pipefitters, steamfitters, sheet metal workers, electrical workers, roofers and water proofers unions have been Negroes.53

A review of Department of Justice litigation in the employment area shows that the Attorney General has alleged patterns of discrimination against such major companies as Continental Can Co., Georgia Power Co., Owens-Fiberglass Corp., Cannon Mills Co., Bethlehem Steel Corp., H. K. Porter Co., Roadway Express, Inc., and a number of labor unions representing such diverse groups as mineworkers, longshoremen, teamsters, electrical workers, ironworkers, plumbers, and steelworkers. In addition, the Department of Justice recently negotiated an agreement with 73 motion picture producers, nine craft locals, and other organizations affiliated with the motion picture and television industries to eliminate discrimination against minority group members in employment for craft, administrative, and clerical jobs in those industries. At the time of the initial investigation by EEOC the labor unions in the industry had a combined membership of approximately 12,000, including 800 members of other minority groups but only 45 blacks.54

The denial of equal opportunity in housing also remains a severe and persistent problem. In 1959, before adoption of any Federal fair housing laws or policies, it was estimated that less than 2 percent of the new houses provided through FHA mortgage insurance since 1946 had been available to minorities.55 In 1967, nearly 5 years after issuance of Executive Order 11063, the situation had not improved appreciably. A 1967 national FHA survey of minority group occupancy in subdivisions built after the date of the Executive order, and subject to its provisions, found that of the more than 400,000 units surveyed, only 3.3 percent were reported as having been sold to black families. In some areas, the survey showed even less encouraging results. In the St. Louis area, for example, only 56 units, or

0.85 percent of the total, were reported to have been sold to black families.56

In public housing, the pattern of all-white or all-black projects has remained the rule, even after laws and Executive orders have prohibited segregation. The most extreme example, perhaps, is found in the Robert Taylor Homes, a project in Chicago housing 28,000 tenants. As of the end of 1965, 3 years after issuance of Executive Order 11063 and a year and a half after enactment of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, all of the units were occupied by black families. Other projects in that city were substantially allwhite. The situation in Chicago is not atypical. As of June 1968, of six projects in Jacksonville, Fla., four were all nonwhite and two were all-white.58

57

Another major HUD program, Urban Renewal, was found by the Commission at its January 1970 public hearing in St. Louis, Mo., to have had the effect of uprooting black families living in suburban areas and forcing them into the center city, thus further intensifying the pattern of racially segregated neighborhoods throughout the metropolitan area. 59

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Racial Isolation in the Public Schools 38 (1970). In 1969, a Federal District Court in Chicago found that the tenant assignment and site selection policies of the Chicago Public Housing Authority had a discriminatory effect and enjoined the authority from continuing these practices. Gautreaux v. The Chicago Housing Authority, 296 F. Supp. 907 (N.D. Ill. 1969).

At the Commission's April 1968 Montgomery, Ala. hearing, it was found that, despite Federal requirements, only 1.7 percent of the black children in 20 school systems in the hearing area, for whom information available, were attending white schools as of September 1967. Teachers in the 15 county systems involved were desegregated only on a token basis.61

A 1969 Commission survey documented extensive segregation of Mexican American students in the five Southwestern States. Although Mexican Americans comprise 17 percent of the student enrollment in these States, more than 65 percent of the Mexican American students were in schools with 50 percent or more Mexican American enrollment. Twentytwo percent were found in schools with 80 to 100 percent Mexican American enrollment.62 In Texas, where one of every five students is Mexican American, the ethnic isolation was most severe. Two-thirds of the Mexican American students were in schools with 50 percent or more Mexican American enrollment, and 40 percent were in schools with 80 to 100 percent Mexican American enrollment.63

A 1968 Commission study of nine San Antonio school districts demonstrated the inequality of educational opportunity offered in the predominantly Mexican American school districts, as evidenced by the disparities in educational finances, teacher qualifications, and quality of school facilities. The predominantly Mexican American school districts were characterized by lower pupil expenditures and teachers with fewer pedagogical qualifications than in predominantly Anglo districts. In Edgewood, for example, a school district with an 89 percent Mexican American enrollment, 160 teachers, or 19.7 percent of all teachers,

held no college degree. In contrast, in the three predominantly Anglo districts studied, which employed more than 2,000 teachers, all but 14 teachers held a college degree.64

Segregation of Mexican Americans is often perpetuated by granting school transfers to students on a discriminatory basis. One such example occurred in Del Rio, Tex., where, since 1959, the children of military personnel [mostly Anglo] connected with the Laughlin Air Force Base have been bused outside a predominantly Mexican American school district to a wealthier and predominantly Anglo district. Laughlin Air Force Base is located entirely within the boundaries of the predominantly Mexican American San Felipe School District. This practice has resulted in almost complete segregation of the Mexican American students of San Felipe [97 percent Mexican American] and the loss of more than $300,000 per year in Federal aid to the district.65

