departments and agencies to promote fair housing.

In the employment area, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission share responsibility for coordinating the Government's efforts. Under Executive Order 11246, OFCC sets overall policy and coordinates the activities of the 15 Federal agencies initially responsible for assuring equal employment opportunity by Government contractors in specific industries. EEOC, while not specifically authorized to act as coordinator or policymaker, plays a leadership role by virtue of its competence in the employment field. In the area of Federal employment, the Civil Service Commission is responsible for establishing policy and coordinating activities of all Government agencies in assuring equal employment opportunity in the Federal Government.

The Department of Justice, in addition to its broad mandate to help determine the direction of the entire Federal civil rights effort, has specific responsibility, under Executive Order 11247, for coordinating activities under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Cabinet Committee on Opportunity for the Spanish Speaking is still another Federal agency with specific coordinating responsibilities. Composed of the heads of various executive departments and agencies, it is concerned with possible discrimination by Federal agencies against Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and Latin Americans, and the formulation and administration of substantive Federal programs to insure that Spanish surnamed Americans receive equitable treatment.

The Federal executive boards and the Federal regional councils are organizations composed of top Federal agency officials located in certain metropolitan areas. They are designed to assist in the implementation of Governmentwide policy, to improve Federal service and management, and act as a coordinating mechanism with regard to the Government's efforts to deal with urban problems.

IV. IMPACT OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS AND POLICIES

The civil rights laws and policies provide

the Federal Government with significant authority to assure equal opportunity in such fields as education, employment, housing, voting, and in all Federal programs. There are few aspects of life unaffected by Federal nondiscrimination laws.

This is not to say that all necessary laws have been adopted. In some areas already covered, serious gaps in coverage exist. For example, effective Federal requirements for equal opportunity in State and local government employment are largely limited to Federal Merit Standards and HUD contractual requirements, which affect less than 5 percent of all State and local government employees. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 exempts State and local governments from coverage. An amendment to Title VII to include employment by State and local governments could provide protection to all of the 72 million State and local government employees.29

Moreover, coverage of Title VII is currently limited to employers of 25 or more employees.30 It is estimated, however, that an additional 62 million workers are employed by employers who have between eight and 25 employees. Many of these employers are located in areas where minority group members are heavily concentrated. An appropriate amendment to Title VII could provide protection to these millions of employees as well.

In the field of education, the principal concern of the Federal Government has been with eliminating school segregation in Southern States where it existed by law. Yet there is also extensive segregation of children in areas of the North and West. In the absence of proof that governmental involvement in such school segregation is so significant as to render it de jure—which requires painstaking, lengthy, and costly investigation-this de facto form of school segregation, according to the weight of court decisions, is currently beyond the reach of Federal law.31

In addition, enforcement-mechanisms provided under some civil rights laws are weak. Under these laws, while minority group members are assured of their legal right to equal opportunity, the means of actually securing this right are frequently lacking. In the important fields of employment and housing, for example, enforcement is limited largely to efforts at voluntary compliance, with recourse to litigation only if those efforts fail. In both areas, Federal agencies are charged with responsibility for administering the laws (EEOC in employment and HUD in housing), but neither agency has authority to issue cease and desist orders to bring a quick halt to discriminatory practices.

Despite these gaps and weaknesses, the laws already on the books represent an impressive array of protections. Most have been in force for 5 years or more and they have brought about salutary change. There is evidence, however, that discrimination persists even where it is prohibited by Federal law or regulation. A. Progress in Ending Discrimination Civil rights laws and policies by the Federal Government can be of value even when they do not contain strong enforcement mechanisms. The fact that Government speaks out in favor of principles of equal opportunity frequently brings about substantial changes in attitudes and behavior. In some cases, the mere enactment of a civil rights law has brought about a dramatic and almost immediate end to discrimination. In other cases, the laws, accompanied by effective enforcement, have brought about a similar end to discriminatory practices. 1. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS

One of the most dramatic examples of the weight a civil rights law can carry is seen in the field of public accommodations. A decade ago, segregation of restaurants, motels, hotels, and theaters was the rule throughout the South and parts of the North. So rigid and inflexible was adherence to this rule that in cases where African diplomats, who traveled frequently between New York City and Washington, D.C., were denied service in restaurants along the route, even the urgent pleas of the Department of State could not induce a change in

racial isolation in virtually all of the Nation's cities and metropolitan areas.

racially discriminatory policies. In 1964, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed outlawing racial discrimination in most places of public accommodation. While the law has not brought a complete end to this kind of discrimination, thousands of hotels, motels, restaurants, and theaters have abandoned their discriminatory policies. A number of factors are responsible for this success. For example, the sit-ins of the early 1960's had brought about some change before Title II was enacted. Other private and public efforts to achieve voluntary desegregation of public accommodations before passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 helped create a climate of opinion ready to accept desegregation. One other factor that undoubtedly contributed to the impact of this law was the quick action taken by the Department of Justice immediately after the law was passed. Within a few months after enactment, the Department of Justice brought several enforcement actions that tested the constitutionality of the public accommodations law. The law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court; 32 and it was made clear that equal access to places of public accommodation was, and would remain, the law of the land.

