barring discrimination in federally funded education activities on the basis of sex in title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and discrimination in federally funded activities on the basis of age in the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and disability in section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 . (3) All of the statutes cited in this section were designed to protect persons subject to discrimination. As Congress has consistently recognized, effective enforcement of the statutes and protection of the rights guaranteed under the statutes depend heavily on the efforts of private attorneys general. Congress acknowledged that it could not secure compliance solely through administrative efforts and enforcement actions initiated by the Attorney General. Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U.S. 400 (1968) (per curiam). (4) The Supreme Court has made it clear that individuals suffering discrimination under these statutes have a private right of action in the Federal courts, and that this is necessary for effective protection of the law, although Congress did not make such a right of action explicit in the statute involved. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979). (5) Furthermore, for effective enforcement of the statutes cited in this section, it is necessary that the private right of action include a means to challenge all forms of discrimination that are prohibited by the statutes, including practices that have a disparate impact and are not justified as necessary to achieve the legitimate goals of programs or activities supported by Federal financial assistance. (6) By reinstating a private right of action to challenge disparate impact discrimination under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq. ) and confirming that right for other civil rights statutes, Congress is not acting in a manner that would expose covered entities to unfair findings of discrimination. The legal standard for a disparate impact claim has never been structured so that a finding of