Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

[Dave from Michigan]

yes

[rejectamenta]

With great enthusiasm, yes.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yes (R), which means my time as a 1960's Tennessee Congressman might have been rather short

I am greatly disappointed that we have so many people on this forum who voted "no".  I don't think a "no" vote means someone is a racist.  Yet, a "no" vote on this issue in 1964 was certainly a vote to enable racists to infringe on freedom.

Racial discrimination is by far the greatest threat to individual liberty that has ever been faced by any group of individuals in our country's history.

The federal government was the only agent with the political and logistic capability to attempt to restore that natural liberty.  The freedom for many individuals to be able to gain equal access to prosperity and happiness far outweighs the infringement on the right of a restaurant owner or businessman to discriminate against a man based on his skin pigmentation.

Absolutely true.  It's why it wasn't unconstitutional.  And Howard Baker was elected to the Senate in Tennessee in 1966 on a pro-integration platform.

[bedstuy]

So you think that a court knows more about the details about running a business than the employer does? Whether one applicant is more qualified for a particular position than another is not an objective fact; it is a subjective decision made by the employer. Given this, only the employer can truly know whether he has racially discriminated in his hiring practices. The only conceivable way the Court can circumvent this problem is by using quotas as a determinant of racial discrimination, but then we are left with state-imposed equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.

An employment decision is partially subjective and partially objective.  Large corporations often even have mandatory rules on promotion.  There's also tons of circumstantial evidence in many cases that sheds light on the decision.  Of course the defendant in one of these cases knows what was going on in their head.  But, of course they are going to claim they didn't discriminate no matter what.

Title VII does not adopt a quota system.  They use a burden-shifting framework created by the Supreme Court in the 1970s. 

Then how can you claim the right to be free of employment discrimination as a civil right if such a right doesn't exist?

It isn't grounded in a property right in your job.  It's grounded in an interest in equal treatment based on race.  The part where you get the job or money damages is just the remedy.  I feel like your concern is more about substantive due process rights of employers.

If that remedy involves forced association between two nonconsenting individuals, then yes. In the absence of discriminatory laws, blacks would have already had a remedy for private racial discrimination: it's called the marketplace. I don't see why blacks would not have reacted as strongly to a discriminatory private business as they did to Montgomery public transit.

Racial discrimination is not always open and obvious.  Racism more broadly can be completely covert and even unconscious.  To address the purely social aspects of racism, you need to change the moral norms of your society.  Part of the job of the law is to create and protect moral norms.

I never denied that the justice system was favored toward white men during the first centuries of America. However, you don't fix that by suddenly making it biased in the other direction (albeit not as flagrantly.) That problem is alleviated by eliminating state discrimination.

I would agree affirmative action and similar programs are a major concern constitutionally.  But, white people still enjoy an advantaged position in this country.  There is no general anti-white bias in America. 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Yes (R), which means my time as a 1960's Tennessee Congressman might have been rather short

I am greatly disappointed that we have so many people on this forum who voted "no".  I don't think a "no" vote means someone is a racist.  Yet, a "no" vote on this issue in 1964 was certainly a vote to enable racists to infringe on freedom.

Racial discrimination is by far the greatest threat to individual liberty that has ever been faced by any group of individuals in our country's history.

The federal government was the only agent with the political and logistic capability to attempt to restore that natural liberty.  The freedom for many individuals to be able to gain equal access to prosperity and happiness far outweighs the infringement on the right of a restaurant owner or businessman to discriminate against a man based on his skin pigmentation.

Absolutely true.  It's why it wasn't unconstitutional.  And Howard Baker was elected to the Senate in Tennessee in 1966 on a pro-integration platform.

But he still makes Republicans look racist.

[SPC]

So you think that a court knows more about the details about running a business than the employer does? Whether one applicant is more qualified for a particular position than another is not an objective fact; it is a subjective decision made by the employer. Given this, only the employer can truly know whether he has racially discriminated in his hiring practices. The only conceivable way the Court can circumvent this problem is by using quotas as a determinant of racial discrimination, but then we are left with state-imposed equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.

An employment decision is partially subjective and partially objective.  Large corporations often even have mandatory rules on promotion.  There's also tons of circumstantial evidence in many cases that sheds light on the decision.  Of course the defendant in one of these cases knows what was going on in their head.  But, of course they are going to claim they didn't discriminate no matter what.

