Restore Our Rights Right Now

ENFORCING CIVIL RIGHTS laws has not been a priority for the Reagan Administration. Since kicking off its campaign by defending the right of Bob Jones University to resist federal affirmative action policies, the Reagan Justice Department has chalked up a dismal record of avoiding prosecutions under federal civil rights laws.

And while the Administration's policies have been subject to harsh criticisms from Congress and civil rights groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, criticism has not been limited to outside groups. Last year, a majority of the President's Civil Rights Commission resigned after Reagan continued ignored their recomendations to enforce existing laws.

However, while much of the lapse in civil rights enforcement can be blamed on Reagan's retrograde philosophy, it is the Supreme Court, not the Administration, that has dealt the most devastating blow to the nation's civil rights laws.

The Civil Rights Restoration Act now pending in both the House and the Senate is designed to close the loopholes in civil rights protection opened by the court's 1984 decision in Grove City College v. Bell. Unfortunately, the bill has been held up by anti-abortion forces in both houses, which have forced consideration of anti-abortion riders that might scuttle the law.

SINCE THE PASSAGE of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, institutions which receive federal funds have been subjects to some of the strongest provisions of anti-discrimination law. That act--as well as subsequent legislation on educational aid and discrimination against the elderly and handicapped--has required institutions and programs which are funded by the fed eral government to avoid discriminating at all on the basis of race, sex, age or disability, even in departments or programs which receive no direct help from the government.

However, the court's decision on Grove City drastically curtailed the scope of Title IX of the Education Ammendments of 1972--legislation designed to prohibit sex discrimination in education. The court ruled that anti-discrimination rules apply only to programs that are direct recipients of federal funding.

Thus an educational institution, such as a university, which receives federal funds only as part of its financial aid program is free under the Grove City interpretation to discriminate on the basis of sex in any of its other programs--for instance in athletic programs or academic fellowships.

Prior to the Grove City ruling Title IX had been one the most effective federal measures against sex-discrimination, eliminating sexual bias in a vast number of educational institutions. The law has been crucial in the development of women's amatuer athletics; female athletes at the 1984 Olympics cited the law as crucial to the success of the U.S. team.

But the Supreme Court ruling did more than just gut Title IX. Soon after the decision, the Justice Department began to apply the court's interpretation to all laws prohibiting discrimination by recipients of federal funds. Thus protections under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a 1973 law forbidding discrimination against the disabled, and 1975 legislation against age discrimination were dismantled at one stroke.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS Restoration Act would restore protections in effect prior to the Grove City ruling; that is, it would make anti-discrimination rules binding on all programs run by institutions which receive federal funds. This is no bold new step, just a modest recognition of the federal government's responsibilities.

The admendments tacked on the legislation by anti-abortionists would allow institutions to discriminate against women who have, or want to have, abortions--for example, by denying them access to health facilities or insurance coverage. Not only would such an exemption allow federal funding for the imposition of a private, religious morality, it would also be totally out of place in the Civil Rights Restoration Act.

Quick passage of the bill without weakening ammendments should be an urgent priority for Congress. It will only be making up lost ground, but at least the new law will stop making it easy for the Reagan Administration to continue weakening the nation's civil rights protections.