2. VOTING

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has also resulted in historic, statistically measurable progress. Before its passage, registration of black citizens of voting age in the six Southern States affected by the law was less than 31 percent. By the spring of 1969, approximately 57 percent of eligible blacks in these States were registered. Black registration in the deep Southern States has increased by more than 740,000 persons since passage of the act.34 More than 400 blacks now hold elective office, in the deep South, as compared to 70 in 1965.35 To be sure, the Voting Rights Act has not resulted in full use of the franchise. Means other than

disqualification, such as the exploitation of continued economic dependence of rural Negroes, still constitute deterrents to the exercise of the right to vote in the South.36 Nonetheless, impressive progress has been made as a result of the Voting Rights Act.

3. HOSPITALS

Hospital and health facility practices reflect an outstanding example of salutary change resulting directly from civil rights laws. The combination of the existence of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the introduction of a new Federal program-Medicare and a large-scale compliance effort by HEW brought a swift and almost total end to discrimination and segregation as an official policy of hospitals.

The Medicare program was enacted in 1965. In 1966, HEW's Office of Equal Health Opportunity undertook a massive compliance effort, using a large staff-sometimes as high as 500 -of reviewers, to conduct thousands of visits to hospitals and other health facilities to determine whether the requirements of Title VI were being met. Anxious to obtain Federal certification for participation in Medicare, many of these institutions abolished long-standing discriminatory practices in order to qualify for the substantial aid offered by the new program. No longer were black patients refused admission; no longer, when admitted, were they segregated in wards, wings, and services. By January 1, 1968, HEW was able to report that 97 percent of the Nation's hospitals were committed to nondiscrimination in the provision of services. More than 3,000 hospitals and other health facilities changed previous policies and practices to comply with Title VI.37

4. EDUCATION

In school desegregation as well, progress, however slow, has resulted directly from the

* For a description of other methods used to discourage or dilute minority voting, see U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Political Participation (1968).

"For a detailed account of the HEW effort, see U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, HEW and Title VI (1970). Following the massive Medicare compliance operation, however, field reviews of hospitals and other health facilities were sharply curtailed. Many hospitals which had discontinued long-standing discriminatory practices have not been reviewed since 1966. There have been reports that some hospitals and other medical facilities have reinstated some of their discriminatory practices.

enactment of civil rights laws. Ten years after the decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka,38 holding that legally compelled school segregation was unconstitutional, only 3 percent of the black school children in the South were attending public schools with white children. By the 1968-69 school year, however, 5 years after enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, more than 20 percent of the black school children attended desegregated schools in the region.39 Energetic use of the administrative mechanism of Title VI by HEW was the principal factor responsible for this significant acceleration of southern school desegregation.

B. Persistence of Discrimination

Despite the progress made possible by recently adopted civil rights laws and policies, there still is substantial evidence that discrimination persists in many areas. Generally, civil rights laws have been most successful in dealing with practices that do not require complex institutional change. Thus desegregation of public facilities, places of public accommodation, and hospitals and other health facilities required basic but simple changes in conduct and was accomplished without either violent opposition or massive Federal enforcement efforts.

In the area of voting, progress may be attributed primarily to the fact that the Federal Government-by suspending literacy tests and authorizing the appointment of Federal examiners to register citizens-intervened more directly to protect the rights of individuals in this context than it has in other civil rights

criminatory practices to facilitate full participation of minority group members in the Nation's economic mainstream has proved to be an intricate process. As the following examples suggest, equal employment opportunity still is far from a way of American life. a. Federal Employment

In the area of Federal employment, where the degree of Federal control is absolute, minority group representation has increased substantially but black and Spanish surnamed Americans are still grossly underrepresented in the higher salary brackets. According to a survey of minority group employment in the Federal Government as of 1969, by the U.S. Civil Service Commission, less than 2 percent of General Schedule (GS) grade-13 and above of classified workers were Negro. Less than 0.7 percent of such workers were Spanish surnamed. The employment record of some individual agencies is even worse. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration, an agency of the Department of Transportation, employed more than 20,000 air traffic controllers as of June 30, 1969. Of these, only 547 were minority employees. Moreover, there were only 13 minority group employees among the 1,600 supervisory and administrative personnel at grade GS-14 or above.11

40

b. State Employment Under Federal Merit Standards

Despite nondiscrimination requirements in the merit system applicable to federally aided State programs, minority group employment often remains low. For example, the Mississippi Welfare Department had only 38 blacks on its staff of more than 1,500 in 1967. Data for 1968 indicated that only 5.3 percent of the employees of the Louisiana State Employment Security Agencies were black and only 7.7 percent of the employees of the Texas State Employment Security Agencies were of Spanish American descent. In both these States, most minority group employees were in nonprofessional positions.42

40 U.S. Civil Service Commission Press Release, May 14, 1970.

"U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Civil Rights, Minority Group and Women Employment Reports, as of June 1969, Report No. 5 (1969).

