Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Essay Example

INTRODUCTION Almost fifty years ago on July 2, 1964 the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted into law; it was, and continues to be, this country's primary anti-discrimination policy. It was designed and intended to be a comprehensive blueprint to prohibit and eliminate various types of discrimination and segregation which were considered to be wrong. Segregation was thought to be wrong because it subjugated individuals and groups to secondary citizenship status because of unfair judgments made about persons based upon their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Segregation was also considered wrong because it was unethical and contrary to the basic philosophical precepts for which the United States as a society was supposed to stand for such as justice, liberty and equal opportunity. Without question the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was and continues to be an important public policy which outlawed segregation practices, provided lasting social security and overall became invaluable to many American generations . SEGREGATION Segregation as social phenomenon is defined as systematic denial of opportunities for particular population group (Segregation, 2009). According to report on segregation policies, “[f]or many years, the federal government itself was responsible for promoting racial discrimination in housing and residential policies” (Segregation, 2009). Segregation can be examined looking at different perspectives on individual segregation and group segregation (Frey and Myers, 2005). From the critical perspective, the initiative of an individual or population group to segregate is impacted by their social relationships and the spatial character of these relationships (Parsons, 2007). Practically, segregation is not only limited to residential segregation, but to individuals’ daily life, and can manifest itself in various social environments, like work and education. This was the case with segregation and racial discrimination in American economic and social environments for many decades. During many decades prior to the year 1964, there were very few Blacks in corporate America. Companies that hired Blacks were known within the community and interested Blacks were encouraged to apply. If, on the other hand, a company was known to support segregation, no Blacks would apply. As a matter of fact, a few employment agencies were known for directing Blacks to the corporate American world. Others found their way into corporate America through advertisements in Black magazines, and from White social pressure to do the right thing. This led a few companies to hire Blacks in positions, such as clerical, personnel and record keeping, which were outside of the company's main business. However, the experience of technically trained Blacks during the 1940's and early 1950's began to be different. Due to the shortage of technically trained employees, Black scientists and engineers were the first to break the color line in major companies. Because of the treatment of many Blacks during this time, a few states enacted anti-discrimination laws. Organizations like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) would often send qualified Blacks in to apply for employment as "test cases" (Loh, 1984, p.48). If an applicant was found to be unfairly treated, the NAACP or Urban League would threaten to initiate or initiate a lawsuit. Federal contracts also banned discrimination based on race, religion and national origin, but there was little pressure to comply. In 1961, President Kennedy established the Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity under Vice-President Lyndon Johnson (EEOC, 1961). This Commission was different from the previous ones, in that it had the enforcement authority to move against those companies discriminating against Blacks . These were the first most known policy steps that eventually led to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent abolishing of segregation practices. THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 The enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 created a legal statute to ensure desegregation policies and practices. The Civil Rights Act was designed to eliminate discrimination and sought to produce action that had not previously taken place. On July 2, 1964, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (EEOC, 2004). The passage of the Civil Rights Act became a significant historical event in American politics of desegregation, however its influence has not been recognized instantly. The Act stated that organizations violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act would threaten their federal funding. For instance, the Civil Rights Act mandated the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Department of Justice to bring to effect Title VI of the Act and simultaneously gave a legal ground upon which norms can be enforced. Prior to the Civil Rights Act, the protection of rights has been conducted based upon court precedents and there was little if any punishment for not following to desegregation policy norms. Thus, the Civil Rights Act formed a legal ground for ceasing segregation practices and discriminative trends and provided mechanisms to monitor and sanction government, education and private organizations and institutions for non-compliance. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 consists of eleven articles, all of which are extremely important to recognition and fulfillment of civil rights and liberties of Americans, however, not all of them contribute to segregation outlawing equally. For instance, Title II prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, stating that: All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground or race, color, religion, or national origin” (Civil Rights Act, Title II, 1964). Practically, two articles are exceptionally contributing to combatting and outlawing segregation practice, namely Title VI and Title VII. