1 Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 518 (1819). In 1816 the New Hampshire legislature had revised Dartmouth's royal charter of 1769 to bring the college under public control. Marshall's opinion affirmed the argument of Daniel Webster, representing the Dartmouth trustees, that New Hampshire had violated the contract clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, section 10). Whitehead, John S. and Herbst, Jurgen, “How to Think about the Dartmouth College Case,” History of Education Quarterly 26 (Fall 1986): 333–49.Google Scholar

2 Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555 (1984).Google Scholar

3 Witt, Elder and Hook, Janet, “Court Adopts Narrow View of Sex Bias in Education,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 42 (March 3, 1984): 513–14; “Gender Slap,” Time 123 (March 12, 1984): 59; “A Civil Rights Reversal,” Newsweek 103 (March 12, 1984): 86; Ravitch, Diane, “Congress and Civil Rights,” New Leader 67 (May 1984): 7–9; Cohodas, Nadine, “Battle Shaping Up in Senate Over Rights Bill,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 42 (June 1984): 1365–67; “Supreme Court Setback,” Women's Sports 6 Gune 1984): 59.Google Scholar

4 Congressional Quarterly, Congress and the Nation, Vol. VII, 1985–1988 (Washington, D.C., 1990), 162–67; Hartmann, Susan M., From Margin to Mainstream: American Women and Politics Since 1960 (New York, 1989), 162–67.Google Scholar

5 The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988 (PL 100–259). See the Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1988 (Washington, D.C., 1989), 63–68.Google Scholar

6 Ross, Earle D., Democracy's Colleges: The Land-Grant Movement in the Formative Stage (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press, 1942). After the Civil War, land-grant colleges were established in every state in response to the Morrill Act of 1862.Google Scholar

7 Lucas, Christopher J., American Higher Education: A History (New York, 1994); Trow, Martin, “American Higher Education: Exceptional or Just Different?”, Is America Different? A New Look at American Exceptionalism , ed. Shafer, Byron E. (Oxford, 1991), 134–52.Google Scholar

8 Webster, David S., “The Bureau of Education's Suppressed Rating of Colleges, 1911–1912,” History of Education Quarterly 24 (Winter 1984): 499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Geiger, Roger L., To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900–1940 (New York, 1986); idem, Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities since World War II (New York, 1993); Graham, Hugh Davis and Diamond, Nancy, The Rise of American Research Universities: Elites and Challengers in the Postwar Era (Baltimore, 1997).Google Scholar

10 The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (PL 81–507); the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (PL 85–864); the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 (PL 88–204); the Higher Education Act of 1965 (PL 89–329).Google Scholar

11 Gladieux, Lawrence E. and Wolanin, Thomas R., Congress and the Colleges (Lexington, Mass., 1976); Finn, Chester E. Jr., Education and the Presidency (Lexington, Mass., 1977); Wilson, Don T., Academic Science, Higher Education, and the Federal Government, 1950–1983 (Chicago, 1983); Graham, Hugh Davis, The Uncertain Triumph: Federal Education Policy in the Kennedy and Johnson Years (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1984); Smith, Bruce L.R., American Science Policy since World War II (Washington, 1990).Google Scholar

12 Bender, Louis W., Federal Regulation of Higher Education (Washington, 1977); Seabury, Paul, ed., Bureaucrats and Brainpower: Government Regulation of the Universities (San Francisco, 1979), 275–76. The Federal Register, published daily since 1933, records all presidential proclamations, executive orders, and agency regulations; these are then codified annually in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This executive branch system of public documentation is paralleled by a legislative system: laws enacted by Congress are compiled annually in Statutes at Large and codified every five years in the United States Code (USC) by subject titles.Google Scholar

13 Finn, Chester E. Jr., Scholars, Dollars, and Bureaucrats (Washington, 1978), 139–74; Graham, and Diamond, , Rise of American Research Universities, 88–99.Google Scholar

14 Grove City College, 465 U.S. at 560–61.Google Scholar

15 Graham, Hugh Davis, “Since 1964: The Paradox of American Civil Rights Regulation,” in Taking Stock: Policy and Governance in the Twentieth Century, Keller, Morton and Melnick, H. Shep, eds. (New York, forthcoming).Google Scholar

16 Title VI, section 601. For the legislative history and text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88–352, see Bureau of National Affairs, Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Washington, D.C., 1964).Google Scholar

17 On Title VI, see Halpern, Stephen C., On the Limits of the Law: The Ironic Legacy of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Baltimore, 1995), especially Appendix B, which describes the evolution of the language of Title VI in the legislative process.Google Scholar

