements Other 106.7 Effect of employment opportunities Other 106.8a Designation of responsible employee (i.e., Title IX coordinator) Other 106.8b Grievance procedures Other 106.9 Dissemination of policy Other 106.12 Educational institutions controlled by religious organizations Other 106.13 Military and merchant marine educational institutions Other 106.14 Membership practices Other 106.15 Application of Title IX: Exceptions Other 106.17 Transition plans (i.e., from single sex to coeducational) Other 106.21 Admissions Academic 106.21b1 Specific—individuals Academic 106.21b2 Specific—disproportionate adverse effect Academic 106.21c1 Marital or parental status Academic 106.21c2 Pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Academic 106.21c3 Disabilities related to pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Academic 106.21c4 Pre-admission inquiry into marital status Academic 106.22 Preference in admission Academic 106.23 Recruitment Academic 106.31 Different treatment/denial of benefit Academic 106.31-1 Discipline Academic 106.31-2 Gifted and talented Academic 106.31-3 Grading Academic 106.31-4.1 Sexual harassment (insults, slurs, derogatory expressions, verbal intimidation) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.2 Sexual harassment (sexual violence) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.3 Sexual harassment (physical harassment or intimidation) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.4 Sexual harassment (gender stereotyping) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.5 Sexual harassment (other) Sexual harassment 106.31-5 Gender harassment (not of a sexual nature) Academic 106.31-6 Extracurricular activities (not athletics) Academic 106.31-7 STEM Academic 106.31-8 Career and technical education Academic 106.31-99 Different treatment (other) Academic 106.32 Housing Other 106.33 Comparable facilities Other 106.34 Access to course offerings Academic 106.34-1 Single sex Academic 106.34-2 Math/science Academic 106.35 Access to schools Academic 106.35-1 Single sex Academic 106.35-2 Math/science Academic 106.36 Counseling and tutoring Academic 106.37 Financial assistance/scholarships Academic 106.37a Financial assistance (non-athletic) Academic 106.37c Athletic financial assistance Athletics 106.38 Employment assistance to students Other 106.39 Health and insurance benefits and services Other 106.40a Marital or parental status Other 106.40b Pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Other 106.41a Athletics—general Athletics 106.41b Separate teams Athletics 106.41c Equal opportunity Athletics 106.41c1 Interests and abilities Athletics 106.41c1-1 Interests and abilities (part 1 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c1-2 Interests and abilities (part 2 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c1-3 Interests and abilities (part 3 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c2 Equipment and supplies Athletics 106.41c3 Scheduling of games and practice times Athletics 106.41c4 Travel and per diem Athletics 106.41c5 Coaching and tutoring Athletics 106.41c6 Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors Athletics 106.41c7 Provision of locker rooms and practice and competitive facilities Athletics 106.41c8 Medical training facilities and services Athletics 106.41c9 Housing and dining Athletics 106.41c10 Publicity Athletics 106.41c11 Recruitment Athletics 106.41c12 Support services Athletics 106.42 Textbooks and curricular material Academic 106.51 Employment Other 106.71 Procedures by reference to Part 100 (i.e., compliance review and investigation regulations) Other 106.71-1 Compliance information Other 106.71-2 Retaliation Other 106.999 Service issue not related to education Other Note: Issue codes correspond to sections of the regulation that include detailed descriptions of each issue (accessible at www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-34cfr106.html; retrieved February 26, 2018). Table A1. OCR Issue Codebook for Title IX and Outcomes Code Description Outcomes 106.3 Remedial and affirmative action and self-evaluation (i.e., if a program engages in discriminatory behavior it will take steps to overcome the effects of such discrimination) Other 106.4 Assurance required (i.e., assurance to OCR that the program is eliminating discrimination and the effects of past discrimination) Other 106.5 Transfers of property Other 106.6 Effects of other requirements Other 106.7 Effect of employment opportunities Other 106.8a Designation of responsible employee (i.e., Title IX coordinator) Other 106.8b Grievance procedures Other 106.9 Dissemination of policy Other 106.12 Educational institutions controlled by religious organizations Other 106.13 Military and merchant marine educational institutions Other 106.14 Membership practices Other 106.15 Application of Title IX: Exceptions Other 106.17 Transition plans (i.e., from single sex to coeducational) Other 106.21 Admissions Academic 106.21b1 Specific—individuals Academic 106.21b2 Specific—disproportionate adverse effect Academic 106.21c1 Marital or parental status Academic 106.21c2 Pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Academic 106.21c3 Disabilities related to pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Academic 106.21c4 Pre-admission inquiry into marital status Academic 106.22 Preference in admission Academic 106.23 Recruitment Academic 106.31 Different treatment/denial of benefit Academic 106.31-1 Discipline Academic 106.31-2 Gifted and talented Academic 106.31-3 Grading Academic 106.31-4.1 Sexual harassment (insults, slurs, derogatory expressions, verbal intimidation) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.2 Sexual harassment (sexual violence) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.3 Sexual harassment (physical harassment or intimidation) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.4 Sexual harassment (gender stereotyping) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.5 Sexual harassment (other) Sexual harassment 106.31-5 Gender harassment (not of a sexual nature) Academic 106.31-6 Extracurricular activities (not athletics) Academic 106.31-7 STEM Academic 106.31-8 Career and technical education Academic 106.31-99 Different treatment (other) Academic 106.32 Housing Other 106.33 Comparable facilities Other 106.34 Access to course offerings Academic 106.34-1 Single sex Academic 106.34-2 Math/science Academic 106.35 Access to schools Academic 106.35-1 Single sex Academic 106.35-2 Math/science Academic 106.36 Counseling and tutoring Academic 106.37 Financial assistance/scholarships Academic 106.37a Financial assistance (non-athletic) Academic 106.37c Athletic financial assistance Athletics 106.38 Employment assistance to students Other 106.39 Health and insurance benefits and services Other 106.40a Marital or parental status Other 106.40b Pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Other 106.41a Athletics—general Athletics 106.41b Separate teams Athletics 106.41c Equal opportunity Athletics 106.41c1 Interests and abilities Athletics 106.41c1-1 Interests and abilities (part 1 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c1-2 Interests and abilities (part 2 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c1-3 Interests and abilities (part 3 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c2 Equipment and supplies Athletics 106.41c3 Scheduling of games and practice times Athletics 106.41c4 Travel and per diem Athletics 106.41c5 Coaching and tutoring Athletics 106.41c6 Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors Athletics 106.41c7 Provision of locker rooms and practice and competitive facilities Athletics 106.41c8 Medical training facilities and services Athletics 106.41c9 Housing and dining Athletics 106.41c10 Publicity Athletics 106.41c11 Recruitment Athletics 106.41c12 Support services Athletics 106.42 Textbooks and curricular material Academic 106.51 Employment Other 106.71 Procedures by reference to Part 100 (i.e., compliance review and investigation regulations) Other 106.71-1 Compliance information Other 106.71-2 Retaliation Other 106.999 Service issue not related to education Other Code Description Outcomes 106.3 Remedial and affirmative action and self-evaluation (i.e., if a program engages in discriminatory behavior it will take steps to overcome the effects of such discrimination) Other 106.4 Assurance required (i.e., assurance to OCR that the program is eliminating discrimination and the effects of past discrimination) Other 106.5 Transfers of property Other 106.6 Effects of other requirements Other 106.7 Effect of employment opportunities Other 106.8a Designation of responsible employee (i.e., Title IX coordinator) Other 106.8b Grievance procedures Other 106.9 Dissemination of policy Other 106.12 Educational institutions controlled by religious organizations Other 106.13 Military and merchant marine educational institutions Other 106.14 Membership practices Other 106.15 Application of Title IX: Exceptions Other 106.17 Transition plans (i.e., from single sex to coeducational) Other 106.21 Admissions Academic 106.21b1 Specific—individuals Academic 106.21b2 Specific—disproportionate adverse effect Academic 106.21c1 Marital or parental status Academic 106.21c2 Pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Academic 106.21c3 Disabilities related to pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Academic 106.21c4 Pre-admission inquiry into marital status Academic 106.22 Preference in admission Academic 106.23 Recruitment Academic 106.31 Different treatment/denial of benefit Academic 106.31-1 Discipline Academic 106.31-2 Gifted and talented Academic 106.31-3 Grading Academic 106.31-4.1 Sexual harassment (insults, slurs, derogatory expressions, verbal intimidation) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.2 Sexual harassment (sexual violence) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.3 Sexual harassment (physical harassment or intimidation) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.4 Sexual harassment (gender stereotyping) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.5 Sexual harassment (other) Sexual harassment 106.31-5 Gender harassment (not of a sexual nature) Academic 106.31-6 Extracurricular activities (not athletics) Academic 106.31-7 STEM Academic 106.31-8 Career and technical education Academic 106.31-99 Different treatment (other) Academic 106.32 Housing Other 106.33 Comparable facilities Other 106.34 Access to course offerings Academic 106.34-1 Single sex Academic 106.34-2 Math/science Academic 106.35 Access to schools Academic 106.35-1 Single sex Academic 106.35-2 Math/science Academic 106.36 Counseling and tutoring Academic 106.37 Financial assistance/scholarships Academic 106.37a Financial assistance (non-athletic) Academic 106.37c Athletic financial assistance Athletics 106.38 Employment assistance to students Other 106.39 Health and insurance benefits and services Other 106.40a Marital or parental status Other 106.40b Pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Other 106.41a Athletics—general Athletics 106.41b Separate teams Athletics 106.41c Equal opportunity Athletics 106.41c1 Interests and abilities Athletics 106.41c1-1 Interests and abilities (part 1 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c1-2 Interests and abilities (part 2 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c1-3 Interests and abilities (part 3 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c2 Equipment and supplies Athletics 106.41c3 Scheduling of games and practice times Athletics 106.41c4 Travel and per diem Athletics 106.41c5 Coaching and tutoring Athletics 106.41c6 Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors Athletics 106.41c7 Provision of locker rooms and practice and competitive facilities Athletics 106.41c8 Medical training facilities and services Athletics 106.41c9 Housing and dining Athletics 106.41c10 Publicity Athletics 106.41c11 Recruitment Athletics 106.41c12 Support services Athletics 106.42 Textbooks and curricular material Academic 106.51 Employment Other 106.71 Procedures by reference to Part 100 (i.e., compliance review and investigation regulations) Other 106.71-1 Compliance information Other 106.71-2 Retaliation Other 106.999 Service issue not related to education Other Note: Issue codes correspond to sections of the regulation that include detailed descriptions of each issue (accessible at www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-34cfr106.html; retrieved February 26, 2018). Figure A1. View largeDownload slide How a Complaint Moves Through OCR Figure A1. View largeDownload slide How a Complaint Moves Through OCR APPENDIX B. ADJUSTING FOR THE HERB EFFECT I exclude 404 complaints filed in 1999 and 2000 only citing discrimination in admissions, which also drops 124 schools. This decision is based on the original complaint documents I analyzed. It is also based on the fact that from 1994 to 2012 (I exclude 2013 and 2014 here because they are anomalous) the annual percentage of complaints citing discrimination in admissions (106.21) ranges from 3 to 14 percent, with the exceptions of 1999 (60 percent) and 2000 (50 percent). Although there is not large spike in overall complaints in 2000, I expect the same mass filing effort of 1999 also produced the high percentage of admissions complaints in 2000. For the 2013 spike, I drop 1,990 complaints filed in 2013 and 2014 as well as 243 schools using the following criteria: (1) the complaint must be filed against a school listed in Mr. Dempsey’s 2013 or 2014 filings; (2) the complaint can only cite athletic issues; (3) the complaint must cite one of the three modal athletic issues for 2013 and 2014; and (4) the complaint must be filed on a mass filing date (i.e., March 25, 2013; March 26, 2013; January 13, 2014). The exclusion criteria used for both the 1999 and 2013 spikes may leave some spike-related complaints in the data set. I could have used stricter criteria, which would have also excluded non-spike complaints. For example, I could have excluded all complaints citing admissions issues (106.21) as opposed to just strict admissions complaints for the 1999 spike, which would have removed an additional 15 complaints from 1999 and 5 complaints from 2000. If I excluded all athletics complaints filed in 2013 and 2014 against the schools in Mr. Dempsey’s list, this would have removed an additional 18 complaints from 2013 and 131 from 2014. Because I did not want to make inappropriate exclusions, however, I used the more inclusive criteria. APPENDIX C. CHI-SQUARE TEST STATISTICS Table C1. Chi-Square Tests for Negative Binomial Estimates Predicting Count of Title IX Complaints by School Characteristic All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Private secular = private religious .80 1.10 .01 .25 .91 Carnegie classification 32.37*** 47.89*** 12.16* 37.85*** 26.83*** R2 = doctoral research u. 2.87† .21 2.16 1.44 1.26 R2 = doctoral research u. = master’s coll. 3.13 13.28** 5.52† 10.46** 1.32 R2 = doctoral research u. = bacc. coll. 10.82** 38.09*** 2.33 4.49 14.98*** Master’s coll. = bacc. coll. 13.47*** 15.01*** 3.33† .17 17.85*** Master’s coll. = special focus 18.67*** 3.37† 3.62† 29.20*** 8.08** R2 = doctoral research u. = special focus 18.34*** 1.04 3.54 12.83** 8.55* Selectivity 17.30** 3.30 10.67† 9.31† 21.29*** High = moderate = low = very low 3.70 .62 3.43 5.81 1.95 Women’s state leadership 15.80** 9.74* 8.90† 16.78** 12.24* All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Private secular = private religious .80 1.10 .01 .25 .91 Carnegie classification 32.37*** 47.89*** 12.16* 37.85*** 26.83*** R2 = doctoral research u. 2.87† .21 2.16 1.44 1.26 R2 = doctoral research u. = master’s coll. 3.13 13.28** 5.52† 10.46** 1.32 R2 = doctoral research u. = bacc. coll. 10.82** 38.09*** 2.33 4.49 14.98*** Master’s coll. = bacc. coll. 13.47*** 15.01*** 3.33† .17 17.85*** Master’s coll. = special focus 18.67*** 3.37† 3.62† 29.20*** 8.08** R2 = doctoral research u. = special focus 18.34*** 1.04 3.54 12.83** 8.55* Selectivity 17.30** 3.30 10.67† 9.31† 21.29*** High = moderate = low = very low 3.70 .62 3.43 5.81 1.95 Women’s state leadership 15.80** 9.74* 8.90† 16.78** 12.24* †p <.10 *p <.05 **p <.01 ***p <.001 (two-tailed tests) View Large Table C1. Chi-Square Tests for Negative Binomial Estimates Predicting Count of Title IX Complaints by School Characteristic All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Private secular = private religious .80 1.10 .01 .25 .91 Carnegie classification 32.37*** 47.89*** 12.16* 37.85*** 26.83*** R2 = doctoral research u. 2.87† .21 2.16 1.44 1.26 R2 = doctoral research u. = master’s coll. 3.13 13.28** 5.52† 10.46** 1.32 R2 = doctoral research u. = bacc. coll. 10.82** 38.09*** 2.33 4.49 14.98*** Master’s coll. = bacc. coll. 13.47*** 15.01*** 3.33† .17 17.85*** Master’s coll. = special focus 18.67*** 3.37† 3.62† 29.20*** 8.08** R2 = doctoral research u. = special focus 18.34*** 1.04 3.54 12.83** 8.55* Selectivity 17.30** 3.30 10.67† 9.31† 21.29*** High = moderate = low = very low 3.70 .62 3.43 5.81 1.95 Women’s state leadership 15.80** 9.74* 8.90† 16.78** 12.24* All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Private secular = private religious .80 1.10 .01 .25 .91 Carnegie classification 32.37*** 47.89*** 12.16* 37.85*** 26.83*** R2 = doctoral research u. 2.87† .21 2.16 1.44 1.26 R2 = doctoral research u. = master’s coll. 3.13 13.28** 5.52† 10.46** 1.32 R2 = doctoral research u. = bacc. coll. 10.82** 38.09*** 2.33 4.49 14.98*** Master’s coll. = bacc. coll. 13.47*** 15.01*** 3.33† .17 17.85*** Master’s coll. = special focus 18.67*** 3.37† 3.62† 29.20*** 8.08** R2 = doctoral research u. = special focus 18.34*** 1.04 3.54 12.83** 8.55* Selectivity 17.30** 3.30 10.67† 9.31† 21.29*** High = moderate = low = very low 3.70 .62 3.43 5.81 1.95 Women’s state leadership 15.80** 9.74* 8.90† 16.78** 12.24* †p <.10 *p <.05 **p <.01 ***p <.001 (two-tailed tests) View Large REFERENCES Albiston Catherine R. 2005 . “Bargaining in the Shadow of Social Institutions: Competing Discourses and Social Change in the Workplace Mobilization of Civil Rights.” Law & Society Review 39 1 : 11 - 47 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Armstrong Elizabeth A. , Hamilton Laura . 2013 . Paying for the Party . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Armstrong Elizabeth A. , England Paula , Fogarty Alison C. K. . 2012 . “Accounting for Women’s Orgasm and Sexual Enjoyment in College Hookups and Relationships.” American Sociological Review 77 3 : 435 - 62 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bielby Rob , Posselt Julie Renee , Jaquette Ozan , Bastedo Michael N. . 2014 . “Why Are Women Underrepresented in Elite Colleges and Universities? A Non-Linear Decomposition Analysis.” Research in Higher Education 55 8 : 735 - 60 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bloom Jack M. 1987 . Class, Race, and the Civil Rights Movement . Bloomington : Indiana University Press . Bobbitt-Zeher Donna. 2007 . “The Gender Income Gap and the Role of Education.” Sociology of Education 80 1 : 1 - 22 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bobo Lawrence D. , Suh Susan A. . 2000 . “Surveying Racial Discrimination: Analyses from a Multiethnic Labor Market.” Pp. 523 - 60 in Prismatic Metropolis , edited by Bobo Lawrence D. , Oliver Melvin L. , Johnson James H. Jr. , Valenzuela Abel Jr. New York : Russell Sage . Bowen William G. , Bok Derek . 1998 . The Shape of the River . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bowen William G. , Tobin Eugene M. . 2015 . Locus of Authority . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Boyle Elizabeth H. , Kim Minzee , Longhofer Wesley . 2015 . “Abortion Liberalization in World Society, 1960–2009.” American Journal of Sociology 121 3 : 882 - 913 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Brake Deborah L. 2010 . Getting in the Game. New York : New York University Press . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Brodksy Alexandra , Bolger Dana . 2017 . “Betsy DeVos's Title IX Interpretation is an Attack on Sexual Assault Survivors.” The Washington Post , September 8. Retrieved February 5, 2018 (www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/08/betsy-devoss-title-ix-interpretation-is-an-attack-on-sexual-assault-survivors/?utm_term=.f21a4d0f65a1). Buchmann Claudia , DiPrete Thomas A. , McDaniel Anne . 2008 . “Gender Inequalities in Education.” Annual Review of Sociology 34 : 319 - 37 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bumiller Kristin. 1988 . The Civil Rights Society . Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University Press . Carlin Jerome E. , Howard Jan , Messinger Sheldon L. . 1967 . Civil Justice and the Poor . New York : Russel Sage . Carpenter Lisa Jean , Acosta R. Vivian . 2005 . Title IX . Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics . Cech Erin , Rubineau Brian , Silbey Susan , Seron Caroll . 2011 . “Professional Role Confidence and Gendered Persistence in Engineering.” American Sociological Review 76 5 : 641 - 66 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Center for American Women in Politics . 2014 . “Fact Sheet Archive on Women in State Legislatures.” Retrieved August 10, 2015 (www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/resources/FactSheetArchive.php#stateleg). Charles Maria , Grusky David . 