Memorandum on Press Conference; Response by Public Interest Groups to Administration Pronouncement on Equal Housing Opportunity
Press Release
July 8, 1971

Cite this item
-
Press Releases, Volume 6. Memorandum on Press Conference; Response by Public Interest Groups to Administration Pronouncement on Equal Housing Opportunity, 1971. d890c8a6-ba92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/3d383baa-c447-4274-b0c9-5632cf47189d/memorandum-on-press-conference-response-by-public-interest-groups-to-administration-pronouncement-on-equal-housing-opportunity. Accessed July 16, 2025.
Copied!
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