did not allege discrimination against it because of its own “race,” it did allege discrimination against it because of the race of others with which it had a relationship. The court noted that the language of Title VI prohibits discrimination “on the ground of race” generally, and not specifically on the ground of race of the plaintiff. Id. at 705. The provisions of Title IX are similarly broad, directing that “no person” may be discriminated against or denied benefits “on the basis of sex.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681. As the Supreme Court has noted in interpreting Title IX, “ ‘if we are to give Title IX the scope that its origins dictate, we must accord it a sweep as broad as its language.’” North Haven Board of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 521, 102 S.Ct. 1912, 1918, 72 L.Ed.2d 299 (1982) (<HOLDING>) (citation and internal brackets omitted).
holding that a claim for retaliation does not lie under title ix holding that federal law governs remedies available under title ix holding that the elements of a hostile environment claim under title vii equally apply under title ix recognizing that most other courts apply title vii principles to title ix cases but refusing to apply title viis knew or should have known standard to a title ix claim holding that discriminatory employment practices are cognizable under title ix