So you believe that using circumstantial evidence can allow us to read minds, which is what it would require to know if someone was discriminating based on race?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I mentioned earlier, just because it does not create a quota system de jure does not mean that it does not incentivize quotas de facto, ceteris paribus.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It isn't grounded in a property right in your job.  It's grounded in an interest in equal treatment based on race.  The part where you get the job or money damages is just the remedy.  I feel like your concern is more about substantive due process rights of employers.[/quote]

But how can there be a remedy for someone who has no damages?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Racial discrimination is not always open and obvious.  Racism more broadly can be completely covert and even unconscious.  To address the purely social aspects of racism, you need to change the moral norms of your society.  Part of the job of the law is to create and protect moral norms. [/quote]

Again, this is a chicken-or-the-egg question. You assume that moral norms arise from law, I question whether it isn't the other way around.

[bedstuy]

So you believe that using circumstantial evidence can allow us to read minds, which is what it would require to know if someone was discriminating based on race?

The court system makes factual findings on mental states all the time.  And you don't need to know to a certainty that there was a discriminatory purpose.  It's not as difficult as you think.

As I mentioned earlier, just because it does not create a quota system de jure does not mean that it does not incentivize quotas de facto, ceteris paribus.

To the extent it does that it's wrong.  But, at some level we have to triage the harms.  In 1964, the harm to minorities was so widespread that it outweighed the collateral problems you raise.

But how can there be a remedy for someone who has no damages?

They have consequential damages as a result of being discriminated against. 

Again, this is a chicken-or-the-egg question. You assume that moral norms arise from law, I question whether it isn't the other way around.

It's a two-way causal relation.  My point is that when you know the people that are disproportionately the victims of discrimination and you know that many forms of discrimination are hard to detect, you should think about putting a thumb on the scale in order to get some deterrence and social change in favor of the minority that has been screwed over for hundreds of years.

[SPC]

So you believe that using circumstantial evidence can allow us to read minds, which is what it would require to know if someone was discriminating based on race?

The court system makes factual findings on mental states all the time.  And you don't need to know to a certainty that there was a discriminatory purpose.  It's not as difficult as you think.

Just because the court system currently does it does not justify the practice. I'm not a believer in thought crimes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To the extent it does that it's wrong.  But, at some level we have to triage the harms.  In 1964, the harm to minorities was so widespread that it outweighed the collateral problems you raise.[/quote]

Do you have an objective criterion for determining what level of harm to minorities is sufficient to outweight the problem of incentivizing the employment of less qualified individuals?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They have consequential damages as a result of being discriminated against.[/quote]

Such as? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a two-way causal relation.  My point is that when you know the people that are disproportionately the victims of discrimination and you know that many forms of discrimination are hard to detect, you should think about putting a thumb on the scale in order to get some deterrence and social change in favor of the minority that has been screwed over for hundreds of years.
[/quote]

If it's so hard to detect that the perpetrator is not being penalized for it in the competitive marketplace, what makes you think a monopolistic judge is capable of performing the task?

[bedstuy]

Just because the court system currently does it does not justify the practice. I'm not a believer in thought crimes.

It's not a thought crime.  It's an action, like firing someone for example, with a certain mental state attached.  Pretty much all crimes require a certain mental state.  If courts couldn't make findings on mental states you couldn't have the legal system.

They have consequential damages as a result of being discriminated against.

Such as? 

Basically, the court awards damages that put the person in the position they would have been in absent discrimination.

Again, this is a chicken-or-the-egg question. You assume that moral norms arise from law, I question whether it isn't the other way around.

It's a two-way causal relation.  My point is that when you know the people that are disproportionately the victims of discrimination and you know that many forms of discrimination are hard to detect, you should think about putting a thumb on the scale in order to get some deterrence and social change in favor of the minority that has been screwed over for hundreds of years.

If it's so hard to detect that the perpetrator is not being penalized for it in the competitive marketplace, what makes you think a monopolistic judge is capable of performing the task?

I don't really accept your premise that the marketplace prevents racial discrimination.  I do think that most potential cases are never bought.  The vast majority that get filed are settled or dismissed.  The few that go to trial have the best evidentiary record.  For that small percentage, I trust the court system to do a decent job.  But, the bigger issue is that the act as a whole creates  a societal norm that it's wrong to treat someone differently because of their race, gender or ethnicity.

