Case Study : Grove City College

All students, kindergarten through twelfth grade are protected under many various education laws, as well as their basic rights. Title IX is a landmark case from 1972 that removes the bias of gender discrimination in any educational program or activity that receives federal financial assistance (Title IX, 1972). Title IX does not mean that each sex needs a football, basketball and dance team, it means that there needs to be three equal opportunities for each sex. Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education (2005) was a more recent case of discrimination based on sex in relation to funding of a girl’s basketball team. In addition to Title IX, Section 1983 also upholds the civil rights provided by the Constitution, (42 USC 1983). Grove City College

Southern University A&M College welcomed Dr. J.S. Clark as the new African American leader and president in 1914 after the big move. As Dr. Clark as president, he made numerous improvements on campus and off campus. He established a Junior College, teacher-training curriculum, Agricultural Extension Program, a summer normal school, six brick buildings for instructional activities, five brick dormitories, and eleven wooden structures for the faculties. Before his retirement came, he funded money from the government to build a library, a football stadium, an administration building, a gymnasium, and additional dormitories. During this time period, Felton G. Clark, J.S. Clark only son, was one of Southern’s most promising

Citation: New Jersey v. T. L. O. 469 U.S. 325 105 S. Ct. 733; 83 L. Ed. 2d 720; 1985 U. S. LEXIS 41; 53 U.S.L.W. 4083.

Seven years later, the Supreme Court, in Ewing, revisited the question of whether a university student has a property interest in his education. In Ewing, the University of Michigan dismissed a student for failing an

The Equal Protection Clause derives from the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifies “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” As a part of the Reconstruction Amendments, the aforementioned clause was meant to ensure racial equality in the Reconstruction Period and has been applied successfully against the affirmative action. Introduced in United States v. Carolene Products Co., the strict scrutiny has been applied to the cases, in which a fundamental constitutional rights have been infringed or a government action applies to a suspect classification (i.e. race, religion, national background). Specifically, in regards to Bakke v. Regents of University of California, the Supreme Court (“the Court”) concluded that, considering that the University of California, Davis received several Caucasian applicants for its special admission program in 1973 and 1974 and that none of the applicants received the admission to the program since the start, the program unfairly administered in favor of minority races and, therefore, violated the rights of the white applicants under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, from Hopwood v. State of Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled under strict scrutiny that, the affirmative action imposed by the University of Texas School of Law (“the law school”) violates the Fourteenth Amendment since neither the law school nor the University of Texas system has proved a proof of

But women's rights groups fought back. Four years later, over Reagan's veto, Congress passed the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988. This act nullified the effects of the Grove City v. Bell ruling by outlawing sex discrimination throughout an entire educational institution if any part of the institution received federal funding. In addition to the Act, the OCR publicly renewed its commitment to ending gender discrimination, calling Title IX a "top priority," and publishing a "Title IX Athletic Investigator's Manual" to strengthen enforcement procedures.

In some cases a schools decision to cut sports in order to comply with Title IX has lead to a lawsuit. An example of this would be Miami University. The university formed a committee to address the issue of Title IX compliance and hired a consultant as well. "The committee and consultant determined that in order to comply with Title IX, the university had the option of eliminating a few sports for men. As a result, the university eliminated the men's soccer, wrestling and tennis teams, effective at the end of the 1999 spring semester (Challenge 2002)." On November 18, 1999, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendants, claming that the defendants' elimination of the men's wrestling, tennis and soccer programs at Miami University, a state university of the State of Ohio and a recipient of federal funds, constituted gender discrimination in violation of the 20 U.S.C.& et seq. And violated their rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment (United 2002). The court found that the plaintiffs failed

The district court’s decision to dismiss this case is based on the Plaintiffs failure to prove theory of purposeful discrimination, which is denied under Alexander v. Sandoval where the Supreme Court ruled that even if a federally funded entity knowingly adopts a policy that creates disparate impact, Title VI still affords no remedy and also because Proposition 16 is a facially neutral policy that happened to create a racially disparate impact, it holds no bearing to Title VI. The court ultimately found that Proposition 16 was created to improve ALL student athlete graduation rights. As for Pryor’s ADA claim, it too was dismissed because Pryor lacked the standing to remedy her loss of eligibility due to the fact the NCAA may still grant her the relief she seeks.

Decision: The court ruled against the school district and upheld the establishment clause of the first

148 N.J. 396; 690 A.2d 575; 1997 N.J. LEXIS 79; 32 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 66.

Chief Justice, John Marshall used Marbury v. Madison to rule that a federal law was unconstitutional. The cases of Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, and Cohens v. Virginia resulted in a ruling that the Constitution was the final say, but only if the Court had the right to overturn state court decisions. In the case of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, the state’s government sought to appoint members to the college’s board of trustees, although the college opposed this. Dartmouth ended up being victorious in the Supreme Court. Another Supreme Court case that showed the strengthen of the federal government over the individual’s state governments was that of McCulloch v. Maryland. The Supreme Court ended up ruling that it was unconstitutional for individual states to tax the Bank of the United States. In the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, the Supreme Court demonstrated its power to regulate interstate

Grove College City issued a lawsuit against the ED saying that they could not stop the financial aid of the students based on the refusal to sign the Assurance of Compliance form. A federal trial court agreed, but they soon turned in favor to the ED, and Grove College City took the case to the Supreme Court.   When Supreme Court reviewed the case they agreed that the ED had the right to act considering that the BEOGs were federal funds, and they also agreed that the TITLE IX

The case of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action was presented before the Supreme Court of the United States; the case questioned that whether a state violated the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment by maintaining a ban on the racial and sex preferences on the admissions in the public universities in the constitution of the state (Bernstein). The arguments on these cases started on 15th October, 2013 on an appeal for the Sixth Circuit from the United States Court of Appeal, which had established the rule in 2012 regarding Michigan ban, which was approved by the voters of the state in the year 2006. The Sixth Circuit emphasized that the Michigan ban was unconstitutional. But, the ban on the state was upheld, the Sixth

ITT tech institute is facing the chance of getting bankrupt and eventually shut down. ITT didn’t follow ACICS criteria with standards given and mismanaging financial aid dollars that was taken from the government to the students. The federal government will not allow the school to enroll new students that use financial aid. U.S. Secretary of state John B. King Jr. says that it is very important to protect students and taxpayers rather than individual institutes. The school is currently going through investigation on what happened to all of the money they receive is being used wrongfully and not for the purposes it was given to. The school is also getting sued from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and U.S. Securities and Exchange.

A severe blow to postsecondary correctional educational programs was delivered with the April 1994 federal ban on providing Pell Grants to adults in correctional facilities. Prior to the ban community colleges, colleges and universities across the county provided on-site educational programs to motivated individuals with a high school diploma or GED, allowing individuals to earn college credit and work towards a college degree.