Memorandum on Press Conference; Response by Public Interest Groups to Administration Pronouncement on Equal Housing Opportunity

    a
.
 
N
O
R
 

EAL
 

PO VIEW 

SCHOOL OF LAW 
THE CATHOLIC 
UNIVERSIT 
OF AMERICA 
WASHINGTON D0.C. 20017 

_. TAYLOR 

‘ 
5 7 : DATE: 

MEMO 

FROM: William L. Taylor 

SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO PRESIDENT 

fo 8=¥4: 

i 

Enclosed is the Statement in final form. 

Everyone is invited to attend the Press Conference which will be held 

on Tuesday, July 13th at 2:00 P.M., in the Main Conference Room on the 6th 

Floor, at the National Urban Coalition, 2100 M Street, N.W. Bayard Rustin 

will act as principal spokesman. 



RESPONSE BY PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS TO ADMINISTRATION PRONOUNCEMENT ON 

EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY 

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights* 

and 

Center for National Policy Review 

Housing Opportunities Council 

Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 

NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. 

National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing 

National Urban Coalition 

Nonprofit Housing Center, Inc. 

Potomac Institute 

Suburban Action, Inc. 

*Membership List Appended 



RESPONSE BY PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS TO 

ADMINISTRATION PRONOUNCEMENTS ON EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY 

On June 11, 1971, President Nixon issued a statement on Federal Policies 

Relative to Equal Housing Opportunity--which candidly recognized the consequences 

of ill-housing and racial segregation. On June 14, 1971, the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, together with the Department of Justice and the General 

Services Administration, supplemented this statement by announcing several new 

steps in the implementation of the fair housing law, actions not less welcome for 

the fact that they were long overdue. 

We respond to the President's statement and the initiatives announced by 

HUD, the Justice Department and GSA in order to place these recent actions in 

perspective so that we may determine what they might accomplish if vigorously 

enforced, and to identify steps that remain to be taken if significant progress 

is to be made. 

Our major concerns, spelled out in detail later in the statement, are as 

follows: 

(1) the Administration makes no commitment to overcome the obstacles to 

securing decent housing outside the ghetto for people who are poor and members 

of minority groups. By creating artificial distinctions between "racial" and 

"economic" discrimination, the Administration has handcuffed itself in 

efforts to overcome the principal barrier to progress--exclusionary land 

use policies which are ostensibly economic in purpose but which have a racial 

impact. 

(2) while taking a few steps forward in prohibiting discrimination by 

housing developers, the Administration still has not utilized the authority 

it possesses to assure that developers, lending institutions and real estate 

brokers carry out their obligations under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1968. 



ae 

(3) even with respect to the rules and guidelines it has adopted, the 

Administration still has not demonstrated a will to enforce the law vigor- 

ously, e.g., by initiating its own investigations rather than awaiting com- 

plaints. 

(4) the Administration's statement fails to recognize that, particu- 

larly on an issue as controversial as housing opportunity for people who 

are poor and members of minority groups, the major responsibility for 

political and moral leadership rests with the President of the United States. 

We are particularly troubled by the denials of Federal leverage and respon- 

sibility and by the failure to deal forthrightly with the prejudices of 

affluent white citizens. 

The Extent of Deprivation and Discrimination: 

We share with the President the conviction that the continued denial to 

the poor and racial minorities of access to decent housing in an open market 

is the nation's most serious domestic problem. As the President's statement 

recognizes, the continued confinement of racial minorities to ghetto areas is 

not simply a denial of decent housing. It also denies them access to jobs, 

to good schools, to public services and a healthy environment. It results in 

“wasted human potential and stunted human lives." It “engenders unwarranted 

mistrust, hostility and fear." 

The 1970 Census figures show a dramatic increase in racially segregated 

housing patterns--statistics which the President calls "compelling." 

