Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1964

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Who Wrote the Civil Rights Act?

Hello. I'm just a lay reader. I've read through this whole article and cannot find who wrote this bill! Wouldn't the bill's author be just a wee bit important??

There was no single author. After President Kennedy called for new legislation, a team of Justice Department lawyers drafted a proposed bill under the supervision of Attorney General Robert Kennedy. That draft was extensively revised by a sub-committee of the House Judiciary Committee led by Emanual Celler. The sub-commitee's draft was then significantly changed by the full Judiciary Committee. There draft was amended on the floor of the House. The House version was then amended in the Senate, most notably by Dirksen, Humphrey, and RFK. Brucehartford (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TITLE VII

It's obvious that a large part of this article was deleted somehow. It cuts abruptly from Title III to talking about Title VII. Title VII is the most famous part and I really don't see much in here about it. -Scott W

Dear fellow editors: Looks like the text on Title VII was vandalized on 29 March 2006. I have re-inserted it. Yours, Famspear 17:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to address the issues that have been raised by gay right's advocates who use Title VII's ambiguity to explain how sex based discrimination is integral for discrimination based on sexual orientation. Someone erases the content I've put up. I think it is extremely important to address the fact that sex based discrimination was not meant to be added to the act. This leaves many unanswered questions.

To whom this may concern: There is unappropriate wording in this article just above the statistics. To be specific "titty f*** statistics" is written and must be deleted.

There needs to be more info in this article. I can't find what i need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.230.90 (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vote Counts

can we put who voted for and against it, is it possible to get those records? the only person i know of for sure who was against it was george the first when we was running for the house, he lost so i guess it doesn't count...

Albert Gore Sr. and Robert C. Byrd, to name just 2 senators, were agin' it. Ellsworth

---

Coincidentally, I checked the CQ book for the years 1945 though 1964 today.

Here's the vote totals:

The Original House Version: 290-130
The Senate Version: 73-27
The Senate Version, as voted on by the House: 289-126

And split by party:

The Original House Version:

Democratic Party: 153-96
Republican Party: 138-34

The Senate Version:

Democratic Party: 46-21
Republican Party: 27-6

The Senate Version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91
Republican Party: 136-35

And the split between North and South among the Democrats:

The Original House Version:

North: 141-4
South: 11-92

The Senate Version:

North: 45-1
South: 1-20

The Senate Version, voted on by the House:

North: 141-3
South: 12-88

Feel free to bring some more stuff up if these numbers are a bit off.

RobbieFal 20:33, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Will someone please check the counts under the Senate Version at the bottom of the section, above the struck-out "102 senators????"? If the counts are correct, please remove the "102..." line. --Tuvok 07:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I disagree with this statement

Johnson realized that supporting this bill would mean losing the South's overwhelming Democratic Party majority (which did happen, with some exceptions).

It happened, but it took many, many years to happen, and it's impossible to say that it was because of the Civil Rights Act. The Republican party voted for the act in greater numbers than the Democrats so Southerners angry over the act weren't likely to run to the Republicans. Southerners were happy to stick with their Democratic congressman since those Democrats had after all overwelmingly opposed the Act.--Heathcliff 02:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

    • I'd say it happened because of the Democratic Party moving left and beginning to overwhelmingly support civil rights, thus bringing African Americans to their side. Racist Southerners were upset over this and formed the "Dixiecrats" but later joined the Republican Party in mass numbers after the Republican Party's "Southern Strategy". This caused both parties to change in ideology as right-wingers became Republicans and left-wingers became Democrats. Revolución 19:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, in 1968 Democrat Humphrey only won Texas in the South, with Nixon and segregationist Wallace sweeping the rest of the region. In 1972, Nixon swept the South--8 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. That being said, I do not believe that the Republicans gained control of the South because of any racist attitudes; rather, segregationists and many other southerners probably felt betrayed by the Democrats, so they started voting for Republicans in protest.
      • Such a quote definately needs cited. As to the collapse of the Democratic party in the South; it was top down (starting with the Presidency) and took decades to reach into a majority of the state legislatures. In addition, the drifting of the economic & government policies of the Democrats to the left also had a lot to do with it. On Economic issues, the South has historicaly been a region of the country favoring low federal taxes. (See South Carolina's 1830s succession movement over the high tariffs.) Jon 20:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Can they do that?.?.?....lol ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.4.23 (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for my changes

