The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on the evening of July 2, 1964 and is celebrated as one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation in the fight for equality in America. Originally, President John F Kennedy introduced this Bill on June 19, 1963 in response to the national uproar sparked by the televised brutalization of Black marchers at the hands of law enforcement in Birmingham, Alabama a month earlier. After Kennedy’s assassination in November of 1963, Johnson made the passage of the Bill central to his administration’s agenda. H.R. 7152 met with strong opposition from southern Democrats, and a turbulent year of congressional debates ensued.
 
It took an extraordinary amount of political maneuvering to even get the Bill to be debated on the floor of the House of Representatives, where Kennedy first introduced it in June 1963.  House Judiciary Committee hearings eventually produced a compromise package with a strong piece of civil rights legislation. The Minority Report from these hearings inspired the infamous “$100 Billion Blackjack” advertisement that claimed the Bill would “abolish the rule of law,” a marketing strategy that sought to sway the American public to oppose the Bill.(1)  In November of 1963, the Bill went to the House Rules Committee to be scheduled for debate on the House floor. Howard W. Smith, an infamous segregationist and conservative Democrat from Virginia, was the chairman of the Rules Committee and strongly opposed to the Bill’s implementation. Smith was notorious for killing bills by retreating to his farm in Fauquier County, Virginia and taking no action at all.(2) President Johnson called on liberal allies in Congress to begin applying pressure on Smith in the form of circulating a discharge petition, wherein a majority of the members of the House (218) calls a bill out of the committee and directly onto the floor. As the rumor that Johnson was rounding up support for this motion began to spread, the members of the Rules Committee forced the chairman to hold hearings and take a vote.(3) On January 30, 1964, the Bill was released to the floor for debate.

Once on the floor of the House, there were attempts to sabotage the Bill’s success. For example, representative Smith introduced an amendment to the Bill, adding “sex” to the groups protected by Title VII which addressed fair employment practices. Although some have argued that this was a well-intentioned gesture in support of the women’s rights movement, Smith’s true intentions remain unknown; and it can be reasonably argued that Smith hoped his conservative male colleagues would torpedo the Bill since it extended equal rights to women. Nevertheless, in spite of the opposition’s efforts, on February 10, 1964 the Bill passed the House with a vote of 290-130 and was sent to the Senate.

Once in the Senate, the debates became increasingly heated and the opposition ramped up the fervor of their discontent. In March of 1964, as a last-ditch effort to stop the Bill’s passage, southern Democrats launched a filibuster that, to this day, remains the longest Senatorial delay of business. For 60 working days, including seven Saturdays, the opposition attempted to stop the passage of the Bill. Their arguments opposing Title I and Title VI, in particular, highlight two of the most heavily relied on tactics that opponents to civil rights movements enact to perpetuate the discriminatory practices in voting systems and federally assisted programs.
Title I addressed voting rights and aimed to remove voter registration barriers for non-white citizens that took root after the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. As a stall tactic, the opposition outrightly rejected the existence of the issue—Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General of South Carolina claimed that “‘the mere fact that less than 15 percent of a group of persons, white, colored. Chinese, whatever race, are not registered is, in every case that I am aware of, due only to one thing, one thing alone, and that is apathy.’”(4) The intent of southern Democrats and their political allies was clear, though—a “direct admission of discriminatory practices came in Senator Ellender [of Louisiana]’s concession that in some areas the reason for Negroes not voting was to maintain the political power of a white minority.”(5) The sentiment of their apathy bled into the argument that federal oversight of elections was an encroachment on states’ rights to decide the voting process.

Title VI outlined the process to end discrimination in federally assisted state programs, and permitted funding cuts to programs where discrimination has been found to exist, if earlier voluntary compliance with the anti-discrimination measures failed. Senator Sparkman of Alabama called the ability of “the executive branch to withhold funds… dangerous [and] possibly arbitrary.” He continued, “In many instances these funds might be general taxpayers' funds that come from the very area involved in the withholding.”(6) Ironically enough, like Representative Smith’s “sex” amendment, in trying to discredit the Title, Sparkman ended up proving the need for it. Sparkman worried that the citizens who pay taxes for federal services may not be able to receive the benefits of federally assisted programs if they are cut by the government. This is exactly what was happening to Black citizens—they were being taxed for programs from which they were excluded. In actuality, this Title attempted to prevent states from acting arbitrarily with federal money. This argument, of course, was coupled with the contradictory combination of outright denial of discrimination and argument that discrimination was their constitutional right.

