Full opinion text
Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge MOTZ wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge HALL joined. Judge LUTTIG wrote a dissenting opinion. OPINION DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge: This case arises from the gang rape of a freshman at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute by two members of the college football team, and the school’s decision to impose only a nominal punishment on the rapists. The victim alleges that these rapes were motivated by her assailants’ discriminatory animus toward women and sues them pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. She asserts that the university knew of the brutal attacks she received and yet failed to take any meaningful action to punish her offenders or protect her, but instead permitted a sexually hostile environment to flourish; she sues the university under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The district court dismissed the case in its entirety. The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim under Title IX and that Congress lacked constitutional authority to enact the Violence Against Women Act. Because we believe that the complaint states a claim under Title IX and that the Commerce Clause provides Congress with authority to enact the Violence Against Women Act, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. Christy Brzonkala entered Virginia Polytechnic Institute (“Virginia Tech”) as a freshman in the fall of 1994. On the evening of September 21, 1994, Brzonkala and another female student met two men who Brzonkala knew only by their first names and their status as members of the Virginia Tech football team. Within thirty minutes of first meeting Brzonkala,' these two men, later identified as Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, raped her. Brzonkala and her friend met Morrison and Crawford on the third floor of the dormitory where Brzonkala lived. All four students talked for approximately fifteen minutes in a student dormitory room. Brzonkala’s friend and Crawford then left the room. Morrison immediately asked Brzonkala if she would have sexual intercourse with him. She twice told Morrison “no,” but Morrison was not deterred. As Brzonkala got up to leave the room Morrison grabbed her, and threw her, face-up, on a bed. He pushed her down by the shoulders and disrobed her. Morrison turned off the lights, used his arms to pin down her elbows and pressed his knees against her legs. Brzonkala struggled and attempted to push Morrison off, but to no avail. Without using a condom, Morrison forcibly raped her. Before Brzonkala could recover, Crawford came into the room and exchanged places with Morrison. Crawford also raped Brzon-kala by holding down her arms and using his knees to pin her legs open. He, too, used no condom. When Crawford was finished, Morrison raped her for a third time, again holding her down and again without a condom. When Morrison had finished with Brzonka-la, he warned her “You better not have any fucking diseases.” In the months following the rape, Morrison announced publicly in the dormitory’s dining room that he “like[d] to get girls drunk and fuck the shit out of them.” Following the assault Brzonkala’s behavior changed radically. She became depressed and avoided contact with her classmates and residents of her dormitory. She changed her appearance and cut off her long hair. She ceased attending classes and eventually attempted suicide. She sought assistance from a Virginia Tech psychiatrist, who treated her and prescribed anti-depressant medication. Neither the psychiatrist nor .any other Virginia Tech employee or official made more than a cursory inquiry into the cause of Brzonkala’s distress. She later sought and received a retroactive withdrawal from Virginia Tech for the 1994-95 academic year , because of the trauma. Approximately a month after Morrison and Crawford assaulted Brzonkala, she confided in her roommate that she had been raped, but could not bring herself to discuss the details. It was not until February 1995, however, that Brzonkala was able to identify Morrison and Crawford as the two men who had raped her. Two months later, she filed a complaint against them under Virginia Tech’s Sexual Assault Policy, which was published in the Virginia Tech “University Policies for Student Life 1994-1995.” These policies had been formally released for dissemination to students on July 1, 1994, but had not been widely distributed to students. After Brzon-kala filed her complaint under the Sexual Assault Policy she learned that another male student athlete was overheard advising Crawford that he should have “killed the bitch.” Brzonkala did not pursue criminal charges against Morrison or Crawford, believing that criminal prosecution was impossible because she had not preserved any physical evidence of the rape. Virginia Tech did not report the rapes to the police, and did not urge Brzon-kala to reconsider her decision not to do so. Rape of a female student by a male student is the only violent felony that Virginia Tech authorities do not automatically report to the university or town police. Virginia Tech held a hearing in May 1995 on Brzonkala’s complaint against Morrison and Crawford. At the beginning of the hearing, which was taped and lasted three hours, the presiding college official announced that the charges were being brought under the school’s Abusive Conduct Policy, which included sexual assault. A number of persons, including Brzonkala, Morrison, and Crawford testified. ' Morrison admitted that, despite the fact that Brzonkala had twice told him “no,” he had sexual intercourse with her in the dormitory on September 21. Crawford, who denied that he had sexual contact with Brzonkala (a denial corroborated by his suitemate, Cornell Brown), confirmed that Morrison had engaged in sexual intercourse with Brzonkala. The Virginia Tech judicial committee found insufficient evidence to take action against Crawford, but found Morrison guilty of sexual assault. The university immediately suspended Morrison for two semesters (one school year), and informed Brzonkala of the sanction. Morrison appealed this sanction to Cathryn T. Goree, Virginia Tech’s Dean of Students. Morrison claimed that the college denied him his due process rights and imposed an unduly harsh and arbitrary sanction. Dean Goree reviewed Morrison’s appeal letter, the file, and tapes of the three-hour hearing. She rejected Morrison’s appeal and upheld the sanction of full suspension for the Fall 1995 and Spring 1996 semesters. Dean Goree informed Brzonkala of this decision in a letter dated May 22, 1995. According to Virginia Tech’s published rules, the decision of Dean Goree as the appeals officer on this matter was final. In the first week of July 1995, however, Dean Goree and another Virginia Tech official, Donna Lisker, personally called on Brzonkala at her home in Fairfax, Virginia, a four-hour drive from Virginia Tech. These officials advised Brzonkala that Morrison had hired an attorney who had threatened to sue the school on due process grounds, and that Virginia Tech thought there might be merit to Morrison’s “ex post facto” challenge that he was charged under a Sexual Assault Policy that was not yet spelled out in the Student Handbook. Dean Goree and Ms. Lisker told Brzonkala that Virginia Tech was unwilling to defend the school’s decision to suspend Morrison for a year in court, and a re-hearing under the Abusive Conduct Policy that pre-dated the Sexual Assault Policy