Court Opinion

ID: 9429512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:26:57.891531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:19.671032
License: Public Domain

Justice Brennan,
with whom Justice Marshall joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The Court today concludes that Grove City College is “receiving Federal financial assistance” within the meaning of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U. S. C. *582§ 1681(a), because a number of its students receive federal education grants. As the Court persuasively demonstrates in Part II of its opinion, that conclusion is dictated by “the need to accord [Title IX] a sweep as broad as its language,” ante, at 564; by reference to the analogous statutory language and legislative history of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ante, at 566; by reliance on the unique post-enactment history of Title IX, ante, at 567-568; and by recognition of the strong congressional intent that there is no “substantive difference between direct institutional assistance and aid received by a school through its students,” ante, at 564, 565-566, 569-570, and nn. 12-14, 19. For these same reasons, however, I cannot join Part III of the Court’s opinion, in which the Court interprets the language in Title IX that limits application of the statute to “any education program or activity” receiving federal moneys. By conveniently ignoring these controlling indicia of congressional intent, the Court also ignores the primary purposes for which Congress enacted Title IX. The result — allowing Title IX coverage for the College’s financial aid program, but rejecting institutionwide coverage even though federal moneys benefit the entire College — may be superficially pleasing to those who are uncomfortable with federal intrusion into private educational institutions, but it has no relationship to the statutory scheme enacted by Congress.
hH
The Court has twice before had occasion to ascertain the precise scope of Title IX. See North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, 456 U. S. 512 (1982); Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677 (1979). In both cases, the Court emphasized the broad congressional purposes underlying enactment of the statute. In Cannon, while holding that Title IX confers a private cause of action on individual plaintiffs, we noted that the primary congressional purpose behind the statute was “to avoid the use of federal resources to support discriminatory practices,” and that this purpose “is generally *583served by the statutory procedure for the termination of federal financial support for institutions engaged in discriminatory practices.” Id., at 704. In North Haven, while holding that employment discrimination is within the reach of Title IX, we expressed “no doubt that ‘if we are to give [Title IX] the scope that its origins dictate, we must accord it a sweep as broad as its language.’” 456 U. S., at 521 (quoting United States v. Price, 383 U. S. 787, 801 (1966)). And although we acknowledged that an agency’s authority “both to promulgate regulations and to terminate funds is subject to the program-specific limitation of §§901 and 902,” 456 U. S., at 538, we explicitly refused to define “program” at that time, id., at 540.
When reaching that question today,1 the Court completely disregards the broad remedial purposes of Title IX that consistently have controlled our prior interpretations of this civil rights statute. Moreover, a careful examination of the statute’s legislative history, the accepted meaning of similar statutory language in Title VI, and the postenactment history of Title IX will demonstrate that the Court’s narrow definition of “program or activity” is directly contrary to congressional intent.
A
The statute that was eventually enacted as Title IX had its genesis in separate proposals considered by the House and the Senate, in 1970 and 1971, respectively. In the House, the Special Subcommittee on Education, under the leadership of Representative Edith Green, held extensive hearings during the summer of 1970 on “Discrimination Against *584Women.” See Hearings on §805 of H. R. 16098 before the Special Subcommittee on Education of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) (1970 Hearings). At that time, the Subcommittee was considering a package of legislation that included a simple amendment adding the word “sex” to the list of discriminations prohibited by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000d.2 See North Haven, supra, at 523, n. 13; Cannon, supra, at 694, n. 16. Testimony offered during those hearings, however, focused on the evidence of pervasive sex discrimination in educational institutions.3 It therefore was not surprising that the version of the Subcommittee’s *585proposal that was eventually passed by the full House was limited in its application to federally assisted education programs or activities. See 117 Cong. Rec. 39248-39261, 39353-39354 (1971). More important for present purposes, however, the House-passed bill retained the overall format of the Subcommittee proposal, and therefore continued to incorporate the “program or activity” language and its enforcement provisions from Title VI. Id., at 39364-39365.
In the Senate, action began on Title IX in 1971, when Senator Bayh first introduced a floor amendment to the comprehensive education legislation then being considered. Amendment No. 398 to Higher Education Act of 1971, reprinted in 117 Cong. Rec. 30156 (1971). As then written, Senator Bayh’s proposal was clearly intended to cover an entire institution whenever any education program or activity conducted by that institution was receiving federal moneys. In particular, the amendment expressly prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex “under any program or activity conducted by a public institution of higher education, or any school or department of graduate education, which is a recipient of Federal financial assistance for any education program or activity.” As explained by its sponsor, the amendment would have prohibited sex discrimination “by any public institution of higher education or any institution of graduate education receiving Federal educational financial assistance.” Id., at 30157.4
The 1971 amendment was eventually ruled nongermane, id., at 30415, so Senator Bayh was forced to renew his efforts during the next session. When reintroduced, the amendment had been modified to conform in substantial part with the version of Title IX that had been passed by the House. See 118 Cong. Rec. 5803 (1972). This change was apparently made to ensure adoption of the antidiscrimination provisions by the Conference Committee that would soon *586convene. See id., at 5813 (remarks of Sen. Pell, principal Senate Manager of the bill) (“As [Senator Bayh] knows, I said to him earlier that I intended to support the position he has advocated in conference with the House. He has chosen to bring the amendment before the Senate now”). There is thus nothing to suggest that the Senate had retreated from the underlying premise of the original amendment proposed by Senator Bayh in 1971 — that sex discrimination would be prohibited in any educational institution receiving federal financial assistance. Indeed, Senator Bayh’s willingness to conform the language of his amendment to the bill already enacted by the House proved successful, as Title IX was approved by the Conference Committee, see S. Conf. Rep. No. 92-798, pp. 221-222 (1972), and enacted into law.
