Civil Rights Act of 1964: Difference between revisions

In the 1930s, during the [[New Deal]], the majority of the Supreme Court justices gradually shifted their legal theory to allow for greater government regulation of the private sector under the Commerce Clause, thus paving the way for the Federalfederal government to enact civil rights laws prohibiting both public and private sector discrimination on the basis of the commerce clause.

On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy met with Republican leaders to discuss the legislation before his television address to the nation that evening. Two days later, [[Senate Minority Leader]] [[Everett Dirksen]] and [[Senate Majority Leader]] [[Mike Mansfield]] both voiced support for the president's bill, except for provisions guaranteeing equal access to places of public accommodations. This led to several Republican Representatives drafting a compromise bill to be considered. On June 19, the president sent his bill to Congress as it was originally written, saying legislative action was "imperative".<ref>Loevy, Robert (1997), ''The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Law that Ended Racial Segregation'', State University of New York Press, p. 171. {{ISBN|0-7914-3362-5}}</ref><ref>[[Terry Golway|Golway, Terry]] and Krantz, Les (2010), ''JFK: Day by Day'', Running Press, p. 284. {{ISBN|978-0-7624-3742-9}}</ref> The president's bill went first to the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]], where it was referred to the [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|Judiciary Committee]], chaired by [[Emanuel Celler]], a Democrat from [[New York (state)|New York]] Democrat [[Emanuel Celler]]. After a series of hearings on the bill, Celler's committee strengthened the act, adding provisions to ban racial discrimination in employment, providing greater protection to black voters, eliminating segregation in all publicly owned facilities (not just schools), and strengthening the anti-segregation clauses regarding public facilities such as lunch counters. They also added authorization for the Attorney General to file lawsuits to protect individuals against the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution or U.S. law. In essence, this was the controversial "Title III" that had been removed from the [[Civil Rights Act of 1957|1957 Act]] and [[Civil Rights Act of 1960|1960 Act]]. Civil rights organizations pressed hard for this provision because it could be used to protect peaceful protesters and black voters from police brutality and suppression of free speech rights.<ref name="CivilRightsMovementArchiveFeb1964" />

The [[assassination of John F. Kennedy|assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy]] on November 22, 1963, changed the political situation. Kennedy's successor as president, [[Lyndon B. Johnson]], made use of his experience in legislative politics, along with the [[bully pulpit]] he wielded as president, in support of the bill. In his first address to a [[Joint session of the United States Congress|joint session of Congress]] on November 27, 1963, Johnson told the legislators, "No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Events-of-1963/Transition-to-Johnson/12295509434394-3/|title=1963 Year In Review: Transition to Johnson|work=[[United Press International|UPI]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200429132839/https://www.upi.com/Archives/Audio/Events-of-1963/Transition-to-Johnson|archive-date=April 29, 2020}}</ref>

[[File:MLK and Malcolm X USNWR cropped.jpg|thumb|upright=0.9|[[Martin Luther King Jr.]] and [[Malcolm X]] at the [[United States Capitol]] on March 26, 1964, listening to the Senate debate on the bill. The two met for only one minute.<ref>{{cite book |last=Cone |first=James H. |author-link=James Hal Cone |title=Martin & Malcolm & America: A Dream or a Nightmare |year=1991 |isbn=0-88344-721-5 |page=[https://archive.org/details/martinmalcolmame00jame/page/2 2] |publisher=Orbis Books |url=https://archive.org/details/martinmalcolmame00jame/page/2 }}</ref>]]

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "[[Solid South|Southern Bloc]]" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and lone Republican [[John Tower]] of Texas, led by [[Richard Russell Jr.|Richard Russell]] (D-GA), launched a [[filibuster]] to prevent its passage.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dirksencenter.org/research-collections/everett-m-dirksen/dirksen-record/civil-rights-june-10-1964 |title=A Case History: The 1964 Civil Rights Act |publisher=The Dirksen Congressional Center |access-date=July 21, 2016 |archive-date=July 29, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200729211300/https://dirksencenter.org/research-collections/everett-m-dirksen/dirksen-record/civil-rights-june-10-1964 |url-status=live }}</ref> Russell proclaimed, "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would tend to bring about [[social equality]] and [[miscegenation|intermingling and amalgamation of the races]] in our [Southern] states."<ref>{{cite book |last1=Napolitano |first1=Andrew P. |author1-link=Andrew Napolitano |title=Dred Scott's Revenge: A Legal History of Race and Freedom in America |date=2009 |publisher=Thomas Nelson |page=188 |isbn=978-1595552655 |url=https://archive.org/details/dredscottsreveng0000napo/page/188/mode/1up?q=&quot;we+will+resist&quot; |access-date=July 7, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-civil-rights-quotes-20140629-story.html |title=The Civil Rights Act: What JFK, LBJ, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X had to say |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] |last=Remnick |first=Noah |date=June 28, 2014 |access-date=July 7, 2022 |archive-date=February 24, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160224154315/http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-civil-rights-quotes-20140629-story,amp.html |url-status=unfit }}</ref>

[[File:Senate vote on final passage of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (HR 7152).png|right|thumb|500x500px|Senate vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.]]