was required. To induce Brzonkala to participate in a second hearing, Dean Goree . and Ms. Lisker assured her that they believed her story, and that the second hearing was a mere technicality to cure the school’s error in bringing the first complaint under the Sexual Assault Policy. The Virginia Tech judicial committee scheduled the second hearing for late July. This hearing turned out to be much more than a mere formality, however. The second hearing lasted seven hours, more than twice as long as the first hearing. Brzonkala was required to engage her own legal counsel at her own expense. Moreover, the university belatedly informed her that student testimony given at the first hearing would not be admissible at the second hearing and that if she wanted the second judicial committee to consider this testimony she would have to submit affidavits or produce the witnesses. Because she received insufficient notice, it was impossible for Brzonkala to obtain the necessary affidavits or live testimony from her student witnesses. In contrast, the school provided Morrison with advance notice so that he had ample time to procure the sworn affidavits or live testimony of his student witnesses. Virginia Tech exacerbated this difficulty by refusing Brzonkala or her attorney access to the tape recordings of the first hearing, while granting Morrison and his attorney complete and early access to those tapes. Finally, Virginia Tech officials prevented Brzonkala from mentioning Crawford in her testimony because charges against him had been dismissed; as a result she had to present a truncated and unnatural version of the facts. Nevertheless, after the second hearing, the university judicial committee found that Morrison had violated the Abusive Conduct Policy, and re-imposed the same sanction: an immediate two semester suspension. On August 4, 1995, the college again informed Brzonkala, in writing, that Morrison had been found guilty and been suspended for a year. Morrison again appealed. He argued due process violations, the existence of new information, and the asserted harshness and arbitrariness of the sanction imposed on him as grounds for reversal of the judicial committee’s decision. Senior Vice-President and Provost Peggy Meszaros overturned Morrison’s sanction on appeal. She found “that there was sufficient evidence to support the decision that [Morrison] violated the University’s Abusive Conduct Policy and that no due process violation occurred in the handling of[Morrison’s] case.” However, the Provost concluded that the sanction imposed on Morrison — immediate suspension for one school year — was “excessive when compared with other eases where there has been a finding of violation of the Abusive Conduct Policy.” Provost Meszaros did not elaborate on the “other cases” to which she was referring. Instead of an immediate one year suspension, the Provost imposed “deferred suspension until [Morrison’s] graduation from Virginia Tech.” In addition, Morrison was “required to attend a one-hour educational session with Rene Rios, EO/AA Compliance Officer regarding acceptable standards under University Student Policy.” Provost Meszaros informed Morrison of the decision to set aside his sanction by letter on August 21,1995. Although Brzonkala had been informed in writing of the result at every other juncture in the disciplinary proceedings, Virginia Tech did not notify her that it had set aside Morrison’s suspension or that he would be returning to campus in the Fall. Instead, on August 22, 1995, Brzonkala learned from an article in The Washington Post that the university had lifted Morrison’s suspension and that he would return in the Fall 1995 semester. In fact, Morrison did return to Virginia Tech in the Fall of 1995— on a full athletic scholarship. Upon learning that the university had set aside Morrison’s suspension and was permitting him to return in the Fall, Brzonkala canceled her own plans to return to Virginia Tech. She feared for her safety because of previous threats and Virginia Tech’s treatment of Morrison. She felt that Virginia Tech’s actions signaled to Morrison, as well as the .student body as a whole, that the school either did not believe her or did not view Morrison’s conduct as improper. She was also humiliated by the procedural biases of the second hearing and by the decision to set aside the sanction against Morrison. Brzonkala attended no university or college during the Fall 1995 term. On November 30, 1995, Brzonkala was shocked to learn from another newspaper article that the second Virginia Tech .judicial committee did not find Morrison guilty of sexual assault, but rather of the reduced charge of “using abusive language.” Despite the fact that the school had accused and convicted Morrison of sexiial assault at the initial hearing, despite Morrison’s testimony at that heading that he had had sexual intercourse with. Brzonkala after she twice told him “no,” and despite the fact that Dean Goreé and Donna Lisker had unambiguously stated that the second hearing would also address the “sexual assault” charge against Morrison, the administrators altered the charge. The university never notified either Brzonkala or her attorney about the change, leaving her to learn about it months after the fact from a newspaper article. Brzonkala believes and so alleges that the procedural irregularities in, as well as the ultimate outcome of, the second hearing were the result of the involvement of Head Football Coach Frank Beamer, as part of a coordinated university plan to allow Morrison to play football in 1995. On December 27, 1995, Brzonkala initially filed suit against Morrison, Crawford, and Virginia Tech; on March 1,1996, she amended her complaint. She alleged inter alia that Virginia Tech, in its handling of her rape claims and failure to punish the rapists in any meaningful manner, violated Title IX of the Education Amendments óf 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688 (1994). She also alleged that Morrison and Crawford brutally gang raped her because of gender animus in violation of Title III of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 13981 (1994) (“VAWA”). The United States intervened to defend the constitutionality of VAWA. On May 7, 1996 the district court dismissed the Title IX claims against Virginia Tech for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic & State Univ., 935 F.Supp. 772 (W.D.Va.1996) (“ Brzonkala I”). On July 26, 1996 the court dismissed Brzon-kala’s VAWA claims against Morrison and Crawford, holding that although she had stated a cause of action under VAWA, enactment of the statute exceeded Congressional authority and was thus unconstitutional. See Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic & State Univ., 935 F.Supp. 779 (W.D.Va.1996) (“Brzonkala II”). II. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 provides in relevant part: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.... 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Virginia Tech concedes that it is an “education program ... receiving Federal financial assistance.” Hence, we need only determine whether Brzonkala has stated a claim that she was “subjected to discrimination” by Virginia Tech “on the basis of sex.