UNIT 13 CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENTS IN THE

UNITED STATES
Structure
13.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives

13.2 Discrimination of the Disadvantaged Groups

13.2.1 African Americans

13.3 Black Civil Rights Movements

13.4 Consequences of Civil Rights Movements
13.4.1 Native Americans
13.4.2 Hispanic and Asian Americans
13.4.3 Women and Civil Rights Movements
13.4.4 Rights of Homosexuals

13.5 Democrats and Civil Rights

13.6 Republicans and Civil Rights
13.7 Summary
13.8 Terminal Questions
Suggested Readings

13.1 INTRODUCTION
Mahatma Gandhi’s influence on civil rights movements around the world is beyond
anyone’s doubt. Non-violent resistance through non-cooperation and civil disobedience are
powerful tools of the deprived over the privileged sections of the society. Gandhi’s
influence is nowhere more discernible in the developed West than in the United States
itself. Martin Luther King, Jr., the leader who led the non-violent civil rights movement,
in the United States to empower the African Americans, was highly inspired by Mahatma
Gandhi.
Civil rights denote the rights of individuals to equal protection under the laws of the land
and equal access to public amenities and services in society. Civil rights differ from civil
liberties. Significantly, civil liberties involve freedom of speech and expression and other
freedoms of the citizens that are protected from the possible violation by the government.
Civil rights, on the other hand, refer to individual members or groups—whether racial,
religious and others—who need to be treated equally by the government and even by the
private parties to a certain extent. To express in more simple terms, civil liberties deal
with personal freedoms and civil rights are related to issues of equality.
Aims and Objectives
After reading this Unit, you would be able to understand:
 The meaning and significance of the concept of civil rights.
Civil Rights Movements in the United States 143

 Civil Rights Movement in the United States of America.

 The role of different communities involved in ensuring rights

13.2 DISCRIMINATION OF THE DISADVANTAGED

GROUPS
The history of civil rights movements in the United States is by and large group’s claims
to equality. The US Constitution recognises various rights of the individuals. The American
Bill of Rights guarantees individual freedoms of expression, speech, assembly, practice of
religion etc., but all American citizens have not been able to exercise this freedom. Since
the birth of the republic, various disadvantaged groups in the US had to struggle for
decades to acquire equal rights with other fellow citizens. More specifically, Native
Americans, women, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans and many
others in the US had to launch and sustain long struggles to achieve political and social
equality.
These groups, after prolonged discrimination, have been able to achieve in legal terms the
equal protection of law, equal access to public amenities and equal rights to vote, even
as the US laws do not discriminate against individuals on the grounds of race, gender,
ethnicity or religion any more. But the civil rights movements in the US, particularly during
the 1950s and 1960s, primarily sought to uplift the African Americans and allocate civil
rights to them. Legal equality did not translate into de facto equality until the civil rights
movements succeeded in their goals. The history of America is witness to the fact that
disadvantaged groups rarely achieved legal equality without a struggle. Powerful groups
always resist granting disadvantaged groups a greater degree of equality.

13.2.1 African Americans

There were hundreds and thousands of African slaves in the US at the time of the framing
of the Constitution. The first written constitution of the world did not recognise slaves as
human beings deserving equality with the white population and were not given full
citizenship. Slave trade was allowed until 1808. Slavery, as a social institution, was
dismantled only after a ferocious civil war in the US that threatened the unity and
territorial integrity of the nation. The civil war was followed by a period of Reconstruction.
When Reconstruction ended in 1877 and the federal troops were withdrawn from the
slave-states, the white supremacy in socio-political life returned. The Southern white
population adopted a host of new rules and regulations, commonly known as the Jim
Crowe Laws, to resume the practice of racial segregation. The black people were
debarred from sharing the same public facilities and educational institutions with the white
population. Black children were compelled to study in separate schools that lacked
adequate infrastructure and facilities. Blacks could not enter hotels and restaurants meant
for Whites. Racial segregation was also practised in public transportation facilities.
Significantly, the Supreme Court of the United States sided with the dominant white
population by upholding the Jim Crowe laws. In Plessy vs. Ferguson case in 1896, the
US Supreme court ruled that “separate” facilities for the two races did not violate the
Constitution so long as the facilities were “equal”. The Court also pointed out that the
Constitution could do little to bring about racial equality, if one race happened to be
inferior to the other.
144 Non-Violent Movements after Gandhi

The leaders of the Black community resisted such practices and relentlessly fought against
racial discrimination and bigotry by resorting to legal means. But the legal method brought
little relief until the 1930s when the US Supreme Court began to alter its opinion rather
in a modest way. The Court ruled that if no facilities existed for the African Americans,
they must be permitted to use the facilities reserved for the white population. About two
decades later, in another landmark decision, the Supreme Court reversed its Plessy
doctrine and ruled in Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka that racial segregation
of public schools “generate [among black children] a feeling of inferiority as to their status
in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be
undone…. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” This case was initiated
by the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) for
Linda Carol Brown, a Black child in Topeka, Kansas, who was denied admission into
an all-white elementary school. The case was argued by Thurgood Marshall who
subsequently became the first Black justice of the US Supreme Court.
The Brown decision was not welcomed by the Southern White population. Even in the
North it was hailed only by a slender section of the White community. Three years after
this decision, in the city of Little Rock, Black children were not allowed to enter the
white public school and the problem was resolved only after President Dwight D
Eisenhower placed the ANG (Avkaasas National Guards) under federal control to
implement the Brown decision on desegregation.
Though public schools were technically desegregated in 1954 by the U.S. Supreme Court
decision in Brown vs Board of Education, many were still de facto segregated due to
inequality in housing and racial segregation in neighbourhoods. The Supreme Court held
that not only were separate but also equal schools “inherently unequal”, the public schools
in many parts of the country continued to be segregated by race. In Swann vs. Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality
‘of busing’ to end school segregation, an attempt to further integrate schools.
A federal court in 1974 found that in Boston, schools were constructed and school
district lines intentionally drawn to segregate the schools on the basis of race. In the early
1970s, a series of court decisions found that the racially imbalanced schools trampled the
rights of minority students. As a remedy, courts ordered the racial integration of school
districts within individual cities, sometimes requiring the racial composition of each
individual school in the district to reflect the composition of the district as a whole. This
was generally achieved by transporting children by school bus to a school in a different
area of the district. This practice widely came to be referred to as “busing” or
“desegregation busing” in the United States.
However, many White families moved to the suburbs to avoid sending their children to
far off schools in unfamiliar (and violently Black) neighhbourhoods, and those who stayed
back moved their children into parochial or private schools. As a consequence, urban
school districts came to be overwhelmingly Black, reducing any effectiveness compulsory
busing may have had. Though the U.S. Supreme Court verdict in Milliken vs. Bradley
(1974) that busing children across districts was unconstitutional, limited the extent of
busing to metropolitan areas, there is no doubt that busing integrated ethnic minority
school children with the larger community. Since the 1980s desegregation busing has been
on the decline.
Civil Rights Movements in the United States 145

13.3 BLACK CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENTS

Soon after the Brown decision of the Supreme Court, the African American leaders
started a political movement for civil rights of the community. The most well known leader
was Martin Luther King, Jr. who persistently organised peaceful marches and demonstrations
in Alabama to press for the improvement of socio-economic conditions and civil rights of
the African Americans. Such movements faced enormous impediments and antagonism and
were often suppressed with heavy handed tactics.
One of the most well known incidents in the movement was a march organised by King
in the city of Birmingham in Alabama in 1963. As King and his supporters began their
peaceful marches and demonstrations, the Birmingham police led by Sheriff Eugene “Bull”
Corner attacked the demonstrators, including King with “dogs, cattle prods and fire
hoses.” The entire country watched this ghastly and brutal scene on television. This
incident bolstered further the courage and valour of the African- American community to
continue the fight and also made a large number of white Americans sympathetic to the
cause of the African Americans. In the same year, as a result, on 2nd of August, King
and other leaders organised a massive “March on Washington” for jobs and freedom and
rights of the African Americans that attracted about quarter of a million marchers.
Reverend King made his famous speech where he said: “I have a dream that my four
little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour
of their skin but by the content of their character.”
This march brought moral triumph and political victory. In 1964, despite the hurdles and
barriers erected by the conservatives and racists, the US Congress enacted the Civil
Rights Act providing African Americans and other minority communities’ equal access to
public facilities and prohibited discrimination in jobs on racial grounds. However, enactment
of legislations did not automatically bring to an end discrimination against the minorities nor
put an end to the feelings of racial superiority among the people. The southern states
began to devise new means to put a damper on the federal Civil Rights Acts. Virginia,
for instance, set up a commission to pay the legal expenses of White citizens who were
brought to the courts for infringement of civil rights measures. Such tactics and manoeuvrings
by former slave-owning states only strengthened the spirit of the federal government to do
more with regard to civil rights of the African Americans and minorities. Under the active
leadership and efforts of President Lyndon B Johnson, the US Congress passed the
Voting Rights Act in 1965 ending racial barriers in elections.

13.4 CONSEQUENCES OF CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENTS

As has been mentioned earlier, there are several minority communities in the U.S apart
from African Americans, who had to face problems of social, economic and political
discrimination. No other group, however, has been active in launching political movements
comparable to the ones embarked on and sustained by the African American communities,
who became the pivot of the civil rights movements in the United States.
However, when the civil rights movements triumphed and the U.S. Congress finally
enacted the legislations related to civil rights and voting rights in 1964 and 1965
respectively, other minority communities also derived benefits resulting from civil rights
movements and legislative measures either directly or indirectly. It is important to give a
few instances of benefits or encouragement received by other minority communities.
146 Non-Violent Movements after Gandhi

13.4.1 Native Americans

Native Americans numbered about ten million when the first White settlers from Europe
set foot in the United States. The European settlers conquered the territories of the Native
American tribes through war, deception, diplomacy and ethnic cleansing. By 1900, as a
result, there were fewer than a million Native Americans in the U.S. Like other minority
groups this community too enjoyed no civil rights.
In the 1950s, the Native Americans opposed a federal government policy to move them
to the cities with an aim to help them assimilate with mainstream American life. There
resistance emanated from the fear of losing their ancestral land, and difficulties of adjusting
in the cities. Though the policy was scrapped in 1961, the United States Commission on
Civil Rights reported that poverty and deprivation was common among Native Americans.
Importantly, the civil rights movements of the 1960s had left out Native Americans. But
they certainly inspired them to raise their demands and concerns. The civil rights
legislations of the 1960s provided an opportunity to other minority groups to enjoy rights
at least on law that were not there earlier.
Influenced by the Third World nationalism and the progress of America’s home-grown
civil rights movement, Native American activism turned aggressive in the 1960s and 70s.
A series of movements for the restoration of land and water rights were launched in these
two decades. The American Indian Movement (AIM), the organisation of the Native
American civil rights movement, was founded in 1968 ostensibly to encourage self-
determination among Native Americans and to establish international recognition of their
treaty rights. Over the years, it helped channel government funds to Native American
organisations and assisted the marginalised, neglected and poverty-stricken urban Native
Americans. In the same year, the U.S. Congress enacted the Indian Bill of Rights that
provided constitutional guarantees similar to other U.S. citizens. But it hardly alleviated the
genuine grievances of the Native Americans.
Drawing a lesson from African Americans, Native Americans occupied the Bureau of
Indian Affairs in the US capital and subsequently seized control of a village in South
Dakota. The incident was not absolutely peaceful, as the natives exchanged gunfire when
the marshals opened fire. But the incident soon brought to the attention of the people and
the governing elite the plight of this minority group and the result was the enactment of
another piece of legislation in 1974 granting greater control to these people over federal
programmes affecting them.
Though confrontations between Native American groups and government authorities
became routine during this time, the mainstream Americans were certainly sensitised
toward the requirements and rightful demands of Native Americans. All branches of
government were forced to respond to the demand of equal treatment of Native
Americans that were long overdue.

13.4.2 Hispanic and Asian Americans

The civil right movements of the 1960s primarily also helped in asserting the rights of the
Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans. A large number of Hispanic people who
migrated to the United States in search of jobs did not go back to their respective
countries in Latin America nor were they able to acquire US citizenship. These illegal
aliens suffered much discrimination in the hands of their employers as well as the society
at large. It was in the spirit of the civil rights movements and legislative measures of the
Civil Rights Movements in the United States 147

1960s that the U.S. Congress passed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act that
offered citizenship to illegal immigrants who could provide residential proof for last five
years.
But Hispanics themselves had to share the blame for the discrimination they faced in the
U.S. Not only did they continue to live in the U.S. illegally, but also many of them
refused to learn English and assimilate into the mainstream American society. Their
recalcitrance gave rise to a nativist movement—the Official English Movement, aiming to
make English the official language of the United States—and, as a consequence, more
than half of the states declared English their official language within a span of three
decades. Till date, efforts are on to make the use of English compulsory at the
workplace. Bills are pending in the U.S. Congress that gives employers the right to
demand that English be used by employees regardless of their language background.
Asian Americans, particularly the Chinese and the Japanese, who were brought to the US
to work in coal mines and railroad constructions, faced severe racial discrimination
expressed openly by the people as well as the ruling elite. Some of the U.S. legislations
too discriminated against them. For instance, in 1921 when the U.S. first enacted a law
to restrict immigration and introduced a quota system, Asians got a tiny quota compared
to Europeans. Once again in the domestic climate of civil rights movements in the 1960s,
Asian Americans were benefited by the 1965 Immigration Act, that sought to balance the
quota in favour of those who were discriminated earlier. Unprecedented numbers of
Asians and Latin Americans entered the United States as a result of that Act. The rights
of Asian Americans were also slowly expanded through court rulings and legislations
following the 1964 civil rights acts.

13.4.3 Women and Civil Rights Movements

Women in America were debarred from exercising their right to vote, holding public office
or serving as juries both during the colonial times as well as after independence. The U.S.
Constitution discriminated against American women. Significantly, the influence of British
Common Law was so much on the United States that women in that country usually lost
their identity after marriage and were considered the property of the husbands. They were
not permitted to purchase, hold or dispose off property without the consent of their
respective husbands. The discrimination was also reflected in a Supreme Court judgement
that held that adultery was a violation of the property right of the husband.
The changing status of women’s rights has come a long way through movements and
struggles spanning decades and in the year 1848, the first ever women convention to
press for their rights was held in New York, in response to the prevention of two women
leaders from attending an anti-slavery convention. Since then women movements have
been quite vigorous, although the success has often come late. Initially, the women rights
movements were closely aligned with the anti-slavery struggles, such as the abolitionist
movements. When the Civil War was over, the slaves were emancipated and a series of
constitutional amendments were enacted to give rights to the liberated African Americans.
Women hardly gained anything from it. For example, the Fifteenth Amendment to the
Constitution nobly announced that voting rights of individuals could not be abridged on the
basis of race or colour, but the amendment was conspicuously silent on gender.
The struggle to empower women in the functioning of the American democracy continued
and finally in 1920 the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was enacted that
forbade the U.S. or state governments from denying the right to vote “on account of sex.”
148 Non-Violent Movements after Gandhi

Ratification of this amendment inspired the women’s rights movements to plead for the
fulfilment of other demands, such as “equal rights” with men; equal pay for equal work;
removal of discrimination in granting financial credit; and ending sexual harassment at
work places. After decades of efforts by women movements, some of these demands
have been met. While in 1923, the first proposal was made to bring about another
amendment to the Constitution to ensure equal rights for women, it was only in 1973—
half a century later that the U.S. Congress approved the Equal Rights Amendment only
to be rejected during its ratification by requisite three-fourths of the states.
But the movement continued and society was slowly sensitised about the importunate
discrimination against women. Sustained political struggles subsequently paid and the U.S.
Congress passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963 in the midst of the civil rights movements
in various parts of the country. This Act prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender
in salary and wages of certain types of employment. The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited
gender discrimination in the administration of grants for programmes of the Federal
Government. The Education Amendment Act of 1972 prohibited gender discrimination in
education and the Equal Credit Act of 1974 ended similar discrimination in granting of
financial credit. Although women have gained considerably, gender inequality still remains
in the US. Gender representation in public office, managerial posts and promotion to high
offices is still negligible.
Women’s rights acquired a new dimension with the debate on abortion that started in the
United States in the 1970s, a new movement—supported by the Democratic Party—
emerged that sought to give women complete control over her sexuality and the choice
to continue or terminate a pregnancy. Highlighting the right of women—especially unmarried
women—to safe and legal abortion, this movement came to be known as the “Pro-
choice” movement. In Roe v Wade (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a woman’s
constitutional right to abortion and reaffirmed it in Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992).
The latter case was decided by plurality opinion, and there is no doubt that even today,
abortion rights have succeeded in keeping the judiciary divided.
The pro-choice movement drew strong reaction from The Roman Catholic Church—
supported by conservative Protestant groups—against the pro-choice activists and the
judiciary’s decision in their favour. A movement, commonly referred to as the pro-life
movement and sponsored unequivocally by the Roman Catholic Church, arose in opposition
to abortion. Some within the Democratic Party, which has a large number of Catholics
as members, have even sponsored legislation in the U.S. Congress to reduce the abortion
rate without seeking to make the procedure illegal and without overturning Roe v Wade.
However, conservatives still oppose abortion—on the ground that a developed foetus was
an individual and had the right to live—and accept only early abortion (during the first
two trimesters after conception) and even late abortion when the pregnancy was caused
due to incest or rape. What conservatives want to put an end to is abortion-on-demand.