In sum, although the contemporaneous legislative history does not definitively explain the intended meaning of the program-specific language included in Title IX, it lends no support to the interpretation adopted by the Court. What is clear, moreover, is that Congress intended enforcement of Title IX to mirror the policies and procedures utilized for enforcement under Title VI.
B
“Title IX was patterned after Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Cannon, 441 U. S., at 694. Except for the substitution of the word “sex” in Title IX to replace the words “race, color, or national origin” in Title VI, and for the limitation of Title IX to “education” programs or activities, the two statutes use identical language to describe their scope. The interpretation of this critical language as it already existed under Title VI is therefore crucial to an understanding of congressional intent in 1972 when Title IX was enacted using the same language.
The voluminous legislative history of Title VI is not easy to comprehend, especially when one considers the emotionally and politically charged atmosphere operating at the time of its enactment. And there are no authoritative committee re*587ports explaining the many compromises that were eventually enacted, including the program-specific limitations that found their way into Title VI. Moreover, as might be expected, statements were made by various Members of Congress that can be cited to support a whole range of definitions for the “program or activity” language. For every instance in which a legislator equated the word “program” with a particular grant statute,5 there is an example of a legislator defining “program or activity” more broadly.6
Without completely canvassing several volumes of the Congressional Record, I believe it is safe to say that, by including the programmatic language in Title VI, Congress sought to allay fears on the part of many legislators that one isolated violation of the statute’s antidiscrimination provisions would result in the wholesale termination of federal funds. In particular, “Congress was primarily concerned with two facets of the termination power: the possibility that noncompliance in a single school district might lead to termination of funds to the entire state; and the possibility that discrimination in the education program might result in the termination of federal assistance to unrelated federally financed programs, such as highways.” Comment, 118 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1113, 1119-1120 (1970) (footnotes omitted). See id., at 1116-1124. See also 687 F. 2d 684, 697-698 (CA3 1982).
But even accepting that there is some uncertainty concerning the 1964 understanding of “program or activity,” we need not be overly concerned with whatever doubt surrounds the precise intent, if any, of the 88th Congress. For what is crucial in ascertaining the meaning of the program-specific lan*588guage included in Title IX is the understanding that the 92d Congress had at the time it enacted the identical language. Cf. Cannon, supra, at 696-698. And there were two principal indicators of the accepted interpretation of the program-specific language in Title VI that were available to Members of Congress in 1972 when Title IX was enacted — the existing administrative regulations promulgated under Title VI, and the available judicial decisions that had already interpreted those provisions.
The Title VI regulations first issued by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare during the 1960’s, and remaining in effect during 1972, could not have been clearer in the way they applied to educational institutions. See generally 45 CFR pt. 80 (1972). For example, § 80.4(d) explained the assurances required from, among others, institutions of higher education that received federal financial assistance:
“(d) Assurances from institutions. (1) In the case of any application for Federal financial assistance to an institution of higher education (including assistance for construction, for research, for a special training project, for a student loan program, or for any other purpose), the assurance required by this section shall extend to admission practices and to all other practices relating to the treatment of students.
“(2) The assurance required with respect to an institution of higher education, . . . insofar as the assurance relates to the institution’s practices with respect to admission or other treatment of individuals as students, ... or to the opportunity to participate in the provision of services or other benefits to such individuals, shall be applicable to the entire institution unless the applicant establishes, to the satisfaction of the responsible Department official, that the institution’s practices in designated parts or programs of the institution will in no way affect its practices in the program of the institution for *589which Federal financial assistance is sought, or the beneficiaries of or participants in such program. If in any such case the assistance sought is for the construction of a facility or part of a facility, the assurance shall in any event extend to the entire facility and to facilities operated in connection therewith” (Emphasis added.)
A list of illustrative applications followed that further demonstrated the broad scope of these regulations. One of the illustrations was aimed particularly at institutions of higher education:
“In a research, training, demonstration, or other grant to a university for activities to be conducted in a graduate school, discrimination in the admission and treatment of students in the graduate school is prohibited, and the prohibition extends to the entire university unless it satisfies the responsible Department official that practices with respect to other parts or programs of the university will not interfere, directly or indirectly, with fulfillment of the assurance required with respect to the graduate school.” § 80.5(c).7
*590It must have been clear to the Congress enacting Title IX, therefore, that the administrative interpretation of that statute would follow a similarly expansive approach. Nothing in the legislative history suggests otherwise; and “[i]t is always appropriate to assume that our elected representatives, like other citizens, know the law.” Cannon, 441 U. S., at 696-697.
