Please wait as we load hundreds of rigorously documented facts for you.

YOUR SOURCE FOR RELIABLE RESEARCH


What You’ll Find

For example:


Citation Generator
X
APA
MLA
Chicago (for footnotes)
Chicago (for bibliographies)

Introductory Notes

Please permit Just Facts a brief departure from our mission statement to offer some viewpoints about this issue.

First and foremost, we would like to state that we reject and disdain the notion that any particular race of people is superior or inferior to another. Second, we contend this research proves that the differences between races are insignificant and superficial. We look forward to a day when the word “race” is used only in reference to a contest of speed.

That said, many activists, politicians, journalists, and academics have used half-truths and outright falsehoods about racial issues that divide people and stir up hatred. Thus, we think it is important to shine the light of truth on these topics.

By their very nature, some facts about race and ethnicity have the potential to offend people. Thus, if you should feel slighted at any point while reading this research, we suggest that you look more broadly at the context to understand the larger picture.

In our view, the concrete facts of racial issues don’t demean any race in any way. Instead, they pinpoint societal problems that have harmed many millions of good people and will continue to do so unless we deal with them openly and honestly.

Science

Genetics

* Every race has the same coloring pigment in their skin. It is called melanin. The difference between the skin color of one person and another is a result of the quantity of melanin present in their skin. Hispanics, Asians, blacks, and whites all have the same skin pigment, but people with darker skin have more of it.[1]

* There is more genetic variation among the people of any race than there is between one race and another.[2] [3]

* A study published in the journal Digestive Diseases and Sciences about the effects of race on organ donations found that:

transplantation of organs across racial groups can be performed without fear of an additional problem occurring as a result of some inherent difference between the donor and recipient races.[4]

* In 2013, the American Economic Review published a study conducted by scholars from Harvard and the University of Chicago who analyzed data on the “mental function” of more than 10,000 children aged 8–10 months.[5] [6] [7] Per the study:

On tests of intelligence, Blacks systematically score worse than Whites. Some have argued that genetic differences across races account for the gap. Using a newly available nationally representative data set that includes a test of mental function for children aged eight to twelve months, we find only minor racial differences in test outcomes (0.06 standard deviation units in the raw data) between Blacks and Whites that disappear with the inclusion of a limited set of controls. Relative to Whites, children of all other races lose ground by age two.
 
We confirm similar patterns in another large, but not nationally representative data set. A calibration exercise demonstrates that the observed patterns are broadly consistent with large racial differences in environmental factors that grow in importance as children age. Our findings are not consistent with the simplest models of large genetic differences across races in intelligence, although we cannot rule out the possibility that intelligence has multiple dimensions and racial differences are present only in those dimensions that emerge later in life.[8]

* In 1899, the students of “M Street High,” a segregated black school in Washington, D.C., “scored higher than the students of the white Eastern and Western high schools on standardized tests in English and general subjects.” Per the Records of the Columbia Historical Society:

Between September 1891 and September 1916 M Street High graduated a multitude of young men and women. Many of these graduates achieved prominence in the local Washington community, others in the national and international communities….[9]

* In 2009, Public School 172 in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, New York, had:

  • a “predominately Hispanic population.”
  • one-third of the students not fluent in English and no bilingual classes.
  • 80% of the students poor enough to qualify for free lunch.
  • lower spending per student than the New York City average.
  • the highest average math score of all fourth graders in New York City, with 99% of the students scoring “advanced.”
  • the top-dozen English scores of all fourth graders in New York City, with 99% of students passing.[10]

Evolutionary Beliefs

* Stephen Jay Gould, one of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists, wrote in a 1977 book published by Harvard University Press[11]:

Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859 [when Darwin’s Origin of Species was published[12]], but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.[13]

* In an 1871 book entitled The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin wrote:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous [human-like] apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.[14]

* Thomas Huxley was a British biologist who gave lectures to promote the acceptance of evolution and was called “Darwin’s bulldog.”[15] In a book published in 1872, he wrote:

It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous [having a projecting lower jaw] has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites.[16]

* In 1874, John Tyndall, incoming President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, stated in his inaugural address:

[Darwin’s] success has been great; and this implies not only the solidity of his work, but the preparedness of the public mind for such a revelation.
Mr. [Herbert] Spencer stands upon his own ground, invoking, instead of the experiences of the individual, the registered experiences of the race. … The human brain is the “organized register of infinitely numerous experiences received during the evolution of life, or rather during the evolution of that series of organisms through which the human organism has been reached. The effects of the most uniform and frequent of these experiences have been successively bequeathed, principal and interest, and have slowly mounted to that high intelligence which lies latent in the brain of the infant. Thus it happens that the European inherits from twenty to thirty cubic inches more of brain than the Papuan. Thus it happens that faculties, as of music, which scarcely exist in some inferior races, become congenital in superior ones. Thus it happens that out of savages unable to count up to the number of their fingers, and speaking a language containing only nouns and verbs, arise at length our Newtons and Shakespeares.”[17]

* Ernst Haeckel was a German biologist whose writings “exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin” in swaying people to accept evolution.[18] [19] [20] In The Descent of Man, Darwin wrote that Haeckel’s “knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine.”[21] In an 1874 book entitled The Evolution of Man, Haeckel wrote the following words and presented the following sketch:

Apes, on the contrary, can grasp in this way with the hind-foot as well as the fore-foot, and were therefore regarded as four-handed. Many tribes, however, among the lower races of men, especially many negro tribes, use the foot in the same way as the hand.
Ernst Haeckel’s Depiction of Black People

[22]

* In an 1868 book entitled The History of Creation: Or The Development of the Earth and Its Inhabitants by the Action of Natural Causes, Haeckel wrote:

The lowest stage of all straight-haired men, and on the whole perhaps all of the still living human species, is occupied by the Australian, or Austral-negro (Homo Australis).[23]
The Caucasian, or Mediterranean man (Homo-Mediterraneus), has from time immemorial been placed at the head of races of men, as the most highly developed and perfect. … In bodily as well as in mental qualities, no other human species can equal the Mediterranean. This species alone (with the exception of the Mongolian) has had an actual history; it alone has attained to that degree of civilization which seems to raise man above the rest of nature.[24]

* In 1914, the American Book Company published a high school textbook entitled A Civic Biology that became the best-selling biology textbook in the United States.[25] In the section on evolution, it states:

At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from each other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. There are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.[26]

* In 1923, the Princeton University Press published a book written by the Chairman of the National Research Council entitled A Study of American Intelligence. It reads:

The essential point is that there are 10,000,000 Negroes here now and that the proportion of mulattos to a thousand blacks has increased with alarming rapidity since 1850. According to all evidence available, then, American intelligence is declining, and will proceed with an accelerating rate as the racial admixture becomes more and more extensive. The decline of American intelligence will be more rapid than the decline of intelligence of European national groups, owing to the presence here of the Negro. These are the plain, if somewhat ugly, facts that our study shows. The deterioration of the American intelligence is not inevitable, however, if public action can be aroused to prevent it. There is no reason why legal steps should not be taken which would insure a continuously progressive upward evolution.[27]

* A 2015 serial work about academic theories on Africa describes “a significant body of modem scientific literature” from “comparative and evolutionary psychology” claiming that “sub-Saharan African populations have, on average, very low intelligence….”[28]

* Extensive documentation of false evolutionary beliefs is presented in the book Rational Conclusions. This book was written by James D. Agresti, the president of Just Facts.


Technological Development

* Some modern scholars have claimed that the historically slow development of technically advanced civilizations in Africa is proof that black people are intellectually inferior.[29]

* Communication and commerce are essential elements in the development of technology.[30] [31] Before the modern era, communication was restricted in Africa by:

  • geography. Until recently, water has been the most efficient and inexpensive mode of transportation and commerce. The coastline of Africa is smooth and contains limited natural harbors, and as such, it has been largely unnavigable, as are most of the rivers in Africa.[32] [33] [34]
  • linguistic diversity. Africa has about 10% of the world’s population and about 30% of the world’s languages.[35]

Slavery

* Slavery has been widely practiced since the dawn of recorded history and up until recent centuries in places like China, India, Africa, England, Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, Scandinavia, and the Middle East.[36]


United States

* The first Africans to set foot on mainland North America arrived in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619. Historical records suggest they may have been indentured servants.[37]

* Slavery was officially instituted in Jamestown in 1640, Massachusetts in 1641, Connecticut in 1650, Virginia in 1661, Maryland in 1663, New York in 1665, and South Carolina in 1682. By the early 1700s, all the colonies of British North America had legalized slavery.[38] [39]

* In 1774, all of the British North American colonies except for Georgia formed an alliance to combat “a ruinous system of colony administration, adopted by the British ministry about the year 1763.” This coalition was called the “First Continental Congress.”[40] It’s articles of association stated:

We will neither import nor purchase, any slave imported after the first day of December next; after which time, we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are concerned in it.[41]

* On July 4th of 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, which declared that they would no longer submit to the British government. It states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.[42] [43]

* After the signing of the Declaration of Independence:

  • within 10 years, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont legally abolished slavery, although some of these states passed gradual emancipations.
  • within 30 years, New Jersey and New York legally abolished slavery through gradual emancipations, and the last slaves in New York were freed in 1827.[44]
  • within 60 years, the British Empire legally abolished slavery with gradual emancipations through 1838.[45]
  • within 90 years, the U.S. Constitution was amended to abolish slavery.[46]

* James Madison was the primary author of the Bill of Rights and is known as the “Father of the Constitution” for his central role in its formation.[47] [48] In 1787 during the convention at which the Constitution was formed, Madison stated that all civilized societies are “divided into different Sects, Factions, and interests,” and “where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger.” He stated that this was the cause of slavery, which he called “the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.”[49]

* During the Constitutional Convention, a debate arose over a provision to stop the slave trade. The states of Georgia and South Carolina objected that they would never agree to such a provision, and the delegates proposed a compromise that would forbid the federal government from stopping the slave trade until 1808. This provision was passed over “considerable opposition” from those who wanted to end the slave trade immediately. Summarizing the views of this opposition, Luther Martin, a delegate to the Convention stated:

It ought to be considered, that national crimes can only be, and frequently are, punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all, and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master.
[W]e ought rather to prohibit expressly, in our Constitution, the further importation of slaves; and to authorize the general government, from time to time, to make such regulations as should be thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of slavery, and the emancipation of the slaves which are already in the states—that slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and habituates us to tyranny and oppression.[50]

* Benjamin Franklin was the first president of the nation’s first anti-slavery society. Other U.S. founding fathers who were leaders and members of anti-slavery societies include (but are not limited to) John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Chase, Luther Martin, James Bayard, and Caesar Rodney.[51]

* In 1807, the U.S. Congress passed and President Thomas Jefferson signed a law “to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States.” The law also prohibited any U.S. citizen from building, fitting, equipping, loading, or otherwise preparing a slave ship.[52]

* Quotes from the founding fathers regarding slavery:

  • “I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it—but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that is by Legislative authority: and this, as far as my suffrage will go, shall never be wanting.”[53]
    – George Washington, president of the Constitutional Convention and the first United States president[54] [55]
  • “Why keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil; let an effectual mode of getting rid of it be pointed out, or let the question sleep forever; the [Missouri] compromise will prevent the extension of slavery beyond 36 degrees north and west of the Missouri.”[56]

– Charles Carroll, member of the Continental Congress and signer of the Declaration of Independence[57]

  • “The cause of liberty, like most other good causes, have its difficulties, and sometimes its persecutions, to struggle with. It has advanced more rapidly in this than other countries, but all its objects are not yet attained; and I much doubt whether they ever will be, in this or any other terrestrial state. That men should pray and fight for their own freedom, and yet keep others in slavery, is certainly acting a very inconsistent, as well as unjust and, perhaps, impious part; but the history of mankind is filled with instances of human improprieties.”[58]

– John Jay, president of the Continental Congress, chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and governor of New York[59]

  • “Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. It prostrates every benevolent and just principle of action in the human heart. It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior.”[60]

– Benjamin Rush, member of the Continental Congress and signer of the Declaration of Independence[61]

* Thomas Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and a lifelong opponent of slavery.[62] [63] [64]

* When Jefferson was 14 years old, his father died, and he inherited 2,500 acres of land and about 40 slaves. He later inherited slaves from his father-in-law, sold slaves, and bought about 20 slaves in order to reunite families and fulfill labor needs. Jefferson owned about 600 slaves, freed two of them during his lifetime, freed five more in his will, and effectively freed three others by letting them escape.[65] [66]

* Jefferson stated that the peaceful coexistence of blacks and whites in Virginia was not practical because of “rooted prejudices entertained by the whites,” and “ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained.” In 1785, he suggested that a law be enacted to:

  • “emancipate all slaves born after passing the act.”
  • keep them “with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expense, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniuses.”
  • equip them “with arms, implements of household and of the handicraft arts, feeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, etc.”
  • settle them in “such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper.”
  • “extend to them our alliance and protection.”[67]

* Quotes from Thomas Jefferson regarding slavery (arranged chronologically):

  • “What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! Who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment, & death itself in vindication of his own liberty, and the next moment be deaf to all those motives whose power supported him through his trial, and inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose” – 1786[68]
  • “I congratulate you, my dear friend, on the law of your state for suspending the importation of slaves, and for the glory you have justly acquired by endeavoring to prevent it forever. This abomination must have an end, and there is a superior bench reserved in heaven for those who hasten it.” – 1787[69]
  • “As far as I can judge from the experiments which have been made, to give liberty to, or rather, to abandon persons whose habits have been formed in slavery is like abandoning children.” – 1789[70]
  • “Personally, I am ready and desirous to make any sacrifice which shall ensure their gradual but complete retirement from the State, and effectually, at the same time, establish them elsewhere in freedom and safety.” – 1817[71]
  • “I can say with conscious truth that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would, to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way.” – 1820[72]
  • “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly….” – 1821[73]
  • “The abolition of the evil is not impossible; it ought never therefore to be despaired of. Every plan should be adopted, every experiment tried, which may do something towards the ultimate object.” – 1825[74]

* Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence denounced the King of England for violating the “most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery” and “suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.” The Continental Congress removed this passage at the behest of South Carolina and Georgia. In his memoirs, Jefferson wrote:

Our northern brethren also I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for though their people have very few slaves themselves yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.[75]

* Writing about the debates that took place in the Continental Congress about slavery and other issues, Jefferson stated that all of the delegates agreed that the colonies must compromise and join together to be successful in their rebellion against Britain, because:

should the idea get abroad that there is likely to be no union among us, it will damp the minds of the people, diminish the glory of our struggle, and lessen its importance; because it will open to our view future prospects of war and dissension among ourselves.[76]

* In the 1850s, the Republican Party was formed on the basis of opposition to slavery. The founders chose the name “Republican,” because they considered their principles to be aligned with those of Thomas Jefferson and the party he formed—which was called the “Republicans” and later the “Democratic-Republicans.”[77] [78] [79] [80] The modern Democratic Party also traces its roots to Thomas Jefferson and calls him “the first Democratic President.”[81] [82]

* Abraham Lincoln, who often invoked Jefferson’s name and ideals, joined the Republican Party in 1856.[83] [84] [85]

* In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected as the first Republican president of the United States.[86] [87] [88] During his campaign, Lincoln stated that the Democrats of his era:

hold the liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, when in conflict with another man’s right of property. Republicans, on the contrary, are both for the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar.
This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, cannot long retain it.[89]

* Before Lincoln’s election, Southern Democrats warned that a “Black Republican” presidential victory would cause them to split from the United States. In the period between Lincoln’s election and when he took office, seven Southern states seceded.[90] [91]

* The first state to split from the United States was South Carolina.[92] Its declaration of secession details “the immediate causes which have led to this act,” all of which pertain to slavery. For example, it states:

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.[93]

* The secession declarations of Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas all identify Northern hostility to slavery as their main reason for splitting from the United States.[94] [95] [96]

* In a March 1861 speech given less than a month before the outset of the Civil War,[97] the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, stated:

The new Constitution [of the Confederacy] has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact.
The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time.
 
The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.[98]

* In March of 1861 during his first inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln stated that his objective was to preserve the Union and not to abolish slavery. He said that he would not take military action against the Southern states unless they attacked.[99] [100]

* The Civil War began in April of 1861 when Confederates attacked a federal fort in South Carolina. The war ended in the Spring of 1865 when the Confederacy surrendered to the Union.[101] [102]

* In December of 1865, the U.S. government ratified the 13th Amendment of the Constitution, which reads in full:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
 
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[103]

Civil Rights

* Civil rights, as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary, are:

the rights that every person should have regardless of his or her sex, race, or religion.[104]

Post-Civil War

* In the winter of 1865/66, a group of people that included many Confederate Army veterans met in Pulaski, Tennessee, and formed the Ku Klux Klan. Members of this organization murdered and intimidated African Americans and their white supporters, particularly those who were active in politics and in educating black children.[105] [106] [107]

* In 1868, the U.S. government ratified the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which reads in part:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[108]

* In 1870, the U.S. government ratified the 15th Amendment of the Constitution, which reads in full:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
 
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[109]

* In 1866, 1870, 1871, and 1875, the U.S. government enacted a series of civil rights laws to ensure that African Americans had the rights to:

  • “make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property….”[110]
  • “vote at any election … without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude….”[111] [112]
  • “the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement….”[113]

* To enforce these civil rights laws, Republican President Ulysses S. Grant sent federal troops into the South and declared martial law in certain places.[114] [115] [116]

* By 1872, after “thousands of blacks and hundreds of whites had been massacred or driven from their homes and communities,” the Klan was temporarily disbanded. Factors that led to this included:

  • federal enforcement of civil rights laws.
  • the Klan had achieved its objective of white political supremacy via Democratic Party dominance in the South.
  • the founder of the Klan ordered that it be ended due to its extreme violence, although some local chapters continued.[117] [118] [119] [120]

* In a decade surrounding the enactment of the 14th and 15th Amendments and the 1866–1875 federal civil rights laws, 16 African Americans became members of the U.S. Congress and 600 were elected to state legislatures.[121]


Cruikshank and Its Aftermath

* In 1875 case of United States v. Cruikshank, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5 to 4) that the U.S. Constitution:

  • does not require state governments to protect the individual rights found in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, such as the rights to life, liberty, assembly, bear arms, or property.
  • forbids the federal government from protecting Constitutional rights unless they are “an attribute of national citizenship,” such as assembling for the purpose of petitioning the U.S. Congress.[122] [123] [124]

* When Republican Senator Jacob Howard introduced the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, he stated that it would:

  • “restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect” the “personal rights guaranteed and secured by” the Bill of Rights, such as “freedom of speech,” “the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “the right to keep and to bear arms,” the “right to be tried by an impartial jury,” and others.
  • prevent the States “from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. It prohibits the hanging of a black man for a crime for which the white man is not to be hanged. It protects the black man in his fundamental rights as a citizen with the same shield which it throws over the white man.”
  • give the U.S. Congress the “authority to pass laws which are appropriate to the attainment of the great object of the amendment.”[125]

* When ratified, the language in the 14th Amendment that pertains to the three bullet points above was word-for-word the same as the amendment introduced by Jacob Howard.[126] [127] [128]

* The Supreme Court’s ruling in Cruikshank allowed white militias and mobs to subjugate black people through violence and intimidation.[129]

* In 1877, all federal troops left the South as part of a deal that some Republicans made with some Democrats to deliver a disputed presidential election to Republican Rutherford Hayes.[130]

* In 1877, Southern states began implementing laws and other measures that effectively restricted most black people from voting. These included (but were not limited to):

  • poll taxes, which required the payment of a fee to vote. Since the majority of blacks were recently released from slavery and thus poor, most could not afford the fee in order to vote.
  • literacy tests, which required people to pass a test before they could vote. Since some states previously had laws that forbid teaching slaves to read, many blacks in the South could not pass these tests. Also, laws requiring literacy tests were sometimes written so that certain people were exempt from them under criteria that mainly applied to whites.[131] [132] [133]

* Such restrictive voting laws were gradually enacted in different states, and over time, they “virtually eliminated” black people from voting in the South.[134] [135]

* In 1901, George White of North Carolina left the U.S. House of Representatives. He was the last black member of Congress from the South until 1973.[136]

* In 1913, Democrat Woodrow Wilson, a founder of modern liberalism, became president of the United States.[137] [138] As president, Wilson:

  • segregated the federal workforce by creating separate restrooms, cafeterias, and work areas for black and white people.
  • appointed racists to his cabinet and authorized them to wantonly fire African-Americans and prevent them from advancing to high-level civil service positions that they held during Republican administrations.
  • told a group of black professionals who protested Wilson’s polices that “segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.”[139] [140]
  • had a special screening at the White House of The Birth of a Nation, a film that glorified the Ku Klux Klan and was used by the Klan as a recruiting tool.[141] [142] [143]

* Between 1915 and the mid-1920s, the Ku Klux Klan grew to more than two million members. In addition to attacking black people, the Klan also targeted immigrants, Jews, and Catholics.[144]

* From 1901 to 1929, more than 1,200 African Americans were lynched in the South. During this period, Republicans tried to pass federal anti-lynching laws but were thwarted by Democrats.[145] [146]


New Deal

* From the end of the Civil War until 1930, nearly all black voters were Republicans.[147]

* In the 1930s—while Southern blacks were effectively blocked from voting—Northern blacks began switching in large numbers to the Democratic Party. They did this because they supported the Great Depression-era “New Deal” programs of Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.[148] [149] [150] [151] [152] Some of Roosevelt’s New Deal programs:

  • provided money for people with financial hardships.[153]
  • funded housing projects.[154]
  • created the Social Security program.[155]
  • offered mortgage relief for the unemployed.[156] [157]

* New Deal programs sometimes contained provisions that discriminated against minorities.[158]

* A New Deal law known as National Labor Relations Act of 1935 allowed labor unions to form “closed shops,” which gave unions control over who companies could employ.[159] [160] [161] [162] Many unions excluded African Americans and other minorities from membership, and hence, people of color were locked out of numerous workplaces.[163] [164] [165]

* In 1947, Republicans in Congress enacted a law that banned closed shops by requiring that union membership be available to all employees.[166] [167] [168] [169] This significantly reduced but did not end racial discrimination by unions.[170] [171]

* In 1941, President Roosevelt nominated Hugo Black, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, to the U.S. Supreme Court. With knowledge of this, the NAACP supported Black because of his liberal/progressive voting record.[172]

* In 1944, Hugo Black authored the Supreme Court’s decision in Korematsu v. United States. This ruling allowed the Roosevelt administration to place U.S. citizens of Japanese descent into detention camps during World War II without any evidence that they were disloyal to the United States.[173] In this decision:

  • the six justices that formed the majority were appointed by Roosevelt.
  • two of the dissenting justices were appointed by Roosevelt.
  • one of the dissenting justices was appointed by Republican Herbert Hoover.[174]

Post World War II

* Per the 1963 textbook The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development, during the post-World War II era:

Northern Democrats had become acutely aware that the Southern Democratic stand on civil rights badly damaged the party strength not only in presidential campaigns but also in local Northern congressional elections.[175]

* In the 1946 national elections, Democrats lost 55 seats in the House and 12 seats in the Senate, giving Republicans control of Congress.[176] [177]

* Three months before the next national elections (in 1948)[178]:

  • Democratic President Harry Truman issued an executive order declaring that “there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.”[179]
  • the Democratic Party added the following language to its platform:
[R]acial and religious minorities must have the right to live, the right to work, the right to vote, the full and equal protection of the laws, on a basis of equality with all citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution.[180]

* As a result of the actions above, some Southern Democrats split from the Democratic Party to form the States Rights Democratic Party, commonly called the Dixiecrats. Their party platform supported segregation and laws that banned interracial marriages. The Dixiecrats chose Strom Thurmond (D–SC) as their nominee, won four states in the 1948 presidential election, and then dissolved.[181] [182]

* The Republican Party platforms of 1952 and 1956 called for comprehensive civil rights legislation, and Northern Democrats joined Republicans in trying to pass this. Southern Democrats in the Senate led by Lyndon B. Johnson blocked these laws and removed enforcement processions from them. When one such law passed in 1960, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower called it “bitterly disappointing” because of its impotence.[183] [184]

* In 1957, Democrat Orval Faubus, the governor of Arkansas, ordered the Arkansas National Guard to physically block the integration of nine black students at a Little Rock high school. Faubus withdrew the Arkansas National Guard after Eisenhower instructed his attorney general to obtain an injunction against Faubus. A mob then formed that prevented the children from entering the school. This prompted Eisenhower to send several companies of the United States Army to disperse the mob and allow for the school to be integrated.[185] [186]

* In his 1960 “State of the Union” address, Eisenhower called for a new civil rights law to enforce voting rights for minorities. The bill was passed by Congress over the objections of Southern Democrats, who conducted one of the longest filibusters in the history of the Senate in attempts to stop it. Eisenhower then signed it into law.[187]

* In January of 1964, the U.S. Constitution was amended to abolish poll taxes for all federal elections and to ensure that no one could be excluded from federal primary elections on account of their race.[188] Previously, the Democratic Party in some states only allowed white people to vote in their primary elections.[189] [190]


Civil Rights Act of 1964

* In the summer of 1964, the 88th U.S. Congress passed and Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed a civil rights bill to:

  • “enforce the constitutional right to vote.”
  • forbid “discrimination in public accommodations.”
  • prohibit “discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
  • prevent private employers and labor unions from discriminating based upon “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”[191]

* The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed Congress with 65% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans voting for it.[192]

* The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was structured so that it would not affect labor union “seniority rights” that required workers to be “laid off or denied a chance for promotion” on account of time served with a union or company. President Johnson’s Department of Justice wrote that this “would be true” in cases where “white workers had more seniority than Negroes” even if “seniority rights were built up over a period of time during which Negroes were not hired….”[193]