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). The district court recognized that Brzonkala pled a Title IX claim on the basis of two distinct legal theories: a hostile environment theory, that Virginia Tech responded inadequately to a sexually hostile environment; and a disparate treatment theory, that Virginia Tech discriminated against Brzonkala because of her sex in its disciplinary proceedings. The district court rejected both, holding that her complaint failed to state a Title IX claim on which relief could be granted under either theory. See Brzonkala I, 935 F.Supp. at 775-78. We now consider whether Brzonka-la stated a claim under either of these theories. A. We begin with the hostile environment claim. To assess Brzonkala’s Title IX hostile environment assertions we must address two issues: (1) what legal standard to apply to a hostile environment claim under Title IX and (2) whether Brzonkala’s complaint satisfies that standard. 1. Title IX unquestionably prohibits federally supported educational institutions from practicing “discrimination” “on the basis of sex.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (1994). Because of Title IX’s “short historical parentage,” Doe v. Claiborne County, Tenn., 103 F.3d 495, 514 (6th Cir.1996), we have not previously faced a hostile environment claim under Title IX. Therefore, in determining whether an educational institution’s handling of a known sexually hostile environment is actionable “discrimination” under Title IX, we must look to the extensive jurisprudence developed in the Title VII context. See Preston v. Virginia ex rel. New River Community College, 31 F.3d 203, 207 (4th Cir.1994) (“Title VII, and the judicial interpretations of it, provide a persuasive body of standards to which we may look in shaping the contours of a private right of action under Title IX.”); Roberts v. Colorado State Bd. of Agric., 998 F.2d 824, 832 (10th Cir.1993) (“Title VII ... is ‘the most appropriate analogue when defining Title IX’s substantive standards _’ ”); Lipsett v. University of P.R., 864 F.2d 881, 896 (1st Cir.1988) (“Because Title VII prohibits the identical conduct prohibited by Title IX, i.e., sex discrimination” Title VII is “the most appropriate analogue when defining Title IX’s substantive standards ....”) (citation omitted); see also Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 75, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 1037-38, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992) (holding Title IX provides a private cause of action for damages arising from sexual harassment and relying on Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 64, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 2404, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986), a Title VII hostile environment ease, to define “discrimination” under Title IX); H.R.Rep. No. 554 (1971) reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2462, 2512 (explaining that Title IX meant to provide coverage similar to Title VII for “those in education”); and the many cases adopting Title VII analysis in a Title IX hostile environment context listed infra at 21-22. The district court properly followed this approach and applied Title VII standards to determine Virginia Tech’s liability for a hostile environment under Title IX. See Brzonkala I, 935 F.Supp. at 776-78. Virginia Tech argues that this was error, relying solely upon Rowinsky v. Bryan Indep. Sch. Dist., 80 F.3d 1006 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 165, 136 L.Ed.2d 108 (1996). Rowinsky dealt with a hostile environment claim by two female students against a school district for its response to sexual harassment by certain male students. A divided panel of the Fifth Circuit defined the question presented as “whether the recipient of federal education funds can be found liable for sex discrimination when the perpetrator is a party other than the grant recipient or its agents.” Id. at 1010. In answering this question, the court determined that the language and legislative history of Title IX indicated that the statute “applies only to the practices of the recipients themselves,” not third parties. Id. at 1013. The Rowinsky court reasoned that Title VII principles were inapplicable because “[i]n an employment context, the actions of a co-worker sometimes may be imputed to an employer through a theory of respondeat superior,” but a school may not be held responsible for the harassment of one student by another. Id. at 1011 n. 11. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit held that “[i]n the case of [Title IX] peer sexual harassment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the school district responded to sexual harassment claims differently based on sex. Thus, a school district might violate Title IX if it treated sexual harassment of boys more seriously than sexual harassment of girls.... ” Id. at 1016. We have no trouble agreeing with the Fifth Circuit that Title IX “applies only to the practices of the recipients themselves.” Id. at 1013. However, in this respect Title IX is no different from Title VII — the Rowinsky majority’s failure to recognize this results in a deeply flawed analysis. In framing the question in terms of liability for the acts of third parties, Rowinsky misstates what a plaintiff, under either Title VII or Title IX, hopes to prove in a hostile environment claim. Under Title VII, a plaintiff cannot recover because a fellow employee sexually harassed the plaintiff, but only because an employer could have, but failed to, adequately remedy known harassment. As we recently noted, “an employer is liable for a sexually hostile work environment created by ... [an] employee only if the employer knew or should have known of the illegal conduct and failed to take prompt and adequate remedial action.” Andrade v. Mayfair Management, Inc., 88 F.3d 258, 261 (4th Cir.1996) (emphasis added). Consequently, a defendant employer is held responsible under Title VII for the employer’s own actions, its inadequate and tardy response, not the actions of fellow employees. Similarly, in a Title IX hostile environment action a plaintiff is not seeking to hold the school responsible for the acts of third parties (in this case fellow students). Rather, the plaintiff is seeking to hold the school responsible for its own actions, i.e. that the school “knew or should have known of the illegal conduct and failed to take prompt and adequate remedial action.” Andrade, 88 F.3d at 261. Brzonkala is not attempting to hold Virginia Tech responsible for the acts of Morrison and Crawford per se; instead she is challenging Virginia Tech’s handling of the hostile environment once she notified college officials of the rapes. Therefore, the entire focus of Rowinsky’s analysis as to whether a school may be held responsible for the acts of third parties under Title IX misses the point. Brzonkala does not seek to make Virginia Tech liable for the acts of third parties. She seeks only to hold the school liable for its own discriminatory actions in failing to remedy a known hostile environment. A defendant educational institution, like a defendant employer, is, of course, liable for its own discriminatory actions: even the Rowinsky majority acknowledges this. Rowinsky, 80 F.3d at 1012 (Title IX “prohibits discriminatory acts” by educational institutions receiving federal financial assistance). Responsibility for discriminatory acts includes liability for failure to remedy a known sexually hostile environment. Accordingly, the district court was correct in applying Title VII principles to define the contours of Brzonkala’s hostile environment claim. We now turn to that application. 