South Africa is banned from the Olympic Games due to the country’s racist policies.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is approved after surviving an 83-day filibuster in the United States Senate.
|Long title||An act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.|
|Enacted by||the 88th United States Congress|
|Effective||July 2, 1964|
|Statutes at Large||78 Stat. 241|
|Titles amended||Title 42—Public Health And Welfare|
|United States Supreme Court cases|
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex,[a] or national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, and racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations.
Initially, powers given to enforce the act were weak, but these were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment, and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.
The legislation had been proposed by President John F. Kennedy in June 1963, but it was opposed by filibuster in the Senate. After Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed the bill forward. The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on February 10, 1964, and after a 54-day filibuster, passed the United States Senate on June 19, 1964. The final vote was 290–130 in the House of Representatives and 73–27 in the Senate. After the House agreed to a subsequent Senate amendment, the Civil Rights Act was signed into law by President Johnson at the White House on July 2, 1964.
In the 1883 landmark Civil Rights Cases the United States Supreme Court had ruled that Congress did not have the power to prohibit discrimination in the private sector, thus stripping the Civil Rights Act of 1875 of much of its ability to protect civil rights.
In the late 19th and early 20th century, the legal justification for voiding the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was part of a larger trend by members of the United States Supreme Court to invalidate most government regulations of the private sector, except when dealing with laws designed to protect traditional public morality.
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 Federal government to enact civil rights laws prohibiting both public and private sector discrimination on the basis of the commerce clause.
The 1964 bill was first proposed by United States President John F. Kennedy in his Report to the American People on Civil Rights on June 11, 1963. Kennedy sought legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments"—as well as "greater protection for the right to vote". Kennedy delivered this speech in the aftermath of the Birmingham campaign and the growing number of demonstrations and protests throughout the southern United States. Kennedy was moved to action following the elevated racial tensions and wave of African-American protests in the spring of 1963. In late July, according to a New York Times article, Walter Reuther, president of the United Auto Workers, warned that if Congress failed to pass President Kennedy's civil rights bill, the country would face another civil war.
Following the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, on August 28, 1963, the organizers visited President Kennedy to discuss the civil rights bill. Roy Wilkins, A. Philip Randolph, and Walter Reuther attempted to persuade Kennedy to support a provision establishing a Fair Employment Practices Commission that would have banned discriminatory practices by all federal agencies, unions, and private companies.
Emulating the Civil Rights Act of 1875, Kennedy's civil rights bill included provisions to ban discrimination in public accommodations, and to enable the U.S. Attorney General to join in lawsuits against state governments which operated segregated school systems, among other provisions. However, it did not include a number of provisions deemed essential by civil rights leaders, including protection against police brutality, ending discrimination in private employment, or granting the Justice Department power to initiate desegregation or job discrimination lawsuits.
House of Representatives
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". The president's bill went first to the House of Representatives, where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Emanuel Celler, a Democrat from New York. 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 1957 Act and 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.
Kennedy called the congressional leaders to the White House in late October 1963 to line up the necessary votes in the House for passage. The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963 and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat and staunch segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely.
Johnson's appeal to Congress
The 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 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."
Judiciary Committee chairman Celler filed a petition to discharge the bill from the Rules Committee; it required the support of a majority of House members to move the bill to the floor. Initially Celler had a difficult time acquiring the signatures necessary, with many Representatives who supported the civil rights bill itself remaining cautious about violating normal House procedure with the rare use of a discharge petition. By the time of the 1963 winter recess, 50 signatures were still needed.
After the return of Congress from its winter recess, however, it was apparent that public opinion in the North favored the bill and that the petition would acquire the necessary signatures. To avert the humiliation of a successful discharge petition, Chairman Smith relented and allowed the bill to pass through the Rules Committee.
Lobbying support for the Civil Rights Act was coordinated by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a coalition of 70 liberal and labor organizations. The principal lobbyists for the Leadership Conference were civil rights lawyer Joseph L. Rauh Jr. and Clarence Mitchell Jr. of the NAACP.
Passage in the Senate
Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by United States Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland's firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate.
When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator (John Tower of Texas) led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."
Strong opposition to the bill also came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."
After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Everett Dirksen (R-IL), and Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes in addition to the core liberal Democrats behind the legislation to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.
On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 60 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.
The most dramatic moment during the cloture vote came when Senator Clair Engle (D-CA) was wheeled into the chamber. Engle, suffering from terminal brain cancer, was unable to speak; when his name was called, he pointed to his left eye, signifying his affirmative vote. Engle died seven weeks later.
On June 19, the substitute (compromise) bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73–27, and quickly passed through the House–Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
- The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%)
- Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%)
- The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%)
- The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%)
The original House version:
- Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
- Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:
- Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
- Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:
- Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
- Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
- Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
- Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
Note: "Southern", as used here, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that had made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The House of Representatives:
- Northern: 281–32 (90–10%)
- Southern: 8–94 (8–92%)
- Northern: 72–6 (92–8%)
- Southern: 1–21 (5–95%) (Ralph Yarborough of Texas was the only southerner to vote in favor in the Senate)
By party and region
The House of Representatives:
- Southern Democrats: 8–87 (7–93%) (four Representatives from Texas, two from Tennessee, Claude Pepper of Florida and Charles L. Weltner of Georgia voted in favor)
- Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
- Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
- Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
- Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
- Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
- Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
- Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
Just 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 who strongly opposed the legislation. Smith's amendment was passed by a teller vote of 168 to 133. Historians debate Smith's motivation, whether it was a cynical attempt to defeat the bill by someone opposed to civil rights both for blacks and women, or an attempt to support their rights by broadening the bill to include women. Smith expected that Republicans, who had included equal rights for women in their party's platform since 1944, would probably vote for the amendment. Historians speculate that Smith was trying to embarrass northern Democrats who opposed civil rights for women because the clause was opposed by labor unions. Representative Carl Elliott of Alabama later claimed, "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," and the Congressional Record records that Smith was greeted by laughter when he introduced the amendment.
