What were the main goals of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Executive summary
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 aimed to dismantle legal segregation and outlaw discrimination across American public life, targeting public accommodations, federally funded programs, schools, voting procedures, and employment; it also created federal enforcement mechanisms such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Community Relations Service to carry out those goals [1] [2] [3]. The law represented both a culmination of decades of civil-rights activism and a pragmatic compromise in Congress that left some activists wanting broader protections while setting a legal framework that would be expanded and contested in subsequent years [4] [5] [6].
1. End legal segregation in public life
A central goal was to prohibit racial segregation and discrimination in places of public accommodation—restaurants, hotels, theaters and other facilities open to the public—and to require integration of schools and other public facilities, thereby hastening the legal end of Jim Crow practices entrenched in many states [1] [6] [4].
2. Make employment discrimination unlawful and create enforcement tools
The Act sought to ban discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin, and to establish permanent federal capacity to enforce those prohibitions by creating the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), giving victims a federal avenue for redress beyond state courts [5] [2] [7].
3. Strengthen federal protection for voting rights and judicial remedies
By amending and strengthening provisions from earlier civil‑rights statutes, Title I of the Act aimed to remove tactics that disenfranchised Black voters—such as discriminatory literacy and interpretation tests—and to expedite judicial review of voting cases so federal courts could more quickly counteract local barriers to registration and voting [3] [8].
4. Tie federal funding to nondiscrimination and create dispute‑resolution capacity
The law prohibited discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance (Title VI), authorizing agencies to ensure compliance and using federal leverage to change discriminatory practices in education and other federally funded activities; it also created the Community Relations Service to assist in resolving racially charged local disputes and to attempt voluntary compliance before litigation [9] [3].
5. Balance of ambitious aims and political compromise
Although drafted to be sweeping, the final statute reflected political tradeoffs: some provisions activists sought—such as broader protections against police brutality or more aggressive mandates for private‑sector desegregation without litigation—were narrowed or omitted during committee deliberations and floor battles, producing both praise for its achievements and criticism for what it did not achieve immediately [5] [4] [6].
6. A legal and cultural springboard, not a finished project
The Act was intentionally framed as a foundational statute: Congress and advocates expected further legislation and judicial interpretation to extend and clarify rights, a pattern borne out by later laws like the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and subsequent expansions of protected classes and enforcement tools; the 1964 law therefore functions as both a cornerstone and a starting point for later civil‑rights work [6] [8] [4].
7. Competing narratives and implicit agendas
Supporters presented the Act as restoring equal citizenship and federal responsibility where states failed; opponents framed it as federal overreach into local custom and private business—an implicit federalism agenda that shaped how titles were written, enforced, and litigated—while civil‑rights leaders pressed for maximal remedies, creating pressure that drove future amendments and court battles [4] [5] [3].