	Introduction

With its adoption as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI invested the federal government with a uniquely powerful role in addressing race and national origin discrimination. Title VI consequently prohibits all federally funded programs, activities, and institutions from discriminating based on race, color, or national origin. That doctrinal story has accordingly centered on one agency in particular: the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the U.S. Department of Education (ED). As this report explains, Title VI continues to play a central part in OCR's mission of protecting civil rights on campuses at all educational levels, and in institutions both public and private. The early years of the Kennedy Administration saw some of the first steps in that direction. All federal funding agencies are "authorized and directed" to promulgate rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability "effectuat[ing]" that nondiscrimination mandate. Any rule, regulation, or order issued under Title VI was made subject to presidential approval, an authority since delegated to the Attorney General by executive order. Though an agency's withdrawal of federal funds was envisioned as the primary mechanism for enforcing Title VI, that authority was hedged with a range of procedural requirements designed to spur agencies into seeking consensual resolutions with recipients. As explained below, however, with its 2001 decision in Alexander v. Sandoval , the Supreme Court appears to have put the basic interpretive question to rest: Section 601 directly prohibits only intentional discrimination . Banning Intentional Discrimination (Disparate Treatment)

Despite Title VI's basic ambiguity, the courts have long agreed that, at a minimum, Section 601 bars federally funded programs from intentionally singling out individuals for adverse treatment because of their race. Banning Discriminatory Effects (Disparate Impact)

Title VI has long been understood to bar federally funded programs from intentionally discriminating based on race. But for the agencies charged with actually enforcing that mandate the primary concerns have tended to be more operational and programmatic: how to go about the business of reviewing and assessing particular practices under Title VI. That breadth has produced a further point of uncertainty about the statute: what limits are there to agencies' rulemaking authority under Section 602? And as explained below, the resulting ambiguity has yielded two contrasting views of what Section 602 will allow an agency to outlaw as unlawful "discrimination" under Title VI: (1) a largely deferential view that would give agencies broad leeway to issue "broad prophylactic rules" reaching conduct beyond intentional discrimination; and (2) a more exacting view under which agencies would be limited to redressing provable cases of intentional discrimination. Enforcing Title VI at School: The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights

Although Title VI applies to funds distributed by every federal agency, much of the doctrine under the statute has been shaped by its use in the public schools. OCR's Enforcement of Title VI

OCR primarily enforces Title VI through its investigation and resolution of complaints. Among the issues raised in those complaints, three appear especially common: different treatment, retaliation, and racial harassment. Considerations for Congress

Title VI has gone largely unchanged in the 50 years since it became law. As this report has explained, the debates over the statute have therefore centered on how the courts have read its two central provisions—Sections 601 and 602—and how federal agencies have gone about enforcing them. But Congress has the ultimate say over how Title VI works—rooted not only in its legislative power but in its authority to oversee the statute's use by federal agencies. As this section explains, recently two issues over the statute have drawn particular congressional interest: the viability of disparate impact regulations under Section 602, and the inclusion of new protected classes in Section 601.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits federally funded programs, activities, and institutions from discriminating based on race, color, or national origin. In its current form, largely unchanged since its adoption, Title VI incorporates a number of unique features. Besides barring federally funded programs from discriminating based on race, Title VI also authorizes and directs all federal funding agencies to promulgate rules effectuating that nondiscrimination mandate. Those rules were also made subject to presidential approval, an authority since delegated to the Attorney General by executive order. To enforce Title VI, agencies also have at their disposal a uniquely powerful tool: the termination or refusal to provide federal financial support to an institution or program seeking it. Although this power to withdraw federal funds was envisioned as the primary mechanism for enforcing Title VI, that authority was also hedged with a range of procedural requirements designed to spur agencies to resolve complaints against recipients through voluntary agreements.
In the 50 years since Title VI became law much of the debate over the statute has centered on how the courts have read its two central provisions—Sections 601 and 602—and how federal agencies have gone about enforcing them. In the courts those debates have especially focused on what counts as unlawful "discrimination" under Section 601. The courts have long agreed that Title VI bars federally funded programs from intentionally singling out individuals by race for adverse treatment. In its first case involving Title VI the Supreme Court suggested that Section 601 might also reach beyond intentional discrimination to bar the use of policies with a disparate impact—policies that, irrespective of the intent, impose a discriminatory effect on different racial groups. With its 2001 ruling in Alexander v Sandoval, the Court appeared to put that interpretive question to rest: Title VI directly prohibits only intentional discrimination.
For the agencies charged with enforcing Title VI, the primary concerns have tended to be more operational and programmatic—how to go about the business of reviewing and assessing particular practices under Section 602 of the statute. Section 602 authorizes and directs agencies to issue regulations "effectuat[ing]" Section 601. The breadth of that authority has produced a further point of uncertainty about the statute: what limits are there to funding agencies' rulemaking authority under Title VI? So far, two divergent views have emerged from the Court's decisions: (1) a largely deferential view that would give agencies leeway to issue prophylactic rules reaching conduct beyond intentional discrimination, and (2) a more exacting view under which agencies may redress only provable cases of intentional discrimination.
Although Title VI's nondiscrimination prohibition accompanies nearly all awards of federal financial support, much of the statute's doctrine has been shaped by its use in the public schools. That doctrinal history has centered on one agency in particular: the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Title VI continues to play a central part in OCR's mission of protecting civil rights on campuses at all educational levels, and in institutions both public and private. OCR handles a large volume and variety of claims alleging race and national origin discrimination, which it administratively resolves through a series of investigative procedures laid out in its Case Processing Manual. Although the types of allegations OCR investigates vary, three major categories of complaint occupy much of its docket: disparate treatment, retaliation, and racial harassment.
Congress has the ultimate say over how Title VI works—rooted not only in its legislative power but in its authority to oversee the statute's enforcement. In recent years two questions surrounding Title VI have drawn particular congressional interest: the viability of disparate impact regulations under Section 602 and the possible inclusion of new protected classes in Section 601. No matter how Congress may choose to address those subjects, however, they are likely only to raise further questions about the future of this landmark civil rights law.