We’re Back to Taxpayer-Supported Bias

Taxpayer-supported discrimination is alive and well in America. The intent of Congress and previous Republican and Democratic administrations--that federal money not support institutions that discriminate--was subverted by the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Grove City College vs. Bell. The American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund have examined the effects of that decision and found that it has greatly damaged the civil-rights laws of our country.

In 1964 Congress passed the Civil Rights Act. Title VI of this law prohibits discrimination in a program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Generally, federal officials took the approach that if an institution discriminated in any of its programs and the institution received federal money, Title VI applied. The principle was simple. If an institution received federal money, it had to obey federal law prohibiting race discrimination.

Title VI became a major tool in dismantling our segregated society. Millions of non-white Americans had certain opportunities open to them for the first time. Indeed, the law was so successful that Congress modeled other civil-rights laws on Title VI. These newer laws prohibited recipients of federal funds from discrimination on the basis of handicap and age, and prohibited sex discrimination in educational institutions.

Most Americans agreed with President John F. Kennedy’s explanation of the purpose of civil-rights laws: “Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial discrimination.” But today Americans have lost this right to fair treatment. We can be discriminated against by federally funded institutions. Hospitals, schools, public and private agencies as well as corporations can freely treat people differently on the basis of race, national origin, sex, handicap or age.

In the Grove City case, students attending the college received loans from the federal government to pay tuition. The Supreme Court decided that only the “program or activity” of the college directly receiving federal money--in this case the financial-aid office--was covered by non-discrimination laws. All other parts of the institution were free to discriminate.

In short, federal protection exists only where there is a direct tie between the money granted and the discrimination. So if the building housing the English Department was renovated with federal money, the laws apply. Next door, in the History Department, a building constructed by alumni money, federal civil-rights laws can be ignored.

This issue is important because you, your children and your parents now may be victims of discrimination by tax-supported institutions. Here are a few hypothetical examples:

At a local community college your daughter is refused admission to an advanced computer class for gifted students until all of the boys who want to take the class are accommodated. At a private college blacks and Latinos are forbidden to try out for the golf and tennis teams that practice at an “exclusive” private country club. A bus driver with an exemplary safety record is dismissed after the school district learns that he has diabetes.

Those kinds of discrimination are not farfetched, but are currently beyond the reach of the law, because computer classes, sports and school transportation do not typically receive federal financial aid.

Federal enforcement of civil-rights laws has decreased dramatically. Many discrimination complaints have been dismissed. Before beginning an investigation on the merits of a complaint, enforcement officials must trace precisely where an institution’s federal funds are being used. This process takes a long time, and often results in dismissal of the case. More and more recipients of federal funds are raising Grove City as a defense at the earliest opportunity. Other recipients already found to have violated anti-discrimination laws before Grove City have succeeded in having the earlier charges against them dismissed as a result of the ruling.

There is a way to halt this deterioration of our civil rights. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1985 must be passed quickly. The rapid initial progress of this bill has been halted by the addition of abortion-related amendments that would revoke regulations applying to colleges and universities. Congress must be urged to pass a “clean” bill whose purpose is to do exactly what the bill’s title implies--restore the principle that institutions receiving federal assistance must comply with the nondiscrimination requirements of federal law. Simple justice requires no less.