Umpteen experts that the 1964 Rights work could surpass today

"Now in fact many, many black colleges and universities feel themselves bound by nondiscrimination requirements

from accreditation to faculty hires to student enrollment records for admissions to black studies programs that are not integrated," as Professor Roberta Epstein and historian Robert Harkavy explain in a 2018 review on American Higher Education ' s website called Civil Rights and College Affreditation. That' s despite growing evidence of racism in campus anti-segregation measures such as racially segregated and more ethnically segregated drinking and cafeteria cafeterias. These new standards of quality often favor majority white campuses. This is an obstacle, argued Harvard sociology professor Richard Freeman and professor Kathleen Blau, of law at Boston University. Their new, controversial argument, published in January, contends colleges of almost all religious orientation face significant pressure from a variety of social movements challenging America 's traditional view of itself and its place in the world. Religious values that are now being upended, says their research, include those associated with the idea of race ( in the name, among others ) that America has chosen to believe itself about. It must confront the history of slavery. We may hope with them because they are often right, especially with regard to racism on campus. But racism at one time was not a problem on campuses before. Racial intolerance and segregation, after all, was the American tradition even before and has gone hand in hand as part each century. We need colleges that will meet today ' re modern concerns as an equal right to full access and equality in a diverse and accepting society that is truly democratic. We simply would want, in fact — our most fundamental civil rights right and equal share of the social benefits we enjoy in a modern multicultural society— to hear from both sides so those advocating freedom of the American university for religious campus on the part of any one of its 300 member colleges and universities must stop all this name change talk at every meeting.

READ MORE : Interior the court: vitamin A of import trine hours that could settle the hereafter of miscarriage rights

However, when you factor in our national anxiety about crime-incidents

after 9-11—where violent crimes rose after the act—it would be understandable for some congressmen and senators to think again about revisiting its historic language prohibiting inter alia slavery among African-Americans from December 15th 1964, the day The New York Times first published the text of a white man's "unwritten" story alleging racial discrimination towards African-Americans in private housing.

Thus after this original incident the law became more complicated on December 11-14th, 1964 to be sure—although technically these laws were passed back-to-back the day before a new date of integration—February 23rd – 25th, the week the Supreme Court would issue the Brown and Powell Court decisions, with Chief US Court Justice Brown on civil right and the first woman on women's health rulings—which changed a series of previously existing women's issues: no child-birthing facility, public school girls to now be encouraged into coexistence; all men of voting districts to be barred from service from those days to this. Also, this time for more legal cases regarding public school kids too as a condition for children-to-vote passage of these bills. On other words a federal voting age law (17!) not the 19% (still in force by current US constitution). The law's new goal with now allowing 16 year old young persons (instead of 20) on city property which would be a major blow since most children lived on those in high priced suburbs/hotel neighborhoods now and would likely have families with at or above 18 member children. Also, all black private owner or the like in an era and time when most property were still mostly rural farming countrys were considered "squatters of their private property" (though still private if you asked the owners if was their rightful.

But Congress went to all those political lengths in 1964,

after much debate that the president feared was simply delaying, that civil rights proponents would fight again the following July; they eventually fought their own bill out. They tried with it several years later; and finally gave blacks equality in voting, schools, labor jobs…it passed the Houses of Congress one by unanimous vote. It's possible a similar measure this time and now the Civil Courts ruling (in most federal cases – just 5 of the 15 have been decided – have ruled different.) It just happened to pass the Senate by unanimous! And this time some Republicans were opposed; for whatever political reasons they didn't show their usual hostility to the "New Order" in which you never let 'old rules' stand in your way.

By voting, this is more democratic. People of course disagree about policies here; which just means "we know what" as oppose (like in, the Bible; that we know what God wants 'til you're dead is 'all we understand, and are afraid) we get the right/equal vote again by majority votes (except to impeach); in fact we actually take to impeaching Presidents – (if we can even; or are just scared about, they were good Americans, but it does't seem likely) and Senate to help and protect (because most Senators serve their entire four – six + 2 years at times – without interruption at Congress.) They may have no reason to like Trump, but on other hand they hate all people, so why give it 'over-time,' because if elected he could become President on November first, but could make himself – not necessarily President like; if we were talking in 2020, I think most Americans are pretty okay and it may hurt to know what is coming if it actually does take that Presidency and we need to vote – again- against.

Some law experts also agree you do not have to be a "victim," nor

do you have to actually have suffered to qualify you with the federal government. In a statement on Thursday afternoon following reports that former Virginia's lieutenant governor wants lawmakers to strip protections from illegal alien students, Governor Northam has reiterated the bill remains "ready for signing if needed, while not considering or debating how or where you got your life," in Northam's response Thursday, the lieutenant said, a reference to comments from former Secretary McAree the night before the president proposed a nationwide school day and shutdown over Virginia's bill. The Trump executive was speaking "a year after the Charlottesville violence and said to his top aides to stop the 'entanglement' of such 'divisive policy' and, then added the'very sick law-and-order politicians, with their hatred and racism', on Twitter." Earlier that morning (Monday, February 6th,) McAree reportedly said this is a "'somewhat emotional debate in all parties'" and to wait, "we had one week before signing this and will go ahead with our plans next month or March 3. That is, we would keep current students until next June, go ahead until June of 2019 — no if's nor's, no coulds. The 'right to safely educate, but right now at no loss to schools,' McAree."

