The Impact of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on WomenRichard J. Hardy and Donald J. McCrone, University of Iowa

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the policies it generatedsignified a dramatic change in the federal government's com-mitment towards ending discrimination in employment. Untilthe passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,women—especially black women--had few legal weapons withwhich to combat discrimination in employment. Title VII wasunprecedented in that it prohibits job discrimination based onrace and sex, and provides the necessary machinery to enforcesuch a prohibition. We believe that if these policies haveattenuated racial and sexual discrimination in employment, thiswill be reflected in the aggregate income of black women. Thepurpose of this paper, therefore, is to determine whether therelative income of black women has improved systematically andsignificantly since the implementation of these civil rightspolicies in 1965.

Recent research demonstrates amply that the incomeineguality between black and white men is highly sensitive tocyclical economic conditions. The gap in median incomesdeclines when the economy expands and widens with the onset ofrecession due primarily to the hiring and laying-off of mar-ginally employed workers. Building on the seminal work ofRasmussenl and Masters,^ McCrone and Hardy^ specified an inter-rupted time-series regression model designed to separate theeffects of policy change on the ratio of black to white malemedian incomes from the cyclical conditions of economic growthand unemployment. This model was given by the followingequation.

f(D) U, (1)

Where: Yj- =j the income ratio by year ((100 X (blackmale median income/white male medianincome))

%iiGNP. = yearly percentage change in real GrossNational Product ($1958)rate of aggregate unemployment lagged byone year

T^ = a time trend prior to 1965

T2 = a time trend from 1965

D = a dummy variable to separate the twotime trends

et = an error term

Applying this model to annual data from 1948 through1976, we obtained the following results:

National Y(1948-76)

= 59.29 + 0.84(%CeNPt) - 2.66(%Ut-l) +(0.16) (0.49)

O.32(D)(1.43)(0.11) (0.23)

(2)

K = .94SER = 1.72

= .89= .86

F = 36.3DW = 2.2

240

The parameter estimates indicate that while cyclical economicfactors exert a powerful influence on racial income inequalityamong males, the marked departure in federal civil rightspolicies commencing with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had apronounced effect. The regression coefficients for thecyclical conditions show that for every one percent increasein the GNP, the income ratio increases by 0.84 and for everyone percent increase in the aggregate rate of unemployment, theratio declines by 2.68. Our primary concern, however, is withthe statistically significant difference between the estimatesfor the two secular trends, Ti and T2. For the sixteen yearperiod prior to the implementation of the 1964 Civil RightsAct (1948-64), the ratio of black to white incomes increasedby only 4.6 or at the glacial rate of 0.29 per annum. Thecoefficient for the secular trend after the policy shift, T2,is 1.65 per annum or nearly six times that of the earlierperiod. This sharp departure in the two trends indicates thatthe implementation of civil rights policies since 1965 didindeed decrease the degree of racial income inequality forblack males.

This study raises the fundamental question whether civilrights policies have had a similar effect upon the incomeinequality for black women who suffer from the dual economicdisadvantage of being black and female. To answer this ques-tion, we modified our model so that the black women/whitemale median income ratio (BW/WM) becomes the dependent variable.The selection of white male median income as the criterion forihequality is based on the fundamental premise that bothracial and sexual claims are for parity with white males. Thenew data and revised model yield the following remarkablysecure estimates:

National(1948-76)

= 19 .

0 .( 0 .

RSER

19 + 0 .( 0 .

19(Ti)08)

= .98= 1.34

01(?«13)

(o!

.<^NPt

15(T217)

2

) - 0.30(%Ut_i)(0 .37)

) + 4.03(D)(1.09)

.95 F = 94

.94 DW = 1

+

.5

.83

(3)

Where: the income ratio by year ((100 X (black femalemedian income/white male median income))

The results suggest that unlike the case of black men,changes in the GNP and aggregate rates of unemployment forthe period have little effect on the income ratio for blackwomen. The cyclical variables possess the theoretically cor-rect signs, but the standard errors are quite large. Ourprincipal concern, however, is with the estimates for the twosecular trends. We find a slight, but statistically signifi-cant, trend (0.19 per annum) for the period 1948-64. Over thissixteen year period, then, the BW/WM income ratio increased byonly 3.0. In sharp contrast, the income ratio for the periodfollowing the adoption of the Civil Rights Act of 1964increased by 12.0 or at the rate of 1.15 per annum. The dif-ference in slopes, moreover, is significant at the .01 levelindicating a real change in trend. While the civil rightspolicy shift definitely increased the income ratio for blackwomen, the magnitude of the shift in trends (0.89) is notnearly as dramatic as that for black men (1.36).

