By Elliot Mamet

On June 23rd, 1972, President Nixon signed Title IX into law. Nearly 40 years later, the passage of Title IX is viewed as an unequivocal milestone in the struggle to protect, defend and expand civil liberties. As we celebrate Title IX’s 40th birthday, it is worth reflecting on its significance, as well as on the challenges that lie ahead.

Title IX mandates that federally funded institutions may not exclude or discriminate from an educational program or activity on the basis of sex. The law leverages federal funds in order to require equal opportunity for men and women. There are exceptions to Title IX (like sororities or the Boy Scouts), although in general, Title IX has applied quite broadly and unilaterally to different institutions. Through Title IX, the doors have opened a little wider for equal opportunity in the United States.

Title IX shattered the stereotype that women are too “fragile” or “weak” to play sports, but Title IX goes so much further than sports. By prohibiting discrimination based on non-conformity with gender stereotypes, Title IX has been used as an effective tool for defending the civil rights and civil liberties of LGBT students. Additionally, Title IX prohibits discrimination and harassment based on students’ gender identity, change of sex, and/or transgender status.

Yet even with these successes, enforcing Title IX still has its challenges. One important concern for policymakers is applying Title IX in a way that is conscious of the diversity of gender expression. In a society where gender and sexual orientation mean different things to different people, self-identifying as the normative “male” or “female” can be difficult. A sound approach to Title IX regulation would prioritize meeting the needs of participants in a particular sport or program. Federally funded institutions should allow students to participate in programs and sports based on the gender with which they identify, in a way that is conscious to individual needs. In this way, programs and activities could act as a safe space where program leaders are more sensitive to the diversity of gender expression.

Looking back at the past 40 years under Title IX, it is clear that Title IX has grown to reflect a fundamental mindset—that human institutions, whether the soccer team or a PhD program—shouldn’t shut out certain categories of people a priori. If the Declaration of Independence and the Emancipation Proclamation mean anything at all to us today, surely they must be interpreted as another step on our quest to “make declarations of freedom real,” as Martin Luther King Jr. said. And surely, in its own way, Title IX reflects that quest. It is today, nearly 40 years after Title IX was passed into law, that Title IX’s lessons must be heeded with the utmost resolve.

Elliot Mamet is the summer Colorado College Public Interest Fellow at the ACLU of Colorado. He is an incoming sophomore at Colorado College, a four-year, private liberal arts school, where he is studying political science.

This post originally appeared on the ACLU Blog of Rights

On today, June 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court struck three provisions of Arizona’s draconian anti-immigrant law, but permitted enactment of the controversial “show me your papers” provision. The “show me your papers” provision requires local police to determine the immigration status of someone arrested or detained when there is a “reasonable suspicion” a person is in the United States illegally. This provision will undoubtedly will lead to racial profiling and discrimination.

The ACLU of Colorado is, however, heartened by the fact that the Court invalidated most of the law’s provision stating that Arizona had overstepped its authority. Colorado, thankfully, is not Arizona. “We’ve seen the corrosive effects that laws like S.B. 1070 have on a community. Colorado understands how laws like the Arizona law harm business, undermine police work, and threaten our most basic American values. Anti-immigrant laws modeled after Arizona’s SB 1070 are proving to be a failed experiment that we must not repeat in any other state, especially Colorado,” said Denise Maes, ACLU of Colorado Public Policy Director.

The Court permitted one of the most controversial parts of S.B. 1070, the so-called “show me your papers” provision, to move forward, but the Court stated that until it is actually implemented and enforced, it is unclear whether the provision is constitutional. Therefore, the provision remains subject to challenge.

“There is no way for this provision to be enacted without racial profiling. The provision basically says that if, for whatever reason, your last name, color of your skin or your accent allows you to be perceived as ‘foreign,’ you’re vulnerable to being stopped,” said ACLU National Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “That’s not an America we want to live in.”

The ACLU case challenging the Arizona law was stayed pending resolution of the United States case challenging the law.

“Show me your papers” laws exact a heavy financial toll. Alabama’s state economy has taken a multi-billion dollar hit as a result of its law. Arizona saw a drop in sales tax revenue and a jump in the unemployment rate when S.B. 1070 was enacted in 2010. Farmers have seen their crops rot and are planting less because the workers they have relied on for decades have fled in fear.

There are over 400,000 foreign-born immigrants living in Colorado and the data shows that over the course of a lifetime, immigrants – whether documented or not – pay more in taxes than they take in government services. They represent almost 12 percent of the Colorado workforce and immigrant-owned small businesses bring almost $700 million a year to Colorado. The Supreme Court decision clearly tells Colorado and other states that laws like S.B. 1070 are to be avoided.

Anti-immigrant laws are costly at so many levels. They drain resources from county sheriffs and local police departments who do not want the burden of serving as immigration agents while also trying to protect their communities. Immigration checks poison efforts to foster trust and cooperation within all communities. These laws encourage racial profiling, undermine local law enforcement and sow a climate of fear that pits neighbor against neighbor.