One year earlier, the same Congress had passed the [[Equal Pay Act of 1963]], which prohibited wage differentials based on sex. The prohibition on sex discrimination was added to the Civil Rights Act by [[Howard W. Smith]], a powerful Virginia Democrat who chaired the House Rules Committee and strongly opposed the legislation. Smith's amendment was passed by a teller vote of 168 to 133. Historians debate whether Smith [[Wrecking amendment|cynically attempted to defeat the bill]] because he opposed civil rights for blacksBlack people and women or attempted to support their rights by broadening the bill to include women.<ref name="Freeman">[[Jo Freeman|Freeman, Jo.]] "How 'Sex' Got Into Title VII: Persistent Opportunism as a Maker of Public Policy," ''Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice'', Vol. 9, No. 2, March 1991, pp 163–184. [http://www.jofreeman.com/lawandpolicy/titlevii.htm online version] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060423141747/http://www.jofreeman.com/lawandpolicy/titlevii.htm |date=April 23, 2006 }}</ref><ref>[[Rosalind Rosenberg|Rosenberg, Rosalind]] (2008), ''Divided Lives: American Women in the Twentieth Century'', pp. 187–88</ref><ref>Gittinger, Ted and Fisher, Allen, [https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/summer/civil-rights-act-2.html LBJ Champions the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Part 2] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170831112137/https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/summer/civil-rights-act-2.html |date=August 31, 2017 }}, Prologue Magazine, The National Archives, Summer 2004, Vol. 36, No. 2 ("Certainly Smith hoped that such a divisive issue would torpedo the civil rights bill, if not in the House, then in the Senate.")</ref><ref name="'70s 245">{{cite book|title= How We Got Here: The '70s|last= Frum|first= David|author-link= David Frum|year= 2000|isbn= 0-465-04195-7|pages= [https://archive.org/details/howwegothere70sd00frum/page/245 245–246, 249]|publisher= Basic Books|url= https://archive.org/details/howwegothere70sd00frum/page/245}}</ref> Smith expected that Republicans, who had included [[women's rights|equal rights for women]] in their party's platform since 1944,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25835|title=The American Presidency Project|access-date=May 29, 2016|archive-date=June 24, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160624233257/http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25835|url-status=live}}</ref> would probably vote for the amendment. Historians speculate that Smith was trying to embarrass northern Democrats who opposed civil rights for women because labor unions opposed the clause. Representative [[Carl Elliott]] of Alabama later said, "Smith didn't give a damn about women's rights", as "he was trying to knock off votes either then or down the line because there was always a hard core of men who didn't favor women's rights",<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Dierenfield | first1 = Bruce J | year = 1981 | title = Conservative Outrage: the Defeat in 1966 of Representative Howard W. Smith of Virginia | journal = Virginia Magazine of History and Biography | volume = 89 | issue = 2| page = 194 }}</ref> and according to the ''[[Congressional Record]]'', laughter greeted Smith when he introduced the amendment.<ref name="Gold">Gold, Michael Evan. ''A Tale of Two Amendments: The Reasons Congress Added Sex to Title VII and Their Implication for the Issue of Comparable Worth.'' Faculty Publications – Collective Bargaining, Labor Law, and Labor History. Cornell, 1981 [http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=cbpubs] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060921222720/http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=cbpubs|date=September 21, 2006}}</ref>

One of the bill's opponents' most damaging arguments was that once passed, the bill would require [[desegregation busing in the United States|forced busing]] to achieve certain [[racial quotas]] in schools.<ref name="'70s 251">{{cite book |title= How We Got Here: The '70s|last= Frum|first= David|author-link= David Frum|year= 2000|pages= [https://archive.org/details/howwegothere70sd00frum/page/251 251–252]|publisher= Basic Books|isbn= 9780465041954|url=https://archive.org/details/howwegothere70sd00frum|url-access= registration}}</ref> The bill's proponents, such as [[Emanuel Celler]] and [[Jacob Javits]], said it would not authorize such measures. Leading sponsor Hubert Humphrey wrote two amendments specifically designed to outlaw busing.<ref name="'70s 251" /> Humphrey said, "if the bill were to compel it, it would be a violation [of the Constitution], because it would be handling the matter on the basis of race and we would be transporting children because of race."<ref name="'70s 251" /> Javits said any government official who sought to use the bill for busing purposes "would be making a fool of himself," but two years later the [[Department of Health, Education and Welfare]] said that Southern school districts would be required to meet mathematical ratios of students by busing.<ref name="'70s 251" />

Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; the Title II defined "public accommodations" as establishments that serve the public. It exempted private clubs, without defining the term "private", or other establishments not open to the public.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/341/civilrightsact1964.html | title=Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title II | publisher=[[Wake Forest University]] | access-date=June 15, 2013 | archive-date=April 10, 2015 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150410074228/http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/341/civilrightsact1964.html | url-status=live }}</ref>

ProhibitedTitle III prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin.

EnforcedTitle IV enforced the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act.

ExpandedTitle V expanded the [[United States Commission on Civil Rights|Civil Rights Commission]] established by the earlier [[Civil Rights Act of 1957]] with additional powers, rules, and procedures.

PreventsTitle VI prevents discrimination by programs and activities that receive federal funds. If a recipient of federal funds is found in violation of Title VI, that recipient may lose its federal funding.

RequiredTitle VIII required compilation of voter-registration and voting data in geographic areas specified by the Commission on Civil Rights.

EstablishedTitle X established the [[Community Relations Service]], tasked with assisting in community disputes involving claims of discrimination.

In the 1974 case ''Lau v. Nichols'', the Supreme Court ruled that the [[San Francisco]] school district was violating non-English speaking students' rights under the 1964 act by placing them in regular classes rather than providing some sort of accommodation for them.<ref name="'70s 270">{{cite book |title= How We Got Here: The '70s|last= Frum|first= David|author-link= David Frum|year= 2000|page= [https://archive.org/details/howwegothere70sd00frum/page/270 270]|publisher= Basic Books|isbn= 978-0465041954|url=https://archive.org/details/howwegothere70sd00frum|url-access= registration}}</ref>

[[Category:CivilEvents of the civil rights movement]]