2. Under Title VII “to prevail on a ‘hostile work environment’ sexual harassment claim, an employee must prove: (1) that he [or she] was harassed ‘because of his [or her] ‘sex’; (2) that the harassment was unwelcome; (3) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an abusive working environment; and (4) that some basis exists for imputing liability to the employer.” Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., 99 F.3d 138, 142 (4th Cir.1996). Similarly, under Title IX a plaintiff asserting a hostile environment claim must show: “1) that she [or he] belongs to a protected group; 2) that she [or he] was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment; 3) that the harassment was based on sex; 4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of her [or his] education and create an abusive educational environment; and 5) that some basis for institutional liability has been established.” Kinman v. Omaha Public Sch. Dist., 94 F.3d 463, 467-68 (8th Cir.1996); Seamons v. Snow, 84 F.3d 1226, 1232 (10th Cir.1996) (same); Brown v. Hot, Sexy & Safer Prods., Inc., 68 F.3d 525, 540 (1st Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1159, 116 S.Ct. 1044, 134 L.Ed.2d 191 (1996) (same); Nicole M. v. Martinez Unified Sch. Dist., 964 F.Supp. 1369, 1376 (N.D.Cal.1997) (same); see also Doe, 103 F.3d at 515 (holding that the elements of a “hostile environment claim under Title VII equally apply under Title IX”); Oona, R.S. v. McCaffrey, 122 F.3d 1207, 1210 (9th Cir.1997) (applying Title VII standards to Title IX hostile environment claim); Murray v. New York Univ. College of Dentistry, 57 F.3d 243, 248-51 (2d Cir.1995) (same); Collier v. William Penn Sch. Dist., 956 F.Supp. 1209, 1213-14 (E.D.Pa.1997) (same); Pinkney v. Robinson, 913 F.Supp. 25, 32 (D.D.C.1996) (same); Bosley v. Kearney R-1 School Dist., 904 F.Supp. 1006, 1021-22 (W.D.Mo.1995) (same); Kadiki v. Virginia Commonwealth Univ., 892 F.Supp. 746, 749-50 (E.D.Va.1995) (same); Ward v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 861 F.Supp. 367, 374 (D.Md.1994) (same). Virginia Tech concedes that Brzonkala has properly alleged the first three elements— that she was a member of a protected class, that she was subject to unwelcome harassment, and that this harassment was based on her sex. Virginia Tech contends, however, that Brzonkala has not alleged that she was subjected to a sufficiently abusive environment, or established that Virginia Tech may be held liable for that environment. Accordingly, we address these two elements. a. A Title IX plaintiff must allege sexual harassment “sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of her education and create an abusive educational environment.” Kinman, 94 F.3d at 468. Virginia Tech argues that because Brzonkala did not return to school she experienced no hostile environment. The district court agreed, holding that: [T]he hostile environment that Brzonkala alleged never occurred. Brzonkala left [Virginia Tech] due to her concern of possible future reprisal in reaction to her pressing charges. She did not allege that this future reprisal actually occurred. Second, Brzonkala did not perceive that the environment was in fact abusive, but only that it might become abusive in the future. Brzonkala I, 935 F.Supp. at 778. Brzonkala pled that she was violently gang raped,' and rape “is ‘not only pervasive harassment but also criminal conduct of the most serious nature’ that is ‘plainly sufficient to state a claim for ‘hostile environment’ sexual harassment.’ ” Gary v. Long, 59 F.3d 1391, 1397 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 569, 133 L.Ed.2d 493 (1995) (quoting Mentor, 477 U.S. at 67, 106 S.Ct. at 2405-06); cf. Brock v. United States, 64 F.3d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.1995) (“Just as every murder is also a battery, every rape committed in the employment setting is also discrimination based on the employee’s sex.”); Baskerville v. Culligan Int’l Co., 50 F.3d 428, 430 (7th Cir.1995) (citing Meritor and recognizing sexual assault as an extreme example of sexual harassment); Karen Mellencamp Davis, Note, Reading, Writing, and Sexual Harassment: Finding a Constitutional Remedy When Schools Fail to Address Peer Abuse, 69 Ind. L.J. 1123, 1124 (1994) (“Rape and molestation provide drastic examples of the types of sexual harassment students inflict on their peers.”). Moreover, “even a single incident of sexual assault sufficiently alters the conditions of the victim’s employment and clearly creates an abusive work environment for purposes of Title VII liability.” Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1305 (2d Cir.1995) (citing Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67, 106 S.Ct. at 2405-06); see also King v. Board of Regents, 898 F.2d 533, 537 (7th Cir.1990) (acknowledging that “a single act [of discrimination] can be enough” to state a hostile environment claim under Title VII). Thus, the district court failed to recognize that the rapes themselves created a hostile environment, and that. Virginia Tech was aware of this environment and never properly remedied it. Indeed, the university Provost’s rationale for overturning Morrison's immediate suspension for one school year— that this punishment was “excessive when compared with other cases” — itself evidences an environment hostile to complaints of sexual harassment and a refusal to effectively remedy this hostile environment. Given the seriousness of the harassment acts, the total inadequacy of Virginia Tech’s redress, and Brzonkala’s reasonable fear of unchecked retaliation including possible violence, Brzonka-la did not have to return to the campus the next year and personally experience a continued hostile environment. Brzonkala “should not be punished for a hostile environment so severe that she was forced out entirely by loss of her legal claim against those responsible for the situation.” Patricia H. v. Berkeley Unified Sch. Dist., 830 F.Supp. 1288, 1298 (N.D.Cal.1993); see also Carrero v. New York City Housing Auth., 890 F.2d 569, 578 (2d Cir.1989) (“A female employee need not subject herself to an extended period of demeaning and degrading provocation before being entitled to seek the remedies provided under Title VII.”). b. The remaining issue is whether “some basis for institutional liability has been established.” Seamons, 84 F.3d at 1232. “[A]n employer is liable for a sexually hostile work environment created by ... [an] employee only if the employer knew or should have known of the illegal conduct and failed to take prompt and adequate remedial action.” Andrade, 88 F.3d at 261. We must determine whether Brzonkala has alleged facts sufficient to support an inference that Virginia Tech “knew or should have known of the illegal conduct and failed to take prompt and adequate remedial action.” Virginia Tech certainly knew about the rapes once Brzonkala informed the school and initiated disciplinary proceedings against Morrison and Crawford. The question, therefore, is whether Virginia Tech took prompt and adequate remedial action once it was on notice of the rapes. See Paroline v. Unisys Corp., 879 F.2d 100, 106 (4th Cir.1989), vacated in part on other grounds, 900 F.2d 27 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc). This inquiry is necessarily fact-based, and whether a response is “prompt and adequate” will depend on the specific allegations (and ultimately evidence) in each case. Id. at 106-07. Brzonkala alleges that after she was brutally raped three times she ceased attending classes, attempted suicide, and sought the aid of the school psychiatrist. Despite Virginia Tech’s awareness of these developments no university official, including the