Growing racial isolation is evident in the 66 largest metropolitan areas 

which account for more than half the U.S. population. As the President 

cites: "the central city white population declined...about 2 million (5%)-- 

while the black population increased about 3 million (35%)." These statis— 

tics reflect decades of denial and restrictions in freedom of housing choice 

to minorities. They represent "a history of hardship" in which the Federal 



a3e 

government played a substantial role--through FHA sanctioned restrictive 

covenants; urban renewal projects which "cleared out but did not replace 

housing which, although substandard, was the. only housing available to mino- 

rities"; and officially sanctioned segregation of public housing. 

After long years of helping to establish and entrench patterns of resi- 

dential segregation, the Federal government reversed course. With President 

Kennedy's Executive Order in 1962, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1968 

and the Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Mayer, the law was clarified and 

new tools given to the Federal government to prevent discrimination. 

But progress under these new laws has been infinitesimal, as the census 

figures on continued racial separation confirm. The Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, the agency chiefly responsible for implementing the 

laws, has been weak and lethargic in fulfilling its duties. It failed to ini- 

tiate its own investigations, relying almost exclusively upon complaints of 

discrimination, and thereby placing the burden on individual victims. It 

did not set down clear standards to give content to the fair housing law. 

It did not require affirmative action by the housing industry to undo the 

effects of past discrimination. It had to be called to account by Federal 

Courts in several cases for failing to adopt or implement rules to avoid 

racial concentration in subsidized housing. 

Perhaps most tragic, the patterns of racial isolation established in old 

programs have been carried over to new programs. New housing built for low 

and moderate income families in the suburbs has been occupied for the most 

part by whites. Black citizens, offered the hope of home ownership for the 

first time, have often found themselves relegated to old houses in the inner 

city. Some of the transactions for this housing have been tainted with 

fraud in which thé FHA has been implicated and minority citizens have been 

the victims. While the President speaks of "dramatic progress in increasing 



ar 

" there is increasing evidence of the creation of new the supply of housing, 

ghettos and instant slums. 

It is in this context that the President's statement was issued and new 

steps taken. In the light of this history it is imperative that the most 

careful scrutiny be given to what these measures.are likely to accomplish. 

Will they "correct the effects of past discrimination" as the President 

desires? Will they reverse the trends of racial separation? Will there be 

an end to "wasted human potential and stunted human lives?" 

Action Taken to Eliminate Discriminatory Practices by the Housing Industry: 

First, with respect to removing barriers traceable to industry prac- 

tices, the President states: "Racial discrimination in housing is illegal, 

and will not be tolerated." Further, Federal.policy "must be aimed at 

correcting the effects of past discrimination." "And it must be results— 

oriented so its progress toward the overall goal of increasing housing 

opportunities can be evaluated." Two of the. chief components of the program 

are the "development of information programs" and "policies relating to 

housing marketing practices." 

On June 14, Secretary Romney, Attorney General Mitchell and General 

Services Administrator Kunzig released announcements to amplify these general 

policy statements. Those pertaining to industry practices are the proposed 

affirmative marketing guidelines and site selection criteria for Federally 

subsidized housing. 

The affirmative marketing guidelines seek to give content to the concept 

of "fair housing" by setting forth specific steps for developers to take to 

assure that minority homeseekers will know of and have access to housing 

Opportunities. Although the new guidelines are a step forward, their short- 

comings are substantial. One major defect is that transactions on existing 

housing are not covered. Thus, out of a housing inventory in excess of 



ae 

60 million units, fewer than one million new FHA assisted starts will be 

covered each year. In addition, it is not at all clear that these projects 

will be monitored to insure compliance by developers or whether FHA will con- 

tinue to rely almost totally on the receipt of complaints. 

Furthermore, real estate brokers who play a major role in the sale and 

leasing of housing are not subject to the. requirements of affirmative mar- 

keting criteria. If these new criteria are to have any effect in eliminating 

the dual market, coverage must be extended to include a far greater proportion 

of housing and to bring brokers within its provisions. 

In addition, HUD should condition Federal.assistance on satisfactory 

assurances from developers and brokers that they are not discriminating 

in any business transactions whether or.not federally assisted. 

