Why the Civil Rights Act Is Not Working – and What We Can Do About It

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a groundbreaking response to a world defined by information scarcity and systemic discrimination. Today, however, we live in an age of information abundance, where the greater challenge is not access, but making confident, structured decisions. Jeff Hulett, President and Founder of Personal Finance Reimagined (PFR) and a Personal Finance Professor at James Madison University, argues that the Civil Rights Act, while still symbolically powerful, is addressing a problem that has evolved. Drawing on the insights of economists like Thomas Sowell, Hulett emphasizes that today’s inequalities are increasingly rooted in decision-making ability, not information access. Through PFR, he advocates for empowering individuals with consistent, repeatable decision frameworks to build a lifetime of financial confidence, health, and opportunity.

The Original Purpose of the Civil Rights Act

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 stands as one of the most important legislative achievements in American history. Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964, the Act sought to end segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It was a direct response to centuries of entrenched systemic inequality.

In the decades that followed, a network of supporting laws extended its intent:

• Voting Rights Act of 1965: Secured voting rights for racial minorities.

• Fair Housing Act of 1968: Prohibited discrimination in housing markets.

• Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972: Expanded protections to gender equality in education.

• Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974: Prohibited discrimination in lending based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age.

• Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Broadened protections to individuals with physical and mental disabilities.

These laws collectively represent America's promise to correct injustice and expand access to opportunity.

Yet, in conversations with seasoned civil rights attorneys—many of whom embody multiple protected classes such as Black women—I have been told, quite candidly, that despite the noble intentions, the Civil Rights Act today often feels substantially weakened in practice.

This perception is echoed by legal scholars and civil rights organizations, who point out that judicial interpretations, procedural barriers, and the evolution of more subtle forms of discrimination have narrowed the Act’s real-world effectiveness over time.

A Personal Reflection

I will be the first to admit: this insight surprised me... until I really thought about it.

Why? I am a white man. By luck of birth, I was part of a demographic that, historically and statistically, benefited from greater access to opportunity while others faced systemic barriers. In economic terms, I received positive externalities from this access, rather than the negative externalities of exclusion. Discrimination did not directly constrain my personal trajectory, and my experience reflects a historically advantaged position, not a universal baseline. I have been fortunate to experience access to education, homeownership, career advancement, wealth-building opportunities, marriage, and family—all the hallmarks of the American Dream.

This admission is not meant to diminish the struggles of others but to highlight my obligation to listen, learn, and engage honestly with the experiences of those who have walked a different path. Acknowledging this privilege is critical to any honest discussion about civil rights and the structural changes needed to create a more just society.

Perspectives That Challenge Conventional Wisdom

Interestingly, even among those the Civil Rights Act was designed to uplift, opinions on its effectiveness vary.

Thomas Sowell, a renowned economist, public intellectual, and African American scholar, offers a perspective that is especially important to our discussion. Sowell has argued that the Civil Rights Act, while well-intentioned, inadvertently interrupted positive socioeconomic trends already underway in Black communities. When we widen the historical lens beyond the 1960s, his research shows that Black educational attainment, earnings, and professional advancement were steadily improving before the Civil Rights Act —often faster than in later periods.

More critically for this article, Sowell’s deeper contribution lies in his exploration of knowledge, decision-making, and systemic incentives. Across works such as Knowledge and Decisions and Economic Facts and Fallacies, Sowell emphasizes that societies are fundamentally shaped by how information is created, distributed, and acted upon. He explains that information scarcity historically governed opportunity, and that decision-making frameworks—not merely raw information access—determine economic and social outcomes.

This insight matters because it directly informs the next stage of our discussion:

• In the Industrial Age, unequal access to information created barriers to success.

• Today, in the Information Age, abundant information without strong decision-making frameworks creates new, hidden barriers.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Sowell’s conclusions about the Civil Rights Act’s immediate impacts, his scholarship underscores a deeper and more enduring point: the effectiveness of civil rights legislation—and of any policy aimed at equality—cannot be fully understood without first understanding the relationship between information, decision-making, and opportunity.

Yet, this article is not primarily about judging the past. It is about facing forward—recognizing how the world has fundamentally changed since 1964 and how we must adapt our understanding of opportunity, barriers, and empowerment to fit today's realities.

A Changed World: From the Industrial Age to the Information Age

When the Civil Rights Act was passed, America was nearing the end of what historians call the Industrial Age (roughly 1760 to 1970). This era, characterized by mass production, urbanization, and rigid corporate structures, shared a defining feature with all previous eras: information scarcity.

In the Industrial Age:

• Access to knowledge was limited.

• Education and social networks played an outsized role in opportunity.

• Economic success often depended on who you knew and what information you could obtain.

Navigating life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness required overcoming a steep information tax—the sheer cost, in time and money, of acquiring the knowledge needed to succeed.

The framers of the Civil Rights Act were responding to this reality. Discriminatory barriers compounded the already high information tax for protected classes. Therefore, the Act aimed to level the playing field by prohibiting the most overt and damaging forms of exclusion.

However, today we live in a fundamentally different environment: the Information Age.

Beginning around the 1970s and accelerating with the Internet revolution of the 1990s, the Information Age has transformed human society. Today, Generative AI (GenAI) is amplifying this shift even further, dramatically lowering the cost and friction of accessing information. With GenAI, individuals can generate insights, summaries, and professional-quality work in seconds, making information abundance an everyday reality rather than a distant goal. Unlike any previous era:

• Information is abundant.

• Access to knowledge is inexpensive (or even free).

• Connectivity is global and instantaneous.

The information tax that once burdened marginalized groups (and everyone else) has been dramatically reduced.

