Rewriting Title IX
The Department of Education's Response to Feminists' Comments in the Rulemaking Process
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7353693 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Ashley English (0000-0001-6280-9452, University of Minnesota System, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2016 |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 491-517 |
| Publication date | 2016-04-18 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Politics & Gender (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1743-923X • E-ISSN: 1743-9248 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s1743923x16000064 |
| OpenAlex | W2337394582 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 7 |
| References cited | 24 |
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
Epistemology · Gridlock · Law and economics · Political science · Politics · Process (computing · Public relations · Quality (philosophy · Rulemaking · Sociology · Computer Science · Gender Diversity and Inequality · Gender Politics and Representation · Law · Political Influence and Corporate Strategies · Public Administration
Public Policy as Trans Harm
Sex segregation as policy problem
Implementing intersectionality
Presidential Transitions and Interests Group Participation in the Notice and Comment Process
Lobbying Beyond the Legislature
She Who Shall Not Be Named
Where Are All the Single Ladies? Marital Status and Women's Organizations’ Rule-making Campaigns
Party Polarization in Congress
Deliberate Discretion?
Delegating Powers
Affirmative Advocacy
Sweet-Talking the Fourth Branch
Injecting a Woman's Voice
Interest Group Influence on Rule Making
Inside the Black Box
Foundations of Feminism
Disparate Measures
Gender, Representative Bureaucracy, and Law Enforcement
Does the amount of participation matter? Public comments, agency responses and the time to finalize a regulation
A Bias Towards Business? Assessing Interest Group Influence on the U.S. Bureaucracy
"Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent "Yes
Formal Procedures, Informal Processes, Accountability, and Responsiveness in Bureaucratic Policy Making
Sports Talk
Interest Groups in the Rule-Making Process
Linking Passive and Active Representation
Interest Group Participation in Rule Making
Exploring the Causal Story
Linking Passive and Active Representation by Gender
The Consequences of Professionalization and Formalization in the Pro-Choice Movement
Lipstick and Logarithms
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2019 - 2024 (6) |
| Highly cited | No |