To carry out the promise to develop. information programs the affirmative 

marketing guidelines direct local FHA insuring offices to make available 

upon request lists of projects or subdivisions on which FHA commitments have 

been issued during the preceding 30 days. Although billed as a new program, 

this procedure was established under E.0.11063 and is not an innovation. 

(in fact, these lists included repossessed housing, FHA insured multi-family 

housing and were not limited to projects of 25 or more units.) What is 

plainly needed is an information program along the lines recommended by. the 

Civil Rights Commission in its report.on the "235" housing program. Merely 

making this information available in local FHA insuring offices is totally 

unrealistic in the area of low and moderate income-housing. As the Commission 

emphasizes, "one of the serious impediments to.the successful operation of 

federally assisted programs that serve lower-income families has been the lack 

of information..." The Commission recommends the establishment of local 

offices where the people whom the program is designed to serve can be assisted 

and counseled. This step is essential. 



While the adoption of site selection procedures is welcome, it should be 

recognized that there are limitations on.what those procedures can achieve. 

The fundamental weakness is that they cannot. compel the building of low and 

moderate income housing where exclusionary land use policies prevent it. 

Stronger measures are needed to make sites available, measures that are dis- 

cussed in the next section. 

Site selection policies can only assure that where developers do have 

sites available, HUD will give preference to.those which provide the best 

opportunity for achieving racial and economic.integration. But under the 

rating system established by HUD it is not at all clear that such sites will 

be favored. Whereas a superior rating is awarded for a site promoting racial 

and economic integration under the category ."nondiscriminatory location" the 

same site may be at a disadvantage under criteria for "neighborhood environment" 

and "employment and utilization of employees and business in project areas." 

Thus it will still be possible to continue. assisting housing constructed in a 

manner to perpetuate and exacerbate racial.concentration. 

Site selection is only a part of the process. Tenant and owner selection 

is of equal significance. Under the present system the private developer or 

sponsor determines who shall buy or rent a unit. He certifies their eligi- 

bility and appies his own standards for acceptance. The Commission on Civil 

Rights in its report on the 235 program found segregated patterns were attribut- 

able in part to the brokers and developers... No program comparable to public 

housing tenant selection procedures has been proposed to ensure equal opportunity 

to eligible families desirous of participating in the 235 and 236 programs. 

It is also discouraging that no other specific measures directed at the 

housing and home finance industry were set. forth or proposed. For example, 

although the Presjdent's statement refers to the responsibilities of Federal 

agencies that regulate lending institutions, neither President Nixon nor 



Tey 

Secretary Romney stated that these agencies would be expected to develop an 

effective program, backed by sanctions, to prevent lending discrimination. Nor 

have these agencies made any commitment to promulgate such a program. Whether 

or not law suits are brought by the Department of Justice to restrain discri- 

minatory lending practices, (and none have been brought to date), it is impera- 

tive that the Federal regulatory agencies act to establish a system for collecting 

the necessary racial data and enforce the. fair housing law with respect to 

their member banks and savings and loan associations. 

In short, the Federal government has not yet provided effective guaran- 

tees that minority citizens will be treated .fairly.at the hands of builders, 

brokers, and lending institutions. Even with. respect to Federally subsidized 

housing we cannot be sure that the disgraceful.patterm found by the Civil Rights 

Conmmission--blacks going into existing housing in ghetto areas, whites into 

new housing in the suburbs--will be terminated. . The policies adopted are 

a small step forward, but there is much yet to-be done. 

Exclusionary Practices of Local Communities: 

While the President's statement and the new policies promulgated by 

Secretary Romney promise some improvement in the implementation of civil 

rights laws against discriminatory industry practices, one of the most 

formidable barriers to equal housing opportunity is that posed by the exclu- 

sionary practices of local communities, particularly zoning ordinances. It 

is here that the Administration's statement.is most ambiguous and its policies 

most deficient. Federal agencies followed_the.President's statement with two 

policy steps: (1) entry into housing litigation involving Black Jack, 

Missouri and (2) the announcement of new housing.criteria to be taken into 

account in awarding water and sewer grants to.local governments (with the 

indication that such criteria may also be applied to other "community 

development" grants). These steps fall far short of what is required to 



= 

make any real contribution to solving the problems of housing deprivation and 

racial concentration that the President so eloquently described. 

