Court Opinion

ID: 9425511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:14:55.946465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:56.027663
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stewart,
with whom The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Blackmun join, concurring in the result.
It is uncontested that more than 2,800 schoolchildren of Chinese ancestry attend school in the San Francisco Unified School District system even though they do not speak, understand, read, or write the English language, and that as to some 1,800 of these pupils the respondent school authorities have taken no significant steps to deal with this language deficiency. The petitioners do not contend, however, that the respondents have affirmatively or intentionally contributed to this inadequacy, but only *570that they have failed to act in the face of changing social and linguistic patterns. Because of this laissez-faire attitude on the part of the school administrators, it is not entirely clear that § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000d, standing alone, would render illegal the expenditure of federal funds on these schools. For that section 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.”
On the other hand, the interpretive guidelines published by the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 11595, clearly indicate that affirmative efforts to give special training for non-English-speaking pupils are required by Tit. VI as a condition to receipt of federal aid to public schools:
“Where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin-minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students.”1
*571The critical question is, therefore, whether the regulations and guidelines promulgated by HEW go beyond the authority of § 601.2 Last Term, in Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc., 411 U. S. 356, 369, we held that the validity of a regulation promulgated under a general authorization provision such as § 602 of Tit. VI3 “will be sustained so long as it is 'reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling legislation.’ Thorpe v. Housing Authority of the City of Durham, 393 U. S. 268, 280-281 (1969).” I think the guidelines here fairly meet that test. Moreover, in assessing the purposes of remedial legislation we have found that departmental regulations and “consistent administrative construction” are “entitled to great weight.” Traficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 409 U. S. 205, 210; Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 433-434; Udall v. Tollman, 380 U. S. 1. The Department has reasonably and consistently interpreted § 601 to require affirmative remedial efforts to give special attention to linguistically deprived children.
For these reasons I concur in the result reached by the Court.

 These guidelines were issued in further clarification of the Department's position as stated in its regulations issued to implement Tit. VI, 45 CFR pt. 80. The regulations provide in part that no recipient of federal financial assistance administered by HEW may
“Provide any service, financial aid, or other benefit to an individual which is different, or is provided in a different manner, from that provided to others under the program; [or]
“Restrict an individual in any way in the enjoyment of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by others receiving any service, financial aid, or other benefit under the program.” 45 CFR §80.3 (b)(1)(h), (iv).

 The respondents do not contest the standing of the petitioners to sue as beneficiaries of the federal funding contract between the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the San Francisco Unified School District.

 Section 602, 42 U. S. C. §2000d-1, provides in pertinent part:
“Each Federal department and agency which is empowered to extend Federal financial assistance to any program or activity, by way *572of grant, loan, or contract other than a contract of insurance or guaranty, is authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of section 2000d of this title with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability which shall be consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken. . . .”
The United States as amicus curiae asserts in its brief, and the respondents appear to concede, that the guidelines were issued pursuant to § 602.