2004 . Occupational Ghettos . Palo Alto, CA : Stanford University Press . Charles Maria , Bradley Karen . 2002 . “Equal but Separate? A Cross-National Study of Sex Segregation in Higher Education.” American Sociological Review 67 4 : 573 - 99 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Conger Dylan , Long Mark C. . 2010 . “Why Are Men Falling Behind? Gender Gaps in College Performance and Persistence.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 627 1 : 184 - 214 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Correll Shelley J. 2001 . “Gender and the Career Choice Process: The Role of Biased Self-Assessments.” American Journal of Sociology 106 6 : 1691 - 730 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Cotter David A. , Hermsen Joan M. , Vanneman Reeve . 2004 . Gender Inequality at Work . New York : Russell Sage . Curran Barbara A. 1977 . The Legal Needs of the Public. Chicago : American Bar Foundation . Dale Stacy Berg , Krueger Alan B. . 2002 . “Estimating the Payoff to Attending a More Selective College: An Application of Selection on Observables and Unobservables.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 117 : 1491 - 528 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS DeSantis Nick. 2017 . “Federal Sexual-Assault Investigations Are Being Resolved More Often. These 11 Cases Show How.” Chronicle of Higher Education , August 3. Retrieved February 5, 2018 (www.chronicle.com/article/Federal-Sex-Assault/240848). DiPrete Thomas A. , Buchmann Claudia . 2013 . The Rise of Women. New York : Russell Sage . District of Columbia (DC) Board of Elections . 2014 . “Historic Elected Officials in DC.” Retrieved August 10, 2015 (www.dcboee.org/candidate_info/historic_officials/history.asp). Dobbin Frank. 2009 . Inventing Equal Opportunity . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Edelman Lauren B. 1992 . “Legal Ambiguity and Symbolic Structures: Organizational Mediation of Civil Rights Law.” American Journal of Sociology 97 6 : 1531 - 76 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Edelman Lauren B. , Uggen Christopher , Erlanger Howard S. . 1999 . “The Endogeneity of Legal Regulation: Grievance Procedures as Rational Myth.” American Journal of Sociology 105 2 : 406 - 54 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Ewick Patricia , Silbey Susan . 1998 . The Common Place of Law . Chicago : University of Chicago Press . Farley Lin. 1978 . Sexual Shakedown . New York : McGraw-Hill . Felstiner William L. F. , Abel Richard L. , Sarat Austin . 1980 . “The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming.” Law & Society Review 15 ( 3/4 ): 631 - 54 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Ferree Myra Marx , Hess Beth B. . 1995 . Controversy and Coalition . New York : Routledge . Fox John. 2008 . Applied Regression Analysis and General Linear Models. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Galanter Marc. 1974 . “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law & Society Review 9 1 : 95 - 160 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Gelbgiser Dafna. 2016 . “College for All, Degrees for Few: For-Profit Colleges and Socioeconomic Inequality.” Academy of Management Proceedings . Retrieved February 5, 2018 (doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2016.317). Gerber Theodore P. , Cheung Sin Yi . 2008 . “Horizontal Stratification in Postsecondary Education: Forms, Explanations, and Implications.” Annual Review of Sociology 34 : 299 - 318 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Goldin Claudia , Katz Lawrence F. , Kuziemko Ilyana . 2006 . “The Homecoming of American College Women: The Reversal of the College Gender Gap.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20 4 : 133 - 56 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hamilton Laura , Armstrong Elizabeth A. . 2009 . “Gendered Sexuality in Young Adulthood: Double Binds and Flawed Options.” Gender & Society 23 5 : 589 - 616 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hamilton Laura T. 2014 . “The Revised MRS: Gender Complementarity at College.” Gender & Society 28 2 : 236 - 64 . Hearn James C. , McLendon Michael K. . 2012 . “Governance Research: From Adolescence Toward Maturity.” Pp. 45 - 85 in The Organization of Higher Education , edited by Bastedo Michael N. . Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University Press . Hirsh C. Elizabeth. 2014 . “Beyond Treatment and Impact: A Context-Oriented Approach to Employment Discrimination.” American Behavioral Scientist 58 2 : 256 - 73 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hirsh C. Elizabeth , Kornrich Sabino . 2008 . “The Context of Discrimination: Workplace Conditions, Institutional Environments, and Sex and Race Discrimination Charges.” American Journal of Sociology 113 5 : 1394 - 432 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hirsh Elizabeth , Lyons Christopher J. . 2010 . “Perceiving Discrimination on the Job: Legal Consciousness, Workplace Context, and the Construction of Race Discrimination.” Law & Society Review 44 2 : 269 - 98 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hogshead-Makar Nancy , Zimbalist Andrew S. . 2007 . Equal Play: Title IX and Social Change . Philadelphia, PA : Temple University Press . Jacobs Jerry A. 1996 . “Gender Inequality and Higher Education.” Annual Review of Sociology 22 1 : 153 - 85 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Kaiser Cheryl R. , Major Brenda . 2006 . “A Social Psychological Perspective on Perceiving and Reporting Discrimination.” Law & Social Inquiry 31 4 : 801 - 30 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Kingkade Tyler. 2016 . “Federal Campus Rape Investigations Near 200, and Finally Get More Funding.” Huffington Post , January 5. Retrieved February 5, 2018 (www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/federal-funding-campus-rape-investigations_us_568af080e4b014efe0db5f76). Kitsuse John I. , Cicourel Aaron V. . 1963 . “A Note on the Uses of Official Statistics.” Social Problems 11 2 : 131 - 39 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Know Your IX . 2016 . “Comparing Your Legal Options.” Retrieved September 20, 2016. (http://knowyourix.org/i-want-to/change-my-school/comparing-your-legal-options/). Kritzer Herbert , Silbey Susan , eds. 2003 . In Litigation . Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press . Leicht Kevin T. 2008 . “Broken Down by Race and Gender? Sociological Explanations of New Sources of Earnings Inequality.” Annual Review of Sociology 34 1 : 237 - 55 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Levine Felice J. , Preston Elizabeth . 1970 . “Community Resource Orientation Among Low Income Groups.” Wisconsin Law Review 1970 1 : 80 - 113 . Lipset Seymour. 1971 . Rebellion in the University . New York : Little Brown . Loury Linda Datcher , Garman David . 1995 . “College Selectivity and Earnings.” Journal of Labor Economics 13 2 : 289 - 308 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Loss Christopher. 2012 . Between Citizens and the State . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Mango Kimberly. 1990 -1991. “Students versus Professors: Combatting Sexual Harassment Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.” Connecticuit Law Review 23 : 355 - 412 . Marsden Peter V. , Cook Cynthia L. , Kalleberg Arne L. . 1994 . “Organizational Structures: Coordination and Control.” American Behavioral Scientist 37 7 : 911 - 29 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS McCann Michael. 2009 . “Litigation and Legal Mobilization.” Pp. 522 - 40 in The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics , edited by Caldeira Gregory A. , Keleman R. Daniel , Whittington Keith E. . Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press . Merry Sally Engle. 1985 . “Concepts of Law and Justice Among Working-Class Americans: Ideology as Culture.” Legal Studies Forum 9 1 : 59 - 70 . Miller Richard E. , Sarat Austin . 1980 -1981. “Grievances, Claims, and Disputes: Assessing the Adversary Culture.” Law & Society Review 15 ( 3/4 ): 525 - 66 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Morrill Calvin , Tyson Karolyn , Edelman Lauren B. , Arum Richard . 2010 . “Legal Mobilization in Schools: The Paradox of Rights and Race Among Youth.” Law & Society Review 44 ( 3-4 ): 651 - 94 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Nielsen Laura Beth. 2004 . License to Harass . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Nielsen Laura Beth , Nelson Robert L. . 2005 . “Rights Realized? An Empirical Analysis of Employment Discrimination Litigation as a Claiming System.” Wisconsin Law Review 2 : 663 - 711 . Obama Barack. 2012 . “President Obama Reflects on the Impact of Title IX.” Newsweek , June 23. Retrieved February 11, 2018 (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/23/op-ed-president-obama-president-obama-reflects-impact-title-ix). Paxton Pamela , Kunovich Sheri , Hughes Melanie M. . 2007 . “Gender in Politics.” Annual Review of Sociology 33 1 : 263 - 84 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Pérez-Peña Richard. 2013 . “College Groups Connect to Fight Sexual Assault.” The New York Times , March 19. Retrieved February 11, 2018 (www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/education/activists-at-colleges-network-to-fight-sexual-assault.html). Ridgeway Cecilia L. 2011 . Framed by Gender . New York : Oxford University Press . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Rodríguez Germán. 2015 . “Models for Over-Dispersed Count Data.” Retrieved September 15, 2015 (http://data.princeton.edu/ wws509/notes/c2.pdf). Saul Stephanie , Taylor Kate . 2017 . “Betsy DeVos Reverses Obama-Era Policy on Campus Sexual Assault Investigations.” The New York Times , September 22. Retrieved February 11, 2018 (www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/us/devos-colleges-sex-assault.html). Shavit Yossi , Arum Richard , Gamoran Adam , eds. 2007 . Stratification in Higher Education . Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press . Silberman Matthew. 1985 . The Civil Justice Process . New York : Academic . Silbey Susan S. 2005 . “After Legal Consciousness.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1 1 : 323 - 68 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Soule Sarah A. 1997 . “The Student Divestment Movement in the United States and Tactical Diffusion: The Shantytown Protest.” Social Forces 75 3 : 855 - 82 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Suggs Welch. 2007 . A Place on the Team . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Thomas Sue. 1991 . “The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies.” The Journal of Politics 53 4 : 958 - 76 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Tyler Tom R. 2006 . Why People Obey the Law . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Uggen Christopher , Blackstone Amy . 2004 . “Sexual Harassment as a Gendered Expression of Power.” American Sociological Review 69 1 : 64 - 92 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 1999 . Serial Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1999. Retrieved August 4, 2015 (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/AnnRpt99/index.html). U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2003 . Serial Report to Congress for Fiscal Years 2001-2002. Retrieved August 4, 2015 (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/AnnRpt99/index.html). U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2006 . Dear Colleague Letter, January 25. Retrieved March 5, 2014 (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/sexhar-2006.html). U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2007 . Dear Colleague Letter, January 31. Retrieved March 5, 2014 (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/single-sex-20070131.html). U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2008 . Dear Colleague Letter, March 27. Retrieved March 5, 2014 (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/title-ix-2008-0327.pdf). U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2009 . Records Schedule, January 13. Retrieved March 5, 2014 (www2.ed.gov/notices/records-management/ed252-civilrightscasefiles.pdf). U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2010 . Dear Colleague Letter, April 20. Retrieved March 5, 2014 (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100420.pdf). U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2011 . Dear Colleague Letter, April 4. Retrieved March 5, 2014 (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html) U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2014 . Southern Methodist University Voluntary Resolution Agreement, November 16. Retrieved January 10, 2015 (www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/southern-methodist-university-agreement.pdf). U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2015a . Case Processing Manual. Retrieved March 5, 2015 (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocrcpm.pdf). U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2015b . Serial Report to Congress for Fiscal Years 2013-2014. Retrieved August 4, 2015 (www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/ocr/report-to-president-and-secretary-of-education-2013-14.pdf). Van Dyke Nella. 1998 . “Hotbeds of Activism: Locations of Student Protest.” Social Problems 45 2 : 205 - 20 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Volkwein J. Fredericks , Sweitzer Kyle V. . 2006 . “Institutional Prestige and Reputation Among Research Universities and Liberal Arts Colleges.” Research in Higher Education 47 2 : 129 - 48 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Wilson Robin. 2014 . “Why Colleges Are on the Hook for Sexual Assault.” Chronicle of Higher Education , June 6. Retrieved June 10, 2014 (www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Colleges-Are-on-the-Hook/146943). Xie Yu , Shauman Kimberlee . 2003 . Women in Science . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press . Xie Yu , Fang Michael , Shauman Kimberlee . 2015 . “STEM Education.” Annual Review of Sociology 41 1 : 331 - 57 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Zemans Frances Kahn. 1983 . “Legal Mobilization: The Neglected Role of the Law in the Political System.” American Political Science Review 77 3 : 690 - 703 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Social Problems Oxford University Press

The Mobilization of Title IX across U.S. Colleges and Universities, 1994-2014

Social Problems , Volume Advance Article – Mar 28, 2018

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/the-mobilization-of-title-ix-across-u-s-colleges-and-universities-1994-NR1qjbSzgr
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
ISSN
0037-7791
eISSN
1533-8533
D.O.I.
10.1093/socpro/spy005
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract Title IX has been widely recognized as a crucial step toward gender equality in America. Yet, it remains unclear how the law actually functions, particularly how it has been used in response to gender disparities in higher education. This article provides the first systematic analysis of how Title IX has been mobilized at the postsecondary level. Drawing on new data acquired through seven Freedom of Information Act requests, I analyze all resolved Title IX complaints filed with the Office for Civil Rights against four-year nonprofit colleges and universities from 1994 to 2014. I find that the mobilization of Title IX has changed both in frequency and in kind during this period. Filings started to rise after 2000 and exploded after 2009, while sexual harassment complaints nearly equaled academic and athletic filings for the first time in 2014. Private, more selective institutions as well as schools located in states with more women serving in state legislatures face a disproportionate number of complaints relative to enrollment, indicating the importance of institutional context to legal mobilization. gender, higher education, law and society, legal mobilization, sex discrimination, Title IX Title IX, the U.S. civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs, has been called one of the most significant steps toward gender equality in the last century (Ferree and Hess 1995). Yet, research on how the law has been used in response to perceived gender disparities in the academy is lacking. There are recent indications that the mobilization of Title IX—in the form of complaints filed against allegedly noncompliant colleges and universities with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the primary federal administrative agency responsible for implementing the law—has both increased dramatically and shifted from an emphasis on fostering gender equity in athletics to regulating sexual harassment and assault on campus (U.S. Department of Education 2011, 2015b). But there has been no comprehensive analysis of this shift, or of the law’s mobilization more generally, and therefore we have little sense of if and how it took place. How has Title IX been mobilized to combat gender inequalities in higher education? Is it deployed broadly or only to address some forms of sex discrimination in certain types of institutions? Is its use consistent or contradictory? This article provides the first systematic analysis of how Title IX has been mobilized at the postsecondary level over the last two decades. I draw from a new data set I constructed using information acquired through seven Freedom of Information Act requests filed over 18 months. The data include all resolved postsecondary Title IX complaints filed with OCR against allegedly noncompliant schools from 1994 to 2014. Using these data, I seek to rigorously map the phenomenon. First, by tracing changes in the number and kinds of complaints filed, I assess whether the law has been mobilized more often and around certain types of sex discrimination at different points in time. I then examine whether the mobilization of the law is institutionally uneven, for example, whether more complaints are filed against certain types of schools relative to enrollment. I find that over the last two decades the number of Title IX complaints filed against four-year nonprofit institutions skyrocketed in 1999 and again starting in 2013. Individual complainants engaged in mass filings on behalf of others are responsible for both spikes. Net of this effect, I find that the number of Title IX complaints has trended upward since 2000, exploding after 2009 and reaching a record high in 2014. Complaints citing discrimination in academics were the modal type of complaint filed for most of the last 20 years, until 2014 when sexual harassment, academics, and athletics complaints reached near parity. I also find that the mobilization of Title IX is institutionally uneven: relative to total enrollment, a disproportionate number of complaints are filed against private, more selective institutions as well as those located in states with high numbers of women serving in state legislatures. This research fills an important gap in the sociological literature and illuminates a pressing social transformation affecting campus life across America. I show how a powerful legal tool is employed in response to perceived gender inequality in higher education and illustrate the specific kinds of disparities that elicit legal mobilization, which is a first step toward understanding the law’s ability to reduce such disparities. These findings also contribute to the law and society literature by demonstrating that legal mobilization is uneven at the institutional level—not just at the individual or group level, as existing research has emphasized. Finally, this research has significant policy implications that can inform and improve the current national effort to recalibrate how Title IX is implemented in the academy, as evinced by the growing number of schools under federal investigation for allegedly violating the law and by recent changes to federal guidance specifying the terms of compliance. The article proceeds as follows. The first section provides crucial context with an overview of major policies and lawsuits that have shaped the law’s scope and, hence, its capacity for mobilization over the last 20 years. I then draw from the law and society literature to formulate an approach for analyzing Title IX complaints as a case of legal mobilization. After describing data collection and analysis procedures, I present results from my analysis of all resolved postsecondary Title IX complaints filed with OCR from 1994 to 2014. The article ends with a discussion of how this knowledge about Title IX’s mobilization can strengthen its ability to ameliorate gender inequality in the academy today. THE SCOPE OF TITLE IX Gender plays a critical role in higher education, contributing to both different and unequal academic experiences (Conger and Long 2010; DiPrete and Buchmann 2013; Goldin, Katz, and Kuziemko 2006), social experiences (Armstrong, England, and Fogarty 2012), and outcomes (Cotter, Hermsen, and Vanneman 2004; Leicht 2008). Research on academics demonstrates that, although women have outpaced men in college graduation rates since the early 1980s, they remain underrepresented in elite institutions (Bielby et al. 2014) and in STEM fields among others (Charles and Bradley 2002; Shavit, Arum, and Gamoran 2007; Xie and Shauman 2003). Scholarship examining social experiences emphasizes how regressive models of gender relations are reinforced in college through, for example, the Greek system (Armstrong and Hamilton 2013) and hookup culture (Hamilton and Armstrong 2009). And research on outcomes shows how gender biases reproduced in higher education contribute to the gender wage gap (Bobbit-Zeher 2007; Jacobs 1996), sex segregation of the professions (Cech et al. 2011; Correll 2001), and the durability of practices enforcing gender complementarity (Hamilton 2014). Title IX was enacted precisely to reduce such disparities, but how it fits into these important and well-trodden accounts of gender inequality in the academy is surprisingly unremarked.1 Passed in 1972, the law reads: “No 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 education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance” (20 U.S.C. [1681]). Title IX’s vast authority can be categorized into three domains: academics; sexual harassment, including sexual assault; and athletics. For instance, it demands schools offer equal opportunity in STEM programs to students of all genders, eliminate hostile environments created by sexual harassment, and provide comparable athletic facilities for men’s and women’s teams. Yet the law’s scope has always been and still remains contested, which necessarily affects how it can be mobilized. Below, I discuss how the law’s authority in these three key domains has shifted from 1994 to 2014 as a result of policy releases and lawsuits. 1994-2004 Since the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare first defined Title IX compliance requirements for intercollegiate athletics in 1975, they have been under constant debate. The mid-1990s were no exception. Partly in response to Cohen et al. v. Brown University, 101 F.3d 155 (1996), a case in which Brown undergraduate women charged the university with violating Title IX because it demoted the volleyball and gymnastics teams to club status, the House of Representatives again reconsidered the law’s “three-part test.” The test stipulates that a school can be compliant with the law’s athletic requirements by (1) providing athletic opportunities substantially proportionate to its population of men and women students, (2) demonstrating a history and continuing practice of expanding athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex, or (3) meeting the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex. Before the Court affirmed the three-part test in Cohen, OCR released its 1996 clarification letter on the test’s requirements to remind schools of their legal obligations. It released a similar reminder in 2003. Title IX’s coverage of sexual harassment was also contested during this decade. Although the courts first recognized sexual harassment as actionable discrimination under the law long before the 1990s (Alexander v. Yale University, 459 F.Supp. 1 [1977]), it was not until 1981 that OCR explicitly added sexual harassment to Title IX prohibitions (Mango 1990-1991:381) and not until 1997 that OCR distributed its first guidance document to schools outlining Title IX compliance requirements around the issue. Supreme Court case Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999) may have precipitated this release: Lashonda Davis sued the Monroe County school board under Title IX for insufficiently responding to repeated incidents of sexual harassment from an elementary school peer. The Court’s decision affirmed peer harassment as actionable discrimination under Title IX.2 It also established that a private right of action exists under the law for peer harassment but only when the defendant responds “with deliberate indifference to known acts of harassment” and the harassment is “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively barred the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit” (p. 633). Soon after Davis, OCR again reminded schools of their obligation under Title IX to address sexual harassment by releasing a revised version of the 1997 sexual harassment guidance in 2001. Simultaneously, the law was invoked in cases alleging discrimination in college admissions. One notable case is Johnson v. Board of Regents, 263 F.3d 1234 (2001) wherein three white female applicants to the University of Georgia sued the state under Title IX for being denied admission. The plaintiffs alleged that they had experienced reverse discrimination because of the school’s affirmative action policy. The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s ruling in favor of the defendants. Importantly, Johnson was part of a more widespread pushback against the use of affirmative action in college admissions occurring throughout the country during the 1990s and early 2000s (e.g., Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 [1996]; Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 [2003]; Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 444 [2003]). 2005-2014 Title IX continued to exhibit a broad scope of application into the twenty-first century, but contestation over the law’s coverage of athletics, academics, and, especially, sexual harassment persisted. The three-part test remained a focal point of the athletics debate, illustrated by the Office of Civil Rights release of several guidance documents again clarifying the test and defining athletic activities liable under Title IX (U.S. Department of Education 2007, 2008, 2010). Most notably, the 2010 letter announced that schools must use multiple indicators, not just a single survey measuring students’ interest in athletic participation, to demonstrate effective accommodation of athletic interests and abilities. The law’s coverage of discrimination in academics did, however, undergo significant change during this period in the form of an amendment to the regulation itself. The 2006 amendment introduced a new exception to Title IX’s prohibition of sex-segregated classes in elementary and secondary schools: a school could offer single-sex classes if they met the “particular, identified educational needs” of students or sought to improve students’ educational achievement (U.S. Department of Education 2007:2). Though the amendment does not apply to tertiary institutions, it demonstrates that discrimination in academics remained an active area of Title IX’s implementation throughout the 2000s. Perhaps the most prominent changes to the law’s application during this period concern sexual harassment. In 2006, OCR released its 2001 sexual harassment guidance for the third time with an accompanying letter emphasizing that sexual harassment is sex discrimination under Title IX (U.S. Department of Education 2006). It released a revised version again in 2008. Meanwhile, Jennings v. UNC-Chapel Hill, 482 F.3d 686 (2007) established employee-student verbal harassment of a sexual nature as actionable discrimination under the law. Soon afterwards in Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, 555 U.S. 246 (2009), the Supreme Court ruled that individuals who experience sex discrimination in school, particularly sexual harassment, can sue those schools under Title IX. Finally, in 2011, OCR released a Dear Colleague Letter outlining compliance requirements under Title IX vis-à-vis sexual assault, followed by a “Questions & Answers” clarification in 2014. The letter mandated the use of the preponderance of evidence standard in school disciplinary procedures for sexual harassment and assault, which means it must be “more likely than not” (as opposed to “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “clear and convincing”) that the alleged discrimination occurred for an individual to face disciplinary action. OCR also broadened the definition of actionable harassment to “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” from the Davis standard (U.S. Department of Education 2011:3). Three years later, President Obama established the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, illustrating that the issue of sexual harassment in schools had gained national prominence.3 Clearly, the capacity to mobilize Title IX in response to sexual harassment, discrimination in academics, and discrimination in athletics has shifted over the last two decades. Aside from key lawsuits and policy releases, however, it remains unclear how the law has been used to combat gender disparities in the academy, making it difficult to measure its ability to ameliorate the dynamics described above and, more generally, to foster social change. This article takes the initial step towards answering these questions by providing the first analysis of all resolved postsecondary Title IX complaints filed with OCR from 1994 to 2014. TITLE IX COMPLAINTS AS A CASE OF LEGAL MOBILIZATION Title IX complaints represent one form of legal mobilization, a focal point of law and society research since the 1960s and 1970s. Frances Kahn Zemans’s (1983) conceptualization of the term is useful and widely accepted (McCann 2009): “The law is … mobilized when a desire or want is translated into a demand as an assertion of rights” (p. 700). Legal mobilization is a kind of civic participation and public power that involves “the act of invoking legal norms to regulate behavior” (Zemans 1983:700). Filing a federal Title IX complaint is thus a form of legal mobilization because it is an assertion of rights, specifically the equal right to education, made to the Office for Civil Rights in response to what complainants perceive as a school’s failure to implement the law. This perception usually results from an injurious experience that is either personal or witnessed. While the specific demands of each complaint vary, they share an overarching demand for OCR to effect institutions’ compliance with the law and, hence, for institutional change. In cases where OCR investigates a school as the result of a complaint, the school must cooperate and ultimately enter into a resolution agreement; otherwise, OCR may ask the Department of Justice to seek in-court enforcement action.4 Most research on legal mobilization in the United States examines the conditions surrounding its occurrence, revealing how use of the legal system, though “quintessentially democratic” in theory, is uneven across society (Zemans 1983:693). One approach focuses on characteristics of the system that exacerbate inequalities in legal mobilization by, for example, privileging “repeat players” with greater resources (Galanter 1974; see also, Bumiller 1988; Felstiner, Abel, and Sarat 1980; Kritzer and Silbey 2003). Others emphasize individuals’ demographic characteristics, demonstrating that subsets of the population, such as older people and the highly educated, more often mobilize law (Bobo and Suh 2000; Kaiser and Major 2006; Uggen and Blackstone 2004). This research often intersects with the literature on legal consciousness, or how ordinary citizens experience and understand law (Ewick and Silbey 1998; Merry 1985; Nielsen and Nelson 2005). A series of early studies in this tradition established that legal awareness and competence vary across social classes (Carlin, Howard, and Messinger 1967; Curran 1977; Levine and Preston 1970), and more recent work expands on this claim by showing that the disadvantaged are more likely than privileged groups to perceive legally actionable behaviors but no more or even less likely to mobilize the law in response (Morrill et al. 2010; Nielsen 2004).5 The organizational conditions of legal mobilization, however, have received less attention, which is surprising given the central role organizations occupy in the legal environment as both regulated and regulators (Dobbin 2009; Edelman 1992; Edelman, Uggen, Erlanger 1999). An emergent literature assesses how institutional and organizational factors—such as firm size, demographic composition, control structures, minority management, and industrial sector—affect understandings of discriminatory behavior at work, the incidence of employment discrimination complaints, and complaint outcomes (Albiston 2005; Hirsh 2014; Hirsh and Kornrich 2008; Hirsh and Lyons 2010). I engage and extend this literature by analyzing institutional variation in the targets of Title IX complaints. I focus on four factors—control structure, institution type, political environment, and selectivity—but also include others identified in existing research as relevant. In the workplace, control structure refers to authority arrangements, namely the degree and style of supervisory oversight (Marsden, Cook, and Kalleberg 1994). This concept maps onto the higher education context as schools’ governance structures or whether they are public, private secular, or private religious. Public and private institutions may be held to different standards or subjected to different oversight based on state and federal government involvement in their administration, particularly as a source of funding (Bowen and Tobin 2015; Hearn and McLendon 2012; Loss 2012), which could contribute to variation in the number and kinds of complaints filed against them. Different types of institutions may have different norms and expectations surrounding gender equity in education, as is the case for equal opportunity in employment across industrial sectors (Charles and Grusky 2004). Large research universities, baccalaureate colleges, and special focus institutions, for example, may be differentially targeted based on such variation. Schools’ embeddedness in “rights-conscious environments,” specifically rights concerning gender equity, may also be key dimension of variation (Hirsh and Kornrich 2008:1405; see also, Edelman et al. 1999:420). Existing research shows that women’s presence in lawmaking bodies gives rise to increased political mobilization around gender issues (Boyle, Kim, and Longhofer 2015). Thus, I use the proportion of women’s representation in state legislatures as an indicator for the gender-political environments surrounding schools (Paxton, Kunovich, and Hughes 2007; Thomas 1991).6 Organizational selectivity or prestige is a factor not directly examined in the literature on legal mobilization but it has been identified as important in research examining other modes of mobilization, such as social movement activism (Bloom 1987; Lipset 1971; Soule 1997; Van Dyke 1998). Prestigious institutions may face more stringent standards of compliance given their position as focal actors in the field but they also may be targeted more frequently due to their visibility. I assess this possibility in the higher education context, though organizational prestige could operate similarly in corporate firms. In sum, this analysis of Title IX complaints contributes to an emerging literature on the organizational context of legal mobilization by assessing how filings vary across institutional settings. DATA AND METHODS Filing a Title IX Claim Understanding how to file a Title IX grievance is crucial to understanding what my data do and do not capture. The Department of Education, the courts, and schools implement the law. Hence, the aggrieved may lodge a complaint in any or all of these three settings and may do so in any order. Various factors influence the decision of where to file. Internal complaints typically incur the lowest transaction costs, have minimal or no time limits on when a complaint can be filed after an incident, and take less time to resolve. Though policies differ across institutions, usually only members of the school community can file internally. Local complaints generally, but not always, produce individual-level outcomes: in cases of peer harassment, for instance, the alleged perpetrator may be moved into another dormitory or class section. Lawsuits incur the highest transaction costs, have a statute of limitations ranging from one to six years depending on the state jurisdiction, and take the longest time to resolve. Only the affected person(s) can file suit against their university. Settlements can yield individual-, organization-, and society-level outcomes: the plaintiff may receive damages; the ruling may require a school to change how it implements Title IX locally; or, as in Supreme Court cases, the decision may affect the law’s application more broadly by redefining its scope. OCR complaints are a middle ground between internal grievances and lawsuits. Anyone can file a charge against an educational program. They incur no direct monetary costs but may take years to resolve and are also more formal than local internal complaints, which may deter those who want quick and private resolutions. Complainants must file within 180 days of the incident or request a wavier to this limit. OCR complaints are unique in that individual-level outcomes are usually subsidiary to organization- or society-level change: a resolution may require a school to modify its Title IX compliance procedures and encourage other schools to do the same. Although OCR can order schools to reimburse complainants for university-related expenses accrued as a result of discrimination, this is almost always part of a broader set of directives to bring the school into compliance (see, for example, OCR’s voluntary resolution agreement with Southern Methodist University in 2014 [U.S. Department of Education 2014]). Thus, those filing OCR complaints often seek some kind of larger, community-level change in Title IX’s application. Table 1 summarizes the differences between filing an internal grievance, OCR complaint, and lawsuit.7 Table 1. Ways to File a Title IX Claim Internal Grievance OCR Complaint Lawsuit Who can file Member of school Anyone Affected person Time limitations Varies by school 180 days or wavier 1-6 years by state Transaction costs Lowest Medium Highest Outcome Individual-level Individual-level Organization-level Organization-level Society-level Society-level Internal Grievance OCR Complaint Lawsuit Who can file Member of school Anyone Affected person Time limitations Varies by school 180 days or wavier 1-6 years by state Transaction costs Lowest Medium Highest Outcome Individual-level Individual-level Organization-level Organization-level Society-level Society-level Table 1. Ways to File a Title IX Claim Internal Grievance OCR Complaint Lawsuit Who can file Member of school Anyone Affected person Time limitations Varies by school 180 days or wavier 1-6 years by state Transaction costs Lowest Medium Highest Outcome Individual-level Individual-level Organization-level Organization-level Society-level Society-level Internal Grievance OCR Complaint Lawsuit Who can file Member of school Anyone Affected person Time limitations Varies by school 180 days or wavier 1-6 years by state Transaction costs Lowest Medium Highest Outcome Individual-level Individual-level Organization-level Organization-level Society-level Society-level Data Through seven Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted over 18 months, I acquired the list of all resolved postsecondary Title IX complaints filed with OCR from FY1994 to FY2014 (N = 10,225).8 To protect complainants, OCR does not typically release information about open complaints. OCR staff compiled the list by entering targeted queries into their internal database, which contains information dating back to October 1, 1993. All previous records were retired as part of the Department’s 20-year standard of retention for civil rights cases (U.S. Department of Education 2009). The database is updated when the status of a case changes. The data presented here were last updated on September 14, 2015. I replicated the FOIA request that produced this list as an additional check on its completeness. The list includes the following information for each complaint: the name and location of the school facing the complaint, dates of filing and resolution, and issue(s) allegedly violated under Title IX. It is structured by issue, as one complaint can allege violation of multiple issues. To analyze the complaint data, I merged them with school data provided through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). I limit this analysis to four-year, nonprofit, degree-granting schools that consistently appear in IPEDS from 1994 to 2013 (N = 1,955) and the population of Title IX complaints filed against them (N = 6,654). Lumping four-year, two-year, and for-profit programs into a single analysis, I believe, inhibits the development of meaningful conclusions about the mobilization of Title IX in any one of these contexts, especially given the varying demographic compositions across these school types (Gelbgiser 2016). Organizational characteristics, such as institution type and selectivity, are also conceptualized and often measured differently across these settings. Analyzing this diverse range of institutions together would therefore imply a level of comparability in both the measures and the institutions themselves that is not reflected in reality. Additionally, the problem of sex discrimination may look vastly different across these programs. Two-year and for-profit schools, for example, usually include more commuter students and often do not provide residential housing, which likely affects the kinds of sex discrimination occurring on campus (e.g., peer sexual violence may be less common). Focusing