with Commission interpretations of fact or with the views of the Commission on the desirability of particular enforcement or compliance activities, and in such cases their point of view, as well as that of the Commission, has been noted. In their comments, agencies sometimes provided new information not made available to Commission staff during the course of its interviews and investigations. Sometimes, the information was inconsistent with the information provided earlier. Although it was not always possible to evaluate this new information fully or to reconcile it with what was provided earlier, in the interest of assuring that agency compliance and enforcement activities are reported as comprehensively as possible, the new material has been noted in the report.

This report does not deal primarily with the substantive impact of civil rights laws. The Commission has not attempted here to measure precise gains made by minority group members as a result of civil rights actions of the Federal Government. This will be the subject of future Commission studies. Rather, it has attempted to determine how well the Fed

eral Government is doing its civil rights enforcement job-to pinpoint for one period of time (March-June 1970) the posture of a number of Federal agencies with key civil rights responsibilities.

The purpose is not to criticize particular departments and agencies, but to analyze on a comparative basis the effectiveness of the overall enforcement effort. Through a comparative study, the Commission believes all agencies can profit from the experience of others, particularly those whose activities clearly call for improvement.

Finally, while the report deals primarily with the current civil rights posture of the Federal Government, it should be understood that the inadequacies described have roots that lie deep in the past. They did not originate in the current administration, nor was there any substantial period in the past when civil rights enforcement uniformly was at a high level of effectiveness. Rather, the inadequacies are systemic to the Federal bureaucracy and it is only through systemic changes that the great promise the civil rights laws hold will be realized.

I. INTRODUCTION

Over the past three decades, the Federal Government has demonstrated a growing concern for the rights of minorities, after nearly three-quarters of a century of governmental indifference. The courts have led the way, providing substantive civil rights meaning to the broad constitutional mandates of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and the due process clause of the fifth amendment. The executive branch followed, through a series of Executive orders by the last six Presidents, directing Federal departments and agencies to assure against discrimination in their own activities and in the practices of those with whom they deal. Congress was the last of the three branches to act. Since 1957, Congress has enacted five civil rights laws, including the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Federal fair housing law).

These governmental actions have been taken in response to increasing protest by minority group members against the second-class citizenship to which they have been relegated throughout America's history. Protests led by black Americans such as the Montgomery, Ala., bus boycott in the mid-1950's and the 1963 march on Washington, helped many white Americans develop a better understanding of the nature of civil rights denials. Violent suppression of peaceful protest by white citizens and law enforcement officers in Birmingham, Ala. in 1963, in Selma, Ala. in 1965, and elsewhere in the country aroused national indignation and spurred passage of Federal civil rights laws. In recent years, the voices of Mexican Americans, American Indians, and other minority groups have also begun to be heard in objection to the denial of

full equality. These protests, like those of the black community, have begun to strike a responsive chord in the Federal Government.

The ensuing laws, Executive orders, and judicial decisions constitute a formidable array of civil rights guarantees. They provide broad protections against discrimination in virtually every aspect of life-in access to places of public accommodation, administration of justice, education, employment, housing, participation in the benefits of federally assisted programs, and voting. Further, while some of the remedies require the aggrieved individual to take the initiative in securing his own rights, in most cases, responsibility is also placed on Federal departments and agencies to act affirmatively in support of the guaranteed rights.

In short, there exists today a powerful Federal arsenal of weapons available to cope with racial and ethnic discrimination. Set forth in the following sections is a brief discussion of the breadth of protection afforded and the scope of Federal responsibility.

II. CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS

A. Employment

Equal opportunity in employment is mandated by a host of Federal enactmentsstatutes, judicial decisions interpreting the Constitution, and Executive orders and regulations. Taken together, they constitute a comprehensive ban on job discrimination, covering all Federal, State, and local jobs and nearly all private employment. Almost any act of discrimination by a government or private employer violates some aspect of Federal law. The remedies available to eradicate such discrimination, however, vary widely in their scope and efficacy.

1. FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT

The most complete Federal policy of equal job opportunity is that dealing with Federal employment. On August 8, 1969, President Nixon issued the most recent Executive order dealing with this subject, superseding and strengthening previous presidential orders. The order reaffirms governmental policy both to assure equal opportunity in Federal employment to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and "to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency."

Every Federal department and agency is required to take necessary steps to assure that the order's goals are achieved. For example, each agency is required to provide sufficient resources to carry out its equal employment opportunity program, to insure that recruitment methods reach all sources of job candidates, to fully utilize the skills of employees, and to provide maximum opportunity for employees to develop their abilities and to advance accordingly.

The Civil Service Commission is the agency chiefly responsible for implementing the order. The Commission is directed to provide leadership and guidance to other executive departments and agencies in the conduct of equal employment opportunity programs. It is also directed to review and evaluate agency performance and report to the President, and to assure fair consideration of complaints of discrimination including impartial review within the various agencies.

2. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT

In a very general sense, it may be said that Federal law is as comprehensive in prohibiting discrimination in State and local government employment as it is in barring discrimination in Federal jobs, for the courts have held that discrimination by State and local governments-including job discriminationviolates the 14th amendment. But in actuality,

protection against discrimination by State and local governments is not nearly as complete, because with certain exceptions-there is no Federal administrative machinery to assist the victim of discrimination. In most cases, a private lawsuit is the only means he has to secure his constitutional right.

The exceptions pertain to certain areas where Congress and the executive branch have acted to provide an administrative remedy because the Federal and State governments participate jointly in furnishing the government service. For example, an administrative remedy is provided by the Federal Merit Standards System, which applies to a variety of federally funded programs and covers approximately 250,000 State employees.*

Originally promulgated under a 1939 amendment to the Social Security Act of 1935, the merit standards require that State employees administering these programs be selected, promoted, and compensated according to a federally approved, State-administered merit system. Among the specific criteria established in the 1939 standards was a prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religious and political affiliation. In 1963, the prohibition was extended to include race and national origin, and State regulations were required to provide an appeal procedure in cases of alleged discrimination.

The major programs covered by the merit standards provision are: Aid to families with dependent children, old age assistance, other federally aided public assistance programs, and certain State health programs financed by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW); State employment services and unemployment insurance systems, which are funded by the Department of Labor; and civil defense activities supported by the Department of Defense (DOD).

Each Federal agency authorized to grant financial assistance has the final responsibility for assuring the implementation of approved State plans for program operation. For administrative convenience, however, supervision of the implementation of all aspects of merit standards, including the nondiscrimination

For a full discussion of Federal Merit Standards System see U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, For ALL the People . . . By ALL the People, 91 (1969).

clause, rests with the Office of State Merit Systems in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

In addition to protection against State employment discrimination provided by the Federal Merit Standards System, such discrimination is also prohibited by contractual requirements of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in two important programs it administers-urban renewal and public housing. Under these requirements, nearly 900 local urban renewal agencies and 2,000 local public housing authorities, which are State agencies, are required to be equal opportunity employers."

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance, also forbids employment discrimination by States or localities in programs and activities where a primary purpose of the assistance is to provide employment. These include apprenticeship training, work-study, or economic development programs. Under Title VI, discriminatory employment practices also are prohibited if they tend to result in discriminatory or unequal treatment for intended beneficiaries of the program or activity, such as teachers in a federally aided school system, doctors or nurses in a federally aided hospital, or agricultural extension workers. 3. PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT

a. Employment by Private Government Contractors

The last six Presidents, over a period of nearly 30 years, have used the Federal contracting power to require nondiscrimination in employment by Government contractors. Executive Order 11246, issued in 1965, prohibits employment discrimination by Government contractors or federally assisted construction contractors, and requires them to take affirmative action to remedy the effects of past discrimination. In addition, banks which are depositories of Federal funds or which handle Federal savings bonds are subject to the same mandate.

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCC) in the Department of Labor is re

* Id., at 109, for a full discussion of HUD equal opportunity requirements in State employment.

sponsible for establishing overall policy and overseeing the entire program of equal employment opportunity by Federal contractors. Primary responsibility for securing compliance in specific industries, however, rests with 15 Federal agencies, called "predominant interest agencies". Sanctions available to these agencies and the OFCC under the order include cancellation of contracts, debarment of contractors from future Federal contracts, and public identification of noncomplying contractors.

b. Private Non-Federally Related Employment (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination by all employers with 25 or more employees, labor unions which have 25 or more members or which operate a hiring hall, and employment agencies which regularly obtain employees for an employer covered by the title.

It also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with responsibility to administer the title and conciliate and negotiate differences between aggrieved individuals and the accused parties. The EEOC also may make studies, provide technical assistance, and carry on other activities designed to stimulate employers, unions, and employment agencies to develop effective equal employment opportunity policies. The EEOC is granted no power to require a discriminatory party to cease engaging in prohibited activities. Lawsuits, however, may be brought by private parties or by the Department of Justice.

(2) Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 provides that all persons shall have the same right to make and enforce contracts as white citizens of the United States. A recent Supreme Court decision indicated that a similar provision of the 1866 law prohibits racial discrimination in housing. Similarly, lower court decisions have ruled that this law prohibits employment discrimination. Thus, de

"Now codified as 42 U.S.C. 1981.

7

8

8

Jones v. Mayer and Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968).

See Dobbins v. Local 212, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, 292 F. Supp. 413 (S.D. Ohio 1968); Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 5 v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 283 F. Supp. 769 (W.D. Pa. 1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1021 (1969); State of Washington v. Baugh Constr. Co., 313 F. Supp. 598, (W.D. Wash., 1969)