Skip to main content Accessibility help

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

  • Ashley English (a1)



Hide All
Binder, Sarah A. 2003. Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Center for American Women and Politics. 2015. “Women in the U.S. Congress 2015.” (accessed February 19, 2014).
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.
Furlong, Scott R. 1997. “Interest Group Influence on Rulemaking.” Administration & Society 29 (3): 325–47.
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.
Golden, Marissa Martino. 1998. “Interest Groups in the Rule-Making Process.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 (2): 245–70.
Goss, Kristin A. 2007. “Foundations of Feminism: How Philanthropic Patrons Shaped Gender Politics.” Social Science Quarterly 88 (5): 1174–91.
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.
Huber, John D., and Shipan, Charles R.. 2002. Deliberate Discretion: The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Kerwin, Cornelius M., and Furlong, Scott R.. 2011. Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
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, 65104.
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–57.
Mansbridge, Jane, and Jo Martin, Cathie, eds. 2013. Negotiating Agreement in Politics. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
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.
National Women's Law Center. 2006. “Administration's Single-Sex Regulations Violate Constitution and Title IX.” (accessed March 19, 2010).
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.
Robison, Jennifer. 2002. “Learning about Single-Sex Education.” Gallup, October 1. (accessed March 17, 2016).
Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. 2008. “Sports Talk: How Gender Shapes Discursive Framing of Title IX.” Politics & Gender 4 (1): 6592.
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.
Shapiro, Stuart. 2008. “Does the Amount of Participation Matter? Public Comments, Agency Responses, and the Time to Finalize a Regulation.” Policy Sciences 41 (1): 3349.
Staggenborg, Suzanne. 1988. “The Consequences of Professionalization and Formalization in the Pro-Choice Movement.” American Sociological Review 53 (4): 585605.
Stone, Deborah. 2001. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W. W. Norton.
Strolovitch, Dara Z. 2007. Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Theriault, Sean M. 2008. Party Polarization in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
U.S. Department of Justice. 2010. “Coordination and Review Section 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.1–106.71.” (accessed March 18, 2016).
Voteview. 2014. “House Polarization 1st to 113th Congresses.” (accessed August 7, 2014).
West, William F. 2004. “Formal Procedures, Informal Processes, Accountability, and Responsiveness in Bureaucratic Policy Making: An Institutional Policy Analysis.” Public Administration Review 64 (1): 6680.
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.
Wilkins, Vicky M. 2006. “Exploring the Causal Story: Gender, Active Representation, and Bureaucratic Politics.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17 (1): 7794.
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): 87102.
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.
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.
Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

English supplementary material
Online Appendix

 Word (18 KB)
18 KB


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed