The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the most comprehensive civil rights law ever passed in America. It is the cornerstone of all current Federal antidiscrimination law. Its most famous section is Title VII, which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of "race, creed, color, or national origin" when hiring workers.

The debate for and against passage of the bill fierce; no piece of legislation was ever so hard fought. It's interesting to look back sometimes and see what those arguing for and against it were saying.

"It is not written in the bill that there that there must be a quota system, but the net effect of the adoption of [Title VII] would be that employers, in order to keep themselves from being charged with having discriminated, would, in time, have certain people working for them to meet the color qualifications, the religious qualifications, the creed qualifications, and so on."
---Senator George Smathers, arguing against passage

The response from one of the bill's key supporters was eloquent:

"If the Senator can find in Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act]...any language which provided that an employer would have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota related to color, race, religion, or national origin, I will start eating the pages one after another, because it is not there." ---Senator Hubert Humphrey, arguing for passage

As we have discussed before, in the comments section of an article on Rosa Parks, an interesting historical fact is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was written by Republicans, and muscled into passage over fierce Democratic opposition--including a filibuster by Robert Byrd, who is still in the Senate. Only a tiny handful of Republican Senators voted against the bill.

"I am half-Jewish, and I know something about discrimination," said one of the few Republicans to vote against the bill. It wasn't just talk. He had one of the best records on Civil Rights in the Senate. He was a member of the Arizona chapter of the NAACP. As a city council member in Phoenix, he had been instrumental in ending school segregation there. Yet in the end, he voted against the bill. In his final arguments against passage, he said:

"I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort and I believe that, though the problem is fundamentally one of the heart, some law can help--but not law that embodies features like these, provisions which fly in the face of the Constitution and which require for their effective execution the creation of a police state...With the exception of Titles II and VII, I could wholeheartedly support this bill...

"If my vote be misconstrued, let it be, and let me suffer the consequences. Just let me be judged in this by the real concern I have voiced here and not by words that others may speak, or by what others may say about what I think."
---Senator Barry Goldwater, future Republican nominee for President

He might as well have saved his breath. He was vilified for the rest of his life as a racist, as were his proteges and followers.

By the way, do you suppose anyone ever presented Senator Humphrey with a copy of Title VII, so he could keep his promise?