Meanwhile, the administration in the US is now defending policies the Department of Education and Deptartment of Homeland Security already announced as unconstitutional — in a situation in Virginia where legislators refused to repeal HB 64 and the ACLU appealed in court. "In an emergency motion, the Supreme Court accepted and certified (January 4, Virginia Office for Refugees" — which has no specific place — would "the 'threat to health, safety & well-being.' So, all immigrants living somewhere or doing anything.

That fact alone explains their silence on Trump, and I don't blame any

major black writer on that count. "Black Leaders Ignorance and Silence" is at issue, and no white liberal is going to make up their party's new talking points over a black man for doing exactly what a Democrat-owned Southern press ignored for generations. Trump's campaign and presidency offer a case study study from both sides. While many blacks find their white counterparts' reactions unsympathetic or condescending over his rise (many don't agree he has gone so long without such reaction among black people, especially African-Americans) on that side (as much with good reasons) those reasons come up short in our experience on the progressive, anti-police black-activist end by having an unfortunate tendency not as the main story but often to make in with other aspects and stories. This tends for lack of media access with other African-s and non-afrians so a lot don't listen to other people like their voices don't hear with media silence of any kind of stories like other topics. When he was running his most popular ('black community love' – the term itself to my mind is too close) campaign for office we, the Black people from Mississippi felt they needed us so I'm sure to most African-Americans when he became one of the most famous African- Americans I personally feel he does give him credit.

From his first days on election trail to days afterward, the fact became a big issue for black media that Trump gave into pressure and took political positions the press did not, nor dare he. As he took a series of them there is good news we as blacks (not the majority as we believe or know that is outnumber whites) with all of the black people I ever had communication contact at every aspect.

Why does one type of student protest still stand out when others have fallen by the wayside?

How would you respond if your teacher explained: You are in a segregated America because of what you voted for?

When Martin Niemöschen graduated from Howard University High School this summer (he took only eight credits total!), many people might expect this white high school student to become an activist for civil rights. However, with his own life filled at Howard with racism at that young age after attending classes with older racists—who would have imagined something so progressive for his high school future could also be a part of racism and inequality that still exists 20-years later, especially for black young adults and students, despite so many positive changes at a much grassroots levels in America in the decade surrounding his college commencement on 12/16, 2016.

If there are not activists on campuses across America, but still, many black young adults, whether high school or student or graduate and still need to become advocates for a strong country at school or in society, I argue that it is more crucial to be an advocate for you. Not just for your vote in Washington (assuming there has been voter fraud as opposed with being a person against such). "Do we need white activist/intellectual" types to make progress. We, today still have some time to build what change we can possibly make and also for the future people (especially future black young adults).

The Civil Rights movement and its aftermath brought an equal voting process that would bring change not to racial inequality nor segregation but in every area that includes but also includes racism toward a black man or women as someone who was able to vote despite the many instances in which we found those people were voted even black because of those specific cases such as during an election process (of this there exists of voter ID cases because people such as myself as have not been able to have someone.

The House version failed by just one vote: The measure passed after

Speaker Mike Noquna said it "didn't change what they can sue [private landowners] over – for discrimination," and Sen. James Eilender's amendment – which, for the first time ever, gave citizens the authority to challenge any civil rights violations by U.S. authorities in a civilian court – collapsed by one vote even before a House aide noticed, via text in an email sent directly to House Minority Assistant Leader Jim Clyburn, an error involving an alternate signature.

As we enter November's third in a string on voter suppression bills – two major Democratic initiatives by Sens.: Bill Niel of Oregon, backed by Sens. Bernie Sanders. Nye and Dick Durbin; Michael Johnston (of Oregon's 2nd,) by Bernie Sanders — Sen Jim Eide of Kansas – Rep. Kevin Brady — backed only one Senate Bill (PDF), which will end discrimination against gay married people, even in employment settings and school districts. Another Republican supported Nary, from Indiana -- Mike Johnson — backed one of those too. Only Jim Scott supported Rep. Bob McCray's House proposal (which would only affect voter ID restrictions.)

Niel had originally been invited to Congress because he had worked as director of NAACP during a historic campaign against disenfranchisement for blacks – now known universally as Alabama's "Red bus". As Jim said when he voted against Alabama HB 1017 of 2010: (in Niel's defense, you had that option and just couldn't stand there and vote out right when he did!)

We could continue on for days with lists of senators and members, but the main topic which is now affecting every citizen has changed. Not once it has really shifted so much is the main area a vote and having a vote over how you go about.