241

Before drawing too many conclusions from these nationalecjuations, however, it is essential to (determine whether civilrights policies have had a differential impact on black womenby region, McCrone and Hardy4 found that the increase in theincome ratio for black men nationally was essentially a functionof policy effects in the South. The ecjuations for the NorthEast, North Central, and Far Western states did not indicateany significant difference between the slopes for Ti and T2.This finding was interpreted to be the result of the initialfocus of policy on overt forms of discrimination which weremore common, but not confined, to the South and the more vigor-ous enforcement of policy by the federal government in thisregion. This same reasoning applies in the case of black women.

The income ratio slopes for Ti and T2 are significantlydifferent in one regional equation only—the South. While theincome ratio was increasing by only 0.27 per annum for the1953-64 period, the slope for the post civil rights era isover three times as large at 0.87. Black women, like blackmen, have benefitted most clearly in the South from the policyshift.

South Y = 15.36 - 0.04(%i>GNP>̂ ) - 0.08(%Ut-l) +(1953-76)* (0.11) (0.35)

(4)0.27(Ti) + 0.87(T2) + 3.73(D)(0.12) (0.15) (1.02)

R = .98 R2 = .96 F = 79.9SER = 1.08 R2 = .94 DW = 2.3

•Data available from 1953 only

With these results, we can estimate the total impact ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the policies it engendered byadding the coefficient of the dummy variable (D) to the dif-ference between the coefficients for the two time trends(T2-T2) for the twelve year period beginning with 1965.

= 3.73 + 12(.87 - .27) (5)

= 10.9

Income inequality for black women has not been reduced quite asmuch as that for black men. The estimated total effect for thewomen, 10.9, is only seventy percent of the male estimate of15.6. Dual discrimination is not overcome easily.

Black women have clearly benefitted from the policy shiftassociated with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While it wouldbe inappropriate to assume that civil rights policies aresolely responsible for the economic advances registered byblack women, one cannot discount the sharp shift toward thesystematic reduction in inequality in recent years. This broadconclusion accords generally with the recent analyses ofFreeman,5 Garfinkle,^ and the Congressional Budget Office.'They too find that black women are advancing on a broad frontincluding education, occupation, and income. Unlike thesestudies, however, we have shown that in the area of income,at least, the positive effects of civil rights policies islimited largely to the South. We have shown earlier that thisregional effect cannot be attributed to economic and emigrationprocesses peculiar to the South.

242

Despite the basic similarity in the economic experienceof black women and black men in the post-1965 period, twospecific differences between the two groups exist. First, incontrast to black men, the income ratio of black women is notsensitive to cyclical economic conditions. Though this meansthat the relative income position of black women is not affectedadversely by periods of recession, it also means that they failto improve their position significantly during periods of eco-nomic growth. The income plight of black women must be foughtdirectly through government policy and not indirectly throughstimulating the economy. Second, the magnitude of the increasein the income ratio of black women relative to white men isless than that of black men.

In sum, while current civil rights policies have a salu-tary effect on the economic condition of black women, themedian income of black women nationally in 1976 was only 34percent that of white male income. A great deal remains to beachieved before dual discrimination is ended.

NOTES

David R. Rasmussen, "A Note on the Relative Income of Nonwhite Men, 1948-64,"Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84 (February, 1970), pp. 168-172.

2Stanley H. Masters, Black-White Income Differentials: Empirical Studiesand Policy Implications (New York: Academic Press, 1975).

Donald J. McCrone and Richard J. Hardy, "Civil Rights Policies and theAchievement of Racial Economic Equality, 1948-1975," American Journal ofPolitical Science, 22 (February, 1978), pp. 1-17.

Richard B. Freeman, "Changes in the Labor Market for Black Americans,"Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, No. 1 (January, 1973), pp. 67-120.

Stuart H. Garfinkle, "Occupations of Women and Black Workers, 1962-74,"Monthly Labor Review (November, 1975), pp. 25-34.

Congressional Budget Office, Income Disparities between Black and WhiteAmericans (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1977).

Q

McCrone and Hardy, op. cit.

Women's Educational Equity: Favorable Student Responses'Sarah Slavin Schramm, Pittsburgh, Pa.

INTRODUCTION. The Women's Educational Equity Act (the Mink-Mondale bill, hereafter WEEA), became law August 21, 1974, asSection 408 of the Educational Amendments of 1974.2 it pro-vides educational equity for women by means of grants forresearch, training, guidance, curricula evaluation and devel-opment and program expansion. WEEA could have an impact oncoilege students in the relatively near future as women inacademia assume a more favored position than they have heldin the past.

243