on a subset of schools also enables the development of targeted suggestions for policymakers about how to improve the implementation of Title IX, which is another goal of the article. Future research can take these results as a baseline for investigating Title IX complaints filed against two-year and for-profit institutions. Measures Dependent Variables As discussed above, Title IX’s expansive authority can be categorized into three broad domains linked to different ways the law has been mobilized: discrimination in athletics, sexual harassment, and discrimination in academics. I construct outcomes based on these different kinds of mobilization using OCR’s issue codebook, which lists 76 different types of discrimination actionable under Title IX. When a regional office receives a complaint, an OCR staff member categorizes the issue allegedly violated using the codebook (see Appendix A for a more detailed discussion of the OCR complaint process).9 I collapse the issue codes into four outcomes: there are 19 issues for discrimination in athletics, 5 for sexual harassment, 28 for discrimination in academics, and 24 for other types of discrimination (see Table A1 for the issue codebook and which issues I include in each outcome category). These outcomes allow me to assess changes in the counts of complaints filed over time as well as differences in the types of schools targeted in specific kinds of complaints. My dependent variables are thus complaint counts per school: the overall count, the count of complaints citing athletics issues, the count of complaints citing sexual harassment issues, the count of complaints citing academic issues, and the count of complaints citing other issues that do not fall into the former three categories. Complaints are counted more than once if they cite issues from more than one of the four outcome categories (e.g., one complaint citing athletics and sexual harassment issues is counted twice) but only once if they cite more than one issue within a single outcome category (e.g., one complaint citing two sexual harassment issues is counted once).10Figures 1a-1e display histograms of each dependent variable.11 Figures 1a-1e. View largeDownload slide Histograms of Title IX Complaint Counts Figures 1a-1e. View largeDownload slide Histograms of Title IX Complaint Counts Independent Variables I examine institutional variation in the targets of Title IX complaints across four dimensions: control structure, institution type, selectivity, and political environment. IPEDS includes a variable for institutional control—whether the school is public, private secular, or private religious—used as my measure for control structure. It also includes Carnegie Classification, used as my measure for institution type. I constructed a measure for selectivity using students’ SAT math and verbal scores at the 25th percentile from 2001 to 2013 (Bowen and Bok 1998; Dale and Krueger 2002; Loury and Garman 1995).12 I use the 25th rather than the 75th percentile because schools are likely more discriminating at the lower end of the distribution. I calculated a cumulative mean composite score for each school then used the distribution of scores to construct a categorical variable for selectivity. Finally, I use women’s representation in state legislatures as an indicator for the gender-political environments surrounding schools. I created this measure by calculating the cumulative mean percent of women state representatives for each state from 1994 to 2014 using data available through Rutgers University’s Center for American Women and Politics (2014). States in the upper quintile of the distribution are considered to have the highest levels of women’s representation, while states in the lower quintile are considered to have the lowest levels. For Washington, DC, I used data on city councilmembers (DC Board of Elections 2014).13 Control Variables Following existing research on the organizational conditions of legal mobilization, I adjust for demographic factors potentially related to Title IX complaint filings, specifically the cumulative mean percentage of women enrolled from 1994 to 2013 (sample median: 56.86 percent), and the cumulative mean percentage of black non-Hispanic (sample median: 5.25 percent), Hispanic (sample median: 2.76 percent), and Asian students (sample median: 1.88 percent) enrolled from 1994 to 2013, all of which derive from IPEDS variables. I also adjust for athletic conference membership, as member schools may see a disproportionate number of athletics complaints.14 Using IPEDS data, I constructed binary measures for conference membership from 1998, the earliest year available, to 2013 (1 if the school was ever a member of the conference during this period and 0 if it was never a member during this period). I include measures for the two largest conferences, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the National Intercollegiate Athletic Association (NAIA). These measures are not mutually exclusive. Finally, I adjust for OCR regional office to reduce potential bias in the classification of complaints.15 Analysis Plan The analysis proceeds in two stages. I first examine how the mobilization of Title IX, specifically in the form of complaints filed with OCR against schools, has changed both in number and in kind from 1994 to 2014. I show the overall count of complaints filed annually and then show counts by type of complaint. Next, I assess institutional variation in the targets of Title IX complaints, specifically by control structure, institutional type, political environment, and selectivity. Because the dependent variables are counts and exhibit overdispersion, I use negative binomial models to predict complaint counts by school characteristic (Fox 2008).16 I predict overall counts as well as counts for each of the four types of complaints to examine whether certain schools tend to face certain types of complaints. Following existing research on the mobilization of civil rights law, I use an exposure term in all models that takes into account variation in schools’ cumulative mean total enrollment (sample median: 2,055 students), as the number of charges made is partially a function of the size of the protected class (Edelman et al. 1999:425-6; Hirsh and Kornrich 2008:1412). Students typically form the largest portion of that class, as indicated by OCR Serial Reports and Dear Colleague Letters, nearly all of which published since the law’s passage focus on reducing discrimination against students. Though outsiders unaffiliated with schools may file complaints, one would expect schools with larger enrollments to face more complaints, as there are more students on whose behalf others may file. RESULTS Changes in the Number and Kinds of Title IX Complaints For the first time in the research literature, Figure 2a displays the number of resolved Title IX complaints filed annually from 1994 to 2014. The annual count hovers between 150 and 300 complaints with two exceptions: 1999, when it nearly quadruples to 526, and starting in 2013, when it reaches 1,379, climbing even higher to 1,446 in 2014. Figure 2a. View largeDownload slide Total Number of Postsecondary Title IX Complaints Filed, 1994-2014 Figure 2a. View largeDownload slide Total Number of Postsecondary Title IX Complaints Filed, 1994-2014 Figure 2b shows the number of resolved complaints filed annually citing athletics, sexual harassment, academics, or other issues. Figure 2b demonstrates that an increase in complaints citing academic issues, representing nearly 80 percent of the total filings for 1999, accounts for most of the spike. Sixty percent of the total filings for 1999 specifically cite discrimination in admissions (106.21). Figure 2b. View largeDownload slide Total Number of Postsecondary Title IX Complaints Filed by Issue Cited, 1994-2014 Figure 2b. View largeDownload slide Total Number of Postsecondary Title IX Complaints Filed by Issue Cited, 1994-2014 A sharp increase in athletics complaints accounts for the more recent spike, comprising 78 percent of the total filings in 2013 and 75 percent in 2014. Complaints citing one athletic issue, meeting the requirements of part three of the three-part test (106.41c1-3), represent 66 percent of the total filings for 2013. Complaints citing three athletic issues—interests and abilities (106.41c1), equal opportunity (106.41c), and meeting the requirements of part three of the three-part test (106.41c1-3)—represent 74 percent of the total filings in 2014. The large number of athletics complaints is surprising given the recent media attention to Title IX’s coverage of sexual harassment and assault (e.g., Wilson 2014), but OCR’s 2015 (U.S. Department of Education 2015b) serial report confirms this finding. Even more surprising is that many of the 2013 and 2014 complaints are filed on the same days: 76 percent on March 25 and 26, 2013; 66 percent on January 13, 2014. I interpreted these mass filings as possible indications of organizational action on behalf of individuals. To assess this possibility, I contacted legal advocacy organizations potentially responsible. An American Civil Liberties Union staff member mentioned Herb Dempsey, a septuagenarian and retired high school teacher in Washington State, who filed many athletics complaints against high schools in the 1990s. In our phone conversation, I asked Mr. Dempsey if he had information about the 1999 or 2013 spikes. He responded, “I may know something about 2013 and 2014.” Mr. Dempsey provided me with lists of postsecondary schools against which he and another individual filed complaints in 2013 (1,558 schools) and 2014 (1,545 schools). The broader effects of his mass filings aside, Mr. Dempsey feels he is acting on behalf of those protected under Title IX. The causes of the 1999 spike were more difficult to identify, in part because it occurred 16 years ago. One potential explanation is that it relates to the 1990s and early 2000s pushback against the use of affirmative action in college admissions. Targeted searches in the Chronicle of Higher Education and the U.S. Newspapers database in LexisNexis, however, did not yield additional information. I then requested a random sample of the original complaints filed in 1999. Most all of those citing discrimination in admissions had blank admissions applications attached and shared a similar coversheet with checkable boxes denoting whether the alleged discrimination concerned disability, ethnicity, or marital status. Further, OCR’s 1999 serial report states, “1,614 [complaints] were filed by an individual complainant,” which strongly indicates that what I term the “Herb effect”—a single or small group of individuals engaging in mass filings on behalf of others—also caused the 1999 spike. To better understand average trends in the law’s mobilization, I adjust for this effect in subsequent analyses by dropping many complaints comprising the 1999 and 2013 spikes (see Appendix B for details). The adjusted total of complaints is 4,260; the adjusted total of schools, 1,572.17 Without accounting for the Herb effect, our understanding of how Title IX has been mobilized would be distorted, suggesting that inequalities in athletics elicit the law’s mobilization more than any other form of gender inequality in the academy today. Adjusted Trends Figure 3a shows the adjusted number of complaints filed annually. There is some volatility in filings before 2000 but a general increase afterwards. The increase starts at a slower rate, accelerating through the mid-2000s and exploding after 2009. Figure 3b displays trends in the types of complaints filed. Figure 3a. View largeDownload slide Adjusted Number of Postsecondary Title IX Complaints Filed, 1994-2014 Figure 3a. View largeDownload slide Adjusted Number of Postsecondary Title IX Complaints Filed, 1994-2014 Figure 3b. View largeDownload slide Adjusted Number of Postsecondary Title IX Complaints Filed by Issue Cited, 1994-2014 Figure 3b. View largeDownload slide Adjusted Number of Postsecondary Title IX Complaints Filed by Issue Cited, 1994-2014 For most of the past 20 years, academics complaints are the modal type of complaint filed, while athletics complaints are least frequently filed. There is a substantial spike in athletics complaints in 1997, which may relate to the Cohen case; however, these counts remain low overall, which is unexpected considering popular conceptions of the law’s mobilization around women’s sports. The recent sharp increase in athletics complaints is likely due to a small number of Mr. Dempsey’s complaints that remain in the data. The number of sexual harassment complaints consistently falls below the count of academics complaints but above the count of athletics complaints, until 2014 when sexual harassment complaints nearly equal athletic and academic filings. This is perhaps unsurprising, given current national attention to the issue. However, sexual harassment complaints have been climbing since 2006, long before the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter and other top-down efforts.18 This indicates that the issue’s prominence resulted from bottom-up processes, such as movement activity or school-level compliance efforts, but also leaves open questions about why sexual harassment vis-à-vis Title IX has gained heightened attention now, as the law has been actively mobilized around the issue for many years. The Uneven Mobilization of Title IX Table 2 displays descriptive statistics comparing the percentage of complaints filed from 1994 to 2014 by school type and the cumulative mean percentage enrollment by school type. It indicates that mobilization of the law is uneven by control structure, institutional type, political environment, and selectivity but in different ways across complaint types. Table 2. Cumulative Mean Percentage Enrollment and Percentage of Title IX Complaints by School Characteristic Enrollment Percentage of Complaints (n) School Characteristic Percent (SD) All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Total 100.00 (.00) 100.00 (4,260) 100.00 (470) 100.00 (1,093) 100.00 (1,918) 100.00 (1,607) Institutional control  Public 69.96 (.43) 62.16 (2,648) 63.62 (299) 59.74 (653) 61.00 (1,170) 63.72 (1,024)  Private secular 17.10 (.39) 20.82 (887) 11.91 (56) 23.79 (260) 22.94 (440) 20.22 (325)  Private religious 12.92 (.09) 17.02 (725) 24.47 (115) 16.47 (180) 16.06 (308) 16.05 (258) Carnegie classification  Not in Carnegie universe .02 (.02) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .06 (1)  Associate's college .10 (.01) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .00 (0)  Research university I 29.29 (.45) 27.32 (1,164) 15.96 (75) 30.10 (329) 27.63 (530) 28.25 (454)  Research university II 17.48 (.14) 16.62 (708) 13.62 (64) 17.29 (189) 17.83 (342) 16.68 (268)  Doctoral research university 6.88 (.04) 6.48 (276) 5.11 (24) 6.68 (73) 7.19 (138) 5.97 (96)  Master's college and university 35.06 (.53) 33.78 (1,439) 45.74 (215) 31.20 (341) 31.96 (613) 32.36 (520)  Baccalaureate college 7.81 (.12) 10.16 (433) 18.94 (89) 9.88 (108) 8.08 (155) 11.57 (186)  Special focus institution 3.33 (.14) 5.56 (237) .64 (3) 4.85 (53) 7.14 (137) 5.10 (82)  Tribal school .03 (.00) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .00 (0) Selectivity  Extreme (95th percentile) 5.79 (.11) 7.91 (337) 4.04 (19) 10.25 (112) 7.56 (145) 9.15 (147)  High (90th percentile) 6.28 (.20) 6.34 (270) 3.62 (17) 8.23 (90) 5.89 (113) 6.41 (103)  Moderate (75th percentile) 20.47 (.33) 16.27 (693) 15.74 (74) 18.12 (198) 15.22 (292) 17.24 (277)  Low (50th percentile) 24.66 (.21) 24.20 (1,031) 22.34 (105) 22.51 (246) 26.96 (517) 22.46 (361)  Very low (< 50th percentile) 30.53 (.15) 32.70 (1,393) 45.74 (215) 29.28 (320) 30.71 (589) 32.23 (518)  Unknown 12.26 (.43) 12.58 (536) 8.51 (40) 11.62 (127) 13.66 (262) 12.51 (201) Women’s state leadership  Lowest 17.98 (.16) 17.91 (763) 30.21 (142) 14.09 (154) 17.47 (335) 19.04 (306)  Moderately low 18.11 (.28) 15.42 (657) 25.32 (119) 13.82 (151) 12.62 (242) 14.87 (239)  Moderate 29.61 (.19) 27.30 (1,163) 18.30 (86) 27.26 (298) 28.83 (553) 28.69 (461)  Moderately high 20.72 (.36) 23.92 (1,019) 16.17 (76) 28.73 (314) 24.09 (462) 22.65 (364)  Highest 12.47 (.15) 14.98 (638) 9.57 (45) 16.01 (175) 16.42 (315) 14.25 (229)  Unknown 1.11 (.04) .47 (20) .43 (2) .09 (1) .57 (11) .50 (8) OCR region  Boston 6.28 (.19) 6.01 (256) 3.40 (16) 7.32 (80) 6.00 (115) 6.41 (103)  NYC 11.75 (.14) 11.20 (477) 5.53 (26) 11.71 (128) 13.87 (266) 10.52 (169)  Philadelphia 9.03 (.06) 8.03 (342) 7.66 (36) 7.14 (78) 8.29 (159) 8.53 (137)  Atlanta 10.02 (.37) 9.44 (402) 11.70 (55) 6.40 (70) 10.48 (201) 11.14 (179)  Dallas 10.77 (.13) 10.54 (449) 28.72 (135) 8.05 (88) 6.31 (121) 10.14 (163)  Washington, DC 7.17 (.28) 8.99 (383) 8.30 (39) 9.79 (107) 8.29 (159) 9.21 (148)  Chicago 11.61 (.38) 12.09 (515) 9.36 (44) 13.91 (152) 11.99 (230) 11.82 (190)  Cleveland 8.03 (.22) 5.99 (255) 5.32 (25) 6.13 (67) 5.89 (113) 6.10 (98)  Kansas City 5.94 (.05) 6.06 (258) 4.26 (20) 5.03 (55) 6.10 (117) 6.41 (103)  Denver 5.50 (.10) 5.09 (217) 4.04 (19) 3.75 (41) 5.84 (112) 4.85 (78)  San Francisco 9.12 (.26) 10.07 (429) 7.66 (36) 13.54 (148) 9.65 (185) 8.15 (131)  Seattle 4.79 (.07) 6.50 (277) 4.04 (19) 7.23 (79) 7.30 (140) 6.72 (108) Conference membership  Ever NAIA 7.94 (.30) 10.21 (435) 18.72 (88) 9.15 (100) 8.50 (163) 9.83 (158)  Ever NCAA 88.29 (.50) 85.68 (3,650) 89.15 (419) 86.09 (941) 84.36 (1,618) 86.37 (1,388) Enrollment Percentage of Complaints (n) School Characteristic Percent (SD) All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Total 100.00 (.00) 100.00 (4,260) 100.00 (470) 100.00 (1,093) 100.00 (1,918) 100.00 (1,607) Institutional control  Public 69.96 (.43) 62.16 (2,648) 63.62 (299) 59.74 (653) 61.00 (1,170) 63.72 (1,024)  Private secular 17.10 (.39) 20.82 (887) 11.91 (56) 23.79 (260) 22.94 (440) 20.22 (325)  Private religious 12.92 (.09) 17.02 (725) 24.47 (115) 16.47 (180) 16.06 (308) 16.05 (258) Carnegie classification  Not in Carnegie universe .02 (.02) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .06 (1)  Associate's college .10 (.01) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .00 (0)  Research university I 29.29 (.45) 27.32 (1,164) 15.96 (75) 30.10 (329) 27.63 (530) 28.25 (454)  Research university II 17.48 (.14) 16.62 (708) 13.62 (64) 17.29 (189) 17.83 (342) 16.68 (268)  Doctoral research university 6.88 (.04) 6.48 (276) 5.11 (24) 6.68 (73) 7.19 (138) 5.97 (96)  Master's college and university 35.06 (.53) 33.78 (1,439) 45.74 (215) 31.20 (341) 31.96 (613) 32.36 (520)  Baccalaureate college 7.81 (.12) 10.16 (433) 18.94 (89) 9.88 (108) 8.08 (155) 11.57 (186)  Special focus institution 3.33 (.14) 5.56 (237) .64 (3) 4.85 (53) 7.14 (137) 5.10 (82)  Tribal school .03 (.00) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .00 (0) Selectivity  Extreme (95th percentile) 5.79 (.11) 7.91 (337) 4.04 (19) 10.25 (112) 7.56 (145) 9.15 (147)  High (90th percentile) 6.28 (.20) 6.34 (270) 3.62 (17) 8.23 (90) 5.89 (113) 6.41 (103)  Moderate (75th percentile) 20.47 (.33) 16.27 (693) 15.74 (74) 18.12 (198) 15.22 (292) 17.24 (277)  Low (50th percentile) 24.66 (.21) 24.20 (1,031) 22.34 (105) 22.51 (246) 26.96 (517) 22.46 (361)  Very low (< 50th percentile) 30.53 (.15) 32.70 (1,393) 45.74 (215) 29.28 (320) 30.71 (589) 32.23 (518)  Unknown 12.26 (.43) 12.58 (536) 8.51 (40) 11.62 (127) 13.66 (262) 12.51 (201) Women’s state leadership  Lowest 17.98 (.16) 17.91 (763) 30.21 (142) 14.09 (154) 17.47 (335) 19.04 (306)  Moderately low 18.11 (.28) 15.42 (657) 25.32 (119) 13.82 (151) 12.62 (242) 14.87 (239)  Moderate 29.61 (.19) 27.30 (1,163) 18.30 (86) 27.26 (298) 28.83 (553) 28.69 (461)  Moderately high 20.72 (.36) 23.92 (1,019) 16.17 (76) 28.73 (314) 24.09 (462) 22.65 (364)  Highest 12.47 (.15) 14.98 (638) 9.57 (45) 16.01 (175) 16.42 (315) 14.25 (229)  Unknown 1.11 (.04) .47 (20) .43 (2) .09 (1) .57 (11) .50 (8) OCR region  Boston 6.28 (.19) 6.01 (256) 3.40 (16) 7.32 (80) 6.00 (115) 6.41 (103)  NYC 11.75 (.14) 11.20 (477) 5.53 (26) 11.71 (128) 13.87 (266) 10.52 (169)  Philadelphia 9.03 (.06) 8.03 (342) 7.66 (36) 7.14 (78) 8.29 (159) 8.53 (137)  Atlanta 10.02 (.37) 9.44 (402) 11.70 (55) 6.40 (70) 10.48 (201) 11.14 (179)  Dallas 10.77 (.13) 10.54 (449) 28.72 (135) 8.05 (88) 6.31 (121) 10.14 (163)  Washington, DC 7.17 (.28) 8.99 (383) 8.30 (39) 9.79 (107) 8.29 (159) 9.21 (148)  Chicago 11.61 (.38) 12.09 (515) 9.36 (44) 13.91 (152) 11.99 (230) 11.82 (190)  Cleveland 8.03 (.22) 5.99 (255) 5.32 (25) 6.13 (67) 5.89 (113) 6.10 (98)  Kansas City 5.94 (.05) 6.06 (258) 4.26 (20) 5.03 (55) 6.10 (117) 6.41 (103)  Denver 5.50 (.10) 5.09 (217) 4.04 (19) 3.75 (41) 5.84 (112) 4.85 (78)  San Francisco 9.12 (.26) 10.07 (429) 7.66 (36) 13.54 (148) 9.65 (185) 8.15 (131)  Seattle 4.79 (.07) 6.50 (277) 4.04 (19) 7.23 (79) 7.30 (140) 6.72 (108) Conference membership  Ever NAIA 7.94 (.30) 10.21 (435) 18.72 (88) 9.15 (100) 8.50 (163) 9.83 (158)  Ever NCAA 88.29 (.50) 85.68 (3,650) 89.15 (419) 86.09 (941) 84.36 (1,618) 86.37 (1,388) Table 2. Cumulative Mean Percentage Enrollment and Percentage of Title IX Complaints by School Characteristic Enrollment Percentage of Complaints (n) School Characteristic Percent (SD) All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Total 100.00 (.00) 100.00 (4,260) 100.00 (470) 100.00 (1,093) 100.00 (1,918) 100.00 (1,607) Institutional control  