Álvarez 1

Víctor Álvarez

Dr. Jason Dew

ENGL 1302 280

6 March 2023

The Impact of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts on Citizens’ Lives

After the Civil War, African Americans in slave states finally became free, ending two

hundred years of American slavery. Although Blacks’ rights were expanded in the aftermath

of the Secession War, once Federal occupation of the Southern states was lifted, they

immediately passed laws limiting African Americans’ rights. The Supreme Court of the United

States also contributed to the deterioration of Blacks’ rights with the landmark case Plessy v.

Ferguson of 1896, which created the doctrine of “separate but equal,”—which would reaffirm

segregation, notably in the South. From the early 20th century until the 1940s, very little

progress for African Americans’ rights was made; however, in the 1950s and 1960’s decades,

several movements and protests in favor of Black civil rights surged. The growth of these

movements created pressure on federal government officials.

In 1957, Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education declared school segregation

unconstitutional and, therefore, the “separate but equal” doctrine unconstitutional. Nonetheless,

the federal government’s legislative branch did not partake significantly in the desegregation

process until several years later, with the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This landmark

legislation prohibited racial discrimination in both the public and private sectors. And although

it has been praised and lacked controversy in recent years, some small groups still debate about

it. Often these groups discuss the impact of the law on citizens’ lives.

So, how has the 1964 Civil Rights Act affected citizens’ day-to-day lives? Has it had a

positive or negative impact? Several authors’ opinions will be analyzed; some believe it to

have had a positive effect, while others consider it more of an obstacle for African Americans.
 Álvarez 2

Some authors point out that the 1964 Civil Rights Act has not been as beneficial as it

may have been intended, neither to African Americans nor to other ethnic and racial groups in

the United States. Aiken et al. believe that the Civil Rights Act has not done enough and that

some problems for minorities and women still exist. They mention that African American

women in private organizations were “just as segregated in 2002 as they were in 1966” (qt.

Origins and Legacy of CRA, 394). Also, they point out that Caucasian men mainly control the

best job positions. They also highlight the wage gap between African American and Caucasian

employees. The authors also make a point about implicit racism and sexism in the workplace

and describe it as harmful because it is difficult to identify and, therefore, cannot be solved

through legal. Couch et al. also make some criticisms of the Civil Rights Act in their article

“Fifty Years Later: The Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” where, although conceding

that the law has indeed made some progress, the authors argue that there is no practical way of

knowing how much it helped African Americans in the labor aspect since records of race and

sex on the workforce were rarely kept before the passing of the Act. It also acknowledges legal

voids that could allow employers to discriminate legally based on color, ethnicity, and/or race.

In an article for Standford Law Review, Engstrom compiles the opinions of several other

authors about the 1964 Civil Rights Act during its 50th anniversary. One of them is Mary Ann

Case, who criticizes the act for not providing enough coverage for gender and sexual

minorities; she also criticizes a proposed extension of Title VII back in 2014 would have, in

fact, been a “step backward.”

Lino Graglia has also criticized the Civil Rights Act outcomes more on a legal level.

He criticizes decisions taken by the Supreme Court regarding the Act. The Supreme Court, in

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1971), declared busing as constitutional. Race-integration

busing forced students of different races to be driven long distances to schools relatively far

from their homes in order to achieve race integration in schools. And the same year, the
 Álvarez 3

Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. held that aptitude tests that disproportionately

disadvantaged minorities must have a reasonable justification. Graglia saw these rulings as

discrimination and, as the title of his article says, believed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 went

“from prohibiting, to requiring racial discrimination in employment.” However, a report by an

unknown author in the Harvard Law Review journal criticizes the Civil Rights Act and the

Supreme Court for the complete opposite — holding that diversity is not an excuse to consider

race as a factor in employment.

In one of her political science articles, Mary Coleman compiles several opinions on the

impact of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. One of the opinions is that of Randall Kennedy, who

mentions that private sector segregation is more subtle than that of public facilities and

attributes this to African Americans’ marginalization and, therefore, low access to education,

which translates into fewer employment opportunities and smaller economic income. Another

compiled opinion comes from Barbara Phillips Sullivan, who believes the ambiguous language

in the bill has led to the “failure of the courts to define ‘educationally sound policy” (qtd. in

Legacies of CRA, 6). Frank Brown argues that although the Civil Rights Act outlaws

segregation in public accommodations, Caucasians and African Americans still privately and,

sometimes, voluntarily segregate, reflected in the existence of solely White or Black

neighborhoods. He also criticizes the overturning of previous holdings, such as the

aforementioned Swan v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg.

Despite the previously displayed opposition of some authors, others believe that the

1964 Civil Rights Act has brought more benefits than obstacles to African Americans and other

minorities and vulnerable groups. For instance, —despite having criticized the law—Aiken et

al. define the Civil Rights Act as a “tremendous victory” (Origins and Legacy of CRA, 394)

not only for the African Americans’ rights movement but also for women. The authors point

out the increase of representation for women and ethnic and racial minorities in both private
 Álvarez 4

and public workplaces; they argue that the rise in employment within marginalized groups

could secure equality. Couch et al.—also having criticized the Act—say that despite the

drawbacks they have mentioned, a benefit the act has brought to ethnic and racial minorities is

the encouragement to file lawsuits against the discrimination they have suffered in their

workplaces. The authors believe this has given minorities a voice and someone who would

hear their voices, implying that this psychologically benefits them. Coleman’s compilation of

opinions also includes one pointing out the benefits of the act, this one Hugh Davis Graham,

who argues that the “silent clause”—Title VI, which blocks federal and state funding for

programs or institutions which have discriminated—prevents taxpayer dollars from going to

discriminatory government-funded entities.

Despite its drawbacks, the significance of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be

addressed. While there is still “work to be done,” the achievements made thanks to this act

should not be dismissed; however, the controversy must not be abandoned. It is because of

controversy that landmark legislation like this can be achieved.

 Álvarez 5

Works Cited

Harvard Law Review Association, “Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII. Affirmative Action.

Third Circuit Holds That Diversity Is Not, in Itself, a Sufficient Justification for

Granting Preferences to Minorities. Taxman v. Board of Education.” Harvard Law

Review, December 1996, Vol. 110, No. 2 pp. 535-540

Couch, Kenneth et al. “Fifty Years Later: The Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Journal

of Policies and Management, Vol. 34, No. 2, Spring 2015, pp. 424-456.

Graglia, Lino A. “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: From Prohibiting to Requiring

Racial Discrimination In...” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 14, no. 1,

Winter 1991, p. 68.

Brown, Frank. “The First Serious Implementation of Brown: The 1964 Civil Rights Act and

Beyond.” The Journal of Negro Education, vol. 73, no. 3, Summer 2004, p. 182.

Coleman, Mary. “The Legacies of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.” The American Political Science

Review, vol. 95, no. 3, September 2001, p. 731.

Aiken, Juliet, et al. “The Origins and Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Journal of

Business and Psychology, Vol. 28, No. 4, December 2013, pp. 383-399.