18 Executive Order 11246, 3 C.F.R. 340 (1965). See Graham, Hugh Davis, The Civil Rights Era: Origins and Development of National Policy 1960–1972 (New York, 1990), 186–89.Google Scholar

19 The Education Amendments of 1972 (PL 92–318); the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (PL 93–516)and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL 94–142); the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments Act of 1974 (PL 93–830); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (PL 90–202) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act Amendments of 1978 (PL 95–256).Google Scholar

20 Congress practiced a double standard on social regulation, leaving wide discretion to agency officials in controversial civil rights regulation (affirmative-action policies concerning race, national origin, and gender) while setting detailed legislative standards for areas of regulation that were popular with American voters, such as those governing air and water pollution, consumer fraud, transportation and workplace safety.Google Scholar

21 Graham, Hugh Davis, Civil Rights and the Presidency (New York, 1992); Blumrosen, Alfred W., Modern Law: The Law Transmission System and Equal Employment Opportunity (Madison, Wisc., 1993).Google Scholar

22 Reagan, Michael D., Regulation (Boston, 1987), 72–73; Eisner, Marc Allen, Regulatory Politics in Transition (Baltimore, 1993), 118–32.Google Scholar

23 At the time of the suit Grove City College enrolled approximately 2,200 students, 140 of whom received federal tuition grants directly from the Office of Education in Washington, and 342 of whom had obtained federally guaranteed and interest-subsidized tuition loans from private lending institutions.Google Scholar

24 Grove City College v. Harris, 500 F. Supp. 253 (W. D. Pa. 1980).Google Scholar

25 In 1979 Congress at the request of President Carter established a cabinet-level Department of Education. Carter sought a broad-based department containing most education programs scattered throughout the federal agencies. But Congress protected most established education and training programs within the mission agencies (Defense, State, Labor, Interior) and essentially pulled the “E” (Office of Education) out of HEW. As a consequence the new department was narrowly structured around its traditional clientele base of public school professionals, particularly the National Education Association (NEA), which had endorsed Carter for president. Importantly, the new department included the Office of Civil Rights, established within HEW in 1965 to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights, and by 1979 policing contract-compliance involving race, national origin, sex, and handicap in schools and colleges. The defendant in Grove City's suit against federal education officials thus became Bell, Terrel H., Reagan's Secretary of Education. Hawley, Willis D. and Radin, Beryl A., The Politics of Federal Reorganization: Creating the U.S. Department of Education (New York, 1988); Graham, Hugh Davis, “Civil Rights Policy in the Carter Presidency,” in Fink, Gary M. and Graham, Hugh Davis, eds., The Carter Presidency: Policy Choices in the Post-New Deal Era (Lawrence, Kans., 1998), 202–23.Google Scholar

26 Grove City College v. Harris, 687 F.2d 684 (1982); Barringer, Felicity, “Claiming Independence, College Challenges Federal Regulation,” Washington Post, 24 August 1983.Google Scholar

27 Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555 (1984).Google Scholar

28 Ibid. at 561. Joining White in the majority were Chief Justice Burger and justices Blackmun, O'Connor, Powell, and Rehnquist; dissenting were justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens.Google Scholar

29 Reagan, Ronald, “Federal Harassment Worsening,” Denver Post, 7 January 1977; “Hillsdale vs. HEW,” Fort Worth Star Telegram, 3 February 1978.Google Scholar

30 Quoted in McDowell, Gary, “Affirmative Inaction: The Brock-Meese Standoff in Federal Racial Quotas,” Policy Review 48 (Spring 1989): 32.Google Scholar

31 Seligman, Daniel, “It Was Foreseeable,” Fortune, 22 July 1985; Newsweek, 30 December 1985; Wolters, Raymond, Right Turn: William Bradford Reynolds, the Reagan Administration, and Black Civil Rights (New Brunswick, N.J., 1996), 269–73.Google Scholar

32 Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725 (1974).Google Scholar

33 Memo, William Bradford Reynolds to Kenneth Cribb, 18 January 1982; James Cicconi files, OA 9111, Ronald Reagan Library (hereafter cited as RRL).Google Scholar

34 Memo, William French Smith to Cabinet Council on Legal Policy, 7 September 1983; memo, Thomas Gibson (for Craig Fuller) to Meese, Edwin, 9 September 1983, White House Office of Records Management (WHORM), subject file, MC 003, RRL.Google Scholar