Public 69.96 (.43) 62.16 (2,648) 63.62 (299) 59.74 (653) 61.00 (1,170) 63.72 (1,024)  Private secular 17.10 (.39) 20.82 (887) 11.91 (56) 23.79 (260) 22.94 (440) 20.22 (325)  Private religious 12.92 (.09) 17.02 (725) 24.47 (115) 16.47 (180) 16.06 (308) 16.05 (258) Carnegie classification  Not in Carnegie universe .02 (.02) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .06 (1)  Associate's college .10 (.01) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .00 (0)  Research university I 29.29 (.45) 27.32 (1,164) 15.96 (75) 30.10 (329) 27.63 (530) 28.25 (454)  Research university II 17.48 (.14) 16.62 (708) 13.62 (64) 17.29 (189) 17.83 (342) 16.68 (268)  Doctoral research university 6.88 (.04) 6.48 (276) 5.11 (24) 6.68 (73) 7.19 (138) 5.97 (96)  Master's college and university 35.06 (.53) 33.78 (1,439) 45.74 (215) 31.20 (341) 31.96 (613) 32.36 (520)  Baccalaureate college 7.81 (.12) 10.16 (433) 18.94 (89) 9.88 (108) 8.08 (155) 11.57 (186)  Special focus institution 3.33 (.14) 5.56 (237) .64 (3) 4.85 (53) 7.14 (137) 5.10 (82)  Tribal school .03 (.00) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .00 (0) Selectivity  Extreme (95th percentile) 5.79 (.11) 7.91 (337) 4.04 (19) 10.25 (112) 7.56 (145) 9.15 (147)  High (90th percentile) 6.28 (.20) 6.34 (270) 3.62 (17) 8.23 (90) 5.89 (113) 6.41 (103)  Moderate (75th percentile) 20.47 (.33) 16.27 (693) 15.74 (74) 18.12 (198) 15.22 (292) 17.24 (277)  Low (50th percentile) 24.66 (.21) 24.20 (1,031) 22.34 (105) 22.51 (246) 26.96 (517) 22.46 (361)  Very low (< 50th percentile) 30.53 (.15) 32.70 (1,393) 45.74 (215) 29.28 (320) 30.71 (589) 32.23 (518)  Unknown 12.26 (.43) 12.58 (536) 8.51 (40) 11.62 (127) 13.66 (262) 12.51 (201) Women’s state leadership  Lowest 17.98 (.16) 17.91 (763) 30.21 (142) 14.09 (154) 17.47 (335) 19.04 (306)  Moderately low 18.11 (.28) 15.42 (657) 25.32 (119) 13.82 (151) 12.62 (242) 14.87 (239)  Moderate 29.61 (.19) 27.30 (1,163) 18.30 (86) 27.26 (298) 28.83 (553) 28.69 (461)  Moderately high 20.72 (.36) 23.92 (1,019) 16.17 (76) 28.73 (314) 24.09 (462) 22.65 (364)  Highest 12.47 (.15) 14.98 (638) 9.57 (45) 16.01 (175) 16.42 (315) 14.25 (229)  Unknown 1.11 (.04) .47 (20) .43 (2) .09 (1) .57 (11) .50 (8) OCR region  Boston 6.28 (.19) 6.01 (256) 3.40 (16) 7.32 (80) 6.00 (115) 6.41 (103)  NYC 11.75 (.14) 11.20 (477) 5.53 (26) 11.71 (128) 13.87 (266) 10.52 (169)  Philadelphia 9.03 (.06) 8.03 (342) 7.66 (36) 7.14 (78) 8.29 (159) 8.53 (137)  Atlanta 10.02 (.37) 9.44 (402) 11.70 (55) 6.40 (70) 10.48 (201) 11.14 (179)  Dallas 10.77 (.13) 10.54 (449) 28.72 (135) 8.05 (88) 6.31 (121) 10.14 (163)  Washington, DC 7.17 (.28) 8.99 (383) 8.30 (39) 9.79 (107) 8.29 (159) 9.21 (148)  Chicago 11.61 (.38) 12.09 (515) 9.36 (44) 13.91 (152) 11.99 (230) 11.82 (190)  Cleveland 8.03 (.22) 5.99 (255) 5.32 (25) 6.13 (67) 5.89 (113) 6.10 (98)  Kansas City 5.94 (.05) 6.06 (258) 4.26 (20) 5.03 (55) 6.10 (117) 6.41 (103)  Denver 5.50 (.10) 5.09 (217) 4.04 (19) 3.75 (41) 5.84 (112) 4.85 (78)  San Francisco 9.12 (.26) 10.07 (429) 7.66 (36) 13.54 (148) 9.65 (185) 8.15 (131)  Seattle 4.79 (.07) 6.50 (277) 4.04 (19) 7.23 (79) 7.30 (140) 6.72 (108) Conference membership  Ever NAIA 7.94 (.30) 10.21 (435) 18.72 (88) 9.15 (100) 8.50 (163) 9.83 (158)  Ever NCAA 88.29 (.50) 85.68 (3,650) 89.15 (419) 86.09 (941) 84.36 (1,618) 86.37 (1,388) Enrollment Percentage of Complaints (n) School Characteristic Percent (SD) All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Total 100.00 (.00) 100.00 (4,260) 100.00 (470) 100.00 (1,093) 100.00 (1,918) 100.00 (1,607) Institutional control  Public 69.96 (.43) 62.16 (2,648) 63.62 (299) 59.74 (653) 61.00 (1,170) 63.72 (1,024)  Private secular 17.10 (.39) 20.82 (887) 11.91 (56) 23.79 (260) 22.94 (440) 20.22 (325)  Private religious 12.92 (.09) 17.02 (725) 24.47 (115) 16.47 (180) 16.06 (308) 16.05 (258) Carnegie classification  Not in Carnegie universe .02 (.02) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .06 (1)  Associate's college .10 (.01) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .00 (0)  Research university I 29.29 (.45) 27.32 (1,164) 15.96 (75) 30.10 (329) 27.63 (530) 28.25 (454)  Research university II 17.48 (.14) 16.62 (708) 13.62 (64) 17.29 (189) 17.83 (342) 16.68 (268)  Doctoral research university 6.88 (.04) 6.48 (276) 5.11 (24) 6.68 (73) 7.19 (138) 5.97 (96)  Master's college and university 35.06 (.53) 33.78 (1,439) 45.74 (215) 31.20 (341) 31.96 (613) 32.36 (520)  Baccalaureate college 7.81 (.12) 10.16 (433) 18.94 (89) 9.88 (108) 8.08 (155) 11.57 (186)  Special focus institution 3.33 (.14) 5.56 (237) .64 (3) 4.85 (53) 7.14 (137) 5.10 (82)  Tribal school .03 (.00) .02 (1) .00 (0) .00 (0) .05 (1) .00 (0) Selectivity  Extreme (95th percentile) 5.79 (.11) 7.91 (337) 4.04 (19) 10.25 (112) 7.56 (145) 9.15 (147)  High (90th percentile) 6.28 (.20) 6.34 (270) 3.62 (17) 8.23 (90) 5.89 (113) 6.41 (103)  Moderate (75th percentile) 20.47 (.33) 16.27 (693) 15.74 (74) 18.12 (198) 15.22 (292) 17.24 (277)  Low (50th percentile) 24.66 (.21) 24.20 (1,031) 22.34 (105) 22.51 (246) 26.96 (517) 22.46 (361)  Very low (< 50th percentile) 30.53 (.15) 32.70 (1,393) 45.74 (215) 29.28 (320) 30.71 (589) 32.23 (518)  Unknown 12.26 (.43) 12.58 (536) 8.51 (40) 11.62 (127) 13.66 (262) 12.51 (201) Women’s state leadership  Lowest 17.98 (.16) 17.91 (763) 30.21 (142) 14.09 (154) 17.47 (335) 19.04 (306)  Moderately low 18.11 (.28) 15.42 (657) 25.32 (119) 13.82 (151) 12.62 (242) 14.87 (239)  Moderate 29.61 (.19) 27.30 (1,163) 18.30 (86) 27.26 (298) 28.83 (553) 28.69 (461)  Moderately high 20.72 (.36) 23.92 (1,019) 16.17 (76) 28.73 (314) 24.09 (462) 22.65 (364)  Highest 12.47 (.15) 14.98 (638) 9.57 (45) 16.01 (175) 16.42 (315) 14.25 (229)  Unknown 1.11 (.04) .47 (20) .43 (2) .09 (1) .57 (11) .50 (8) OCR region  Boston 6.28 (.19) 6.01 (256) 3.40 (16) 7.32 (80) 6.00 (115) 6.41 (103)  NYC 11.75 (.14) 11.20 (477) 5.53 (26) 11.71 (128) 13.87 (266) 10.52 (169)  Philadelphia 9.03 (.06) 8.03 (342) 7.66 (36) 7.14 (78) 8.29 (159) 8.53 (137)  Atlanta 10.02 (.37) 9.44 (402) 11.70 (55) 6.40 (70) 10.48 (201) 11.14 (179)  Dallas 10.77 (.13) 10.54 (449) 28.72 (135) 8.05 (88) 6.31 (121) 10.14 (163)  Washington, DC 7.17 (.28) 8.99 (383) 8.30 (39) 9.79 (107) 8.29 (159) 9.21 (148)  Chicago 11.61 (.38) 12.09 (515) 9.36 (44) 13.91 (152) 11.99 (230) 11.82 (190)  Cleveland 8.03 (.22) 5.99 (255) 5.32 (25) 6.13 (67) 5.89 (113) 6.10 (98)  Kansas City 5.94 (.05) 6.06 (258) 4.26 (20) 5.03 (55) 6.10 (117) 6.41 (103)  Denver 5.50 (.10) 5.09 (217) 4.04 (19) 3.75 (41) 5.84 (112) 4.85 (78)  San Francisco 9.12 (.26) 10.07 (429) 7.66 (36) 13.54 (148) 9.65 (185) 8.15 (131)  Seattle 4.79 (.07) 6.50 (277) 4.04 (19) 7.23 (79) 7.30 (140) 6.72 (108) Conference membership  Ever NAIA 7.94 (.30) 10.21 (435) 18.72 (88) 9.15 (100) 8.50 (163) 9.83 (158)  Ever NCAA 88.29 (.50) 85.68 (3,650) 89.15 (419) 86.09 (941) 84.36 (1,618) 86.37 (1,388) A series of negative binomial models predicting complaint counts provide a more rigorous assessment of whether the mobilization of Title IX is institutionally uneven. I omit from the models schools in categories with fewer than 100 complaints overall because estimates for such sparsely populated subgroups would not be meaningful.19Table 3 displays the model estimates (see Appendix C, Table C1 for chi-square test statistics). Table 4 compares the observed and predicted mean counts of complaints by school characteristic. Predicted counts represent the mean count of complaints for a school in a given category holding all other variables at their mean and adjusting for exposure. Table 3. Negative Binomial Estimates Predicting Count of Title IX Complaints by School Characteristic All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Institutional control (ref. public)  Private secular .22** (.08) .05 (.20) .28* (.13) .32** (.10) .04 (.12)  Private religious .29*** (.07) .27† (.15) .29* (.12) .37*** (.09) .14 (.11) Carnegie classification (ref. R1)  Research university II .08 (.09) .20 (.24) .20† (.13) .12 (.11) .13 (.12)  Doctoral research university −.11 (.12) −.11 (.31) −.06 (.19) −.05 (.15) −.05 (.16)  Master's college and university −.03 (.09) .56* (.22) −.09 (.15) −.20† (.11) .03 (.14)  Baccalaureate college .23* (.10) 1.16*** (.24) .16 (.17) −.15 (.14) .50** (.14)  Special focus institution .56*** (.16) −.62 (.68) .34 (.26) .62** (.18) .63** (.24) Selectivity (ref. extreme)  High (90th percentile) −.30** (.12) −.39 (.41) −.24 (.19) −.16 (.16) −.58*** (.16)  Moderate (75th percentile) −.44*** (.11) −.33 (.34) −.49** (.18) −.28* (.14) −.66*** (.16)  Low (50th percentile) −.32** (.12) −.30 (.35) −.56** (.19) −.03 (.16) −.70*** (.17)  Very low (< 50th percentile) −.29* (.14) −.21 (.38) −.61** (.23) −.10 (.18) −.56** (.19)  Unknown −.40** (.15) −.51 (.42) −.74** (.24) −.20 (.19) −.66** (.21) Women’s state leadership (ref. highest)  Lowest −.28* (.11) .20 (.26) −.53** (.19) −.19 (.13) −.24* (.14)  Moderately low −.36** (.11) −.25 (.27) −.38* (.18) −.45*** (.13) −.44** (.15)  Moderate −.28* (.11) −.32 (.30) −.39* (.18) −.36** (.13) −.17 (.15)  Moderately high .05 (.11) .19 (.28) −.10 (.17) −.01 (.14) .16 (.15) Demographic controls  Cumulative mean % women students .01*** (.00) −.01* (.01) .01† (.00) .02*** (.00) .00 (.00)  Cumulative mean % black students .01*** (.00) .00 (.00) .01*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .00 (.00)  Cumulative mean % Hispanic students .00 (.00) −.00 (.00) −.00 (.00) .01 (.00) .00 (.01)  Cumulative mean % Asian students .01 (.00) −.05** (.02) .00 (.01) .01* (.01) .01 (.01) Constant −8.25*** (.21) −10.59*** (.53) −8.87*** (.37) −9.48*** (.28) −8.77*** (.31) N 1,529 1,529 1,529 1,529 1,529 All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Institutional control (ref. public)  Private secular .22** (.08) .05 (.20) .28* (.13) .32** (.10) .04 (.12)  Private religious .29*** (.07) .27† (.15) .29* (.12) .37*** (.09) .14 (.11) Carnegie classification (ref. R1)  Research university II .08 (.09) .20 (.24) .20† (.13) .12 (.11) .13 (.12)  Doctoral research university −.11 (.12) −.11 (.31) −.06 (.19) −.05 (.15) −.05 (.16)  Master's college and university −.03 (.09) .56* (.22) −.09 (.15) −.20† (.11) .03 (.14)  Baccalaureate college .23* (.10) 1.16*** (.24) .16 (.17) −.15 (.14) .50** (.14)  Special focus institution .56*** (.16) −.62 (.68) .34 (.26) .62** (.18) .63** (.24) Selectivity (ref. extreme)  High (90th percentile) −.30** (.12) −.39 (.41) −.24 (.19) −.16 (.16) −.58*** (.16)  Moderate (75th percentile) −.44*** (.11) −.33 (.34) −.49** (.18) −.28* (.14) −.66*** (.16)  Low (50th percentile) −.32** (.12) −.30 (.35) −.56** (.19) −.03 (.16) −.70*** (.17)  Very low (< 50th percentile) −.29* (.14) −.21 (.38) −.61** (.23) −.10 (.18) −.56** (.19)  Unknown −.40** (.15) −.51 (.42) −.74** (.24) −.20 (.19) −.66** (.21) Women’s state leadership (ref. highest)  Lowest −.28* (.11) .20 (.26) −.53** (.19) −.19 (.13) −.24* (.14)  Moderately low −.36** (.11) −.25 (.27) −.38* (.18) −.45*** (.13) −.44** (.15)  Moderate −.28* (.11) −.32 (.30) −.39* (.18) −.36** (.13) −.17 (.15)  Moderately high .05 (.11) .19 (.28) −.10 (.17) −.01 (.14) .16 (.15) Demographic controls  Cumulative mean % women students .01*** (.00) −.01* (.01) .01† (.00) .02*** (.00) .00 (.00)  Cumulative mean % black students .01*** (.00) .00 (.00) .01*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .00 (.00)  Cumulative mean % Hispanic students .00 (.00) −.00 (.00) −.00 (.00) .01 (.00) .00 (.01)  Cumulative mean % Asian students .01 (.00) −.05** (.02) .00 (.01) .01* (.01) .01 (.01) Constant −8.25*** (.21) −10.59*** (.53) −8.87*** (.37) −9.48*** (.28) −8.77*** (.31) N 1,529 1,529 1,529 1,529 1,529 Notes: All models use cumulative mean enrollment (logged) as an offset and adjust for OCR regional office, whether the school has ever been a member of the National Intercollegiate Athletic Association, and whether the school has ever been a member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Robust standard errors clustered by school are in parentheses. †p <.10 *p <.05 **p <.01 ***p <.001 (two-tailed tests) Table 3. Negative Binomial Estimates Predicting Count of Title IX Complaints by School Characteristic All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Institutional control (ref. public)  Private secular .22** (.08) .05 (.20) .28* (.13) .32** (.10) .04 (.12)  Private religious .29*** (.07) .27† (.15) .29* (.12) .37*** (.09) .14 (.11) Carnegie classification (ref. R1)  Research university II .08 (.09) .20 (.24) .20† (.13) .12 (.11) .13 (.12)  Doctoral research university −.11 (.12) −.11 (.31) −.06 (.19) −.05 (.15) −.05 (.16)  Master's college and university −.03 (.09) .56* (.22) −.09 (.15) −.20† (.11) .03 (.14)  Baccalaureate college .23* (.10) 1.16*** (.24) .16 (.17) −.15 (.14) .50** (.14)  Special focus institution .56*** (.16) −.62 (.68) .34 (.26) .62** (.18) .63** (.24) Selectivity (ref. extreme)  High (90th percentile) −.30** (.12) −.39 (.41) −.24 (.19) −.16 (.16) −.58*** (.16)  Moderate (75th percentile) −.44*** (.11) −.33 (.34) −.49** (.18) −.28* (.14) −.66*** (.16)  Low (50th percentile) −.32** (.12) −.30 (.35) −.56** (.19) −.03 (.16) −.70*** (.17)  Very low (< 50th percentile) −.29* (.14) −.21 (.38) −.61** (.23) −.10 (.18) −.56** (.19)  Unknown −.40** (.15) −.51 (.42) −.74** (.24) −.20 (.19) −.66** (.21) Women’s state leadership (ref. highest)  Lowest −.28* (.11) .20 (.26) −.53** (.19) −.19 (.13) −.24* (.14)  Moderately low −.36** (.11) −.25 (.27) −.38* (.18) −.45*** (.13) −.44** (.15)  Moderate −.28* (.11) −.32 (.30) −.39* (.18) −.36** (.13) −.17 (.15)  Moderately high .05 (.11) .19 (.28) −.10 (.17) −.01 (.14) .16 (.15) Demographic controls  Cumulative mean % women students .01*** (.00) −.01* (.01) .01† (.00) .02*** (.00) .00 (.00)  Cumulative mean % black students .01*** (.00) .00 (.00) .01*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .00 (.00)  Cumulative mean % Hispanic students .00 (.00) −.00 (.00) −.00 (.00) .01 (.00) .00 (.01)  Cumulative mean % Asian students .01 (.00) −.05** (.02) .00 (.01) .01* (.01) .01 (.01) Constant −8.25*** (.21) −10.59*** (.53) −8.87*** (.37) −9.48*** (.28) −8.77*** (.31) N 1,529 1,529 1,529 1,529 1,529 All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Institutional control (ref. public)  Private secular .22** (.08) .05 (.20) .28* (.13) .32** (.10) .04 (.12)  Private religious .29*** (.07) .27† (.15) .29* (.12) .37*** (.09) .14 (.11) Carnegie classification (ref. R1)  Research university II .08 (.09) .20 (.24) .20† (.13) .12 (.11) .13 (.12)  Doctoral research university −.11 (.12) −.11 (.31) −.06 (.19) −.05 (.15) −.05 (.16)  Master's college and university −.03 (.09) .56* (.22) −.09 (.15) −.20† (.11) .03 (.14)  Baccalaureate college .23* (.10) 1.16*** (.24) .16 (.17) −.15 (.14) .50** (.14)  Special focus institution .56*** (.16) −.62 (.68) .34 (.26) .62** (.18) .63** (.24) Selectivity (ref. extreme)  High (90th percentile) −.30** (.12) −.39 (.41) −.24 (.19) −.16 (.16) −.58*** (.16)  Moderate (75th percentile) −.44*** (.11) −.33 (.34) −.49** (.18) −.28* (.14) −.66*** (.16)  Low (50th percentile) −.32** (.12) −.30 (.35) −.56** (.19) −.03 (.16) −.70*** (.17)  Very low (< 50th percentile) −.29* (.14) −.21 (.38) −.61** (.23) −.10 (.18) −.56** (.19)  Unknown −.40** (.15) −.51 (.42) −.74** (.24) −.20 (.19) −.66** (.21) Women’s state leadership (ref. highest)  Lowest −.28* (.11) .20 (.26) −.53** (.19) −.19 (.13) −.24* (.14)  Moderately low −.36** (.11) −.25 (.27) −.38* (.18) −.45*** (.13) −.44** (.15)  Moderate −.28* (.11) −.32 (.30) −.39* (.18) −.36** (.13) −.17 (.15)  Moderately high .05 (.11) .19 (.28) −.10 (.17) −.01 (.14) .16 (.15) Demographic controls  Cumulative mean % women students .01*** (.00) −.01* (.01) .01† (.00) .02*** (.00) .00 (.00)  Cumulative mean % black students .01*** (.00) .00 (.00) .01*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .00 (.00)  Cumulative mean % Hispanic students .00 (.00) −.00 (.00) −.00 (.00) .01 (.00) .00 (.01)  Cumulative mean % Asian students .01 (.00) −.05** (.02) .00 (.01) .01* (.01) .01 (.01) Constant −8.25*** (.21) −10.59*** (.53) −8.87*** (.37) −9.48*** (.28) −8.77*** (.31) N 1,529 1,529 1,529 1,529 1,529 Notes: All models use cumulative mean enrollment (logged) as an offset and adjust for OCR regional office, whether the school has ever been a member of the National Intercollegiate Athletic Association, and whether the school has ever been a member of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Robust standard errors clustered by school are in parentheses. †p <.10 *p <.05 **p <.01 ***p <.001 (two-tailed tests) Table 4. Observed and Predicted Mean Counts of Title IX Complaints by School Characteristic All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Institutional control  Public 5.00 2.94 .56 .19 1.23 .67 2.21 1.16 1.93 1.23  Private secular 1.82 3.66 .11 .20 .53 .89 .90 1.59 .67 1.27  Private religious 1.31 3.92 .21 .25 .32 .90 .55 1.67 .46 1.42 Carnegie classification  Research university I 10.88 2.85 .70 .16 3.07 .72 4.95 1.33 4.24 .96  Research university II 7.45 3.07 .67 .17 1.99 .88 3.60 1.51 2.82 1.09  Doctoral research university 4.06 2.54 .35 .14 1.07 .68 2.03 1.27 1.41 .92  Master's college and university 2.94 2.76 .44 .28 .70 .66 1.25 1.10 1.06 .99  Baccalaureate college 1.20 3.59 .25 .52 .30 .85 .43 1.15 .52 1.58  Special focus institution .54 4.99 .01 .09 .12 1.02 .31 2.48 .19 1.81 Selectivity  Extreme (95th percentile) 6.48 4.88 .37 .29 2.15 1.47 2.79 1.67 2.83 2.40  High (90th percentile) 5.29 3.61 .33 .20 1.76 1.16 2.22 1.43 2.02 1.34  Moderate (75th percentile) 4.50 3.15 .48 .21 1.29 .91 1.90 1.26 1.80 1.24  Low (50th percentile) 3.95 3.56 .40 .22 .94 .84 1.98 1.61 1.38 1.20  Very low (< 50th percentile) 2.69 3.63 .42 .24 .62 .80 1.14 1.51 1.00 1.37  Unknown 1.00 3.27 .07 .18 .24 .70 .49 1.36 .38 1.24 Women’s state leadership  Lowest 2.51 3.16 .47 .27 .51 .65 1.10 1.49 1.01 1.18  Moderately low 2.77 2.91 .50 .17 .64 .75 1.02 1.15 1.01 .96  Moderate 2.48 3.17 .18 .16 .64 .74 1.18 1.26 .98 1.26  Moderately high 3.05 4.42 .23 .27 .94 .99 1.38 1.79 1.09 1.74  Highest 3.31 4.19 .23 .22 .91 1.10 1.63 1.81 1.19 1.49 Cumulative mean % women students  25th percentile 3.89 3.34 .31 .22 1.16 .79 1.68 1.34 1.62 1.28  75th percentile 2.48 3.73 .33 .19 .58 .86 1.17 1.65 .87 1.36 Cumulative mean % black students  25th percentile 2.60 3.26 .27 .20 .71 .73 1.17 1.33 .96 1.26  75th percentile 3.15 3.45 .22 .21 .78 .80 1.52 1.44 1.26 1.30 Cumulative mean % Hispanic students  25th percentile 2.04 3.45 .30 .21 .44 .81 .89 1.42 .83 1.29  75th percentile 3.06 3.49 .20 .21 .89 .81 1.50 1.46 1.12 1.31 Cumulative mean % Asian students  25th percentile 1.97 3.42 .37 .25 .42 .80 .77 1.38 .78 1.27  75th percentile 3.88 3.49 .28 .21 1.10 .82 1.84 1.46 1.35 1.31 All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Institutional control  Public 5.00 2.94 .56 .19 1.23 .67 2.21 1.16 1.93 1.23  Private secular 1.82 3.66 .11 .20 .53 .89 .90 1.59 .67 1.27  Private religious 1.31 3.92 .21 .25 .32 .90 .55 1.67 .46 1.42 Carnegie classification  Research university I 10.88 2.85 .70 .16 3.07 .72 4.95 1.33 4.24 .96  Research university II 7.45 3.07 .67 .17 1.99 .88 3.60 1.51 2.82 1.09  Doctoral research university 4.06 2.54 .35 .14 1.07 .68 2.03 1.27 1.41 .92  Master's college and university 2.94 2.76 .44 .28 .70 .66 1.25 1.10 1.06 .99  Baccalaureate college 1.20 3.59 .25 .52 .30 .85 .43 1.15 .52 1.58  Special focus institution .54 4.99 .01 .09 .12 1.02 .31 2.48 .19 1.81 Selectivity  Extreme (95th percentile) 6.48 4.88 .37 .29 2.15 1.47 2.79 1.67 2.83 2.40  High (90th percentile) 5.29 3.61 .33 .20 1.76 1.16 2.22 1.43 2.02 1.34  Moderate (75th percentile) 4.50 3.15 .48 .21 1.29 .91 1.90 1.26 1.80 1.24  Low (50th percentile) 3.95 3.56 .40 .22 .94 .84 1.98 1.61 1.38 1.20  Very low (< 50th percentile) 2.69 3.63 .42 .24 .62 .80 1.14 1.51 1.00 1.37  Unknown 1.00 3.27 .07 .18 .24 .70 .49 1.36 .38 1.24 Women’s state leadership  Lowest 2.51 3.16 .47 .27 .51 .65 1.10 1.49 1.01 1.18  Moderately low 2.77 2.91 .50 .17 .64 .75 1.02 1.15 1.01 .96  Moderate 2.48 3.17 .18 .16 .64 .74 1.18 1.26 .98 1.26  Moderately high 3.05 4.42 .23 .27 .94 .99 1.38 1.79 1.09 1.74  Highest 3.31 4.19 .23 .22 .91 1.10 1.63 1.81 1.19 1.49 Cumulative mean % women students  25th percentile 3.89 3.34 .31 .22 1.16 .79 1.68 1.34 1.62 1.28  75th percentile 2.48 3.73 .33 .19 .58 .86 1.17 1.65 .87 1.36 Cumulative mean % black students  25th percentile 2.60 3.26 .27 .20 .71 .73 1.17 1.33 .96 1.26  75th percentile 3.15 3.45 .22 .21 .78 .80 1.52 1.44 1.26 1.30 Cumulative mean % Hispanic students  25th percentile 2.04 3.45 .30 .21 .44 .81 .89 1.42 .83 1.29  75th percentile 3.06 3.49 .20 .21 .89 .81 1.50 1.46 1.12 1.31 Cumulative mean % Asian students  25th percentile 1.97 3.42 .37 .25 .42 .80 .77 1.38 .78 1.27  75th percentile 3.88 3.49 .28 .21 1.10 .82 1.84 1.46 1.35 1.31 Table 4. Observed and Predicted Mean Counts of Title IX Complaints by School Characteristic All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Institutional control  Public 5.00 2.94 .56 .19 1.23 .67 2.21 1.16 1.93 1.23  Private secular 1.82 3.66 .11 .20 .53 .89 .90 1.59 .67 1.27  Private religious 1.31 3.92 .21 .25 .32 .90 .55 1.67 .46 1.42 Carnegie classification  Research university I 10.88 2.85 .70 .16 3.07 .72 4.95 1.33 4.24 .96  Research university II 7.45 3.07 .67 .17 1.99 .88 3.60 1.51 2.82 1.09  Doctoral research university 4.06 2.54 .35 .14 1.07 .68 2.03 1.27 1.41 .92  Master's college and university 2.94 2.76 .44 .28 .70 .66 1.25 1.10 1.06 .99  Baccalaureate college 1.20 3.59 .25 .52 .30 .85 .43 1.15 .52 1.58  Special focus institution .54 4.99 .01 .09 .12 1.02 .31 2.48 .19 1.81 Selectivity  Extreme (95th percentile) 6.48 4.88 .37 .29 2.15 1.47 2.79 1.67 2.83 2.40  High (90th percentile) 5.29 3.61 .33 .20 1.76 1.16 2.22 1.43 2.02 1.34  Moderate (75th percentile) 4.50 3.15 .48 .21 1.29 .91 1.90 1.26 1.80 1.24  Low (50th percentile) 3.95 3.56 .40 .22 .94 .84 1.98 1.61 1.38 1.20  Very low (< 50th percentile) 2.69 3.63 .42 .24 .62 .80 1.14 1.51 1.00 1.37  Unknown 1.00 3.27 .07 .18 .24 .70 .49 1.36 .38 1.24 Women’s state leadership  Lowest 2.51 3.16 .47 .27 .51 .65 1.10 1.49 1.01 1.18  Moderately low 2.77 2.91 .50 .17 .64 .75 1.02 1.15 1.01 .96  Moderate 2.48 3.17 .18 .16 .64 .74 1.18 1.26 .98 1.26  Moderately high 3.05 4.42 .23 .27 .94 .99 1.38 1.79 1.09 1.74  Highest 3.31 4.19 .23 .22 .91 1.10 1.63 1.81 1.19 1.49 Cumulative mean % women students  25th percentile 3.89 3.34 .31 .22 1.16 .79 1.68 1.34 1.62 1.28  75th percentile 2.48 3.73 .33 .19 .58 .86 1.17 1.65 .87 1.36 Cumulative mean % black students  25th percentile 2.60 3.26 .27 .20 .71 .73 1.17 1.33 .96 1.26  75th percentile 3.15 3.45 .22 .21 .78 .80 1.52 1.44 1.26 1.30 Cumulative mean % Hispanic students  25th percentile 2.04 3.45 .30 .21 .44 .81 .89 1.42 .83 1.29  75th percentile 3.06 3.49 .20 .21 .89 .81 1.50 1.46 1.12 1.31 Cumulative mean % Asian students  25th percentile 1.97 3.42 .37 .25 .42 .80 .77 1.38 .78 1.27  75th percentile 3.88 3.49 .28 .21 1.10 .82 1.84 1.46 1.35 1.31 All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Institutional control  Public 5.00 2.94 .56 .19 1.23 .67 2.21 1.16 1.93 1.23  Private secular 1.82 3.66 .11 .20 .53 .89 .90 1.59 .67 1.27  Private religious 1.31 3.92 .21 .25 .32 .90 .55 1.67 .46 1.42 Carnegie classification  Research university I 10.88 2.85 .70 .16 3.07 .72 4.95 1.33 4.24 .96  Research university II 7.45 3.07 .67 .17 1.99 .88 3.60 1.51 2.82 1.09  Doctoral research university 4.06 2.54 .35 .14 1.07 .68 2.03 1.27 1.41 .92  Master's college and university 2.94 2.76 .44 .28 .70 .66 1.25 1.10 1.06 .99  Baccalaureate college 1.20 3.59 .25 .52 .30 .85 .43 1.15 .52 1.58  Special focus institution .54 4.99 .01 .09 .12 1.02 .31 2.48 .19 1.81 Selectivity  Extreme (95th percentile) 6.48 4.88 .37 .29 2.15 1.47 2.79 1.67 2.83 2.40  High (90th percentile) 5.29 3.61 .33 .20 1.76 1.16 2.22 1.43 2.02 1.34  Moderate (75th percentile) 4.50 3.15 .48 .21 1.29 .91 1.90 1.26 1.80 1.24  Low (50th percentile) 3.95 3.56 .40 .22 .94 .84 1.98 1.61 1.38 1.20  Very low (< 50th percentile) 2.69 3.63 .42 .24 .62 .80 1.14 1.51 1.00 1.37  Unknown 1.00 3.27 .07 .18 .24 .70 .49 1.36 .38 1.24 Women’s state leadership  Lowest 2.51 3.16 .47 .27 .51 .65 1.10 1.49 1.01 1.18  Moderately low 2.77 2.91 .50 .17 .64 .75 1.02 1.15 1.01 .96  Moderate 2.48 3.17 .18 .16 .64 .74 1.18 1.26 .98 1.26  Moderately high 3.05 4.42 .23 .27 .94 .99 1.38 1.79 1.09 1.74  Highest 3.31 4.19 .23 .22 .91 1.10 1.63 1.81 1.19 1.49 Cumulative mean % women students  25th percentile 3.89 3.34 .31 .22 1.16 .79 1.68 1.34 1.62 1.28  75th percentile 2.48 3.73 .33 .19 .58 .86 1.17 1.65 .87 1.36 Cumulative mean % black students  25th percentile 2.60 3.26 .27 .20 .71 .73 1.17 1.33 .96 1.26  75th percentile 3.15 3.45 .22 .21 .78 .80 1.52 1.44 1.26 1.30 Cumulative mean % Hispanic students  25th percentile 2.04 3.45 .30 .21 .44 .81 .89 1.42 .83 1.29  75th percentile 3.06 3.49 .20 .21 .89 .81 1.50 1.46 1.12 1.31 Cumulative mean % Asian students  25th percentile 1.97 3.42 .37 .25 .42 .80 .77 1.38 .78 1.27  75th percentile 3.88 3.49 .28 .21 1.10 .82 1.84 1.46 1.35 1.31 The model estimates and predicted counts provide additional evidence of the law’s uneven mobilization. First, they demonstrate variation by control structure. Private schools are associated with higher counts of Title IX complaints overall, despite the fact that public schools have larger enrollments and thus larger populations of individuals legally protected under Title IX. This holds across complaint types, with the exceptions of athletics complaints and complaints classified as other. Private religious schools’ association with higher counts is particularly interesting because these institutions can obtain exemptions from Title IX requirements inconsistent with religious beliefs, such as LGBTQI rights. Baccalaureate colleges and special focus institutions (e.g., theological seminaries, engineering schools, and art schools), compared to Research I universities, are associated with higher complaint counts overall, indicating that institutional type is another key organizational condition of legal mobilization. Additionally, baccalaureate colleges have the highest predicted counts of athletics complaints, whereas special focus institutions are associated with the highest count of academics and other complaints. Complaint counts also vary by schools’ selectivity or prestige. Extremely selective institutions are associated with higher numbers of complaints overall. School selectivity appears to have little to no effect on the count of athletics and academics complaints, but the most selective institutions have the highest predicted counts of sexual harassment and other complaints. The political environment in which schools are situated has an effect on the count of Title IX complaints they face. Institutions located in states with more women serving in the legislature have higher predicted counts of complaints overall. Women’s representation in state legislatures also has a fairly strong effect on the counts of sexual harassment, academics, and other complaints, where schools in states with moderately high as well as the highest representation have higher predicted counts. To summarize, this analysis indicates that the mobilization of Title IX is uneven across institutional settings. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The analysis presented above points to three primary conclusions. First, the mobilization of Title IX has increased substantially in the last 15 years. The number of Title IX complaints filed with OCR against four-year nonprofit colleges and universities began to trend upward in 2000. Filings skyrocketed after 2009, reaching a record high in 2014. This indicates that people are increasingly turning to both Title IX and the OCR complaint process as tools to address sex discrimination in higher education, which may point to a growing sense of enfranchisement among the beneficiaries of the law and their advocates, specifically recognition of the right to equal educational opportunity and an expectation that schools respect that right. The elaborated use of Title IX could also suggest a larger shift in legal consciousness around what constitutes actionable sex discrimination in higher education or, in other words, a broadening of public understandings of sex discrimination. Second, Title IX has been mobilized in response to different issues over time. Complaints citing discrimination in academics were the most common type filed for nearly all of the last 20 years; athletics complaints, the least commonly filed. Complaints citing sexual harassment started a general uptrend in 2006, proliferating at an even faster rate beginning in 2009, and approaching parity with athletics and academic filings by 2014. This provides additional evidence of a larger shift in legal consciousness: people are increasingly recognizing and claiming sexual harassment as actionable sex discrimination under Title IX. Sexual harassment is neither a new concept (Farley 1978) nor a new arena of legal mobilization under Title IX (Alexander v. Yale University, 459 F. Supp. 1 [1977]), but growing social movement activity around the issue of sexual assault on college campuses (Pérez-Peña 2013) may have contributed to the recent rapid rise in sexual harassment complaints (a 63 percent increase from 2013 to 2014). It is also possible that OCR’s broadening of the definition of actionable sexual harassment to “unwelcome conduct” facilitated the increase (U.S. Department of Education 2011). Third, the mobilization of Title IX is institutionally uneven relative to enrollment. More complaints are filed against private schools that are highly selective, as indicated by students’ SAT scores, and located in states with greater women’s representation in the legislature. Further, certain types of complaints are more often filed against certain types of institutions. Perhaps most interesting is that the most selective schools and schools in states with higher levels of women’s representation in the legislature face higher numbers of sexual harassment complaints. This indicates that the capacity and/or willingness to file a complaint against certain types of institutions varies. One explanation for this could be that some schools are less transparent about the rights Title IX affords, effectively disempowering the protected as well as others who may act on their behalf from filing complaints. It could also result from social structural factors, such as the demographic characteristics of potential mobilizers, which would resonate with existing research on legal mobilization showing that the privileged tend to use legal tools more than the disadvantaged. Future research can assess in greater depth how school demographic composition is associated with Title IX complaint filings by merging the complaint data with other data sources that provide detailed information about student characteristics and outcomes (e.g., the Educational Longitudinal Survey of 2002). This research contributes to at least two sociological literatures: gender inequality in higher education and law and society. It fills a surprising gap in both by offering the first systematic analysis of how Title IX has been mobilized at the postsecondary level over the past 20 years. Existing research on gender inequality in higher education primarily focuses on documenting its persistence and its effects on later life outcomes, which is crucial. This article instead shows how people employ a legal tool to take action in response to perceived inequality. It also develops our understanding of gender inequality in higher education by illustrating the specific kinds of inequalities that elicit legal mobilization. Gender inequality in the academy takes many forms, almost all of which Title IX prohibits but only some of which lead to legal action. The large number of academics complaints filed over the last 20 years indicates that curricular-based inequalities, in the eyes of complainants, have long been considered legitimate grievances under the law. The rapid rise of sexual harassment complaints indicates that this form of gender inequality in the academy is becoming an increasingly legitimate Title IX grievance. Equally important are the kinds of sex-based discrimination that have seen less mobilization, such as discrimination in athletic programs. The types of complaints that are and are not filed reveal something about how people recognize gendered experiences as discriminatory, which relates to the much larger question of how cultural beliefs about gender that perpetuate inequality (e.g., Ridgeway 2011) operate within the very institutions expected to ameliorate inequality. This article also contributes to the law and society literature. Most research on legal mobilization examines how features of the legal system or individuals’ characteristics explain the uneven mobilization of law across society. This analysis extends an emergent literature on the relationship between organizational context and legal mobilization by demonstrating institutional unevenness in the mobilization of Title IX across colleges and universities. Consistent with existing research I find support for control structures, institution type, and surrounding political environment as key dimensions of variation. Selectivity or prestige, a factor not yet examined in this literature, also received support. Its relevance as an organizational condition of legal mobilization should be assessed in other settings, such as corporate firms, as it may shed new light on why the law is mobilized unevenly across society. I cannot conclude that organizational characteristics caused the variation observed here, but the findings raise important questions about the mechanisms driving the uneven mobilization of Title IX across institutions. Finally, this article has significant policy implications. By showing that certain types of schools tend to face higher numbers of specific kinds of complaints, the analysis suggests that the problem of sex discrimination in higher education may look different in different institutional settings. Thus, it is important that top-down efforts to modify Title IX allow schools some autonomy to implement the law in ways that address the idiosyncrasies of local institutional cultures. Relatedly, the high numbers of complaints filed against private religious schools, relative to their comparatively low enrollments, may indicate that it is time to rethink the exemption process. With the increased mobilization of Title IX overall, it is also critical that OCR ensures procedural fairness. Under both Obama and Trump—although using different approaches—OCR has recently focused on expediting complaint processing (DeSantis 2017; Kingkade 2016). Yet as Tom Tyler (2006) has demonstrated in his work on legitimacy, fairness of procedure is far more important to the aggrieved than swiftness of resolution. Transparency around the complaint process is one aspect of procedural justice that can be strengthened, especially since the process is often lengthy. Despite these implications, it is critical to note the study’s limitations, many of which relate to broader issues concerning administrative data (Kitsuse and Cicourel 1963). These data do not measure the prevalence of sex discrimination in education or which schools are the worst offenders. Not every incidence results in an OCR complaint, and people may tend to file certain types of complaints with the Department of Education. This analysis does not capture the efficacy of OCR complaints in reducing discrimination; it remains unclear what schools did in response to receiving a complaint. Additionally, OCR does not release information about complainants. Who acts on behalf of the legally protected through the complaint process is a fascinating topic for future inquiry that would engage larger questions about agency relations, legal protections, and claims-making. Finally, I limited my analytical scope to Title IX as my aim was to map its mobilization but subsequent studies might consider laws working alongside Title IX, including Clery, VAWA, and FERPA. In a speech commemorating Title IX’s 40th anniversary, President Obama (2012) concisely summarized its importance: “From addressing inequality in math and science education to preventing sexual assault on campus to fairly funding athletic programs, Title IX ensures equality for our young people in every aspect of their education.” But until the principles of Title IX become culturally embedded norms, the law’s impact is largely conditional on its mobilization. How the law can and should be mobilized to address gender inequality in education remains contested. In September 2017, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos revoked Obama-era guidelines instructing schools how to address sexual misconduct under Title IX. This decision was prompted by concerns that the guidelines systematically disadvantaged the accused (Saul and Taylor 2017). Sexual harassment and assault survivors, activists, and advocates have responded, arguing that the guidelines in fact reaffirmed schools’ obligation to protect the rights of all parties involved in sexual misconduct cases (Brodsky and Bolger 2017). Secretary DeVos will soon draft new guidance specifying the terms of Title IX compliance. Whether schools will align with it or exercise their local authority and adhere to prior standards is an open question with major implications for the shape that “gender equality in education” will take in the future. The author wishes to thank Julia Adams, Rene Almeling, Emily Erikson, Lloyd Grieger, Marissa King, Vida Maralani, Michael Weaver, Christopher Wildeman, Tom Tyler, and the anonymous reviewers. Research for this article was supported by the National Science Foundation (SES-1539872) and the Horowitz Foundation for Social Policy. Footnotes 1 The three most recent articles in the Annual Review of Sociology on gender inequality in education do not mention the law (Buchmann, DiPrete, and McDaniel 2008; Gerber and Cheung 2008; Xie, Fang, and Shauman 2015). 2 Seamons v. Snow, 84 F.3d 1226, 1230, 1232-33 (1996) first confirmed Title IX’s coverage of peer harassment but denied relief. 3 See Brake (2010), Carpenter and Acosta (2005), Hogshead-Makar and Zimbalist (2007), and Suggs (2007) for more detail on the history of Title IX. 4 No complaints in my data reached this disposition. 5 An additional approach argues that the kinds of problems people face—debt, divorce, property disputes, etc.—influence whether they mobilize law more so than demographic characteristics (Miller and Sarat 1980–1981; Silberman 1985), but this is not the case for problems of discrimination (Silbey 2005). 6 This is an imperfect measure but one that has received support in existing research and works well for the cross-sectional analysis below. Other potential measures for local gender-political context, such as whether a school’s president is a woman, would require an event history approach allowing covariates to change over time. 7 KnowYourIX.org (2016) provides additional discussion of filing a lawsuit versus OCR complaint. 8 I conduct all analyses in fiscal years to align with OCR serial reports. 9 All complaints, even dismissed ones, are entered into OCR’s case management system. Correspondence that OCR does not consider a complaint, and therefore does not enter into its database, includes “oral allegations not reduced to writing, anonymous correspondence, courtesy copies of correspondence or a complaint filed with or otherwise submitted to another person or other entity, and inquiries that seek advice or information but do not seek action or intervention from the Department” (U.S. Department of Education 2015a:4). 10 Between 1994 and 2014, the mean number of issues cited per complaint ranges from 1.16 and 2 with a standard deviation of .21. 11 These figures are based on the 1,572 schools used in the analyses below. See the results section and Appendix B for more detail. 12 IPEDS does not have data on SAT scores before 2001. 13 The states in each category are as follows. Highest: AZ, MN, OR, VT, MD, NV, NH, CO, KS, WA, and DC. Moderately high: IL, ID, NM, ME, DE, CA, HI, MT, CT, and MA. Moderate: IA, FL, MI, NE, NC, WI, RI, NY, OH, and MO. Moderately low: GA, TX, AR, AK, NJ, UT, WY, WV, SD, and IN. Lowest: OK, VA, ND, PA, LA, AL, SC, TN, MS, and KY. 14 I also tested measures for the cumulative mean ratio of students to full-time faculty and the cumulative mean percentage of students receiving Pell Grants, which I chose not to include in the final models. IPEDS data on faculty counts do not include part-time faculty. Further, student-faculty ratio is somewhat redundant to measures of school size and selectivity (Volkwein and Sweitzer 2006). In IPEDS, information on Pell Grant recipients only dates back to 2007, and it is not available for 271 of the schools analyzed here. 15 Most states remained in the same regional office from 1994 to 2014, except South Carolina, Oklahoma, Iowa, North Dakota, and Montana (U.S. Department of Education 2003). I keep states in their current regional office for the statistical models. There are 19 schools with 112 complaints filed before and after 2003 in states that switched regional offices. 16 I also generated overdispersed Poisson estimates as a sensitivity check. The results are consistent and available upon request; however, the negative binomial model better captures the high variances of schools with many complaints (Rodríguez 2015). 17 I chose to exclude schools that only had Herb-effect complaints filed against them over this period because I did not want to count them has having zero complaints. I also excluded schools that had not been targeted in complaints but only through OCR-initiated compliance reviews and directed inquiries. Thus, all subsequent measures and analyses are based on the subset of 1,572 schools. For example, the measure for selectivity is based on the distribution of SAT scores among these schools rather than all 1,955 four-year nonprofit institutions. As a check, I ran the models with all schools and specified them as having zero complaints. Nearly all of the results are consistent. 18 More generally, the release of OCR guidance focusing on a specific type of discrimination does not consistently coincide with increases in those types of filings. For a comprehensive list of releases, see OCR’s Reading Room (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/readingroom.html; retrieved February 26, 2018). 