Introduction
The Civil Right Restoration Act of 1987, also known as Groove City Bill, is a US bill, which dealt with governing of the federal money in the institutions in order to guarantee the execution of civil rights (Safransky, 2017). Its main task was to bring non-discrimination laws back into action. On February 1987, Senator Kennedy introduced the ‘Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987’ (Lewis & Dale, 1988). The act was one of the most important legislative documents at that time. Its significance can be compared to the 1972 Amendments. The Act deals with three federal laws. They are the Title VI, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. The main function of all of these laws was to take care of the least protected segment of the population. The performance of the laws was guaranteed by the federal fund's assistance (Robinson, Allen & McClure, 1989). The main task of the act was to influence the educational institution in which the discrimination flourished. In this paper, we are going to talk about the historical background of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. We will talk about the decisions made by Ronal Reynolds. We will describe the population at risk. In addition, we are going to provide the list of the recommendation in order to provide the alternative ways to deal with the issue.
Historical background
The targets of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 were:
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (Villalobos, 1990).
Every one of these laws dealt with the discrimination of civil rights. Title VI forbade the discrimination of people due to their skin color, origin, and nationality. Title IX presupposed the gender equality in educational institutions. Protection of the right of people with disabilities was the task of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Age Discrimination Act of 1975 obviously dealt with the discrimination of people because of their age. All of the above-mentioned laws were violated and needed to be brought into action again. Ronal Reynolds vetoed the bill because he thought that it would provide of the Federal Government with an uncontrollable power and influence. This also would definitely touch not only the question of gender and race but also religion. In 1984, the U.S Department of education understood that there are only small amounts of colleges, which show their agreement with Title IX. This act mostly affects institutions of higher learning; universities and colleges by regulating the federal funds it receives. They wanted to influence all the institutions and their parts with the federal fund's assistance. Here we have universities, colleges, and all the other institutions of public higher education, local and State government instrumentality, private corporations and organizations. Only religious institutions were excluded from this list (S.557, 1988). In the same 1984, they limited the influence of the federal funds not to entire institutions but to particular programs in these institutions (Church, Gup, Seaman, 1988). Therefore, if any part of institution gets a federal fund they cannot discriminate either their students or employees.
Population at risk
Every segment of the population, which needed protection due to the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 can be considered as a population at risk. At this point, we are going to speak exclusively about the Title IX, which deals with the Education Amendments of the 1972 and gender discrimination. As we already mentioned all the agencies, organizations, institutions and their parts, which received federal funds assistance had to follow all the governmental implementations. Still, the majority of the institutions refused to follow the Title IX.
Women’s sports teams were left without proper financial support. There was no promised development of women’s athletes. When women were left without protection, they gathered together and organized the women’s athletic movement. This movement helped to create new sports teams, provide women’s athletics with a proper attention and respect. In addition, this movement influenced educational institutions and they gave money for the development of women’s sports teams. With the help of the women’s athletic movement, 30% of women athletes were allowed to participate in sports activities. The income of teams increased from $25 million to $120 million (Villalobos, 1990). The Civil Right Restoration Act of 1987 focused its attention on the protection of the minorities (Shay, 2012) and in its way did a great job to renovate ‘effectiveness and vitality’ of civil rights (Gillepsie, 1990).
Analyses of the Civil Right Restoration Act of 1987
With the help of the women’s athletic movement and the Civil Right Restoration Act of 1987, 30% of women athletes were allowed to participate in sports activities. The income of teams increased from $25 million to $120 million (Villalobos, 1990). The Civil Right Restoration Act of 1987 focused its attention on the protection of the minorities (Shay, 2012) and in its way did a great job to renovate ‘effectiveness and vitality’ of civil rights (Gillepsie, 1990).
The major point of influence of the Civil Right Restoration Act of 1987 was money. The government decided to influence institution with federal assistance. Still, it did not help to influence people.
