Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T14:45:04.754Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rewriting Title IX: The Department of Education's Response to Feminists' Comments in the Rulemaking Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2016

Ashley English
Ashley English*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Feminist organizations, like many other interest groups and advocacy organizations, have increasingly turned to the rulemaking process to create meaningful policy change. Although rulemaking is an attractive policy-making venue for feminists because it provides them with an opportunity to bypass congressional gridlock and interact with more women policy makers than they might in Congress, the existing literature does not address how and when feminist organizations' participation in rulemaking is influential. To examine this question for the first time, I analyze a sample of the 5,860 comments that the U.S. Department of Education received in response to its 2004 proposed rule allowing for public single-sex education programs and the department's justifications for its proposed and final rules. Specifically, I ask whether findings from the rulemaking literature showing that organizations can encourage bureaucrats to change their proposed rules when they submit large numbers of high-quality, homogenous, opposing comments hold for feminist organizations in a redistributive policy area. The findings indicate that when bureaucrats receive multiple sets of high-quality homogenous comments, they are more likely to side with commenters who support their initial proposals and/or partisan and ideological positions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 491 - 517
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Binder, Sarah A. 2003. Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Center for American Women and Politics. 2015. “Women in the U.S. Congress 2015.” http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-congress-2015 (accessed February 19, 2014).Google Scholar
Epstein, David, and O'Halloran, Sharyn. 1999. Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Politics Approach to Policy Making Under Separate Powers. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Furlong, Scott R. 1997. “Interest Group Influence on Rulemaking.” Administration & Society 29 (3): 325–47.Google Scholar
Furlong, Scott R., and Kerwin, Cornelius M.. 2005. “Interest Group Participation in Rulemaking: A Decade of Change.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15 (3): 353–70.Google Scholar
Golden, Marissa Martino. 1998. “Interest Groups in the Rule-Making Process.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 (2): 245–70.Google Scholar
Goss, Kristin A. 2007. “Foundations of Feminism: How Philanthropic Patrons Shaped Gender Politics.” Social Science Quarterly 88 (5): 1174–91.Google Scholar
Goss, Kristin A. 2013. The Paradox of Gender Equality: How American Women's Groups Gained and Lost Their Public Voice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Huber, John D., and Shipan, Charles R.. 2002. Deliberate Discretion: The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keiser, Lael R., Wilkins, Vicky M., Meier, Kenneth J., and Holland, Catherine A.. 2002. “Lipstick and Logarithms: Gender, Institutional Context, and Representative Bureaucracy.” American Political Science Review 96 (3): 553–64.Google Scholar
Kerwin, Cornelius M., and Furlong, Scott R.. 2011. Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore. 1985. “The State in Politics: The Relation Between Policy and Administration.” In Regulatory Policy and the Social Sciences, ed. Noll, Roger. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 65–104.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–57.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane, and Jo Martin, Cathie, eds. 2013. Negotiating Agreement in Politics. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Meier, Kenneth J., and Nicholson-Crotty, Jill. 2006. “Gender, Representative Bureaucracy, and Law Enforcement: The Case of Sexual Assault.” Public Administration Review 66 (6): 850–60.Google Scholar
National Women's Law Center. 2006. “Administration's Single-Sex Regulations Violate Constitution and Title IX.” http://www.nwlc.org/details.cfm?id=2866&section=newsroom (accessed March 19, 2010).Google Scholar
Riccucci, Norma M., and Meyers, Marcia K.. 2004. “Linking Passive and Active Representation: The Case of Frontline Workers in Welfare Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14 (4): 585–97.Google Scholar
Robison, Jennifer. 2002. “Learning about Single-Sex Education.” Gallup, October 1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/6910/learning-about-singlesex-education.aspx (accessed March 17, 2016).Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. 2008. “Sports Talk: How Gender Shapes Discursive Framing of Title IX.” Politics & Gender 4 (1): 65–92.Google Scholar
Schreiber, Ronnee. 2002. “Injecting a Woman's Voice: Conservative Women's Organizations, Gender Consciousness, and the Expression of Women's Policy Preferences.” Sex Roles 47 (7): 331–42.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Stuart. 2008. “Does the Amount of Participation Matter? Public Comments, Agency Responses, and the Time to Finalize a Regulation.” Policy Sciences 41 (1): 33–49.Google Scholar
Staggenborg, Suzanne. 1988. “The Consequences of Professionalization and Formalization in the Pro-Choice Movement.” American Sociological Review 53 (4): 585–605.Google Scholar
Stone, Deborah. 2001. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Strolovitch, Dara Z. 2007. Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theriault, Sean M. 2008. Party Polarization in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Education. 2002. “Notice of Intent to Regulate: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.” Federal Register 67 (89): 31098–99.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Education. 2004. “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.” Federal Register 69 (46): 11276–85.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Education. 2006. “Final Regulations: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.” Federal Register 71 (206): 62530–43.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Justice. 2010. “Coordination and Review Section 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.1–106.71.” http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/byagency/34cfr106.php (accessed March 18, 2016).Google Scholar
Voteview. 2014. “House Polarization 1st to 113th Congresses.” ftp://voteview.com/house_polarization46_113.xlsx (accessed August 7, 2014).Google Scholar
West, William F. 2004. “Formal Procedures, Informal Processes, Accountability, and Responsiveness in Bureaucratic Policy Making: An Institutional Policy Analysis.” Public Administration Review 64 (1): 66–80.Google Scholar
West, William F. 2009. “Inside the Black Box: The Development of Proposed Rules and the Limits of Procedural Controls.” Administration & Society 41 (5): 576–99.Google Scholar
Wilkins, Vicky M. 2006. “Exploring the Causal Story: Gender, Active Representation, and Bureaucratic Politics.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17 (1): 77–94.Google Scholar
Wilkins, Vicky M., and Keiser, Lael R.. 2006. “Linking Passive and Active Representation by Gender: The Case of Child Support Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (1): 87–102.Google Scholar
Yackee, Jason Webb, and Yackee, Susan Webb. 2006. “A Bias Towards Business? Assessing Interest Group Influence on the U.S. Bureaucracy.” Journal of Politics 68 (1): 128–39.Google Scholar
Yackee, Susan Webb. 2006. “Sweet Talking the Fourth Branch: The Influence of Interest Group Comments on Federal Agency Rulemaking.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (1): 103–24.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

English supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download English supplementary material(File)
File 18.3 KB