19 Omitted schools include those not in the Carnegie universe (1 school, 1 complaint), associate’s colleges (6 schools, 1 complaint), tribal schools (2 schools, 1 complaint), and schools located in U.S. territories with different legislative structures (35 schools, 20 complaints). APPENDICES APPENDIX A. THE OCR COMPLAINT PROCESS When an individual or organization decides to file a complaint with the Department of Education, they begin by gathering the required information: the name and contact information of both the person discriminated against (if not themselves) and the institution or agency that engaged in the discrimination; a detailed narrative of the alleged discrimination, specifying names of those involved and any witnesses, and a description of what the complainant would like the school to do in response to the allegations. They must also disclose whether they attempted to resolve the allegations internally or through another federal agency. For a complete list of all required items, see OCR’s discrimination complaint form (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/complaintform.pdf; retrieved February 26, 2018). Complainants submit this information in writing to OCR, which, as of 2001, can be done electronically. Next the OCR regional office responsible for the allegedly noncompliant institution begins processing the complaint. There are 12 regional offices. OCR’s first step is to determine whether the information submitted constitutes a complaint. Oral allegations, anonymous complaints, statistical data alone, and advice-seeking inquiries are not considered complaints (U.S. Department of Education 2015:5). If the information submitted is sufficient, OCR then assigns the complaint a case number and creates a file in its case management system (CMS). The file includes the case open date, which corresponds to when OCR received the complaint or the nearest business day, and the issue(s) allegedly violated under Title IX, which an OCR staff member determines by coding the complainant’s description of the discrimination along one or several of the 76 issues under Title IX (see Table A1). OCR then evaluates allegations made in the complaint for dismissal, administrative closure, or investigation. Figure A1 displays how a complaint moves through OCR up to this point. For a more detailed discussion of resolution processes and investigation procedures, see the Case Processing Manual (U.S. Department of Education 2015). Table A1. OCR Issue Codebook for Title IX and Outcomes Code Description Outcomes 106.3 Remedial and affirmative action and self-evaluation (i.e., if a program engages in discriminatory behavior it will take steps to overcome the effects of such discrimination) Other 106.4 Assurance required (i.e., assurance to OCR that the program is eliminating discrimination and the effects of past discrimination) Other 106.5 Transfers of property Other 106.6 Effects of other requirements Other 106.7 Effect of employment opportunities Other 106.8a Designation of responsible employee (i.e., Title IX coordinator) Other 106.8b Grievance procedures Other 106.9 Dissemination of policy Other 106.12 Educational institutions controlled by religious organizations Other 106.13 Military and merchant marine educational institutions Other 106.14 Membership practices Other 106.15 Application of Title IX: Exceptions Other 106.17 Transition plans (i.e., from single sex to coeducational) Other 106.21 Admissions Academic 106.21b1 Specific—individuals Academic 106.21b2 Specific—disproportionate adverse effect Academic 106.21c1 Marital or parental status Academic 106.21c2 Pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Academic 106.21c3 Disabilities related to pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Academic 106.21c4 Pre-admission inquiry into marital status Academic 106.22 Preference in admission Academic 106.23 Recruitment Academic 106.31 Different treatment/denial of benefit Academic 106.31-1 Discipline Academic 106.31-2 Gifted and talented Academic 106.31-3 Grading Academic 106.31-4.1 Sexual harassment (insults, slurs, derogatory expressions, verbal intimidation) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.2 Sexual harassment (sexual violence) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.3 Sexual harassment (physical harassment or intimidation) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.4 Sexual harassment (gender stereotyping) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.5 Sexual harassment (other) Sexual harassment 106.31-5 Gender harassment (not of a sexual nature) Academic 106.31-6 Extracurricular activities (not athletics) Academic 106.31-7 STEM Academic 106.31-8 Career and technical education Academic 106.31-99 Different treatment (other) Academic 106.32 Housing Other 106.33 Comparable facilities Other 106.34 Access to course offerings Academic 106.34-1 Single sex Academic 106.34-2 Math/science Academic 106.35 Access to schools Academic 106.35-1 Single sex Academic 106.35-2 Math/science Academic 106.36 Counseling and tutoring Academic 106.37 Financial assistance/scholarships Academic 106.37a Financial assistance (non-athletic) Academic 106.37c Athletic financial assistance Athletics 106.38 Employment assistance to students Other 106.39 Health and insurance benefits and services Other 106.40a Marital or parental status Other 106.40b Pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Other 106.41a Athletics—general Athletics 106.41b Separate teams Athletics 106.41c Equal opportunity Athletics 106.41c1 Interests and abilities Athletics 106.41c1-1 Interests and abilities (part 1 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c1-2 Interests and abilities (part 2 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c1-3 Interests and abilities (part 3 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c2 Equipment and supplies Athletics 106.41c3 Scheduling of games and practice times Athletics 106.41c4 Travel and per diem Athletics 106.41c5 Coaching and tutoring Athletics 106.41c6 Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors Athletics 106.41c7 Provision of locker rooms and practice and competitive facilities Athletics 106.41c8 Medical training facilities and services Athletics 106.41c9 Housing and dining Athletics 106.41c10 Publicity Athletics 106.41c11 Recruitment Athletics 106.41c12 Support services Athletics 106.42 Textbooks and curricular material Academic 106.51 Employment Other 106.71 Procedures by reference to Part 100 (i.e., compliance review and investigation regulations) Other 106.71-1 Compliance information Other 106.71-2 Retaliation Other 106.999 Service issue not related to education Other Code Description Outcomes 106.3 Remedial and affirmative action and self-evaluation (i.e., if a program engages in discriminatory behavior it will take steps to overcome the effects of such discrimination) Other 106.4 Assurance required (i.e., assurance to OCR that the program is eliminating discrimination and the effects of past discrimination) Other 106.5 Transfers of property Other 106.6 Effects of other requirements Other 106.7 Effect of employment opportunities Other 106.8a Designation of responsible employee (i.e., Title IX coordinator) Other 106.8b Grievance procedures Other 106.9 Dissemination of policy Other 106.12 Educational institutions controlled by religious organizations Other 106.13 Military and merchant marine educational institutions Other 106.14 Membership practices Other 106.15 Application of Title IX: Exceptions Other 106.17 Transition plans (i.e., from single sex to coeducational) Other 106.21 Admissions Academic 106.21b1 Specific—individuals Academic 106.21b2 Specific—disproportionate adverse effect Academic 106.21c1 Marital or parental status Academic 106.21c2 Pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Academic 106.21c3 Disabilities related to pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Academic 106.21c4 Pre-admission inquiry into marital status Academic 106.22 Preference in admission Academic 106.23 Recruitment Academic 106.31 Different treatment/denial of benefit Academic 106.31-1 Discipline Academic 106.31-2 Gifted and talented Academic 106.31-3 Grading Academic 106.31-4.1 Sexual harassment (insults, slurs, derogatory expressions, verbal intimidation) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.2 Sexual harassment (sexual violence) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.3 Sexual harassment (physical harassment or intimidation) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.4 Sexual harassment (gender stereotyping) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.5 Sexual harassment (other) Sexual harassment 106.31-5 Gender harassment (not of a sexual nature) Academic 106.31-6 Extracurricular activities (not athletics) Academic 106.31-7 STEM Academic 106.31-8 Career and technical education Academic 106.31-99 Different treatment (other) Academic 106.32 Housing Other 106.33 Comparable facilities Other 106.34 Access to course offerings Academic 106.34-1 Single sex Academic 106.34-2 Math/science Academic 106.35 Access to schools Academic 106.35-1 Single sex Academic 106.35-2 Math/science Academic 106.36 Counseling and tutoring Academic 106.37 Financial assistance/scholarships Academic 106.37a Financial assistance (non-athletic) Academic 106.37c Athletic financial assistance Athletics 106.38 Employment assistance to students Other 106.39 Health and insurance benefits and services Other 106.40a Marital or parental status Other 106.40b Pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Other 106.41a Athletics—general Athletics 106.41b Separate teams Athletics 106.41c Equal opportunity Athletics 106.41c1 Interests and abilities Athletics 106.41c1-1 Interests and abilities (part 1 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c1-2 Interests and abilities (part 2 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c1-3 Interests and abilities (part 3 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c2 Equipment and supplies Athletics 106.41c3 Scheduling of games and practice times Athletics 106.41c4 Travel and per diem Athletics 106.41c5 Coaching and tutoring Athletics 106.41c6 Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors Athletics 106.41c7 Provision of locker rooms and practice and competitive facilities Athletics 106.41c8 Medical training facilities and services Athletics 106.41c9 Housing and dining Athletics 106.41c10 Publicity Athletics 106.41c11 Recruitment Athletics 106.41c12 Support services Athletics 106.42 Textbooks and curricular material Academic 106.51 Employment Other 106.71 Procedures by reference to Part 100 (i.e., compliance review and investigation regulations) Other 106.71-1 Compliance information Other 106.71-2 Retaliation Other 106.999 Service issue not related to education Other Note: Issue codes correspond to sections of the regulation that include detailed descriptions of each issue (accessible at www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-34cfr106.html; retrieved February 26, 2018). Table A1. OCR Issue Codebook for Title IX and Outcomes Code Description Outcomes 106.3 Remedial and affirmative action and self-evaluation (i.e., if a program engages in discriminatory behavior it will take steps to overcome the effects of such discrimination) Other 106.4 Assurance required (i.e., assurance to OCR that the program is eliminating discrimination and the effects of past discrimination) Other 106.5 Transfers of property Other 106.6 Effects of other requirements Other 106.7 Effect of employment opportunities Other 106.8a Designation of responsible employee (i.e., Title IX coordinator) Other 106.8b Grievance procedures Other 106.9 Dissemination of policy Other 106.12 Educational institutions controlled by religious organizations Other 106.13 Military and merchant marine educational institutions Other 106.14 Membership practices Other 106.15 Application of Title IX: Exceptions Other 106.17 Transition plans (i.e., from single sex to coeducational) Other 106.21 Admissions Academic 106.21b1 Specific—individuals Academic 106.21b2 Specific—disproportionate adverse effect Academic 106.21c1 Marital or parental status Academic 106.21c2 Pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Academic 106.21c3 Disabilities related to pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Academic 106.21c4 Pre-admission inquiry into marital status Academic 106.22 Preference in admission Academic 106.23 Recruitment Academic 106.31 Different treatment/denial of benefit Academic 106.31-1 Discipline Academic 106.31-2 Gifted and talented Academic 106.31-3 Grading Academic 106.31-4.1 Sexual harassment (insults, slurs, derogatory expressions, verbal intimidation) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.2 Sexual harassment (sexual violence) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.3 Sexual harassment (physical harassment or intimidation) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.4 Sexual harassment (gender stereotyping) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.5 Sexual harassment (other) Sexual harassment 106.31-5 Gender harassment (not of a sexual nature) Academic 106.31-6 Extracurricular activities (not athletics) Academic 106.31-7 STEM Academic 106.31-8 Career and technical education Academic 106.31-99 Different treatment (other) Academic 106.32 Housing Other 106.33 Comparable facilities Other 106.34 Access to course offerings Academic 106.34-1 Single sex Academic 106.34-2 Math/science Academic 106.35 Access to schools Academic 106.35-1 Single sex Academic 106.35-2 Math/science Academic 106.36 Counseling and tutoring Academic 106.37 Financial assistance/scholarships Academic 106.37a Financial assistance (non-athletic) Academic 106.37c Athletic financial assistance Athletics 106.38 Employment assistance to students Other 106.39 Health and insurance benefits and services Other 106.40a Marital or parental status Other 106.40b Pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Other 106.41a Athletics—general Athletics 106.41b Separate teams Athletics 106.41c Equal opportunity Athletics 106.41c1 Interests and abilities Athletics 106.41c1-1 Interests and abilities (part 1 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c1-2 Interests and abilities (part 2 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c1-3 Interests and abilities (part 3 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c2 Equipment and supplies Athletics 106.41c3 Scheduling of games and practice times Athletics 106.41c4 Travel and per diem Athletics 106.41c5 Coaching and tutoring Athletics 106.41c6 Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors Athletics 106.41c7 Provision of locker rooms and practice and competitive facilities Athletics 106.41c8 Medical training facilities and services Athletics 106.41c9 Housing and dining Athletics 106.41c10 Publicity Athletics 106.41c11 Recruitment Athletics 106.41c12 Support services Athletics 106.42 Textbooks and curricular material Academic 106.51 Employment Other 106.71 Procedures by reference to Part 100 (i.e., compliance review and investigation regulations) Other 106.71-1 Compliance information Other 106.71-2 Retaliation Other 106.999 Service issue not related to education Other Code Description Outcomes 106.3 Remedial and affirmative action and self-evaluation (i.e., if a program engages in discriminatory behavior it will take steps to overcome the effects of such discrimination) Other 106.4 Assurance required (i.e., assurance to OCR that the program is eliminating discrimination and the effects of past discrimination) Other 106.5 Transfers of property Other 106.6 Effects of other requirements Other 106.7 Effect of employment opportunities Other 106.8a Designation of responsible employee (i.e., Title IX coordinator) Other 106.8b Grievance procedures Other 106.9 Dissemination of policy Other 106.12 Educational institutions controlled by religious organizations Other 106.13 Military and merchant marine educational institutions Other 106.14 Membership practices Other 106.15 Application of Title IX: Exceptions Other 106.17 Transition plans (i.e., from single sex to coeducational) Other 106.21 Admissions Academic 106.21b1 Specific—individuals Academic 106.21b2 Specific—disproportionate adverse effect Academic 106.21c1 Marital or parental status Academic 106.21c2 Pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Academic 106.21c3 Disabilities related to pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Academic 106.21c4 Pre-admission inquiry into marital status Academic 106.22 Preference in admission Academic 106.23 Recruitment Academic 106.31 Different treatment/denial of benefit Academic 106.31-1 Discipline Academic 106.31-2 Gifted and talented Academic 106.31-3 Grading Academic 106.31-4.1 Sexual harassment (insults, slurs, derogatory expressions, verbal intimidation) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.2 Sexual harassment (sexual violence) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.3 Sexual harassment (physical harassment or intimidation) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.4 Sexual harassment (gender stereotyping) Sexual harassment 106.31-4.5 Sexual harassment (other) Sexual harassment 106.31-5 Gender harassment (not of a sexual nature) Academic 106.31-6 Extracurricular activities (not athletics) Academic 106.31-7 STEM Academic 106.31-8 Career and technical education Academic 106.31-99 Different treatment (other) Academic 106.32 Housing Other 106.33 Comparable facilities Other 106.34 Access to course offerings Academic 106.34-1 Single sex Academic 106.34-2 Math/science Academic 106.35 Access to schools Academic 106.35-1 Single sex Academic 106.35-2 Math/science Academic 106.36 Counseling and tutoring Academic 106.37 Financial assistance/scholarships Academic 106.37a Financial assistance (non-athletic) Academic 106.37c Athletic financial assistance Athletics 106.38 Employment assistance to students Other 106.39 Health and insurance benefits and services Other 106.40a Marital or parental status Other 106.40b Pregnancy, childbirth, or termination of pregnancy Other 106.41a Athletics—general Athletics 106.41b Separate teams Athletics 106.41c Equal opportunity Athletics 106.41c1 Interests and abilities Athletics 106.41c1-1 Interests and abilities (part 1 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c1-2 Interests and abilities (part 2 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c1-3 Interests and abilities (part 3 of the 3-part test) Athletics 106.41c2 Equipment and supplies Athletics 106.41c3 Scheduling of games and practice times Athletics 106.41c4 Travel and per diem Athletics 106.41c5 Coaching and tutoring Athletics 106.41c6 Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors Athletics 106.41c7 Provision of locker rooms and practice and competitive facilities Athletics 106.41c8 Medical training facilities and services Athletics 106.41c9 Housing and dining Athletics 106.41c10 Publicity Athletics 106.41c11 Recruitment Athletics 106.41c12 Support services Athletics 106.42 Textbooks and curricular material Academic 106.51 Employment Other 106.71 Procedures by reference to Part 100 (i.e., compliance review and investigation regulations) Other 106.71-1 Compliance information Other 106.71-2 Retaliation Other 106.999 Service issue not related to education Other Note: Issue codes correspond to sections of the regulation that include detailed descriptions of each issue (accessible at www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-34cfr106.html; retrieved February 26, 2018). Figure A1. View largeDownload slide How a Complaint Moves Through OCR Figure A1. View largeDownload slide How a Complaint Moves Through OCR APPENDIX B. ADJUSTING FOR THE HERB EFFECT I exclude 404 complaints filed in 1999 and 2000 only citing discrimination in admissions, which also drops 124 schools. This decision is based on the original complaint documents I analyzed. It is also based on the fact that from 1994 to 2012 (I exclude 2013 and 2014 here because they are anomalous) the annual percentage of complaints citing discrimination in admissions (106.21) ranges from 3 to 14 percent, with the exceptions of 1999 (60 percent) and 2000 (50 percent). Although there is not large spike in overall complaints in 2000, I expect the same mass filing effort of 1999 also produced the high percentage of admissions complaints in 2000. For the 2013 spike, I drop 1,990 complaints filed in 2013 and 2014 as well as 243 schools using the following criteria: (1) the complaint must be filed against a school listed in Mr. Dempsey’s 2013 or 2014 filings; (2) the complaint can only cite athletic issues; (3) the complaint must cite one of the three modal athletic issues for 2013 and 2014; and (4) the complaint must be filed on a mass filing date (i.e., March 25, 2013; March 26, 2013; January 13, 2014). The exclusion criteria used for both the 1999 and 2013 spikes may leave some spike-related complaints in the data set. I could have used stricter criteria, which would have also excluded non-spike complaints. For example, I could have excluded all complaints citing admissions issues (106.21) as opposed to just strict admissions complaints for the 1999 spike, which would have removed an additional 15 complaints from 1999 and 5 complaints from 2000. If I excluded all athletics complaints filed in 2013 and 2014 against the schools in Mr. Dempsey’s list, this would have removed an additional 18 complaints from 2013 and 131 from 2014. Because I did not want to make inappropriate exclusions, however, I used the more inclusive criteria. APPENDIX C. CHI-SQUARE TEST STATISTICS Table