Which statement best describes the Civil Rights Restoration Act? This question is crucial for understanding the significance and impact of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. The Act was a landmark legislation that aimed to restore the federal civil rights protections that had been weakened by earlier Supreme Court decisions. In this article, we will delve into the background, the key provisions, and the enduring legacy of the Civil Rights Restoration Act.
The Civil Rights Restoration Act was born out of a growing concern over the erosion of federal civil rights protections. In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court, particularly in the case of Grove City College v. Bell (1984), had limited the scope of federal civil rights laws. The Court held that only those activities that were “financially assisted” by the federal government were subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs receiving federal financial assistance. This narrow interpretation left many civil rights protections in the realm of state and local governments, where enforcement was often lacking.
The Civil Rights Restoration Act sought to reverse this trend by expanding the definition of “financially assisted” to include all activities of an institution receiving federal financial assistance. This meant that all programs, services, and activities within an institution receiving federal funds were subject to civil rights laws, not just those that were directly funded by the government. The Act was a significant step forward in ensuring that civil rights protections were applied consistently and effectively across the board.
One of the key provisions of the Civil Rights Restoration Act was the re-instatement of the “affirmative action” clause. This clause required institutions receiving federal funds to take “affirmative action” to overcome the effects of past discrimination. The Act also made it easier for individuals to file complaints of discrimination by eliminating the requirement to file a notice of intent to sue within 180 days of the discriminatory act.
The Civil Rights Restoration Act faced significant opposition from some quarters, particularly from those who believed that it would impose undue burdens on institutions receiving federal funds. However, the Act was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Board of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1992), which emphasized the importance of maintaining a balance between the need for civil rights protections and the right of institutions to maintain a diverse student body.
The Civil Rights Restoration Act has had a lasting impact on the landscape of civil rights in the United States. It has helped to ensure that federal civil rights protections are applied more consistently and effectively, and it has provided a strong foundation for the continued fight against discrimination. The Act has also served as a reminder of the importance of federal involvement in protecting civil rights, especially in an era where states and local governments may be less inclined to enforce these protections.
In conclusion, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 is best described as a critical piece of legislation that sought to restore and strengthen federal civil rights protections. By expanding the definition of “financially assisted” and re-instituting affirmative action, the Act has had a significant and enduring impact on the fight against discrimination in the United States.
