Surname 1

Student Name

Professor Name

Course

Date

The decision to Include Sex in the Act of Civil Rights and its Benefits

The civil rights Act was aiding towards helping the disadvantaged minorities in the country who

are facing discrimination from their race, color, religion, employment, etc. Discrimination

against sex was not included in the Bill by then but was added in Title VII as an amendment to

decline later. This act had been discussed severally in multiple Congress sessions, but it had no

ban for biasness in terms of sex (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). This matter had never

been addressed in the subsequent hearings; no political cared to look after women's rights. On

June 19, 1963, President John F. Kennedy sent a draft of the civil rights bill to Congress to be

debated. During the discussion on the House floor, strong opponent Howard Smith proposed 'sex'

to be added to the Bill to prevent discrimination against minority groups like women (Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). All Congressmen agreed with the Bill because if anyone

opposed the Bill, we would be seen as if they favor it. At this point, the Congresswomen present

took the opportunity to support women; they instilled fear in the other Congress that if the

amendment does not pass, the Negro women will be given an advantage over the white women

(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). The Bill was debated for several months but still bore
 Surname 2

no success. Before Bill's successful passage, only two states Wisconsin and Hawaii, had included

sex in their prohibited discriminations (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

After the Bill was passed, the government had to work to enforce the new laws. Executive order

11246 was issued in Sept 1966, but it did not mention the sex ban Act. We noticed that the sex

amendment was not included, and they wrote to the President asking to expand order 11246 to

accommodate the sex bill. The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) tried to

ignore the amendment. It termed it as 'fluke.' The EEOC's lack of interest led to the National

Organization for Women (NOW) formation in October 1966. It looked out for the concerns of

the women and even assisted them in looking for good lawyers when they were taking their sex

cases to court. We kept pushing the President to fulfill his promise of equal employment

opportunities even though the EEOC was unwilling to do the laws' mandate (Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964).

In the President Jonson omnibus in 1967, the special message passed to the Congress on equality

was to expand the opportunity in the Bill of rights of 1964. In his remarks about equal

employment opportunities, he mainly focused on race. The National Organization for Women

leaders, which included Alice Paul, reminded the President that these discriminations also had

sex. We requested the correct it in order 11246. This was fixed in October 1967(Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964). In the process of deciding to approach President Johnson in 1967, we

applauded him for the efforts he had made to promote women's employment in the Federal

government through the executive branch Order 11246. Through our NOW leader, we made it

clear to the President that the word "sex" had been omitted from the Order. The EEOC was not
 Surname 3

enthusiastic when passing the Bill that it even made Aileen Hernandez resign because of their

negligence in women's rights.

On the particular message he sent to Congress in 1967, the President also emphasized that Equal

Justice was the only way that would expand the opportunities covered in the Act of Civil Rights

(1964). His remarks, though, focused on terms of race and, therefore, NOW took the shot and

reminded the President that sex too was a matter of concern, and yet it was being left out. We

focused further on omitting 'sex' in Order 11246 and told the President to correct it. This is

because the employment discrimination was not only in terms of race but also in terms of sex.

The omission of the word "sex" in Order 11246 was later and with great relief corrected in

Executive Order 11357 on 13th October 1967, more than two years later. A letter was written to

President Johnson by the leader of NOW. The letter contained a message of gratitude to the

President for the correction made on Order 11357, adding "sex" to the discrimination of job

opportunities issues. The letter also contained a message of dissatisfaction with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EOCC), which was not making an effort to implement

the new Order or make it effective.

What followed after the new Order, Order 11357, that included women as those who benefited

from the ban on employment discrimination in the Federal government, was praises from various

women, including black women's group known as the National Association of Media Women.

One woman who benefited from the inclusion of women was Frankie Freeman, who was given

an appointment in the United States of America's commission. She expressed her joy and

gratitude to President Johnson, calling him the "President of black women service" because of
 Surname 4

what he did in ensuring women were protected against discrimination on employment in the

Federal Government.

The decision that was made effective by the President of the United States, President Johnson,

led to the omission of "sex" getting attention in different states like Columbia. The President of

the District of Columbia brought the matter on Order 11246, which concerned the omission of

"sex" in the Order, to the House of Congress. Many women advocates and Professional Women

Clubs called the matter to attention too, after President Johnson addressed the issue. Another

group of women who applauded the inclusion of "sex," which had been overlooked during the

Executive Order 11246 draft, was the American Association of University Women. They

approved the inclusion of women as one of the beneficiaries as employees in the Federal

government, which discriminated against women.

The inclusion of "sex" led to expansion of what discrimination of sex means in the Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1984 there was a case of An Eastern Airline pilot being

discharged from duty because he was a male and underwent reassignment surgery to a female in

1979. The pilot sued the Eastern Airline because they violated the Title VII of the Civil Act and

discriminated her against being a woman and transsexual. The court made a ruling that the

Eastern Airline had gone against Title VII by discrimination against transsexuals or transgender.
 Surname 5

Works Cited

"Title IX and Sex Discrimination." Home, US Department of Education (ED), 10 Jan. 2020,

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html.

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964