  • Reworded 1st paragraph - to remove the words, black women, which surely would attract continuing garbage or vandals; and changed "feminism" to "women's rights," as in the proposed Equal Rights Amendment which did follow.
  • At the beginning of 1st section 1 Legislative history, blended in the recently-added simple-excerpt from Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement, to fit in better; converted its in-text external links to footnotes per Wikipedia guidelines; and substituted a source for JFK's 22Nov63 death date which does give that date.
  • Referenced the full text of the act via a footnote within the article. For7thGen 14:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary regarding text under "Title II"

Dear editors: The text "Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining "private," thereby allowing a loophole..." was the subject of this comment: "[For whom? The club-owners or the gov't? Couldn't it work in favor of both...?]" which was added to the body of the article itself by an anonymous editor at IP address 68.110.230.163.

I am just going to eliminate the phrase "thereby allowing a loophole..." and the commentary in brackets by the editor at 68.110.230.163.


\\)

[edit] (O_O)

Isn't it protect the rights of black PEOPLE, not just men?

[edit] The opening statement is demonstrably false

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964... in the United States was landmark legislation which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

No, it didn't. It outlawed certain narrowly-defined instances of discrimination.

I still don't have to walk through black neighborhoods if I don't want to.

"Enforcement powers were initially weak, but they grew over the years, and later programs (such as affirmative action) were made possible by the Act."

Now THERE'S an unintentional bit of ironic hilarity.

[edit] "Filibuster led by.."

It's redundant to say that it was led by Southern Democrats and segregationists, though I appreciate the history lesson. The Southern Democrats who opposed the bill WERE the segregationists, and saying "Southern Democrats & segregationists" omits those who opposed the bill on what were supposed states rights grounds, ie non-Southerners like Barry Goldwater. His opposition to the bill was based on his CONSERVATISM, not because he was a Southern Democrat (he was a Republican from Arizona) or a segregationist.

Refer to editorials in the National Review from that era re: conservatism and civil rights.

--Heforgotpoland

The conservatives led by Dirksen voted for the bill, so the text gives a false impression.Rjensen 14:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
So what? The fact is Goldwater opposed the bill due to his conservatism, and segregationists opposed it due to their opposition to integration. What gives a false impression is that a filibuster existed in a vacuum with no ideological basis.
I'd believe much more in your good faith belief that specifying who led the filibuster is obfuscatory if you didn't keep reverting it to read Democrats in one way or another (and I addressed why that's unnecessary in the original talk comment).
The text as it reads does not say all conservatives were part of the filibuster, nor does it say that all segregationists did. Would the existence of segregationists who did not participate in the filibuster negate the fact that others did? No. Conservative opposition to the 1964 CRA was a seminal event in American politics which is FUNDAMENTAL to understanding the realignment of politics that took place over the next thirty years.Heforgotpoland 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Why not just say that Southern senators filibustered? That's basically true, and John Tower and Strom Thurmond were Southern Republicans, so there's no reason to restrict it to Democrats. Only a few non-southerners opposed the bill, and generally they were not involved in the actual filibuster, even if they voted against cloture. john k 19:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Because that data is already present on the page in the Vote Statistics, and the filibuster was not unique to Southerners (Arizona is not generally considered part of the South). I also think the ideological prism is an important factor in understanding opposition to the bill - it wasn't merely sectional. Heforgotpoland 19:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
In a case like this, where there was an actual filibuster with people going on the Senate floor and talking continuously, there is a difference between filibustering and voting against cloture. Goldwater voted against cloture, but he did not filibuster. john k 20:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
How many angels can dance on a head of a pin? Who cares if Goldwater wasn't the individual reading from the phonebook. The common understanding of the filibuster is equivalent to voting against cloture - I don't think the minutiae of parliamentary rules is very relevant. And if you so desire, I'd be fine changing "filibuster led by" to "filibuster participated in by." Heforgotpoland 20:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
That is true today, but it was not true in 1964. Goldwater did not participate in the filibuster. He opposed cloture. Today, because there aren't ever any actual filibusters, we say that someone "filibusters" when they vote against cloture. But back then, there was a real difference. john k 22:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, the "leaders" of the filibuster were clearly the southerners (almost all Democrats) who actually filibustered. There were, of course, others who had reservations about the bill, or who had reservations about voting for cloture. But that's a different issue. john k 20:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
who are these mystery people who led the filibuster--names, & reliable source please. Rjensen 22:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the participants in the filibuster were 19 southern senators, no? Tower and 18 Democrats, according to various sources. I'd assume you've got all but one of Smathers, Holland, Russell, Talmadge, Johnston, Thurmond, Jordan, Ervin, Byrd, Byrd, Robertson, Sparkman, Hill, Eastland, Stennis, Long, Ellender, McClellan, Fulbright. But that makes 19, so presumably at least one of these guys didn't filibuster, more if I've missed somebody else. john k 00:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
better get a reliable source on that. Who was the leader? Rjensen 00:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What's the deal? Am I actually disagreeing with you on anything? Russell was the leader. According to this site, his main lieutenants were Ellender, Hill, and Stennis. john k 00:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Humphrey and Kuchel, it would seem, were the main floor leaders on the other side. john k 00:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thurmond, Ervin, and Eastland are further mentioned as notable "hardliners" who made it impossible for Russell to be flexible. john k 00:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "We have lost the South for a generation"