Smith asserted that he was not joking; he sincerely supported the amendment and, indeed, along with Rep. Martha Griffiths, he was the chief spokesperson for the amendment. For twenty years Smith had sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment (with no linkage to racial issues) in the House because he believed in it. He for decades had been close to the National Woman's Party and its leader Alice Paul, who was also the leader in winning the right to vote for women in 1920, the author of the first Equal Rights Amendment, and a chief supporter of equal rights proposals since then. She and other feminists had worked with Smith since 1945 trying to find a way to include sex as a protected civil rights category. Now was the moment. Griffiths argued that the new law would protect black women but not white women, and that was unfair to white women. Furthermore, she argued that the laws "protecting" women from unpleasant jobs were actually designed to enable men to monopolize those jobs, and that was unfair to women who were not allowed to try out for those jobs. The amendment passed with the votes of Republicans and Southern Democrats. The final law passed with the votes of Republicans and Northern Democrats. Thus, as Justice William Rehnquist explained in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, "The prohibition against discrimination based on sex was added to Title VII at the last minute on the floor of the House of Representatives... the bill quickly passed as amended, and we are left with little legislative history to guide us in interpreting the Act's prohibition against discrimination based on 'sex.'"
One of the most damaging arguments by the bill's opponents was that once passed, the bill would require forced busing to achieve certain racial quotas in schools. Proponents of the bill, such as Emanuel Celler and Jacob Javits, said that the bill would not authorize such measures. Leading sponsor Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) wrote two amendments specifically designed to outlaw busing. 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." While Javits said any government official who sought to use the bill for busing purposes "would be making a fool of himself," 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.
Later impact on LGBT rights
In June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in three cases (Bostock v. Clayton County, Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) that the Civil Rights Act's Title VII provisions barring employers from discriminating on the basis of sex also bar employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. USA Today afterwards stated that in addition to LGBTQ employment discrimination, "The court's ruling is likely to have a sweeping impact on federal civil rights laws barring sex discrimination in education, health care, housing and financial credit." On June 23, 2020, Queer Eye actors Jonathan Van Ness and Bobby Berk praised the Civil Right Act rulings, which Van Ness described as "a great step in the right direction." However, both of them still urged the United States Congress to pass the proposed Equality Act, which Berk claimed would amend the Civil Rights Act so it "would really extend healthcare and housing rights".
The bill divided and engendered a long-term change in the demographic support of both parties. President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. Both Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway." Senator Richard Russell, Jr. later warned President Johnson that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election". Johnson, however, went on to win the 1964 election by one of the biggest landslides in American history. The South, which had five states swing Republican in 1964, became a stronghold of the Republican Party by the 1990s.
Although majorities in both parties voted for the bill, there were notable exceptions. Though he opposed forced segregation, Republican 1964 presidential candidate, 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 as well as the 24th Amendment outlawing the poll tax. He stated that the reason for his opposition to the 1964 bill was Title II, which in his opinion violated individual liberty and states' rights. Democrats and Republicans from the Southern states opposed the bill and led an unsuccessful 83-day filibuster, including Senators Albert Gore, Sr. (D-TN) and J. William Fulbright (D-AR), as well as Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), who personally filibustered for 14 hours straight.
There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, said he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, "the fundamental question [...] is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers". Rolleston claimed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment and also violated the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments by depriving him of "liberty and property without due process". In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Supreme Court held that Congress drew its authority from the Constitution's Commerce Clause, rejecting Rolleston's claims.
Resistance to the public accommodation clause continued for years on the ground, especially in the South. When local college students in Orangeburg, South Carolina, attempted to desegregate a bowling alley in 1968, they were violently attacked, leading to rioting and what became known as the "Orangeburg massacre." Resistance by school boards continued into the next decade, with the most significant declines in black-white school segregation only occurring at the end of the 1960s and the start of the 1970s in the aftermath of the Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1968) court decision.
(The full text of the Act is available online.)
Title I—voting rights
This title barred unequal application of voter registration requirements. Title I did not eliminate literacy tests, which acted as one barrier for black voters, other racial minorities, and poor whites in the South or address economic retaliation, police repression, or physical violence against nonwhite voters. While the Act did require that voting rules and procedures be applied equally to all races, it did not abolish the concept of voter "qualification". It accepted the idea that citizens do not have an automatic right to vote but would have to meet standards beyond citizenship. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 directly addressed and eliminated most voting qualifications beyond citizenship.
Title II—public accommodations
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".
Title III—desegregation of public facilities
Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Title IV—desegregation of public education
Enforced the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act.
Title V—Commission on Civil Rights
Title VI—nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs
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.
This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy. This title is not intended to apply to foreign assistance programs. Section 601 – This section states the general principle that no person in the United States shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
Section 602 directs each Federal agency administering a program of Federal financial assistance by way of grant, contract, or loan to take action pursuant to rule, regulation, or order of general applicability to effectuate the principle of section 601 in a manner consistent with the achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the assistance. In seeking the effect compliance with its requirements imposed under this section, an agency is authorized to terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue assistance under a program to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding pursuant to a hearing of a failure to comply with the requirements under that program, and it may also employ any other means authorized by law. However, each agency is directed first to seek compliance with its requirements by voluntary means.
Section 603 provides that any agency action taken pursuant to section 602 shall be subject to such judicial review as would be available for similar actions by that agency on other grounds. Where the agency action consists of terminating or refusing to grant or to continue financial assistance because of a finding of a failure of the recipient to comply with the agency's requirements imposed under section 602, and the agency action would not otherwise be subject to judicial review under existing law, judicial review shall nevertheless be available to any person aggrieved as provided in section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 1009). The section also states explicitly that in the latter situation such agency action shall not be deemed committed to unreviewable agency discretion within the meaning of section 10. The purpose of this provision is to obviate the possible argument that although section 603 provides for review in accordance with section 10, section 10 itself has an exception for action "committed to agency discretion," which might otherwise be carried over into section 603. It is not the purpose of this provision of section 603, however, otherwise to alter the scope of judicial review as presently provided in section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act.
December 11, 2019 Executive order on Combating Anti-Semitism states: "While Title VI does not cover discrimination based on religion, individuals who face discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin do not lose protection under Title VI for also being a member of a group that shares common religious practices. Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin. It shall be the policy of the executive branch to enforce Title VI against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI." The order specifies that agencies responsible for Title VI enforcement shall "consider" the (non-legally binding) working definition of anti Semitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) on May 26, 2016 as well as the IHRA list of , "to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent".
Title VII—equal employment opportunity
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage. The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (see Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).
In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait if the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To make a BFOQ defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between the trait and the ability to perform the job; the BFOQ's relation to the "essence" or "central mission of the employer's business", and that there is no less restrictive or reasonable alternative (United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1196). BFOQ is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on protected traits (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) 97 S.Ct. 2720). An employer or customer's preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a BFOQ (, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)).
Title VII allows any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the "unlawful employment practice" for any person involved with the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.