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is arguable one of the most powerful of all civil rights laws ever enacted in the United States (US Commission on Civil Rights, 1971). Title VI is a law, which if implemented correctly can ensure that regardless of one’s race, color or national origin, services must be provided in a non-discriminatory manner. This law states that “no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under a program or actively receiving Federal financial assistance” (Civil Rights Act, Title VI, 1964). Title VI covers all forms of Federal aid except contracts of insurance and guaranty that are federally funded. This law does not cover employment, except in instances where the position to employ an individual is federally funded (US Commission on Civil Rights, 1971). Title VI affects an array of services such as transportation, law enforcement and education (US Commission on Civil Rights, 1971). According to this law, recipients of federal financial assistance are precluded from “providing a different service, aid, or provide them in a manner different than they are provided to others; or segregate or separately treat individuals in any manner related to the receipt of any service, aid or benefit” (Civil Rights Act, Title VI, 1964). The applicability of Title VI to the vast area of services provided by federal assistance made it a powerful tool to ensure equity. Title VII reflected the enactment of a national policy which would assure equal employment opportunity. Equal employment opportunity refers to equal access to employment opportunities (e.g. employment, occupational mobility, wages) (US Commission on Civil Rights, 1971). In other words, all persons should have equal chances at obtaining or seeking employment opportunities without the obstacles associated with employment discrimination. Title VII promotes EEO and declares as national policy that the United States would not condone employment discrimination as illustrated by these words taken from the Act: It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer: (1) to fail or refuse or to discourage any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges or employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex and national origin (Civil Rights Act, Title VII, 1964). From the analytical perspective, the major provisions of Title VII can be summarized in the following principles: (1) Coverage – Title VII covered all employers and labor unions with 15 or more employees, federal, state and commercial employment agencies, and any training apprenticeship program by employers, labor unions and joint labor-management committees. (2) Prohibited Practices – Employers were prohibited from discriminating in any phase of employment or union membership on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, and national origin. (3) Enforcement – Title VII created the Equal Opportunity Commission. The EEOC would investigate charges of discrimination, attempt to conciliate, and if conciliation failed could then file suit in federal district court. (4) Penalties – If the court found that the accused had engaged in an unlawful employment practice, the court could enjoin the accused from continuing such practice and order the accused to take affirmative action, including reinstatement of an employee with or without back pay. No order of the court could require the reinstatement of an individual to a labor organization or the hiring, reinstatement or promotion of an individual by an employer if the labor organization or employer took action for any reason other than discrimination on account of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. A key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provided for Title VII which was designed specifically to prohibit and eliminate unfair employment practices. To implement and administer the provisions of Title VII, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was established (EEOC, 2004). The enforcement provisions of Title VII contained a number of important elements of which probably the more significant centered on the EEOC's power and responsibility to receive, investigate and act on charges of employment discrimination filed with the EEOC. Section 706(A) of Title VII would state it this way: ...whenever it is charged in writing under oath by a person claiming to be aggrieved, or a written charge has been filed by a member of the Commission where he has reasonable cause to believe a violation of this Title has occurred (and such charge sets forth the facts upon which it is based) that an employer, employment agency or labor organization has engaged in an unlawful employment practice, the Commission… shall endeavor to eliminate any such unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion. (Civil Rights Act, Title VII, 1964). In effect, the principal enforcement tool of Title VII was designed to depend upon the initiative of aggrieved individuals to file charges with the EEOC in order for the EEOC to be able to begin to activate its charge process with its enforcement powers and responsibilities. Put another way, the EEOC would depend upon aggrieved individuals to be able to detect illegal employment practices and to be able to detect its victims before it could act. Of course Title VII has evolved and changed over the years since 1964. For example, a 1972 amendment now permits the EEOC to better enforce Title VII by empowering the EEOC to initiate law suits which it could not do in 1964. REFERENCES Civil Rights Act (1964). Retrieved Nov 25, 2010 from EEOC. (1961). Executive Order 10925, Retrieved Nov 25, 2010 from EEOC. (2004). Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of Title VII. Retrieved Nov 25, 2010 from Frey, W. & Myers, D. (2005). Racial Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas and Cities, 1990-2000: Patterns, Trends and Explanations. Report 05-571. Retrieved Nov 25, 2010 from Loh, W. (1984). Social Research in Judicial Process: Cases, Readings, and Text. Russel Sage Foundation. Retrieved Nov 25, 2010 from Parsons, S. (2007). The Relationship between Spatial Segregation, Social Exclusion and Access to Healthy Food. Report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Science in Built Environment from the University of London. Retrieved Nov 25, 2010, from < http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/4977/1/4977.pdf> Segregation. (2009). Report from Alameda County Public Health Department. Retrieved Nov 25, 2010 from US Commission on Civil Rights (1971). The Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Effort: Summary. GAO Publishing, Retrieved Nov 25, 2010 from Read More