Opinion ID: 415517
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pre-enactment legislative history

Text: 36 If the pre-enactment legislative history of Title IX reveals anything, it is that Congress did not expressly contemplate the type of problem that is before us today. Two factors are important in considering the pre-enactment legislative history of Title IX. First, Title IX was presented as a floor amendment, so there is no informative committee consideration. Second, Title IX was explicitly modeled after and contains virtually identical language to sections 601 and 602 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2000d et seq., which addresses race discrimination in all phases of federally funded programs, not merely in education. North Haven, 102 S.Ct. at 1922; Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 694, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 1956, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Sex Discrimination Regulations: Hearings Before Subcommittee on Post Secondary Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 16, at 150 ([T]he setting up of an identical administrative structure and the use of virtually identical statutory language substantiates the intent of Congress that the interpretation of Title IX was to provide the same coverage as had been provided under Title VI.) (Comments of Senator Bayh). (Sex Discrimination Hearings.) Thus, the legislative history of Title VI is useful in understanding Congress' intent when it enacted Title IX, although we recognize that it is obviously, Congress' intention in 1972, not 1964, that is of significance in interpreting Title IX. North Haven, 102 S.Ct. at 1922. 37 The so-called pinpoint provision of section 602 of Title VI, which permits the cutoff of federal funds only in the federally supported program or activity that is actually found to be engaged in race discrimination, was designed to balance the need to prevent federal monies from being used to advance discrimination, Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 565, 94 S.Ct. 786, 788, 789, 39 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974), against the fear that fund cutoffs would be exercised in a vindictive or punitive manner. E.g. 110 Cong.Rec. 7062 (1964) (Comments of Senator Pastore). Several senators harbored this fear, especially with regard to fund cutoffs for segregated public school systems. 13 They feared that funds to an entire state could be terminated if only a single school remained segregated and that innocent beneficiaries of federal funds would thus be adversely affected. 14 The need to pinpoint the termination of funds to the particular discriminating program was envisioned as an essentially geographic limitation, yet with broad applicability to prohibit the use of federal funds for discriminatory purposes. 15 38 We note that Title IX's legislative history indicates that Congress explicitly contemplated coverage of at least one of the types of harms suffered by the women who originally complained to the Secretary. There is substantial evidence in the record that future employers often regard membership in Iron Arrow as a very desirable attribute. Senator Bayh, Title IX's sponsor, noted the effect of educational opportunities on future employment. He identified the need for a, fair chance [for women] to secure the jobs of their choice ..., 118 Cong.Rec. 5808 (1972), as a significant motivation for enacting Title IX. 39 In sum, Title IX's pre-enactment legislative history is inconclusive with respect to whether Congress actually envisioned imputing the practices of outside organizations to federal fund recipients. The history does indicate two general principles. First, that in limiting an administrator's authority to cut off federal funds, Congress was concerned about abuses of the termination sanction that are very different from the Secretary's actions in the instant case. Thus, there is no indication that the pinpoint provision was designed to prohibit the Secretary from pursuing the type of sanctions he seeks to impose in this case. Second, Congress clearly intended that Title VI's and Title IX's prohibitions apply whenever federal funds bestow a benefit in a discriminatory manner. Included amongst those benefits are equal employment opportunities for women as a result of equal educational opportunities.