In Black Jack, the Department of Justice, after almost seven months of study 

and the public declaration by a member of the President's cabinet that the situation 

involved a "flagrant violation of the Constitution," decided to institute a law 

suit. Black Jack is a case where neighbors of a proposed moderate income project 

incorporated themselves and passed a zoning ordinance for the specific purpose of 

preventing the construction of integrated housing. In short, the basis for Federal 

action was clear and powerful evidence that the exclusionary action of the newly 

created local government was racially motivated.. Since it is rare to find such 

overwhelming evidence of racial motive (in most. cases zoning ordinances existed 

long before efforts to construct low income-housing), the question remains: what 

legal action will the Administration take.in situations where the effect of zoning 

ordinances or other exclusionary action is racial, although there may not be 

available legal proof that the purpose was racial? 

In this respect, the President's message.is most discouraging, for it 

seeks to drive a wedge between race and poverty and to: maintain an artificial 

distinction between "economic" and "racial" discrimination. It is true, as 

the President says, that "the term 'poor' and. 'black' are not interchangeable" 

and that there are "far more poor whites in America than there are poor blacks." 

But these statements, while true, are irrelevant if the issue is meeting the 

housing needs of people who live in the major.metropolitan areas of the Nation. 

In these metropolitan areas, substantially more than half of the poor who are 

confined to the inner city poverty areas are members of minority groups. Seventy 

four per cent of poor white families do not. live in poverty areas. 

This is not to say that many white poor do not have housing needs. But it 

is clear that in major metropolitan areas the major impact of exclusionary zoning 

ordinances is upon black, Puerto Rican, and Mexican American citizens. (Indeed, in 



29 

its affirmative marketing guidelines, the Administration's position is that every 

subsidized housing project will be open to minority citizens. It follows that every 

exclusion by a suburban community of subsidized housing has a racial impact and should 

be opposed by prompt and vigorous Federal..action). 

At one point in his statement, the President-frames a proper legal test: 

"If the effect of the [purportedly economic]-action is to exclude Americans 

from equal housing opportunity on the basis.of their-race, religion or ethnic 

background, we will vigorously oppose it by-whatever.means are most appropriate-— 

regardless of the rationale which may have cloaked the discriminatory act" (emphasis 

added). 

In short, the appropriate legal test.is_racial_effect, not racial purpose. 

If the government were prepared to follow :the.logic of its legal position, it 

would now be investigating many cases. for_the_purpose<of establishing, the racial 

effect of exclusionary local actions. and.we would-be highly encouraged. Instead 

the Administration continues to maintain the.fiction that poverty and race are 

separate problems--a position which, except-for_a.few unusual situations--will 

lead to continued racial concentration. 

The President's statement in this connection, should be compared with his 

statement on the same problem a little.over-one-year ago, in his Second Annual 

Housing Goals Report to the Congress. In-that_message he pointedly stated: 

"Community opposition to low-and moderate-income housing involves both racial and 

economic discrimination...(I)t is difficult,-if-not-impossible, in many communities 

to find sites for low-and moderate-income housing because the occupants will be 

poor, or will be members of a racial minority,-or-both...The consequence is that 

either no low-or moderate-income housing is. built .or that it is built only in the 

inner city, thus heightening the tendency for-racial_polarization in our society." 

The President, in ‘that report, also requested legislation "which would prohibit 

states and local public bodies from.discriminating against housing subsidized by 

the federal government, whether through legislative or administrative action." 



=10" 

It is quite apparent that these statements were motivated by concern that the 

lack of good sites for subsidized housing would severely cripple HUD's efforts to 

attract more highly capitalized entrepreneurs who might utilize industralized 

methods of construction in the federal programs.. This problem may, indeed, be 

the Achilles Heel of "Operation Breakthrough," widely heralded as a major ad- 

ministration initiative in this direction in 1969, or any other program to increase 

the production of housing. 

