Two fundamental questions concerning sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 are addressed in this thirteenth chapter of a book on school law: Does the law apply to employment and did the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) exceed its authority by covering athletics, which receives no federal funding? Arguments concerning Title IX's application to employment are based partly on the law's similarity to Title VI concerning racial discrimination, and partly on the history of the law itself. HEW has found evidence that employment was intended to be covered, and opponents (whose case has been presented by Janet Kuhn) have found evidence to the contrary. Court decisions are also contradictory. If the Supreme Court holds that Title IX does not cover employment, another issue emerges: Does the Department have the authority to regulate employment when such regulation affects the beneficiaries of federal assistance, the students? The argument over whether the statute applies to athletics is based on whether the definition of "education program" intended in the law is the overall education program or an individual federal assistance program, such as Title I. Again, both proponents and opponents look to the intents of Title VI. Several state courts have ruled on the matter, with contradictory findings. (Author/JM)