* The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was structured so that it exempted state and local governments from its provision that forbids employers from discriminating based upon race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[194]

* In 1971, the U.S. Senate concluded that “employment discrimination in State and local governments is more pervasive than in the private sector.” In 1972, Congress passed and Republican President Richard Nixon signed a law that made such discrimination illegal.[195] [196] [197]


* In 1999, Democratic presidential candidate and former U.S. Senator Bill Bradley gave a speech he entitled, “Why I Am a Democrat.” In it, Bradley stated:

For me, the crucial moment came one hot June evening, when the Senate voted on the Civil Rights Act. I was in a corner of the Senate chamber, looking on.
But that night I became a Democrat, because I knew in my heart that I belonged with the party who had worked hardest to make America a better place for everybody.[198]

* In the U.S. Senate:

  • 69% of Democrats and 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[199]
  • 23 Democrats and 6 Republicans participated in a 57-day filibuster to stop the legislation.[200]

* In 1999, Democratic Vice President Al Gore gave a speech before the NAACP in which he stated:

My commitment to civil rights is a deeply personal one. I watched my father when he was a U.S. Senator from Tennessee take courageous stands for civil rights. He opposed the poll tax in the 40s, and supported civil rights in the 50s, he supported voting rights in 1963, and was one of two Southern Senators to refuse to sign the hateful Southern Manifesto opposing integration in our schools. He lost his Senate seat because of his stands.[201] [202]

* Al Gore, Sr.:

  • voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[203]
  • participated in a 57-day filibuster to stop it.[204]
  • proposed an amendment to it that would have kept federal funds flowing to schools that defied court desegregation orders. Gore’s amendment was defeated 74 to 25, with 21 Democrats and 4 Republicans voting for it.[205] [206] [207]

Southern Strategy

* The phrase “Southern Strategy” refers to the claim that Republicans have gained votes in the South since the mid-1900s by opposing civil rights and appealing to racism.[208] [209] [210]

* In 2012, the Daily Beast published a commentary by Jordan Michael Smith entitled “The Republican Party’s Race Problem and Strom Thurmond’s Legacy.” In this piece, Smith claimed:

As the Democrats abandoned their longtime hostility to African-Americans’ civil rights in the 1940s, Thurmond and his compatriots moved to the Republican Party.[211]

* Among the 19 U.S. Senators who signed the 1956 Southern Manifesto denouncing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision requiring racial integration in public schools:

  • all were Democrats.
  • one (Thurmond) later joined the Republican Party.
  • 18 remained in the Democratic Party for their entire congressional careers.[212] [213]

* Among the 28 Southern Democratic congressional districts carried by Thurmond when he ran as a Dixiecrat in the 1948 presidential election, four of them were carried by the Republican presidential candidate in the next election.[214]

* Among the 68 Southern Democratic congressional districts not carried by Thurmond when he ran as a Dixiecrat in the 1948 presidential election, 26 of them were carried by the Republican presidential candidate in the next election.[215]

* The Southerners who voted for Thurmond in the 1948 presidential election were primarily whites who lived in poor areas with large black populations. These were whites with low incomes who felt their lives would be drastically changed by desegregation.[216] [217]

* From the 1950s to 1990s, white Southerners with incomes in the bottom third of the nation voted for Republicans approximately as follows:

White Southern Low-Income Votes for Republicans

[218]


* In the same Daily Beast commentary, Jordan Michael Smith claimed:

  • “It was not until the mid-1960s that the South turned from blue [Democrat] to red [Republican].”
  • “In 1964 and ‘65, Democratic President Lyndon Johnson introduced and signed the strongest civil-rights bills yet enacted by Congress.”
  • In the 1964 presidential election, “Republicans won South Carolina and four other Southern states, the best showing in the South for the party since reconstruction [1877].”[219] [220]

* Republicans won a greater portion of Southern electoral votes in the 1956

presidential election than they did in in the 1964 election. In the presidential elections of the 1950s and 1960s, Republicans won the following portions of electoral votes in the South:

Election Year

Electoral Votes

Won By Republicans

1952

37%

1956

44%

1960

26%

1964

37%

1968

45%

[221]


* In 2010, Princeton University history professor Sean Wilentz claimed:

Everybody knows that in 1964, a proud southern Democratic President, Lyndon Johnson, pushed hard to secure the Civil Rights Bill, with the aid of a coalition of northern Democrats and Republicans. This sent the defeated segregationist Southern Democrats (led by Strom Thurmond) fleeing into the Republican Party….[222] [223] [224]

* In 2013, Bloomberg published an editorial by Francis Wilkinson in which he claimed that:

approximately 100 percent of racist Southern Democrats switched parties to become Republicans between 1960 and 1980.[225]

* Among the 21 Democratic Senators who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

  • one (Thurmond) joined the Republican Party.
  • 20 remained in the Democratic Party for their entire congressional careers.[226] [227]

* Prominent Democrat segregationists who did not switch to the Republican Party include (but are not limited to):

  • George Wallace, the “four-time governor of Alabama who led the South’s fight against federally ordered racial integration in the 1960s.”[228] In 2013, MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes showed a photograph of Wallace and identified him as a Republican.[229]
  • Bull Connor, the commissioner of public safety in Birmingham, Alabama, who allowed the Ku Klux Klan to commit violence and ordered police to use dogs and firehoses against peaceful civil rights activists led by Martin Luther King, Jr.[230] In 2014, New York City Public Advocate, Democrat Letitia James, referred to New York Republican gubernatorial candidate, Rob Astorino, as “a far-right Republican, someone who reminds me of Bull Connor in the 1960s.”[231]
  • Lester Maddox, the restaurant owner who became the governor of Georgia after he closed down his restaurant to defy a federal court order requiring him to serve black people.[232] When Maddox passed on in 2003, the following news programs covered his death without revealing that he was a Democrat: ABC’s Good Morning America, CNN’s American Morning, NBC’s Today, the CBS Evening News, CNBC’s The News with Brian Williams, NBC’s Nightly News, ABC’s World News Tonight.[233]
  • Orval Faubus, the governor of Arkansas who ordered the Arkansas National Guard to physically block the integration of nine black students at a Little Rock high school.[234] [235] When Faubus died in 1994, his New York Times obituary contained one hint of his membership in the Democratic Party, an indirect reference located inside the 17th paragraph.[236]

* In 2015, the journal Political Analysis published an article by Timothy J. Hoffman about how “race dominates presidential elections.” In it, he claimed that in the 1968 presidential race, Republican Richard Nixon sought to “galvanize the support of old segregationist Southern Democrats through his ‘Southern Strategy’,” which involved using “racially tinged appeals to court white conservative voters.”[237] [238]

* In a 1966 op-ed in the Washington Post, Nixon detailed his strategy for winning the South. The first plank of this strategy was “human rights,” of which Nixon wrote:

The Republican opportunity in the South is a golden one; but Republicans must not go prospecting for the fool’s gold of racist votes. Southern Republicans must not climb aboard the sinking ship of racial injustice. They should let Southern Democrats sink with it, as they have sailed with it.
 
Any Republican victory that would come of courting racists, black or white, would be a defeat for our future in the South, and our party in the Nation. It would be a battle won in a lost cause.
 
The Democratic Party in the South has ridden to power for a century on an annual tide of racist oratory. The Democratic Party runs with the hounds in the North and the hares in the South.
 
The Republicans, as the South’s party of the future, should reject this hypocritical policy of the past. On this issue, it is time for both Republicans and Democrats to stop talking of what is smart politically and start talking of what is right morally.[239]

* Richard Nixon:

  • was a member of the NAACP.[240]
  • as vice president of the U.S., instituted measures in 1960 to insure that unions abided by government contracts that forbid racial bias.[241]
  • as president of the U.S., signed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, which:
    • gave the federal government the “power to bring lawsuits in the Federal district courts to enforce the rights guaranteed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
    • expanded the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit employment discrimination by state and local governments and small businesses.[242] [243] [244]

* In the same Political Analysis article, Timothy J. Hoffman claimed that one of Nixon’s “racially tinged appeals” was supporting “states’ rights.”[245] [246] [247]

* In the same Washington Post op-ed detailing his Southern strategy, Nixon wrote:

Another foundation of the party of the future in the South is a new concept of states rights. Republicans reject the old concept that belongs to the party of the past.
 
Southern Democrats have used states rights as instruments of reaction; Republicans support states rights as instruments of progress. Southern Democrats insisted on states rights so that they might avoid state obligations; Republicans support states rights because they want the states, rather than the Federal Government, to assume responsibilities—in education, transportation, health and human welfare.
 
The best answer to bigger government in Washington is better government in the states. As a positive step toward this goal, Republicans are introducing legislation remitting to the states a fixed percentage of Federal income tax collections. This will provide the states with the means to deal with their own problems in their own way—without Federal domination and control.[248]

* In the same Daily Beast commentary, Jordan Michael Smith claimed that “Nixon pioneered” the Southern strategy to “appeal to the prejudices” of Southerners and conservatives by “opposing busing and desegregating schools, advocating states’ rights and prioritizing law and order.”[249]

* From 1965 to 1974, the murder rate in the U.S. increased every year, growing by a total of 92% over this decade.[250]

* The policy of “busing” to desegregate schools involved:

  • removing children from their neighborhood schools and busing them to other schools, often via long commutes that made it hard for them to participate in extracurricular activities.
  • quotas to achieve specific numbers of black, white, and Latino students in certain schools.
  • court-ordered mergers of urban and suburban school districts.
  • in at least one case, forcing all children in a district to change schools at least once during grades K to 5.[251] [252] [253] [254]

* National polls conducted in 1971 and 1972 found that:

  • 16% of the public supported busing.
  • 84% of whites and 92% of blacks thought that black and white students should attend school together.[255] [256]

* In 1975, Congressional Quarterly reported:

  • “Many of the people who once supported busing as educationally and socially beneficial to both races are questioning or even forsaking it as a remedy.”
  • “In a recent national survey, the Gallup organization found that only 18 percent of those interviewed favored busing. Whites rejected it by a margin of 75 to 15 percent and blacks by 47 to 40 percent. Seventy-two percent of those contacted said they would support a constitutional amendment to prohibit it.”[257]

* In 2015, the Washington Post published an article by Max Ehrenfreund entitled, “How Racism Explains Republicans’ Rise in the South.” In it, he claimed:

At the end of the World War II, nearly 80 percent of white Southerners were Democrats, compared to 40 percent of whites in the rest of the country. By the Reagan administration, white Southerners were no more likely to identify as Democrats than whites elsewhere. Today, the white vote in the South is almost solidly Republican.
For decades, Gallup has been asking Americans whether they would consider voting for a black presidential candidate. White Southerners who said they would were no less likely to call themselves Democrats after the spring of 1963 than before. But many of those who said they wouldn’t vote for a black candidate left the party.[258] [259] [260] [261] [262]

* Between the 1950s and 1990s, the portion of white Southerners who said they would be willing to vote for a black president increased from 8% to 95%.[263] [264] During the same period, the portion of white Southerners who voted for Republicans in:
 

  • presidential races increased from about 48% to 51%.
  • U.S. House races increased from about 16% to 60%.
  • U.S. House races in which both the Republican and Democratic parties fielded a candidate increased from about 31% to 56%.[265]
White Southern Votes for Republicans

[266] [267] [268]

* Factors that may have played a role in Democratic Party losses in the South over past decades include but are not limited to:

  • growing prosperity in the South. Middle- and upper-income voters are more likely than low-income voters to vote for Republicans.[269] [270] [271] Between 1940 and 1980, the average per-capita income in the South rose from 53% of the U.S. non-Southern average to 85% of this average.[272]
  • the Democratic Party’s opposition to gun rights. The South has the highest gun ownership rate of any region in the nation, and Democrat appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court have consistently ruled that U.S. citizens don’t have an individual right to bear arms.[273] [274]
  • the Democratic Party’s support for abortion and government funding of abortion at all stages of development and for effectively any reason.[275] [276] The South has the highest rate of evangelical Christians in the country, and evangelical Christians are more opposed to abortion that any other segment of society.[277] [278]

* In 2005, New York magazine published a commentary by Frank Rich in which he claimed that Kevin Phillips was a “Nixon political strategist whose book The Emerging Republican Majority helped cement the party’s ‘southern strategy’ of mining white backlash to the civil-rights movement.”[279]

* Kevin Phillips:

  • was 28 years old when he was hired by the Nixon campaign as a special assistant in July of 1968.
  • left the Nixon administration when he was 29 years old in early 1970, and he never worked again in government or the Republican Party.[280] [281]

* In the preface to the 1970 edition of The Emerging Republican Majority, Phillips wrote:

The book was not and is not a “strategy”—Northern, Southern or Western. It is a portrait of American presidential voting behavior from Civil War days to 1968.
The book does not represent—or purport to represent—the past or present “strategy” of the Nixon Administration. Critics who say it does ignore the fact that it makes no strategic or policy recommendations.
Inasmuch as the book does project relatively low presidential Republicanism among Negroes and in the Northeast, I have been accused of “writing off” both segments. This is not true. I simply projected existing trends perhaps with more candor than is usual.[282]

* In the same New York Magazine commentary, Frank Rich wrote:

Speaking to the Times in 1970, Phillips said, “The more Negros who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are.”[283]

* Rich neglected to inform his readers that before this interview occurred:

  • Phillips had resigned from the Nixon administration.
  • Nixon had disowned Phillips.[284] [285]

* During this interview, Phillips was not “speaking to the Times” but to a freelance writer whose article was published by the Times. This writer, James Boyd:

  • entitled the article “Nixon’s Southern Strategy ‘It’s All In the Charts’,” while presenting no evidence that Nixon had anything to do with this alleged strategy.
  • cut out a section of what Phillips said about race and provided no documentation of the full quote.
  • waited until the last paragraph of his 7,000-word article to quote Philips stating: “This is not a strategy or a blueprint, just the deciphering of an inexorable trend that will run its course and then be displaced by a new cycle whose origins are already with us, somewhere.”[286] [287]

Anti-White Segregation

* In the early 1970s, African Americans began forming numerous segregated all-black fraternities and professional organizations.[288]

* In 1972, 4,000 delegates attended a “National Black” political convention. The preliminary preamble to the convention stated that blacks were superior to whites. This language was removed at the behest of the NAACP.[289]

* In 1995 and 2007, two white Congressmen representing districts with large black populations attempted to join the Congressional Black Caucus. Members of this caucus denied them admission and stated that the group must remain “exclusively African-American.”[290]

* In 2016, a group of minority students (including a resident assistant) at Claremont Colleges in California, wrote on Facebook that they should not have to live with white roommates. This occurred after one of them posted an ad for a roommate that stated, “I don’t want to live with any white folks.”[291] The president of this student’s college denounced the ad as “inconsistent with our mission and values.”[292] As of August 2016, Claremont Colleges have not publicly announced any disciplinary actions against the students.[293]

Affirmative Action

Introductory Notes

* To prevent confusion that has surrounded the term “affirmative action,” the following three major forms of affirmative action are defined to clarify the facts below:

  1. Outreach: A college makes an effort to inform minority communities about their schools in order to increase attendance by minorities. This type of affirmative action is not covered in this research, because there is little-to-no objection to it.
  1. Preferences: A business is evaluating applicants for a position, and the managers factor the race of the applicants into the selection process. This type of affirmative action is covered in this research.
  1. Set-Asides: A city government sets aside 20% of their contracts and only allows minority-owned businesses to bid on them. This type of affirmative action is covered in this research.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

* Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[294]
Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any employer … to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[295]

* Current federal law contains the same language as above.[296]

* During debates over the Civil Rights of 1964, the U.S. Department of Justice (under the authority of Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson[297] [298]) authored a rebuttal to an opponent of the bill. The DOJ stated that the law:

  • would require “equal treatment for all.”
  • would not “require preferential treatment for any individual or any group for the purpose of achieving racial balance.”
  • “would almost certainly” prohibit any “deliberate attempt to maintain a given balance,” because “it would involve a failure or refusal to hire some individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”[299]

Governments

* A review of federal affirmative action programs by the Congressional Research Service in 2004 identified more than 170 federal laws, regulations, and executive orders that:

prefer or consider race, gender, or ethnicity as affirmative factors in federal employment, in the allocation of federal contracts, or in granting any federal benefit to individuals or institutions.[300]

* In 2012, non-postal, civilian full-time federal workers received an average of 16% more compensation than private-sector workers with comparable occupations, levels of education, work experience, demographic characteristics, and geographic locations. Across various levels of education, this differential ranged from a low of –18% for workers with a professional degree or doctorate to a high of 36% for workers with a high school diploma or less.[301]

* In 2014, people of African descent comprised:

  • 13.2% of the U.S. population.[302]
  • 10.4% of the U.S. civilian labor force.
  • 18.1% of the federal government’s permanent non-postal labor force.
  • 11.1% of the federal government’s non-postal senior executives.[303]

* On average, the federal workforce is more educated than the private-sector workforce.[304] [305] The latest data on various educational accomplishments for white, black, and Hispanic people are as follows:

Educational Accomplishments

White

Black

Hispanic

4-Year High School Graduation Rate

83%

66%

71%

Recent High School Grads Enrolled in College

69%

57%

60%

3-Year Graduation Rate at 2-Year Colleges

29%

24%

34%

6-Year Graduation Rate at 4-Year Colleges

63%

41%

52%

4-Year College Grads Proficient in Document Literacy

45%

17%

35%

4-Year College Grads Proficient in Quantitative Literacy

40%

5%

19%

[306] [307] [308] [309] [310]

* In 2014, Hispanics comprised:

  • 17.4% of the U.S. population.[311]
  • 14.6% of the U.S. civilian labor force.
  • 8.4% of the federal government’s permanent non-postal labor force.
  • 4.4% of the federal government’s non-postal senior executives.[312]

* In 2006, the U.S. Government Accountability Office analyzed why Hispanics are underrepresented in the federal workforce. The study found that:

  • Hispanics were less likely to be federal employees primarily because:
    • roughly one-third of Hispanic adults in the labor force were not U.S. citizens, and citizenship is a requirement for most federal jobs.
    • Hispanics had lower levels of education than the general public, and “the federal workforce contains a greater percentage of occupations that require higher levels of education” than the civilian labor force.
  • “age, gender, race, veteran’s status, English proficiency, and geography (state where employed), had a more limited or almost no effect on the likelihood of Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce.”
  • “when all factors were considered, our analyses showed that Hispanic citizens were 24 percent or 1.24 times more likely than non-Hispanic citizens to be employed in the federal workforce than in the nonfederal workforce.”[313]

* The U.S. Small Business Administration currently sets aside at least 5% of the value of all federal contracts for businesses owned by “disadvantaged” groups.[314] [315] Federal regulations instruct the Small Business Administration to presume that the following groups are “disadvantaged”:

Black Americans; Hispanic Americans; Native Americans (Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, or enrolled members of a Federally or State recognized Indian Tribe); Asian Pacific Americans (persons with origins from Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, Japan, China (including Hong Kong), Taiwan, Laos, Cambodia (Kampuchea), Vietnam, Korea, The Philippines, U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Republic of Palau), Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Samoa, Macao, Fiji, Tonga, Kiribati, Tuvalu, or Nauru); Subcontinent Asian Americans (persons with origins from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives Islands or Nepal); and members of other groups designated from time to time by SBA according to procedures set forth at paragraph (d) of this section.[316]

* In 2002, a federal jury awarded $23.3 million in damages to eight white female librarians in Atlanta’s central library who were demoted and replaced by eight black librarians. These demotions occurred after one of the library board members stated “there are too many white faces in management.”[317]

* In 2003, the city of New Haven, Connecticut, threw out the results of an exam taken by 118 firefighters to qualify for a promotion. The city did this after the results showed that white firefighters did significantly better on the exam than minority firefighters. In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5 to 4) that the city’s actions violated the civil rights of 20 firefighters (19 white and one Hispanic) who scored well on the exam.[318] [319]

* Title 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 states:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice… to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related tests on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[320]

* Current federal law contains the same language as above.[321]


Bill Clinton’s “Standards of Fairness”

* The president of the United States has “full authority” over all executive agencies of the federal government, such as the Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, the CIA, and the Social Security Administration.[322]

* In 1995, Democratic President Bill Clinton stated that he was directing all federal agencies to comply with his “four standards of fairness” for affirmative action programs.[323] [324]

* Clinton’s first standard of fairness was “no quotas in theory or practice.”[325]

* During Clinton’s presidency, his Secretary of the Army instituted a policy of making high-level promotions using “a goal” to achieve a certain “selection rate in each minority or gender group,” including blacks, Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islanders, American Indians, and females. After a white officer who was denied promotion sued the Army, a federal appeals court judge ruled that this policy was unconstitutional and:

It is difficult to find a more direct statement of preference for minorities and females.
Although the instructions elsewhere order the board not to interpret the “goal” as “guidance to meet a particular ‘quota,’ ” … a defendant may not cleanse a policy of an impermissible preference merely by disclaiming that preference.
As this Circuit [Court] has explained in the employment context:
we do not think it matters whether a government hiring program imposes hard quotas, soft quotas, or goals. Any one of these techniques induces an employer to hire with an eye toward meeting the numerical target. As such, they can and surely will result in individuals being granted a preference because of their race [or gender].
By ordering board members to “explain” themselves when they fail to promote enough females or minorities, the policy clearly implies that disproportionate promotion is in some way a disfavored result, one that constitutes a failure and should be avoided.[326] [327] [328]

* In April 2001, three months after George W. Bush replaced Bill Clinton as President of the United States, the software division chief of Robins Air Force Base in Georgia, sent an email instructing a supervisor to alter the performance evaluations of employees to “balance the ethnic groups.” This email recommended:

  • downgrading the assessments of five non-minority males.
  • downgrading the assessment of one non-minority female.
  • upgrading the assessments of two minority males.[329] [330]

* Clinton’s second standard of fairness was “no illegal discrimination of any kind, including reverse discrimination.”[331]

* During Clinton’s presidency, the Department of Defense circulated a memo stating:

In the future, special permission will be required for the promotion of all white men without disabilities.[332] [333]

* Clinton’s third standard of fairness was “no preference for people who are not qualified for any job or other opportunity.”[334]

* Clinton’s fourth standard of fairness was “as soon as a program has succeeded, it must be retired.”[335]

* During Clinton’s presidency, he instructed his senior policy advisor (George Stephanopoulos, currently the chief anchor for ABC News) and his special counsel (Christopher Edley, currently the president of The Opportunity Institute) to conduct a review of the federal government’s affirmative action programs. Their review:

  • concluded that “on the whole, the federal programs are fair and do not unduly burden nonbeneficiaries.”
  • determined that “some reforms would make the programs work better and guarantee their fairness.”
  • did not recommend retiring any of the federal government’s affirmative action programs.[336] [337] [338] [339]

Law Schools

* In 2004, the Stanford Law Review published a systematic analysis of 27,000 “law students from their entry into law school in the fall of 1991 through their eventual success (or failure) in passing the bar two or three years after graduation.” The study found that:

  • the combined median LSAT [Law School Admissions Test] score and undergraduate GPA for black students was roughly equal to the bottom 6 percentile of white students.
  • 8% of white students and 19% of black law students did not graduate after five years.
  • among black students who graduated, 43% of them were in the bottom 10% of their class after their third year of law school.
  • 78% of white students and 45% of black students who began law school in 1991 graduated, took the bar exam, and passed on their first attempt.
  • black students were “nearly six times as likely as whites to not pass state bar exams after multiple attempts.”
  • black lawyers earned “6% to 9% more early in their careers” than white lawyers with similar credentials who sought similar jobs.[340]

ACLU

* The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a non-profit organization that claims to:

  • “defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.”[341]
  • “stand up for the civil liberties of all Americans, no matter what race, ethnicity, or national origin.”[342]

* The ACLU’s position paper on affirmative action contends that:

  • “opponents of affirmative action deliberately distort the definition and goals of this legal remedy. They contend that the practice is unfair, that it leads to preferential treatment and reverse discrimination, and that it relies on quotas.”
  • affirmative action programs do not “grant preferences based on race, nor create quotas.”[343]

* In 1996, the state of California held a vote (on Proposition 209) to amend its constitution to read:

The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.[344]

* The ACLU opposed Prop 209, and after the voters of California approved it, the ACLU sued to overturn it.[345] [346]

* Democratic President Bill Clinton joined the ACLU in trying to overturn Prop 209. These efforts failed.[347] [348]

* In its timeline of affirmative action milestones, the ACLU’s position paper on affirmative action claims:

1965 The term “affirmative action” is used for the first time, by President Johnson in E.O. 11246, requiring federal contractors to take “affirmative action” to ensure equality of employment.[349]

* Johnson was not the first person or U.S. president to use the phrase “affirmative action.” In a 1961 executive order, President Kennedy used the phrase “affirmative action” and stated that it is:

the plain and positive obligation of the United States Government to promote and ensure equal opportunity for all qualified persons, without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin, employed or seeking employment with the Federal Government and on government contracts….[350]

* Kennedy’s executive order made no mention of rewarding or penalizing anyone based upon their race. Three times in this order, Kennedy instructed the government to make hiring, firing, and contracting decisions “without regard” to race. [351]

* Democratic President John F. Kennedy supported the idea that “race has no place in American life or law.”[352]

* Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson supported the idea that “freedom” and “equal opportunity” are “not enough” to remedy past discrimination. He insisted that the government must dictate “equal” results for people of different races.[353]


Public Opinion

* A 2013 Gallup poll found that the following portions of adults in the U.S. favor or oppose affirmative action:

Affirmative Action

Group

Favor

Oppose

U.S. Adults

58

37

Whites

51

44

Blacks

76

20

Hispanics

69

25

[354]

* The same 2013 Gallup poll found that the following portions of adults in the U.S. think college admission decisions should consider race or be based solely on merit:

Affirmative Action in College Admissions

Group

Consider Race

Solely on Merit

U.S. Adults

28

67

Whites

22

75

Blacks

48

44

Hispanics

31

59

[355]

* Regarding the different results of this 2013 Gallup poll, Gallup explained:

One of the clearest examples of affirmative action in practice is colleges’ taking into account a person’s racial or ethnic background when deciding which applicants will be admitted.
Americans may be less likely to support affirmative action in college admissions because the question raises a potential specific consequence of such programs—admitting some minority students who would otherwise not be admitted on their merits alone—which could in their minds outweigh the positive aspects of the policy mentioned in the question. The general question on affirmative action, asked prior to the question on college admissions, does not discuss any pros or cons of affirmative action, suggesting Americans mostly have a positive reaction to the concept or term.[356]

Party Platforms

* With regard to affirmative action:

  • the 2016 Democratic Party Platform states:
The federal government will push more colleges and universities to take quantifiable, affirmative steps in increasing the percentages of racial and ethnic minority, low-income, and first-generation students they enroll and graduate.[357]
  • the 2016 Republican Party Platform states:
[W]e oppose discrimination based on race, sex, religion, creed, disability, or national origin and support statutes to end such discrimination. … Merit and hard work should determine advancement in our society, so we reject unfair preferences, quotas, and set-asides as forms of discrimination.[358]
  • the 2000 Democratic Party Platform stated:
[Democratic presidential candidate] Al Gore has strongly opposed efforts to roll back affirmative action programs. He knows that the way to lift this nation up is not by pulling the weakest down, but by continuing to expand opportunities for everyone who wants to achieve.[359]
  • the 2000 Republican Party Platform stated:
We believe rights inhere in individuals, not in groups. We will attain our nation’s goal of equal opportunity without quotas or other forms of preferential treatment. It is as simple as this: No one should be denied a job, promotion, contract, or chance at higher education because of their race or gender. Equal access, energetically offered, should guarantee every person a fair shot based on their potential and merit.[360]

Education

* Since the early 1970s:

  • state governments have paid a growing share of the education expenses of low-income school districts in order to equalize their funding with higher-income districts.[361] [362]
  • school districts with higher percentages of minority students have spent about the same average amount per student as school districts with smaller portions of minority students.[363] [364] [365] [366]

* In the U.S., public K–12 schools have been mainly run by local governments.[367] [368] [369]

* The political affiliations/leanings of the largest racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. are as follows[370]:

  • Whites favored Republicans over Democrats by an average margin of 1.1 to 1 during 1992 to 2014.
  • Blacks favored Democrats over Republicans by an average margin of 7.8 to 1 during 1992 to 2014.
  • Hispanics favored Democrats over Republicans by an average margin of 2.4 to 1 during 2006 to 2014.[371]
Political Party Leanings by Race and Ethnicity

[372]

* Among public school students who began high school in 2009, 78% graduated within four years. This was true for:

  • 83% of white students.
  • 71% of Hispanic students.
  • 66% of black students.[373]

* Among high school students who graduated in 2014 and took the ACT college readiness exam, the following racial/ethnic groups met ACT’s college readiness benchmarks in at least three of the four subjects:

  • Asian – 57%
  • White – 49%
  • Pacific Islander – 24%
  • Hispanic – 23%
  • American Indian – 18%
  • African American – 11%[374]

* Among recent high school graduates of different racial/ethnic groups, the rates of college enrollment in 2013 were:

  • 80% for Asians.
  • 69% for whites.
  • 60% for Hispanics.
  • 57% for African Americans.[375]

* Among full-time, new college students who entered a 2-year college in 2010, 29% graduated from the same institution within 150% of the normal time required to do so. This was true for:

  • 35% of Asian students.
  • 34% of Hispanic students.
  • 29% of white students.
  • 26% of mixed-race students.
  • 24% of American Indian students.
  • 24% of black students.[376]

* Among full-time, new college students who entered a 4-year college in 2007, 59% graduated from the same institution within six years. This was true for:

  • 70% of Asian students.
  • 68% of mixed-race students.
  • 63% of white students.
  • 52% of Hispanic students.
  • 41% of black students.
  • 41% of American Indian students.[377]

* In 2003, the National Center for Education Statistics assessed the literacy skills of 1,827 graduating college students. These students were randomly selected from across the U.S., and each was graded as Proficient, Intermediate, Basic, or Below Basic on three different types of literacy:[378]

1) Prose Literacy, which is the ability to “search, comprehend, and use information from continuous texts,” such as “editorials, news stories, brochures, and instructional materials.” Students who were proficient in this included:

  • 42% of whites, 29% of Hispanics, 23% of Asians/Pacific Islanders, and 16% of blacks at 4-year colleges.
  • 27% of whites, 22% of Hispanics, 11% of blacks, and 7% of Asians/Pacific Islanders at 2-year colleges.[379]

2) Document Literacy, which is the ability to “search, comprehend, and use information from noncontinuous texts,” such as “job applications, payroll forms, transportation schedules, maps, tables, and drug or food labels.” Students who were proficient in this included:

  • 45% of whites, 35% of Hispanics, 20% of Asians/Pacific Islanders, and 17% of blacks at 4-year colleges.
  • 28% of whites, 18% of Asians/Pacific Islanders, 15% of Hispanics, and 17% of blacks at 2-year colleges.[380]

3) Quantitative Literacy, which is the ability to “identify and perform computations … using numbers embedded in printed materials,” such as “balancing a checkbook, figuring out a tip, completing an order form, or determining the amount of interest on a loan from an advertisement.” Students who were proficient in this included:

  • 40% of whites, 20% of Asians/Pacific Islanders, 19% of Hispanics, and 5% of blacks at 4-year colleges.
  • 24% of whites, 14% of Hispanics, 7% of blacks, and 3% of Asians/Pacific Islanders at 2-year colleges.[381]

* The study also found:

College students come from a variety of economic backgrounds, with some students supporting themselves and others relying on their families to pay for tuition and other necessities. Despite variations in income, most differences in the literacy of students across income groups were not significant.[382]
College Student Literacy Scores and Family Income

[383]


School Choice

* In 2009, Public School 172 in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, New York, had:

  • a “predominately Hispanic population.”
  • one-third of the students not fluent in English and no bilingual classes.
  • 80% of the students poor enough to qualify for free lunch.
  • lower spending per student than the New York City average.
  • the highest average math score of all fourth graders in New York City, with 99% of the students scoring “advanced.”
  • the top-dozen English scores of all fourth graders in New York City, with 99% of students passing.[384]

* Per a New York Times article about Public School 172:

The school’s approach, while impressive in its attention to detail, starts with a simple formula: “Teach, assess, teach, assess,” said Jack Spatola, its principal since 1984.[385]

* A 1998 survey of parents with school-age children found that 73% of blacks and 77% of whites agreed with the following statement:

Too often, the schools work so hard to achieve [racial] integration that they end up neglecting their most important goal—teaching kids.[386]

* School choice initiatives allow parents to select the schools their children attend, with part or all of the costs paid by their taxes or other government revenues. This can include:

  • public schools outside a child’s neighborhood or school district.
  • charter and magnet schools. [387] [388] [389] [390]
  • private schools.
  • tutors and homeschools.[391]

* In 2011, the Quarterly Journal of Economics published an experimental study of a public school choice initiative in the 20th largest school district in the nation (Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina). The study compared the adult crime outcomes of male students who won and did not win a lottery for their parents’ first choice of school. The author found the following statistically significant results:

  • “Across various schools and for both middle and high school students, I find consistent evidence that winning the lottery reduces adult crime.”
  • “The effect is concentrated among African American males and youth who are at highest risk for criminal involvement.”
  • “Across several different outcome measures and scalings of crime by severity, high-risk youth who win the lottery commit about 50% less crime.”
  • “They are also more likely to remain enrolled and ‘on track’ in school, and they show modest improvements on school-based behavioral outcomes such as absences and suspensions.”[392] [393] [394]

* At least 16 experimental (or quasi-experimental) studies have been conducted on the academic outcomes of students who experience school choice[395] [396]:

* In a 2014 interview, Bill O’Reilly asked Barack Obama, “Why do you oppose school vouchers when it would give poor people a chance to go to better schools?” Obama replied:

Actually—every study that’s been done on school vouchers, Bill, says that it has very limited impact if any.
I’ve taken a look at it. As a general proposition, vouchers has not significantly improved the performance of kids that are in these poorest communities.[411]

* A 2010 experimental study of a school voucher initiative in the District of Columbia published by the Obama administration’s Department of Education found the following statistically significant results:

  • Students who applied for a voucher and did not win a lottery to receive one had a graduation rate of 70%.
  • Students who applied for a voucher and won a lottery to receive one had a graduation rate of 82%.
  • Students who applied for a voucher, won a lottery to receive one, and then used it had a graduation rate of 91%.[412] [413]

* Per a 2004 report by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, the Urban Institute, Advocates for Children of New York, and the Civil Society Institute:

In an increasingly competitive global economy, the consequences of dropping out of high school are devastating to individuals, communities and our national economy. At an absolute minimum, adults need a high school diploma if they are to have any reasonable opportunities to earn a living wage. A community where many parents are dropouts is unlikely to have stable families or social structures.[414] [415] [416]

* The 2012 Democratic Party Platform stated:

Too many students, particularly students of color and disadvantaged students, drop out of our schools, and Democrats know we must address the dropout crisis with the urgency it deserves.[417]

* In 2013, the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management published an experimental study of the same District of Columbia voucher initiative by the same lead author. The study found the following statistically significant results:

  • “The impact of using a [voucher] scholarship was an increase of 21 percentage points in the likelihood of graduating. The positive impact of the program on this important student outcome was highly statistically significant.”
  • “Our analysis indicated a marginally statistically significant positive overall impact of the program on reading achievement after at least four years.”
  • “We did find evidence to suggest that scholarship use boosted student reading scores by the equivalent of about one month of additional learning per year.”[418]

* The following opponents of private school choice personally attended and also sent their own children to private K–12 schools:

* A nationally representative poll of 4,000 U.S. adults commissioned in 2015 by Education Next and the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University found that the following portions of Americans:

  • are opposed to giving “all families with children in public schools a wider choice, by allowing them to enroll their children in private schools instead, with government helping to pay the tuition”:
    • 43% of whites
    • 18% of African Americans
    • 13% of Hispanics
  • have ever enrolled their own children in private K–12 schools:
    • 18% of whites
    • 14% of African Americans
    • 8% of Hispanics[437] [438]

* An analysis of U.S. Census data from the year 2000 by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute (a proponent of school choice) found that the following portions of parents were sending at least one of their own children to a private K–12 school:

  • 12.2% of all households with children
  • 17.5% of urban households with children
  • 21.5% of urban public school teacher households with children[439] [440]

* For more facts about school choice, visit Just Facts’ research on education.

Income

* In 2014, the median household cash incomes of different races and ethnicities in the U.S. were as follows:

Cash Income

Race / Ethnicity

Median Income

White

$56,701

Black

$35,000

Asian

$74,070

Hispanic

$42,457

[441] [442] [443] [444]

* In 2014, the median cash earnings of U.S. residents in their primary working years of different races and ethnicities were as follows:

Cash Earnings in Primary Working Years

Race / Ethnicity

Median Earnings

White

$30,000

Black

$20,025

Asian

$30,000

Hispanic

$20,000

[445] [446] [447] [448]


Marriage & Families

* In 2014, the median household cash income for U.S. households with different marital statuses were as follows:

-------------

[449] [450] [451] [452]

* In 2014, the median household cash incomes for U.S. households of different races, ethnicities, and marital statuses were as follows:

Race / Ethnicity

Household Cash Income in Thousands of Dollars

Married,

Spouse Present

Divorced

Separated

Never Married

White

$82

$40

$34

$42

Black

$70

$30

$25

$27

Asian

$95

$44

$53

$60

Hispanic

$55

$36

$28

$35

[453] [454] [455] [456]

* In 2014, the poverty rates for U.S. residents of different races, ethnicities, and marital statuses were as follows:

Race / Ethnicity

Poverty Rates

Married,

Spouse Present

Divorced

Separated

Never Married

White

6%

18%

25%

18%

Black

9%

24%

34%

33%

Asian

7%

17%

27%

15%

Hispanic

15%

22%

27%

28%

[457] [458] [459]

* In 2014, the portion of U.S. residents living in homes with married couples ranged from 47% for Asians to 24% for blacks:

-------------

[460] [461] [462]

* In 2011, the median cash income of U.S. households with children:

  • was $57,100.
  • headed by a single mother who was divorced, separated, or widowed was $29,000.
  • headed by a single mother who has never married was $17,400.[463] [464]

* Between 1960 and 2011, the share of single mothers who have never married rose from 4% to 44%.[465]

* In 2013, the portions of people who considered the “growing number of children born to unmarried mothers” to be a “big problem” varied by race and age as follows:

  • 67% of whites
  • 56% of non-whites
  • 42% of people aged 18 to 29
  • 65% of people aged 30 to 49
  • 74% of people aged 50 and older[466]

* Between 1947 and 2015, the portion of unmarried or nonfamily households in the U.S. rose from 22% to 52%:

Unmarried or Nonfamily Households in the U.S.

[467]

* Between 2001 and 2014, the U.S. public’s views on the moral acceptability of:

  • sex between unmarried men and women rose from 53% to 66%
  • divorce rose from 59% to 69%
  • having a child out of wedlock rose from 45% to 58%.[468]

* In 2014, the U.S. public’s views on the matters above varied by political affiliations as follows:

Moral Acceptability of:

Republicans

Democrats

Divorce

60%

78%

Sex Between an Unmarried Man and Woman

54%

77%

Having a Baby Outside of Marriage

40%

72%

[469]


Formal Education

* In 2013, the average cash earnings of U.S. residents aged 25 and older with varying levels of formal education were as follows:

Average Cash Earnings of People Aged 25+

[470] [471]

* In 2014, the formal education levels of U.S. residents in their primary working years were as follows:

Race / Ethnicity

Formal Education

No High School

Diploma

High School

Some College

Bachelor’s or

Higher

White

10%

28%

28%

34%

Black

12%

34%

31%

23%

Asian

8%

19%

17%

55%

Hispanic

32%

30%

22%

16%

[472] [473]

* In 2014, the median cash earnings of U.S. residents in their primary working years with different levels of formal education, races, and ethnicities were as follows:

Race / Ethnicity

Median Earnings in Thousands of Dollars

High School

Bachelor’s or Higher

White

$22

$50

Black

$14

$40

Asian

$20

$44

Hispanic

$20

$40

[474] [475] [476] [477]


English Proficiency

* A 2014 study by the Brookings Institution found that:

  • nearly one in 10 working-age U.S. adults … is considered limited English proficient.”
  • workers with limited English proficiency “earn 25 to 40 percent less than their English proficient counterparts.”
  • “high-skilled immigrants who are not proficient in English are twice as likely to work in ‘unskilled’ jobs (i.e. those requiring low levels of education or training) as those who are proficient in English.”[478]

* In 2014, the median cash earnings of U.S. native-born citizens in their primary working years with different levels of formal education, races, and ethnicities were as follows:

Race / Ethnicity

Median Earnings in Thousands of Dollars

High School

Bachelor’s or Higher

White

$23

$50

Black

$13

$42

Asian

$23

$50

Hispanic

$21

$45

[479] [480] [481] [482]


Marriage, Education, and English Combined

* In 2014, married U.S. native-born citizens in their primary working years with different levels of education, races, and ethnicities had the following median cash earnings:

Race / Ethnicity

Median Earnings in Thousands of Dollars

High School

Bachelor’s or Higher

White

$27

$54

Black

$23

$48

Asian

$20

$60

Hispanic

$25

$50

[483] [484] [485] [486]


Career Choices

* A 2016 study by Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce found:

Earnings vary greatly among various college majors. African Americans who earned a Bachelor’s degree in a STEM-related major, such as architecture or engineering, can earn as much as 50 percent more than African Americans who earned a Bachelor’s degree in art or psychology and social work….
… African Americans are highly concentrated in lower-paying majors.
African Americans account for only 8 percent of general engineering majors, 7 percent of mathematics majors, and only 5 percent of computer engineering majors.1 They are similarly under-represented in business: only 7 percent of finance and marketing majors are African-American. In health majors, they account for 10 percent but are clustered in the lowest-earning detailed major: 21 percent are in health and medical administrative services, compared to only 6 percent in the higher-earning detailed major of pharmacy, pharmaceutical sciences, and administration. African Americans are also highly represented in majors associated with serving the community, which tend to be low-earning—human services and community organization (20%) and social work (19%).[487]

Practical Skills

* In 2003, the National Center for Education Statistics assessed the literacy skills of 1,827 graduating college students. These students were randomly selected from across the U.S., and each was graded as Proficient, Intermediate, Basic, or Below Basic on three different types of literacy:[488]

1) Prose Literacy, which is the ability to “search, comprehend, and use information from continuous texts,” such as “editorials, news stories, brochures, and instructional materials.” Students at 4-year colleges who were proficient in this included:

  • 42% of whites.
  • 29% of Hispanics.
  • 23% of Asians/Pacific Islanders
  • 16% of blacks.[489]

2) Document Literacy, which is the ability to “search, comprehend, and use information from noncontinuous texts,” such as “job applications, payroll forms, transportation schedules, maps, tables, and drug or food labels.” Students at 4-year colleges who were proficient in this included:

  • 45% of whites
  • 35% of Hispanics
  • 20% of Asians/Pacific Islanders
  • 17% of blacks.[490]

3) Quantitative Literacy, which is the ability to “identify and perform computations … using numbers embedded in printed materials,” such as “balancing a checkbook, figuring out a tip, completing an order form, or determining the amount of interest on a loan from an advertisement.” Students at 4-year colleges who were proficient in this included:

  • 40% of whites
  • 20% of Asians/Pacific Islanders.
  • 19% of Hispanics
  • 5% of blacks.[491]

* Per a 2004 paper in the Stanford Law Review:

Nearly all graduates of law school who want to practice law must take bar exams to begin their professional careers.3 These [academic achievement] uniformities make [racial] comparisons within the legal education system much easier.
Blacks [who pass the bar exam] earn 6% to 9% more early in their careers than do whites seeking similar jobs with similar credentials, presumably because many employers (including government employers) pursue moderate racial preferences in hiring.[492]

Politics

* In a 2016 Washington Post commentary, Jared Bernstein, a former chief economist to Democratic Vice President Joe Biden, wrote:

  • “For as far back as we have the data, the black unemployment rate has been twice that of the white rate….”
  • This is an example of the “systemic racial injustice embedded in the economy.”[493]

* In 1930, the unemployment rates for whites and blacks were about the same. By 1965, the unemployment rate for blacks had become twice as high as for whites.[494]

* In 1948, the unemployment rate for black teenagers was lower than for white teenagers. By 1965, the unemployment rate for black teenagers had risen to 23%, as compared to 13% for white teenagers.[495]


* In 1999, Democratic Vice President Al Gore gave a speech before the NAACP in which he stated:

At a time when African-Americans earn just 62 cents on each dollar that white Americans earn, don’t you think it’s time for an equal day’s pay for an equal day’s work?[496]

* The 62% statistic cited by Gore corresponds to median cash income per household in 1998.[497] It does not account for work hours or education. In 1998:

  • The median cash earnings of full-time black workers was 81% of full-time white workers.[498]
  • The high school completion rate for people aged 25 and older was 87% for whites, 76% for blacks, and 56% for Hispanics.[499]
  • The median cash earnings of full-time workers aged 25 and older without a high school diploma were 41% below the median for all full-time workers.[500]
  • The bachelor’s degree attainment rate for people aged 25 and older was 27% for whites, 15% for blacks, and 11% for Hispanics.[501]
  • The median cash earnings of full-time workers aged 25 and older with a bachelor’s degree were 30% above the median for all full-time workers.[502]

* In 2004, the Leadership Conference, a coalition of more than 200 organizations including the NAACP, ACLU, and the National Council of La Raza, published a “fact sheet” that stated:

Continued use of equal opportunity is necessary to help break down barriers to opportunity and ensure that all Americans have a fair chance to demonstrate their talents and abilities. Consider the following facts:
In 2001, the median annual earnings of white males with a four-year college degree was $55,307, while white women with the same educational attainment earned $40,192. Black women and Hispanic women with the same education credentials suffered from an even larger gap. Black women with equal college credentials earned $36,253, while Hispanic women with equal college credentials earned only $34,060.[503] [504] [505] [506]

* These statistics cited by the Leadership Conference do not account for the career choices or practical skills of workers.

* A 2016 study by Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce found:

Earnings vary greatly among various college majors. African Americans who earned a Bachelor’s degree in a STEM-related major, such as architecture or engineering, can earn as much as 50 percent more than African Americans who earned a Bachelor’s degree in art or psychology and social work….
… African Americans are highly concentrated in lower-paying majors.
African Americans account for only 8 percent of general engineering majors, 7 percent of mathematics majors, and only 5 percent of computer engineering majors.1 They are similarly under-represented in business: only 7 percent of finance and marketing majors are African-American. In health majors, they account for 10 percent but are clustered in the lowest-earning detailed major: 21 percent are in health and medical administrative services, compared to only 6 percent in the higher-earning detailed major of pharmacy, pharmaceutical sciences, and administration. African Americans are also highly represented in majors associated with serving the community, which tend to be low-earning—human services and community organization (20%) and social work (19%).[507]

* In 2003, the National Center for Education Statistics assessed the literacy skills of 1,827 graduating college students. These students were randomly selected from across the U.S., and each was graded as Proficient, Intermediate, Basic, or Below Basic on three different types of literacy:[508]

1) Prose Literacy, which is the ability to “search, comprehend, and use information from continuous texts,” such as “editorials, news stories, brochures, and instructional materials.” Students at 4-year colleges who were proficient in this included:

  • 42% of whites, 29% of Hispanics, 23% of Asians/Pacific Islanders, and 16% of blacks.
  • 38% of males and 37% of females.[509]

2) Document Literacy, which is the ability to “search, comprehend, and use information from noncontinuous texts,” such as “job applications, payroll forms, transportation schedules, maps, tables, and drug or food labels.” Students at 4-year colleges who were proficient in this included:

  • 45% of whites, 35% of Hispanics, 20% of Asians/Pacific Islanders, and 17% of blacks.
  • 43% of males and 38% of females.[510]

3) Quantitative Literacy, which is the ability to “identify and perform computations … using numbers embedded in printed materials,” such as “balancing a checkbook, figuring out a tip, completing an order form, or determining the amount of interest on a loan from an advertisement.” Students at 4-year colleges who were proficient in this included:

  • 40% of whites, 20% of Asians/Pacific Islanders, 19% of Hispanics, and 5% of blacks.
  • 39% of males and 30% of females.[511]

Violence & Crime

Murder

NOTE: Like the FBI, this research uses the term “murders” as a shorthand for both murders and intentional manslaughters.[512]

* Approximately 14,249 murders were committed in the U.S. during 2014.[513] For cases in which law enforcement identified the race or ethnicity of victims or perpetrators, the breakdown was as follows:

2014 Population and Murder Portions

Race / Ethnicity

Portion of U.S. Population[514]

Portion of Victims[515]

Portion of Perpetrators[516]

Race

White

77%

46%

45%

Black

13%

52%

53%

Other Race

9%

3%

2%

Ethnicity

Hispanic

17%

22%

25%

Non-Hispanic

83%

78%

75%

* Based on cases where law enforcement identified the race or ethnicity of victims or perpetrators, the approximate murder victimization and commission rates in 2014 were as follows:

Murder Rates by Race & Ethnicity

[517]


Unsolved Murders

* From 1980 to 2008, 185,000 murders were committed in the US. that were still unsolved as of 2010.[518]

* The portion of murders committed by minorities is understated when accounting for cases in which law enforcement have identified the perpetrators. This is because roughly 90% of murder perpetrators are the same race as their victims,[519] and murders of black and Hispanic victims are less likely to be solved.[520] [521]

* When murders and other violent crimes remain unsolved:

  • the perpetrators remain free to commit more carnage.
  • potential criminals are less deterred, because they become less concerned about being caught.
  • citizens’ fears of crime and retribution for reporting crime are increased.[522] [523]

* Some of the factors associated with the rates that murders are solved include:

  • the nature of relationships between perpetrators and victims. Minorities are more likely to be involved in murdering strangers, and such murders are more difficult to solve.[524] [525]
  • police practices and resources, which are stretched in minority neighborhoods due to high crime rates.[526] [527]
  • lack of witness cooperation due to fear of reprisal or hostility towards police.[528] [529] [530]

* The portion of murders in the U.S. that resulted in an alleged suspect being identified and acted upon by the criminal justice system declined from 92% in 1960 to 65% in 2014.[531] [532]

* In Baltimore during 2015, the portion of murders that resulted in an alleged suspect being identified and acted upon by the criminal justice system was 30%.[533]

* In Chicago from 1991 to 2011, the portion of murders that resulted in an alleged suspect being identified and acted upon by the criminal justice system declined from 67% to 30%:

Chicago Murders & Murder Clearances

[534]


Interracial Murders

* In every year from 1980 to 2014, roughly 10% of murders were interracial. The rest involved people of the same races slaying one another.[535]

* In a 2015 New York Times op-ed, Patricia Williams Lessane, the director of the Avery Institute of Afro-American History and Culture at the College of Charleston, South Carolina, listed several killings of black people by white people and wrote that “we African-Americans”:

  • “have no sanctuary.”
  • face “increasing terror” on “a daily basis.”
  • are “terrorized by those who use Stand Your Ground to cut us down without a second thought.”[536]

* In every year from 1980 to 2014, murders of white people by black people have been about two-to-three times more common than vice-versa:

Interracial Murders

[537]