There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:
- Federal government; (the proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to certain federal government offices under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
- Federally recognized Native American tribes;
- Religious groups performing work connected to the group's activities, including associated education institutions;
- Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as well as certain (FEPAs) enforce Title VII (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-4). The EEOC and state FEPAs investigate, mediate, and may file lawsuits on employees' behalf. Where a state law contradicts a federal law, it is overridden. Every state except Arkansas and Mississippi maintains a state FEPA (see EEOC and state FEPA directory ). Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. They must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or they may lose the right to file suit. Title VII applies only to employers who employ 15 or more employees for 20 or more weeks in the current or preceding calendar year (42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)).
Applicability of Title VII to certain cases of discrimination has been established by case law from the Supreme Court to fit within the definition of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" as defined by law:
- Sexual harassment
- Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) determined that sexual harassment is considered discrimination based on sex.
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) further ruled that same-sex harassment is discrimination under Title VII.
- Gender stereotyping
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) established that discrimination related to non-conformity of gender stereotypical behavior is unallowable under Title VII.
- Sexual orientation
- The consolidated cases of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda determined that sexual orientation is covered by Title VII. Before the Supreme Court's intervention, there was a split in the Circuit Courts, including these two cases as well as Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital from the Eleventh Circuit. On June 15, 2020, in Bostock, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII extended to LGBTQ+ employees.
- Gender identity
- R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined that gender identity, including transgender status, is covered by Title VII.
In 2012, the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or transgender status is prohibited under Title VII. The decision held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity qualified as discrimination on the basis of sex whether the discrimination was due to sex stereotyping, discomfort with a transition, or discrimination due to a perceived change in the individual's sex. In 2014, the EEOC initiated two lawsuits against private companies for discrimination on the basis of gender identity, with additional litigation under consideration. As of November 2014, Commissioner Chai Feldblum is making an active effort to increase awareness of Title VII remedies for individuals discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
On December 15, 2014, under a memorandum issued by Attorney General Eric Holder, the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) took a position aligned with the EEOC's, namely that the prohibition of sex discrimination under Title VII encompassed the prohibition of discrimination based on gender identity or transgender status. DoJ had already stopped opposing claims of discrimination brought by federal transgender employees. The EEOC in 2015 reissued another non-binding memo, reaffirming its stance that sexual orientation was protected under Title VII.
In October 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions withdrew the Holder memorandum. According to a copy of Sessions's directive reviewed by BuzzFeed News, he stated that Title VII should be narrowly interpreted to cover discrimination between "men and women". Sessions stated that as a matter of law, "Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se." Devin O'Malley, on behalf of the DoJ, said, "the last administration abandoned that fundamental principle [that the Department of Justice cannot expand the law beyond what Congress has provided], which necessitated today's action." Sharon McGowan, a lawyer with Lambda Legal who previously served in the Civil Rights division of DoJ, rejected that argument, saying "[T]his memo is not actually a reflection of the law as it is—it's a reflection of what the DOJ wishes the law were" and "The Justice Department is actually getting back in the business of making anti-transgender law in court." But the EEOC did not change its stance, putting it at odds with the DoJ in certain cases.
On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Title VIII—registration and voting statistics
Required compilation of voter-registration and voting data in geographic areas specified by the Commission on Civil Rights.
Title IX—intervention and removal of cases
Title IX made it easier to move civil rights cases from state courts to federal court. This was of crucial importance to civil rights activists[who?] who contended that they could not get fair trials in state courts.
Title X—Community Relations Service
Established the Community Relations Service, tasked with assisting in community disputes involving claims of discrimination.
Title XI gives a defendant accused of certain categories of criminal contempt in a matter arising under title II, III, IV, V, VI, or VII of the Act the right to a jury trial. If convicted, the defendant can be fined an amount not to exceed $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than six months.
Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972
Between 1965 and 1972, Title VII lacked any strong enforcement provisions. Instead, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was authorized only to investigate external claims of discrimination. The EEOC could then refer cases to the Justice Department for litigation if reasonable cause was found. The EEOC documented the nature and magnitude of discriminatory employment practices, the first study of this kind done.
In 1972, Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. The Act amended Title VII and gave EEOC authority to initiate its own enforcement litigation. The EEOC now played a major role in guiding judicial interpretations of civil rights legislation. The commission was also permitted for the first time to define "discrimination," a term excluded from the 1964 Act.
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the Supreme Court upheld the law's application to the private sector, on the grounds that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the States. The landmark case Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States established the constitutionality of the law, but it did not settle all of the legal questions surrounding the law.
Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.
In Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., a 1971 Supreme Court case regarding the gender provisions of the Act, the Court ruled that a company could not discriminate against a potential female employee because she had a preschool-age child unless they did the same with potential male employees. A federal court overruled an Ohio state law that barred women from obtaining jobs which required the ability to lift 25 pounds and required women to take lunch breaks when men were not required to. In Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, the United States Supreme Court decided that printing separate job listings for men and women was illegal, which ended that practice among the country's newspapers. The United States Civil Service Commission ended the practice among federal jobs which designated them "women only" or "men only."
Lau v. Nichols
In 1974 in the 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.
Blake v. City of Los Angeles
In 1977, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California struck down state minimum height requirements for police officers as violating the Act; women usually could not meet these requirements.
Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College
On April 4, 2017, in the case Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, sitting en banc, ruled that Title VII of the Act forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by a vote of 8–3. Over the prior month, panels of both the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City had reached the opposite conclusion, finding that Title VII sex discrimination does not include claims based on sexual orientation.
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia
On June 15, 2020, in the case Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 verdict that Title VII protections against workplace discrimination on the basis of sex applied to discrimination against LGBT individuals. Writing the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that a business that discriminates against homosexual or transgender individuals is discriminating "for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex." Thus, discrimination against homosexual and transgender employees is a form of sex discrimination, which is forbidden under Title VII.
In 1975, a federal civil rights agency warned a Phoenix, Arizona, school that its end-of-year father-son and mother-daughter baseball games were illegal according to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. President Gerald Ford intervened, and the games were allowed to continue.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990—which has been called "the most important piece of federal legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964"—was influenced both by the structure and substance of the previous Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act was arguably of equal importance, and "draws substantially from the structure of that landmark legislation [Civil Rights Act of 1964]". The Americans with Disabilities Act paralleled its landmark predecessor structurally, drawing upon many of the same titles and statutes. For example, "Title I of the ADA, which bans employment discrimination by private employers on the basis of disability, parallels Title VII of the Act". Similarly, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, "which proscribes discrimination on the basis of disability in public accommodations, tracks Title II of the 1964 Act while expanding upon the list of public accommodations covered." The Americans with Disabilities Act extended "the principle of nondiscrimination to people with disabilities", an idea unsought in the United States before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act also influenced later civil rights legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, aiding not only African Americans, but also women.