Nor were there any outstanding court decisions in 1972 that would have led Congress to believe that Title VI was much narrower in scope. The principal judicial interpretations of Title VI prior to 1972 were announced by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In a school desegregation case, for example, the court expressly approved the Department’s desegregation guidelines, while noting the broad purposes underlying the prohibitory section of Title VI. United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 372 F. 2d 836, 881-882 (CA5 1966), adopted en banc, 380 F. 2d 385 (CA5 1967) (per curiam) (“ The legality is based on the general power of Congress to apply reasonable conditions. ... In general, it seems rather anomalous that the Federal Government should aid and abet discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin by granting money and other kinds of financial aid'”) (quoting Cong. Celler). In another desegregation case, the court noted that Title VI “states a reasonable condition that the United States may attach to any grant of financial assistance and may enforce by refusal or withdrawal of federal assistance.” Bossier Parish School Board v. Lemon, 370 F. 2d 847, 852 (CA5 1967). More significantly, the court went on to equate a local school system with a “program or activity” receiving federal aid, noting that the “School Board accepted federal financial assistance in November 1964, and thereby brought its school system within the class of programs subject to the section 601 prohibition against discrimination.” Ibid.
Finally, in Board of Public Instruction v. Finch, 414 F. 2d 1068 (CA5 1969), the court spoke more directly to the *591program-specific limitation in Title VI. Although the court refused “to assume . . . that defects in one part of a school system automatically infect the whole,” id., at 1074, and rejected the definition of the term “program” offered by the Department, id., at 1077, the court also noted that “the purpose of the Title VI cutoff is best effectuated by separate consideration of the use or intended use of federal funds under each grant statute,” id., at 1078. In particular, although “there will ... be cases from time to time where a particular program, within a state, within a county, within a district, even within a school ... , is effectively insulated from otherwise unlawful activities,” termination of federal funds is proper if they “are administered in a discriminatory manner, or if they support a program which is infected by a discriminatory environment.” Ibid. To this end, the court remanded the case to the Department for specific findings on the relationship, if any, between the three types of federal grants received by the school system (federal aid for the education of children from low-income families, for supplementary education centers, and for adult education) and the system’s discriminatory practices.
In short, the judicial interpretations of Title VI existing in 1972 were either in agreement with the expansive reach of the Department’s regulations, Bossier Parish, supra; Jefferson County, supra, or sanctioned a broad-based termination of federal aid if the funded programs were affected by discriminatory practices, Finch, supra. See also Note, 55 Geo. L. J. 325, 344-345 (1966) (supporting Department’s treatment of a school district as an individual program). Cf. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U. S. 563, 568 (1974) (treating an entire school system or school district as an “educational program” under Title VI). Like the existing administrative regulations, therefore, they provide strong support for the view that Congress intended an expansive interpretation of the program-specific language included in Title IX. Because Members of Congress “repeatedly] referred] to Title VI and *592its modes of enforcement, we are especially justified in presuming both that those representatives were aware of the prior interpretation of Title VI and that that interpretation reflects their intent with respect to Title IX.” Cannon, supra, at 697-698.
C
If any doubt remains about the congressional intent underlying the program-specific language included in Title IX, it is removed by the unique postenactment history of the statute. “Although postenactment developments cannot be accorded ‘the weight of contemporary legislative history, we would be remiss if we ignored these authoritative expressions concerning the scope and purpose of Title IX. . . North Haven, 456 U. S., at 535 (quoting Cannon, supra, at 687, n. 7). See also ante, at 567-568.
Regulations promulgated by the Department to implement Title IX, both as proposed, 39 Fed. Reg. 22228 (1974), and as finally adopted, 40 Fed. Reg. 24128 (1975), included an interpretation of program specificity consistent with the view of Title VI and with the congressional intent behind Title IX outlined above. In particular, the regulations prohibited sex discrimination “under any academic, extracurricular, research, occupational training, or other education program or activity operated by a recipient which receives or benefits from Federal financial assistance.” Id., at 24140 (now codified at 34 CFR § 106.31 (1983)). Introductory remarks explained the basis for the agency’s decision:
“[TJitle IX will be consistent with the interpretation of similar language contained in title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. . . . Therefore, an education program or activity or part thereof operated by a recipient of Federal financial assistance administered by the Department will be subject to the requirements of this regulation if it receives or benefits from such assistance.[8] This inter*593pretation is consistent with the only case specifically ruling on the language contained in title VI, which holds that Federal funds may be terminated under title VI upon a finding that they ‘[are] infected by a discriminatory environment.’” 40 Fed. Reg., at 24128 (quoting Finch, 414 F. 2d, at 1078-1079).
Thus, the agency charged with the statute’s implementation initially interpreted the program-specific language of Title IX in a manner consistent with the view of Congress’ intent outlined above — to allow for application of the statute to an entire institution if the institution is comprised of education programs or activities that receive or benefit from federal moneys.
Moreover, pursuant to § 431(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act, as amended by Pub. L. 93-380, 88 Stat. 567, these regulations were submitted to Congress for review. As we explained in North Haven, supra, at 531-532 (quoting 20 U. S. C. § 1232(d)(1)), this “laying before” procedure afforded Congress an opportunity to disapprove any regulation that it found to be “inconsistent with the Act from which it derives its authority.” And although the regulations interpreting the program-specific limitations of Title IX were explicitly considered by both Houses of Congress, no resolutions of disapproval were passed by the Legislature.