This supposed LBJ quote "We have lost the South for a generation" does not appear in search engines and does not appear in Dallek bio of LBJ. It is not famous. It may well be imaginary and it certainly is unsourced. Deleted. Rjensen 20:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The definitive history is Caro biography vol 3, which does not seem to have this mystery prophecy. Rjensen 22:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Caro is good. But just because it isn't in his book, doesn't mean it doesn't belong here. You can find the quote throughout the Internet. I think "legend has it" leaves room for doubt, and as long as that qualifier is in, the quote belongs. Griot 22:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
How on earth is Caro's history of the passage of the 1957 Civil Rights act the definitive history of the 1964 civil rights act? john k 03:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not in any book in Amazon. It's a misinterpretation that emerged long after the event. Rjensen 22:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The Wiki rule is that there has to be verifiable evidence --which does not exist. The new bio of LBJ by Randall Woods (p 473) says the line was spoken by Sen Russell--not by LBJ. Johnson was on the contrary sure of winning most of the South (which he indeed won in 1964 election.) Rjensen 05:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was not disputing the quote, just the idea that Caro's book was the "definitive history" of a period he wasn't even talking about. At any rate, I do think the apocryphal quote is famous enough as an apocryphal quote that it should be mentioned, even if we point out that there's no reliable source for LBJ saying it, and that something similar would appear to have been said by Russell. john k 11:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
the "quote" seems to have been made up a few years ago and circulates on the WWW where there are 685 cites to "lost the south for a generation". All the versions seem to be nearly identical (quoting some unnamed aide), suggesting they stem from one recent source. The biggest problem is that LBJ almost certainly did not think that way. He reassured people he would carry the white South outside rural Alabama-Mississipp-Georgia, where blacks were not allowed to vote. (He did have a mjaority in fact in 1964 in the entire South). Rjensen 12:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying we should assert that LBJ actually said the thing. Just that the quote is famous enough to be mentioned as an apocryphal quote about the bill. If Richard Russell actually did say something of the sort, that should be mentioned as well. Although really, the whole legislative history section could stand a major expansion. john k 17:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


It seems the story comes from page 187 of Taylor Branch's Pillar of Fire After Johnson warns Richard Russell that he's going to get the bill passed without the legislation being changed. Russell is quoted as saying "Mr. President, you may be right, but if you do run over me, it will not only cost you the South it will cost you the election." Russell then goes on to warn that the Democratic Party would never again win a national election if an open schism occurred on the race issue. Branch's source is an interview done with Johnson's aid, Jack Valenti, done on Feb 25, 1991.

A better Johnson quote to put in is "I know these risks are great, and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway." This was said to Ted Sorensen, a Kennedy aid, and can be found on page 61 of Nick Kotz's Judgment Days. I am making the changes and adding the sources.