- Affirmative action in the United States
- Bennett Amendment
- Bourke B. Hickenlooper
- Civil Rights Movement
- Post-civil rights era African-American history
- The Negro Motorist Green Book
- US labor law
Other civil rights legislation
- Three Supreme Court rulings in June 2020 confirmed that employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is necessarily a form of discrimination on the basis of sex and is therefore also outlawed by the Civil Rights Act. See Bostock v. Clayton County, and also see below for more details.
- "H.R. 7152. PASSAGE". GovTrack.us.
- "HR. 7152. PASSAGE". GovTrack.us.
- "H.R. 7152. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION (H. RES. 789) PROVIDING FOR HOUSE APPROVAL OF THE BILL AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE". GovTrack.us.
- "Transcript of Civil Rights Act (1964)". Retrieved July 28, 2012.
- "HR. 7152. PASSAGE. -- Senate Vote #409 -- Jun 19, 1964". GovTrack.us.
- "The Civil Rights Act of March 1, 1875" Archived February 24, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, www.gmu.edu.
- "Radio and television address on civil rights, 11 June 1963". John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. June 11, 1963. Retrieved November 23, 2013.
- "Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years, episode 4 "No Easy Walk (1961–1963)"".
- Gold, Susan Dudley (2011). The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Marshall Cavendish. pp. 64, 129. ISBN 978-1-60870-040-0.
- Wilkins, Roy; Mitchell, Clarence; King, Martin Luther Jr; Lewis, John; Humphrey, Hubert; Parks, Gordon; Ellison, Ralph; Rustin, Bayard; Warren, Earl (October 10, 2014). "Civil Rights Era (1950–1963) - The Civil Rights Act of 1964: A Long Struggle for Freedom | Exhibitions - Library of Congress". www.loc.gov. Retrieved May 14, 2020.
- "Civil Rights Movement History 1964 Jan-June: Civil Rights Bill Passes in the House (Feb)". Civil Rights Movement Archive. Archived from the original on May 21, 2020. Retrieved May 31, 2020.
- 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
- Golway, Terry and Krantz, Les (2010), JFK: Day by Day, Running Press, p. 284. ISBN 978-0-7624-3742-9
- Reeves, Richard (1993), President Kennedy: Profile of Power, pp. 628–631
- "1963 Year In Review: Transition to Johnson". UPI. Archived from the original on April 29, 2020.
- "History of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights & The Leadership Conference Education Fund – The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights". Archived from the original on June 29, 2017. Retrieved June 30, 2017.
- Cone, James H. (1991). Martin & Malcolm & America: A Dream or a Nightmare. p. 2. ISBN 0-88344-721-5.
- "A Case History: The 1964 Civil Rights Act". The Dirksen Congressional Center. Retrieved July 21, 2016.
- "The Civil Rights Act: What JFK, LBJ, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X had to say". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 2, 2016.
- 1963 Year In Review – Part 1 – Civil Rights Bill United Press International, 1963
- Civil Rights Act – Battle in the Senate ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans
- Civil Rights Filibuster Ended – United States Senate
- Dallek, Robert (2004), Lyndon B. Johnson: Portrait of a President, p. 169
- King, Desmond (1995). Separate and Unequal: Black Americans and the US Federal Government. p. 311.
- Jeong, Gyung-Ho; Gary J. Miller; Itai Sened (March 14, 2009). Closing The Deal: Negotiating Civil Rights Legislation. 67th Annual Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association. p. 29. Archived from the original on July 29, 2016. Retrieved July 29, 2016.
- EL (August 28, 2013). "Were Republicans Really..?". Guardian. Retrieved September 16, 2016.
- U.S. House of Representatives. Office of the Clerk of the House. 4/1/1789- (September 25, 1964). Excerpt of the Engrossing Copy of H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Showing Amendments. Series: General Records, 1789 - 2015 – via US National Archives Research Catalog.
- 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. online version
- Rosenberg, Rosalind (2008), Divided Lives: American Women in the Twentieth Century, pp. 187–88
- Gittinger, Ted and Fisher, Allen, LBJ Champions the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Part 2, 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.")
- Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. pp. 245–246, 249. ISBN 0-465-04195-7.
- "The American Presidency Project".
- Dierenfield, Bruce J (1981). "Conservative Outrage: the Defeat in 1966 of Representative Howard W. Smith of Virginia". Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. 89 (2): 194.
- 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 
- Olson, Lynne (2001), Freedom's Daughters: The Unsung Heroines of the Civil Rights Movement, p. 360
- Rosenberg, Rosalind (2008), Divided Lives: American Women in the Twentieth Century, p. 187 notes that Smith had been working for years with two Virginia feminists on the issue.
- Harrison, Cynthia (1989), On Account of Sex: The Politics of Women's Issues, 1945–1968, p. 179
- (477 U.S. 57, 63–64)
- Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. pp. 251–252.
- "Justices rule LGBT people protected from job discrimination". Arkansas Online. June 15, 2020.
- Wolf, Richard. "Supreme Court grants federal job protections to gay, lesbian, transgender workers". USA TODAY.
- Martin, Annie (June 24, 2020). "'Queer Eye' stars say Supreme Court LGBTQ ruling is 'step in right direction'". United Press International. Retrieved June 24, 2020.
- Kotz, Nick (2005), Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Laws that Changed America, p. 61.
- Branch, Taylor (1998), Pillar of Fire, p. 187.
- Brownstein, Ronald (May 23, 2009). "For GOP, A Southern Exposure". National Journal. Retrieved July 7, 2010.
- Robert Sherrill (May 25, 2001). "Conservatism as Phoenix". The Nation.
- Sandoval-Strausz, A.K. (Spring 2005). "Travelers, Strangers, and Jim Crow: Law, Public Accommodations, and Civil Rights in America". Law and History Review. 23 (1): 53–94. doi:10.1017/s0738248000000055. JSTOR 30042844.
- Alan Taylor. "1964: Civil Rights Battles". The Atlantic.
- Wolcott, Victoria W. (August 16, 2012). Race, Riots, and Roller Coasters: The Struggle over Segregated Recreation in America. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0812207590 – via Google Books.
- Reardon, Sean F.; Owens, Ann (August 1, 2014). "60 Years After Brown: Trends and Consequences of School Segregation". Annual Review of Sociology. 40 (40): 199 – via cepa.stanford.edu.