Non-Fatal Violence

* Every year, the U.S. Department of Justice interviews a nationally representative sample of about 169,000 people age 12 or older to determine the frequencies and natures of certain crimes. This survey, which is called the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS):

  • measures the occurrence of many crimes that are not reported to or by law enforcement.
  • does not measure murders, because the victims cannot be interviewed.
  • does not measure crimes committed against children under the age of 12 or commercial crimes such as robberies of banks and convenience stores.[538] [539] [540]

* NCVS data from 2012 to 2014 shows the following breakdown of violent crimes by the victims’ perceptions of the race and ethnicity of the perpetrators:

2012–2014 Population and Violent Crimes Committed By Single Offenders

Race / Ethnicity

Portion of:

Population

Completed Violent Crimes

Aggravated Assaults

Robberies

White, Non-Hispanic

63%

47%

48%

41%

Black

13%

21%

23%

35%

Hispanic

17%

12%

14%

10%

[541] [542]


Schools

* In 2011, the Quarterly Journal of Economics published an experimental study of a public school choice initiative in the 20th largest school district in the nation (Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina). The study compared the adult crime outcomes of male students who won and did not win a lottery for their parents’ first choice of school. The author found the following statistically significant results:

  • “Across various schools and for both middle and high school students, I find consistent evidence that winning the lottery reduces adult crime.”
  • “The effect is concentrated among African American males and youth who are at highest risk for criminal involvement.”
  • “Across several different outcome measures and scalings of crime by severity, high-risk youth who win the lottery commit about 50% less crime.”
  • “They are also more likely to remain enrolled and ‘on track’ in school, and they show modest improvements on school-based behavioral outcomes such as absences and suspensions.”[543] [544]

Black Lives Matter Movement

* The “Black Lives Matter” movement is an association of groups and activists who claim that America is rife with racism against people of color.[545] [546]

* The official website of the #BlackLivesMatter organization contends that:

  • “virulent anti-Black racism … permeates our society.”
  • black people are “systematically and intentionally targeted for demise.”
  • there is “massive evidence of police mistreatment of black people of all classes and backgrounds.”
  • police are “implicated in a system that criminalizes black people, that demands that they view black people as unsafe and dangerous, that trains them to be more aggressive and less accommodating with black citizens….”[547] [548]

* The Black Lives Matter movement was formed after the death of Trayvon Martin in 2012. Martin, a 17-year-old black teen, was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer named George Zimmerman. Zimmerman is half-white, half-Hispanic, and partially black. A jury found Zimmerman innocent of all charges on grounds that he shot Martin in self-defense.[549] [550] [551] [552] [553] [554]

* The Black Lives Matter movement became prominent after the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.[555] [556] [557] Brown, an 18-year-old black teen, was shot and killed by a white police officer named Darren Wilson.[558] A grand jury decided there was no evidence that would justify bringing charges against Wilson.[559] [560]

* Before and after the grand jury’s decision, riots erupted, and the Obama administration’s Department of Justice launched an investigation to determine if Wilson deprived Brown of his civil rights.[561] [562] [563]

* The Obama administration’s investigation found that the widely reported claims that Brown held up his hands in surrender (“Hands up, don’t shoot”) were either:

  • “inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence.”
  • “materially inconsistent” with “witness’s own prior statements with no explanation, credible for otherwise, as to why those accounts changed over time.”
  • recanted when people in the neighborhood admitted “that they did not witness the shooting,” in contradiction to what they told the media.[564]

* The investigation also found that:

  • Brown attacked Wilson in his police car, as proven by the fact that Brown’s DNA was found on Wilson’s shirt collar and on the inside and outside of the driver’s door of Wilson’s car.
  • Brown was advancing towards Wilson when he was shot, as evidenced by the pattern of blood stains in the street.
  • no witness gave testimony incriminating Wilson that was “materially consistent with prior statements, physical evidence, and other witnesses.”
  • eight witnesses gave testimony indicating that Wilson acted in self-defense that was “materially consistent with prior statements, physical evidence, and other witnesses.”
  • three of the eight witnesses whose testimony vindicated Wilson expressed concern that they would be attacked by their neighborhood for telling the truth about his event, and another witness “blockaded her door with a couch” to avoid appearing before the grand jury.[565]

* Ten months after the Obama administration’s report was released, U.S. Congressman Bobby Rush (D-IL) and nine other members of the U.S. House of Representatives sponsored a bill that cited “the death of Michael Brown” as an example of “the unjustified use of lethal and excessive force by police officers against African-Americans.”[566]

* On four days surrounding Martin Luther King Day in 2016, Google News produced 429 results for a search on “Michael Brown” Ferguson. Among the first 36 of these results, 35 did not mention or hint that Brown attacked Wilson and was shot while charging at him.[567]

* A December 2015 scientific poll commissioned by Just Facts asked a random sample of voters:

Did the Obama administration’s investigation of the Ferguson shooting find merit in claims that Michael Brown held up his hands in surrender before he was shot by police officer Darren Wilson? Yes, No, or Unsure.

The poll found that 63% of all voters did not give the correct answer (“No”). This was true for:

  • 81% of Democratic voters
  • 42% of Republican voters
  • 68% of undecided voters[568]

* The United States is third-most populous nation in the world, with more than 320 million people, 14,000 murders per year, and 900,000 law enforcement officers.[569] [570] [571]

* Books from academic publishers that address the topic of drawing conclusions based on comprehensive facts instead of anecdotes state:

Adults should also be aware that public officials, organizations, employers, advertisers, and other players in the public arena need to base claims or conclusions on credible empirical evidence, and that properly produced data can inform public debate and serve as a basis for decisions and allocation of resources, much better than anecdotal evidence….
- The Challenge of Developing Statistical Literacy, Reasoning and Thinking[572]
[S]ometimes individual cases may mislead us. … Numbers can be numbing, but the plural of anecdote is not evidence.
- Exploring Psychology[573]
People like stories—math and numbers and statistics not so much. Partly, this is because we use language all the time, and so it’s easier for us to grasp stories (at least simple stories) than it is to understand numerical data. …
 
Our preference for stories over numbers means that we can often be convinced of something by a string of stories, even if they aren’t representative of the whole.
- Navigating the News: A Political Media User’s Guide[574]

* In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (6 to 3) that police cannot use lethal force unless:

the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.[575]

* From 1980 to 2008, people of African descent comprised 13% of the U.S. population and committed 52% of all murders.[576]

* From 2003 to 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice recorded 2,876 cases in which people were killed by police and their races were reported. Among these, 33% were black.[577]

* A year-long investigation of police shootings published by the Washington Post in 2015 found that:

  • “the kind of incidents that have ignited protests in many U.S. communities—most often, white police officers killing unarmed black men—represent less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings.”
  • “an average of five officers per year have been indicted on felony charges over the previous decade” for shooting civilians.
  • “11 of the 65 officers charged in fatal shootings over the past decade were convicted.”[578]

* In November of 2014, the editorial board of the New York Times wrote that:

many police officers see black men as expendable figures on the urban landscape, not quite human beings.[579]

* To support the claim above, the Times’ editorial board cited:

a grim report by ProPublica, showing that young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk—21 times greater—of being shot dead by police than young white men.[580]

* Expounding upon the same ProPublica report one month later, its authors wrote:

Many have pointed to our reporting as proof of police bias. That overstates our case; ProPublica found evidence of a disparity in the risks faced by young black and white men. This does not prove that police officers target any age or racial group—the data is far too limited to point to a cause for the disparity.[581]

* In July 2016, the Washington Post published an article by Wesley Lowery claiming that:

critics of police reform—often political conservatives and police unions—typically argue that the reason more black men and women are shot and killed by police is that black Americans commit more violent crime.
Despite these arguments, police reform advocates and researchers as well at The Post’s own analysis has consistently concluded that there is no correlation between violent crime and who is killed by police officers.[582]

* African Americans commit roughly 20% of all violent crimes and 50% of all murders in the United States.[583] [584] The studies cited by Lowery did not examine correlations between murder and who is killed by police officers.[585]

* The Supreme Court forbids police from using lethal force except in situations where there is a genuine risk of “death or serious physical injury.”[586] Roughly one police officer per year out of 900,000 is convicted of violating this standard.[587] [588]

People Who Overcame Racism

George Washington Carver

* George Washington Carver was born a slave near the end of the Civil War. He was not allowed to attend the school where he lived, because it only admitted white children.

* Around the age of 14, Carver discovered a school for black youth in a nearby town and left home to attend it. Over the next ten years, he worked to pay for his food and shelter while earning a high school diploma.

* Around the age of 24, Carver was accepted into a college and used nearly all of his savings to travel there. When he arrived, the principal told him there had been a “mistake.” Carver produced his letter of acceptance and replied, “Your letter said—I have it here.” The principal cut him off and stated, “I don’t care what it said. You didn’t tell me you were a Negro.”

* Carver worked for another five years before being accepted at another university. After his first year, he transferred to the nation’s leading agricultural college and graduated near the top of his class. He then stayed at the university for another two years and earned a master’s degree in agricultural and bacterial botany. Throughout his academic career, he labored long hours to earn his room, board and books.

* George Washington Carver is primarily known for developing hundreds of products derived from peanuts, but he is also responsible for many other important contributions to agriculture. He:

  • hybridized “whole families of fruits and plants” to make them “resistant to fungus attack.”
  • pioneered the science of chemurgy (the utilization of organic materials for industrial proposes).
  • was directly responsible for multiple massive increases in farmland productivity.

* In the early 1900’s, Thomas Edison offered Carver a job for over $100,000 a year, more than 65 times what he was earning. He declined this and many other lucrative offers to stay in his position at Tuskegee University for a period of 46 years in which he declined every salary increase.

* While prodding Carver to take the high-income positions that were offered to him, several individuals said, “If you had all that money, you could help your people.” Carver replied, “If I had all that money, I might forget about my people.”

* Instead of accepting these positions, Carver helped those who asked for his expertise without charging them. He often spent hours per day answering the letters of major industrialists, farmers, and even individuals who had questions about their home gardens.

* Henry Ford described George Washington Carver as “the world’s greatest living scientist.”

* George Washington Carver wrote:

We are brothers, all of us, no matter of what race or color or condition; children of the same Heavenly Father. We rise together or we fall together.

Sources[589] [590]


Branch Rickey

* In 1904, Branch Rickey was a 21 year-old baseball coach at Ohio Wesleyan. While on a road trip to play Notre Dame, a hotel clerk refused to give a room to Charles Thomas, the lone black player on Rickey’s team. This infuriated Rickey, and he ordered a cot for Thomas in his room.

* In 1942, Rickey became the general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers. At the time, the league commissioner refused to allow blacks and whites to play together. Rickey instructed his scouts to watch the Negro leagues, and after a new commissioner was appointed, Rickey signed Jackie Robinson to the Dodger’s triple-A club in Montreal.

* When major league owners got word of Rickey’s intention to bring Jackie Robinson into the major leagues, they voted 15-1 to keep a “gentlemen’s agreement” banning blacks. Rickey responded by approaching the new commissioner, “Happy” Chandler, and gaining his support to let Robinson play.

* Rickey and Robinson received hundreds of death threats, and a number of the players on the Dodgers signed a petition against letting Robinson play.

* In April of 1947, Jackie Robinson became the first black player in the major leagues.

* In 1947, the Dodgers won the pennant, and Jackie Robinson was chosen as the Rookie of the Year in the National League.

* By 1958, every team in the major leagues was integrated.

* Rickey’s grandson said of him:

Never once did I hear him say he broke the color barrier. Never once did I hear him say he signed Jackie Robinson.
His philosophy was that if you do something morally right, it is an obligation of yours.

* In his office, Branch Rickey posted a sign on the wall that read:

He that will not reason is a bigot.
He that cannot reason is a fool.
He that dares not reason is a slave.

Sources[591] [592] [593]


William Wilberforce

* In the 1780’s, William Wilberforce was a young member of the British Parliament who represented the biggest and most influential constituency in England. He was also a personal friend of the Prime Minister.

* At the age of 25, Wilberforce became an evangelical Christian, which compelled him to stand up on the floor of Parliament and denounce slavery. This stance caused him to lose his status as a political insider and to become the leader of a small minority in Parliament.

* Wilberforce’s political opponents argued that abolishing slavery would destroy thousands of jobs, result in revenue losses, and hurt the economy.

* Wilberforce and his allies worked twenty years for the abolition of the slave trade, printing and distributing brochures, circulating petitions, and giving speeches in churches and public places.

* In 1807, Parliament voted to outlaw the slave trade. In 1833, the same year that Wilberforce passed on, Parliament voted to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire.

Sources[594] [595]


The 100th Battalion / 442nd Regimental Combat Team of WWII

* After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the military to put many Japanese civilians into internment camps to protect the U.S. against espionage and sabotage. He did this without requiring any proof that an individual was disloyal or a threat to the United States.

* Over the course of years, 110,000 people of Japanese descent—including 70,000 who were born in the United States—were detained in camps with barbed wire fences and armed guards. They were allowed to take limited belongings with them, and some of these families lost everything they owned.

* During this era, Americans of Japanese descent were labeled as traitors and members of the “enemy race.”

* During World War II, a limited number of Japanese were allowed to volunteer for two segregated combat units. These units, the 100th Battalion and 442nd Regimental Combat Team, later merged and became the most decorated military unit of its size in the history of the United States.

* While fighting for the U.S., 700 men in this unit were killed in action. Members of this unit were awarded 9,486 Purple Hearts, 4,000 Bronze Stars, and 21 Medals of Honor.

Sources[596] [597] [598]

Footnotes

[1] Article: “Skin.” World Book Encyclopedia, 2007 Deluxe Edition.

“The color of the skin varies greatly among population groups and individuals. Skin color depends mainly on the amount of the brown pigment melanin produced in the skin. Melanin is formed by the melanocytes in the epidermis. All people have about the same number of melanocytes.”

[2] Textbook: Principles of Genetics (4th edition). By D. Peter Snustad & Michael J. Simmons. John Wiley & Sons, 2006.

Page 785: “Compared to other species, the humans species is genetically rather uniform. At the nucleotide level, humans have about one-fourth the genetic variation of chimpanzees and about one-tenth that of Drosophila. Furthermore, most of the genetic variation in the human species—perhaps 85 to 95 percent of it—is within rather than between populations.”

[3] Teaching guide: “Human Genetic Variation.” By BSCS and Videodiscovery under a contract from the National Institutes of Health, National Human Genome Research Institute, 1999. <science.education.nih.gov>

Page 8:

Furthermore, genetic variation around the world is distributed in a rather continuous manner; there are no sharp, discontinuous boundaries between human population groups. In fact, research results consistently demonstrate that about 85 percent of all human genetic variation exists within human populations, whereas about only 15 percent of variation exists between populations (Figure 4). That is, research reveals that Homo sapiens is one continuously variable, interbreeding species. Ongoing investigation of human genetic variation has even led biologists and physical anthropologists to rethink traditional notions of human racial groups. The amount of genetic variation between these traditional classifications actually falls below the level that taxonomists use to designate subspecies, the taxonomic category for other species that corresponds to the designation of race in Homo sapiens. This finding has caused some biologists to call the validity of race as a biological construct into serious question.

[4] Paper: “Effect of Race Upon Organ Donation and Recipient Survival in Liver Transplantation.” By Praga Pillay and others. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, November 1990. Pages 1391–1396. <www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov>

The genetic differences owing to race per se are not considered to be major, as the genetic variability within each race is greater than the variability between the races. Moreover, it has been variously estimated that black Americans have a 30–50% chance of having a white ancestor (10). Because of this fact and because of the findings in this study, the likelihood of graft failure solely as a result of the presence of a genetic difference between the race of the donor and recipient is not tenable. This conclusion is consistent with studies recently reported for renal transplantation from our center (11). Thus transplantation of organs across racial groups can be performed without fear of an additional problem occurring as a result of some inherent difference between the donor and recipient races. Our data indicate that the major problem in success of liver transplantation is the severity of the illness of the recipient immediately prior to the transplant.

[5] Webpage: “Testing for Racial Differences in the Mental Ability of Young Children.” Harvard University, Education Innovation. Accessed July 19, 2016 at <edlabs.harvard.edu>

Prior to this research, studies of the cognitive abilities of young children had been small-scale and rare. Using a newly available and nationally representative data set, the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey Birth Cohort (ECLS-B), which includes data for over 10,000 children born in 2001, we were able to analyze a test of mental function for children aged eight to twelve months, to assess whether an achievement gap was present during the early months of childhood development.

[6] Webpage: “Roland G. Fryer, Jr.” University of Chicago. Accessed July 19, 2016 at <pricetheory.uchicago.edu>

Roland G. Fryer, Jr. is the Henry Lee Professor of Economics at Harvard University and faculty director of the Education Innovation Laboratory (EdLabs). Fryer’s research combines economic theory, empirical evidence, and randomized experiments to help design more effective government policies. His work on education, inequality, and race has been widely cited in media outlets and Congressional testimony.
 

[7] Webpage: “Steven D. Levitt.” Harvard University. Accessed July 19, 2016 at <scholar.harvard.edu>

Steve Levitt is the William B. Ogden Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, where he directs the Becker Center on Chicago Price Theory.

Levitt received his BA from Harvard University in 1989 and his PhD from MIT in 1994. He has taught at Chicago since 1997.

[8] Paper: “Testing for Racial Differences in the Mental Ability of Young Children.” By Roland G. Fryer Jr. and Steven D. Levitt. American Economic Review, April 2013. <www.aeaweb.org>

Abstract:

On tests of intelligence, Blacks systematically score worse than Whites. Some have argued that genetic differences across races account for the gap. Using a newly available nationally representative data set that includes a test of mental function for children aged eight to twelve months, we find only minor racial differences in test outcomes (0.06 standard deviation units in the raw data) between Blacks and Whites that disappear with the inclusion of a limited set of controls. Relative to Whites, children of all other races lose ground by age two. We confirm similar patterns in another large, but not nationally representative data set. A calibration exercise demonstrates that the observed patterns are broadly consistent with large racial differences in environmental factors that grow in importance as children age. Our findings are not consistent with the simplest models of large genetic differences across races in intelligence, although we cannot rule out the possibility that intelligence has multiple dimensions and racial differences are present only in those dimensions that emerge later in life.

NOTE: A video of Dr. Fryer discussing the findings of this study and others is available here (begins at 12:45).

[9] Paper: “The M Street High School, 1891-1916.” By Henry S. Robinson. Records of the Columbia Historical Society, 1984. Pages 119-143. <www.jstor.org>

Page 119:

Though the “separate but equal doctrine” was in force regarding the public schools of the southern and border states until May 1954, the segregated system of Washington, D.C., was unique in that it provided excellent educational opportunities for its black youth. …

In November 1870 Congress established the Preparatory High School for Negro Youth. Originally it was hardly more than an advanced grammar school laboring under the disadvantages of an inadequate faculty, overcrowding, and dropouts. But gradually the high school’s curriculum improved through the efforts of strong principals.

Page 120:

Between September 1891 and September 1916 M Street High graduated a multitude of young men and women. Many of these graduates achieved prominence in the local Washington community, others in the national and international communities, while a few ranked among the first Afro-Americans to obtain eminence in their respective professions. Of these professions we can cite business, dentistry, education, law, medicine, the military, music, and teaching.

Page 122: “In 1899 the pupils of the M Street High School scored higher than the students of the white Eastern and Western high schools on standardized tests in English and general subjects.”

[10] Article: “Brooklyn School Scores High Despite Poverty.” By Sharon Otterman. New York Times, April 25, 2010. <www.nytimes.com>

… 80 percent of its students are poor enough to qualify for free lunch, nearly a quarter receive special education services, and many among its predominately Hispanic population do not speak English at home.

In 2009, the 580-student primary school … topped the city with its fourth-grade math scores, with all students passing, all but one with a mark of “advanced,” or Level 4. In English, all but one of 75 fourth graders passed, earning a Level 3 or 4, placing it among the city’s top dozen schools.

On average, at schools with the same poverty rate, only 66 percent of the students pass the English test, and 29 percent score at an advanced level in math….

… [T]he school’s cost per pupil, in fact, is lower than the city’s average. … While about one-third of the students are still learning English, there are no bilingual classes.

[11] Article: “Stephen Jay Gould, 60, Is Dead; Enlivened Evolutionary Theory.” By Carol Kaesuk Yoon. New York Times, May 21, 2002. <query.nytimes.com>

One of the most influential evolutionary biologists of the 20th century and perhaps the best known since Charles Darwin….

In 1967, he received a doctorate in paleontology from Columbia University and went on to teach at Harvard, where he would spend the rest of his career.

[12] Book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. By Charles Darwin. John Murray, 1859. <www.literature.org>

[13] Book: Ontogeny and Phylogeny. By Stephen Jay Gould. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977.

Page 127: “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”

[14] Book: The Descent of Man, And Selection in Relation to Sex. By Charles Darwin. Second Edition, John Murray, 1871. Page 193.

[15] Article: “Huxley, T.H.” Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004.

[16] Book: Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews. By Thomas Henry Huxley. D. Appleton and Company, 1872.

Pages 20-21:

Quashie’s plaintive inquiry, “Am I not a man and a brother?” seems at last to have received its final reply—the recent decision of the fierce trial by battle on the other side of the Atlantic [i.e., the U.S. Civil War] fully concurring with that long since delivered here in a more peaceful way.

The question is settled; but even those who are most thoroughly convinced that the doom is just, must see good grounds for repudiating half the arguments which have been employed by the winning side; and for doubting whether its ultimate results will embody the hopes of the victors, though they may more than realize the fears of the vanquished. It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous [having a projecting lower jaw] has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest. But whatever the position of stable equilibrium into which the laws of social gravitation may bring the negro, all responsibility for the result will henceforward lie between Nature and him. The white man may wash his hands of it, and the Caucasian conscience be void of reproach for evermore. And this, if we look to the bottom of the matter, is the real justification for the abolition policy.

[17] “Address Delivered Before the British Association Assembled at Belfast, With Additions, 1874.” By John Tyndall. <www.victorianweb.org>

[18] Article: “Abscheulich! (Atrocious!)” By Stephen J. Gould. Natural History, March 2000. Pages 42–49.

Page 24: “[Haeckel’s books] surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin and Huxley (by Huxley’s own frank admission), in convincing people about the validity of evolution.”

[19] Article: “Stephen Jay Gould, 60, Is Dead; Enlivened Evolutionary Theory.” By Carol Kaesuk Yoon. New York Times, May 21, 2002. <query.nytimes.com>

One of the most influential evolutionary biologists of the 20th century and perhaps the best known since Charles Darwin….

In 1967, he received a doctorate in paleontology from Columbia University and went on to teach at Harvard, where he would spend the rest of his career.

[20] Article: “Ernst Heinrich Phillip August Haeckel.” Encyclopedia of World Biography. Gale, 1998. Volume 7.

Page 61: [I]n the late 19th and early 20th centuries, he was as famous as Charles Darwin….”

Page 62: “Throughout his life he received many honors and was elected to many scientific societies….”

[21] Book: The Descent of Man, And Selection in Relation to Sex. By Charles Darwin. Second edition. John Murray, 1874. 1890 reprint. First published in 1871.

Pages 2–3:

The sole object of this work is to consider, firstly, whether man, like every other species, is descended from some pre-existing form; secondly, the manner of his development; and thirdly, the value of the differences between the so-called races of man. …

… This last naturalist [Haeckel], besides his great work, ‘Generelle Morphologie’ (1866), has recently (1868, with a second edition in 1870), published his ‘Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte’, in which he fully discusses the genealogy of man. If this work had appeared before my essay had been written, I should probably never have completed it. Almost all the conclusions at which I have arrived I find confirmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine.

[22] Book: The Evolution of Man: A Popular Exposition of the Principal Points of Human Ontogeny and Phylogeny. By Ernst Haeckel. Volume 2. D. Appleton and Company, 1896. Translated from the German book entitled Anthropogenie, which was first published in 1874.

Page 170: “Apes, on the contrary, can grasp in this way with the hind-foot as well as the fore-foot, and were therefore regarded as four-handed. Many tribes, however, among the lower races of men, especially many negro tribes, use the foot in the same way as the hand.”

Between pages 180 and 181:

Ernst Haeckel’s Depiction of Black People

[23] Book: The History of Creation: Or The Development of the Earth and Its Inhabitants by the Action of Natural Causes. By Ernst Haeckel. Translated by E. Ray Lankester. Volume 2. D. Appleton and Company, 1879. From the fourth German edition of the book entitled Naturliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, 1873. The first edition was in 1868.

Page 313: “The color of the skin of the genuine Negroes is always more of less of a pure black. Their skin is velvety to the touch, and characterized by a peculiar offensive exhalation.”

Page 314:

The lowest stage of all straight-haired men, and on the whole perhaps all of the still living human species, is occupied by the Australian, or Austral-negro (Homo Australis). This species seems to be exclusively confined to the large island of Australia; it resembles the genuine African Negro by its black or brownish black hair, and the offensive smell of the skin, by its very slanting teeth and long-headed form of the skull, the receding forehead, broad nose, protruding lips, and also by the entire absence of calves.

[24] Book: The History of Creation: Or The Development of the Earth and Its Inhabitants by the Action of Natural Causes. By Ernst Haeckel. Translated by E. Ray Lankester. Volume 2. D. Appleton and Company, 1879. From the fourth German edition of the book entitled Naturliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, 1873. The first edition was in 1868.

