This statement paper presents the Department of Justice views on S.2568, the "Civil Rights Act of 1984." It begins with an affirmation of the administration's equal resistance to discrimination and intrusive expansion of Federal power, but asserts that recent legislation has created unnecessary conflict between these objectives. The paper then argues that the Supreme Court's decision in "Grove City College v. Bell," which held Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to be program-specific in its coverage, was correct. There then follows an explanation of why the wording of S.2568, which was conceived as an attempt to broaden Title IX's coverage, is poorly drafted. It is argued (1) that the term "recipient," as used in the bill, is open to the broadest possible interpretation, (2) that the bill would expand coverage without adequately explaining how the statutes are to be enforced, and (3) that S.2568, as worded, would create serious administrative complexities for Federal agencies that are already over-burdened with paperwork. It is also held that enforcement, implementation, and probable litigation costs would be staggering to the Federal government. (KH)