Title IX and the Outer Limits of the Spending Powers

One of the fundamental maxims of equity is that for every legal wrong there is a remedy. In some instances, however, there may even be a “remedy” where no wrong has occurred. In what has been termed a “blind pursuit of social perfection,” one federal civil rights agency has been charged with vindicating sprawling social goals at the expense of private autonomy in the complete absence of any actual discrimination.

One of the most controversial decisions of the 1983 Supreme Court term illustrates this situation. In Grove City College v. Bell, the Court found that certain federal grants to less than 10% of the college’s students constituted “federal financial assistance” sufficient to draw the private college’s entire financial aid program within the regulatory control of Title IX, and implicitly within the interests of the Department of Education. In that decision, the Supreme Court attempted to merge two major competing interests—private higher education’s struggle to remain autonomous and the broad remedial goals of anti-discrimination laws.

This comment will examine the validity of subjective private entities for federal control through the untoward link of Congress’ spending powers. The comment will then address the Supreme Court’s effort to resolve the tension between Title IX’s broad anti-discrimination goals and its narrow statutory enforcement provisions through Title IX’s program-specific language.