[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 22, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7353-S7354]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 3821. A bill to amend title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to 
prohibit discrimination on the ground of religion in educational 
program or activities; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to urge support 
for legislation I am introducing today to amend Title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964.
  Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on 
the basis of race, color, and national origin by any organization, 
program or activity that receives federal financial assistance, 
including colleges and universities. If recipients fail to comply, the 
federal agency providing the assistance may terminate funding, and 
organizations risk losing their eligibility for future funding.
  The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, OCR, is tasked 
with enforcing Title VI as it applies to colleges and universities. 
OCR, however, believes that it does not have jurisdiction over 
complaints based solely on religion as opposed to race, color, or 
national origin. This means that when a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Sikh is 
harassed or discriminated against for being a Jew, a Muslim, or a Sikh, 
OCR must first determine whether the harassment or discrimination is a 
result of the student's religion or a result of her race, color, or 
national origin.
  In most cases involving such discrimination, the perpetrator himself 
probably wouldn't even know if his hatred stems from prejudice based on 
religion or prejudice based on race, color, or national origin. Yet, 
before acting to protect these students, OCR has to determine the 
motive behind the perpetrator's actions. This wastes valuable time and 
allows the discrimination to continue pending the determination. 
Furthermore, it sets a dangerous example to require OCR to make such a 
determination and then in essence say the harassment and discrimination 
is okay provided it was based on religion and not on race, color, or 
national origin.
  Many people are not aware that Title VI does not explicitly prohibit 
discrimination on the basis of religion. This is because discrimination 
on the basis of religion is prohibited in virtually every other civil 
rights law and has become such a fundamental principle of our country 
that we just assume the protection exists. For example, titles other 
than Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibit religious discrimination 
in other contexts.

[[Page S7354]]

  In 1941, President Roosevelt issued an executive order prohibiting 
discrimination in the Federal Government and in the defense industry on 
grounds of ``race, creed, color, or national origin.'' The Civil Rights 
Act of 1957 established the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to 
investigate discrimination on the basis of ``color, race, religion, or 
national origin.'' The Civil Rights Act of 1964 itself included 
numerous prohibitions on religious discrimination, just not in Title 
VI. For example, Title VII of the 1964 Act prohibits discrimination in 
employment. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 governing housing, continued 
to prohibit discrimination on the basis of ``race, color, religion, 
sex, or national origin.''
  When it comes to education, the 1964 Act provides two mechanisms that 
address religious discrimination. First, the Attorney General is given 
limited authorization to sue public colleges that deny admission on the 
basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in a way that 
limits educational desegregation. Second, the Attorney General is 
authorized to intervene in certain pending equal protection cases 
claiming discrimination ``on account of race, color, religion, sex or 
national origin'' if the case is of sufficient public importance. 
However, the Justice Department may not institute such actions on its 
own, and no federal agency is authorized to investigate run-of-the-mill 
religious discrimination cases at educational institutions or cases in 
which the victim has been unable to initiate litigation.

  Why was religious discrimination left out of Title VI? Key members of 
Congress wanted to make sure that religiously affiliated colleges 
maintained their ability to discriminate in favor of co-religionists in 
admissions and extra-curricular activities. The original version of the 
bill that would become Title VI, drafted by the Department of Justice, 
did ban religious discrimination in federally assisted programs or 
activities. However, Emanuel Celler, the House Judiciary Committee 
Chairman and sponsor of the bill, explained during floor debate that he 
wanted to permit denominational colleges to engage in certain forms of 
discrimination in favor of co-religionists. Celler stated that he 
wanted to ``avoid a good many problems'' relating to funding that 
``goes to sectarian schools and universities.'' He explained that ``for 
these reasons, the subcommittee and, I am sure, the full committee or 
the majority thereof deemed it wise and proper and expedient--and I 
emphasize the word `expedient'--to omit the word `religion.' ''
  Congressman Celler may have been right that eliminating religion made 
it expedient, but it did not make it correct. Congressman Celler's 
concerns could have been addressed with some clarifying language that 
such institutions would still be allowed to favor co-religionists.
  The bill that I am introducing contains such language. It states that 
the amendment is not to limit an educational entity with a religious 
affiliation, mission, or purpose from applying admissions policies, 
degree criteria, student conduct regulations, student organization 
regulations, or policies for faculty and staff employment, when these 
policies relate to the religious affiliation, mission, or purpose of 
the institution. Furthermore, it does not require educational entities 
to provide accommodation to any student's religion obligations such as 
dietary restrictions and school absences. Finally, if the educational 
entity permits expressive organizations to exist by funding or 
otherwise recognizing them, the amendment does not require the entity 
to limit such organizations from exercising their freedom of expressive 
association by establishing membership or leadership criteria.
  Therefore, I am proposing an amendment to Title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964. The amendment simply provides the same protection 
against discrimination based on religion that this title already 
provides for discrimination based on race, color, and national origin.
                                 ______