13.4.4 Rights of Homosexuals

Even though Illinois became the first U.S. state in 1962 to decriminalise private
homosexual acts between consenting adults, the gay rights movement acquired momentum
in June 1969, when the patrons of Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in New York’s Greenwich
Village, rioted for three days with the police when the latter conducted a raid on its
premises. The Stonewall Riots transformed the gay rights movement into a widespread
protest for equal rights and social acceptance.
Civil Rights Movements in the United States 149

In1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its official list
of mental disorders. By that time the homosexual activity had become quite widespread
in the U.S. In 1982, Wisconsin created history when it became the first state to ban
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Its victorious moment came when the U.S. Army allowed gays to serve in the military in
1993 but banned homosexual activity while serving. Though it was not an unalloyed
victory as it still outlawed homosexual activity between serving gay and lesbian couples,
it opened the door of the military to the gay community. Under this policy—enacted
during the presidency of Bill Clinton and known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”—gays and
lesbians could be discharged from service in the Army if they either conceded to being
gay or indulged in homosexual acts during service, but the Army was forbidden to ask
its inmates about their sexual orientation.
In 2000, Vermont became the first state to recognize the same-sex marriages—or civil
unions—between gay and lesbian couples and bestowed such civil unions with “the same
benefits, privileges, and responsibilities as spouses”. However, it refrained from referring
to such unions as “marriage”, reserving the term for heterosexual unions. Same-sex
marriages were legalised—over conservative opposition—in Massachusetts in 2004, in
Connecticut in 2005, and in New Jersey in 2006.
During the presidential campaign of 2004, and then again in 2006, President George W.
Bush came out strongly against “civil unions”, reiterating that marriage was a faith-
sanctioned and time-tested institution that solemnised the union between man and woman.
He supported the move of the Christian Coalition, a Republican grassroots organisation
to amend the Federal Constitution in order to define marriage as exclusively between man
and woman and seek a ban on gay marriages. The President even declared that the
United States government would “recognize and protect” marriage as it promoted the
welfare of children and stability of society.
Interestingly, though in May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex
couples had a constitutional right to marry; during the November election, voters in the
state ratified an initiative—called Proposition 8—that banned same-sex marriages. Similar
initiatives banning same-sex marriages were passed by voters in Arizona and Florida as
well. Voters in Arkansas approved a measure that barred gays and lesbians from adopting
children.
There is no doubt that like other civil right issues, gay rights have left American society
deeply divided. As with abortion, the issue of gay rights has created an uncompromising
political polarisation. Even after the backlash of the November 2008 election, the Iowa
Supreme Court threw out a state law banning same-sex marriages on April 3, 2009. In
less than a week later, the Vermont Legislature legalised same-sex marriage by overriding
the Governor’s veto of a bill that allowed same-sex couples to marry.

