Big Step for Civil Rights

The vote in the Senate on civil-rights legislation, to restore the broad and affirmative assault on discrimination, is a stunning victory for justice. Approval by the House of Representatives, which has approved similar legislation in the past, seems assured. That would represent an important step forward for the nation.

There is one dangerous ambiguity in the legislation--the result of an amendment by Sen. John C. Danforth (R-Mo.) to assure recipients of federal grants that they can refuse to perform abortions without risking penalties. There was no demonstrated need for the Danforth amendment, because no aid recipient had ever been forced to undertake abortion services. To make matters worse, the senator chose ambiguous language that raises a new problem--apparently exposing women who have had legal abortions to the possibility of discrimination. The senator needs to clarify his intent so that the legislative intent will be clear should the issue be drawn again into the courts.

It was the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1984, in the case of Grove City College in Pennsylvania, that made this legislation so necessary and so urgent. The Supreme Court ruled, in a 6-3 vote, that federal anti-discrimination laws apply only in the narrowest way to a particular federally supported program, and not generally to the entire institution receiving federal aid. The overwhelming vote on this new legislation in the Senate, 75 to 14, affirmed what had been widely argued in the intervening years--that the court has misinterpreted and misunderstood the intent of Congress in the original legislation of 1964 and 1972.

The Reagan Administration offered a sweeping amendment that would have greatly weakened the legislation, but it was rejected by a vote of 75 to 19. After passage, the White House served notice that the President will veto the bill in its present form. But sponsors noted that the bill appears veto-proof, with substantially more supporters than the required two-thirds to override a veto. Votes in prior years in the House have also been by similar margins. That is encouraging.

The legislation would protect against discrimination based on sex, age, race or disability. In dealing with disability protections, it embraces carefully chosen words to preserve the protections now written into law and supported in a Supreme Court decision for those with contagious diseases, including AIDS. Before the vote there had been concern that the protection of AIDS patients might be weakened. That would have been a serious mistake.

Congress, in effect, has reaffirmed the worthy goal of vigorously fighting discrimination. The resistance of President Reagan to this is hard to understand, but it would now seem to be irrelevant. Every institution that receives federal aid will now understand that it must avoid discrimination in all of its practices--not just in the program funded by Washington.