- Voting Rights ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans
- "Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964". CongressLink. The Dirksen Congressional Center. Archived from the original on December 6, 2014. Retrieved March 14, 2010.
- "Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title II". Wake Forest University.
- "Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism". The White House.
- "Civil Rights Act of 1964 – CRA – Title VII – Equal Employment Opportunities – 42 US Code Chapter 21". finduslaw. Archived from the original on October 21, 2010. Retrieved June 6, 2010.
- , 791 F.2d 888 (11th Cir. 1986).
- "Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967". Finduslaw.com. Archived from the original on December 8, 2011. Retrieved June 6, 2010.
- "H.R. 7152--16". Retrieved December 28, 2019.
- Fields, C. K., & Cheeseman, H. R., Contemporary Employment Law (New York: Wolters Kluwer, 2017), p. 197
- U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration. (1999) "Chapter 2: Laws and Regulations with Implications for Assessments". 
- 1946-, Cochran, Augustus B. (2004). Sexual harassment and the law : the Mechelle Vinson case. Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0700613234. OCLC 53284947.CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
- Williams, Pete (June 15, 2020). "Supreme Court rules existing civil rights law protects gay and lesbian workers". NBC News. Retrieved June 15, 2020.
- Chappell, Bill (April 22, 2019). "Supreme Court Will Hear Cases On LGBTQ Discrimination Protections For Employees". NPR. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
- Higgens, Tucker (October 8, 2019). "Supreme Court clashes over meaning of 'sex' in LGBT discrimination cases". CNBC. Retrieved October 8, 2019.
- Chung, Andrew (December 11, 2017). "U.S. high court turns away dispute over gay worker protections". Reuters. Reuters. Retrieved December 11, 2017.
- Higgins, Tucker (June 15, 2020). "Supreme Court rules workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender". CNBC.
- Macy v. Holder, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012)
- Quinones, Sam (April 25, 2012). "EEOC rules job protections also apply to transgender people". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 4, 2014.
- Rosenberg, Mica (September 9, 2014). "U.S. government lawsuits target transgender discrimination in workplace". Reuters. Retrieved November 4, 2014.
- "What You Should Know about EEOC and the Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers". Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
- Chai Feldblum [@chaifeldblum] (November 6, 2014). "ICYMI-- EEOC helping LGBT people get protection from discrimination under sex discrimination laws" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
- Geidner, Chris (December 18, 2014). "Justice Department Will Now Support Transgender Discrimination Claims In Litigation". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved October 5, 2017.
- "Justice Department Says Rights Law Doesn't Protect Gays". The New York Times. July 27, 2017. Retrieved March 28, 2018.
- Holden, Dominic (October 5, 2017). "Jeff Sessions Just Reversed A Policy That Protects Transgender Workers From Discrimination". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved October 5, 2017.
- Goico, Allison L.; Geller, Hayley (October 6, 2017). "US Attorney General Jefferson Sessions Issues New Guidance On Transgender Employees". The National Law Review. Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. Retrieved October 15, 2017.
- Liptak, Adam (June 15, 2020). "Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers, Supreme Court Rules" – via NYTimes.com.
- Milestones In The History of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 1972 Accessed July 1, 2014
- "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission". LII / Legal Information Institute.
- Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. p. 270.
- Frankel, Alison (April 5, 2017). "The shrewdness of Judge Wood's opinion in LGBT workplace bias case". Reuters. Retrieved April 6, 2017.
- Briscoe, Tony (April 4, 2017). "Court: Civil Rights Act covers LGBT workplace bias". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved April 6, 2017.
- Haag, Matthew; Chokshi, Niraj (April 5, 2017). "Civil Rights Act Protects Gay Workers, Court Rules". The New York Times. p. A17. Retrieved April 6, 2017.
- "Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020)". Justia Law. Retrieved June 16, 2020.
- Dinerstein, Robert D. (Summer 2004). "The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Progeny of the Civil Rights Act of 1964". Human Rights. American Bar Association. 31 (3): 10–11. ISSN 0046-8185.
- Branch, Taylor (1998), Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years 1963–65, New York: Simon & Schuster.
- 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. online version
- Golway, Terry (2010). JFK: Day by Day: A Chronicle of the 1,036 Days of John F. Kennedy's Presidency. Running Press. ISBN 9780762437429.
- Harrison, Cynthia (1988), On Account of Sex: The Politics of Women's Issues 1945–1968, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
- Jeong, Gyung-Ho, Gary J. Miller, and Itai Sened, "Closing the Deal: Negotiating Civil Rights Legislation", American Political Science Review, 103 (Nov. 2009)
- Loevy, Robert D. ed. (1997), The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Law That Ended Racial Segregation, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
- Brauer, Carl M., "Women Activists, Southern Conservatives, and the Prohibition of Sexual Discrimination in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act", 49 Journal of Southern History, February 1983.
- Burstein, Paul (1985), Discrimination, Jobs and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Finley, Keith M. (2008), Delaying the Dream: Southern Senators and the Fight Against Civil Rights, 1938–1965, Baton Rouge: LSU Press.
- Graham, Hugh (1990), The Civil Rights Era: Origins and Development of National Policy, 1960–1972, New York: Oxford University Press.
- Gregory, Raymond F. (2014). The Civil Rights Act and the Battle to End Workplace Discrimination. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
- Loevy, Robert D. (1990), To End All Segregation: The Politics of the Passage of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
- Loevy, Robert D. "The Presidency and Domestic Policy: The Civil Rights Act of 1964," in David C. Kozak and Kenneth N. Ciboski, ed., The American Presidency (Chicago: Nelson Hall, 1985), pp. 411–419. online version
- Mann, Robert (1996). The Walls of Jericho: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell, and the Struggle for Civil Rights.
- Pedriana, Nicholas, and Stryker, Robin. "The Strength of a Weak Agency: Enforcement of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Expansion of State Capacity, 1965–1971," American Journal of Sociology, Nov 2004, Vol. 110 Issue 3, pp 709–760
- Revolution in Civil Rights. Congressional Quarterly Service. 1967. OCLC 894988538.
- Rodriguez, Daniel B. and Weingast, Barry R. "The Positive Political Theory of Legislative History: New Perspectives on the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Its Interpretation", University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 151. (2003) online
- Rothstein, Mark A., Andria S. Knapp & Lance Liebman (1987). Employment Law: Cases and Materials. Foundation Press.
- Warren, Dan R. (2008), If It Takes All Summer: Martin Luther King, the KKK, and States' Rights in St. Augustine, 1964, Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
- Whalen, Charles and Whalen, Barbara (1985), The Longest Debate: A Legislative History of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press.