Page 321:

The Caucasian, or Mediterranean man (Homo Mediterraneus), has from time immemorial been placed at the head of all races of men, as the most highly developed and perfect. It is generally called the Caucasian race, but as, among all the varieties of the species, the Caucasian branch is the least important, we prefer the much more suitable appellation proposed by Friedrich Muller, namely, that of Mediterranese. For the most important varieties of this species, which are moreover the most eminent actors in what is called “Universal History,” first rose to a flourishing condition on the shores of the Mediterranean. The former area of the distribution of this species is ex pressed by the name “Indo-Atlantic,” whereas at present it is spread over the whole earth, and is overcoming most of the other species in the struggle for existence. In bodily as well as in mental qualities, no other human species can equal the Mediterranean. This species alone (with the exception of the Mongolian) has had an actual history; it alone has attained to that degree of civilization which seems to raise man above the rest of nature.

Page 322: “[W]e must assume within this one species four different races, which are only connected at their root.”

Page 323: “Lastly, the Indo-Germanic race, which has far surpassed all the other races of men in mental development, separated at a very early period, like the Semitic, into two diverging branches, the Ario-Romaic and the Slavo-Germanic branches.”

[25] Paper: “Civic Biology and the Origin of the School Antievolution Movement.” By Adam Shapiro. Journal of the History of Biology, September 1, 2008. Pages 409– 433. <link.springer.com>

Pages 409-410:

The creation of “civic biology” curricula in the late 1910’s and early 20’s, spearheaded by a close-knit community of textbook authors, brought evolution into the high school classroom as part of a complete reshaping of “biology” as a school subject. It also incorporated progressive ideologies about the purposes of compulsory public education in shaping society, and civic biology was fundamentally focused on the applications of the life sciences to human life. …

When the American Book Company (ABC) first published George W. Hunter’s Civic Biology in 1914, its editors had no way of anticipating the Scopes trial.

Page 420:

The Civic Biology, with its pedagogical novelty and the weight of the American Book Company’s sales machinery behind it, was quickly a success. With most schools adopting books every few years, by the end of the decade it was the best-selling biology book (even securing adoption in Boston). In the textbook industry, success led to imitation and other publishers brought out textbooks that similarly reorganized biology around social principles.

[26] Textbook: A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems. By George W. Hunter. American Book Company, 1914. <ia800304.us.archive.org>

Page 196.

[27] Book: A Study of American Intelligence. By Carl C. Brigham (Assistant Professor of Psychology, Princeton University). Foreword by Robert M. Yerkes (Chairman, Research Information Service: National Research Council). Princeton University Press, 1923. <archive.org>

[28] Book: Theory in Africa, Africa in Theory: Locating Meaning in Archaeology. Edited by Stephanie Wynne-Jones and Jeffrey Fleisher. Routledge, 2015.

Chapter 2: “African Models in Global Histories.” By Scott MacEachern. Pages 9-37.

Pages 24-25:

[T]here remains a significant body of modem scientific literature that continues explicitly to place Africans in a timeless past. Much of this literature is situated in the disciplines of psychology and psychometrics, and in related fields like criminology and economics. … However, beliefs about the cognitive inferiority of Africans are more widespread in comparative and evolutionary psychology, to a significant degree because of a set of studies of ‘national intelligence’ (consolidated IQ test score results from different countries), undertaken over the last decade by Richard Lynn and collaborators (Lynn and Vanhanen 2002; Lynn 2007, 2008) and which are directly derived front Lynn’s earlier writings on racial science and the racial inferiority of Africans (see for example Lynn 1991, 1996). These studies claim that sub-Saharan African populations have, on average, very low intelligence, such that the average intellectual level on the continent would be one of severe cognitive challenge (MacEachern 2006).

The trajectory of research initiatives using these studies on ‘national intelligence’ has been interesting. Some of this work has involved straightforward applications of medical science and evolutionary psychology that somehow manage to evade or ignore without questioning the issue of whether the continent of Africa is really inhabited by people so much less intelligent than those living in other parts of the world (cf. Eppig et al. 2010; Daniels and Ostoni 2013). Other research work toward more deliberately ideological ends, seeking to prove that Africans are less culturally advanced, more violent and indeed less evolved (in both the evolutionary and the intellectual sense) than are any other human continental populations (Itzkol 1991; Rushton 2000, 2004a; Kanazawa 2006; Lynn 2007; Templer 2008; Wrigh 2009; Lynn and Vanhanen 2002). Such work often makes vulgarized appeals to the concept of the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, claiming that the evolution of humans in Africa renders modern Africans less fit for life in the modem world….

[29] Book: Theory in Africa, Africa in Theory: Locating Meaning in Archaeology. Edited by Stephanie Wynne-Jones and Jeffrey Fleisher. Routledge, 2015.

Chapter 2: “African Models in Global Histories.” By Scott MacEachern. Pages 9-37.

Pages 24-25:

[T]here remains a significant body of modem scientific literature that continues explicitly to place Africans in a timeless past. Much of this literature is situated in the disciplines of psychology and psychometrics, and in related fields like criminology and economics. … However, beliefs about the cognitive inferiority of Africans are more widespread in comparative and evolutionary psychology, to a significant degree because of a set of studies of ‘national intelligence’ (consolidated IQ test score results from different countries), undertaken over the last decade by Richard Lynn and collaborators (Lynn and Vanhanen 2002; Lynn 2007, 2008) and which are directly derived front Lynn’s earlier writings on racial science and the racial inferiority of Africans (see for example Lynn 1991, 1996). These studies claim that sub-Saharan African populations have, on average, very low intelligence, such that the average intellectual level on the continent would be one of severe cognitive challenge (MacEachern 2006).

The trajectory of research initiatives using these studies on ‘national intelligence’ has been interesting. Some of this work has involved straightforward applications of medical science and evolutionary psychology that somehow manage to evade or ignore without questioning the issue of whether the continent of Africa is really inhabited by people so much less intelligent than those living in other parts of the world (cf. Eppig et al. 2010; Daniels and Ostoni 2013). Other research work toward more deliberately ideological ends, seeking to prove that Africans are less culturally advanced, more violent and indeed less evolved (in both the evolutionary and the intellectual sense) than are any other human continental populations (Itzkol 1991; Rushton 2000, 2004a; Kanazawa 2006; Lynn 2007; Templer 2008; Wrigh 2009; Lynn and Vanhanen 2002). Such work often makes vulgarized appeals to the concept of the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, claiming that the evolution of humans in Africa renders modern Africans less fit for life in the modem world….

[30] Book: History of the Transmission of Ancient Books to Modern Times together with the Process of Historical Proof. By Isaac Taylor. Haskell House, 1971. First published in 1875.

Page 92:

[I]t was the fall of Constantinople in 1453 which filled the Italian cities with these learned strangers. The Italians of that age needed only to receive this kind of direction, and to be aided by these means of study; for they had for some time been placed under those peculiar circumstances which have ever proved the most favorable to the advancement of the human mind. Throughout a number of independent states—crowded upon a narrow space, the same language, yet diversified by dialects, was spoken. The energy, the rivalry, the munificence that accompany an active commerce kept the whole mass of society in movement….

[31] Commentary: “Genes and Racism.” By Thomas Sowell (Ph.D. in Economics). Jewish Word Review, April 23, 2013. <jewishworldreview.com>

[P]eople with the geographic handicap of living in isolated mountain valleys have seldom, if ever, produced world-class achievements that advanced science, technology or philosophy. On the contrary, people in such places have almost invariably lagged behind the progress in the rest of the world—including people of the very same race living on the plains below. Mountaineers were long noted for their poverty and backwardness in countries around the world, especially in the millennia before modern transportation and communication eased their isolation.

People geographically isolated on islands far from the nearest mainland or people isolated by deserts or other geographic features have likewise seldom kept up with the progress of others. Again, this was especially so before modern transportation and communication put them more in touch with the rest of the world.

Conversely, urbanized peoples have often been in the vanguard of progress, producing far more of the historic advances of the human race than a similar number of people scattered out in the hinterlands—even when both were of the same race.

Geography has been a factor in this as well, since not all geographic areas are equally suitable for building big cities. The overwhelming majority of cities have been built on navigable waterways, for example—and not all regions have navigable waterways available.

Isolation can be man-made, as well as created by nature. Centuries ago, when China was the most advanced nation in the world, its leaders decided to isolate the country from other peoples, all of whom they regarded as barbarians. After a few centuries of isolation, China was shocked to find itself overtaken by others, and to some extent at the mercy of those others.

[32] Book: The Geography of Transport Systems (3rd edition). By Jean-Paul Rodrigue with Claude Comtois and Brian Slack. Routledge, 2013.

Waterways were the most efficient transport systems available and cities next to rivers were able to trade over longer distances and maintain political, economic and cultural cohesion over a larger territory. It is not surprising to find that the first civilizations emerged along river systems for agricultural but also for trading purposes (Tigris-Euphrates, Nile, Indus, Ganges, Huang He).

[33] Book: An Economic History of West Africa. By A. G. Hopkins. Taylor and Francis, 1973.

Page 72:

Communications by land were based entirely on animal and human power. One of the greatest transport innovations of the pre-colonial era was the introduction of the camel. This extraordinary animal was the principal means of transport in the desert for almost two thousand years. It was present in North Africa in the first century B.C., and it became known throughout the Sahara during the early centuries of the Christian era. The camel was more efficient in desert conditions than were horses and oxen, which had been used previously, and its supremacy remained unchallenged until the coming of the motor car in the 1920s. …

Water transport was used where possible, for it was known to be the cheapest means of transporting bulky commodities over long distances. However, many West African rivers were hard to navigate: a number had dangerous rapids; some were flooded during the rainy season; and others lacked water in the dry season.

Page 73:

Foodstuffs and other items of everyday use could rarely be transported far beyond the area of production by any means of carriage. The case of Timbuctu is an exception which proves the rule, for the city was able to use the relatively cheap Niger route and could also pay for imported supplies from foreign trade earnings. Even so, in the nineteenth century the price of imported cloth at Timbuctu was two to three and a half times as great as it was on the coast. Kola nuts, which today are common items of consumption, were a luxury enjoyed by the relatively wealthy in the pre-colonial period. In the late nineteenth century one kola nut bought at Gonja, in the area of production, for five cowries sold for 250–300 cowries by the time it reached Lake Chad (about 1,250 miles away).169

Page 74:

In two areas of West Africa environmental circumstances meant that there was little scope for wheeled transport. On the sand and rock of the Sahara the camel was a more efficient means of carriage, so much so that it replaced the wheel at an early date. In the forest the difficulty of keeping draught animals greatly reduced the value of wheeled vehicles. In the Western Sudan, however, both horses and oxen were present, and wheeled transport would have been possible. The problem in this case was that the gain from greater traction would have been nullified by the capital and maintenance costs of carts, wagons and draught animals, and by the slower rate of progress of wheeled vehicles. Since draught animals were not used on the farm, the cost of keeping them solely for transport purposes during the dry season was much higher than in other parts of the world, where there was scope for combining the two functions.

[34] Commentary: “Unequal Outcomes.” By Walter E. Williams (Ph.D. in Economics). Jewish Word Review, August 26, 1998. <www.jewishworldreview.com>

It doesn’t take much to convince me that Dr. Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, must write with both hands. His most recent book, the last of a trilogy, Conquests and Cultures, is a masterpiece of research and thought. …

Let’s look at just geography. Africa is more than twice the size of Europe, but it has a shorter coastline. The European coastline constantly twists and turns, creating innumerable natural harbors, while the African coastline is smooth, with few harbors. Sowell asks how surprising it should be that international trade has played a smaller role in the economic history of Africa than of Europe, especially Western Europe. Less trade produces more isolation. No great civilization developed in isolation. …

Historically, large cities, as economic centers, emerged along navigable rivers and harbors. In the United States, it’s no accident that cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans and San Francisco are our old cities, and those like Denver, Phoenix and Kansas City are relatively new and didn’t become major cities until railroads and trucks were invented. Historically, water has been the cheapest way to ship goods. During the 1700s, it was cheaper to ship a ton of goods from London to Philadelphia than from Philadelphia to Lancaster, Pa., a mere 60 miles away.

In Western Europe and the United States, there are navigable rivers gently flowing hundreds of miles, connecting wide areas both culturally and economically. That’s not true in Africa. The rivers of tropical Africa plunge a 1,000 feet or more on their way to the sea, with waterfalls and cascades making them navigable for only tiny distances. In Western Europe and the United States, regular rainfall and melting snows keep rivers flowing year round, but Africa has neither, so rivers rise and fall dramatically, further limiting their usefulness.

[35] Commentary: “Unequal Outcomes.” By Walter E. Williams (Ph.D. in Economics). Jewish Word Review, August 26, 1998. <www.jewishworldreview.com>

It doesn’t take much to convince me that Dr. Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, must write with both hands. His most recent book, the last of a trilogy, Conquests and Cultures, is a masterpiece of research and thought. …

Geographical disparities may be suggestive of the many ways that physical settings have restricted the cultural universe available to different peoples. One revealing indication of isolation and the resulting cultural fragmentation is that African peoples are 10 percent of the world’s population but have one-third of the world’s languages.

[36] Article: “Slavery.” By Richard Hellie. Encyclopædia Britannica. Last updated March 24, 2016. <www.britannica.com>

Slavery is known to have existed as early as the Shang dynasty (18th–12th century bce) in China. … Slavery continued to be a feature of Chinese society down to the 20th century. …

Korea had a very large slave population, ranging from a third to half of the entire population for most of the millennium between the Silla period and the mid-18th century. …

Slavery existed in ancient India, where it is recorded in the Sanskrit Laws of Manu of the 1st century bce. The institution was little documented until the British colonials in the 19th century made it an object of study because of their desire to abolish it. …

Slavery was widely practiced in other areas of Asia as well. A quarter to a third of the population of some areas of Thailand and Burma (Myanmar) were slaves in the 17th through the 19th centuries and in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, respectively. …

Other societies in the Philippines, Nepal, Malaya, Indonesia, and Japan are known to have had slavery from ancient until fairly recent times. The same was true among the various peoples inhabiting the regions of Central Asia: the peoples of Sogdiana, Khorezm, and other advanced civilizations; the Mongols, the Kalmyks, the Kazakhs; and the numerous Turkic peoples, most of whom converted to Islam. …

In England about 10 percent of the population entered in the Domesday Book in 1086 were slaves, with the proportion reaching as much as 20 percent in some places. Slaves were also prominent in Scandinavia during the Viking era, 800–1050 ce, when slaves for use at home and for sale in the international slave markets were a major object of raids. Slaves also were present in significant numbers in Scandinavia both before and after the Viking era. …

Slavery was much in evidence in the Middle East from the beginning of recorded history. It was treated as a prominent institution in the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi of about 750 bce. …

Slaves were owned in all Islamic societies, both sedentary and nomadic, ranging from Arabia in the centre to North Africa in the west and to what is now Pakistan and Indonesia in the east. …

Slaves have been owned in black Africa throughout recorded history. In many areas there were large-scale slave societies, while in others there were slave-owning societies. Slavery was practiced everywhere even before the rise of Islam, and black slaves exported from Africa were widely traded throughout the Islamic world.

[37] Article: “Africans Arrive in Virginia, 1619.” Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. Economic History. Thomson Gale, 1999. <www.encyclopedia.com>

One stormy day in August of 1619 a Dutch man-of-war with about 20 Africans on board entered port at the English colony of Jamestown, Virginia. Little is known of these newly arrived people: the first Africans to set foot on the North American continent. At this time the slave trade between Africa and the English colonies had not yet been established, and it is unlikely that the 20 or so newcomers became slaves upon their arrival. They were perhaps considered indentured servants, who worked under contract for a certain period of time (usually seven years) before they were granted freedom and the rights accorded to other settlers. …

The social status of the first Africans in Jamestown was confusing, and perhaps deliberately ambiguous. Records from 1623 and 1624 list the black inhabitants of the colony as servants, not slaves. In these same records, however, white indentured servants are listed along with the year in which they were to attain freedom; no such year accompanies the names of black servants. Freedom was the birthright of William Tucker, the first African born in the colonies. Yet court records show that at least one African had been declared a slave by 1640, the year that slavery was officially instituted in Jamestown.

[38] Article: “Africans Arrive in Virginia, 1619.” Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. Economic History. Thomson Gale, 1999. <www.encyclopedia.com>

Freedom was the birthright of William Tucker, the first African born in the colonies. Yet court records show that at least one African had been declared a slave by 1640, the year that slavery was officially instituted in Jamestown. After the legalization of slavery by the Virginia colony, the African population began to rise slowly and steadily. The number of blacks increased from 23 in 1625 to approximately three hundred in 1650.

[39] Book: The Routledge Atlas of African American History. By Jonathan Earle. Routledge, 2000.

Page 26:

The transition to slave labor from labor performed by free people and indentured servants was a complex one, and spanned most of the 17th century. Virginia settlers had enslaved local Indians as early as 1610, but gave up the practice in the face of massive Indian raids and attacks. The switch to African, perpetual, race-based slavery was slow: there were only 1,600 Africans in North America in 1640, with almost a third of them in Dutch New York. During the next four decades slavery was explicitly legalized in Massachusetts (1641), Connecticut (1650), Virginia (1661), Maryland (1663), New York (1665), and South Carolina (1682). Even before it legally recognized slavery in 1663, Maryland lawmakers had mandated slavery as a lifelong condition for Africans and their children; Virginia classified slavery as a lifelong, inheritable, and “racial” status for blacks in 1670. The remaining colonies of British North America legalized slavery in the early 18th century.

[40] Article: “Continental Congress.” Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004.

(1774–89), in the period of the American Revolution, the body of delegates who spoke and acted collectively for the people of the colony-states that later became the United States of America. The term most specifically refers to the bodies that met in 1774 and 1775–81 and respectively designated as the First Continental Congress and the Second Continental Congress.

In the spring of 1774, the British Parliament’s passage of the Intolerable (Coercive) Acts, including the closing of the port of Boston, provoked keen resentment in the colonies. The First Continental Congress, convened in response to the Acts by the colonial Committees of Correspondence, met in Philadelphia on September 5, 1774. Fifty-six deputies represented all the colonies except Georgia. …

Meeting in secret session, the body rejected a plan for reconciling British authority with colonial freedom. Instead, it adopted a declaration of personal rights, including life, liberty, property, assembly, and trial by jury. The declaration also denounced taxation without representation and the maintenance of the British army in the colonies without their consent. Parliamentary regulation of American commerce, however, was willingly accepted.

[41] Webpage: “Journals of the Continental Congress, Thursday, October 20, 1774.” U.S. Library of Congress. Accessed July 20, 2016 at <memory.loc.gov>

We, his majesty’s most loyal subjects, the delegates of the several colonies of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, the three lower counties of New-Castle, Kent and Sussex, on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, and South-Carolina, deputed to represent them in a continental Congress, held in the city of Philadelphia, on the 5th day of September, 1774, avowing our allegiance to his majesty, our affection and regard for our fellow-subjects in Great-Britain and elsewhere, affected with the deepest anxiety, and most alarming apprehensions, at those grievances and distresses, with which his Majesty’s American subjects are oppressed; and having taken under our most serious deliberation, the state of the whole continent, find, that the present unhappy situation of our affairs is occasioned by a ruinous system of colony administration, adopted by the British ministry about the year 1763, evidently calculated for inslaving these colonies, and, with them, the British empire. In prosecution of which system, various acts of parliament have been passed, for raising a revenue in America, for depriving the American subjects, in many instances, of the constitutional trial by jury, exposing their lives to danger, by directing a new and illegal trial beyond the seas, for crimes alleged to have been committed in America: and in prosecution of the same system, several late, cruel, and oppressive acts have been passed, respecting the town of Boston and the Massachusetts-Bay, and also an act for extending the province of Quebec, so as to border on the western frontiers of these colonies, establishing an arbitrary government therein, and discouraging the settlement of British subjects in that wide extended country; thus, by the influence of civil principles and ancient prejudices, to dispose the inhabitants to act with hostility against the free Protestant colonies, whenever a wicked ministry shall chuse so to direct them.

To obtain redress of these grievances, which threaten destruction to the lives, liberty, and property of his majesty’s subjects, in North America, we are of opinion, that a non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation agreement, faithfully adhered to, will prove the most speedy, effectual, and peaceable measure: and, therefore, we do, for ourselves, and the inhabitants of the several colonies, whom we represent, firmly agree and associate, under the sacred ties of virtue, honour and love of our country, as follows: …

2. We will neither import nor purchase, any slave imported after the first day of December next; after which time, we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are concerned in it. …

11. That a committee be chosen in every county, city, and town, by those who are qualified to vote for representatives in the legislature, whose business it shall be attentively to observe the conduct of all persons touching this association; and when it shall be made to appear, to the satisfaction of a majority of any such committee, that any person within the limits of their appointment has violated this association, that such majority do forthwith cause the truth of the case to be published in the gazette; to the end, that all such foes to the rights of British-America may be publicly known, and universally contemned as the enemies of American liberty; and thenceforth we respectively will break off all dealings with him or her. …

14. And we do further agree and resolve, that we will have no trade, commerce, dealings or intercourse whatsoever, with any colony or province, in North-America, which shall not accede to, or which shall hereafter violate this association, but will hold them as unworthy of the rights of freemen, and as inimical to the liberties of their country. …

In Congress, Philadelphia, October 20, 1774.

Signed, Peyton Randolph, President.

New Hampshire

Jno. Sullivan

Nathel. Folsom

Massachusetts Bay

Thomas Cushing

Saml. Adams

John Adams

Robt.Treat Paine

Rhode Island

Step. Hopkins

Sam: Ward

Connecticut

Elipht Dyer

Roger Sherman

Silas Deane

New York

Isaac Low

John Alsop

John Jay

Jas. Duane

Phil. Livingston

Wm. Floyd

Henry Wisner

S: Boerum

New Jersey

J. Kinsey

Wil: Livingston

Stepn. Crane

Richd. Smith

John De Hart

Pennsylvania

Jos. Galloway

John Dickinson

Cha Humphreys

Thomas Mifflin

E. Biddle

John Morton

Geo: Ross

The Lower Counties New Castle

Cæsar Rodney

Tho. M: Kean

Geo: Read

Maryland

Mat Tilghman”

Ths. Johnson Junr.

Wm. Paca

Samuel Chase

[42] Webpage: “Declaration of Independence.” U.S. Library of Congress. Accessed July 19, 2016 at <www.loc.gov>

“On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia in the Pennsylvania State House (now Independence Hall), approved the Declaration of Independence, severing the colonies’ ties to the British Crown.

[43] Declaration of Independence. Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776. <www.archives.gov>

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[44] Harper’s Book of Facts. Edited by Charlton T. Lewis. Harper & Brothers, 1906. <books.google.com>

Pennsylvania abolished slavery by gradual emancipation, 1780; Massachusetts by a Bill of Rights prefixed to the constitution, 1780; New Hampshire by her constitution, 1784; Connecticut and Rhode Island, 1784; Vermont by her constitution; New York by gradual abolition, 1799; further legislation in 1817 decreed total abolition after 4 July, 1827, when about 10,000 slaves were liberated; New Jersey, gradual abolition, 1804.

[45] Webpage: “Emancipation.” U.K. National Archives. Accessed July 20, 2016 at <www.nationalarchives.gov.uk>

In August 1833, the Slave Emancipation Act was passed, giving all slaves in the British empire their freedom, albeit after a set period of years. Plantation owners received compensation for the ‘loss of their slaves’ in the form of a government grant set at £20,000,000. In contrast, enslaved people received no compensation and continued to face much hardship. They remained landless, and the wages offered on the plantations after emancipation were extremely low.

The 1833 Act did not come into force until 1 August 1834. The first step was the freeing of all children under six. However, although the many thousands of enslaved people in the British West Indies were no longer legally slaves after 1 August 1834, they were still made to work as unpaid apprentices for their former masters. These masters continued to ill-treat and exploit them. Enslaved people in the British Caribbean finally gained their freedom at midnight on 31 July 1838.

[46] 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified December 6, 1865. <www.justfacts.com>

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[47] Book: The Bill of Rights and the States: The Colonial and Revolutionary Origins of American Liberties. Edited by Patrick T. Conley & John P. Kaminski. Madison House Publishers, 1992. Pages 461-514: “The Bill of Rights: A Bibliographic Essay.” By Gaspare J. Saladino. Page 484:

The best historical treatments of the legislative history of the Bill of Rights in the first federal Congress are… [six works mentioned]. All agree that James Madison, against considerable odds, took the lead in the House of Representatives, and that without his efforts there probably would have been no Bill of Rights. Madison’s amendments, a distillation of those from the state conventions (especially Virginia’s) were, for the most part, those that the House eventually adopted.

[48] Article: “Madison, James.” Contributor: Robert J. Brugger (Ph.D., Editor, Maryland Historical Magazine, Maryland Historical Society). World Book Encyclopedia, 2007 Deluxe Edition.

Madison, James (1751-1836), the fourth president of the United States, is often called the Father of the Constitution. He played a leading role in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, where he helped design the checks and balances that operate among Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court. He also helped create the U.S. federal system, which divides power between the central government and the states.