psychiatrist, ever made more than a cursory inquiry into the cause of her distress. Furthermore, she alleges that when she directly reported the rapes to Virginia Tech authorities, the college neither provided a fair hearing nor meted out appropriate punishment. During the first hearing her attacker essentially admitted that he raped her after she twice told him no. The first hearing resulted in a finding that Morrison had committed sexual assault, and his suspension for one school year. This result was upheld by an appeals officer, and under Virginia Tech’s published rules that decision was final and not subject to change. Nevertheless, Virginia Tech voided the first hearing and reopened the case against her admitted rapist, assertedly in violation of its own rules and on the basis of a specious legal argument. The second hearing was procedurally biased against Brzonkala in numerous ways, and unbeknownst to her, Morrison was only charged with the lesser offense of using abusive language. Still, Morrison was again found guilty, and suspended for the next school year. On appeal a senior college official determined that there was sufficient evidence that Morrison had violated the University’s Abusive Conduct Policy, and that Morrison’s due process argument was meritless. Nonetheless, the appeals officer decided that suspending Brzonkala’s rapist for a school year was “excessive when compared with other eases.” The university then overturned that suspension and permitted her attacker to return to school with a full athletic scholarship. Virginia Tech took this action without notifying Brzonkala, although she had been informed of the university’s actions in the case at every previous juncture. This decision caused her to fear for her safety and to withdraw from college altogether. As punishment for his admitted rape Morrison received a “deferred suspension until [his] graduation from Virginia Tech” and “a one-hour educational session.” In short, Brzonkala alleges that Virginia Tech permitted, indeed fostered, an environment in which male student athletes could gang rape a female student without any significant punishment to the male attackers, nor any real assistance to the female victim. She alleges a legion of procedural irregularities in the hearing process, Virginia Tech’s disregard for its own rules of finality, and its eventual decision to impose virtually no penalty for an admitted rape. These facts, if proven, would allow a jury to find that Virginia Tech’s response to Brzonkala’s gang rape was neither prompt nor adequate. Virginia Tech argues that because it did levy some punishment against Morrison, its response was adequate. A defendant need not “make the most effective response possible” to sexual harassment. See Spicer v. Virginia Dept. of Corrections, 66 F.3d 706, 710 (4th Cir.1995) (en banc). This does not mean, however, that any remedy, no matter how delayed or weak, will be adequate. Rather, we have consistently held under Title VII that a defendant employer is “liable for sexual harassment committed by its employees if no adequate remedial action is taken.” Id. Similar reasoning applies in the Title IX context. In light of the seriousness of Brzonkala’s allegations, the long and winding disciplinary process, and the proverbial slap on the wrist as punishment, we cannot conclude at this preliminary stage that Virginia Tech’s remedy was either prompt or adequate. For all of these reasons, Brzonkala has alleged sufficient facts to state a Title IX hostile environment claim against Virginia Tech. B. Brzonkala also alleges a Title IX disparate treatment claim, ie., that Virginia Tech discriminated against her on the basis of sex during the disciplinary proceedings against Morrison and Crawford. In analyzing Brzonkala’s claim, Title VII again “provide[s] a persuasive body of standards to which we may look in shaping the contours of a private right of action under Title IX.” Preston, 31 F.3d at 207. Indeed, Virginia Tech does not even argue that Title VII principles are inapplicable in analyzing Title IX disparate treatment claims. Proof of discriminatory intent is necessary to state a disparate treatment claim under Title VII. International Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 336 n. 15, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 1864 n. 16, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977). Absent some indication in the statute or regulations, Title IX similarly requires proof of discriminatory intent to state a disparate treatment claim. As such, we must examine Brzonkala’s complaint to see if she has alleged sufficient facts to infer such intent. See Yusuf v. Vassar College, 35 F.3d 709, 715 (2d Cir.1994). In Yusuf, the Second Circuit dealt with allegations of a discriminatory school disciplinary hearing, and described the type of evidence a plaintiff must plead to establish the requisite intent: [Allegations of a procedurally or otherwise flawed [school disciplinary] proceeding that has led to an adverse and erroneous outcome combined with a conclusory allegation of gender discrimination is not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The fatal gap is, again, the lack of a particularized allegation relating to a causal connection between the flawed outcome and gender bias. A plaintiff must thus also allege particular circumstances suggesting that gender bias was a motivating factor behind the erroneous finding. Allegations of a causal connection in the case of university disciplinary cases can be of the kind that are found in the familiar setting of Title VII cases_ Such allegations might include, inter alia, statements by members of the disciplinary tribunal, statements by pertinent university officials, or patterns of decision-making that also tend to show the influence of gender. Of course, some allegations, such as statements reflecting bias by members of the tribunal, may suffice both to cast doubt on the accuracy of the disciplinary adjudication and to relate the error to gender bias. Yusuf, 35 F.3d at 715 (citations omitted). In this case Brzonkala has alleged a flawed proceeding and made a conclusory assertion that Virginia Tech discriminated in favor of male football players, But she has not alleged any discriminatory statements or treatment by Virginia Tech, or any systematic mistreatment of women or rape victims. Nevertheless, Brzonkala maintains that she has made sufficient allegations of Virginia Tech’s discriminatory intent. First, she argues that Virginia Tech’s policy of not automatically reporting rapes to the police shows a discriminatory intent. Brzonkala does not allege, however, that the university discouraged or hindered her (or other rape victims) from filing charges, or that the uni-vei'sity generally treats rape less seriously in its own disciplinary proceedings. Nor does she state facts to support an inference that the university created its nonreporting policy to discriminate against rape victims. Without an allegation that Virginia Tech itself fails to punish rapists, or impedes criminal investigations, or separate facts to establish that the policy was a result of gender bias, the university has not discriminated against rape victims, because these victims can always pursue criminal charges themselves. In fact, because of the intensely personal nature of the crime, as well as the present day difficulties inherent in pursuing rape charges, a victim of rape may not always want to press charges or involve the police. See Brzonkala I, 935 F.Supp. at 777. Next, Brzonkala relies upon allegations that her access to evidence, like that of the plaintiff in Yusuf, was hampered, as the factual basis for a finding of discriminatory intent. It is true that in Yusuf the plaintiff alleged numerous procedural difficulties. Yusuf, 35 F.3d at 712-13. But, in Yusuf the plaintiff also asserted that “males accused of sexual harassment at Vassar are ‘historically and systematically’ and ‘invariably found guilty, regardless of the evidence, or lack thereof.’ ” Id. at 716. This sort of systematic discrimination, on top of the procedural irregularities, sufficed to state a claim of disparate treatment. Here we have nothing but “allegations of a procedurally or otherwise flawed proceeding that has led to an adverse and erroneous outcome combined with a conclusory allegation of gender discrimination.” Id. at 715. These allegations are “not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.” Id.; cf. Houck v. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ., 10 F.3d 204, 206-07 (4th Cir.1993) (“[I]n the Title VII context, isolated incidents or random comparisons demonstrating disparities in treatment may be insufficient to draw a prima facie inference of discrimination without additional evidence that the alleged phenomenon of inequality also exists with respect to the entire relevant group of employees.”); Cook v. CSX Transp. Corp., 988 F.2d 507, 511-13 (4th Cir.1993) (same). Finally, Brzonkala contends that the woefully inadequate punishment meted out against Morrison is in and of itself proof of sex discrimination. Again, without more, this does not prove intentional gender discrimination against Brzonkala. In sum, the district court correctly dismissed Brzonkala’s Title IX claim of disparate treatment. III. We now turn to the question of whether the district court erred in dismissing Brzonkala’s claim that Morrison and Crawford violated Title III of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (“VAWA”). See 42 U.S.C. § 13981 (1994). The district court held that Brzonkala alleged a valid VAWA claim, but that VAWA was beyond congressional authority, and thus unconstitutional. See Brzonkala II, 935 F.Supp. at 801. We agree with the district court that Brzonkala stated a claim under VAWA. We conclude, however, that Congress acted within its authority in enacting VAWA and hold that the district court erred in ruling the statute unconstitutional. A. In September 1994, after four years of hearings, Congress enacted VAWA, a comprehensive federal statute designed to address “the escalating problem of violent crime against women.” S.Rep. No. 103-138, at 37 (1993). Title III, the portion of the statute at issue in this case, establishes the right upon which a civil claim can be brought: All persons within the United States shall have the right to be free from crimes of violence motivated by gender.... 42 U.S.C. § 13981(b). The statute goes on to set forth the elements necessary to plead and prove such a claim: (c) Cause of action A person (including a person who acts under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State) who commits a crime of violence motivated by gender and thus deprives another of the right declared in subsection (b) of this section shall be liable to the party injured, in an action for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and such other relief as a court may deem appropriate. (d) Definitions For purposes of this section— (1) the term “crime of violence motivated by gender” means a crime of violence committed because of gender or on the basis of gender, and due, at least in part, to an animus based on the victim’s gender; and (2) the term “crime of violence” means— (A) an act or series of acts that would constitute a felony against the person or that would constitute a felony against property if the conduct presents a serious risk of physical injury to another, and that would come within the meaning of State or Federal offenses described in section 16 of Title 18, whether or not those acts have actually resulted in criminal charges, prosecution, or conviction and whether or not those acts were committed in the special maritime, territorial, or prison jurisdiction of the United States; and (B) includes an act or series of acts that would constitute a felony described in subparagraph (A) but for the relationship between the person who takes such action and the individual against whom such action is taken. 42 U.S.C. § 13981. Thus, to- state a claim under § 13981(c) a plaintiff victim must allege “a-crime of violence motivated by gen-, der.” 42 U.S.C. § 13981(c). Morrison and Crawford do not argue that Brzonkala’s allegation of gang rape fails to satisfy, § 13981(d)(2)’s definition of a “crime.of violence.” However, they do briefly assert that Brzonkala has failed to allege a “crime of violence motivated by gender.” 42 U.S.C. § 13981(c) (emphasis added). A “crime of violence motivated by gender” is defined as “a crime of violence committed because of gender or on the basis of gender, and due, at least in part, to an animus based on the victim’s gender.” 42 U.S.C. § 13981(d)(1). Congress has indicated that “[p]roof of ‘gender motivation’ under Title III” of VAWA is to “proceed in the same ways proof -of race or sex discrimination proceeds under other civil rights laws. Judges and juries will determine ‘motivation’ from the ‘totality of the circumstances" surrounding the event.” S.Rep. No. 103-138, at 52; see also S.Rep. No. 102-197, at 50 (1991). The statute does not outlaw “[rjandom acts of violence unrelated to gender.” 42 U.S.C. § 13981(e)(1). However, bias “can be proven by circumstantial as well as indirect evidence.” S.Rep. No. 103-138, at 52. “Generally accepted guidelines for identifying hate crimes may also be useful” in determining whether a crime is gender-motivated,' such as: “language used by the perpetrator; the severity of the attack (including mutilation); the lack of provocation; previous history of similar incidents; absence of any other apparent motive (battery without robbéry, for example); common sense.” Id. at 52 n. 61. With these standards in mind, we examine Brzonkala’s complaint. Brzonkala alleges that two virtual strangers, Morrison and Crawford, brutally raped her three times within minutes after first meeting her. Although Brzonkala does not allege mutilation or other severe injury, the brutal and unprotected gang rape itself constitutes an attack of significant “severity.” Id. Moreover, Brzonkala alleges that the rapes were completely without “provocation.” Id. One of her assailants conceded during the college disciplinary hearing that Brzonkala twice told him, “No” before he initially raped her. Further, there is an absence of any “apparent motive” for the rapes other than gender bias. Id. For example, no robbery or other theft accompanied the rapes. Finally, Brzonkala alleges that when Morrison had finished raping her for the second time he told her, “You better not have any fucking diseases.” She also alleges that Morrison later announced to the college dining room, “I like to get girls drunk and fuck the shit out of them.” Verbal expression of bias by an attacker is certainly not mandatory to prove gender bias, Brzonkala II, 935 F.Supp. at 785 (“The purpose of the statute would be eviscerated if, to state a claim, a plaintiff had to allege, for example, that the defendant raped-her and stated, T hate women.’”), but it is “helpful.” See S.Rep. No. 103-138, at 51. As the district court noted, Morrison’s “statement reflects that he has a history of taking pleasure from having intercourse