In 1984 the Supreme Court determined in Grove City College v. Bell that the antidiscrimination provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 were program-specific rather than institution-wide in application. In response, several legislative proposals designed to mitigate or reverse the Grove City decision have been introduced in Congress. These proposals include the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1985 (H.R. 700 and S. 431) and the Civil Rights Amendments Act of 1985 (S. 272). In this Article, Professor Garvey argues that institution-wide application of Title IX and similar antidiscrimination statutes would in many instances lead to results inconsistent with statutory language and the public interest.
By examining and analyzing the current statutes' language and by reviewing and applying various theories of nondiscrimination law, Professor Garvey concludes that most of the current proposals addressing Grove City involve misconceptions of the statutes they would amend and fail to conform to any of the numerous underlying theories of antidiscrimination law.
John H. Garvey, The “Program or Activity” Rule in Anti-Discrimination Law: A Comment on S.272, H.R.700, and S.431, 23 HARV. J. ON LEGIS. 445 (1986).