Plain Text Manuscript of Source
TO : Edwin C. Berry - Executive Director
FROM : Harold M. Baron - Director, Research Department
SUBJECT: TITLE VI OF THE U. S. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, AND THE FEDERAL AID CONTROVERSY IN CHICAGO -
Recent developments in Chicago have called into question whether Title VI, potentially the most effective weapon in the U. S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, will be so administered as to have any meaning in metropolitan areas, North and South. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act provides that no person shall be subjected to discrimination under any program receiving Federal financial assistance. The teeth of Title VI lie in the provision that compliance can be effected by termination of a grant or refusal to grant to a discriminating recipient of Federal funds. Only with the sanction of withholding funds can the general assurances of non-discrimination be
made effective.
Under the provisions of Title VI two major complaints have been filed from Chicago. One complaint involved the Chicago public school system, and the other concerned the location of public housing sites. The end results, to date, have been a very narrow interpretation of the law and administrative regulations. Since the Chicago complaints were among the first to deal with major types of urban segregation that receive Federal aid, and the Administration’s overriding of the Office of Public Education’s delay in granting funds to the Chicago public schools became a national issue, we feel that the disposition of the Chicago complaints might unfortunately become national precedent. Accordingly, we feel it important to analyze the Federal government’s handling of the two Chicago complaints and to draw the necessary conclusions from these analyses. If Title VI becomes a dead letter in regard to urban segregation, the many new Federal programs for the irradication of the ravages of racism in our cities will likewise become ineffective. For, on the one hand, funds will be granted to institutions and agencies whose current practices bolster urban segregation, while on the other hand, the programs will be geared to aiding individuals who are the victims of that segregation.
THE COMPLAINT ON THE CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS:
On July 4, 1965, the Coordinating Council of Community Organizations (CCCO), which is composed of thirty-three constituent civil rights and community organizations, filed a complaint with Mr. Francis B. Keppel, U. S. Commissioner of Education. The complaint charged that “Chicago’s schools are segregated and unequal because of racial discrimination”, and that the Chicago Board of Education was in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the regulations of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare pertaining thereto. The complaint was lengthy and well documented.
It is important to note the spirit in which this complaint was filed. The CCCO concluded:
“We are reluctant to submit this to petition the Federal government to withhold further funds from the Chicago Board of Education, because we realize that short-term harm to certain programs can
MEMORANDUM -2- November 5, 1965
occur through suspension of funds. But we are persuaded that far greater damage will be done if the present situation is permitted to continue. We are further persuaded that the ways and means of creating and perpetuating segregation in Chicago may become the handbook for Southern communities seeking to evade the 1954 Supreme Court ruling. We are confident that Federal intervention in this matter, through the withholding of funds, will help underline the high fiscal cost, as well as the immeasurable social cost, of segregation to Chicago and to the rest of the nation.”
This was not the first case in which the Chicago Board of Education had a problem under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under the provisions of Title IV of the Act, the U. S. Office of Education is directed to study the availability of equal educational opportunity and report their findings to Congress and the President. As part of this study, the Office of Education contracted with Professor John Coons of the Northwestern University Law School to do a survey of problems and developments in Chicago. From February through most of May, 1965, the General Superintendent of Chicago schools absolutely refused to cooperate with Professor Coons; any help since then has only been most grudging. The Chicago Board of Education and its administrative staff, to date, have also failed to cooperate in another phase of the Office of Public Education’s study of equal educational opportunity. The General Superintendent of Schools has refused to allow the designated Chicago schools to participate in a nation-wide sample survey on the effects of segregated education. The Superintendent has further criticized this survey in most abusive and demagogic language.
In August of 1965, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare appointed a fjve-man committee to investigate the complaint. This committee was engaged in the gathering of evidence when, on September 28, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Raymond Page, announced that $61,000,000 had been authorized for Illinois schools under the provisions of the 1965 U. S. Elementary and Secondary Educational Act. Mr. Page further announced that he was ready to approve Superintendent Willis’s proposals for the use of $31,000,000 of these funds by the Chicago school system. Characteristic of Wills’s precipitatedness in claiming these funds, he had not yet submitted these special plans to the Board of Education, let alone receive its approval of them, although the Board of Education is the only body in the school system that can authorize the expenditure of funds.
On September 30, Commissioner Keppel wrote Superintendent Page that preliminary investigation of the complaint against the Chicago schools indicated probable non-compliance with the Civil Rights Act and brought “into serious question the assurance of compliance made by the Chicago school authorities”. This assurance of compliance is required by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare regulations which govern the administration of the Civil Rights Act by that agency. The Commissioner stated that pending what he believed would be the speedy resolution of the complaints with the cooperation of the Chicago school authorities, no new commitments of funds would be made either directly or through the State Superintendent’s office. This procedure on the part of the Commissioner was clearly justified by Section 80.8 of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare regulations. The Commissioner made no findings on the CCCO complaint, indeed, no findings have been made to date; he did call into question the validity of the Chicago Board of Education’s assurance of compliance, which was an entirely different matter. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare had made a creative and bold interpretation of Title VI.