Nor has discrimination been eliminated in the treatment received by black students and other minorities at colleges and universities. In some States, colleges and universities originally established to serve only Negroes continue to be virtually all-black and schools from which Negroes were previously excluded enroll only token numbers of black students. Earlier this year, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare indicated to 10 States that their State-operated institutions of higher education were not in compliance with Title VI and requested that the States file desegregation plans. This action was taken with respect to such States as Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Maryland, Virginia, and Oklahoma.66

4. AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

In its 1965 report, "Equal Opportunity in Farm Programs," the Commission found gross discrimination and inequity in a number of Department of Agriculture programs, partic

"San Antonio Hearing, exhibit No. 11, "A Study of Equality of Educational Opportunity for Mexican Americans ..," pp. 871, 830, 839, and table 9 on p. 840.

65 San Antonio Hearing, Testimony, at pp. 295, 301– 302, and 310–311.

6 Interview with Louise Lucas, civil rights specialist HEW, Apr. 23, 1970.

ularly the Cooperative Extension Service. The report was based on information concerning conditions before enactment of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A recent audit of the operation of the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service conducted by the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture found, more than 5 years after Title VI had been enacted, that the situation had not noticeably improved. Among the findings of the Inspector General were the following:

Our review at 12 county offices disclosed that the professional staffs were providing service through direct contacts to clientele predominantly of their own race . . . . This is a repeat finding of a condition reported [in a previous audit].

Our review of office arrangement and housing of personnel at 12 county offices disclosed that personnel at five county offices were grouped by race instead of occupying space according to their functional assignment. . . In four of the 12 county offices reviewed mailing lists were maintained on a racially separate basis.

In three of the 12 counties examined, some nonwhite professionals with the same or higher academic degrees, longer tenure and similar duties received less salary than their white counterparts." 67

Discrimination persists in the operation of other Department of Agriculture programs. For example, the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, which administers programs to stabilize farm income through price support payments and crop allotments, runs its program through a system of locally elected farmer committees. In addition to administering the programs, committees serve as an informational link to farmers who participate in and receive the benefits of the programs. Prior to 1968, no black farmer ever had been elected to any committee at the county level in the South.68 Even in 1970, although the 1964

"U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report 6089-29-A of Inspector General, 11, 15, and 19 (1969).

Census of Agriculture indicated that blacks comprised a majority of the farm operator population in 58 counties in the South, only two blacks are among the more than 4,100 such committeemen in the region."9

5. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR PROGRAMS

In a September 1968 report of Title VI activity in the programs of the Department of Labor, a wide variety of discriminatory practices in State employment security agencies was disclosed.70 These included discrimination in the referral of applicants to employers, segregated facilities in employment offices, discrimination due to location and organization of offices, discriminatory counseling, and discriminatory advertising. In recent compliance reviews and complaint investigations by Department of Labor officials there are continued reports of discrimination. In 1968, the Department of Justice brought suit against the Ohio State Employment Security Agency, charging the agency with discrimination against Negroes." The Department also conducted investigations and lengthy negotiations with the Texas Employment Service agency in an effort to eliminate discriminatory practices without resorting to legal action.72

6. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS

Despite significant progress in opening places of public accommodation, incidents of discrimination are still found. For example, attorneys from the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice reported to the Interstate Commerce Commission in May 1967 the segregated use of waiting rooms in the Greyhound Bus Terminal in Greenville, Miss. Two waiting rooms were in use; one for white customers and one for black customers. Even though there were no signs requiring segregation of white and black customers, the fact that all the black customers were in one room

vation Service, to Martin E. Sloane, Assistant Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Mar. 23, 1970.

and all the white customers in the other, showed that a sign was unnecessary." A similar observation of the Trailways Bus Terminal in Jackson, Miss., was made by a Civil Rights Commission attorney and reported to the ICC in 1969. In fact, the Department of Justice continues to receive a substantial number of complaints each year of discrimination in places of public accommodation.75

7. PUBLIC FACILITIES

The publication currently used by the State of Virginia to advertise its State park system clearly demonstrates, through the use of photographs, which of the State parks are for whites and which are for blacks. All of the parks except one, formerly called the Prince Edward Lake Negro State Park, show white persons utilizing the facilities, but in the case of Prince Edward State Park, the photographed clientele is all-black. This is a clear violation of Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and since the State is a recipient of funds from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation of the Department of Interior, this also represents a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.76

At the Commission's hearing in Montgomery, Ala., in 1968, it was disclosed that public parks in Jackson and Monroeville, Ala. were still operated on a segregated basis."

In 1969, the Mexican American Legal De

"Letter from John Doar, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, to Bernard A. Gould, Managing Director, Interstate Commerce Commission, Nov. 3, 1967.

