Civil Rights Restoration Act
The Civil Rights Restoration Act is a significant piece of legislation aimed at broadening the scope of anti-discrimination protections under various federal laws. Initially, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in federally funded programs. However, subsequent interpretations of the law limited its enforcement, often allowing discrimination in programs not directly receiving federal funds. The 1988 Civil Rights Restoration Act sought to rectify these limitations by requiring that any organization receiving federal assistance comply with nondiscrimination mandates across all its operations, not just the specific program benefiting from the funds.
The Act emerged in response to a Supreme Court ruling that weakened enforcement capabilities, causing concern among civil rights advocates. Despite facing considerable political opposition and a presidential veto, the Act was ultimately passed by Congress, overriding the veto and reinforcing the commitment to civil rights protections in education and employment. By addressing issues of discrimination based on gender, disability, and age, the Civil Rights Restoration Act represents an important step forward in the ongoing struggle for equality and justice in the United States.
Civil Rights Restoration Act
Significance: In 1987, Congress required recipients of federal financial assistance to uphold nondiscriminatory requirements of the 1964 and subsequent civil rights legislation in all respects, not merely in activity aided by federal funds.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandated that federal funds could not be used to support segregation or discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. The law did not affect a number of other civil rights problems, however. At Cornell University’s School of Agriculture, for example, women could not gain admission unless their entrance exam scores were 30 percent to 40 percent higher than those of male applicants. Epileptics were often barred from employment, and persons in their fifties were often told that they were qualified for a job but too old. To rectify these problems, Congress extended the scope of unlawful discrimination in federally assisted schools in Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 to cover gender; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 expanded the same coverage to the disabled; and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 added age as a protected class.
Enforcement of the statute regarding education was initially assigned to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which later became the US Department of Education. OCR ruled that the statute outlawed not only discrimination in the particular program supported by federal funds but also discrimination in programs supported by nonfederal funds. All recipients of federal financial assistance were asked to sign an assurance of compliance with OCR as a condition of receiving a federal grant.
Grove City College
From 1974 to 1984, Grove City College in western Pennsylvania received $1.8 million in tuition grants and guaranteed student loans but refused to sign an assurance of compliance. The college argued that the funds were for students, not the college, but OCR insisted that the financial aid was administered as a part of the college’s financial aid program and, therefore, the college must pledge as a whole not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or gender. OCR instituted enforcement proceedings against Grove City College, and an administrative law judge ruled in 1978 that the college could no longer receive federal student loan moneys.
Grove City College and four students desiring financial aid then sued. In 1980, when the case was first tried, the federal district court ruled in favor of Grove City College on the grounds that no sex discrimination had actually occurred. On appeal, the court of appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, and the matter was taken up by the Supreme Court of the United States, this time with Terrel H. Bell, head of the newly created federal Department of Education, as the defendant.
In Grove City College v. Bell (1984), Justice Byron R. White delivered the majority opinion of the Court, which held that OCR did not have sufficient congressional authority to withhold funds from Grove City College for failure to sign the assurance of compliance. Moreover, according to the Court, violations of Title VI could occur only in the specific program or activity supported directly with federal funds, a judgment that went beyond the question raised by the case. Justices William J. Brennan, Jr., and Thurgood Marshall dissented.
A New Bill
Shortly after the Supreme Court ruling, OCR dropped some seven hundred pending enforcement actions, resulting in an outcry from civil rights groups over the decision. Representative Augustus F. Hawkins authored the Civil Rights Restoration Act in the House, and Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy sponsored the bill in the Senate. Their aim was to amend all the affected statutes— Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. According to the bill, any agency or private firm that wanted to receive federal financial assistance would have to comply with the nondiscrimination requirement as a whole, even if the aid went to only one subunit of that agency or firm.
Although Hawkins’s version quickly passed in the House of Representatives, the measure was caught up in the politics of abortion, and the bill died in the Senate. Opponents advanced more than one thousand amendments over a period of four years, and representatives of the administration of President Ronald Reagan testified against passage of the law. A group known as the Moral Majority broadcast the fear that the bill would protect alcoholics, drug addicts, and homosexuals from discrimination, although there were no such provisions in the proposal.
More crucially, the Catholic Conference of Bishops, which was traditionally aligned with the Civil Rights movement, wanted two amendments to the bill. One proposed amendment, which was unsuccessful, would have exempted institutions affiliated with religious institutions from complying with the law if religious views would be compromised thereby. The other proposed amendment, which was opposed by the National Organization for Women, was an assurance that no federal funds would be spent on abortion. Congress delayed finding a compromise.
In 1987, leaving out references to abortion, Congress finally adopted the Civil Rights Restoration Act. By vetoing the measure, Reagan became the first president to veto a civil rights bill since Andrew Johnson. Supporters of the act sought to override the presidential veto. Opponents in the Senate tried to destroy the bill by various amendments in debate on the floor of the Senate on January 28, 1988. Senator John C. Danforth proposed an amendment that would disallow federal payments for abortion. This amendment passed. With the passage of the act by the Senate on March 22, 1988, Congress overrode Reagan’s veto, and the law went into effect immediately.
Bibliography
Bringle, Jennifer. The Civil Rights Act of 1964. New York: Rosen, 2015. Print.
Curry, George E. "Reagan Vetoes Civil Rights Bill: Wright Predicts a Speedy Override in House, Senate." Chicago Tribune. Chicago Tribune, 17 Mar. 1988. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
Shay, Alison. "On This Day: The Civil Rights Restoration Act." Publishing the Long Civil Rights Movement. UNC–Chapel Hill, 22 Mar. 2012. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.