As we navigate the complex landscape of education policy, few issues spark as much debate as Title IX and equity in athletics. Today, we’re joined by Camille Faivre, a renowned education expert specializing in education management. With her extensive experience in supporting institutions through innovative learning programs in the post-pandemic era, Camille offers a unique perspective on recent federal policy shifts. In this interview, we dive into the U.S. Department of Energy’s surprising involvement in Title IX athletics rules, the controversial proposal to alter gender equity requirements in sports, the significant public response to these changes, and the broader implications for educational equity as other regulatory proposals loom on the horizon.
Can you help us understand why the Department of Energy, rather than the Department of Education, got involved in proposing changes to Title IX athletics rules?
That’s a great question. Typically, education policy, especially something as specific as Title IX, falls under the purview of the Department of Education. The Department of Energy’s involvement here is unusual and likely tied to the fact that they provide funding to certain colleges and schools through grants. When an agency disburses federal funds, it can attach conditions or regulations to ensure compliance with broader federal goals. My guess is that this was an attempt to test the waters on how far an agency outside the traditional education sphere could influence policy, especially on something as high-profile as athletics equity.
What was the specific athletics rule the Department of Energy proposed to change, and why did it stir up so much controversy?
The rule in question would have eliminated the requirement for schools and colleges receiving Energy Department funding to allow girls to try out for boys’ sports teams in cases where no equivalent girls’ team exists. For instance, if there’s no softball team for girls, current rules mandate they must have the chance to try out for the boys’ baseball team. This proposal was seen as a direct rollback of gender equity protections under Title IX, which is why it sparked such intense debate. Many saw it as undermining decades of progress toward equal opportunities for women and girls in sports.
How do you think removing this tryout requirement could impact gender equity in schools over the long term?
Removing this requirement would likely have a chilling effect on gender equity. It could limit girls’ access to athletic opportunities, particularly in smaller schools or districts where funding for separate teams might not be available. Sports play a huge role in building confidence, leadership, and even access to scholarships for higher education. Without the chance to compete, girls could be disproportionately sidelined, reinforcing outdated stereotypes about who belongs in athletics. It’s not just about playing a game—it’s about systemic access to opportunities that shape futures.
Can you walk us through what the ‘direct final rule’ process means and why it was surprising to see it used in this context?
The ‘direct final rule’ process is a regulatory shortcut often used for changes that are expected to be non-controversial. It allows an agency to issue a rule without the usual public comment period, assuming there won’t be significant opposition. If no substantial pushback arises within a set timeframe, the rule goes into effect. Using this for a Title IX athletics change was surprising because equity in sports is anything but uncontroversial. It’s a deeply personal and political issue for many, and bypassing public input on something so impactful felt to critics like an attempt to avoid scrutiny or debate.
The proposal received over 21,000 comments, with many opposing the change. What do you think fueled such a strong public reaction?
I think the sheer volume of comments reflects how much people care about fairness in education, especially when it comes to gender equity. Title IX has been a cornerstone of progress for women and girls, and any perceived threat to that progress mobilizes a wide range of stakeholders—parents, students, educators, and advocacy groups. Social media likely amplified the response, making it easier for people to voice their concerns. Plus, the optics of using a fast-track process for such a sensitive issue probably added fuel to the fire, as it felt to many like a disregard for democratic input.
Even though the athletics rule was withdrawn, other proposed changes by the Department of Energy, like those related to racial discrimination policies, are still in play. Can you explain what these remaining rules are about?
Absolutely. One key proposal still on the table would remove the requirement for schools to address systemic racial discrimination that can result from seemingly neutral policies. This means schools wouldn’t be obligated to examine or correct practices that, while not overtly discriminatory, might disproportionately harm students of color. It’s controversial because it could allow inequities to persist unchecked under the guise of neutrality, which many civil rights advocates argue is a step backward in creating inclusive educational environments.
Why do you think the Department of Energy is pushing forward with these other changes despite the significant pushback on the athletics rule?
It’s likely a matter of strategic priorities. The athletics rule withdrawal shows that public pressure can force a retreat, but the administration behind these proposals may view the remaining rules as less visible or emotionally charged to the general public. They might believe they can weather the criticism on these other fronts, especially if they align with broader policy goals of reducing regulatory oversight. It’s also possible they’re testing the limits of how much change they can enact through non-traditional channels like the Department of Energy before facing broader legal or political consequences.
What is your forecast for the future of Title IX and educational equity policies given these recent developments?
I think we’re at a critical juncture. The pushback on the athletics rule demonstrates that public engagement can influence policy, but the persistence of other proposals signals that challenges to equity—whether in gender or racial contexts—aren’t going away. My forecast is that we’ll see continued tension between federal agencies attempting to reshape education policy and advocacy groups fighting to preserve hard-won protections. The outcome will likely hinge on public awareness and participation, as well as potential shifts in administration priorities after upcoming elections. It’s a space to watch closely, as these policies will shape opportunities for generations of students.