[49] Book: The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, which Framed Constitution of the United States of America, Reported by James Madison, a Delegate from the State of Virginia. Edited by Gaillard Hund and James Brown Scott. Oxford University Press, 1920. <avalon.law.yale.edu>

June 6, 1787:

All civilized Societies would be divided into different Sects, Factions, & interests, as they happened to consist of rich & poor, debtors & creditors, the landed, the manufacturing, the commercial interests, the inhabitants of this district or that district, the followers of this political leader or that political leader, the disciples of this religious Sect or that religious Sect. In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger. What motives are to restrain them? A prudent regard to the maxim that honesty is the best policy is found by experience to be as little regarded by bodies of men as by individuals. Respect for character is always diminished in proportion to the number among whom the blame or praise is to be divided. Conscience, the only remaining tie, is known to be inadequate in individuals: In large numbers, little is to be expected from it. Besides, Religion itself may become a motive to persecution & oppression. – These observations are verified by the Histories of every Country antient & modern. In Greece & Rome the rich & poor, the creditors & debtors, as well as the patricians & plebians alternately oppressed each other with equal unmercifulness. What a source of oppression was the relation between the parent cities of Rome, Athens & Carthage, & their respective provinces: the former possessing the power, & the latter being sufficiently distinguished to be separate objects of it? Why was America so justly apprehensive of Parliamentary injustice? Because G. Britain had a separate interest real or supposed, & if her authority had been admitted, could have pursued that interest at our expence. We have seen the mere distinction of colour made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man. What has been the source of those unjust laws complained of among ourselves? Has it not been the real or supposed interest of the major number? Debtors have defrauded their creditors. The landed interest has borne hard on the mercantile interest. The Holders of one species of property have thrown a disproportion of taxes on the holders of another species. The lesson we are to draw from the whole is that where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a Republican Govt. the Majority if united have always an opportunity. The only remedy is to enlarge the sphere, & thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests & parties, that in the 1st. place a majority will not be likely at the same moment to have a common interest separate from that of the whole or of the minority; and in the 2d. place, that in case they shd. have such an interest, they may not be apt to unite in the pursuit of it. It was incumbent on us then to try this remedy, and with that view to frame a republican system on such a scale & in such a form as will controul all the evils wch. have been experienced.

[50] “Letter on the Federal Convention of 1787.” Luther Martin to Thomas Cockey Deye, January 27, 1788. <www.constitution.org>

By the ninth section of this article, the importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars each person.

The design of this clause is to prevent the general government from prohibiting the importation of slaves; but the same reasons which caused them to strike out the word “national,” and not admit the word “stamps,” influenced them here to guard against the word “slaves.” They anxiously sought to avoid the admission of expressions which might be odious in the ears of Americans, although they were willing to admit into their system those things which the expressions signified; and hence it is that the clause is so worded as really to authorize the general government to impose a duty of ten dollars on every foreigner who comes into a state to become a citizen, whether he comes absolutely free, or qualifiedly so as a servant; although this is contrary to the design of the framers, and the duty was only meant to extend to the importation of slaves .

This clause was the subject of a great diversity of sentiment in the Convention. As the system was reported by the committee of detail, the provision was general, that such importation should not be prohibited, without confining it to any particular period. This was rejected by eight states—Georgia, South Carolina, and, I think, North Carolina, voting for it.

We were then told by the delegates of the two first of those states, that their states would never agree to a system which put it in the power of the general government to prevent the importation of slaves, and that they, as delegates from those states, must withhold their assent from such a system.

A committee of one member from each state was chosen by ballot, to take this part of the system under their consideration, and to endeavor to agree upon some report which should reconcile those states. To this committee also was referred the following proposition, which had been reported by the committee of detail, viz.: “No navigation act shall be passed without the assent of two thirds of the members present in each house”—a proposition which the staple and commercial states were solicitous to retain, lest their commerce should be placed too much under the power of the Eastern States, but which these last states were as anxious to reject. This committee—of which also I had the honor to be a member—met, and took under their consideration the subjects committed to them. I found the Eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion to slavery, were very willing to indulge the Southern States at least with a temporary liberty to prosecute the slave trade, provided the Southern States would, in their turn, gratify them, by laying no restriction on navigation acts; and after a very little time, the committee, by a great majority, agreed on a report, by which the general government was to be prohibited from preventing the importation of slaves for a limited time, and the restrictive clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted.

This report was adopted by a majority of the Convention, but not without considerable opposition. It was said that we had just assumed a place among independent nations, in consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great Britain to enslave us; that this opposition was grounded upon the preservation of those rights to which God and nature had entitled us, not in particular, but in common with the rest of all mankind—that we had appealed to the Supreme Being for his assistance, as the God of freedom, who could not but approve our efforts to preserve the rights which he had thus imparted to his creatures—that now, when we scarcely had risen from our knees, from supplicating his aid and protection, in forming our government over a free people,—a government formed pretendedly on the principles of liberty, and for its preservation,—in that government to have a provision not only putting it out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade, but even encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the states power and influence in the Union in proportion as they cruelly and wantonly sport with the rights of their fellow-creatures, ought to be considered as a solemn mockery of, and insult to, that God whose protection we had then implored; and could not fail to hold us up in detestation, and render us contemptible to every true friend of liberty in the world. It was said, it ought to be considered, that national crimes can only be, and frequently are, punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all, and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master.

It was urged that, by this system, we were giving the general government full and absolute power to regulate commerce, under which general power it would have a right to restrain, or totally prohibit, the slave trade; it must therefore appear to the world absurd and disgraceful, to the last degree, that we should except from the exercise of that power the only branch of commerce which is unjustifiable in its nature, and contrary to the rights of mankind—that, on the contrary, we ought rather to prohibit expressly, in our Constitution, the further importation of slaves; and to authorize the general government, from time to time, to make such regulations as should be thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of slavery, and the emancipation of the slaves which are already in the states—that slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and habituates us to tyranny and oppression. It was further urged that, by this system of government, every state is to be protected both from foreign invasion and from domestic insurrections; that, from this consideration, it was of the utmost importance it should have a power to restrain the importation of slaves, since, in proportion as the number of slaves was increased in any state, in the same proportion the state is weakened and exposed to foreign invasion or domestic insurrection, and by so much less will it be able to protect itself against either; and therefore will, by so much the more, want aid from, and be a burden to, the Union. It was further said that as, in this system, we were giving the general government a power, under the idea of national character or national interest, to regulate even our weights and measures, and have prohibited all possibility of emitting paper money, and passing insolvent laws, &c., it must appear still more extraordinary, that we should prohibit the government from interfering with the slave trade, than which nothing could so materially affect both our national honor and interest. These reasons influenced me, both on the committee and in Convention, most decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause, as it now makes a part of the system.

You will perceive, sir, not only that the general government is prohibited from interfering in the slave trade before the year eighteen hundred and eight, but that there is no provision in the Constitution that it shall afterwards be prohibited, nor any security that such prohibition will ever take place; and I think there is great reason to believe that, if the importation of slaves is permitted until the year eighteen hundred and eight, it will not be prohibited afterwards. At this time we do not generally hold this commerce in so great abhorrence as we have done. When our liberties were at stake, we warmly felt for the common rights of men. The danger being thought to be past which threatened ourselves, we are daily growing more insensible to those rights. In those states which have restrained or prohibited the importation of slaves, it is only done by legislative acts which may be repealed. When those states find that they must in their national character and connection, suffer in the disgrace, and share in the inconveniences, attendant upon that detestable and iniquitous traffic, they may be desirous also to share in the benefits arising from it; and the odium attending it will be greatly effaced by the sanction which is given to it in the general government.

[51] Harper’s Book of Facts. Edited by Charlton T. Lewis. Harper & Brothers, 1906. <books.google.com>

About the time of the Revolution, societies of prominent men were formed for the purpose of ameliorating the condition of the slaves. Pennsylvania was the first state to organize such a society, 1787, with Franklin as president. New York followed, with John Jay as its first president, and Alexander Hamilton as its second. Immediately after, Rhode Island; Maryland in 1780, with such members as Samuel Chase and Luther Martin; Delaware, with James A. Bayard and C A. Rodney; Connecticut, 1790; Virginia, 1791; New Jersey, 1792.

[52] Webpage: “Act to Prohibit the Importation of Slaves.” Ashland University, Ashbrook Center, TeachingAmericanHistory.org. Accessed July 20, 2016 at <teachingamericanhistory.org>

The U.S. Congress passed this piece of landmark legislation to end the profitable international slave trade on March 2, 1807, and President Thomas Jefferson promptly signed the act, making it law. The act went into effect on January 1, 1808, prohibiting from that time on the importation of African slaves to the United States.

An Act to Prohibit the Importation of Slaves into any Port or Place Within the Jurisdiction of the United States, From and After the First Day of January, in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, it shall not be lawful to import or bring into the United States or the territories thereof from any foreign kingdom, place, or country, any negro, mulatto, or person of colour, with intent to hold, sell, or dispose of such negro, mulatto, or person of colour, as a slave, or to be held to service or labour.

Section 2. And be it further enacted, That no citizen or citizens of the United States, or any other person, shall, from arid after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eight, for himself, or themselves, or any other person whatsoever, either as master, factor, or owner, build, fit, equip, load or otherwise prepare any ship or vessel, in any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, nor shall cause any ship or vessel to sail from any port or place within the same, for the purpose of procuring any negro, mulatto, or person of colour, from any foreign kingdom, place, or country, to be transported to any port or place whatsoever, within the jurisdiction of the United States, to be held, sold, or disposed of as slaves, or to be held to service or labour: and if any ship or vessel shall be so fitted out for the purpose aforesaid, or shall be caused to sail so as aforesaid, every such ship or vessel, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, shall be forfeited to the United States, and shall be liable to be seized, prosecuted, and condemned in any of the circuit courts or district courts, for the district where the said ship or vessel may be found or seized. …

[53] Letter from George Washington to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786. <founders.archives.gov>

I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it—but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, & that is by Legislative authority: and this, as far as my suffrage will go, shall never be wanting.

[54] Book: The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, which framed Constitution of the United States of America, reported by James Madison, a delegate from the state of Virginia. Edited by Gaillard Hund and James Brown Scott. Oxford University Press, 1920. <avalon.law.yale.edu>

May 25, 1787 (First day of the Constitutional Convention):

Robert Morris… informed the members assembled that by the instruction & in behalf, of the deputation of Pena. he proposed George Washington Esqr. late Commander in chief for president of the Convention. Mr. JNo. RUTLIDGE seconded the motion; expressing his confidence that the choice would be unanimous, and observing that the presence of Genl. Washington forbade any observations on the occasion which might otherwise be proper. General WASHINGTON was accordingly unanimously elected by ballot, and conducted to the Chair by Mr. R. Morris and Mr. Rutlidge; from which in a very emphatic manner he thanked the Convention for the honor they had conferred on him, reminded them of the novelty of the scene of business in which he was to act, lamented his want of better qualifications, and claimed the indulgence of the House towards the involuntary errors which his inexperience might occasion.

[55] Article: “Washington, George.” Contributor: Philander D. Chase (Ph.D., Editor, The Papers of George Washington). World Book Encyclopedia, 2007 Deluxe Edition.

[56] Book: The Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 1737-1832 With His Correspondence and Public Papers (Volume 2). By Kate Mason Rowland. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1898.

“Grateful to Almighty God for the blessing which, through Jesus Christ our Lord, he conferred upon my beloved country, in her emancipation, and upon myself, in permitting me, under circumstances of mercy, to live to the age of 80 years and to survive the fiftieth year of American Independence, and certifying by my present signature my approbation of the Declaration of Independence adopted by Congress on the fourth day of July, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-six, which I originally subscribed on the second day of August of the same year, and of which I am now the last surviving signer, I do hereby recommend to the present and future generations the principles of that important document as the best earthly inheritance their ancestors could bequeath to them, and pray that the civil and religious liberties they have secured to my country may be perpetuated to the remotest posterity and extended to the whole family of man.”

“Charles Carroll, Of Carrollton.

“Baltimore. August 2, 1826.”

Copy of Declaration of Independence, New York City Library.

[57] Article: “Carroll, Charles.” Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004.

“American patriot leader, longest surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence, and the only Roman Catholic to sign that document. … Before and during the American Revolution, he served on committees of correspondence and in the Continental Congress (1776–78), where he was an important member of the board of war.”

[58] Book: The Life of John Jay, With Selections from His Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers. By William Jay. Journal & Journal Harper, 1833.

Pages 173-174:

To the Rev. Doctor Price. New-York, 27th September, 1785.

I hope my letter, in answer to the one which enclosed a number of your political pamphlets, has reached you by this time. I do not recollect the date, but it went in one of the last vessels.

The cause of liberty, like most other good causes, have its difficulties, and sometimes its persecutions, to struggle with. It has advanced more rapidly in this than other countries, but all its objects are not yet attained; and I much doubt whether they ever will be, in this or any other terrestrial state. That men should pray and fight for their own freedom, and yet keep others in slavery, is certainly acting a very inconsistent, as well as unjust and, perhaps, impious part; but the history of mankind is filled with instances of human improprieties. The wise and the good never form the majority of any large society, and it seldom happens that their measures are uniformly adopted; or that they can always prevent being overborne themselves by the strong and almost never-ceasing union of the wicked and the weak.

These circumstances tell us to be patient, and to moderate those sanguine expectations, which warm and good hearts often mislead even wise heads to entertain on those subjects. All that the best men can do is, to persevere in doing their duty to their country, and leave the consequences to Him who made it their duty; being neither elated by success, however great, nor discouraged by disappointments however frequent and mortifying.

[59] Article: “Jay, John.” Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004.

He helped assure the approval of the Declaration of Independence (1776) in New York, where he was a member of the provincial Congress. The following year he helped draft New York’s first constitution, was elected the state’s first chief justice, and in 1778 was chosen president of the Continental Congress. …

In 1789 President George Washington appointed Jay the country’s first chief justice, in which capacity he was instrumental in shaping Supreme Court procedures in its formative years. …

… New York Federalists, however, elected him governor (1795–1801), an office from which he retired to spend 27 years uneventfully on his farm.

[60] Book: Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic. By B. F. Morris. George W. Childs, 1864. <books.google.com>

Pages 171-173:

Societies having in view the abolition of slavery were formed in a number of States, in the early period of the republic, including Virginia and Maryland; and in 1794 a general convention of delegates from all the abolition societies in the United States was held in Philadelphia, to consult measures for the removal of slavery; and this general convention met annually for twelve years. To the first convention Dr. Rush was a delegate, and chairman of a committee to draft an address to the people of the United States, which contained the following condemnation of slavery:—

“Many reasons concur in persuading us to abolish domestic slavery in our country.

“It is inconsistent with the safety of the liberties of the United States.

“Freedom and slavery cannot long exist together. An unlimited power over the time, labor, and posterity of our fellow creatures necessarily unfits men for discharging the public and private duties of citizens of a republic.

“It is inconsistent with sound policy, in exposing the states which permit it to all those evils which insurrections and the most resentful war have introduced into one of the richest islands the West Indies.

“It is unfriendly to the present exertions of the inhabitants Europe in favor of liberty. What people will advocate freedom with a zeal proportioned to its blessings, while they view the purest republic in the world tolerating in its bosom a body slaves

“In vain has the tyranny of kings been rejected while we permit in our country a domestic despotism which involves in its nature most of the vices and miseries that we have endeavored to avoid.

“It is degrading to our rank as men in the scale of being. Let us use our reason and social affections for the purposes for which they were given, or cease to boast a pre-eminence over animals that are unpolluted with our crimes.

“But higher motives to justice and humanity towards our fellow-creatures remain yet to be mentioned.

“Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. It prostrates every benevolent and just principle of action in the human heart. It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Saviour. It is a usurpation the prerogatives of the great Sovereign of the universe, who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men.

“But, if this view of the enormity of domestic slavery should not affect us, there is one consideration more, which ought to alarm and impress us, especially at the present juncture.

“It is a violation of a divine precept of universal justice, which has in no case escaped with impunity.”

[61] Article: “Rush, Benjamin.” Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004.

“Rush was an early and active American patriot. As a member of the radical provincial conference in June 1776, he drafted a resolution urging independence and was soon elected to the Continental Congress, signing the Declaration of Independence with other members on August 2.”

[62] Article: “Jefferson, Thomas.” By Noble E. Cunningham, Jr. (Ph.D., Curators’ Professor Emeritus of History, University of Missouri, Columbia). World Book Encyclopedia, 2007 Deluxe Edition.

Congress appointed a committee to draw up a declaration of independence. … The committee unanimously asked Jefferson to prepare the draft and approved it with few changes. … The members of Congress made some changes, but, as Richard Lee said: “the Thing in its nature is so good that no cookery can spoil the dish for the palates of freemen.”

[63] Autobiography Draft Fragment of Thomas Jefferson, July 27, 1821. Transcribed and edited by Gerard W. Gawalt. U.S. Library of Congress, February 13, 2015. <memory.loc.gov>

Pages 25-26:

The committee of five met; no such thing as a sub-committee was proposed, but they unanimously pressed on myself alone to undertake the draught. I consented; I drew it; but before I reported it to the committee, I communicated it separately to Doctor Franklin and Mr. Adams, requesting their corrections because they were the two members of whose judgments and amendments I wished most to have the benefit, before presenting it to the committee: and you have seen the original paper now in my hands, with the corrections of Doctor Franklin and Mr. Adams interlined in their own handwritings. Their alterations were two or three only, and merely verbal. I then wrote a fair copy, reported it to the committee, and from them unaltered, to Congress. This personal communication and consultation with Mr. Adams, he has misremembered into the actings of a sub-committee. Pickering’s observations, and Mr. Adams’ in addition, ‘that it contained no new ideas, that it is a common place compilation, its sentiments hacknied in Congress for two years before, and its essence contained in Otis’ pamphlet,’ may all be true. Of that I am not to be the judge. Richard Henry Lee charged it as copied from Locke’s treatise on government. Otis’ pamphlet I never saw, and whether I had gathered my ideas from reading or reflection I do not know. I know only that I turned to neither book nor pamphlet while writing it. I did not consider it as any part of my charge to invent new ideas altogether, and to offer no sentiment which had ever been expressed before.”— Letter to J. Madison, Aug. 30, 1823.

[64] Article: “Thomas Jefferson and Slavery.” Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia. Accessed July 20, 2016 at <www.monticello.org>

Throughout his entire life, Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery. Calling it a “moral depravity”1 and a “hideous blot,”2 he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation.3 Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty.4 These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm. …

The problem of western lands had troubled the colonies from the beginning of the Revolutionary War. … Congress appointed two committees to consider the issues and made Jefferson chairman of both. … Jefferson’s provision forbidding slavery west of the Appalachians lost by a single vote. …

Jefferson was born into a slave society in which he continued to own slaves while opposing slavery. He never justified owning slaves, but he felt that freeing his slaves would not have ended slavery as an institution. He worked within the system to oppose slavery. He hoped the younger generation would end society’s dependence on this system. He wrote, “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.”

[65] Article: “Thomas Jefferson and Slavery.” Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia. Accessed July 20, 2016 at <www.monticello.org>

Jefferson was 14 years old when his father died. As the oldest son, he became head of the family. He inherited more than 2,500 acres (1,010 hectares) of land and at least 20 slaves. …

Jefferson was born into a slave society in which he continued to own slaves while opposing slavery. He never justified owning slaves, but he felt that freeing his slaves would not have ended slavery as an institution. He worked within the system to oppose slavery. He hoped the younger generation would end society’s dependence on this system. He wrote, “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.”

[66] Webpage: “Thomas Jefferson and Slavery: Property.” Accessed July 20, 2016 at <www.monticello.org>

Jefferson acquired most of the over six hundred slaves he owned during his life through the natural increase of enslaved families. He acquired approximately 175 slaves through inheritance: about 40 from the estate of his father, Peter Jefferson, in 1764, and 135 from his father-in-law, John Wayles, in 1774. Jefferson purchased fewer than twenty slaves in his lifetime, in some cases to unite spouses and in others to satisfy labor needs at Monticello. …

Jefferson did not engage in the commercial buying or selling of slaves. … Despite his expressed “scruples” against selling slaves except “for delinquency, or on their own request,” he sold more than 110 in his lifetime, mainly for financial reasons. …

To provide dowries for his sister and daughters, and occasional gifts to other family members, Jefferson transferred eighty-five slaves by gift. …

During his lifetime, Jefferson freed two enslaved men. At his death, Jefferson bequeathed freedom to five men in his will. At least three other slaves were unofficially freed when Beverly Hemings, Harriet Hemings, and James Hemings, son of (Critta Hemings Bowles) were allowed to leave Monticello without pursuit.

[67] “Notes on the State of Virginia.” By Thomas Jefferson, 1785. <www.virginia.edu>

Pages 263-

Many of the laws which were in force during the monarchy being relative merely to that form of government, or inculcating principles inconsistent with republicanism, the first assembly which met after the establishment of the commonwealth appointed a committee to revise the whole code, to reduce it into proper form and volume, and report it to the assembly. …

The plan of the revisal was this. The common law of England, by which is meant, that part of the English law which was anterior to the date of the oldest statutes extant, is made the basis of the work. It was thought dangerous to attempt to reduce it to a text: it was therefore left to be collected from the usual monuments of it. Necessary alterations in that, and so much of the whole body of the British statutes, and of acts of assembly, as were thought proper to be retained, were digested into 126 new acts, in which simplicity of stile was aimed at, as far as was safe. The following are the most remarkable alterations proposed: …

To make slaves distributable among the next of kin, as other moveables. …

To emancipate all slaves born after passing the act. The bill reported by the revisors does not itself contain this proposition; but an amendment containing it was prepared, to be offered to the legislature whenever the bill should be taken up, and further directing, that they should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expence, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniusses, till the females should be eighteen, and the males twenty-one years of age, when they should be colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of houshold and of the handicraft arts, feeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, &c. to declare them a free and independant people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength; and to send vessels at the same time to other parts of the world for an equal number of white inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither, proper encouragements were to be proposed.

It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race. …

[68] Excerpt of Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Jean Nicolas Demeunier, June 26, 1786. <users.wfu.edu>

Of the two commissioners who had concerted the amendatory clause for the gradual emancipation of slaves Mr. Wythe could not be present as being a member of the judiciary department, and Mr. Jefferson was absent on the legation to France. But there wanted not in that assembly men of virtue enough to propose, & talents to vindicate this clause. But they saw that the moment of doing it with success was not yet arrived, and that an unsuccessful effort, as too often happens, would only rivet still closer the chains of bondage, and retard the moment of delivery to this oppressed description of men. What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment, & death itself in vindication of his own liberty, and the next moment be deaf to all those motives whose power supported him thro’ his trial, and inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose. …

[69] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Edward Rutledge, July 14, 1787. <founders.archives.gov>

“I congratulate you, my dear friend, on the law of your state for suspending the importation of slaves, and for the glory you have justly acquired by endeavoring to prevent it for ever. This abomination must have an end, and there is a superior bench reserved in heaven for those who hasten it.”

[70] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Edward Bancroft, January 26 , 1789. <founders.archives.gov>

I have deferred answering your letter on the subject of slaves, because you permitted me to do it till a moment of leisure, and that moment rarely comes, and because too, I could not answer you with such a degree of certainty as to merit any notice. I do not recollect the conversation at Vincennes to which you allude, but can repeat still on the same ground, on which I must have done then, that as far as I can judge from the experiments which have been made, to give liberty to, or rather, to abandon persons whose habits have been formed in slavery is like abandoning children. Many quakers in Virginia seated their slaves on their lands as tenants. They were distant from me, and therefore I cannot be particular in the details, because I never had very particular information. I cannot say whether they were to pay a rent in money, or a share of the produce: but I remember that the landlord was obliged to plan their crops for them, to direct all their operations during every season and according to the weather, but, what is more afflicting, he was obliged to watch them daily and almost constantly to make them work, and even to whip them. A man’s moral sense must be unusually strong, if slavery does not make him a thief. He who is permitted by law to have no property of his own, can with difficulty conceive that property is founded in any thing but force. These slaves chose to steal from their neighbors rather than work. They became public nuisances, and in most instances were reduced to slavery again. But I will beg of you to make no use of this imperfect information (unless in common conversation). I shall go to America in the Spring and return in the fall. During my stay in Virginia I shall be in the neighborhood where many of these trials were made. I will inform myself very particularly of them, and communicate the information to you. Besides these, there is an instance since I came away of a young man (Mr. Mayo) who died and gave freedom to all his slaves, about 200. This is about 4. years ago. I shall know how they have turned out. Notwithstanding the discouraging result of these experiments, I am decided on my final return to America to try this one. I shall endeavor to import as many Germans as I have grown slaves. I will settle them and my slaves, on farms of 50. acres each, intermingled, and place all on the footing of the Metayers [Medietarii] of Europe. Their children shall be brought up, as others are, in habits of property and foresight, and I have no doubt but that they will be good citizens Some of their fathers will be so: others I suppose will need government. With these, all that can be done is to oblige them to labour as the labouring poor of Europe do, and to apply to their comfortable subsistence the produce of their labour, retaining such a moderate portion of it as may be a just equivalent for the use of the lands they labour and the stocks and other necessary advances.

[71] Book: The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia: A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by John P. Foley. Funk & Wagnalls, 1900.

Page 818:

7988. SLAVES (Emancipation), Total.—It is impossible In be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history, natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one’s mind. … The way, I hope, is preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation.—Notes on Virginia, viii, 404. Ford Ed., iii, 267. (1782.)

7989. SLAVES (Emancipation), United States purchase of.—The bare proposition of purchase [of the slaves] by the United Stairs generally would excite infinite indignation in all the States north of Maryland. The sacrifice must fall on the States alone which hold them; and the difficult question will be how to lessen this so as to reconcile our fellow citizens to it. Personally, I am ready and desirous to make any sacrifice which shall ensure their gradual but complete retirement from the State, and effectually, at the same time, establish them elsewhere in freedom and safety.—To Dr. THOMAS HUMPHREYS. vii, 58. Ford Ed., x, 76. (M., 1817.)

[72] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes, April 22 , 1820. U.S. National Archives. <founders.archives.gov>

[73] Autobiography Draft Fragment of Thomas Jefferson, July 27, 1821. Transcribed and edited by Gerard W. Gawalt. U.S. Library of Congress, February 13, 2015. <memory.loc.gov>

The bill on the subject of slaves was a mere digest of the existing laws respecting them, without any intimation of a plan for a future & general emancipation. It was thought better that this should be kept back, and attempted only by way of amendment whenever the bill should be brought on. The principles of the amendment however were agreed on, that is to say, the freedom of all born after a certain day, and deportation at a proper age. But it was found that the public mind would not yet bear the proposition, nor will it bear it even at this day. Yet the day is not distant when it must bear and adopt it, or worse will follow. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up. We should in vain look for an example in the Spanish deportation or deletion of the Moors. This precedent would fall far short of our case.