But a new tax has emerged—one far less visible but equally pernicious: the decision tax.

The Civil Rights Act and the Decision Problem

Let us return to the Civil Rights Act.

It was designed to equalize access in a world where information scarcity reigned supreme. In that context, laws prohibiting overt discrimination in hiring, housing, and education made perfect sense.

But in today’s information-abundant world, equal access to information is no longer the primary bottleneck—it is rapidly declining. The real constraint is now cognitive: the ability to filter, weigh, and act on that information confidently. The decision tax is rising substantially, as individuals face an overwhelming volume of inputs without clear frameworks to guide action. Thus, while the Civil Rights Act remains morally and symbolically important, it increasingly addresses the wrong barrier—solving an information tax problem in an era defined by decision tax challenges.

And the decision tax today runs deeper than simply managing abundant information. In a world flooded with stimuli, our own attention has become the new scarcity. Social media platforms are built to exploit this reality—engineering experiences that maximize viewership by triggering dopaminergic responses through likes, shares, and notifications. These platforms do not just compete for attention; they manage it for you, often at the expense of deliberate, thoughtful decision-making. Every decision we face "costs" a piece of our limited attention budget. Those who develop a strong, consistent decision-making process are actively managing their attention, enabling them to stay centered, in control, and content. In contrast, those without a clear decision process find themselves scattered, overwhelmed, and discontent—clear signs of unmanaged attention.

In this new reality, lowering the decision tax is fundamentally about mastering attention: building structured habits that allow individuals to sift through abundance without losing focus, confidence, or purpose.

An Example: Job Applications Then vs. Now

In 1965, a Black woman seeking a professional job might have faced outright discrimination. Even if she acquired the right education, she often encountered hiring managers who would not interview her based on race or gender alone. The information tax was brutally high—where to find employers willing to consider her fairly, how to prepare, and how to break through invisible barriers.

The Civil Rights Act targeted a world where information was scarce and exclusion from opportunity was often overt. It aimed to lower the information tax by prohibiting exclusion and ensuring basic access to jobs, education, and public spaces. In that era, job searches were intensely local—limited to what could be found within walking distance, bus lines, or a 10-mile commute radius. Work was place-bound, and employment options were constrained by geography.

Fast forward to today, and the landscape has fundamentally changed. A Black woman with a smartphone can instantly access thousands of job postings, employer reviews, and application portals. Remote work has radically expanded her alternative set, allowing her to consider roles in other cities—or even across continents—without uprooting her life. The information abundance explosion has broken down many of the old barriers to market entry, allowing applicants from all backgrounds to compete more directly for opportunities that were once hidden, gatekept, or informally restricted. Anti-discrimination laws still protect her right to be fairly considered, but it is the unprecedented access to information itself—powered by technology—that now serves as the great equalizer, at least at the point of entry. Many employers, recognizing both moral imperatives and business advantages, actively promote diversity as a core organizational value.

Yet, a new problem arises: the overwhelming flood of choices and information. This flood becomes a breeding ground for noise and bias, greatly affecting decisions and leaving them open to influence. Our job seeker must evaluate decision questions like:

• Which job aligns best with her long-term goals?

• Which employers offer true advancement, not just surface-level inclusion?

• How should she evaluate salary offers, growth trajectories, and corporate cultures?

The challenge today is not finding opportunities—it is making the right decision among too many choices. It is a decision tax, not an information tax. Without strong decision-making frameworks, she can be just as disadvantaged today as she was by overt discrimination 60 years ago—but for different reasons.

Summary Takeaway: Yesterday’s fight was about access to information. Today’s fight is about the capacity for decision.

It is not enough today to remove formal barriers. We must equip people to navigate a world of overwhelming information abundance.

The Role of Personal Finance Reimagined (PFR)

At Personal Finance Reimagined (PFR), this realization drives everything we do. We believe that teaching people a consistent, repeatable decision process is the 21st-century equivalent of breaking down barriers in the 20th century.

• In my undergraduate courses at James Madison University, I show students how a simple paycheck, managed wisely, can grow into $16 million in retirement savings—through decision discipline and compound interest.

• I teach that wealth is not an accident. It is a process grounded in structured decisions.

• Through smartphone tools, seminars, and research-backed frameworks, PFR lowers the decision tax for all learners—regardless of background.

Ironically, those most enthusiastic about learning structured decision-making are often those already inclined toward success. Meanwhile, those who could benefit the most from better decision frameworks are often unaware such frameworks exist.

This is the new frontier of civil rights: empowering all Americans with the skills to choose wisely in a world of abundant choices.

A Final Reflection

None of this is to deny that discrimination still exists. Events like the tragic death of George Floyd remind us that America’s journey toward justice remains incomplete.

But attacking decision inequality—not merely access inequality—is the challenge of our age.

We do not necessarily need new civil rights legislation to mandate decision skills. Instead, through education, community investment, and innovative learning tools, we can expand opportunity the right way: by equalizing decision-making ability.

In doing so, we can better fulfill the original promise enshrined in our founding documents:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." — Declaration of Independence, 1776.

In the Information Age, the pursuit of happiness begins with the pursuit of better decisions. And that is a future worth building for everyone.

Resources for the Curious

• Sowell, Thomas. Knowledge and Decisions. Basic Books, 1980.

• Crenshaw, Kimberlé. "Race, Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law." Harvard Law Review, Vol. 101, No. 7, 1988, pp. 1331–1387.

• Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press, 2010.

• Eidelson, Benjamin. "Antidiscrimination Law and the Perils of Certainty." University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 87, 2020, pp. 325–394.

• The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241.

• Brynjolfsson, Erik, and McAfee, Andrew. The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. W. W. Norton & Company, 2014.