Main content

Grove City College v. Bell - Discussion Questions

Based on the Title IX issues in Grove City v. Bell, these questions explore the use of federal funding to enforce anti-discrimination laws.

  1. Make a case for using federal funding as a carrot or a stick to incentivize schools to comply with Title IX and it regulations. Make a case against such incentives.
  2. When the federal government is authorized to enforce Title IX laws by withholding federal funds from grantees that do not comply with the law and related policies, should it treat all funding recipients alike?  For example: 
    • Should private and public entities be treated the same when it comes to the enforcement of Title IX? Why? Why not?
    • Should non-profit entities, e.g., a school, and for-profit entities, e.g. a private business, be mandated to meet the same Title IX requirements?
    • What circumstances justify a government agency withholding Title IX federal funds? 
  3. Should the level of compliance and the related reporting and other policies depend on the entity’s ability to pay for Title IX requirements of reporting on and enforcing the policies?
    • Should an entity have to prove or document its compliance with Title IX to avoid a cutoff of federal funding?  Make a case for why a private entity should − or should not − be required to prove or document its compliance with Title IX requirements that:
      • Are inconsistent with an institution’s mission or values.
      • The entity believes don’t apply to it.
      • The entity is complying with, but can’t afford to prove its compliance.
  4. Is cutting off financial aid to students an effective way to use the power of the purse to pressure schools to comply with Title IX? Why or why not?
    • Is it a fair way? Why or why not? 

DISCLAIMER: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for educational purposes only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on any pending case or legislation.