42 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, For ALL the

When the State State of Alabama refused to amend its standards for the Merit System of Personnel Administration to include a nondiscrimination clause, the Department of Justice filed suit against the State. Evidence introduced at the trial indicated that in 1968 the six State agencies involved in the merit system had one black among 988 clerical employees and 26 blacks on their staffs of 2,019 professional, technical, and supervisory employees. Of the 70 custodial, labor, and laboratory helper positions, however, 67 were occupied by blacks.43

c. Private Employment

Despite the fact that equal employment opportunity requirements have been imposed on Government contractors since the 1940's and that since 1964 Title VII has extended that requirement to most other employers, evidence gathered by this Commission indicates that employment discrimination in the private sector is still prevalent throughout the United States.

At an April 1966 hearing of the Commission on Civil Rights in Cleveland, Ohio, for example, testimony showed that there were 139 Government contractors with facilities in Cleveland with 50 or more employees. These firms had a total complement of more than 93,000 employees. Although blacks constituted 34 percent of Cleveland's population, 21 of the firms employed none at all and 86 employed less than 10 percent in their work forces.**

In San Francisco at its hearing the following year, the Commission found no black electricians, ironworkers, or plumbers working on the construction of the Bay Area Rapid Transit System, a federally funded project."" In a 1968 hearing in Montogomery, Ala., the Commission examined employment opportunities in a 16-county area in that State and

...

45

People .. By ALL the People 103, 95, and note 2 to table 4-1 on 95 (1969).

found that, while 62 percent of the area's population was black, companies filing employment data with EEOC in 1967 reported that only 22 percent of their employees were black. More significantly, black persons were hired almost exclusively for the more menial jobs. They held 63 percent of unskilled positions compared with 8 percent of the white-collar and skilled jobs.46 The hearing revealed that the Dan River Mills textile plant, a Federal contractor in Greenville, Ala., had only three Negro employees out of a total of 200 and that the American Can Co., also a Federal contractor, owned a segregated company town, complete with segregated schools and homes.47

A December 1968 Commission hearing in San Antonio, Tex., disclosed that the El Paso Natural Gas Co., which holds Federal contracts and is regulated by the Federal Power Commission, employed 1,450 persons in its headquarters of whom only 10.6 percent were Spanish surnamed. The company maintains its home office in a city where Mexican Americans account for 43.6 percent of the population. A little over half of the company's Mexican American employees were in blue-collar jobs.48

In June 1969, statements received at an open meeting of the Commission's Massachusetts State Advisory Committee in Boston showed that of approximately 1,000 building trades apprentices in the Boston area, just 58 were black and that the skilled building trades in the Boston area had a total journeyman nonwhite membership of 1.4 percent out of a total of 11,120 members. But 6 percent

45

Hearing Before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, held in San Antonio, Tex, on Dec. 9-14, 1968 [hereinafter cited as San Antonio Hearing], exhibit No. 35, "Equal Employment Opportunity Employer Information Report EEO-1," El Paso Natural Gas Co., Separate Headquarters Report, p. 1074, and exhibit No. 8, "Demographic Economic and Social Characteristics ," table 14, p. 788.

"Massachusetts State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Contract Compliance and Equal Employment Opportunity in the Construction Industry 4 (July 1970).

of the population of the Boston metropolitan area is black.

Testimony at a Commission hearing in St. Louis, Mo., in January 1970, also uncovered gross underutilization of minority group individuals in the employment area. While tremendous growth in both white- and bluecollar jobs has taken place in the suburbs of St. Louis County, a relatively small number of these positions have been filled by blacks. For example, the McDonnell Douglas Aircraft plant the Nation's fourth largest defense contractor-employed more than 33,000 persons in its St. Louis County plant, of whom only 2,500, or less than 8 percent were Negro. The Negro percentage of the population for the St. Louis metropolitan area is at least 14 percent. Moreover, less than 1 percent of the company's officials, managers, and professionals were Negro; no black person was a general foreman or a salesworker in the plant.50

The truck plant of the Chrysler Corp. at Fenton, Mo., in St. Louis County, employed 1,469 employees of whom 194 were black. Of the 118 officials and managers, only three were Negroes; none of the 43 professionals and only one of the 20 technicians were Negro.51

Department store hiring in St. Louis County showed a similar pattern. Only 2.5 percent of J. C. Penney's 1,128 employees were Negro, and only 4.8 percent of Sears Roebuck's 2,105 employees in the St. Louis County stores were Negro.52

Other Federal agency investigations have yielded similar results. The Department of Labor, in adopting the "Philadelphia Plan" to establish goals and targets for hiring of minority group individuals in the construction trades, concluded that eight construction trade unions in the Philadelphia area showed a pattern of discrimination against minority group individuals. Specifically, the Department found that in the Philadelphia area over a period of years, less than 1 percent of the membership of the ironworkers, plumbers,