I think society needs to have that norm.  That's a value judgement on my part.  Obviously, it doesn't justify any policy.  I'm sure Title VII can be improved upon and it is less urgent today because we've made tremendous progress (in large part thanks to the Civil Rights Act).

[DC Al Fine]

Just because the court system currently does it does not justify the practice. I'm not a believer in thought crimes.

It's not a thought crime.  It's an action, like firing someone for example, with a certain mental state attached.  Pretty much all crimes require a certain mental state.  If courts couldn't make findings on mental states you couldn't have the legal system.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Thoughtcrime
noun
an instance of unorthodox or controversial thinking, considered as a criminal offence or as socially unacceptable.

If someone decides not to hire a black because they are black, any charges against them are clearly thought crimes.

[bedstuy]

Just because the court system currently does it does not justify the practice. I'm not a believer in thought crimes.

It's not a thought crime.  It's an action, like firing someone for example, with a certain mental state attached.  Pretty much all crimes require a certain mental state.  If courts couldn't make findings on mental states you couldn't have the legal system.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Thoughtcrime
noun
an instance of unorthodox or controversial thinking, considered as a criminal offence or as socially unacceptable.

If someone decides not to hire a black because they are black, any charges against them are clearly thought crimes.

There's a difference between having a thought and acting because of a thought.  If that hypothetical racist doesn't want to violate the law, they can just choose not to work in an HR department.  That way they can think racist thoughts to their hearts' content.

If you don't believe mental states are at all significant to the law, do you believe in differentiating first degree murder from accidentally killing someone in a car wreck?

[SPC]

Just because the court system currently does it does not justify the practice. I'm not a believer in thought crimes.

It's not a thought crime.  It's an action, like firing someone for example, with a certain mental state attached.  Pretty much all crimes require a certain mental state.  If courts couldn't make findings on mental states you couldn't have the legal system.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Thoughtcrime
noun
an instance of unorthodox or controversial thinking, considered as a criminal offence or as socially unacceptable.

If someone decides not to hire a black because they are black, any charges against them are clearly thought crimes.

There's a difference between having a thought and acting because of a thought.  If that hypothetical racist doesn't want to violate the law, they can just choose not to work in an HR department.  That way they can think racist thoughts to their hearts' content.

If you don't believe mental states are at all significant to the law, do you believe in differentiating first degree murder from accidentally killing someone in a car wreck?

It's a thought crime because the action would not have been a crime in the absence of the thought.

[bedstuy]

Just because the court system currently does it does not justify the practice. I'm not a believer in thought crimes.

It's not a thought crime.  It's an action, like firing someone for example, with a certain mental state attached.  Pretty much all crimes require a certain mental state.  If courts couldn't make findings on mental states you couldn't have the legal system.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Thoughtcrime
noun
an instance of unorthodox or controversial thinking, considered as a criminal offence or as socially unacceptable.

If someone decides not to hire a black because they are black, any charges against them are clearly thought crimes.

There's a difference between having a thought and acting because of a thought.  If that hypothetical racist doesn't want to violate the law, they can just choose not to work in an HR department.  That way they can think racist thoughts to their hearts' content.

If you don't believe mental states are at all significant to the law, do you believe in differentiating first degree murder from accidentally killing someone in a car wreck?

It's a thought crime because the action would not have been a crime in the absence of the thought.

So, insider trading is a thought crime?  Mail fraud is a thought crime? Section 1001?  Fraud?   Last time I checked, selling stocks, sending mail and making statements to people is legal.  Tons of laws also have a scienter requirement where there's no crime unless you have specific intent of some kind.

[SPC]

Just because the court system currently does it does not justify the practice. I'm not a believer in thought crimes.

It's not a thought crime.  It's an action, like firing someone for example, with a certain mental state attached.  Pretty much all crimes require a certain mental state.  If courts couldn't make findings on mental states you couldn't have the legal system.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Thoughtcrime
noun
an instance of unorthodox or controversial thinking, considered as a criminal offence or as socially unacceptable.

If someone decides not to hire a black because they are black, any charges against them are clearly thought crimes.

There's a difference between having a thought and acting because of a thought.  If that hypothetical racist doesn't want to violate the law, they can just choose not to work in an HR department.  That way they can think racist thoughts to their hearts' content.

If you don't believe mental states are at all significant to the law, do you believe in differentiating first degree murder from accidentally killing someone in a car wreck?

It's a thought crime because the action would not have been a crime in the absence of the thought.