--Noonunderground 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does the act apply to non-citizens legaly working in US?

Hi,

I think some clarity should be added. I believe the law does not apply to foreign corporations active in US, as well as, foreign workers working in US. Chirag 20:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does apply. The Act applies to anyone doing business in the U.S, including foreign corporations. And non-citizens legally working or residing in the U.S. are covered (protected) by most of the Act's provisions with some minor exceptions (some jobs might be restricted to U.S. citizens, for example). Brucehartford (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gender issue

I note the sentence Howard W. Smith, the powerful Virginian who chaired the House Rules Committee, opposed civil rights laws for blacks, but he supported them for women.

Is this really true? It was my understanding that he threw in the business about sex as a potential bill killer, and to demonstrate supposed hypocrisy on the part of civil rights supporters, not because he actually felt strongly about civil rights laws for women. john k 01:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. As his friend and ally Representative Carl Elliott (D-AL) put it, "Smith didn't give a damn about women's rights ... 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." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucehartford (talk • contribs) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Hello all. I've entirely rewritten the legislative history section to actually, you know, give the legislative history of the bill. I used the two sources I just added to the references section - a short history of the passage of the bill by Robert Loevy, two of whose books on the bill were already listed in the article, and an LSU PhD dissertation which I mentioned above and which can be found online, as my main sources on the subject. I hope this will end this irritating dispute, or, at least, take it to different places. john k 17:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm satisfied. - Heforgotpoland

[edit] Isn't thus the United Negro Foundation illegal?

Aren't according tho these laws such black only or jewish only or arab-muslim only associations illegal?

And affirmative action is it not then illegal?85.138.1.15 02:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh no not at all. People can form any groups they want (it's protected by 1st amendment). Rjensen 02:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title VII Exception for Religious Institutions

The relevant section reads:

This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.

The Wikipedia article states that Title VII doesn't apply to "Religious groups performing work connected to the group's activities, including associated education institutions;" The text of the law reads that it does not apply to religious groups "with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion". While religion is an integral part of Title VII, Title VII also provides for race, color, sex, and national origin. So, it provides an exception to religious groups to discriminate on religion, but not on race, color, sex, or national origin. It might be best to say that there are SOME exceptions provided for those groups rather than saying that those groups are exempt.

[edit] Northern Democrats...(Sen. Byrd)

I thought that West Virginia and Missouri are in the South.--Anglius 06:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Southern" is being used to refer to the 11 states that officially joined the Confederacy (which would exclude sorta-kinda-not really-Confederate states like Missouri and Kentucky, as well as WV, which withdrew from Virginia and the CSA in 1863). I base this on nothing other than the fact that the number of senators adds up to 22 (2 for each of 11 states) and that "Southern politics" (at least since V. O. Key, Jr.'s seminal work in the field) tends to refer to those states.
But what this article really needs is a citation to establish whether my hunch is correct. I, too, was surprised that Robert Byrd was listed as a "Northern" senator, and without explanation, that detracts from the article. I have provisionally placed the explanation in the article but do not have time right now to cite it properly. Could someone please double-check the voting records listed here and get us a citation? --SuperNova |T|C| 07:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
So I still haven't cited, but I did check the party designations listed at 88th United States Congress and there were indeed 10 Republican House members from the 11 "Southern" states (as the vote totals here indicate). Also, John Tower was, in fact, the lone Republican from those states at the time (as Strom Thurmond did not switch parties until several months later). So confirmation of my suspicion, but we still could use a citation! --SuperNova |T|C| 08:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote Totals - Yea/Nay

It seems the two have been switched around. Unfortunately, I cannot verify which set is correct, so I'm wondering why this change was made and whether or not it has completely mucked up the percentages themselves. 25th it was Yea/Nay and now it is No/Yes, so which is correct and why have the percentages not been changed to reflect the change in text? 198.187.233.234 21:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

this is so confusing.


