In Part I, I present a brief treatment of intersectionality in anti-discrimination law focusing on the distinction between cause of action and remedy. Harm caused by gender or racial discrimination may give rise to causes of action based on equal protection principles. In Part II, I go further and argue that the primary intersectionality problem presented by Title IX is one of remedy. I conclude that the differences in the remedial effects of Title IX result, in part, from unremedied racial discrimination, a conclusion that begins with Professor Jerome Dees\u27s argument that Brown v. Board of Education and anti-discrimination laws based on the single-axis of race are more responsible for the gains of African American female athletes in intercollegiate athletics. Finally, in Part III, I offer a policy solution invoking both gender- and race-based anti-discrimination laws. Accordingly, I advocate for the promulgation of regulations or a policy statement pursuant to Title VI and Title IX to specifically address the unremedied racial discrimination against African American female athletes under Title IX and the unmitigated gender discrimination under Title VI