MEMORANDUM -3- November 5, 1965
If Commissioner Keppel expected voluntary and informal conciliation, he made a serious error in judgment. Instead, he found himself in a lion’s den. Superintendent Willis, the majority of the Board of Education, and Chicago area Congressmen of both parties jumped on both Commissioner Keppel and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Congressional investigations and retaliations were threatened. The Administration outside the Department of Health, Education and Welfare made no move to support this broad interpretation of Title VI. In effect, the Office of Public Education was left to sink or swim on its own. On the local Chicago scene, Superintendent Willis and Congressman Pucinski were able to create the erroneous impression that the Office of Public Education had made a finding on the CCCO complaint and that they had failed to have the required hearing and notices. Unfortunately, in the face of this attack, the Office of Public Education failed to make a strong public defense of its action, and silently accepted the criticism.
The Administration did finally move into the picture after Mayor Daley intervened. The role of Mayor Daley in this dispute has been publicly acknowledged by School Board President Whiston and the press, locally and nationally. The exact steps taken by the Mayor have been kept confidential. It appears that the Administration’s primary concern at this point was to end the controversy rather than insuring broad enforcement of Title VI. Under-Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Wilbur Cohen, was dispatched to Chicago to meet with Mr. Whiston and negotiate a speedy settlement of the dispute which would restore the funds to Chicago.
Under-Secretary Cohen received only the most minimal concessions in return for the restoration of funds. Mr. Whiston agreed that the Chicago Board of Education would reaffirm its previous policies in regard to discrimination at Washburne Trade School, open enrollment in vocational schools, and reviewing school boundaries. Mr. Whiston also agreed that the Board of Education would set up a committee to investigate the status of implementation of these policies within the next sixty days. In return, Mr. Cohen agreed to rescind Commissioner Keppel’s order withholding funds, and to suspend the investigation of the CCCO complaint in those areas that the Board was investigating itself. Several members of the Board of Education and many knowledgeable commentators claimed that the concessions were all on the part of the Federal government and that Whiston only reaffirmed existing School Board policies.
The crisis over Title VI did have certain positive effects in the interpretation of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Education Act clearly specifies that Federal funds are to be spent on improving the quality of education in areas where there are large concentrations of children from low-income families. Superintendent Willis’s plan for these funds specified special saturation programs in three areas, two of which could not qualify as low-income areas. Since the Title VI crisis, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction has held up all but $6,000,000 of the $31,000,000 requested by Dr. Willis. Even the release of the $6,000,000 is conditional, and the Chicago Board of Education’s approval of Dr. Willis’s plans for the $6,000,000 has been made only with a stipulation of further review before any money is actually spent. It also appears that the Office of Public Education has tightened up its guidelines for the expenditure of the Education Act funds.
On the negative side, the backing down of the Administration on the enforcement of Title VI has strengthened the appeal of the status quo-oriented local educational leaders and the opponents of Federal aid to education. (For analysis of this point, see the attached CCCO document entitled “The Facts Of The Chicago Federal Aid Controversy”.)
MEMORANDUM -4- November 5, 1965
In terms of the continuing Chicago school crisis, we have not received the positive support and aid that we had hoped for from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Unless there is affirmative support from the present Administration, there is great danger that the well documented complaint from CCCO will be shelved and there will be no effective relief under this Act in the future. On the other hand, several positive factors should be noted. The entire controversy was a measure of the significance that Chicago school problems have achieved. The Chicago school crisis, which has been continuous for over four years, has, in effect, become a national crisis capable of shaking up the entire Federal establishment. The supporters of quality integrated education should consider this to be a very positive measure of their growing strength. In the long run, the Chicago Board of Education can only be embarrassed by the fact that they were singled out for the first major attempt to apply the sanctions of Title VI.
Nationally, there are some very negative consequences from this controversy. First, it appears that Johnson’s Administration policy on the enforcement of Title VI is very ambiguous. The failure to support Commissioner Keppel will most likely have a ricochet effect on other Federal administrators, and they will tend to censure themselves in advance from making broad interpretations of the Civil Rights Act. Unless there is positive encouragement from the White House itself, it is doubtful that we will see the use of the sanctions of Title VI except in the most flagrant and egregious cases. Generalizing on recent experience, any administrator invoking
sanctions can expect to be pilloried. Secondly, this public controversy marks the further development of “kid-glove political racism”. In this tactic, an issue is joined in which race or civil rights is not explicitly mentioned, but the public-at-large is fully aware of these implications. This process in the Chicago school controversy was best summarized by Washington correspondent, Joseph Kraft:
“With the issue thus confused, politicos from the camp of Mayor Richard Daley [and Republican Congressmen] were able to follow through with their favorite tactics of trading on anti-Negro feeling in order to solidify their support from white minority groups. Congressman Roman Pucinski spoke of ‘a withholding of funds’ -- and called it ‘illegal’ and a ‘power play’.”