35 “Memorandum Describing Changes in H.R. 7152 Embodied in Amendment No. 656 Offered by Senators Dirksen, Mansfield, Humphrey, and Kuchel,” Administrative History, U.S. Department of Justice, vol. VII, Civil Rights Division, Tab. c.l, n.d., Lyndon Baines Johnson Library. See Charles, and Whalen, Barbara, The Longest Debate (Cabin John, Md., 1985), 174–89.Google Scholar

36 Marshall, Burke Papers, Reel 23, 0097, John F. Kennedy Library. I am indebted to Blumstein, James of the Vanderbilt law faculty for documents from the Marshall papers.Google Scholar

37 North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512 (1982).Google Scholar

38 Taylor, Stuart Jr., “Administration Uses College Suit to Urge Narrowing Restrictions Based on Civil Rights,” New York Times, 25 September 1983.Google Scholar

39 “Injustice Under the Law: The Impact of the Grove City College Decision on Civil Rights in America,” n.d., Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress. None of the 72 cases reviewed by the Department of Education following Grove City involved claims of religious or age discrimination.Google Scholar

40 City of Mobile, Ala. v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). The Supreme Court's ruling in Bolden, as in Grove City, was a statutory rather than a constitutional interpretation, and thus could be reversed by congressional revision of the statute.Google Scholar

41 Congressional Quarterly, Congress and the Nation, 1985–1988, 162–67.Google Scholar

42 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1987 (Washington, 1988), 271–74, 281–82.Google Scholar

43 Graham, Hugh Davis, “The Politics of Clientele Capture: Civil Rights Policy in the Reagan Administration,” in Redefining Equality, ed. Devins, Neal and Douglas, Davison (New York, 1997), 200–33.Google Scholar

44 During the 1970s black civil rights organizations faced growing competition in regulatory budgets and priorities from Latino organizations, especially in voting rights enforcement and school-based antipoverty programs, and also from feminist organizations, whose campaigns for Title IX enforcement in schools and colleges displaced OCR's earlier emphasis on school desegregation. See Rabkin, Jeremy, “Captive of the Court: A Federal Agency in Receivership,” Regulation 8 (May/June 1984): 16–26.Google Scholar

45 See Halpern, , On the Limits of the Law; Rabkin, Jeremy, Judicial Compulsions: How Public Law Distorts Public Policy (New York, 1989), 147–81.Google Scholar

46 Rights against age discrimination, originally legislated in 1967 and expanded in 1975, produced little traffic in federal rights enforcement until the 1990s, when economic recession and job layoffs prompted a surge in age discrimination complaints. Between 1967 and 1983, only 133 complaints alleging age discrimination were filed with federal agencies, most of them with the Department of Education against denial of college admissions. By 1993, however, age discrimination complaints ranked third in EEOC complaints, behind race and sexual harassment. Fretz, Burton, “The Age Discrimination Act of 1975,” National Senior Citizens Law Center, 20 April 1984, LCCR Papers.Google Scholar

47 Memo, Dole, Elizabeth H. to Darman, Richard, 30 July 1983, JL 002, WHORM, RRL.Google Scholar

48 Dole press release, 15 April 1984; memo, Risone, Nancy to Svahn, Jack, HU 001, WHORM, RRL.Google Scholar

49 Berkowitz, Edward D., “A Historical Preface to the Americans with Disabilities Act,” Journal of Policy History 6 (1994): 96–119.Google Scholar

50 Urging Reagan not to veto the bill were Rudy Boschwitz (Minnesota), chairman of the Republican Senatorial Committee, and Republican National Chairman Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. Vice President Bush, heir apparent to the Reagan presidency, decided to back Reagan's veto only the day before the Senate voted to override.Google Scholar

51 Goodman, John L., Public Opinion During the Reagan Administration (Washington, 1985); Sniderman, Paul M., Race and Inequality (Chatham, N.J., 1989).Google Scholar

52 WEAL Facts, 6 April 1984; Fact Sheet, National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, n.d., LCCR papers The NCWEG pointed out that in the nation's vocational education classes by 1980, females were more than 90 percent of nursing assistant, community health, cosmetology, and clerical students, but fewer than 10 percent of electronics, appliance repair, electrical technology, and auto mechanics students.Google Scholar

53 See for example memo, Horowitz, Mike to Stockman, David et al., 4 May 1984, Christena Bach files, OA 12739, RRL.Google Scholar