In particular, two resolutions to invalidate the Department’s regulations were proposed in the Senate, each specifically challenging the regulations because of the program-*594specificity requirements of Title IX. One resolution would have provided a blanket disapproval of the regulations, S. Con. Res. 46, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975), premised in part on the view that “[t]he regulations are inconsistent with the enactment in that they apply to programs or activities not receiving Federal funds such as athletics and extracurricular activities,” 121 Cong. Rec. 17300 (1975) (remarks of Sen. Helms). The other resolution was aimed more particularly at the regulation of athletic programs and activities not receiving direct federal moneys, but also was premised on the program-specific limitations in the statute. See S. Con. Res. 52, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975).9 Neither resolution, *595however, was acted upon after referral to the appropriate Committee.
In the House, extensive hearings were held by two separate Subcommittees of the Committee on Education and Labor. Of primary interest are the six days of hearings held by the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education to review the Department’s regulations “solely to see if they are consistent with the law and with the intent of the Congress in enacting the law.” See Sex Discrimination Regulations: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education of the House Committee on Education and Labor, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1975) (1975 Hearings) (remarks of Rep. O’Hara). Among the numerous witnesses testifying about the programmatic reach of the Department’s regulations were Senator Bayh, the chief Senate sponsor of the legislation, see supra, at 585-586, and HEW Secretary Weinber-ger. Both strongly supported the scope of the regulations as consistent with the intent evidenced by the 92d Congress in 1972. See, e. g., 1975 Hearings, at 169-171 (statement of Sen. Bayh); id., at 178 (testimony of Sen. Bayh); id., at 438, 485 (testimony of Secretary Weinberger); id., at 487-488 (letter from Secretary Weinberger).10 Specifically focusing on *596the legal basis for the Department’s regulations, the Secretary noted:
“One of the places you look for guidance is in the interpretation that the courts have given to similar statutes. Title VI, in the Finch case, was interpreted in a way. . . that programs that have any educational value or any educational meaning are the ones that are covered regardless of whether the Federal funds go specifically to those programs.
“In other words, if the Federal funds go to an institution which has educational programs, then the institution is covered throughout its activities. That essentially was the ruling with respect to similar language in title VI, and that is why we used this interpretation in title IX.” Id., at 485.
Then, in a subsequent letter submitted to the Subcommittee, Secretary Weinberger addressed the precise issue posed by Grove City College in this case:
“[I]f students attending an institution of higher education are receiving benefits under the various Federal educational assistance programs, then all of the institution’s activities that are supported by tuition payments of the students can be said to be receiving Federal financial assistance.” Id., at 488 (emphasis in original).11
*597Despite the attention focused upon, and the strong defense offered in support of, the programmatic reach of the Department’s regulations at these hearings, the House offered no formal resistance to the regulations. Indeed, among the several resolutions of disapproval introduced in the House, only one directly mentioned this aspect of the regulations, and this resolution was not acted upon either by committee or by the full House. H. R. Con. Res. 311, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975) (disapproving regulations that “would apply to athletic programs and grants which neither receive nor benefit from Federal financial assistance”); see 121 Cong. Rec. 19209 (1975).
Although the failure of Congress to disapprove the Department’s regulations is not itself determinative, it does “len[d] weight to the argument” that the regulations were consistent with congressional intent. North Haven, 456 U. S., at 534. Moreover, “the relatively insubstantial interest given the resolutions of disapproval that were introduced seems particularly significant since Congress has proceeded to amend [Title IX] when it has disagreed with [the Department’s] in*598terpretation of the statute.” Ibid. Indeed, those amendments, by exempting from the reach of Title IX various facilities or services at educational institutions that themselves do not receive direct federal aid, strongly suggest that Congress understands the statute otherwise to encompass such programs or activities.12
*599In conclusion, each of the factors relevant to the interpretation of the program-specificity requirements of Title IX, taken individually or collectively, demonstrates that the Court today limits the reach of Title IX in a way that was wholly unintended by Congress. The contemporaneous legislative history of Title IX, the relevant interpretation of similar language in Title VI, and the administrative and legislative interpretations of Title IX since the statute’s original enactment all lead to the same conclusion: that Title IX coverage for an institution of higher education is appropriate if federal moneys are received by or benefit the entire institution.
HH
A proper application of Title IX to the circumstances of this case demonstrates beyond peradventure that the Court has unjustifiably limited the statute’s reach. Grove City College enrolls approximately 140 students who utilize Basic Educational Opportunity Grants (BEOG’s) to pay for their education at the College. Although the grant moneys are paid directly to the students, the Court properly concludes that the use of these federal moneys at the College means that the College “receives Federal financial assistance” within the meaning of Title IX. The Court also correctly notes that a principal purpose underlying congressional enactment of the BEOG program is to provide funds that will benefit colleges and universities as a whole. It necessarily follows, in my view, that the entire undergraduate institution operated by Grove City College is subject to the antidiscrimi-nation provisions included in Title IX.
A
