Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T19:52:27.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Implementation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title VI and the Use of Federal Funds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2011

Get access

Extract

The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by the United States Congress was a landmark not merely because of the manner in which Congressional opposition to the bill was overcome, but also in the potential effect of the legislation upon a variety of Federal programmes, in particular the use of Federal funds to implement such programmes. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, itself preceded by a period of intense and unprecedented civil rights agitation, in turn provoked further bouts of agitation, culminating in the attempts to register Negro voters in Selma, Alabama, and the march from Selma to Montgomery, Albama. Because of this, that section of the Act (Title 1) concerned with more effective enforcement of the right to vote in Federal elections has gained considerable prominence, especially following the presentation to Congress in March, 1965, of recommended legislation designed to enforce the 15th Amendment to the Constitution. However, one of the most significant and far-reaching sections of the Act is that relating to, and affecting, the use of Federal funds by Federal agencies. Under Title VI of the Act every Federal agency providing financial assistance through grants, loans or contracts, is required to eliminate discrimination in these programmes on the grounds of race, colour or national origin. This power could be a powerful lever for the President to force state governmental agencies to eliminate such discrimination in their programmes or risk the loss of vital Federal funds to supplement such programmes. It provides an important potential economic sanction on many Southern states and its effects may be far-reaching. The importance of Title VI can be seen by reference to particular areas where it has already been implemented.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for American Studies 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.See Hindell, K., “Civil Rights Breaks the Cloture Barrier”, The Political Quarterly, 36;2, April-June 1965, pp. 142153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Quoted in Civil Rights under Federal Programs - U.S. Commission On Civil Rights - Special Publication No. 1 - January, 1965, p. 4.Google Scholar
3.For instance on August 7th, 1963, the Senate voted 44–37 in favour of a motion to ‘kill’an amendment by Senator Javits of New York to prohibit the use of Hill-Burton hospital construction funds for segregated facilities in the current Appropriations bill for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, A similar amendment to the bill in the House by Representative Ryan was defeated 75–26 on a standing vote. See Congressional Quarterly Almanac, Vol. XX, 88th Congress, 1st sess., 1963, pp. 156–157.Google Scholar
4.See Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 347. U.S. 483.Google Scholar
5.Simkins v Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, 323 F.2d 959 (4th. Cir., Nov. 1, 1963), cert den. 376U.S.938 (March 2, 1964).Google Scholar
6.See Department of Health, Education and Welfare: departmental directive 42 C.F.R. 53.III (c), March 1964.Google Scholar
7.See Department of Health, Education and Welfare: Title VI regulations: 45 C.F.R. 80. I, Dec. 4, 1964.Google Scholar
8.See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Equal Opportunity in Farm Programs. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington. D.C., 1965.Google Scholar
9.See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Special Publication No. 3, March 1965, Equal Opportunity in Farm Programs, p. 4.Google Scholar
10.See New York Times, June 28, 1965.Google Scholar