The eecend Administration initiative is essentially a reaffirmation of 

existing policy, that "to qualify for Federal assistance, the law requires a local 

housing or community development project to .be-part of a plan that expands the 

supply of low-and moderate-income housing in.a racially non-discriminatory way." 

The defects of this policy are (1) that the guidelines issued for water and 

sewer grants are inadequate to assure that..an application will be funded only if 

there is a pledge to provide low and moderate income housing and (2) that the 

policy will be applied only to a few programs, not those which would provide real 

inducements to communities to meet the housing needs of the poor and racial 

minorities. 

The first deficiency is exposed by the guidelines that Secretary Romney 

has issued governing water and sewer grants. These make clear that the provision 

of low and moderate income housing is only one of a great many criteria to be 

considered in determining whether a community will receive a grant. In fact, a 

locality whose application is otherwise in order many qualify for funds even if 

it makes no commitment to meeting housing needs.. We do not find, for example, 

anything in the criteria which would bar such grants to Black Jack, Missouri. 

Even if the standards are strengthened and made mandatory, however, Federal 

policy cannot be made effective until responsibility for meeting the housing 

needs of the poor and minorities is made a condition of all Federal assistance, 



aie 

not just community development projects such as urban renewal, water and sewer 

and open space grants. 

Under present policy, communities which exclude minorities and the poor 

may select among the various Federal programs to meet their community's needs 

irrespective of the conditions and needs of surrounding communities. They seek 

financial assistance for transportation services and highway construction to en- 

courage the introduction of industry and commercial enterprises» to increase their 

tax base. Federal money also flows for programs .of economic development, health, 

education and environmental protection.. It is only because of these substantial 

kinds of assistance that such communities are able to maintain and even improve 

their standard of living while at the same time maintaining Pais and economic 

exclusivity. The continuation of such Federal assistance unaccompanied by 

civil rights standards subverts our major national housing goal--to provide a 

decent home in a suitable living environment for all American citizens. 

In addition, industry and Federal installations are much sought after sources 

of revenue for many suburban communities. Why, for example, would the Federal 

government continue to make large contracts with,.or give favorable tax treatment 

to, employers which locate in communities that exclude poor and black people? 

Suburban communities are often very anxious to attract such employers; the property 

taxes they pay make it possible for the community to provide adequate public 

services without unduly burdening their own citizens. Yet, the location of em- 

ployers in restrictive suburbs frequently makes a.sham of equal employment re- 

quirements. Minority workers cannot live in the community, nor do they have 

adequate access to the jobs. A reasonable--indeed a necessary—-condition of a 

government contract if equal employment laws are ta.be meaningful is that mino- 

rities and lower income employees must be able to live in the communities in which 

the jobs are located. 



a5 

Until 1969, availability of housing for low and moderate income employees 

was not a consideration in relocating or establishing a Federal installation. 

In 1969, by internal regulation and later.in 1970 by Executive Order, GSA was 

required to consider the housing element.in determination to relocate. This 

order was silent on nondiscrimination. . The.memorandum of understanidng between 

GSA and HUD on June 14th strengthens the government's policy. It is not absolutely 

clear, however, that GSA is prohibited from locating in communities which housing 

is not available to all. 

Similar requirements should be applied to all government contractors. 

Further, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission .should include availability 

of housing as a factor in determining equal employment opportunity. 

On these, as on other crucial matters, the President's Housing statement 

is either silent or negative. It has diagnosed a cancer and prescribed aspirin 

as the remedy. 

Executive Leadership 

Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of.President Nixon's statement is its 

limited view of the responsibility the President and the Federal government 

must accept for correcting conditions which are.admittedly very serious. 

No one can dispute the fact that providing housing -for the poor and for 

minorities is one of the most politically sensitive issues of our time. Mr. Nixon 

has recited the fears that exist in suburban communities--that poor people would 

“lower property values," that they would "contribute less in taxes than they 

consume in services," that their entry would "bring a-.contagion of crime, violence, 

drugs." But the responsibility of the President is not simply that of a good 

reporter (to describe prejudices that are held "rightly or wrongly") or even 

that of a good lawyer—-but that of a political and moral leader. It is his duty 

to counter prejudices and fears, to make clear that the remedies are not to impose a 

quarantine or to reinforce the ghetto conditions that bred them in the first place; 



=13— 

to place before the American people the hard alternatives. they face in the 

cities; to offer programs responsive to legitimate concerns. 