So, insider trading is a thought crime?  Mail fraud is a thought crime? Section 1001?  Fraud?   Last time I checked, selling stocks, sending mail and making statements to people is legal.  Tons of laws also have a scienter requirement where there's no crime unless you have specific intent of some kind.

Just because Orwell has permeated other realms of the law does not justify the practice. Any law ought to have a clear victim, in which case whether or not the perpetrator was aware of his actions is immaterial, a mitigating factor at best. The person who bought rat poison sold as milk would have had his property rights violated regardless of whether or not the vendor actually thought it was milk. However, even if we accept the dubious premise that an applicant who has been racially discriminated against has had his rights violated (even though he has no right to a employment contract to begin with), nobody would allege that an applicant's rights have been violated if the employer hired a different individual. It only becomes a crime according to this logic if the employer used race as a factor in his hiring decision, something that only the employer can know until the day that mind-reading technology is perfected.

[bedstuy]

Just because Orwell has permeated other realms of the law does not justify the practice. Any law ought to have a clear victim, in which case whether or not the perpetrator was aware of his actions is immaterial, a mitigating factor at best. The person who bought rat poison sold as milk would have had his property rights violated regardless of whether or not the vendor actually thought it was milk. However, even if we accept the dubious premise that an applicant who has been racially discriminated against has had his rights violated (even though he has no right to a employment contract to begin with), nobody would allege that an applicant's rights have been violated if the employer hired a different individual. It only becomes a crime according to this logic if the employer used race as a factor in his hiring decision, something that only the employer can know until the day that mind-reading technology is perfected.

OK, good luck fundamentally changing the American legal system with your circular libertarian reasoning.

[Torie]

Of course, and I supported it in real time. The idea of branding cohorts of folks as second class, inferior, and unwanted, is facially just plain evil to me. It does not comport with my conscience. The idea that the libertarian right to control of property should be allowed to trump avoiding slapping scarlet letters on folks suggests a value system that lacks peripheral vision, to put it most euphemistically.

[Simfan34]

No (decidedly abnormal)

[/troll]

Of course. Not voting for this would (and should) be near-criminal. Our Constitution guarantees equality under the law and preaches the inherent equality of men, no argument on property or personal liberty can trump that. Of course nothing less can be expected of crypto-segregationist, neo-Confederate libertarians, but that doesn't make your objection any less morally repugnant. It's one thing to dismiss it as narrow ideologism, but except for the ignorant naive fringe (who, in their defense, I think are most of our libertarians), it's nothing more than a crude constitutional cover for racism, again, ignoramuses aside. I mean, do you seriously think some white business owner would have sued against Jim Crow on property rights grounds? Do you think it would have even been heard by a state appeal court? Do you think the "race traitor" would have even survived the attempt?

[SPC]

Just because Orwell has permeated other realms of the law does not justify the practice. Any law ought to have a clear victim, in which case whether or not the perpetrator was aware of his actions is immaterial, a mitigating factor at best. The person who bought rat poison sold as milk would have had his property rights violated regardless of whether or not the vendor actually thought it was milk. However, even if we accept the dubious premise that an applicant who has been racially discriminated against has had his rights violated (even though he has no right to a employment contract to begin with), nobody would allege that an applicant's rights have been violated if the employer hired a different individual. It only becomes a crime according to this logic if the employer used race as a factor in his hiring decision, something that only the employer can know until the day that mind-reading technology is perfected.

OK, good luck fundamentally changing the American legal system with your circular libertarian reasoning.

Seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, given that you originally cited precedent in the law for criminalizing motive as a defense for laws criminalizing motive.

[bedstuy]

Just because Orwell has permeated other realms of the law does not justify the practice. Any law ought to have a clear victim, in which case whether or not the perpetrator was aware of his actions is immaterial, a mitigating factor at best. The person who bought rat poison sold as milk would have had his property rights violated regardless of whether or not the vendor actually thought it was milk. However, even if we accept the dubious premise that an applicant who has been racially discriminated against has had his rights violated (even though he has no right to a employment contract to begin with), nobody would allege that an applicant's rights have been violated if the employer hired a different individual. It only becomes a crime according to this logic if the employer used race as a factor in his hiring decision, something that only the employer can know until the day that mind-reading technology is perfected.

OK, good luck fundamentally changing the American legal system with your circular libertarian reasoning.

Seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, given that you originally cited precedent in the law for criminalizing motive as a defense for laws criminalizing motive.