In determining the scope of Title IX coverage, the primary focus should be on the purposes meant to be served by the *600particular federal funds received by the institution.13 In this case, Congress has clearly indicated that BEOG moneys are intended to benefit any college or university that enrolls students receiving such grants. As the Court repeatedly recognizes: “The legislative history of the [Education Amendments of 1972] is replete with statements evincing Congress’ awareness that the student assistance programs established by the amendments would significantly aid colleges and universities. In fact, one of the stated purposes of the student aid provisions was to ‘provid[e] assistance to institutions of higher education.’ Pub. L. 92-318, § 1001(c)(1), 86 Stat. 381, 20 U. S. C. § 1070(a)(5).” Ante, at 565-566 (footnote omitted). See also ante, at 564 (Title IX “contains no hint that Congress perceived a substantive difference between direct institutional assistance and aid received by a school through its students”); ante, at 565, n. 13 (“student aid programs . . . were . . . designed to assist colleges and universities”); ante, at 569, n. 19 (“The history of [the reenactments of the statutory authorization for BEOG’s] makes clear that Congress regards BEOG’s and other forms of student aid as a critical source of support for educational institutions”).
In many respects, therefore, Congress views financial aid to students, and in particular BEOG’s, as the functional equivalent of general aid to institutions. Given this undeniable and clearly stated congressional purpose, it would seem to be self-evident that Congress intended colleges or universities enrolling students who receive BEOG’s to be covered, in their entirety, by the antidiscrimination provisions of Title IX. That statute’s primary purpose, after all, is to ensure *601that federal moneys are not used to support discriminatory practices. Cannon, 441 U. S., at 704.
Under the Court’s holding, in contrast, Grove City College is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sex in its own “financial aid program,” but is free to discriminate in other “programs or activities” operated by the institution. Underlying this result is the unstated and unsupportable assumption that moneys received through BEOG’s are meant only to be utilized by the College’s financial aid program. But it is undisputed that BEOG moneys, paid to the institution as tuition and fees and used in the general operating budget, are utilized to support most, and perhaps all, of the facilities and services that together constitute Grove City College.14
The absurdity of the Court’s decision is further demonstrated by examining its practical effect. According to the Court, the “financial aid program” at Grove City College may not discriminate on the basis of sex because it is covered by Title IX, but the College is not prohibited from discriminating in its admissions, its athletic programs, or even its various academic departments. The Court thus sanctions practices that Congress clearly could not have intended: for example, after today’s decision, Grove City College would be free to segregate male and female students in classes run by its mathematics department. This would be so even though *602the affected students are attending the College with the financial assistance provided by federal funds. If anything about Title IX were ever certain, it is that discriminatory practices like the one just described were meant to be prohibited by the statute.
B
The Court, moreover, does not offer any defensible justification for its holding. First, the Court states that it has “no doubt” that BEOG’s administered through the Regular Disbursement System (RDS) are received, not by the entire College, but by its financial aid program. Thus, the Court reasons, BEOG’s administered through the Alternative Disbursement System must also be received only by the financial aid program. The premise of this syllogism, however, simply begs the question presented; until today’s decision, there was considerable doubt concerning the reach of Title IX in a college or university administering BEOG’s through the RDS. Indeed, the extent to which Title IX covers an educational institution receiving BEOG’s is the same regardless of the procedural mechanism chosen by the college to disburse the student aid. With this argument, therefore, the Court is simply restating the question presented by the case.
Second, the Court rejects the notion that the federal funds disbursed under the BEOG program are received by the entire institution because they effectively “free up” the College’s own resources for use by all programs or activities that are operated by Grove City College. But coverage of an entire institution that receives BEOG’s through its students is not dependent upon such a theory. Instead, Title IX coverage for the whole undergraduate institution at Grove City College is premised on the congressional intent that BEOG moneys would provide aid for the college or university as a whole. Therefore, whatever merit the Court’s argument may have for federal moneys that are intended solely to benefit a particular aspect of an educational institution, such as *603a research grant designed to assist a specific laboratory or professor, see n. 13, swpra, the freeing-up theory is simply irrelevant when the federal financial assistance is meant to benefit the entire institution.
Third, the Court contradicts its earlier recognition that BEOG’s are no different from general aid to a college or university by claiming that “[s]tudent financial aid programs . . . are mi generis.” Ante, at 573. Although this assertion serves to limit severely the effect of the Court’s holding, it is wholly unexplained, especially in light of the forceful evidence of congressional intent to the contrary. Indeed, it would be more accurate to say that financial aid for students is the prototypical method for funneling federal aid to institutions of higher education.
Finally, although not explicitly offered as a rationale, the Court’s holding might be explained by its willingness to defer to the Government’s position as it has been represented to this Court. But until the Government filed its briefs in this case, it had consistently argued that Title IX coverage for the entire undergraduate institution operated by Grove City College was authorized by the statute. See ante, at 562, n. 10, 570. The latest position adopted by the Government, irrespective of the motivations that might underlie this recent change, is therefore entitled to little, if any, deference. Cf. North Haven, 456 U. S., at 522-523, n. 12, 538-539, n. 29 (deference not appropriate when “there is no consistent administrative interpretation of the Title IX regulations”). The interpretation of statutes as important as Title IX should not be subjected so easily to shifts in policy by the executive branch.
Ill
In sum, the program-specific language in Title IX was designed to ensure that the reach of the statute is dependent upon the scope of federal financial assistance provided to an institution. When that financial assistance is clearly *604intended to serve as federal aid for the entire institution, the institution as a whole should be covered by the statute’s prohibition on sex discrimination. Any other interpretation clearly disregards the intent of Congress and severely weakens the antidiscrimination provisions included in Title IX. I therefore cannot join in Part III of the Court’s opinion.