C1. Chi-Square Tests for Negative Binomial Estimates Predicting Count of Title IX Complaints by School Characteristic All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Private secular = private religious .80 1.10 .01 .25 .91 Carnegie classification 32.37*** 47.89*** 12.16* 37.85*** 26.83*** R2 = doctoral research u. 2.87† .21 2.16 1.44 1.26 R2 = doctoral research u. = master’s coll. 3.13 13.28** 5.52† 10.46** 1.32 R2 = doctoral research u. = bacc. coll. 10.82** 38.09*** 2.33 4.49 14.98*** Master’s coll. = bacc. coll. 13.47*** 15.01*** 3.33† .17 17.85*** Master’s coll. = special focus 18.67*** 3.37† 3.62† 29.20*** 8.08** R2 = doctoral research u. = special focus 18.34*** 1.04 3.54 12.83** 8.55* Selectivity 17.30** 3.30 10.67† 9.31† 21.29*** High = moderate = low = very low 3.70 .62 3.43 5.81 1.95 Women’s state leadership 15.80** 9.74* 8.90† 16.78** 12.24* All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Private secular = private religious .80 1.10 .01 .25 .91 Carnegie classification 32.37*** 47.89*** 12.16* 37.85*** 26.83*** R2 = doctoral research u. 2.87† .21 2.16 1.44 1.26 R2 = doctoral research u. = master’s coll. 3.13 13.28** 5.52† 10.46** 1.32 R2 = doctoral research u. = bacc. coll. 10.82** 38.09*** 2.33 4.49 14.98*** Master’s coll. = bacc. coll. 13.47*** 15.01*** 3.33† .17 17.85*** Master’s coll. = special focus 18.67*** 3.37† 3.62† 29.20*** 8.08** R2 = doctoral research u. = special focus 18.34*** 1.04 3.54 12.83** 8.55* Selectivity 17.30** 3.30 10.67† 9.31† 21.29*** High = moderate = low = very low 3.70 .62 3.43 5.81 1.95 Women’s state leadership 15.80** 9.74* 8.90† 16.78** 12.24* †p <.10 *p <.05 **p <.01 ***p <.001 (two-tailed tests) View Large Table C1. Chi-Square Tests for Negative Binomial Estimates Predicting Count of Title IX Complaints by School Characteristic All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Private secular = private religious .80 1.10 .01 .25 .91 Carnegie classification 32.37*** 47.89*** 12.16* 37.85*** 26.83*** R2 = doctoral research u. 2.87† .21 2.16 1.44 1.26 R2 = doctoral research u. = master’s coll. 3.13 13.28** 5.52† 10.46** 1.32 R2 = doctoral research u. = bacc. coll. 10.82** 38.09*** 2.33 4.49 14.98*** Master’s coll. = bacc. coll. 13.47*** 15.01*** 3.33† .17 17.85*** Master’s coll. = special focus 18.67*** 3.37† 3.62† 29.20*** 8.08** R2 = doctoral research u. = special focus 18.34*** 1.04 3.54 12.83** 8.55* Selectivity 17.30** 3.30 10.67† 9.31† 21.29*** High = moderate = low = very low 3.70 .62 3.43 5.81 1.95 Women’s state leadership 15.80** 9.74* 8.90† 16.78** 12.24* All Complaints Athletics Sexual Harassment Academics Other Private secular = private religious .80 1.10 .01 .25 .91 Carnegie classification 32.37*** 47.89*** 12.16* 37.85*** 26.83*** R2 = doctoral research u. 2.87† .21 2.16 1.44 1.26 R2 = doctoral research u. = master’s coll. 3.13 13.28** 5.52† 10.46** 1.32 R2 = doctoral research u. = bacc. coll. 10.82** 38.09*** 2.33 4.49 14.98*** Master’s coll. = bacc. coll. 13.47*** 15.01*** 3.33† .17 17.85*** Master’s coll. = special focus 18.67*** 3.37† 3.62† 29.20*** 8.08** R2 = doctoral research u. = special focus 18.34*** 1.04 3.54 12.83** 8.55* Selectivity 17.30** 3.30 10.67† 9.31† 21.29*** High = moderate = low = very low 3.70 .62 3.43 5.81 1.95 Women’s state leadership 15.80** 9.74* 8.90† 16.78** 12.24* †p <.10 *p <.05 **p <.01 ***p <.001 (two-tailed tests) View Large REFERENCES Albiston Catherine R. 2005 . “Bargaining in the Shadow of Social Institutions: Competing Discourses and Social Change in the Workplace Mobilization of Civil Rights.” Law & Society Review 39 1 : 11 - 47 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Armstrong Elizabeth A. , Hamilton Laura . 2013 . Paying for the Party . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Armstrong Elizabeth A. , England Paula , Fogarty Alison C. K. . 2012 . “Accounting for Women’s Orgasm and Sexual Enjoyment in College Hookups and Relationships.” American Sociological Review 77 3 : 435 - 62 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bielby Rob , Posselt Julie Renee , Jaquette Ozan , Bastedo Michael N. . 2014 . “Why Are Women Underrepresented in Elite Colleges and Universities? A Non-Linear Decomposition Analysis.” Research in Higher Education 55 8 : 735 - 60 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bloom Jack M. 1987 . Class, Race, and the Civil Rights Movement . Bloomington : Indiana University Press . Bobbitt-Zeher Donna. 2007 . “The Gender Income Gap and the Role of Education.” Sociology of Education 80 1 : 1 - 22 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bobo Lawrence D. , Suh Susan A. . 2000 . “Surveying Racial Discrimination: Analyses from a Multiethnic Labor Market.” Pp. 523 - 60 in Prismatic Metropolis , edited by Bobo Lawrence D. , Oliver Melvin L. , Johnson James H. Jr. , Valenzuela Abel Jr. New York : Russell Sage . Bowen William G. , Bok Derek . 1998 . The Shape of the River . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bowen William G. , Tobin Eugene M. . 2015 . Locus of Authority . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Boyle Elizabeth H. , Kim Minzee , Longhofer Wesley . 2015 . “Abortion Liberalization in World Society, 1960–2009.” American Journal of Sociology 121 3 : 882 - 913 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Brake Deborah L. 2010 . Getting in the Game. New York : New York University Press . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Brodksy Alexandra , Bolger Dana . 2017 . “Betsy DeVos's Title IX Interpretation is an Attack on Sexual Assault Survivors.” The Washington Post , September 8. Retrieved February 5, 2018 (www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/08/betsy-devoss-title-ix-interpretation-is-an-attack-on-sexual-assault-survivors/?utm_term=.f21a4d0f65a1). Buchmann Claudia , DiPrete Thomas A. , McDaniel Anne . 2008 . “Gender Inequalities in Education.” Annual Review of Sociology 34 : 319 - 37 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Bumiller Kristin. 1988 . The Civil Rights Society . Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University Press . Carlin Jerome E. , Howard Jan , Messinger Sheldon L. . 1967 . Civil Justice and the Poor . New York : Russel Sage . Carpenter Lisa Jean , Acosta R. Vivian . 2005 . Title IX . Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics . Cech Erin , Rubineau Brian , Silbey Susan , Seron Caroll . 2011 . “Professional Role Confidence and Gendered Persistence in Engineering.” American Sociological Review 76 5 : 641 - 66 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Center for American Women in Politics . 2014 . “Fact Sheet Archive on Women in State Legislatures.” Retrieved August 10, 2015 (www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/resources/FactSheetArchive.php#stateleg). Charles Maria , Grusky David . 2004 . Occupational Ghettos . Palo Alto, CA : Stanford University Press . Charles Maria , Bradley Karen . 2002 . “Equal but Separate? A Cross-National Study of Sex Segregation in Higher Education.” American Sociological Review 67 4 : 573 - 99 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Conger Dylan , Long Mark C. . 2010 . “Why Are Men Falling Behind? Gender Gaps in College Performance and Persistence.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 627 1 : 184 - 214 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Correll Shelley J. 2001 . “Gender and the Career Choice Process: The Role of Biased Self-Assessments.” American Journal of Sociology 106 6 : 1691 - 730 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Cotter David A. , Hermsen Joan M. , Vanneman Reeve . 2004 . Gender Inequality at Work . New York : Russell Sage . Curran Barbara A. 1977 . The Legal Needs of the Public. Chicago : American Bar Foundation . Dale Stacy Berg , Krueger Alan B. . 2002 . “Estimating the Payoff to Attending a More Selective College: An Application of Selection on Observables and Unobservables.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 117 : 1491 - 528 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS DeSantis Nick. 2017 . “Federal Sexual-Assault Investigations Are Being Resolved More Often. These 11 Cases Show How.” Chronicle of Higher Education , August 3. Retrieved February 5, 2018 (www.chronicle.com/article/Federal-Sex-Assault/240848). DiPrete Thomas A. , Buchmann Claudia . 2013 . The Rise of Women. New York : Russell Sage . District of Columbia (DC) Board of Elections . 2014 . “Historic Elected Officials in DC.” Retrieved August 10, 2015 (www.dcboee.org/candidate_info/historic_officials/history.asp). Dobbin Frank. 2009 . Inventing Equal Opportunity . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Edelman Lauren B. 1992 . “Legal Ambiguity and Symbolic Structures: Organizational Mediation of Civil Rights Law.” American Journal of Sociology 97 6 : 1531 - 76 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Edelman Lauren B. , Uggen Christopher , Erlanger Howard S. . 1999 . “The Endogeneity of Legal Regulation: Grievance Procedures as Rational Myth.” American Journal of Sociology 105 2 : 406 - 54 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Ewick Patricia , Silbey Susan . 1998 . The Common Place of Law . Chicago : University of Chicago Press . Farley Lin. 1978 . Sexual Shakedown . New York : McGraw-Hill . Felstiner William L. F. , Abel Richard L. , Sarat Austin . 1980 . “The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming.” Law & Society Review 15 ( 3/4 ): 631 - 54 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Ferree Myra Marx , Hess Beth B. . 1995 . Controversy and Coalition . New York : Routledge . Fox John. 2008 . Applied Regression Analysis and General Linear Models. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Galanter Marc. 1974 . “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law & Society Review 9 1 : 95 - 160 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Gelbgiser Dafna. 2016 . “College for All, Degrees for Few: For-Profit Colleges and Socioeconomic Inequality.” Academy of Management Proceedings . Retrieved February 5, 2018 (doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2016.317). Gerber Theodore P. , Cheung Sin Yi . 2008 . “Horizontal Stratification in Postsecondary Education: Forms, Explanations, and Implications.” Annual Review of Sociology 34 : 299 - 318 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Goldin Claudia , Katz Lawrence F. , Kuziemko Ilyana . 2006 . “The Homecoming of American College Women: The Reversal of the College Gender Gap.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20 4 : 133 - 56 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hamilton Laura , Armstrong Elizabeth A. . 2009 . “Gendered Sexuality in Young Adulthood: Double Binds and Flawed Options.” Gender & Society 23 5 : 589 - 616 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hamilton Laura T. 2014 . “The Revised MRS: Gender Complementarity at College.” Gender & Society 28 2 : 236 - 64 . Hearn James C. , McLendon Michael K. . 2012 . “Governance Research: From Adolescence Toward Maturity.” Pp. 45 - 85 in The Organization of Higher Education , edited by Bastedo Michael N. . Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University Press . Hirsh C. Elizabeth. 2014 . “Beyond Treatment and Impact: A Context-Oriented Approach to Employment Discrimination.” American Behavioral Scientist 58 2 : 256 - 73 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hirsh C. Elizabeth , Kornrich Sabino . 2008 . “The Context of Discrimination: Workplace Conditions, Institutional Environments, and Sex and Race Discrimination Charges.” American Journal of Sociology 113 5 : 1394 - 432 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hirsh Elizabeth , Lyons Christopher J. . 2010 . “Perceiving Discrimination on the Job: Legal Consciousness, Workplace Context, and the Construction of Race Discrimination.” Law & Society Review 44 2 : 269 - 98 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Hogshead-Makar Nancy , Zimbalist Andrew S. . 2007 . Equal Play: Title IX and Social Change . Philadelphia, PA : Temple University Press . Jacobs Jerry A. 1996 . “Gender Inequality and Higher Education.” Annual Review of Sociology 22 1 : 153 - 85 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Kaiser Cheryl R. , Major Brenda . 2006 . “A Social Psychological Perspective on Perceiving and Reporting Discrimination.” Law & Social Inquiry 31 4 : 801 - 30 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Kingkade Tyler. 2016 . “Federal Campus Rape Investigations Near 200, and Finally Get More Funding.” Huffington Post , January 5. Retrieved February 5, 2018 (www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/federal-funding-campus-rape-investigations_us_568af080e4b014efe0db5f76). Kitsuse John I. , Cicourel Aaron V. . 1963 . “A Note on the Uses of Official Statistics.” Social Problems 11 2 : 131 - 39 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Know Your IX . 2016 . “Comparing Your Legal Options.” Retrieved September 20, 2016. (http://knowyourix.org/i-want-to/change-my-school/comparing-your-legal-options/). Kritzer Herbert , Silbey Susan , eds. 2003 . In Litigation . Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press . Leicht Kevin T. 2008 . “Broken Down by Race and Gender? Sociological Explanations of New Sources of Earnings Inequality.” Annual Review of Sociology 34 1 : 237 - 55 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Levine Felice J. , Preston Elizabeth . 1970 . “Community Resource Orientation Among Low Income Groups.” Wisconsin Law Review 1970 1 : 80 - 113 . Lipset Seymour. 1971 . Rebellion in the University . New York : Little Brown . Loury Linda Datcher , Garman David . 1995 . “College Selectivity and Earnings.” Journal of Labor Economics 13 2 : 289 - 308 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Loss Christopher. 2012 . Between Citizens and the State . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Mango Kimberly. 1990 -1991. “Students versus Professors: Combatting Sexual Harassment Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.” Connecticuit Law Review 23 : 355 - 412 . Marsden Peter V. , Cook Cynthia L. , Kalleberg Arne L. . 1994 . “Organizational Structures: Coordination and Control.” American Behavioral Scientist 37 7 : 911 - 29 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS McCann Michael. 2009 . “Litigation and Legal Mobilization.” Pp. 522 - 40 in The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics , edited by Caldeira Gregory A. , Keleman R. Daniel , Whittington Keith E. . Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press . Merry Sally Engle. 1985 . “Concepts of Law and Justice Among Working-Class Americans: Ideology as Culture.” Legal Studies Forum 9 1 : 59 - 70 . Miller Richard E. , Sarat Austin . 1980 -1981. “Grievances, Claims, and Disputes: Assessing the Adversary Culture.” Law & Society Review 15 ( 3/4 ): 525 - 66 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Morrill Calvin , Tyson Karolyn , Edelman Lauren B. , Arum Richard . 2010 . “Legal Mobilization in Schools: The Paradox of Rights and Race Among Youth.” Law & Society Review 44 ( 3-4 ): 651 - 94 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Nielsen Laura Beth. 2004 . License to Harass . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Nielsen Laura Beth , Nelson Robert L. . 2005 . “Rights Realized? An Empirical Analysis of Employment Discrimination Litigation as a Claiming System.” Wisconsin Law Review 2 : 663 - 711 . Obama Barack. 2012 . “President Obama Reflects on the Impact of Title IX.” Newsweek , June 23. Retrieved February 11, 2018 (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/23/op-ed-president-obama-president-obama-reflects-impact-title-ix). Paxton Pamela , Kunovich Sheri , Hughes Melanie M. . 2007 . “Gender in Politics.” Annual Review of Sociology 33 1 : 263 - 84 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Pérez-Peña Richard. 2013 . “College Groups Connect to Fight Sexual Assault.” The New York Times , March 19. Retrieved February 11, 2018 (www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/education/activists-at-colleges-network-to-fight-sexual-assault.html). Ridgeway Cecilia L. 2011 . Framed by Gender . New York : Oxford University Press . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Rodríguez Germán. 2015 . “Models for Over-Dispersed Count Data.” Retrieved September 15, 2015 (http://data.princeton.edu/ wws509/notes/c2.pdf). Saul Stephanie , Taylor Kate . 2017 . “Betsy DeVos Reverses Obama-Era Policy on Campus Sexual Assault Investigations.” The New York Times , September 22. Retrieved February 11, 2018 (www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/us/devos-colleges-sex-assault.html). Shavit Yossi , Arum Richard , Gamoran Adam , eds. 2007 . Stratification in Higher Education . Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press . Silberman Matthew. 1985 . The Civil Justice Process . New York : Academic . Silbey Susan S. 2005 . “After Legal Consciousness.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1 1 : 323 - 68 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Soule Sarah A. 1997 . “The Student Divestment Movement in the United States and Tactical Diffusion: The Shantytown Protest.” Social Forces 75 3 : 855 - 82 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Suggs Welch. 2007 . A Place on the Team . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Thomas Sue. 1991 . “The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies.” The Journal of Politics 53 4 : 958 - 76 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Tyler Tom R. 2006 . Why People Obey the Law . Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Uggen Christopher , Blackstone Amy . 2004 . “Sexual Harassment as a Gendered Expression of Power.” American Sociological Review 69 1 : 64 - 92 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 1999 . Serial Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1999. Retrieved August 4, 2015 (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/AnnRpt99/index.html). U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2003 . Serial Report to Congress for Fiscal Years 2001-2002. Retrieved August 4, 2015 (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/AnnRpt99/index.html). U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2006 . Dear Colleague Letter, January 25. Retrieved March 5, 2014 (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/sexhar-2006.html). U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2007 . Dear Colleague Letter, January 31. Retrieved March 5, 2014 (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/single-sex-20070131.html). U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2008 . Dear Colleague Letter, March 27. Retrieved March 5, 2014 (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/title-ix-2008-0327.pdf). U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2009 . Records Schedule, January 13. Retrieved March 5, 2014 (www2.ed.gov/notices/records-management/ed252-civilrightscasefiles.pdf). U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2010 . Dear Colleague Letter, April 20. Retrieved March 5, 2014 (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100420.pdf). U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2011 . Dear Colleague Letter, April 4. Retrieved March 5, 2014 (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html) U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2014 . Southern Methodist University Voluntary Resolution Agreement, November 16. Retrieved January 10, 2015 (www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/southern-methodist-university-agreement.pdf). U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2015a . Case Processing Manual. Retrieved March 5, 2015 (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocrcpm.pdf). U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . 2015b . Serial Report to Congress for Fiscal Years 2013-2014. Retrieved August 4, 2015 (www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/ocr/report-to-president-and-secretary-of-education-2013-14.pdf). Van Dyke Nella. 1998 . “Hotbeds of Activism: Locations of Student Protest.” Social Problems 45 2 : 205 - 20 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Volkwein J. Fredericks , Sweitzer Kyle V. . 2006 . “Institutional Prestige and Reputation Among Research Universities and Liberal Arts Colleges.” Research in Higher Education 47 2 : 129 - 48 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Wilson Robin. 2014 . “Why Colleges Are on the Hook for Sexual Assault.” Chronicle of Higher Education , June 6. Retrieved June 10, 2014 (www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Colleges-Are-on-the-Hook/146943). Xie Yu , Shauman Kimberlee . 2003 . Women in Science . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press . Xie Yu , Fang Michael , Shauman Kimberlee . 2015 . “STEM Education.” Annual Review of Sociology 41 1 : 331 - 57 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed Zemans Frances Kahn. 1983 . “Legal Mobilization: The Neglected Role of the Law in the Political System.” American Political Science Review 77 3 : 690 - 703 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)

Journal

Social ProblemsOxford University Press

Published: Mar 28, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off