- Woods, Randall B. (2006), LBJ: Architect of American Ambition, New York: Free Press, ch 22.
- Zimmer, Michael J., Charles A. Sullivan & Richard F. Richards, Cases and Materials on Employment Discrimination, Little, Brown and Company (1982).
Tanganyika and Zanzibar merge to form Tanzania.
On 26 April 1964, Tanganyika and Zanzibar merged to form a new republic, the name ’Tanzania’ being adopted on 29 October 1964. Like the name of the country, the new flag adopted was a merger of that of its constituent parts. The lower green stripe of the Tanganyika flag took the blue of the Zanzibar flag, and the stripes were re-arranged diagonally to give them equal status.
Stuart Notholt, 29 Jun 1996
A Gemini 1 test flight is conducted.
Project Gemini was NASA’s second human spaceflight program. Conducted between projects Mercury and Apollo, Gemini started in 1961 and concluded in 1966. The Gemini spacecraft carried a two-astronaut crew. Ten Gemini crews flew low Earth orbit missions during 1965 and 1966, putting the United States in the lead during the Cold War Space Race against the Soviet Union.
Gemini’s objective was the development of space travel techniques to support the Apollo mission to land astronauts on the Moon. It performed missions long enough for a trip to the Moon and back, perfected working outside the spacecraft with extra-vehicular activity, and pioneered the orbital maneuvers necessary to achieve space rendezvous and docking. With these new techniques proven by Gemini, Apollo could pursue its prime mission without doing these fundamental exploratory operations.
All Gemini flights were launched from Launch Complex 19 at Cape Kennedy Air Force Station in Florida. Their launch vehicle was the Gemini–Titan II, a modified Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. Gemini was the first program to use the newly built Mission Control Center at the Houston Manned Spacecraft Center for flight control.
The astronaut corps that supported Project Gemini included the “Mercury Seven”, “The New Nine”, and the 1963 astronaut class. During the program, three astronauts died in air crashes during training, including the prime crew for Gemini 9. This mission was flown by the backup crew, the only time that has happened in NASA’s history to date.
Gemini was robust enough that the United States Air Force planned to use it for the Manned Orbital Laboratory program, which was later canceled. Gemini’s chief designer, Jim Chamberlin, also made detailed plans for cislunar and lunar landing missions in late 1961. He believed that Gemini spacecraft could fly in lunar operations before Project Apollo, and cost less. NASA’s administration did not approve those plans. In 1969, McDonnell-Douglas proposed a “Big Gemini” that could have been used to shuttle up to 12 astronauts to the planned space stations in the Apollo Applications Project. The only AAP project funded was Skylab – which used existing spacecraft and hardware – thereby eliminating the need for Big Gemini.
The Beatles have their first number one hit in the United States with “I Want to Hold Your Hand”.
“I Want to Hold Your Hand” is a song by the English rock band the Beatles. Written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney, and recorded in October 1963, it was the first Beatles record to be made using four-track equipment.
With advance orders exceeding one million copies in the United Kingdom, “I Want to Hold Your Hand” would have gone straight to the top of the British record charts on its day of release had it not been blocked by the group’s first million-seller “She Loves You”, their previous UK single, which was having a resurgence of popularity following intense media coverage of the group. Taking two weeks to dislodge its predecessor, “I Want to Hold Your Hand” stayed at number 1 for five weeks and remained in the UK top 50 for 21 weeks in total.
It was also the group’s first American number 1 hit, entering the Billboard Hot 100 chart on 18 January 1964 at number 45 and starting the British invasion of the American music industry. By 1 February it topped the Hot 100, and stayed there for seven weeks before being replaced by “She Loves You”. It remained on the Billboard chart for 15 weeks. “I Want to Hold Your Hand” became the Beatles’ best-selling single worldwide selling more than 12 million copies. In 2013, Billboard magazine named it the 44th biggest hit of “all-time” on the Billboard Hot 100 chart.
Capitol Records’ rejection of the group’s recordings in the US was now Brian Epstein’s main concern, and he encouraged Lennon and McCartney to write a song to appeal specifically to the American market. George Martin, however, had no such explicit recollections, believing that Capitol were left with no alternative but to release “I Want To Hold Your Hand” due to increasing demand for the group’s product.
McCartney had recently moved into 57 Wimpole Street, London, where he was lodging as a guest of Dr Richard and Margaret Asher, and whose daughter, actress Jane Asher, had become McCartney’s girlfriend after their meeting earlier in the year. This location briefly became Lennon and McCartney’s new writing base, taking over from McCartney’s Forthlin Road home in Liverpool. Margaret Asher taught the oboe in the “small, rather stuffy music room” in the basement where Lennon and McCartney sat at the piano and composed “I Want to Hold Your Hand”. In September 1980, Lennon told Playboy magazine:
We wrote a lot of stuff together, one on one, eyeball to eyeball. Like in ‘I Want to Hold Your Hand,’ I remember when we got the chord that made the song. We were in Jane Asher’s house, downstairs in the cellar playing on the piano at the same time. And we had, ‘Oh you-u-u/ got that something…’ And Paul hits this chord and I turn to him and say, ‘That’s it!’ I said, ‘Do that again!’ In those days, we really used to absolutely write like that—both playing into each other’s noses.
In 1994, McCartney agreed with Lennon’s description of the circumstances surrounding the composition of “I Want to Hold Your Hand”, saying: “‘Eyeball to eyeball’ is a very good description of it. That’s exactly how it was. ‘I Want to Hold Your Hand’ was very co-written.” According to Ian MacDonald, in keeping with how Lennon and McCartney collaborated at that time, lyrically bland, random phrases were most likely called out by the pair; if the phrases fitted the overall sound, they would stay. The song’s title was probably a variation of “I Wanna Be Your Man”, which the Beatles had recently recorded at EMI Studios.
On 1 February 1964, the Beatles posted their first No. 1 single on the Billboard Hot 100, as “I Want to Hold Your Hand,” their first entry on the list, rose 3-1 in its just its third week on the chart. It had vaulted from its No. 45 debut the week before.
Eight days after the song reached No. 1, the Fab Four would appear on “The Ed Sullivan Show,” which drew a reported 73 million viewers, helping fuel the wave of Beatlemania that crashed U.S. shores following the band’s native British breakthrough.
China detonates its first nuclear weapon.