 There is much to commend the suggestion, made by Justice Stevens, that Part III of the Court’s opinion is no more than an advisory opinion, unnecessary to the resolution of this case and unsupported by any factual findings made below. See ante, p. 579 (concurring in part and concurring in result). Because the Court has not heeded that suggestion, however, I feel compelled to express my view on the merits of the issue decided by the Court.

 The prohibitory section of Title VI provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” For reasons explained infra, at 585-586, the version of Title IX that was eventually enacted by Congress is for all relevant purposes identical to this provision. See ante, at 557, n. 1, for the text of Title IX.

 Also during those hearings, representatives of the Executive Branch first raised objections about the expansive reach of the proposal being considered by the Subcommittee. Specifically, it was noted by witnesses testifying on behalf of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare that the proposed legislation would apply to institutions that were traditionally noncoeducational and to facilities and services within an institution, such as dormitories or physical recreation areas, that might properly be limited to one sex. See, e. g., 1970 Hearings, at 657 (statement of Peter Muir-head, Associate Commissioner for Higher Education). See also id., at 674 (statement of Frankie M. Freeman, Commissioner, U. S. Commission on Civil Rights). To eliminate this alleged overreaching, the Department of Justice offered its own legislation that was recognized at the time as far narrower in its reach than the Subcommittee’s proposal. Nonetheless, even with this more limited scope, the alternative offered by the administration would have prohibited sex-based discrimination by a "recipient of Federal financial assistance for any education program or activity,” H. R. 5191, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., § 1001(a) (1971), and would have covered facilities or services at educational institutions that did not themselves receive direct educational grants. See, e. g., 1970 Hearings, at 678 (testimony of Jerris Leonard, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division). The administration proposal was eventually rejected by the full House in favor of the bill reported by Representative Green and her Subcommittee.