with women without their sober consent” and that “[t]his statement indicates disrespect for women in general and connects this gender disrespect to sexual intercourse.” Brzonkala II, 935 F.Supp. at 785. In addition, since Brzonkala alleged that Morrison and Crawford engaged in a conspiracy to rape her, Morrison’s comments are also relevant in assessing Crawford’s liability. See Loughman v. Consol-Pennsylvania Coal Co., 6 F.3d 88, 103 (3rd Cir.1993) (concluding that in a civil conspiracy “every conspirator is jointly and severally liable for all acts of co-conspirators taken in furtherance of the conspiracy”); United States v. Carpenter, 961 F.2d 824, 828 n. 3 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that “acts and statements in furtherance of the conspiracy may be attributed to” a co-conspirator and citing Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 646-47, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 1183-84, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946)); United States v. Chorman, 910 F.2d 102, 111 (4th Cir.1990) (same). In sum, Brzonkala has clearly alleged violations of VAWA. Virtually all of the earmarks of “hate crimes” are asserted here: an unprovoked, severe attack, triggered by no other motive, and accompanied by language clearly stating bias. The district court correctly concluded that Brzonkala alleged a VAWA claim. B. The remaining issue before us is whether the district court correctly held that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in enacting VAWA. Congress itself directly addressed this question. On the basis of numerous specific findings and a mountain of evidence, Congress stated that it was invoking its authority “[p]ursuant to ... section 8 of Article I of the Constitution” to enact a new civil rights law to protect “victims of gender motivated violence and to promote public safety, health, and activities affecting interstate commerce_” 42 U.S.C. § 13981(a) (emphasis added). Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution empowers Congress to “regulate Commerce ... among the several states.” U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, el. 3. In assessing whether Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause, we note that every act of Congress is entitled to a “strong presumption of validity and constitutionality,” Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946, 955 (4th Cir.1984), and will be invalidated only “for the most compelling constitutional reasons.” Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 384, 109 S.Ct. 647, 661, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989). The Supreme Court has directed that “[g]iven the deference due ‘the duly enacted and carefully considered decision of a coequal and representative branch of our Government,’” a court is “not lightly [to] second-guess such legislative judgments.” Westside Comm. Bd. of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 251, 110 S.Ct. 2356, 2372, 110 L.Ed.2d 191 (1990) (quoting Walters v. National Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 319, 105 S.Ct. 3180, 3188, 87 L.Ed.2d 220 (1985)). This is “particularly” true .when, as here, the legislative “judgments are based in part on empirical determinations.” Id. Deference to such judgments by the legislature constitutes the “paradigm of judicial restraint.” FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 314, 113 S.Ct. 2096, 2101, 124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993). Moreover, “[t]he task of a court that is asked to determine whether a particular exercise of congressional power is valid under the Commerce Clause is relatively narrow.” Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass’n, 452 U.S. 264, 276, 101 S.Ct. 2352, 2360 (1981); see also United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 568, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 1634, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“The history of the judicial struggle to interpret the Commerce Clause ... counsels great restraint before the Court determines that the Clause is insufficient to support an exercise of the national power.”). Thus, a reviewing court need only determine “whether a rational basis existed for concluding that a regulated activity” substantially affects interstate commerce. Lopez, 514 U.S. at 557, 115 S.Ct. at 1628-29. With these directives in mind, we consider whether Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause in passing VAWA. The Supreme Court has long held, and recently reiterated in Lopez, that there are “three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate” under the Commerce Clause: First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce.... Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities .... Finally, Congress’ commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce’... i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Lopez, 514 U.S. at 558-559, 115 S.Ct. at 1629-30 (citations omitted); United States v. Bailey, 112 F.3d 758, 765-66 (4th Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 240, — L.Ed.2d-(1997) (rejecting a Lopez challenge to Title II of VAWA and stating Lopez’s three-part test). Here, as in Lopez, “[t]he first two categories of authority may be quickly disposed of:” VAWA “is not a regulation of the use of the channels of interstate commerce, nor is it an attempt to prohibit the interstate transportation of a commodity through the channels of commerce; nor can [VAWA] be justified as a regulation [protecting] an instrumentality of interstate commerce or a thing in interstate commerce.” Lopez, 514 U.S. at 559, 115 S.Ct. at 1630. “Thus, if [VAWA] is to be sustained, it must be under the third category as-a regulation of an activity that substantially affects interstate commerce.” Id. The Lopez Court applied the substantial effects test to the Gun Free School Zones Act, which made it a federal crime to knowingly possess a firearm in a school zone. 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) (1988 ed. Supp. V) (amended 1994, 1996). In passing § 922(q), Congress attempted to supplant. state criminal laws with a federal statute that criminalized an activity that on its face had “nothing to do with” commerce, without making any findings demonstrating the activity affected interstate commerce or including a jurisdictional element ensuring a case by ease connection with interstate commerce. Lopez, 514 U.S. at 561 and n. 3, 115 S.Ct. at 1630-31 and n. 3. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court “would have [had] to pile inference upon inference” to find a rational basis for concluding the statute “substantially affected] any sort of interstate commerce.” Id. at 567, 115 S.Ct. at 1634. This the Court declined to do, and so declared § 922(q) unconstitutional. Id. In contrast to the congressional silence in Lopez, Congress made voluminous findings when it enacted VAWA. Accordingly, we can begin where the Lopez Court could not, by “evaluating] the legislative judgment that the activity in question substantially affected interstate commerce.” Lopez, 514 U.S. at 563, 115 S.Ct. at 1632; see also City of Boerne v. Flores, — U.S. -, -, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 2169-2170, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997) (recognizing the importance of Congressional findings in determining the “appropriateness of [Congress’s] remedial measures”). ' In doing so, we recognize that discerning a rational basis “is ultimately a judicial rather than a legislative question,” Lopez, 514 U.S. at 557 n. 2, 115 S.Ct. at 1629 n. 2 (quoting Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 273, 85 S.Ct. 348, 366, 13 L.Ed.2d 258 (1964) (Black, J., concurring)), and “[sjimply because Congress may conclude that a particular activity substantially affects interstate' commerce does not necessarily make it so.” Id. (quoting Hodel, 452 U.S. at 311, 101 S.Ct. at 2391 (Rehnquist, J., concurring)). But a “court must defer” to congressional- findings when there is “a rational basis for such a finding.” Hodel, 452 U.S. at 276, 101 S.Ct. at 2360. Indeed, “[t]he Supreme Court has without fail given effect to such congressional findings.” Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 310-11 (2d ed.1988). Accordingly, we first examine the congressional findings made in connection wiíh VAWA. See United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir.1995) (rejecting a Lopez challenge to the “Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act” and beginning and ending our analysis by relying totally upon Congress’s “detailed findings” on the interstate commerce effects). i. The Congressional findings and testimony that support the passage of VAWA pursuant to the Commerce Clause are detailed and extensive. ' Congress carefully documented the enormity of the problem caused by violence against women. For example, Congress found that: * “Violence is the leading cause of injury to women ages 15^4_”• S.Rep. No. . 103-138, at 38 (1993). * “[F]or the past 4 years [prior to 1993], the U.S. Surgeons General have warned that family violence — not heart attacks or cancer- or strokes — poses the single largest threat of injury to adult women in this country.” Id. at 41-42 (footnote omitted). * “An estimated 4 million American women are battered each year by their husbands or partners. Approximately 95% of all domestic violence victims are women.” H.R.Rep. No. 103-395, at 26 (1993) (footnotes omitted). * “Three out of four American women will be victims of violent crimes sometime during their life.” Id. at 25 (footnote omitted). * “Since 1988, the rate of incidence of rape has risen four and a half times as fast as the total crime rate. There were 109,062 reported rapes in the United States in 1992 — one every five minutes. The actual number of rapes committed is approximately double that figure....” Id. (footnotes omitted). The committee reports similarly found that “the cost to society” resulting from violence against women “is staggering.” S.Rep. No. 101-545, at 33 (1990). Domestic violence alone is estimated to cost employers “at least $3 billion — not million, but billion — dollars a year” due to absenteeism in the workplace. Id. Furthermore, “estimates suggest that we spend. $5 to $10 billion a year on health care, criminal justice, and other social costs of domestic violence.” S.Rep. No. 103— 138, at 41. Moreover, “[i]t is not a simple, matter of adding up the medical costs, or law enforcement costs, but of adding up all of those expenses plus the costs of lost careers, decreased productivity, foregone educational opportunities, and long-term health problems.” S.Rep. No. 101-545, at 33. These monetary figures were accompanied by other evidence establishing'that violence against women has a substantial impact on interstate commerce: Over 1 million women in the United States seek medical assistance each year for injuries sustained by their husbands or other partners. As many as 20 percent of hospital emergency room cases are related to wife battering. But the costs do not end there: woman abuse “has a devastating social and economic effect on the family and the community.” ... It takes its toll in homelessness: one study reports that as many as 50 percent of homeless women and children are fleeing domestic violence. It takes its toll in employee absenteeism and sick time for women who either cannot leave their homes or are afraid to show the physical effects of the violence. S.Rep. No. 101-545, at 37. Fear of violence “takes a substantial toll on the lives of all women, in lost work, social, and even leisure opportunities.” S.Rep. No. 102-197, at 38 (1991). Thus, based upon an exhaustive and meticulous investigation of the problem, Congress found that: H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 103-711, at 385 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1839, 1853. crimes of violence motivated by gender have a substantial adverse effect on interstate commerce, by deterring potential victims from traveling interstate, from engaging in employment in interstate business, and from transacting with business, and in places involved, in interstate commerce ... by diminishing national productivity, increasing medical and other costs, and decreasing the supply of and the demand for interstate products. In concluding that “[tjhere is no doubt that Congress, has the power to create the Title III remedy under” the Commerce Clause, Congress noted that: [g]ender-based crimes and the fear of gender-based crimes restricts movement, reduces employment opportunities, increases health expenditures, and reduces consumer spending, all of which affect interstate commerce and the national economy. Gender-based violence bars its most likely targets — women—from full participation in the national economy. For example, studies report that almost 50 percent of rape victims lose their jobs or are forced to quit in the aftermath of the crime. Even the fear of gender-based violence affects the econoniy because it deters women from taking jobs in certain areas or at certain hours that pose a significant risk of such violence.... For example, women often refuse higher paying night jobs in service/retail industries because of the fear of attack. Those fears are justified: the No. 1 reason why women die on the job is homicide and the highest concentration of those women is in service/retail industries .... 42 percent of deaths on the job of women are homicides; only 12 percent of the deaths of men on the job are homicides. S.Rep. No. 103-138, at 54 & n.70 (footnotes omitted). Our task is simply to discern whether Congress had “a rational basis” for concluding that the regulated activity — here violence against women — substantially “affected interstate commerce.” Lopez, 514 U.S. at 558-559, 115 S.Ct. at 1629-30. After four years of hearings and consideration of voluminous testimonial, statistical, and documentary evidence, Congress made an unéquivoeal and persuasive finding that violence against women substantially affects interstate commerce. Even the district court recognized that “[a] reasonable inference from the congressional findings is that violence against women has a major effect on the national economy.” Brzonkala II, 935 F.Supp. at 792. Accordingly, whatever one’s doubts as to whether Title III of VAWA represents a good policy decision, Seaton v. Seaton, 971 F.Supp. 1188 (E.D.Tenn.1997), we can only conclude that Congress’ findings are grounded in a rational basis. We note that every court to consider the question except the court below, has so held. See Crisonino v. New York City Housing Auth., No. 96 Civ. 9742(HB) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 1997); Anisimov v. Lake, 982 F.Supp. 531 (N.D.Ill.1997); Seaton, 971 F.Supp. at 1194; Doe v. Hartz, 970 F.Supp. 1375 (N.D.Iowa 1997); Doe v. Doe, 929 F.Supp. 608 (D.Conn.1996). In fact, in United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105 (4th Cir.1995), we recently relied exclusively on less extensive Congressional findings to uphold Section 401(a)(1)