Nor can the Administration seek to avoid responsibility by pleading that the 

Federal government lacks "leverage" in the field.of housing. As the statement 

itself acknowledges, the Federal government has been.at minimum a willing partner 

in the development of ghettos and segregated suburbs. It is simply unacceptable 

for the Administration to suggest that the government, with all of the enormous 

resources’ it has at its disposal and with the detailed regulation it has employed 

in fields such as taxation, is powerless to correct .a fundamental injustice which 

it has helped to create. It is particularly ironic that this Administration, so 

concerned with the power and influence of the U.S, abroad, seems content to assume 

the role of a "pitiful, helpless giant" at home, unwilling to assure equality to 

its own citizens. 

The answer, it should be clear, is not a choice between Federal and local 

action, but a wise combination of both. Certainly there are "infinitely varied 

individual questions that arise as our thousands of local governments hammer out 

their individual local land use policies." No one has suggested that the Federal 

government impose a strict pattern of conformity .on every community in the Nation. 

But, if the Federal government does not set down as a fundamental ground rule that 

the local governments in each metropolitan area must meet the needs of the poor 

and minorities in that area for decent housing, few localities will act on their 

own. Once the basic rule of equal housing opportunity is established, there can 

be great scope for diversity in the way that..each locality fulfills its obligation. 

As to the allocation of responsibility within the Federal government itself, 

we believe, as we have stated, that the Executive branch now possesses all of 

the authority necessary to surmount the barriers’ to providing housing for the 

poor and minorities throughout the metropolitan areas. If, however, the Administra- 

tion determines that additional authority or assistance from the legislative branch 



alge 

would be useful, the President should present such legislation to the Congress 

promptly. It will not do for Secretary Romney to.tell the mayors that they 

should seek legislation. The mayors will be regarded as special pleaders; the 

President speaks for all the people. 

Further, the President's leadership is needed not only to create support 

and understanding among citizens but to mobilize the Federal bureaucracy itself. 

Time and again during the last decade, excellent policy statements on equal housing 

opportunity have been subverted by the unwillingness of the Federal housing 

officials to take vigorous action to implement them. Even the limited initiatives 

taken by this Administration will fail unless officials of the FHA and the other 

housing agencies are made to understand that they will have no higher responsibility 

than to carry out policies designed to meet the housing needs of the poor and 

minorities. 

Finally, while we have focussed principally upon the preeminent responsibi- 

lities of the President, it must be recognized that others also have an obligation 

to provide national leadership. It is somewhat discouraging that on an issue as 

vital and controversial as this one, few political leaders have articulated a 

clear position. We call upon national leaders of both political parties, not 

simply to react to the President's statement, but to spell out their own affirma- 

tive programs for securing decent, non-segregated housing for poor and minority 

citizens. 

Conclusion: 

While we are greatly disturbed by the negative aspects of the President's 

statement and the failure of the Administration to take firm steps to assure 

equal housing opportunity, we are not bereft of hope. The Administration has 

recognized for the first time the seriousness of the problem and has taken the 

first ise toward solutions. Much will depend upon its ability to en- 

force the policies that have been adopted and its willingness to reconsider 



=45 = 

self-imposed limitations upon the adoption of policies that would promise genuine 

relief. 

The President has asked in this field as in others that his Administration be 

judged by the results it achieves. That is precisely what we shall do. 



PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS OF LEADERSHIP 

Actors Equity 
African Methodist Episcopal Church 
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church 

Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. 
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. 
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America 
Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen 

American Baptist Convention--Division of Social Concern 
American Civil Liberties Union 
American Ethical Union 
American Federation of Labors--Congress of 

Industrial Organizations 
American Federation of State County & 

Municipal Employees 
American Federation of Teachers 
American GI Forum 
American Jewish Committee 
American Jewish Congress 
American Newspaper Guild 
American Veterans Committee 
Americans For Democratic Action 
Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'rith 
A. Philip Randolph Institute 
B'Nai B'rith Women 
Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters 
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church 
Church of the Brethern-Brethern Service 

Commission 
Church Women United 

Citizens Lobby for Freedom & Fair Play 
College YCS National Staff 
Committee for Community Affairs 
Congress of Racial Equality 
Delta Sigma Theta Sorority 

Episcopal Church--Division of 
Christian Citizenship 

Episcopal Society for Cultural and Racial Unity 
Franciscan Social Action Team 
Friends Committee on National Legislation 
Frontiers International 
Hadassah 
Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders 

International Union 
Improved Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks 

of the World 
Industrial Union Department -- AFL CIO 
International Ladies Garment Workers’ 

Union of America 
International Union of Electrical Radio & 

Machine Workers 
lota Phi Lambda Sorority, Inc. 
Japanese American Citizens League 

CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS 



ae 

Jewish Labor Committee 
Jewish War Veterans 
Kappa Alpha Psi Fratemitv 

League for Industrial Democracy 
League of Women Voters of the United States 

Lutheran Church in America -- Board of Social Ministry 

Lutheran Human Relations Association 
Medical Committee for Human Rights 
Yational Alliance of Postal & Federal Fmployees 

National Alliance of Postal & Federal Fmployees —— 
National Women's Auxiliary 

National Assembly for Social Policy & Development, Inc. 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 

National Association of College Women 
National Association of Colored Women's Clubs, Inc. 
National Association of Market Developers 
National Association of Negro Business & 

Professional Women's Clubs, Tc. 
National Associ2tion of Real Estate Brokers, Inc. 

National Association of Social Workers 
National Baptist Convention, U.S.A. 
National Bar Association 
National Beauty Culturists' League, Inc. 
National Catholic Conference for Interracial Justice 
National Catholic Social Action Conference 
National Community Relations Advisory Council 

National Council of Catholic Men 
National Council of Catholic Women 
National Council of Churches -- Department of Social 

Justice 
National Council of Jewish Women 
National Council of Negro Women 

National Council of Puerto Rican Volunteers, Inc. 
National Council of Senior Citizens, Inc. 
National Dental Association 
National Education Association 
National Farmers Union 
National Federation of Settlements & Neighborhood Centers 
National Federation of Temple Sisterhoods 
National Jewish Welfare Board 
National Medical Association 
National Newspaper Publishers Association 
National Organization for Mexican-American Services 

National Organization for Women 
National Sharecroppers Fund 

National Urban League 

Negro American Labor Council 
Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union 
Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc. 

Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc. 
Phi Delta Kappa Sorority 
Pioneer Women, American Affairs 
Poale Zion ‘ 
Presbyterian Interracial Council 



=a 

Retail Clerks International Association 
Retail Wholesale & Department Store Union 
Scholarship, Education & Defense Fund for 

Racial Equality, Inc. 
Southern Beauty Congress, Inc. 

Southern Christian Leadership Conference 
Textile Workers Union of America 
Transport Workers Union of America 
Union of American Hebrew Congregations 
Unitarian Universalist Association 
Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation 
United Automobile Workers of America 
United Christian Missionary Society 
United Church of Christ -- Committee for Racial 

Justice Now 
United Church of Christ -- Council for Christian Social Action 
United Farm Workers Organizing Committee 
United Hebrew Trades 

United Presbyterian Church -- Commission on Religion & Race 
United Presbyterian Church -- Office of Church & Society 
United Rubber Workers 
U.S. Catholic Conference -- Department of.Social. Development 
United States National Student Association 
United States Youth Council 
United Steelworkers of America 

ted Synagogue of America 
Women's International League for Peace & Freedom 
Workers Defense League 
Workmen's Circle 
Young Men's Christian Association, National Board 
Young Women's Christian Association of the USA, National Board 
Zeta Phi Beta Sorority