In the Title VII subchapter (EEOC paragraph), the article says: "An individual must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or the individual may lose the right to file a lawsuit." The May 29, 2007 Supreme Court decision in case Ledbetter v. Goodyear should lead to a modification of this statement. Suit needs to be filed within 180 days of the discriminatory act, not within 180 days of the plaintiff's learning of the discrimination. Kaps68 17:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

There should be a section critical of the act, especially pointing out the concerns raised by many people that this act was a violation of the 10th amendment. Byates5637 (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Can someone check, and if necessary correct:

  • Democratic Party: 164-96
  • Republican Party: 186-35

They had been:

  • Republican Party: 136-35
  • Democratic Party: 153-96

prior to the recent vandalism. NERIC-Security (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Bold text

[edit] Constitutionality

There should be some discussion on the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of this bill. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

Can someone say how the act applies specifically to the rights of private businesses? I've been looking for information about the phrase "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" and how it may be used (correctly or not) to avoid provision of services. Is it generally legal to discriminate when a business is privately operated? and is it legal to discriminate against groups of people not specifically protected under the law? ie refusing to serve sex offenders, abortionists, drunk drivers, or other people with controversial issues? --24.186.76.195 (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is intended to be a discussion for improving the article, not a forum to discuss the Civil Rights Act. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
And perhaps this is something that could be included in the article. This is intended to be a discussion for improving the article, not for censuring authors.--Davemarshall04 (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers are fucked up

The vote numbers by party are clearly fucked up. The original version and the final version both passed the House by very similar margins, and in the same Congress, so there ought to be the same number of Democrats and Republicans in each. Yet, somehow, we're reporting an enormous jump in the Republicans in Congress between one and the other. Also, in the final bill, we claim 465 members of the House of Representatives. So obviously that number is wrong. john k (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

King (1995, Separate and Unequal: Black Americans and the US Federal Government, p. 311) says that you're correct, the numbers are wrong. 136 Republicans voted for it, not 186 according to the book. The numbers otherwise match. Settler (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As pointed out above, it may just have been vandalism. Settler (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Goldwater's Opposition to the Act

The following statement was recently added to the article: "Republican senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona voted against the bill, remarking, "You can't legislate morality." Goldwater had supported previous attempts to pass Civil Rights legislation in 1957 and 1960. The reason for his opposition to the 1964 bill was Title II, which he viewed as a violation of individual liberty."

As someone involved in the struggle over the bill, I have to disagree with the above. Firstly, the 1957 and 1960 bills were toothless shams containing no effective power, so to imply that Goldwater's support of those bills indicates a basic pro-civil rights stand does not fly with me.

More importantly, Title II which prohibited racial discrimination in public venues was the heart of the Civil Rights Act. The argument that Title II violated "individual liberty" is to say that businesses have an individual right to practice racial discrimination against entire classes of people and deny them needed services because of their race. An argument that I believe is bogus on many levels.

But beyond that, Goldwater's "individual liberty" justification for opposing the bill is sheer hypocrisy because he did NOT oppose the state and local segregation laws that REQUIRED business owners to practice racial segregation. If it violates a business owners "individual liberty" to tell him he cannot discriminate on race, does it not also violent his liberty to tell him he MUST discriminate? Goldwater could have offered an amendment to simply repeal the segregation laws that violated a business owners right to choose not to segregate, but he did not do so. So Goldwater's position was that it violated "individual rights" for the Federal government to tell businesses that they cannot discriminate, but it does not violate their individual rights for state governments to tell them that they must discriminate.

The truth is that Goldwater's opposition to Title II, and the Act as a whole, was based on "States Rights" not individual rights.

Brucehartford (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think the article is wrong, do something about it. You could modify the sentences in the article to describe what you've written above. (Ideally, it would be best if you find a WP:RS that supports your account.) You could strike what's in the article and not replace it (it isn't cited, so that shouldn't be a problem). You could leave the article as is and tag the sentences with a {{fact}} tag. There are probably other things you could do that I can't think of at the moment. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Women" in Kennedy's 1963 Speech

An unknown reader changed the description of Kennedy's 1963 civil rights speech to include "women" in the sentence "...in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—..." I undid that insertion because Kennedy made no mention of women in his speech and there was no widespread denial of accommodations based on gender (black women were denied service because they were black, not because they were women). Later, when the bill was being debated in the House, job discrimination against women was added to the bill as an amendment, but that had not been part of Kennedy's original call for new legislation. Brucehartford (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)