Rights Panel Would Back Fight Against Weakened Sex-Bias Law

The chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said Thursday that the commission is willing to support legislation to overturn a 1984 Supreme Court decision that drastically weakened federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination.

Chairman Clarence Pendleton Jr., in San Diego for a hearing of the commission, said any successful legislation would have to reverse the court’s decision in Grove City College vs. Bell, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot cut off federal aid to an educational institution simply because one department in the institution fails to comply with laws against sex discrimination.

A congressional attempt to overturn the court’s ruling ended last year when the Senate became deadlocked in a bitter debate over how much authority the federal government should have over non-educational institutions that receive federal aid.

“I am sure it will come up again this year,” Pendleton said of the attempts to override the law. “There is no question about it.”

What the commission wants, Pendleton said, is a law that will make institutions responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws in all departments, not just those that receive federal aid.

The commission voted last year to ask Congress to overturn the Supreme Court ruling but refused to support legislation that most commissioners said was too general.

Public Hearing

During a public hearing Thursday, commissioners heard from representatives from four organizations that were affected by the Supreme Court decision: Eva Auchincloss, executive director of the Women’s Sports Foundation; Ronald Vera of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Bruce Hafen, president of the American Assn. of Presidents of Independent Colleges, and Patrick Boyle of the National Grocers Assn.

While Auchincloss and Vera urged the commission to take a stronger stand and support strong legislation against sex discrimination, Hafen and Boyle argued in favor of a law that would prohibit the federal government from overregulating other non-educational institutions.

Hafen argued that even some educational institutions, particularly religious schools, should not be forced to comply with some federal laws.

“Church-related institutions and other colleges with a religious orientation have a peculiar set of difficulties with being forced into the mold of state schools,” he said.

“Not only the religion clauses, but the entire spirit of the First Amendment protects a private institution of higher education from being forced to redirect its distinctive educational mission and environment to meet ends chosen by government,” Hafen said.

He urged the commission to oppose any legislation that would categorize federal aid for students as a form of government support of the colleges they attend.

Vera, however, argued that federal student aid must be counted as aid to the schools to ensure that private colleges do not discriminate.

Student aid is the only type of federal assistance some private colleges receive, he said. If this aid is not counted, they could refuse admission to certain races, and there would be nothing the federal government could do about it.

Baffling Problem

None of the panelists could agree on a solution to the problem, and the commissioners seemed equally baffled.

“I agree with almost everything that was said here,” Commissioner John H. Bunzel said. “That just indicates the complexity of the issue.”

The issue increases in complexity, he said, when people take the all-or-nothing approach and say “either you are totally with us or you are totally against us.”

The commission will be looking for a new bill from the 99th Congress that recognizes the diversity of all institutions that receive federal assistance, he told the panel.

The grocery store that accepts federal food stamps from customers should not be subjected to the same anti-discrimination laws as the college that accepts direct federal assistance, he said.

Pendleton said the panel was invited to address the commission so that the commissioners could hear firsthand how the Supreme Court decision has affected certain organizations.