{
  "id": "R45665",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R45665",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 603326,
      "date": "2019-04-04",
      "retrieved": "2019-08-12T22:17:20.108730",
      "title": "Civil Rights at School: Agency Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964",
      "summary": "Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits federally funded programs, activities, and institutions from discriminating based on race, color, or national origin. In its current form, largely unchanged since its adoption, Title VI incorporates a number of unique features. Besides barring federally funded programs from discriminating based on race, Title VI also authorizes and directs all federal funding agencies to promulgate rules effectuating that nondiscrimination mandate. Those rules were also made subject to presidential approval, an authority since delegated to the Attorney General by executive order. To enforce Title VI, agencies also have at their disposal a uniquely powerful tool: the termination or refusal to provide federal financial support to an institution or program seeking it. Although this power to withdraw federal funds was envisioned as the primary mechanism for enforcing Title VI, that authority was also hedged with a range of procedural requirements designed to spur agencies to resolve complaints against recipients through voluntary agreements.  \nIn the 50 years since Title VI became law much of the debate over the statute has centered on how the courts have read its two central provisions\u2014Sections 601 and 602\u2014and how federal agencies have gone about enforcing them. In the courts those debates have especially focused on what counts as unlawful \u201cdiscrimination\u201d under Section 601. The courts have long agreed that Title VI bars federally funded programs from intentionally singling out individuals by race for adverse treatment. In its first case involving Title VI the Supreme Court suggested that Section 601 might also reach beyond intentional discrimination to bar the use of policies with a disparate impact\u2014policies that, irrespective of the intent, impose a discriminatory effect on different racial groups. With its 2001 ruling in Alexander v Sandoval, the Court appeared to put that interpretive question to rest: Title VI directly prohibits only intentional discrimination.   \nFor the agencies charged with enforcing Title VI, the primary concerns have tended to be more operational and programmatic\u2014how to go about the business of reviewing and assessing particular practices under Section 602 of the statute. Section 602 authorizes and directs agencies to issue regulations \u201ceffectuat[ing]\u201d Section 601. The breadth of that authority has produced a further point of uncertainty about the statute: what limits are there to funding agencies\u2019 rulemaking authority under Title VI? So far, two divergent views have emerged from the Court\u2019s decisions: (1) a largely deferential view that would give agencies leeway to issue prophylactic rules reaching conduct beyond intentional discrimination, and (2) a more exacting view under which agencies may redress only provable cases of intentional discrimination.  \nAlthough Title VI\u2019s nondiscrimination prohibition accompanies nearly all awards of federal financial support, much of the statute\u2019s doctrine has been shaped by its use in the public schools. That doctrinal history has centered on one agency in particular: the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Title VI continues to play a central part in OCR\u2019s mission of protecting civil rights on campuses at all educational levels, and in institutions both public and private. OCR handles a large volume and variety of claims alleging race and national origin discrimination, which it administratively resolves through a series of investigative procedures laid out in its Case Processing Manual. Although the types of allegations OCR investigates vary, three major categories of complaint occupy much of its docket: disparate treatment, retaliation, and racial harassment.\nCongress has the ultimate say over how Title VI works\u2014rooted not only in its legislative power but in its authority to oversee the statute\u2019s enforcement. In recent years two questions surrounding Title VI have drawn particular congressional interest: the viability of disparate impact regulations under Section 602 and the possible inclusion of new protected classes in Section 601. No matter how Congress may choose to address those subjects, however, they are likely only to raise further questions about the future of this landmark civil rights law.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45665",
          "sha1": "756ffdba1aa77ecdaacf233a394528429c0c2cc6",
          "filename": "files/20190404_R45665_756ffdba1aa77ecdaacf233a394528429c0c2cc6.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45665",
          "sha1": "a0ddea4244cc76cbf4e437c34e692ad73c323489",
          "filename": "files/20190404_R45665_a0ddea4244cc76cbf4e437c34e692ad73c323489.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4810,
          "name": "Elementary & Secondary Education"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4906,
          "name": "Postsecondary Education"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}