54 Letter, Hooks, Benjamin L. and Neas, Ralph G. to members of Congress, 25 April 1984, LCCR Papers. On the effectiveness of the Leadership Conference in the voting-rights revisions of 1982, see Pertschuk, Michael, Giant Killers (New York, 1986), 148–80. Among the more than 160 member organizations of the Leadership Conference were the NAACP, National Council of Churches, AFL-CIO, League of Women Voters, ACLU, National Urban League, UAW, National Organization of Women, American Jewish Congress, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, NEA, Children's Defense Fund, American Council of Citizens with Disabilities, National Catholic Conference for Interracial Justice, American Council of the Blind.Google Scholar

55 Biskupic, Joan and Witt, Elder, The Supreme Court and Individual Rights, 3d ed. (Washington, 1997), 229–308.Google Scholar

56 “Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988,” Public Law 100–259, U.S. Statutes at Large, 1988, Vol. 102 Part 1 (Washington, D.C., 1990), 28–33.Google Scholar

57 Bolton, John R. to Miller, James C. III, “Analysis of S. 557,” 9 March 1988, David Addington files, OA 16789, RRL.Google Scholar

58 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: 1988 (Washington, 1989), 63–68. On civil rights policy in the Reagan administration see Amaker, Norman C., Civil Rights and the Reagan Administration (Washington, 1988); and Detlefsen, Robert R., Civil Rights Under Reagan (San Francisco, 1991).Google Scholar

59 “Remarks of Cribb, T. Kenneth Jr., “Grove City College Legislation Briefing,” White House, 9 March 1988, McIntosh, David M. files, OA 16534, RRL. Cribb called the veto battle “a fight to the finish,” because “Ted Kennedy's Grove City legislation will deliver a head-splitting knock-out blow from which local and state government will never recover.” Google Scholar

60 “Major additions to civil rights regulation since the 1960s include the EEO revisions and the addition of Title IX in 1972, the addition of language discrimi-nation in 1974 and 1975, the administrative consolidation of EEO enforcement in 1978, the voting-rights revisions of 1982, the Grove City law of 1988, the disabilities legislation of 1990, and the civil rights legislation of 1991.Google Scholar

61 The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (PL 101–336); the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (PL 102–166).Google Scholar

62 Berkowitz, , “Prefact to the Americans With Disabilities Act”; Cathcart, David A. et al., The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Philadelphia, 1991); Perritt, Henry H. Jr., The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (New York, 1992).Google Scholar

63 The bellwether decision shaped by the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court in 1989 was City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company, 488 U.S. 469 (1989), which sharply narrowed the range of affirmative-action remedies practiced by local and state governments in minority contract set-aside programs. Croson, a constitutional ruling based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, was immune to congressional attack. But the civil rights coalition in Congress campaigned during 1990 and 1991 to overturn or revise several of the Court's statutory rulings of 1989, much as they had legislatively reversed Mobile (1980) in 1982 and Grove City (1984) in 1988. The 1989 Court rulings targeted by liberals in the civil rights bills of 1990 and 1991 and successfully revised in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 included Wards Cove Packing Company v. Antonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989), which shifted the burden of proof in job bias claims from employers to workers; Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164 (1989), which narrowed the protection of a Reconstruction-era civil rights statute from on-the-job activity to hiring decisions only; and Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755 (1989), which allowed individuals not party to a consent degree but affected by it to challenge it in court. Congress and the Nation, Vol. VIII, 1989–1992 (Washington, 1993), 757–60.Google Scholar

64 See Sniderman, Paul M. and Piazza, Thomas, The Scar of Race (Cambridge, Mass., 1993); Greenberg, Stanley B., Middle Class Dreams: The Politics of the American Majority (New York, 1995); Sniderman, Paul M. and Carmines, Edward G., Reaching Beyond Race (Cambridge, Mass., 1997).Google Scholar

65 Cook, Constance Ewing, Lobbying for Higher Education: How Colleges and Universities Influence Federal Policy (Nashville, Tenn., 1998).Google Scholar

66 Hobbs, Walter C., ed., Government Regulation of Higher Education (Cambridge, Mass., 1979).Google Scholar

67 Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (Berkeley, Calif., 1976).Google Scholar

68 Geiger, , Research and Relevant Knowledge, 258–60.Google Scholar

69 Graham, and Diamond, , The Rise of American Research Universities, 95–99, 214–20.Google Scholar

70 Congressional Quarterly, Congress and the Nation, Vol. VIII, 1989–1992 (Washington, 1993), 653–57.Google Scholar

71 Haworth, Karla, “A College That Fought to Receive Federal Aid Decides to Do Without,” Chronicle of Higher Education, October 25, 1997, A37.Google Scholar