At 9:51 on June 10, 1964 former Ku Klux Klan member Robert C. Byrd, Senator of West Virginia, ended his address that began 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier.(7) His address in particular is quite possibly the epitome of the white supremacy that the opposition was so tightly holding onto. However, they were fighting a losing battle: Nine days later, the Senate voted for cloture and ended the 75-day filibuster.

An examination of the arguments put forth by opponents to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reveals, perhaps unsurprisingly, that racism in American government is a calculated and malicious manipulation of the language of the Constitution and congressional proceedings in order to perpetuate racial inequality. The fact is, state law can always provide more rights than what the Constitution offers, but it can never, under any circumstance, deny citizens the rights they are guaranteed by the Constitution. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 aimed to remedy the state laws and practices that denied Black Americans (as well as other individuals of color and women) the rights they were guaranteed as American citizens under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.




1 Peter Evans Kane, "The Senate Debate on the 1964 Civil Rights Act" (PhD diss., Purdue University, 1967), 101, https://search-proquest-com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/docview/302252562?pq-origsite=primo
2 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/263483489 
​3 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/263483489
4 Peter Evans Kane, "The Senate Debate on the 1964 Civil Rights Act" (PhD diss., Purdue University, 1967) (“The Senate Debate”), 49, https://search-proquest-com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/docview/302252562?pq-origsite=primo.
5 Kane, “The Senate Debate,” 87.
6 Kane, “The Senate Debate,”148.
7 https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm

The grueling political battle resulting in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 deserves prominence in any study of American history.  The Civil Rights Movement is ongoing, dynamic, broad-based, and multi-faceted and should not be reduced to photographs of peaceful protestors.

On September 22, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, an executive order effective as of January 1, 1863, calling for the freedom of all slaves in the United States. However, it was not until two and a half years later on June 19, 1865 that this news had reached all areas of the country. On that day, Major General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas along with his union soldiers to relay the message that the Civil War was over and all slaves were free from that point forward by reading General Order No. 3. Approximately 250,000 slaves were freed that day, long after the Emancipation Proclamation was put into effect due to a lack of union troops present in Texas to enforce it. In response to the news of their freedom, some of these former slaves remained on the plantations, but worked for wages. Many others left and travelled to different parts of the country to reunite with lost family members. Learning how to survive and thrive as free men and women in America without sufficient assistance or reparations posed its challenges for these newly freed slaves. However, Juneteenth (combination of “June” and “nineteenth”) became an annual celebration, reminding them of the day they were finally granted their freedom and providing reassurance and motivation to persevere.

Although its popularity has fluctuated at different points in American history, today, Juneteenth festivities have become a major part of American culture. Juneteenth is a day which fosters and promotes appreciation and respect for African American culture and history, honoring the struggles of those who were enslaved and the progress of the African American community. As a day of reflection, it also serves as an opportunity for citizens to become educated on the significance of the disgraceful treatment of African Americans throughout United States history. In the wake of the murder of George Floyd at the hands of the police, which spurred many massive protests around the country and the world, this year’s Juneteenth celebration will be especially poignant, serving as a reminder of the systemic racism that continues to plague the United States, and the work that needs to be done to dismantle it.

Fore more information, please visit: 
https://www.juneteenth.com/history.htm 
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/what-is-juneteenth/
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/abolition-of-slavery-announced-in-texas-juneteenth

Written by: Ariana Nilchian 

The topic of sexual assault is coming to light more so this past year it seems than ever. For a long time, there has been a silencing of victims along with a difficult process for anyone who wanted to come forward. Many factors contributed to this condition. To start, there is the historically futile legal process which is scary and often, unsuccessful for most. Additionally, there is the fear of retaliation and shame that--for a really long time--has been an accepted norm in our society as a response to sexual assault claims.

