Contemporary Social Policies Essay Example

discovered the law of state requiring racial discrimination which was "separate but equivalent" to under constitution. The discovering proceeds sanctioned segregation well into the twentieth century (Cram, 2015).

Taking after World War II, recognition pressure, test, and change imbalances for minorities developed. A standout amongst the most striking difficulties to the norm was the 1954 milestone, Brown v Supreme Court case (Maguire, 2013). Leading a group of Education of Topeka, Kansas that scrutinized the idea of "separate but equal" governmental education center. The Court observed that "different academic centers are intrinsically unequal" and doing against the fourteenth Amendment. This choice energized Americans, cultivated level headed discussion, and served as an impetus to urge government activity to secure social equality (Bercovici, 2014).

As Whites characterize the term, governmental policy regarding minorities in society " involves both willfully planned projects and obligatory to confirm the social equality of assigned to groups of people by resulting to better move in order to defend them" from segregation (Pencina, Fine, & D'Agostino, 2016). Government policy regarding minorities in society decency to many Americans.

Topics Covered in the Civil Right Act

The 1964 Civil Rights Act is the United Nation’s chief social liberties enactment. The law banned segregation on the race basis, sex basis, color basis, religion basis, or the individual country of origin. The act also enforced equivalent public places access and work access, and upheld the school's integration and the voting privilege . It did not end segregation, but it leads to the way for further advancement.

Key Provision of Civil Right Act

Based on the Civil Rights Act, race discrimination, religion segregation or national birthplace was banned at all public places, including parks, courthouses,

and theaters, eateries, hotels and sports fields. No more drawn out could black and different minorities suffer denial of service essentially in light of their skin color. Likewise, the act banished sex, national inception, religious, and race, managers discrimination and worker's organizations, and lead to an Equal Commission of Employment Opportunity with the capability to air demand for bothered laborers ("Constitutionality of Permissive Legislation: The Union Shop Provision of the Railway Labor Act v. State "Right to Work" Laws", 2012).

The act also disallowed the utilization of assets that belonged to the government for any oppressive activity, mandated the Education office (currently the Education department) to aid with the integration of schools, gave the Civil Rights Commission additional clout and restricted the inequality utilization of voting necessities (Bercovici, 2014).

In conclusion, the law has very good interest on people’s interest regardless of their color, race, and religion or where they were born. Basing the argument on the number of Africans or black people in general who resides in the United States the law protects them and makes them have a peaceful coexistence.

For example, if the law doesn’t give the right to vote, the president Barrack Obama may have failed to enjoy his democratic right as the forty-fourth president of United States.

Many black people reside in America as employees, the law protects them and have a peaceful coexistence. The law would promote the local authority by providing labor to the business owner and also the revenue to the government as these people pay tax .The law also promotes the education system by protecting the individuals from developing countries who visit U.S for postgraduate study. Finally, the government should

protect the act and enforce it as it protects the human race regardless of their origin, race, sex, and religion and promotes the economy of the nation through businesses.

References

1. Andrews, K. & Gaby, S. (2015). Local Protest and Federal Policy: The Impact of the Civil Rights Movement on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Sociological Forum, 30, 509-527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/socf.12175
2. Bercovici, G. (2014). REVOLUTION TROUGH CONSTITUTION: THE BRAZILIAN'S DIRECTIVE CONSTITUTION DEBATE. Revista De Investigações Constitucionais, 1(1), 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.5380/rinc.v1i1.40249
3. Constitutionality of Permissive Legislation: The Union Shop Provision of the Railway Labor Act v. State "Right to Work" Laws. (1956). The Yale Law Journal, 65(5), 724. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/794156
4. Cram, I. (2015). Amending the constitution. Legal Studies, 36(1), 75-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lest.12090
5. Maguire, L. (2013). One World, Big Screen: Hollywood, the Allies and World War II. Cold War History, 13(3), 430-431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14682745.2013.819647
6. Pencina, M., Fine, J., & D'Agostino, R. (2016). Discrimination slope and integrated discrimination improvement - properties, relationships and impact of calibration. Statistics In Medicine. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.7139