[74] Excerpt of Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Frances Wright, August 7, 1825. <tjrs.monticello.org>

the march of events has not been such as to render it’s completion practicable within the limits of time allotted to me; and I leave it’s accomplishment as the work of another generation. and I am cheared when I see that on which it is devolved, taking it up with so much good will and such mind engaged in it’s encouragement. the abolition of the evil is not impossible: it ought never therefore to be despaired of. every plan should be adopted, every experiment tried, which may do something towards the ultimate object.

[75] Autobiography Draft Fragment of Thomas Jefferson, July 27, 1821. Transcribed and edited by Gerard W. Gawalt. U.S. Library of Congress, February 13, 2015. <memory.loc.gov>

Page 27:

Congress proceeded the same day to consider the declaration of independence which had been reported & lain on the table the Friday preceding, and on Monday referred to a commee of the whole. The pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with, still haunted the minds of many. For this reason those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they should give them offence. The clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who on the contrary still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for tho’ their people have very few slaves themselves yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.

Pages 29-33:

“I am also obliged by ye Original Declaration of Independence, which I find your brethren have treated as they did ye Manifesto last summer—altered it much for the worse; their hopes of a Reconciliation might restrain them from plain truths then, but what could cramp them now?”— E. Pendleton to Jefferson, Aug. 20, 1776. …

a declaration by the representatives of the united states of america, in general congress assembled

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate & equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. …

The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of unremitting injuries & usurpations, among which appears no solitary fact to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest but all have in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this let facts be submitted to a candid world for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood. …

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.

[76] Autobiography Draft Fragment of Thomas Jefferson, July 27, 1821. Transcribed and edited by Gerard W. Gawalt. U.S. Library of Congress, February 13, 2015. <memory.loc.gov>

Page 36:

On Friday July 12 [1776]. the Committee appointed to draw the articles of confederation reported them, and on the 22d. the house resolved themselves into a committee to take them into consideration. On the 30th. & 31st. of that month & 1st. of the ensuing, those articles were debated which determined the proportion or quota of money which each state should furnish to the common treasury, and the manner of voting in Congress. The first of these articles was expressed in the original draught in these words. “Art. XI. All charges of war & all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence, or general welfare, and allowed by the United States assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex & quality, except Indians not paying taxes, in each colony, a true account of which, distinguishing the white inhabitants, shall be triennially taken & transmitted to the Assembly of the United States.”

Page 37:

Mr. [Benjamin] Harrison proposed as a compromise, that two slaves should be counted as one freeman. He affirmed that slaves did not do so much work as freemen, and doubted if two effected more than one. That this was proved by the price of labor. The hire of a labourer in the Southern colonies being from 8 to £12. while in the Northern it was generally £24.

Page 42:

Dr. Witherspoon opposed every alteration of the article. All men admit that a confederacy is necessary. Should the idea get abroad that there is likely to be no union among us, it will damp the minds of the people, diminish the glory of our struggle, & lessen it’s importance; because it will open to our view future prospects of war & dissension among ourselves. If an equal vote be refused, the smaller states will become vassals to the larger; & all experience has shown that the vassals & subjects of free states are the most enslaved. He instanced the Helots of Sparta & the provinces of Rome.

[77] Book: The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development. By Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison. Third edition. W. W. Norton & Company, 1963.

Page 383

In the North, the growth of extremist antislavery sentiment resulted in the birth of the Republican Party, which adopted an attitude of uncompromising hostility toward all extension of slavery in the territories. The Republicans absorbed the Northern Whigs almost completely, while many important antislavery Democrats, including such outstanding figures as Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, also sifted to the Republican camp.

In their first national convention, held in Philadelphia in 1856, the Republicans adopted a platform announcing that it was the Constitutional duty of Congress to exclude slavery from all federal territories.

[78] “Declaration of Secession.” State of Georgia, January 29, 1861. <www.civilwar.org>

A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state.

[79] Book: Abraham Lincoln: Sources and Style of Leadership. Edited by Frank J. Williams and others. Greenwood Press, 1994. Chapter 2: “Lincoln’s View of the Founding Fathers.” By Ronald D. Reitveld.

Page 23: “A great fusion meeting at Jackson, Michigan, on 6 July [1854] adopted the name Republican in emulation of Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party. This embryonic Republican Party looked to the principles of Jefferson for its ideals.”

[80] Article: “Federalist Party.” Contributor: Donald R. Hickey (Ph.D., Professor of History, Wayne State College). World Book Encyclopedia, 2007 Deluxe Edition.

“Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposed Hamilton. Their followers became known as Democratic-Republicans.”

[81] Article: “Jefferson, Thomas.” Contributor: Noble E. Cunningham, Jr. (Ph.D., Curators’ Professor Emeritus of History, University of Missouri, Columbia). World Book Encyclopedia, 2007 Deluxe Edition.

“Jefferson led the Democratic-Republicans (called Republicans at the time, though some historians regard it as the origin of the modern Democratic Party).”

[82] Web Page: “Party History.” Democratic National Committee. Accessed November 15, 2007 at <www.democrats.org>

The late Ron Brown—former Chairman of the Democratic Party—put it best when he wrote, “The common thread of Democratic history, from Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton, has been an abiding faith in the judgment of hardworking American families, and a commitment to helping the excluded, the disenfranchised and the poor strengthen our nation by earning themselves a piece of the American Dream. We remember that this great land was sculpted by immigrants and slaves, their children and grandchildren.”

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic Party in 1792 as a congressional caucus to fight for the Bill of Rights and against the elitist Federalist Party. In 1798, the “party of the common man” was officially named the Democratic-Republican Party and in 1800 elected Jefferson as the first Democratic President of the United States.

[83] Article: “Lincoln, Abraham.” By Gabor S. Boritt (Ph.D., Professor of Civil War Studies, Gettysburg College). World Book Encyclopedia, 2007 Deluxe Edition.

“In 1856, Lincoln joined the antislavery Republican Party, then only two years old.”

[84] Book: Abraham Lincoln: Sources and Style of Leadership. Edited by Frank J. Williams and others. Greenwood Press, 1994. Chapter 2: “Lincoln’s View of the Founding Fathers.” By Ronald D. Reitveld.

Page 23: “Among the founding fathers, it now became apparent that Jefferson offered more support for Lincoln’s various positions, and he began to quote the author of the Declaration of Independence, his platform, his confession of faith, more frequently.”

[85] Book: A Political Text-Book for 1860: Comprising a Brief View of Presidential Nominations and Elections…. Compiled by Horace Greely & John F. Cleveland. The Tribune Association, 1860. Page 206:

Mr. Lincoln having been invited by the Republicans of Boston, to attend a Festival in honor of the anniversary of Jefferson’s birthday, on the 13th of April, 1859, replied as follows [on April 6, 1859]:

GENTLEMEN: Your kind note, inviting me to attend a festival in Boston, on the 18th inst., in honor of the birthday of Thomas Jefferson, was duly received. My engagements are such that I cannot attend. Bearing in mind that about seventy years ago two great political parties were first formed in this country; that Thomas Jefferson was the head of one of them and Boston the headquarters of the other, it is both curious and interesting that those supposed to descend politically from the party opposed to Jefferson, should now be celebrating his birthday in their own original seat of empire, while those claiming political descent from him have nearly ceased to breathe his name everywhere.

Remembering, too, that the Jefferson party was formed upon its supposed superior devotion to the personal rights of men, holding the rights of property to be secondary only, and greatly inferior; and then assuming that the so-called Democracy of to-day are the Jefferson, and their opponents the anti-Jefferson parties, it will be equally interesting to note how completely the two have changed ground as to the principle upon which they were originally supposed to be divided.

The Democracy of to-day hold the liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, when in conflict with another man’s right of property. Republicans, on the contrary, are both for the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar.

I remember being once much amused at seeing two partially intoxicated men engaged in a fight with their great-coats on, which fight, after a long and rather harmless contest, ended in each having fought himself out of his own coat and into that of the other. If the two leading parties of this day are really identical with the two in the days of Jefferson and Adams, they have performed the same feat as the two drunken men.

But soberly, it is now no child’s play to save the principles of Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation.

One would state with great confidence that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of Euclid are true; but nevertheless, he would fail, with one who should deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they are denied and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them “glittering generalities.” Another bluntly styles them “self-evident lies.” And others insidiously argue that they apply only to “superior races.”

These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect—the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads plotting against the people. They are the vanguard, the sappers and miners, of returning despotism. We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us.

This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, cannot long retain it.

All honor to Jefferson—to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity, to introduce into a merely revolutionary document an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day and in all coming days it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN.

[86] Article: “Lincoln, Abraham.” Contributor: Gabor S. Boritt (Ph.D., Professor of Civil War Studies, Gettysburg College). World Book Encyclopedia, 2007 Deluxe Edition.

“In 1856, Lincoln joined the antislavery Republican Party, then only two years old.”

[87] Article: “Abraham Lincoln elected president.” History.com. Accessed August 2, 2016 at <www.history.com>

“Abraham Lincoln is elected the 16th president of the United States over a deeply divided Democratic Party, becoming the first Republican to win the presidency.”

[88] Article: “Lincoln, Abraham.” Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004.

“With the Republicans united, the Democrats divided, and a total of four candidates in the field, he carried the election on November 6. Although he received no votes from the Deep South and no more than 40 out of 100 in the country as a whole, the popular votes were so distributed that he won a clear and decisive majority in the electoral college.”

[89] Book: A Political Text-Book for 1860: Comprising a Brief View of Presidential Nominations and Elections…. Compiled by Horace Greely & John F. Cleveland. Tribune Association, 1860.

Page 206:

Mr. Lincoln having been invited by the Republicans of Boston, to attend a Festival in honor of the anniversary of Jefferson’s birthday, on the 13th of April, 1859, replied as follows [on April 6, 1859]:

GENTLEMEN: Your kind note, inviting me to attend a festival in Boston, on the 18th inst., in honor of the birthday of Thomas Jefferson, was duly received. My engagements are such that I cannot attend. Bearing in mind that about seventy years ago two great political parties were first formed in this country; that Thomas Jefferson was the head of one of them and Boston the headquarters of the other, it is both curious and interesting that those supposed to descend politically from the party opposed to Jefferson, should now be celebrating his birthday in their own original seat of empire, while those claiming political descent from him have nearly ceased to breathe his name everywhere.

Remembering, too, that the Jefferson party was formed upon its supposed superior devotion to the personal rights of men, holding the rights of property to be secondary only, and greatly inferior; and then assuming that the so-called Democracy of to-day are the Jefferson, and their opponents the anti-Jefferson parties, it will be equally interesting to note how completely the two have changed ground as to the principle upon which they were originally supposed to be divided.

The Democracy of to-day hold the liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, when in conflict with another man’s right of property. Republicans, on the contrary, are both for the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar.

I remember being once much amused at seeing two partially intoxicated men engaged in a fight with their great-coats on, which fight, after a long and rather harmless contest, ended in each having fought himself out of his own coat and into that of the other. If the two leading parties of this day are really identical with the two in the days of Jefferson and Adams, they have performed the same feat as the two drunken men.

But soberly, it is now no child’s play to save the principles of Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation.

One would state with great confidence that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of Euclid are true; but nevertheless, he would fail, with one who should deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they are denied and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them “glittering generalities.” Another bluntly styles them “self-evident lies.” And others insidiously argue that they apply only to “superior races.”

These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect—the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads plotting against the people. They are the vanguard, the sappers and miners, of returning despotism. We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us.

This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, cannot long retain it.

All honor to Jefferson—to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity, to introduce into a merely revolutionary document an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day and in all coming days it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN.

[90] Book: The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development (3rd edition). By Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison. W. W. Norton & Company, 1963.

Pages 397-398:

As early as the election of 1856, Southern leaders in and out of Congress had repeatedly warned the nation that the South would regard a black Republican presidential victory as justifiable cause for secession. This was no idle political threat, for a large number of Southerners were firmly convinced that a Republican administration would not only destroy Southern interests in the territories that would inaugurate a direct attack upon “internal institutions” in the slave states themselves. With Lincoln’s election in November 1860, the secessionists prepared to carry their threat into effect.

South Carolina acted first. As soon as the result of the election became known, the state legislature called a constitutional convention which met at Charleston on December 17. Three days later, the convention by unanimous vote adopted an ordinance of secession. … Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas had also called conventions, all of which met in January and voted for succession by large majorities. Thus all seven states of the lower South had seceded by the end of January.

[91] Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861. <www.bartleby.com>

[92] Book: The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development (3rd edition). By Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison. W. W. Norton & Company, 1963.

Page 397: “South Carolina acted first. As soon as the result of the election became known, the state legislature called a constitutional convention which met at Charleston on December 17. Three days later, the convention by unanimous vote adopted an ordinance of secession.”

[93] “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” State of South Carolina, December 24, 1860. <avalon.law.yale.edu>

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act. …

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. …

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

[94] “Declaration of Secession.” State of Georgia, January 29, 1861. <www.civilwar.org>

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.

[95] “Declaration of Secession.” State of Mississippi, January 1861. <www.civilwar.org>

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

[96] “Declaration of Secession.” State of Texas, February 2, 1861. <www.civilwar.org>

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery—the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits—a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

[97] Webpage: “Civil War Facts.” Civil War Trust, Accessed July 21, 2016 at <legacy.fordham.edu>

“The war began when the Confederates bombarded Union soldiers at Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861.”

[98] Webpage: “Alexander H. Stephens (1812-1883): Cornerstone Address, March 21, 1861.” Fordham University, Modern History Sourcebook. Accessed July 21, 2016 at <legacy.fordham.edu>

Alexander H. Stephens (1812-1883), although originally opposed to secession, was elected vice-president of the Confederacy. After the war he returned to political service in Georgia and in the House of Representatives. He was elected governor of Georgia in 1882 and died in office.

We are in the midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history. The last ninety days will mark one of the most memorable eras in the history of modern civilization. …

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”

[99] Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861. <www.bartleby.com>

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. …

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices. …

One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other. …

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”

[100] Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

[101] Webpage: “Civil War Facts.” Civil War Trust, Accessed July 21, 2016 at <legacy.fordham.edu>

“The war began when the Confederates bombarded Union soldiers at Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861. The war ended in Spring, 1865. Robert E. Lee surrendered the last major Confederate army to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse on April 9, 1865. The last battle was fought at Palmito Ranch, Texas, on May 13, 1865. … The Northern armies were victorious, and the rebellious states returned to the Union.”

[102] Article: “Lincoln, Abraham.” Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004.

No sooner was he in office than Lincoln received word that the Sumter garrison, unless supplied or withdrawn, would shortly be starved out. … Finally Lincoln ordered the preparation of two relief expeditions, one for Fort Sumter and the other for Fort Pickens, in Florida. …

Without waiting for the arrival of Lincoln’s expedition, the Confederate authorities presented to Major Anderson a demand for Sumter’s prompt evacuation, which he refused. On April 12, 1861, at dawn, the Confederate batteries in the harbour opened fire.

“Then, and thereby,” Lincoln informed Congress when it met on July 4, “the assailants of the Government, began the conflict of arms.” The Confederates, however, accused him of being the real aggressor. They said he had cleverly maneuvered them into firing the first shot so as to put upon them the onus of war guilt. Although some historians have repeated this charge, it appears to be a gross distortion of the facts. Lincoln was determined to preserve the Union, and to do so he thought he must take a stand against the Confederacy. He concluded he might as well take this stand at Sumter.

Lincoln’s primary aim was neither to provoke war nor to maintain peace. In preserving the Union, he would have been glad to preserve the peace also, but he was ready to risk a war that he thought would be short.

[103] 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified December 6, 1865. <www.justfacts.com>

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[104] Entry: “Civil Rights.” Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary. Accessed August 10, 2016 at <www.merriam-webster.com>

Simple Definition of civil rights: the rights that every person should have regardless of his or her sex, race, or religion

Full Definition of civil rights: the nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially: the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to United States citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress

[105] Article: “The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow: Ku Klux Klan.” By Richard Wormser. PBS. Accessed July 21, 2016 at <www.pbs.org>

The Ku Klux Klan was formed as a social club by a group of Confederate Army veterans in Pulaski, Tennessee in the winter of 1865-66. …

Dressed in robes and sheets, intended to prevent identification by the occupying federal troops (and supposedly designed to frighten blacks), the Klan quickly became a terrorist organization in service of the Democratic Party and white supremacy. Between 1869 and 1871 its goal was to destroy Congressional Reconstruction by murdering blacks—and some whites—who were either active in Republican politics or educating black children. The Klan burned churches and schools and drove thousands of people out of their homes.

[106] Webpage: “Ku Klux Klan.” History.com. Accessed July 21, 2016 at <www.history.com>

Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders. …

A group including many former Confederate veterans founded the first branch of the Ku Klux Klan as a social club in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866. …

For its part, the Ku Klux Klan dedicated itself to an underground campaign of violence against Republican leaders and voters (both black and white) in an effort to reverse the policies of Radical Reconstruction and restore white supremacy in the South. … At least 10 percent of the black legislators elected during the 1867-1868 constitutional conventions became victims of violence during Reconstruction, including seven who were killed. White Republicans (derided as “carpetbaggers” and “scalawags”) and black institutions such as schools and churches—symbols of black autonomy—were also targets for Klan attacks. …

… Among the most notorious zones of Klan activity was South Carolina, where in January 1871, 500 masked men attacked the Union county jail and lynched eight black prisoners.

[107] Article: “Ku Klux Klan.” Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004.

Klan members sought the restoration of white supremacy through intimidation and violence aimed at the newly enfranchised black freedmen. …

…Dressed in robes and sheets designed to frighten superstitious blacks and to prevent identification by the occupying federal troops, Klansmen whipped and killed freedmen and their white supporters in nighttime raids. …

The 19th-century Klan reached its peak between 1868 and 1870. A potent force, it was largely responsible for the restoration of white rule in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia. But Forrest ordered it disbanded in 1869, largely as a result of the group’s excessive violence. Local branches remained active for a time, however, prompting Congress to pass the Force Act in 1870 and the Ku Klux Act in 1871. …

… In United States v. Harris in 1882, the Supreme Court declared the Ku Klux Act unconstitutional, but by that time the Klan had practically disappeared.

It disappeared because its original objective—the restoration of white supremacy throughout the South—had been largely achieved during the 1870s. The need for a secret antiblack organization diminished accordingly.

[108] 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified July 9, 1868. <www.justfacts.com>

Amendment 14 (Ratified July 9, 1868)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[109] 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified February 3, 1870. <www.justfacts.com>

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[110] Webpage: “Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1870, 1871, 1875.” Kansas State University. <legacy.fordham.edu><www.arch.ksu.edu>

Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

Section 2. And be it further enacted, That any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right secured or protected by this act, or to different punishment, pains, or penalties on account of such person having at any time been held in a condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, or by reason of his color or race, than is prescribed for the punishment of white persons, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, shall be punished by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court.

Section 6. And be it further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly and willfully obstruct, hinder, or prevent any officer, or other person charged with the execution of any warrant or process issued under the provisions of this act … [shall] be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding six months….

[111] Webpage: “Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1870, 1871, 1875.” Kansas State University. <legacy.fordham.edu><www.arch.ksu.edu>

Civil Rights Act of 1870 (The Enforcement Act), 16 Stat. 140 (1870).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all citizens of the United States who are or shall be otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election … shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude….

Section 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of every person and officer to give to all citizens of the United States the same and equal opportunity to perform [any] prerequisite, and to become qualified to vote without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and if any person or officer shall refuse or knowingly omit to give full effect to this section, he shall … be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction thereof, be fined not less than five hundred dollars, or be imprisoned not less than one month and not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court.

Section 6. And be it further enacted, That if two or more persons shall band or conspire together, or go in disguise upon the public highway, or upon the premises of another, with intent to violate any provision of this act, or to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege granted or secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same, such persons shall be held guilty of felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, at the discretion of the court,-the fine not to exceed five thousand dollars, and the imprisonment not to exceed ten years,- and shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to, and disabled from holding, any office or place of honor, profit, or trust created by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 17. And be it further enacted, That any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right secured or protected by the last preceding section [giving all persons the same rights as white citizens] of this act, or to different punishment, pains, or penalties on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color or race, than is prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, shall be punished by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court.

[112] Webpage: “Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1870, 1871, 1875.” Kansas State University. <legacy.fordham.edu><www.arch.ksu.edu>

Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871).

Section 2. That if two or more persons within any State or Territory of the United States shall conspire together to overthrow, or to put down, or to destroy by force the government of the United States, or to levy war against the United States, or to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States, or by force, intimidation, or threat to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, or by force, intimidation, or threat to prevent any person from accepting or holding any office or trust or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging the duties thereof, or by force, intimidation, or threat to induce any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place where his duties as such officer might lawfully be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or to injure his person while engaged in the lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duty, or by force, intimidation, or threat to deter any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying in any matter pending in such court fully, freely, and truthfully, or to injure any such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or by force, intimidation, or threat to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment, of any juror or grand juror in any court of the United States, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or shall conspire together, or go in disguise upon the public highway or upon the premises of another for the purpose, either directly or indirectly, of depriving any person or any class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges or immunities under the laws, or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State from giving or securing to all persons within such State the equal protection of the laws, or shall conspire together for the purpose of in any manner impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen of the United States the due and equal protection of the laws, or to injure any person in his person or his property for lawfully enforcing the right of any person or class of persons to the equal protection of the laws, or by force, intimidation, or threat to prevent any citizen of the United States lawfully entitled to vote from giving his support or advocacy in a lawful manner towards or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector of President or Vice-President of the United States, or as a member of the Congress of the United States, or to injure any such citizen in his person or property on account of such support or advocacy, each and every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high crime, and, upon conviction thereof in any district or circuit court of the United States or district or supreme court of any Territory of the United States having jurisdiction of similar offences, shall be punished by a fine not less than five hundred nor more than five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment, with or without hard labor, as the court may determine, for a period of not less than six months nor more than six years, as the court may determine, or by both such fine and imprisonment as the court shall determine….

[113] Webpage: “Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1870, 1871, 1875.” Kansas State University. <legacy.fordham.edu><www.arch.ksu.edu>

Civil Rights Act of 1875, 18 Stat. 335 (1875).

Whereas, it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. That any person who shall violate the foregoing section by denying to any citizen, except for reasons by law applicable to citizens of every race and color, and regardless of any previous condition of servitude, the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges in said section enumerated, or by aiding or inciting such denial, shall, for every such offense, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars to the person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered in an action of debt, with full costs; and shall also, for every such offense, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, or shall be imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than one year….

Section 4. That no citizen possessing all other qualifications which are or may be prescribed by law shall be disqualified for service as a grand or petit juror in any court of the United States, or of any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and any officer or other person charged with any duty in the selection or summoning of jurors who shall exclude or fail to summon any citizen for the cause aforesaid shall, on conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and be fined not more than five thousand dollars.

[114] Article: “The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow: The Enforcement Acts (1870-71).” By Richard Wormser. PBS. Accessed July 21, 2016 at <www.pbs.org>

One of the Acts, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, made private criminal acts federal crimes; consequently, President Grant decreed that “insurgents were in rebellion against the authority of the United States.” He sent federal troops to restore law and order to many areas where violence was raging at its worst. …

In nine counties of South Carolina, martial law was declared and Klansmen were tried before predominantly black juries. … As a result of his efforts, a few hundred Klansmen were tried and sent to jail. Thousands of others fled or were let off with fines or warnings.
 

[115] Webpage: “Ku Klux Klan.” History.com. Accessed July 21, 2016 at <www.history.com>

The act authorized the president to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and arrest accused individuals without charge, and to send federal forces to suppress Klan violence. This expansion of federal authority–which Ulysses S. Grant promptly used in 1871 to crush Klan activity in South Carolina and other areas of the South–outraged Democrats and even alarmed many Republicans.

[116] Article: “Ku Klux Klan.” Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004.

But Forrest ordered it disbanded in 1869, largely as a result of the group’s excessive violence. Local branches remained active for a time, however, prompting Congress to pass the Force Act in 1870 and the Ku Klux Act in 1871.

These bills authorized the president to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, suppress disturbances by force, and impose heavy penalties upon terrorist organizations. President Grant was lax in utilizing this authority, although he did send federal troops to some areas, suspend habeas corpus in nine South Carolina counties, and appoint commissioners who arrested hundreds of Southerners for conspiracy. In United States v. Harris in 1882, the Supreme Court declared the Ku Klux Act unconstitutional, but by that time the Klan had practically disappeared.

[117] Article: “The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow: The Enforcement Acts (1870-71).” By Richard Wormser. PBS. Accessed July 21, 2016 at <www.pbs.org>

“By 1872, the Klan as an organization was broken. By the time the terror ended, thousands of blacks and hundreds of whites had been massacred or driven from their homes and communities.”
 

[118] Article: “The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow: Ku Klux Klan.” By Richard Wormser. PBS. Accessed July 21, 2016 at <www.pbs.org>

“[T]he Klan quickly became a terrorist organization in service of the Democratic Party and white supremacy.”

[119] Webpage: “Ku Klux Klan.” History.com. Accessed July 21, 2016 at <www.history.com>

Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s. …

From the early 1870s onward, white supremacy gradually reasserted its hold on the South as support for Reconstruction waned; by the end of 1876, the entire South was under Democratic control once again.

[120] Article: “Ku Klux Klan.” Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004.

The group was presided over by a grand wizard (Confederate cavalry general Nathan Bedford Forrest is believed to have been the first grand wizard) and a descending hierarchy of grand dragons, grand titans, and grand cyclopses.