On 16 October 1964, the People’s Republic of China conducted its first nuclear test, making it the fifth nuclear-armed state after the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and France. China had initiated its nuclear weapons programme in the mid-1950s, after the Korean war. At the outset, its efforts were backed by substantial Soviet assistance, including advisors and technical equipment. Research on nuclear weapon design began at the Institute of Physics and Atomic Energy in Beijing, and a uranium enrichment plant was constructed in Lanzhou to produce weapon-grade uranium.
Mao and Khrushchev
With the cooling of Sino-Soviet relations in the late 1950s, the Soviet Union withdrew all assistance. In June 1959, Nikita Khrushchev decided to refuse the provision of a prototype bomb to the Chinese. This rupture prompted China to embark on its own nuclear testing project, code-named 59-6 after the month in which it was initiated.
Map of Lop Nor
Operation 59-6 was carried out at the Lop Nur test site in the Gobi desert of Xinjiang province, Western China, close to the ancient Silk Route. An implosion-type device was mounted from the top of a steel tower, producing a yield of 22 kilotons. It was the first of a total of 45 Chinese nuclear tests, all of which were conducted at Lop Nur. Twenty three of these tests were atmospheric and 22 underground, the yields ranging from 1 kiloton to 4 megatons. On 17 June 1967, just three years after operation 59-6 – faster than other nuclear weapon possessors – China detonated its first hydrogen bomb.
Soldiers rode on horseback towards the mushroom clouds.
The effects of China’s nuclear testing on human health, animals and the environment are largely unexplored due to the lack of publically available official data. The Xinjiang region is the largest Chinese administrative division and home to 20 million people of different ethnic backgrounds. A study carried out by the Japanese physicist Professor Jun Takada suggests that peak levels of radioactivity from China’s large-yield tests exceeded that of the 1986 Chernobyl reactor accident and seriously affected local populations.
In 2008, China started to pay undisclosed subsidies to personnel involved in nuclear testing. Compensation, however, has not been extended to civilian residents of the Xinjiang area, downwind of the Lop Nur test site.
China signed the CTBT on the very day it opened for signature, but has yet to ratify.
China conducted its last test on 29 July 1996, only two months prior to signing the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty CTBT on 24 September 1996. However, it has yet to ratify the CTBT, a step that is mandatory for the Treaty’s entry into force. Ratifications of seven other nuclear-capable states are also missing: the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Israel, Iran, Pakistan and the United States.
The Mozambican War of Independence against Portugal begins.
The Mozambican War of Independence was an armed conflict between the guerrilla forces of the Mozambique Liberation Front or FRELIMO, and Portugal. The war officially started on September 25, 1964, and ended with a ceasefire on September 8, 1974, resulting in a negotiated independence in 1975.
Portugal’s wars against independence guerrilla fighters in its 400-year-old African territories began in 1961 with Angola. In Mozambique, the conflict erupted in 1964 as a result of unrest and frustration amongst many indigenous Mozambican populations, who perceived foreign rule to be a form of exploitation and mistreatment, which served only to further Portuguese economic interests in the region. Many Mozambicans also resented Portugal’s policies towards indigenous people, which resulted in discrimination, traditional lifestyle turning difficult for many Africans, and limited access to Portuguese-style education and skilled employment.
As successful self-determination movements spread throughout Africa after World War II, many Mozambicans became progressively nationalistic in outlook, and increasingly frustrated by the nation’s continued subservience to foreign rule. For the other side, many enculturated indigenous Africans who were fully integrated into the Portugal-ruled social organization of Portuguese Mozambique, in particular those from the urban centres, reacted to the independentist claims with a mixture of discomfort and suspicion. The ethnic Portuguese of the territory, which included most of the ruling authorities, responded with increased military presence and fast-paced development projects.
A mass exile of Mozambique’s political intelligentsia to neighbouring countries provided havens from which radical Mozambicans could plan actions and foment political unrest in their homeland. The formation of the Mozambican guerrilla organisation FRELIMO and the support of the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Tanzania, Zambia, Egypt, Algeria and Gaddafi regime in Libya through arms and advisers, led to the outbreak of violence that was to last over a decade.
From a military standpoint, the Portuguese regular army held the upper hand during the conflict against the independentist guerrilla forces. Nonetheless, Mozambique succeeded in achieving independence on June 25, 1975, after a civil resistance movement known as the Carnation Revolution backed by portions of the military in Portugal overthrow the military dictatorship sponsored by US, thus ending 470 years of Portuguese colonial rule in the East African region. According to historians of the Revolution, the military coup in Portugal was in part fuelled by protests concerning the conduct of Portuguese troops in their treatment of some local Mozambican populace. The role of the growing communist influence over the group of Portuguese military insurgents who led the Lisbon’s military coup, and, on the other hand, the pressure of the international community over the direction of the Portuguese Colonial War in general, were main causes for the final outcome.
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is formed.
At its first summit meeting in Cairo in 1964, the Arab League initiated the creation of an organization representing the Palestinian people. The Palestinian National Council convened in Jerusalem on 28 May 1964. Concluding this meeting the PLO was founded on 2 June 1964. Its stated goal was the “liberation of Palestine” through armed struggle.
The ideology of the PLO was formulated in the founding year 1964 in the Palestinian National Covenant. The document is a combative anti-Zionist statement dedicated to the “restoration of the Palestinian homeland”. It has no reference to religion. In 1968, the Charter was replaced by a comprehensively revised version.
Until 1993, the only promoted option was armed struggle. From the signing of the Oslo Accords, negotiation and diplomacy became the only official policy. In April 1996, a large number of articles, which were inconsistent with the Oslo Accords, were wholly or partially nullified.
At the core of the PLO’s ideology is the belief that Zionists had unjustly expelled the Palestinians from Palestine and established a Jewish state in place under the pretext of having historic and Jewish ties with Palestine. The PLO demanded that Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to their homes. This is expressed in the National Covenant:
Article 2 of the Charter states that ?Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit?, meaning that there is no place for a Jewish state. This article was adapted in 1996 to meet the Oslo Accords.
Article 20 states: ?The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong?. This article was nullified in 1996.
Article 3 reads: ?The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will?.
The PLO has always labelled the Palestinian people as Arabs. This was a natural consequence of the fact that the PLO was an offshoot of the Arab League. It also has a tactical element, as to keep the backing of Arab states. Over the years, the Arab identity remained the stated nature of the Palestinian State. It is a reference to the ?Arab State? envisioned in the UN Partition Plan.