13.5 DEMOCRATS AND CIVIL RIGHTS

The Democratic Party has always seen itself in the forefront of the civil rights movement.
Both the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965) were passed on the
initiative of Lyndon B. Johnson, one of the most influential Democratic presidents ever.
With these two measures, the political participation by Blacks became meaningful, and
constitutes a solid and unwavering voting bloc for the Democratic Party across the United
150 Non-Violent Movements after Gandhi

States. They now hold elected political office in large numbers, and an outstanding
example is reflected in Barack Hussain Obama’s assuming office as the President of the
U.S. Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of these Black leaders were Democrats.
The 2004 Democratic Platform opposed any move to ban gay marriages by amending the
Federal Constitution and wanted that marriage be defined at the state level. For
Democrats, the full inclusion of gay and lesbian “families” in national life with equal
responsibilities, benefits, and protections as conventional families remains top priority.
Democrats have acquired a sizeable measure of the Hispanic loyalty and an equally
sizeable chunk of their vote by opposing Official English in state after state by branding
it as nativist and trying to convince language minorities that Official English was nothing
but English Only, and that the proponents of the movement wanted to ban the use of
non-English languages in the U.S. In place of English Only, Democrats have championed
the cause of English Plus, proficiency in English and a second language or multiple
languages. They hold that public facilities, programmes, and assistance be made available
to citizens in languages other than English, keeping in mind those who were not proficient
in English. But Democrats have been relatively unsuccessful on this count, as many
Democratic governors (including Bill Clinton of Arkansas) signed measures declaring
English as the official language of their respective states. However, Democrats have been
steadfast in their support to bilingual education (introduced first in 1968 and subsequently
amended)—which today is nothing but “maintenance” bilingual education and not “transitional”
bilingual education—and multilingual ballots (introduced by the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
that have not only pushed Hispanics to take up low-paid jobs but have kept them and
other language minorities from any meaningful participation in the political process.
Democrats have consistently been pro-choice in matters of abortion: both the 2000 and
2004 Platforms sought to recognise and respect “every woman’s right to choose” in line
with Roe v Wade (1973) and make abortion “safe, legal, and rare”. In fact, the party
believes that the woman’s “right to choose” was a constitutional liberty and needed to be
upheld and protected by the courts.

13.6 REPUBLICANS AND CIVIL RIGHTS

It is a matter of supreme irony that despite the abolition of slavery in the hands of a
Republican President, Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, the Republican Party cannot look
toward African Americans today for widespread electoral support. The Black support to
the Democratic Party is proof of the fact that they have given more importance to political
empowerment than social emancipation. What is more disconcerting is the fact that Black
community leaders have often portrayed Republicans as racist and liberal opinion has
attempted to somehow link individual Republicans to the White supremacist Ku Klux
Klan. It is true that neither Republican leaders nor the party as a whole has found itself
in the forefront of the Black civil rights movement. Equally true is the fact that
Republicans have been traditionally targeted by the Klan for its steadfast anti-slavery
stance.
Republicans have made the retention of family values the core of the domestic issues they
champion in election after election. Small-town America is also deeply religious, and
Republicans have often supported and articulated the church’s opposition to homosexuality
and same-sex marriages as an assault on the traditional family. In so doing, it has earned
the reputation of being a socially conservative and reactionary political force.
Civil Rights Movements in the United States 151

The Republican Party’s support to and identification with age-old family values has also
made it stand in opposition to abortion and pro-choice activism. In both its 2000 and
2004 Platforms, the party voiced its stringent opposition to abortion, held that the unborn
child had a “fundamental individual right to life that cannot be infringed”, and called for
a ban on using public revenues for carrying out abortion and a stop on funding
organisations which advocated it. In November 2003, President George W. Bush signed
the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act—a measure to prohibit late-term abortions—and the
U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act in its verdict in Gonzales v
Carhart (2007). No doubt, the Republicans’ stand on abortion did not make their party
any popular among pro-choice activists and liberal-minded women.
The Republican Party has also traditionally opposed “maintenance” bilingual education—
the use of public funds for bilingual education through native language instruction that
ultimately ended up in maintaining the language of linguistic minority students instead of
teaching them English—and have supported the use of “transitional” bilingual education
that aimed at imparting the teaching of subject-matter courses to language minority
students in all-English classes as early as possible. Individual Republicans have been in the
forefront of the Official English movement and it was in the Republican 104th Congress
that the first-ever English Language Amendment (ELA), H.R. 123—the Bill Emerson
English Language Empowerment Act (1996), seeking to amend the Federal Constitution
to declare English the official language of the United States—was passed by the U.S.
House of Representatives. Till date, those who have moved ELAs in the U.S. Congress
with varying degrees of success have all been Republicans. Republicans have also
repeatedly called for the abolition of multilingual ballots and voter assistance, thus earning
the charge of being nativist, anti-immigrant, and anti-Hispanic.