Yet, this last year sparked a possible changing of gears in terms of how we understand and talk about them. However, there are also many other cases that remind us progress has started but it hasn’t went very far. On October 6, 2018, Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in to the United States Supreme Court. After Christine Blasy Ford’s testimony on Kavanaugh’s unwanted sexual advances on her, it reminded us the words of a victim can mean nothing especially when addressing men in high places of power.

The 2018 EEOC report does offer some hope to a growing number of accountability and redress for sexual assault survivors. One year after the #MeToo movement begun, the U.S. saw an increase in victims making complaints in employment cases. The agency filed 66 harassment lawsuits in 2018, including 41 that contained allegations of sexual harassment. That reflects more than a 50 percent increase over FY 2017 in sexual harassment suits.     

This is notable considering between 2000 and 2017, the number of sexual harassment charges filed with the EEOC were declining. Some try to explain this decline over the 17 year period as a result of employers doing a better job handling sexual harassment complaints. They claim this led to more cases settling without needing to be referred to the EEOC. Whether this data can be proven or not is unknown, but the unprecedented rise of claims this fiscal year is a better indicator of where we stand as a country now.

It highlights the many problems that are only starting to surface on a national scale. It sheds light on the work that needs to be done and maybe holds some promise that this can be a turn around. Regarding sexual harassment in the workplace, there is a lot to be done on the side of the employer before a case even heads to court. It is pertinent that employers are trained and well informed on the best approaches and responses.

The EEOC’s announcement also recommended its training program, Respectful Workplaces, which teaches skills for employees and supervisors to promote and contribute to respect in the workplace. The agency says more than 9,000 employees and supervisors in the private, public, and federal-sector workforces participated in Respectful Workplaces trainings during FY 2018, and an additional 13,000 employees participated in EEOC’s anti-harassment compliance trainings.

For more information: 
https://eeotraining.eeoc.gov/profile/web/index.cfm?PKwebID=0x25479b9f&varPage=attendee
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-4-18.cfm
https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2018/10/08/eeoc-sees-uptick-in-sexual-harassment-charges-lawsuits-filed-in-2018/

The Little Rock Nine’s attendance at a previously all-white high school was a milestone in the history of school desegregation.  One may expect that decades after the Little Rock Nine endured horrible racism and violence to achieve integration, schools would be mostly or even completely desegregated.  Although integration has been legally enforced for decades, American public schools still remain largely segregated. Carlotta Walls LaNier, a member of the Little Rock Nine, stated "Brown versus Board of Education, and let me tell you. The Civil Rights Act, the Housing Rights Act, the Voters Rights Act, that's all progress, and it all came from that foundation. So I'm not going to sit here and say that we're still living the same way, but I do see this pendulum swinging back in that particular direction [of the Jim Crow era]" (LaNier, Colorado Public Radio).  

As LaNier and the other members of the Little Rock Nine experienced, many cities and school districts in the South largely ignored the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision, requiring public schools to integrate.  However, one city in the South intentionally integrated its schools: Charlotte, North Carolina.  Charlotte even became known as “The city that made desegregation work.” Unfortunately, like in many American cities, Charlotte’s schools have become resegregated.  James Ferguson, a civil rights attorney who fought for school integration in Charlotte, claims that racial segregation has resurged because “There is no core of people who are actively pushing for school desegregation… We’re almost back to where we started from” (Ferguson, Newsweek).  His argument suggests that without proactive enforcement of racial integration, it is not likely to occur. ​

​Melba Pattillo Beals was eager to enroll at Central High School when the opportunity arose.  She stated “I thought about all those times I’d gone past Central High, wanting to go inside… I reasoned that if schools were open to my people, I would also get access to other opportunities I had been denied…” (Beals).  Beals was inspired to enroll at Central High after visiting desegregated Cincinnati, Ohio. On this trip, she was treated like a full human being as opposed to being treated as less than one in the South. She also wanted to attend Central High because it had a prestigious reputation and provided much greater educational opportunities than did segregated African American schools.