Secularism versus adherence to Islam
The PLO and its dominating faction Fatah are often contrasted to more religious orientated factions like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. All, however, represent a predominant Muslim population. Practically the whole population of the Territories is Muslim, most of them Sunni. Only some 50,000 ca 1% of the 4.6 million Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories are Palestinian Christian.
The National Charter has no reference to religion. Under President Arafat, the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority adopted the 2003 Amended Basic Law, which stipulates Islam as the sole official religion in Palestine and the principles of Islamic sharia as a principal source of legislation. The draft Constitution, which never materialized, contains the same provisions. At the time, the Palestine Legislative Council did not include a single Hamas member. The draft Constitution was formulated by the ?Constitutional Committee?, appointed with the approval of the PLO.
PLO versus PA
The 1993-1995 Oslo Accords deliberately detached the Palestinian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territories from the PLO and the Palestinians in exile by creating a Palestinian Authority for the Territories. A separate parliament and government were established. Mahmoud Abbas was one of the architects of the Oslo Accords.
Although many in the PLO opposed the Oslo Agreements, the Executive Committee and the Central Council approved the Accords. It marked the beginning of the PLO’s decline, as the PA came to replace the PLO as the prime Palestinian political institution. Political factions within the PLO that had opposed the Oslo process were marginalized. Only during the Hamas-led PA Government in 2006-2007, the PLO resurfaced. After Hamas had taken over Gaza in 2007, Abbas issued a decree suspending the PLC and some sections of the Palestinian Basic Law, and appointing Salam Fayyad as Prime Minister.
The PLO managed to overcome the separation by keeping the power in PLO and PA in one hand, upheld by Yasser Arafat. In 2002, Arafat held the functions Chairman of the PLO/Executive Committee and Chairman of Fatah, the dominating faction within the PLO, as well as President of the Palestinian National Authority. He also controlled the Palestinian National Security Forces.
The Council of Europe announces May 5 as Europe Day.
Europe Day is the name of an annual observance by the European Union, held on 9 May. It is also known as Schuman Day, in commemoration of the 1950 Schuman Declaration. It is the EU’s “equivalent of a national day”, and its observance is strongly associated with the display of the EU’s equivalent of a national flag, the “European flag or emblem”.
Other days called “Europe Day” include a 5 May observance by the Council of Europe introduced in 1964, and a holiday introduced by Ukraine in 2003 held on the third Saturday of March.
The Council of Europe was founded on 5 May 1949, and hence it chose that day for its celebrations when it established the holiday in 1964.
The “Europe Day” of the EU was introduced in 1985 by the European Communities the predecessor organisation of the EU. The date of commemorates the Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950. The declaration proposed the pooling of French and West German coal and steel industries, leading to the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, the first European Community, established in 1952.
A “raft of cultural icons” was launched by the European Commission in 1985, in reaction to the report by the ad-hoc commission “for a People’s Europe” chaired by Pietro Adonnino. The aim was to facilitate European integration by fostering a Pan-European identity among the populations of the EC member states. The European Council adopted “Europe Day” along with the flag of Europe technically not called a “flag” but an “emblem” and other items on 29 September 1985 in Milan.
Following the foundation of the European Union in 1993, observance of Europe Day by national and regional authorities increased significantly. Germany in particular has gone beyond celebrating just the day, since 1995 extending the observance to an entire “Europe Week” centered on 9 May. In Poland, the Schuman Foundation, a Polish organisation advocating European integration established in 1991, first organised its Warsaw Schuman Parade on Europe Day 1999, at the time advocating the accession of Poland to the EU. Observance of 9 May as “Europe Day” was reported “across Europe” as of 2008. The EU’s choice of the date of foundation of the European Coal and Steel Community rather than that of the EU itself established a narrative in which Schuman’s speech, concerned with inducing economic growth and cementing peace between France and Germany, is presented as anticipating a “vocation of the European Union to be the main institutional framework” for the much further-reaching European integration of later decades.
The European Constitution would have legally enshrined all the European symbols in the EU treaties, however the treaty failed to be ratified in 2005, and usage would continue only in the present de facto manner. The Constitution’s replacement, the Treaty of Lisbon, contains a declaration by sixteen members supporting the symbols. The European Parliament “formally recognised” Europe Day in October 2008.
Tanganyika and Zanzibar merge to form Tanzania.
The Articles of Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar of 1964 is the main foundation of the Constitutions of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977 and the Zanzibar Revolutionary Government of 1984. The Articles of the Union were signed on April 22, 1964 by the Founders of the Union, Julius Nyerere and Abeid Amani Karume and agreed in 11 matters which later increased to over 22 and are the source of tension and dispute between Tanzania mainland and Zanzibar.see Uamsho movement The original Articles of Union which contain both Signatures from Nyerere and Karume are yet to be found.
The United Republic of Tanzania was formed on 26 April 1964 as a result of the Union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar. Julius Kambarage Nyerere became the first President of the United Republic of Tanzania and Sheikh Abeid Karume became the First Vice President of the United Republic of Tanzania and the President of Zanzibar and Chairman of the Revolutionary Council. The late Rashidi Mfaume Kawawa became the second Vice President of Tanzania and leader of Government business in the National Assembly.
Like other African countries, the people of Tanganyika opposed and fought against colonial invaders from the very beginning. This included the formation of African Associations in both Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The African Association was established in Tanganyika in 1929. This association was transformed into the Tanganyika African Association in 1948.
In 1953 under the leadership of Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere, TAA was recognised as a political party and was transformed into the Tanganyika African National Union in 1954.
On Zanzibar’s part, the various football clubs established in the early 1930s provided the basis for the coming together of members of the African community. By 1934,members of the African community united in a formal organisation known as the African Association. The formation of the Zanzibar Nationalist Party in 1955 forced leaders of the African Association and the Shirazi Association to unite. In 1957, the Shirazi Association and African Association united to form the Afro-Shirazi Party under the leadership of Sheikh Abeid Amani Karume.
It is believed that the agreement for the unification of the two states was signed by the first President of Tanganyika, the late Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere, and the first Zanzibar President, the late Sheikh Abeid Amani Karume, on 22 April 1964, in Zanzibar. Although the Original Articles of the union does not exist, It was agreed that,to become valid The Articles of the Union must be ratified by both Tanganyika’s Parliament and Zanzibar revolutionary council,the Articles was ratified by Tanganyika’s Parliament on 26 April 1964 but was not ratified by the Zanzibar Revolutionary Council as per agreement. On 27 April 1964, the leaders of the two countries exchanged legal documents of the Union at the Karimjee Hall in Dar es Salaam. The Articles of the Union declared the formation of the United Republic in Section 4.