I brought up other laws to rebut your criticism of Title VII.  My point is that Title VII is not remarkable in that "thoughcrime" respect.  Your criticism makes no sense unless you're willing to jettison most of the legal system. 

Where did you get this idiosyncratic legal theory from? 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No (decidedly abnormal)

[/troll]

Of course. Not voting for this would (and should) be near-criminal. Our Constitution guarantees equality under the law and preaches the inherent equality of men, no argument on property or personal liberty can trump that. Of course nothing less can be expected of crypto-segregationist, neo-Confederate libertarians, but that doesn't make your objection any less morally repugnant. It's one thing to dismiss it as narrow ideologism, but except for the ignorant naive fringe (who, in their defense, I think are most of our libertarians), it's nothing more than a crude constitutional cover for racism, again, ignoramuses aside. I mean, do you seriously think some white business owner would have sued against Jim Crow on property rights grounds? Do you think it would have even been heard by a state appeal court? Do you think the "race traitor" would have even survived the attempt?

Of course not.  Not with Negroes being systematically excluded from the polls and by extension the juries.  Not with Negroes having been subjected to de jure economic discrimination against them until the 1960s.  As a temporary measure intended to redress the harm done previously by the law, the provisions of Title VII could be justified.  However, it wasn't enacted as a temporary measure was it?

I believe that if Titles II and VII were repealed today, there would be an insignificant amount of discrimination in public accommodations.  In employment, there would unfortunately be significant levels of discrimination in employment against African-Americans and to a lesser degree women.  However, it would not be the most significant economic impediment facing African-Americans.  That would be the decidedly inferior schools many urban areas and black belt rural areas have.  Fixing the problems in education and also those indirectly caused by how the war on drugs has been fought should be a higher priority right now, but the solutions for those are neither as obvious or easy as the solutions adopted to combat over racism.

And just to be clear, I'm not advocating repealing or amending Title II or VII, at least not right now.  It's too early to phase out Title VII, and phasing out Title II alone would be sending the wrong signal.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

How much of a difference did the bill have in terms of black employment?  Or for other minorities and for whites? It would be interesting to see some data on this if it exists.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How much of a difference did the bill have in terms of black employment?  Or for other minorities and for whites? It would be interesting to see some data on this if it exists.

The BLS might have the data on employment rates by race and occupation for the 1960's.  I'm fairly certain they have the data on overall employment, but a major shift was in having fields previously denied them in some areas open up.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes (R), which means my time as a 1960's Tennessee Congressman might have been rather short

I am greatly disappointed that we have so many people on this forum who voted "no".  I don't think a "no" vote means someone is a racist.  Yet, a "no" vote on this issue in 1964 was certainly a vote to enable racists to infringe on freedom.

Racial discrimination is by far the greatest threat to individual liberty that has ever been faced by any group of individuals in our country's history.

The federal government was the only agent with the political and logistic capability to attempt to restore that natural liberty.  The freedom for many individuals to be able to gain equal access to prosperity and happiness far outweighs the infringement on the right of a restaurant owner or businessman to discriminate against a man based on his skin pigmentation.

No, just move to the Eastern districts and run there. The first and second would vote for a horse if it was a Republican, even back then.

[Clinton2016]

No (D)

No(I/O)

I am Really Strongly Against the Civil Rights Acts of 1964

[Idaho Conservative]

I would have voted "no" on the act as it was written.  However, I would have tried to slightly alter the bill.  The two alterations I would have made would be to eliminate Title II from the act completely and to alter Title VII. Title II infringed on the rights of private business owners' property rights and Title III provided adequate protection to ensure everyone was served at government facilities.  I would have changed Title VII so that it didn't apply to private employers but would still apply to government employees.  After removing the sections about "public accommodations" and private employment I wouldn't just have voted yes, I would have actively campaigned along side Senator Goldwater in favor of the act.  
Yes, some liberal Democrats like Robert Byrd voted against the act for racial reasons but for myself and Goldwater, our opposition came from the infringement on the right of private individuals.
Modern day, I absolutely agree Title II should be repealed.  You should have the right to refuse service to anyone.  As far as title VII goes, I feel less strongly in favor of repeal but would definitely like to see more religious exemptions added to Title VII, like the ones seen in ENDA of 2013.  Just as SCOTUS ruled part of the Voting Rights Act no longer necessary and unconstitutional, I would like them to do the same with Title II and maybe with title VII.