 See also 117 Cong. Rec. 30408 (1971) (“I doubt very much whether even one institution of higher education today, private or public, is not receiving some Federal assistance”) (remarks of Sen. Bayh).

 See, e. g., 110 Cong. Rec. 7100-7101 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Javits); id., at 8859-8361 (remarks of Sen. Eastland); id., at 13331 (remarks of Sen. Gore).

 See, e. g., id., at 7059 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Pastore); id., at 7063 (remarks of Sen. Pastore); id., at 7067 (remarks of Sen. Ribicoff); id., at 8507-8508 (remarks of Sens. Smathers and Allott); id., at 12714-12715 (remarks of Sen. Humphrey); id., at 12818 (statement of Sen. Dirksen); id., at 14330-14331 (remarks of Sen. Williams).

 Another illustration included in the Department’s Title VI regulations referred explicitly to federal moneys granted to elementary and secondary schools:
“In the Federally-affected area programs ... for construction aid and for general support of the operation of elementary or secondary schools, or in programs for more limited support to such schools such as for the acquisition of equipment, the provision of vocational education, or the provision of guidance and counseling services, discrimination by the recipient school district in any of its elementary or secondary schools in the admission of students, or in the treatment of its students in any aspect of the educational process, is prohibited. In this and the following illustrations the prohibition of discrimination in the treatment of students . . . includes the prohibition of discrimination among the students ... in the availability or use of any academic, dormitory, eating, recreational, or other facilities of the grantee or other recipient.” 45 CFR § 80.5(b) (1972).

 In North Haven, we concluded that the word “it” in this sentence refers to “education program or activity” rather than “recipient.” 456 U. S., *593at 539, n. 30. Even with this limiting construction, however, the regulations still apply to any education program or activity which “receives or benefits” from federal assistance. In any event, given the Department’s own interpretation of the words quoted in the text, our limiting construction may have been unjustified. See HEW Fact Sheet Accompanying Final Title IX Regulation Implementing Education Amendments of 1972, p. 3 (June 1975) (“Except for the specific limited exemptions set forth below, the final regulation applies to all aspects of all education programs or activities of a school district, institution of higher education, or other entity which receives Federal funds for any of those programs”).

 The sponsor of this second resolution explained the basis for his proposal to his Senate colleagues:
“[T]here is not a college athletic department anywhere in the country that receives Federal funds. The intercollegiate athletics provisions of the regulations are thus inconsistent with the statute in that they impose requirements on college programs not receiving Federal assistance.
“HEW attempts to surmount this obvious inconsistency through recourse to semantics. The statute clearly refers to programs receiving Federal assistance and the courts have established that programs are in fact separable. Yet, HEW argues, when pressed, that its authority includes not only those programs actually receiving Federal assistance but those which indirectly benefit from that assistance as well. Thus, according to this tortious logic, college football receives Federal assistance because it may benefit indirectly from federally guaranteed student loans unrelated to athletics or a student athlete may use the school library whose construction was assisted by Federal funding. Needless to say, this is a rather slender reed upon which to base a social policy of this magnitude.” 121 Cong. Rec. 22941 (1975) (remarks of Sen. Laxalt).
Despite this rhetorical flourish, Congress has consistently endorsed the Department’s regulation of college athletic programs, and indeed has affirmatively required such regulations. See, e. g., Pub. L. 93-380, §844, 88 Stat. 612 (“The Secretary shall prepare and publish . . . proposed regulations implementing the provisions of title IX. . . relating to the prohibition of sex discrimination in federally assisted education programs which shall include with respect to intercollegiate athletic activities reasonable provisions considering the nature of particular sports”). See also Brief for Council of Collegiate Women Athletic Administrators as Amicus Curiae 4-16. Cf. Haffer v. Temple University, 524 F. Supp. 531 (ED *595Pa. 1981), aff’d, 688 F. 2d 14 (CA3 1982). The opinion for the Court, limited as it is to a college that receives only “[sjtudent financial aid . . . [that] is sui generis,” ante, at 573, obviously does not decide whether athletic programs operated by colleges receiving other forms of federal financial assistance are within the reach of Title IX. Cf. 688 F. 2d, at 15, n. 5 (discussing the many forms of federal aid received by Temple University and its athletic department).

 See also, e. g., 1975 Hearings, at 90 (testimony of Kathy Kelly, President, U. S. National Student Association); id., at 163-166 (testimony of Rep. Mink); id., at 187-191 (memorandum of American Law Division, Library of Congress); id., at 191-196 (memorandum of Center for National Policy Review); id., at 284-285 (statement of Norma Raffel, Head, Education Committee, Women’s Equity Action League); id., at 385-388 (testimony of Dr. Bernice Sandler, Director, Project on the Status and Education of Women, Association of American Colleges). But see, e. g., id., at 49 (testimony of Darrell Royal, President, American Football Coaches *596Association); id., at 98-99 (testimony of John A. Fuzak, President, National Collegiate Athletic Association); id., at 231-232 (statement of Dallin H. Oaks, President, Brigham Young University); id., at 403-406 (testimony of Janet L. Kuhn).