13.7 SUMMARY
Civil rights movements emerged in the United States, as elsewhere, in order to uphold
group rights. Though America is not constitutionally multicultural, the success of civil rights
movements—whether of Blacks, women, gays, or immigrants—have ensured the preservation
and protection of the constitutional rights of various marginalised groups in American
society. An era of political correctness was inaugurated, in which Blacks became African
Americans, housewives became homemakers, homosexuality came to be referred to as
alternative sexuality, and immigrants became hyphenated Americans.
The preservation of civil rights have resulted in the successful exercise of civil liberties by
abolishing private and public acts of racial, gender, and ethnic discrimination. It goes to
the credit of the civil rights movement that any group that perceives discrimination on the
part of the state or other groups can expect remedial action from the judiciary, if not
always from the executive or the legislature.
But as the movement expands, new groups come into existence and new rights are
manufactured to acknowledge the group and decide on the constitutionality of the rights
that it seeks to protect and uphold.
The history of the U.S. civil rights movement is an interesting, though not always an
acrimonious one. The American political system provided enough space to civil rights
activists and even incorporated their agenda as planks in the platforms of the major
parties. Referendums, initiatives, legislations, and court verdicts have all been used either
to support or oppose the issues raised by the civil rights activists.
152 Non-Violent Movements after Gandhi

But there is no doubt that the civil rights movements have left American politics and
society deeply divided. The domestic policy planks of the two major parties are
determined to a large extent by their respective stands on civil rights issues. The churches,
the centrepiece of American middle-class life, stand torn by issues of race, ethnicity, and
sexual orientation (especially of the clergy), and abortion. Though race riots are not
common any longer, racially-inspired hate crimes have shown a sharp increase.
Nowhere have the civil rights movements succeeded as in the US. If similar movements
have appeared elsewhere, it can serve as a measure of the degree of urbanisation,
industrialisation, or modernisation that has taken place in that society (for example, the gay
rights movement in India emerged in the cities and not in the rural hinterlands). That
remains a positive contribution of the American civil rights movement in understanding the
degree of development in non-American societies.

13.8 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1. What do you understand by “civil rights”? Which are the disadvantaged groups in the
US that have struggled for “civil rights” in that country?
2. Write briefly about the Black civil rights movements in the US in the 1960s.
3. Native Americans, Asian Americans and Women to some extent benefited from Black
civil rights movements in the US. Explain with examples.
4. What are the positions of American political parties today on the issues of civil
rights?

SUGGESTED READINGS
1. C.A. Barnes., Journey from Jim Crow: The Desegregation of Southern Transit,
Columbia University Press, 1983.
2. Thomas Gentile., March On Washington: August 28, 1963, New Day Publications,
1963.
3. Peter Levy., Documentary History of the Modern Civil Rights Movement,
Greenwood Press, 1992.
4. August Meier, and Elliot Rudwick., CORE: A Study in the Civil Rights Movement
1942- 1968, Oxford University Press, 1973.
5. Michal R. Belknap., (Ed), Civil Rights, the White House, and the Justice
Department: Securing the Enactment of Civil Rights Legislation, Garland
Publishing, 1991.
6. Paul Murray., Civil Rights Movement: References & Resources, Macmillan Reference,
1993.
7. Rhoda Blumberg., Civil Rights: The 1960s Freedom Struggle, Macmillan, 1991.
8. August Meier, John Bracey Jr, Elliott Rudwick., (eds), Black Protest in the Sixties,
Markus Wiener Publishing, 1991.
9. Vicki Crawford., Women in the Civil Rights Movement: Trailblazers and
Torchbearers, Indiana University Press, 1994.
10. Davis W. Houck, and David E., Women and the Civil Rights Movement, 1954-
1965, Dixon University Press of Mississippi, 2009.
11. Adam Fairclough., Martin Luther King, University of Georgia Press, 1995.