* * * * * *
“Technically, both sides can claim victory. But the real measure is political and the issue is not in doubt. The tactics of blocking civil rights moves in order to court favor with anti-Negro white minority groups has won out again, Superintendent Willis, once in real jeopardy, is more firmly in place than ever.” (Chicago Daily News, 10/11/65)
THE COMPLAINT ON PUBLIC HOUSING SITES:
On August 26, 1965, the Westside Federation, an organization representing 53 community and neighborhood groups on the Westside of Chicago, submitted a complaint on public housing sites to Robert Weaver, Adminstrator [sic] of the Federal Housing and Home Finance Agency. This complaint charged that the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) was in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in locating 8 sites in the heart of the Negro ghetto. The Westside Federation held that most of the
MEMORANDUM -5- November 5, 1965
already existing public housing projects were located within the ghetto, and it further charged that there was a pattern of all-Negro -- or nearly all-Negro -- housing units in the CHA projects built within the ghetto. Therefore, with a high degree of assurance, it could be assumed that projects at the new sites would become all-Negro since they are located in the heart of a Negro ghetto. This pattern was alleged to be discriminatory because it restricted Negroes to segregated public housing in segregated areas.
The Public Housing Administration, a division of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, found that there was no merit in the Westside Federation’s complaint by construing Title VI in the narrowest possible manner and by clouding over the issue with peripheral administrative regulations and pseudo-sociology.
The gist of the Public Housing Administration’s denial of the complaint runs as follows: CHA is the sole recipient of Federal funds and the City Council of Chicago is not a recipient of funds under the terms of Title VI. However, CHA sites must be approved by the City Council and the City Council will invariably turn down CHA sites that are not located in the South or Westside ghettos. Given these circumstances, the Chicago City Council cannot be held accountable under Title VI. Neither can CHA be held responsible for, within the limitations imposed by the City
Council, CHA has done its best to find sites that most nearly comply with the provisions of Title VI. The second major line of argument runs to the effect that CHA’s pattern of site selection affords the greatest acceptability to CHA applicants. This claim is supposedly bolstered by CHA’s compilation of the preference for locations listed in applications to the established housing projects. The survey was of little value because applicants were given choices of locations situated in either predominantly white or predominantly Negro areas. The sites were predetermined and no alternatives in integrated areas were presented. This only proves that a segregated system tends to be self-perpetuating.
The Public Housing Administration’s reasoning that CHA did very well within the bounds placed upon it by the City Council and, therefore, is absolved of further responsibility, is a most dangerous precedent that could hamstring Title VI throughout the nation. It would encourage state and local governments to establish procedures for approval of Federal programs by a local body that does not receive the funds. By this stratagem, given the Public Housing Administration’s reasoning, the recipients would be absolved of most responsibilities for complying with Title VI because they would be acting within constraints placed upon them by a body not subject to the Civil Rights Act.
The Public Housing Administration’s denial of the Westside Federation’s complaint reflects a bureaucratic inertia. They so hemmed in Title VI within the established procedures and policies that Title VI has hardly any meaning. This overcautious interpretation will leave urban patterns of discrimination and segregation untouched. For, the maintenance of urban racial patterns is no longer dependent upon legal segregation or individual acts of discrimination. The discrimination is accomplished by interlocking patterns of institutions which maintain de facto segregation.
CONCLUSION:
In these two cases, we have perfect examples of the techniques for emasculating Title VI in urban centers. In the case of public housing sites, bureaucratic and administrative regulations so hemmed in the interpretation that the old pattern of
MEMORANDUM -6- November 5, 1965
segregation is maintained. The cautious Federal official sustained the status quo. In the case of the school complaint, the Federal official broke with the status quo, but when he came under attack, the Administration failed to support him. In effect, the Administration, by not supporting the Office of Public Education, was encouraging the type of cautiousness exhibited by the Public Housing Administration. If Title VI is to have meaning in a metropolitan setting, the Administration must make it clear, as both public policy and its own policy, that there is to be a sweeping and imaginative interpretation of the Title’s provisions. The Administration must support the agencies that are imaginative and it must put great pressure on the agencies that are lethargic.
Without this clear policy lead, from the very top of the Administration, precedent is being established to make Title VI virtually ineffective in the urban centers where over 70 percent of the nation’s Negro population already reside.
The ambiguous situation on the enforcement of Title VI could be further cleared up if Congress would make some changes in the language of the Civil Rights Act. In Title VI, “discrimination ” by race, color, or national origin is the forbidden act. If the term “segregation” was added, the language would more explicitly cover the types of racial subjugation predominant in the urban centers. Federal administrators would then be less able to hide behind existing methods of Administration. It is just these existing methods that have led to urban segregation. The present forms of racial subjugation are not particularly dependent upon a clear-cut act of exclusion. They are dependent upon large-scale institutions and the given public and private methods of administering these institutions.
The whole strength of Title VI is dependent upon the manner in which it is administered. The civil rights legislation of the Reconstruction Era became a dead letter in large measure because of a failure to administer it effectively. It would be a national disaster if modern civil rights legislation were to suffer the administrative fate of Reconstruction legislation.
HB/mh