 The Secretary specifically cited and quoted from Bob Jones University v. Johnson, 396 F. Supp. 597 (SC 1974), affirmance order, 529 F. 2d 514 (CA4 1975), a decision interpreting the application of Title VI to a college that enrolled students receiving veterans’ educational benefits. The court in Bob Jones offered several reasons to justify its finding that the college’s educational program was receiving federal assistance:
“First, payments to veterans enrolled at approved schools serve to defray the costs of the educational program of the schools thereby releasing insti*597tutional funds which would, in the absence of federal assistance, be spent on the student. . . .
“[Slecond . . . the participation of veterans who — but for the availability of federal funds — would not enter the educational programs of the approved school, benefits the school by enlarging the pool of qualified applicants upon which it can draw for its educational program.
“Finally, . . . [g]rant programs frequently use institutions as conduits through which federal funds or other assistance pass to the ultimate beneficiaries. Clearly, Title VI attaches to a recipient acting in that capacity. . . . The altered method of payment under the current statutes [under which federal moneys go directly to the students] does not change the nature of the program or the basic role of the schools participating in the program. . . . [T]he nondiscriminatory participation of these schools is essential if the benefits of these statutes are to flow to beneficiaries without regard to race.” 396 F. Supp., at 602-603 (footnotes omitted).
The court also explained that coverage of the college’s educational program was fully consistent with the congressional purpose underlying Title VI. See id., at 604.

 In 1974, after the Department had published its proposed regulations for Title IX, the Congress excepted social fraternities and sororities and voluntary youth service organizations from the statute’s reach. Pub. L. 93-568, § 3(a), 88 Stat. 1862 (codified at 20 U. S. C. § 1681(a)(6)); see 120 Cong. Rec. 41390-41394 (1974). Later, in 1976, Congress provided statutory exemptions for activities related to Boys/Girls State/Nation conferences, father-son or mother-daughter activities (if reasonable opportunities exist for the opposite sex), and collegiate scholarships awarded to “beauty” pageant winners. Pub. L. 94-482, § 412(a), 90 Stat. 2234 (codified at 20 U. S. C. §§ 1681(a)(7-9)); see 122 Cong. Rec. 27979-27987 (1976). Obviously, since none of these activities receive direct federal support, these amendments would have been superfluous unless Title IX was otherwise to be applied to such activities when conducted by educational institutions receiving federal funds.
Other congressional developments since the issuance of the Department’s regulations, which have not resulted in amendments to the statute, lend even more support to the broader view of Title IX. After the Department’s final regulations went into effect in 1975, for example, Senator Helms introduced amendments to Title IX which would have defined “education programs and activities” to mean “only programs or activities which are an integral part of the required curriculum of an educational institution.” S. 2146, §2(1), 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); see 121 Cong. Rec. 23845-23847 (1975). No action was taken on the bill. Similarly, in 1976, Senator McClure sponsored an amendment to define “education program or activity” as “such programs or activities as are curriculum or graduation requirements of the institutions.” Amendment No. 389 to S. 2657, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976); see 122 Cong. Rec. 28136 (1976). This amendment was rejected in a recorded vote. Id., at 28147. Finally, the 98th Congress has recently reaffirmed its commitment to Title IX and to the regulations originally issued thereunder. In particular, the House passed (414-8) a resolution expressing its belief that Title IX and its regulations “should not be amended or altered in any manner which will lessen the comprehensive coverage of such statute in eliminating gender discrimination throughout the American educational system.” H. Res. 190, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (1983); 129 Cong. Rec. H10085-H10095, H10100-H10101 (Nov. 16,1983). See H. R. Rep. No. 98-418 (1983). See also S. Res. 149, *59998th Cong., 1st Sess. (1983). After today’s Court decision, it will take another reaffirmation of congressional intent, in the form of a clarifying amendment to Title IX, to ensure that the original legislative will is no longer frustrated.

 Because I believe that BEOG moneys are intended by Congress to benefit institutions of higher education in their entirety, I find it unnecessary in this case to decide whether Title IX’s reach would be the same when more targeted federal aid is being received by an institution. For such cases, it may be appropriate to examine carefully not only the purposes but also the actual effects of the federal moneys received.

 Although Justice Stevens properly notes that there have been no findings of fact on this particular point, see ante, at 580-581 (concurring in part and concurring in result), even the Court is forced to concede the obvious, see ante, at 573 (“It is true, of course, that substantial portions of the BEOG’s received by Grove City’s students ultimately find their way into the College’s general operating budget and are used to provide a variety of services to the students through whom the funds pass”). The Court nonetheless ignores its own concession by claiming that there is “no persuasive evidence” that Congress intended to cover an entire institution of higher education in this situation. As I explain in Part II, however, the evidence of congressional intent is quite persuasive, if not convincing.