Grove City College (GCC)
In 1984 a case before the Supreme Court limited the scope of Title IX (King, n.d.). Grove City College (GCC), in Grove City, Pennsylvania, took pride in being a private, coeducational liberal arts school that refused state and federal financial assistance (Ware, 2007). This gave them independence from federal regulation (Ware, 2007). GCC did have a large number of students that received Basic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOG’s) issued through a Department of Education (DOE)-run program (Grove City, n.d). The DOE concluded these grants made GCC subject to Title IX (Grove City, n.d). When GCC refused to comply with the requirements of Title IX, the DOE attempted to terminate the student financial aid program (Grove City, n.d). GCC challenged the DOE’s actions all the way to the Supreme
…show more content…
Since athletic departments did not receive federal funds, this case took away coverage of athletics, except for athletic scholarships (Ware, 2007). In 1988, over President Reagan’s veto, the Civil Rights Restoration Act was passed by Congress (King, n.d.). This restored the broad coverage of Title IX, to include athletics (King, n.d.). In 1997, OCR issued a document entitled, “Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties” (Title IX at 35, 2008). It describes Title IX standards for Schools’ sexual harassment policies and gives OCR’s standard procedures for investigating and resolving allegations (Title IX at 35, 2008). In 2001, OCR issued, “Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance,” which basically reaffirmed the 1997 Guidance (Title IX at 35, 2008). The OCR issued, “Further Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Guidance Regarding Title IX Compliance in 2003 (Title IX at 35, 2008). It reaffirmed the validity and effectiveness of longstanding administrative regulations (Title IX at 35, 2008). In 2005, The Department of Education issued, “the Additional Clarification,” that weakened Title IX (Title IX at
Since athletic departments did not receive federal funds, this case took away coverage of athletics, except for athletic scholarships (Ware, 2007). In 1988, over President Reagan’s veto, the Civil Rights Restoration Act was passed by Congress (King, n.d.). This restored the broad coverage of Title IX, to include athletics (King, n.d.). In 1997, OCR issued a document entitled, “Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties” (Title IX at 35, 2008). It describes Title IX standards for Schools’ sexual harassment policies and gives OCR’s standard procedures for investigating and resolving allegations (Title IX at 35, 2008). In 2001, OCR issued, “Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance,” which basically reaffirmed the 1997 Guidance (Title IX at 35, 2008). The OCR issued, “Further Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Guidance Regarding Title IX Compliance in 2003 (Title IX at 35, 2008). It reaffirmed the validity and effectiveness of longstanding administrative regulations (Title IX at 35, 2008). In 2005, The Department of Education issued, “the Additional Clarification,” that weakened Title IX (Title IX at