Recommendations
There are many ways to deal with the discrimination. The Government always think that impact with the help of money is the only good and efficient way to deal with people. We cannot agree with this. We would like to propose the five-step plan of alternative actions.
The American government should analyze the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 annually so as to determine its influence on organizations and institutions of higher learning. Inactivity is one of the most common faults of the government. They usually adopt a law and believe that it made many good without even checking on it until there is an urgent need. The annual monitoring will provide the exact type of control such kind of bill needs.
The Act should regulate and monitor federal funds in the growth of women’s athletics. The second step interlaces with the first one. If the government provides federal funds for the program in the institution, it should also control its spending. In addition, they have to check on the results. For example, the growth of women’s athletics would be faster if the government controls the money.
The Act should consider the changes in non-discrimination laws. This is one of the most controversial steps because it is almost impossible to accomplish. Even today, in the independent society we meet the problem of race discrimination. There always will be people impossible to influence or understand.
The Act should review and act upon the social problems that may arise. The government needs to track the impact of the Act and change its part in order to make the Act beneficial. If there exist any unsolved social issues, the government has to deal with it and not only with the help of money.
The Act should protect women since they are among the population at risk. In our last step, we propose to help and to protect women. One more step, which will gain a lot of controversies. On the one hand, we see that the discrimination was presented. There was no equality seen. Due to these facts, we can say that women definitely needed the support. On the other hand, the women’s athletic movement helped women’s sports team to gain the desirable attention and money for their development (Villalobos, 1990). They definitely needed the protection of the government; still, they were able to deal with some issues by themselves.
Conclusion
The Civil Right Restoration Act of 1987 amended title IX, which prohibited the gender discrimination in the educational institutions. In addition, it influenced Vocational Rehabilitation Act, Age Discrimination Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Robinson, Allen, Franklin, 1989). It obliges local and States government instrumentality; universities, institutions of public higher education; corporations, and private organizations to obey their decisions. Only religious organizations did not belong to this list (S.557, 1988). Since its enactment, improvements have been seen concerning growth of women sports teams, color and gender discrimination was slightly reduced, federal funds were regulated. Still, we believe that forced obedience cannot do any good. That is why institutions with federal money still were looking for the way to act differently. In its way, the government had to provide people with actual deeds of their own. The government used to release laws and bills just to make people think that they care. If they want people to believe them, they need to check on those laws annually and analyze the results they are achieving. They could see the right way for action only after a thorough analysis of the people reaction. They could not leave the case of law violation without any changes. In order to deal with the problem differently, we provided a five-step plan of alternative actions.
References
Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. S.557, 100th Congress. (1988)
Church, G. J., Gup, T., & Seaman, B. (1988). A Futile Veto on Civil Rights Congress prepares to override Reagan on a bipartisan bill. Time, 131(13), 26.
Lewis, Karen J. & Dale, Charles V. (1988). The Civil rights Restoration Act of 1987: Legal Analysis of s. 557. Congressional Research Service. The Library of Congress.
Robinson, Robert K., Allen, Billie Morgan, Franklin, Geralyn McClure. (1989). The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987: Broadening the Scope of Civil Rights Legislation. Labor Law Journal.
Safransky, R. (2017). Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. Law and higher education. Retrieved 21 January 2017, from http://lawhigheredu.com/31-civil-rights-restoration-act-of-1987.html
Villalobos, P. Michael (1990). The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987: Revitalization of Title IX, 1 Marq. Sports L. J. 149 Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw/vol1/iss1/6
Gillepsie, Veronica M.(1990). The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 - A Defeat for Judicial Conservatism. National Black Law Journal, 12(1). uclalaw_nblj_26767. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2nw231xg
Shay, A. (2012). On This Day: The Civil Rights Restoration Act. Long Civil Rights Movement website. Retrieved 25 January 2017, from https://lcrm.lib.unc.edu/blog/index.php/2012/03/22/on-this-day-the-civil-rights-restoration-act/
