Civil Rights Reconstructions: Regulatory Agencies Translating 'National Origin Discrimination' into Language Rights, 1965-1980

A national Latina/o politics emerged over a fifty-year period following the Great Depression. It reflected a broad attempt to forge a nationwide pan-ethnic constituency out of a host of political communities that had most often defined themselves by national origin (e.g., Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban). In almost every case, a central impulse of Latina/o politics was a faith that the country’s diverse Hispanic or Latina/o people had a natural obligation to unite with one another. Some activists and elected officials envisioned Latina/o political power formed in a coalition of communities that would remain distinct. Still others viewed political unification as a means to make concrete their feeling of primordial sameness and to bring about the transcendence of national origin differences. All expected unity to yield durable influence in national affairs. The possibilities of a national “Latin American” electorate began to appear sporadically during the 1960s. Mexican American and Puerto Rican politicians and activists, long seen as regional or local forces at best, embraced the nationalizing power of presidential campaigns and civil rights initiatives. Party elites viewed them as a temporary bloc, one that could be mobilized and demobilized quickly. In the 1970s, however, Latina/o politics was institutionalized. The urge to assemble a “Spanish-speaking vote” from coast to coast brought Latina/o political leaders of diverse ethnic and ideological orientations into greater contact with one another and with the major parties. Republicans attempted to fuse Mexican American voters, traditionally Democrats, with an emerging Cuban American vote in a middle-class “Hispanic Republican Movement.” Latina/o Democrats attempted to join Mexican American and Puerto Rican constituencies and thereby force their party to accept “Latina/os” as a permanent feature of the political landscape. This bipartisan competition defined core constituencies in both parties, with roughly two thirds of Latina/os backing Democrats and a third of Hispanic Americans supporting the GOP, numbers that have held steady since the period of consolidation in the 1970s. White elites in both major parties—including US presidents—provided grass-roots activists and elected officials the resources and legitimacy needed to nationalize Latina/o politics. Yet party incorporation has also enabled elites to manipulate the content and possibilities of Latina/o political organizing in ways that frustrated the search for unity. What emerged was, on one hand, the image of a “sleeping giant” poised to transform the country once it awoke, and on the other, a series of fierce counter-mobilizations that conflated Latina/os’ new prominence with illegality.

Download Full-text

2003 Handbook of Employment Regulations Affecting Florida Farm Employers and Workers: Civil Rights and Antidiscrimination

EDIS ◽

10.32473/edis-fe393-2003 ◽

1969 ◽

Vol 2003 (11) ◽

Author(s):

Leo C. Polopolus ◽

Michael T. Olexa ◽

Fritz Roka ◽

Carol Fountain

Keyword(s):

Civil Rights ◽

Cooperative Extension ◽

Resource Economics ◽

Cooperative Extension Service ◽

Workplace Discrimination ◽

National Origin ◽

Extension Service ◽

Federal Programs ◽

University Of Florida ◽

Agricultural Sciences

Civil rights and antidiscrimination regulations protect employees from workplace discrimination. That is, the various federal programs discussed in this paper require that employers hire all workers who are otherwise qualified without regard to race, color, religion, gender, citizenship, national origin, age, or disability. This is EDIS document FE393, a publication of the Department of Food and Resource Economics, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Published July 2003. This information is included in Circular 1200, Handbook of Employment Regulations Affecting Florida Farm Employers and Workers. FE393/FE393: 2017 Handbook of Employment Regulations Affecting Florida Farm Employers and Workers: Civil Rights and Antidiscrimination (ufl.edu)

Download Full-text

When the Marching Stopped: The Politics of Civil Rights Regulatory Agencies

The Journal of Southern History ◽

10.2307/2209087 ◽

1989 ◽

Vol 55 (4) ◽

pp. 745

Author(s):

John B. Kirby ◽

Hanes Walton

Keyword(s):

Civil Rights ◽

Regulatory Agencies

Download Full-text

Evaluation of the endocrine response of cattle during the relocation process☆☆☆☆The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Livestock Science ◽

10.1016/j.livsci.2012.09.009 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 151 (2-3) ◽

pp. 203-212 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

S.M. Falkenberg ◽

J.A. Carroll ◽

D.H. Keisler ◽

J.L. Sartin ◽

T.H. Elsasser ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Civil Rights ◽

Equal Opportunity ◽

National Origin ◽

Parental Status ◽

Department Of Agriculture ◽

Assistance Program ◽

Persons With Disabilities ◽

Political Beliefs ◽

Alternative Means ◽

Target Center

Download Full-text

Race-Based Preferential Treatment Programs: Raising the Bar for Establishing Compelling Government Interests

Public Personnel Management ◽

10.1177/009102609802700305 ◽

1998 ◽

Vol 27 (3) ◽

pp. 349-360 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Robert K. Robinson ◽

Joseph G. P. Paolillo ◽

Brian J. Reithel

Keyword(s):

Civil Rights ◽

Federal Court ◽

Fourteenth Amendment ◽

Equal Protection ◽

National Origin ◽

Treatment Programs ◽

Preferential Treatment ◽

Equal Protection Clause ◽

Federal Program ◽

Racial Preferences

In 1995 a series of federal court decisions called into question the efficacy of race-based preferential treatment programs initiated by two leading public universities.1 Both decisions occurred at a time when government-imposed, race-conscious remedial measures are being increasingly challenged on the grounds that they either violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964,2 or breach the guarantee of equal protection under the laws provided by the Fourteenth Amendment. Most recently, a federally mandated race-based preference was successfully challenged on the grounds that it violated an “implied” equal protection clause in the Fifth Amendment.3 As a further indication of this shift away from state supported racial preferences, legislation is pending in Congress4 that, if enacted, would make the consideration of any individual's race, color, national origin or gender in regard to selection or eligibility for any federal program unlawful.

Download Full-text

The Civil Rights Restoration Act and Enforcement of Title IX

10.5406/illinois/9780252039782.003.0006 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Howard P. Chudacoff

Keyword(s):

Civil Rights ◽

Gender Equity ◽

Intercollegiate Athletics ◽

Title Ix ◽

The United States ◽

Financial Assistance ◽

National Origin ◽

Federal Funds ◽

And Gender ◽

Federal Assistance

This chapter discusses Title IX, the Civil Rights Restoration Act, and gender equity on college sports. The Education Amendments passed by Congress in 1972 included a provision in its Title IX that “no person in the United States shall on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” However, many colleges and universities, whose athletic policies were dominated by male coaches and administrators, dithered on making significant commitments to expand female participation in intercollegiate athletics. In 1987, Congress proposed an act “to restore the broad scope of coverage and to clarify the application of Title IX.” The law, named the Civil Rights Restoration Act, which applied to Title IX and three other civil-rights statutes, would require that any organization or entity that receives federal funds, or indirectly benefits from federal assistance, must abide by laws outlawing discriminatory practices based upon race, religion, color, national origin, age, disability, or gender.

Download Full-text