"Letter from George Bradley, Assistant General Counsel, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, to Bernard F. Schmid, Managing Director, Interstate Commerce Commission, Aug. 19, 1969.

"Interview with Gerald Jones, Chief, Voting and Public Accommodations Section, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, Nov. 12, 1969; 1967, 1968, and 1969 Annual Reports of the Attorney General, at 185-186, 67 and 48-49, respectively.

"This matter was called to the attention of the Department of the Interior by a letter from Martin E. Sloane, Assistant Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, to Edward E. Shelton, Director, Office of Equal Opportunity, Department of Interior, May 8, 1970.

"Letter from William L. Taylor, Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, to Stephen J. Pollak, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, May 22, 1968.

fense fund brought suit to enjoin the Marlin, Tex., community swimming pool from refusing to admit Mexican Americans. The management of the pool agreed to change the policy prior to the pending trial date.78

These examples of continuing discrimination do not purport to be exhaustive nor has the Commission undertaken special investigations to uncover them. Rather, they represent some of the instances of continuing discrimination and inequity that have come to the Commission's attention in the normal course of its work. They indicate, however, a national pattern of continuing abridgement of the rights of minority citizens.

They also demonstrate that while progress has been made in eliminating discriminatory practices, many of the problems which existed before civil rights laws were passed, before various Executive orders were issued, and before key court decisions were rendered, continue to exist. The adoption of these civil rights laws and policies have given hope to minority group citizens that they would be freed from the second-class status to which they had been relegated for generations and could assume the role of equal members of American society. Their expectations of equal status have been reasonable, but in many cases they have been frustrated.

It is clear that the full potential of civil rights laws and policies has not been realized. The promise of equal protection of the law for all citizens has not yet been redeemed.

The persistence of discrimination raises serious questions about the way Federal departments and agencies charged with civil rights responsibilities have carried them out. Have these agencies established adequate goals and priorities? Are the mechanisms and procedures adopted to secure compliance adequate to the task? Have the officials responsible for enforcement pursued their duties vigorously enough?

In the chapters that follow, these questions will be examined with respect to the activities of a number of Federal departments and agencies having key responsibilities for civil rights enforcement.

I. INTRODUCTION

Equal employment opportunity is a broadly protected Federal right. Through Presidential Executive orders and congressional legislation, the Federal Government has established this right in its own institutions and has named the Civil Service Commission (CSC) as the agency to oversee and coordinate equal opportunity efforts at the Federal level. The Government also established this right in much of the private business sector and has created a variety of administrative mechanisms in an effort to make it a right in fact, as well as in legal theory.

The Federal requirement of nondiscrimination in private employment, while not as pervasive as that applying to the Government itself, covers most of the Nation's labor force. Through Presidential Executive orders, all private businesses contracting to supply goods or services to the Government, as well as those engaging in federally assisted construction contracts, are required to follow policies and practices of equal job opportunity. Penalties for noncompliance include contract cancellation and debarment from future Federal contracts. While primary responsibility for securing compliance in specific industries is divided among a number of Federal departments and agencies, overall responsibility has been placed in the Office of Federal Contract Compliance within the Department of Labor.

Congress also has acted to prevent private employment discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination by all private employers with 25 or more employees as well as by labor unions and employment agencies. The same title established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to administer the law's provisions and promote achievement of its goals.

The formal tools given EEOC to carry out its mission are limited, however, to lawsuits, brought by private parties or the Department of Justice. Nonetheless, EEOC has a variety of other, less formal powers available to it in promoting equal job opportunity.1

Despite these provisions against employment discrimination, the problem of unequal opportunity remains severe. Minority employment in the Federal establishment remains disproportionately low and minority employees rarely are found in high grade positions or supervisory positions. Despite strong Federal contract requirements, the record of Government contractors, heavily reliant on Federal contracts for their livelihood, is no better than that of employers not subject to these requirements. And while there have been some overall minority employment gains in the general private labor market, discrimination continues largely unabated 6 years after Congress ordained equal employment opportunity as organic law.

'There are several other laws affecting public and private employment discrimination. For example, Federal Merit Standards and HUD contractual requirements prohibit employment discrimination by States which participate in a number of Federal programs. For a discussion of the effectiveness of these requirements, see U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, For ALL the People . . . By ALL the People 1969. Further, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination in federally assisted programs where a primary purpose of the program is to provide employment. For a discussion of Title VI as related to employment, see ch. 4, infra. In addition, an 1870 civil rights law providing that all persons shall have the same right to make and enforce contracts as white citizens has been ruled by some courts to prohibit all employment discrimination. The National Labor Relations Act, while not specifically designed to provide relief for employment discrimination because of race, has been held by courts to prohibit such discrimination by employers and labor unions. Treatment of these laws is beyond the scope of this report.