The 19th-century Klan reached its peak between 1868 and 1870. A potent force, it was largely responsible for the restoration of white rule in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia. But Forrest ordered it disbanded in 1869, largely as a result of the group’s excessive violence. Local branches remained active for a time, however….

… in 1882, the Supreme Court declared the Ku Klux Act unconstitutional, but by that time the Klan had practically disappeared. It disappeared because its original objective—the restoration of white supremacy throughout the South—had been largely achieved during the 1870s.

[121] Webpage: “Black Leaders During Reconstruction.” History.com. Accessed July 21, 2016 at <www.history.com>

During the decade known as Radical Reconstruction (1867-77) …

Beginning in 1867, branches of the Union League, which encouraged the political activism of African Americans, spread throughout the South. …

In all, 16 African Americans served in the U.S. Congress during Reconstruction; more than 600 more were elected to the state legislatures, and hundreds more held local offices across the South.

[122] Ruling: United States v. Cruikshank. U.S. Supreme Court, October 1, 1875. Decided 5-4. <caselaw.findlaw.com>

Majority:

This case comes here with a certificate by the judges of the Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana that they were divided in opinion upon a question which occurred at the hearing. It presents for our consideration an indictment containing sixteen counts, divided into two series of eight counts each, based upon sect. 6 of the Enforcement Act of May 31, 1870 [a.k.a. the Civil Rights Act of 1870]. That section is as follows:–

‘That if two or more persons shall band or conspire together, or go in disguise upon the public highway, or upon the premises of another, with intent to violate any provision of this act, or to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege granted or secured to him by the constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having exercised the same, such persons shall be held guilty of felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, at the discretion of the court,-the fine not to exceed $5,000, and the imprisonment not to exceed ten years; and shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to, and disabled from holding, any office or place of honor, profit, or trust created by the constitution or laws of the United States.’ 16 Stat. 141.

The general charge in the first eight counts is that of ‘banding,’ and in the second eight, that of ‘conspiring’ together to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, citizens of the United States, of African descent and persons of color, with the intent thereby to hinder and prevent them in their free exercise and enjoyment of rights and privileges ‘granted and secured’ to them ‘in common with all other good citizens of the United States by the constitution and laws of the United States.’ …

The first and ninth counts state the intent of the defendants to have been to hinder and prevent the citizens named in the free exercise and enjoyment of their ‘lawful right and privilege to peaceably assemble together with each other and with other citizens of the United States for a peaceful and lawful purpose.’ The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. It ‘derives its source,’ to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 211, ‘from those laws whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world.’ It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection. As no direct power over it was granted to Congress, it remains, according to the ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden, id. 203, subject to State jurisdiction. [92 U.S. 542, 552] Only such existing rights were committed by the people to the protection of Congress as came within the general scope of the authority granted to the national government.

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging ‘the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.’ This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone. …

The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States.

The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for any thing else connected with the powers or the duties of the national government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States. The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances. If it had been alleged in [92 U.S. 542, 553] these counts that the object of the defendants was to prevent a meeting for such a purpose, the case would have been within the statute, and within the scope of the sovereignty of the United States. Such, however, is not the case. The offence, as stated in the indictment, will be made out, if it be shown that the object of the conspiracy was to prevent a meeting for any lawful purpose whatever.

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the ‘powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,’ ‘not surrendered or restrained’ by the Constitution of the United States. …

The third and eleventh counts are even more objectionable. They charge the intent to have been to deprive the citizens named, they being in Louisiana, ‘of their respective several lives and liberty of person without due process of law.’ This is nothing else than alleging a conspiracy to falsely imprison or murder citizens of the United States, being within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Louisiana. The rights of life and personal liberty are natural rights of man. ‘To secure these rights,’ says the Declaration of Independence, ‘governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these ‘unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.’ Sovereignty, for this purpose, rests alone with the States. It is no more the duty or within the power of the United States to punish for a conspiracy [92 U.S. 542, 554] to falsely imprison or murder within a State, than it would be to punish for false imprisonment or murder itself.

The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. As was said by Mr. Justice Johnson, in Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 244, it secures ‘the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unrestrained by the established principles of private rights and distributive justice.’ These counts in the indictment do not call for the exercise of any of the powers conferred by this provision in the amendment. …

The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; but this provision does not, any more than the one which precedes it, and which we have just considered, add any thing [92 U.S. 542, 555] to the rights which one citizen has under the Constitution against another. The equality of the rights of citizens is a principle of republicanism. Every republican government is in duty bound to protect all its citizens in the enjoyment of this principle, if within its power. That duty was originally assumed by the States; and it still remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right. This the amendment guarantees, but no more. The power of the national government is limited to the enforcement of this guaranty.

[123] Ruling: United States v. Cruikshank. U.S. Supreme Court, October 1, 1875. Decided 5-4. <caselaw.findlaw.com>

Dissent:

Power is vested in Congress to enforce by appropriate legislation the prohibition contained in the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution; and the fifth section of the Enforcement Act [a.k.a. the Civil Rights Act of 1870] provides to the effect, that persons who prevent, hinder, control, or intimidate, or who attempt to prevent, hinder, control, or intimidate, any person to whom the right of suffrage is secured or guaranteed by that amendment, from exercising, or in exercising such right, by means of bribery or threats; of depriving such person of employment or occupation; or of ejecting such person from rented house, lands, or other property; or by threats of refusing to renew leases or contracts for labor; or by threats of violence to himself or family,-such person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, as therein provided. 16 Stat. 141. …

… Enough has already been remarked to show that that particular clause of the section was passed to protect citizens in the free exercise and enjoyment of every right or privilege granted [92 U.S. 542, 567] or secured to them by the constitution and laws of Congress, and to provide for the punishment of those who band or conspire together, in the manner described, to injure, oppress, or intimidate any citizen, to prevent or hinder him from the free exercise and enjoyment of all such rights or privileges, or because of his having exercised any such right or privilege so granted or secured.

[124] Book: The Constitution of The United States of America: Analysis And Interpretation (Centennial Edition). Edited by Kenneth R. Thomas and Larry M. Eig. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 2013. <www.gpo.gov>

Page 2196:

Cruikshank did, however, recognize a small category of federal rights that Congress could protect against private deprivation, rights that the Court viewed as deriving particularly from one’s status as a citizen of the United States and that Congress had a general police power to protect.2093 These rights included the right to vote in federal elections, general and primary,2094 the right to federal protection while in the custody of federal officers,2095 and the right to inform federal officials of violations of federal law.2096 The right of interstate travel is a basic right derived from the Federal Constitution, which Congress may protect.2097

[125] “Speech Introducing the Fourteenth Amendment.” By Senator Jacob Howard, May 23, 1866. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, Senate 1st Session. Pages

2764‐2768. <theusconstitution.org>

For myself, I can only promise to present to the Senate, in a very succinct way, the views and the motives which influenced that committee, so far as I understand those views and motives, in presenting the report which is now before us for consideration, and the ends it aims to accomplish.

The joint resolution creating that committee intrusted them with a very important inquiry, an inquiry involving a vast deal of attention and labor. They were instructed to inquire into the condition of the insurgent States, and authorized to report by bill or otherwise at their discretion. I believe that I do not overstate the truth when I say that no committee of Congress has ever proceeded with more fidelity and attention to the matter intrusted to them. They have been assiduous in discharging their duty. They have instituted an inquiry, so far as it was practicable for them to do so, into the political and social condition of the insurgent States. …

One result of their investigations has been the joint resolution for the amendment of the Constitution of the United States now under consideration. After most mature deliberation and discussion, reaching through weeks and even months, they came to the conclusion that it was necessary, in order to restore peace and quiet to the country and again to impart vigor and efficiency to the laws, and especially to obtain something in the shape of a security for the future against the recurrence of the enormous evils under which the country has labored for the last four years, that the Constitution of the United States ought to be amended; and the project which they have now submitted is the result of their deliberations upon that subject.

The first section of the amendment they have submitted for the consideration of the two Houses relates to the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, and to the rights and privileges of all persons, whether citizens or others, under the laws of the United States. It declares that—

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It will be observed that this is a general prohibition upon all the States, as such, from abridging the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States. That is its first clause, and I regard it as very important. It also prohibits each one of the States from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying to any person within the jurisdiction of the State the equal protection of its laws. …

The next clause is a very simple one. I have already remarked upon it; and shall spend no more time upon it. It gives to Congress power to enforce by appropriate legislation all the provisions of this article of amendment. Without this clause, no power is granted to Congress by the amendment or any one of its sections. It casts upon Congress the responsibility of seeing to it, for the future, that all the sections of the amendment are carried out in good faith, and that no State infringes the rights of persons or property. I look upon this clause as indispensable for the reason that it thus imposes upon Congress this power and this duty. It enables Congress, in case the States shall enact laws in conflict with the principles of the amendment, to correct that legislation by a formal congressional enactment. …

The first clause of this section relates to the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States as such, and as distinguished from all other persons not citizens of the United States. …

To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be—for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature —to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.

Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which I have recited, some by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizen solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or prohibition upon State legislation. States are not affected by them, and it has been repeatedly held that the restriction contained in the Constitution against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation is not a restriction upon State legislation, but applies only to the legislation of Congress.

Now, sir, there is no power given in the Constitution to enforce and to carry out any of these guarantees. They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year. The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees. How will it be done under the present amendment? As I have remarked, they are not powers granted to Congress, and therefore it is necessary, if they are to be effectuated and enforced, as they assuredly ought to be, that additional power should be given to Congress to that end. This is done by the fifth section of this amendment, which declares that “the Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.” Here is a direct affirmative delegation of power to Congress to carry out all the principles of all these guarantees, a power not found in the Constitution.

The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. It prohibits the hanging of a black man for a crime for which the white man is not to be hanged. It protects the black man in his fundamental rights as a citizen with the same shield which it throws over the white man. Is it not time, Mr. President, that we extend to the black man, I had almost called it the poor privilege of the equal protection of the law? Ought not the time to be now passed when one measure of justice is to be meted out to a member of one caste while another and a different measure is meted out to the member of another caste, both castes being alike citizens of the United States, both bound to obey the same laws, to sustain the burdens of the same Gov-ernment, and both equally responsible to justice and to God for the deeds done in the body? But, sir, the first section of the proposed amendment does not give to either of these classes the right of voting. The right of suffrage is not, in law, one of the privileges or immunities thus secured by the Constitution. It is merely the creature of law. It has always been regarded in this country as the result of positive local law, not regarded as one of those fundamental rights lying at the basis of all society and without which a people cannot exist except as slaves, subject to a despotism.

As I have already remarked, section one is a restriction upon the States, and does not, of itself, confer any power upon Congress. The power which Congress has, under this amendment, is derived, not from that section, but from the fifth section, which gives it authority to pass laws which are appropriate to the attainment of the great object of the amendment. I look upon the first section, taken in connection with the fifth, as very important. It will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction. It establishes equality before the law, and it gives to the humblest, the poorest, the most despised of the race the same rights and the same protection before the law as it gives to the most powerful, the most wealthy, or the most haughty. That, sir, is republican government, as I understand it, and the only one which can claim the praise of a just Government. Without this principle of equal justice to all men and equal protection under the shield of the law, there is no republican government and none that is really worth maintaining.

[126] “Speech Introducing the Fourteenth Amendment.” By Senator Jacob Howard, May 23, 1866. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, Senate 1st Session. Pages

2764‐2768. <theusconstitution.org>

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the joint resolution (H. R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which was read as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both Houses concurring,) That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid as part of the Constitution, namely:

ARTICLE —.

Section 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. …

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.

[127] 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified July 9, 1868. <www.justfacts.com>

Amendment 14 (Ratified July 9, 1868)

Section 1. … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. …

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[128] Book: The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development (3rd edition). By Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison. W. W. Norton & Company, 1963.

Page 461:

These provisions [Sections 1 and 2 of the 14th Amendment], largely the work of Representative John A Bingham of Ohio, were intended to remove all doubt as to the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act, as Stevens presently made clear in debate. The “privileges or immunities” clause, Bingham explained several times, was borrowed directly from the similar guarantee of interstate comedy in Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution. Bingham and Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, who presented the amendment to the upper house, agreed that the clause incorporated the entire federal Bill of Rights as a limitation upon the states.1 The “due process” clause was lifted from the Fifth Amendment; it now also became a guarantee against state action. The “equal protection” clause was specifically intended to reinforce the civil rights act; in everyday language, it warned the states not to discriminate against Negroes.

1 The Supreme Court destroyed this contention in the Slaughterhouse Cases. See pp. 503-504.

[129] Ruling: McDonald v Chicago. U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 2010. Case 08–1521. Decided 5-4. Majority: Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas. Dissenting: Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor. <www.law.cornell.edu>

Opinion of Justice Thomas:

Cruikshank ‘s holding that blacks could look only to state governments for protection of their right to keep and bear arms enabled private forces, often with the assistance of local governments, to subjugate the newly freed slaves and their descendants through a wave of private violence designed to drive blacks from the voting booth and force them into peonage, an effective return to slavery. Without federal enforcement of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, these militias and mobs were tragically successful in waging a campaign of terror against the very people the Fourteenth Amendment had just made citizens.

[130] Webpage: “Compromise of 1877.” History.com. Accessed July 21, 2016 at <www.history.com>

Immediately after the presidential election of 1876, it became clear that the outcome of the race hinged largely on disputed returns from Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina…. As a bipartisan congressional commission debated over the outcome early in 1877, allies of the Republican Party candidate Rutherford Hayes met in secret with moderate southern Democrats in order to negotiate acceptance of Hayes’ election. The Democrats agreed not to block Hayes’ victory on the condition that Republicans withdraw all federal troops from the South, thus consolidating Democratic control over the region.

[131] Book: The Constitution of The United States of America: Analysis And Interpretation (Centennial Edition). Edited by Kenneth R. Thomas and Larry M. Eig. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 2013. <www.gpo.gov>

Page 2213-4:

Beginning in 1895, several states enacted temporary laws whereby persons who had been voters, or descendants of those who had been voters, on January 1, 1867, could be registered notwithstanding their inability to meet any literacy requirement. Unable because of the date to avail themselves of the exemption, African-Americans were disabled to vote on grounds of illiteracy or through discriminatory administration of literacy tests, while illiterate whites were permitted to register without taking any tests. With the achievement of the intended result, most states permitted their laws to lapse, but Oklahoma’s grandfather clause had been enacted as a permanent amendment to the state constitution. A unanimous Court condemned the device as recreating and perpetuating “the very conditions which the [Fifteenth] Amendment was intended to destroy.”10

The Court did not experience any difficulty in voiding a subsequent Oklahoma statute of 1916 that provided that all persons, except those who voted in 1914, who were qualified to vote in 1916 but who failed to register between April 30 and May 11, 1916, with some exceptions for sick and absent persons who were given an additional brief period to register, should be perpetually disenfranchised. The Fifteenth Amendment, Justice Frankfurter declared for the Court, nullified “sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes of discrimination. It hits onerous procedural requirements which effectively handicap exercise of the franchise by the colored race although the abstract right to vote may remain unrestricted as to race.”11 The impermissible effect of the statute, the Court said, was automatically to continue as permanent voters, without their being obliged to register again, all white persons who were on registration lists in 1914 by virtue of the previously invalidated grandfather clause, whereas African-Americans, prevented from registering by that clause, had been afforded only a 20-day registration opportunity to avoid permanent disenfranchisement.

Pages 2214-5:

Literacy Tests.—At an early date the Court held that literacy tests that are drafted so as to apply alike to all applicants for the voting franchise would be deemed to be fair on their face and in the absence of proof of discriminatory enforcement could not be said to deny equal protection.19 But an Alabama constitutional amendment, the legislative history of which disclosed that both its object and its intended administration were to disenfranchise African-Americans, was held to violate the Fifteenth Amendment.20

[132] The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery (Volume 1). Edited by Junius P. Rodriguez. ABC-CLIO, 1997. Article: “Antiliteracy Laws.” By Peter Wallenstein.

Page 42:

Slaveowners in the U.S. South thought they had ample reason to curtail the spread of literacy among slaves. Literate slaves might forge passes, read newspapers, or communicate conspiratorial plans. Thus, in 1740, after the Stono rebellion of 1739, South Carolina enacted a ban on educating slaves, and other colonies and states followed suit. Later, several states enacted anti-literacy laws between 1829 and 1834 after abolitionist publications began mounting. In South Carolina, and the nullifiers—radical proslavery men—led the way in imposing new restrictions

Anti-literacy laws, however, never became universal across the slave South. Some states, like Tennessee and Kentucky, never enacted anti-literacy laws. Of the four states that did maintain such laws from the 1830s through the Civil War, three–North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia—banned anyone from teaching any African-American, whether slave or free to read or write; Virginia banned schools for blacks but not private tutoring. …

The South’s anti-literacy laws died when slavery did. In summer 1865—after the surrender at Appomattox but before the ratification of the 13th amendment—Freedmen’s Bureau and American Missionary Association Schools sprouted across the southern landscape. No legislature had yet repealed the anti-literacy law, but every such law had become a dead letter. …

In the 1870s, every Southern state created a system of public schools that, on a segregated basis, might give all children access to literacy. Moreover, new institutions of higher education for African-Americans … emerged soon after emancipation. Not only were such institutions now legal, but some received public funds, either state or federal, and each trained black teachers for the new black elementary schools. Especially among young people, black illiteracy began to decline.

[133] Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics: Hispanic Americans and Native Americans (Volume 2). Edited by Jeffrey D. Schultz and others. Oryx Press, 2000.

Page 528:

The brief enfranchisement of African Americans ended, however, after 1877, when southern Democrats regained control of state governments after federal troops were withdrawn after Reconstruction. …

… For example, Georgia retained as law a poll tax from the time when the payment of taxes was a common requirement for voting. In 1877, Georgia moved to make this poll tax permanent and added a literacy test during its constitutional convention in 1890. Florida and Tennessee followed suit quickly thereafter, followed by Arkansas in 1894.

After 1896, the remaining southern states acted similarly by introducing poll tax laws where none had existed, making the amount of the poll tax higher, even charging would-be voters retroactively. … Actually, poll taxes had reduced voting participation among both whites and nonwhites in five southern states, but it brought greater hardship on minorities, a higher proportion of whom were poor. Furthermore, the poll tax was unequally enforced among whites and nonwhites. The result was that poll tax states had voter turnout in national elections equal to only about 50 percent of those in states without poll taxes.

Southern states added literacy tests to poll tax barriers. The political purpose behind the literacy test was to disenfranchise Native Americans, blacks, Mexican Americans, and Asians. To overcome the opposition of poor and illiterate whites, who would also be disenfranchised by these measures, grandfather clauses and “fighting grandfather” (pertaining to those whose grandfathers had served in the Confederate army) clauses were introduced to exempt illiterate whites threatened with disenfranchisement. The grandfather clause assured the franchise for those who could prove their grandfathers had voted prior to 1867. Meanwhile, southern states granted local election officers latitude to enforce these new procedures unevenly and selectively. Literacy tests, for example, could be administered differently at different sites and for various groups of people.

[134] Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics: Hispanic Americans and Native Americans (Volume 2). Edited by Jeffrey D. Schultz and others. Oryx Press, 2000.

Page 528:

The brief enfranchisement of African Americans ended, however, after 1877, when southern Democrats regained control of state governments after federal troops were withdrawn after Reconstruction. The removal of black and minority voting rights was then systematically legitimized in southern constitutions and laws through a series of changes to the electoral system that obstructed many from voting. By the 1920s, voting in the South among blacks, other minorities, and poor whites had been virtually eliminated.

The southern states attached conditions to the right to vote that did not violate the Fifteenth Amendment as such, but which minorities could nevertheless not meet. These disenfranchising devices were created gradually.

[135] The Concise Princeton Encyclopedia of American Political History. Edited by Michael Kazin and others. Princeton University Press, 2011.

Page 582:

“Discrimination” noted future Virginia senator Carter Glass at a constitutional convention in his state in 1901. “That, exactly, is what this Convention was elected for—to discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action under the limitations of the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of.” These strategies were effective: in Louisiana, where more than 130,000 blacks had been registered to vote in 1896, only 1,300, were registered by 1904.

[136] Report: “African American Members of the United States Congress: 1870-2012.” By Jennifer E. Manning and Colleen J. Shogan. Congressional Research Service, November 26, 2012. <www.senate.gov>

Pages 54-55:

93rd Congress (1973–1975)

House: Yvonne B. Burke [CA], Shirley A. Chisholm [NY], William L. Clay Sr. [MI], Cardiss Collins [IL], John Conyers Jr. [MI], Ronald V. Dellums [CA], Charles C. Diggs Jr. [MI], Walter E. Fauntroy [DC], Augustus F. Hawkins [CA], Barbara C. Jordan [TX], Ralph H. Metcalfe [IL], Parren J. Mitchell [MD], Robert N.C. Nix Sr. [PA], Charles B. Rangel [NY], Louis Stokes [OH], Andrew J. Young [GA]

Senate: Edward W. Brooke [MA]

92nd Congress (1971–1973)

House: Shirley A. Chisholm [NY], William L. Clay Sr. [MI], George W. Collins [IL], John Conyers Jr. [MI], Ronald V. Dellums [CA], Charles C. Diggs Jr. [MI], Walter E. Fauntroy [DC], Augustus F. Hawkins [CA], Ralph H. Metcalfe [IL], Parren J. Mitchell [MD], Robert N.C. Nix Sr. [PA], Charles B. Rangel [NY], Louis Stokes [OH]

Senate: Edward W. Brooke [MA]

91st Congress (1969–1971)

House: Shirley A. Chisholm [NY], William L. Clay Sr. [MI], George W. Collins [IL], Augustus F. Hawkins [CA], John Conyers Jr. [MI], William L. Dawson [IL], Charles C. Diggs Jr. [MI], Robert N.C. Nix [PA], Adam C. Powell Jr. [NY], Louis Stokes [OH]

Senate: Edward W. Brooke [MA]

90th Congress (1967–1969)

House: John Conyers Jr. [MI], William L. Dawson [IL], Charles C. Diggs Jr. [MI], Augustus F. Hawkins [CA], Robert N.C. Nix Sr. [PA]

Senate: Edward W. Brooke [MA]

89th Congress (1965–1967)

House: John Conyers Jr. [MI], William L. Dawson [IL], Charles Diggs Jr. [MI], Augustus F. Hawkins [CA], Robert N.C. Nix Sr. [PA], Adam Clayton Powell Jr. [NY]

Senate: None

88th Congress (1963–1965)

House:: William L. Dawson [IL], Augustus F. Hawkins [CA], Adam C. Powell Jr. [NY], Charles C. Diggs Jr. [MI], Robert N.C. Nix Sr. [PA]

Senate: None

85th – 87th Congresses (1957–1963)

House: William L. Dawson [IL], Charles C. Diggs Jr. [MI], Robert N.C. Nix Sr. [PA], Adam C. Powell Jr. [NY]

Senate: None

84th Congress (1955–1957)

House: William L. Dawson [IL], Charles C. Diggs Jr. [MI], Adam C. Powell Jr. [NY],

79th – 83rd Congresses (1945–1955)

House: William L. Dawson [IL], Adam C. Powell Jr. [NY]

Senate: None

78th Congress (1943–1945)

House: William L. Dawson [IL]

Senate: None

74th – 77th Congresses (1935–1943)

House: Arthur W. Mitchell [IL]

Senate: None

71st – 73rd Congresses (1929–1935)

1 House: Oscar S. DePriest [IL]

Senate: None

57th – 70th Congresses (1901–1929)

House: None

Senate None

55th – 56th Congresses (1897–1901)

1 House: George H. White

Senate None

[137] Article: “Woodrow Wilson’s Legacy Gets Complicated.” By Jennifer Schuessler. New York Times, November 29, 2015. <www.nytimes.com>

“The irony here is that Wilson really is the architect of a lot of modern liberalism,” said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton. “The tradition that runs through F.D.R. to L.B.J. and Obama really starts with his administration.” …

“Going to the mat for Wilson should not be hard,” said David Greenberg, a historian at Rutgers University. “If your standards are liberal progressive values in general, Wilson deserves to be celebrated.”

[138] Article: “The long-forgotten racial attitudes and policies of Woodrow Wilson.” By William R. Keylor. Professor Voices, Boston University. March 4, 2013. <www.bu.edu>

“Today marks the 100th anniversary of the inauguration of our 28th president, Woodrow Wilson.”

[139] Article: “The long-forgotten racial attitudes and policies of Woodrow Wilson.” By William R. Keylor. Professor Voices, Boston University. March 4, 2013. <www.bu.edu>

When [Wilson] he entered the White House a hundred years ago today, Washington was a rigidly segregated town—except for federal government agencies. They had been integrated during the post-war Reconstruction period, enabling African-Americans to obtain federal jobs and work side by side with whites in government agencies. Wilson promptly authorized members of his cabinet to reverse this long-standing policy of racial integration in the federal civil service.

Cabinet heads—such as his son-in-law, Secretary of the Treasury William McAdoo of Tennessee—re-segregated facilities such as restrooms and cafeterias in their buildings. In some federal offices, screens were set up to separate white and black workers. African-Americans found it difficult to secure high-level civil service positions, which some had held under previous Republican administrations.

A delegation of black professionals led by Monroe Trotter, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Harvard and Boston newspaper editor, appeared at the White House to protest the new policies. But Wilson treated them rudely and declared that “segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.”

[140] Article: “Woodrow Wilson’s Legacy Gets Complicated.” By Jennifer Schuessler. New York Times, November 29, 2015. <www.nytimes.com>

Wilson’s attitudes and record on race, even his staunchest defenders agree, is hardly a pretty one. As president of Princeton, the Virginia-born scholar discouraged an African-American prospective student from applying, calling it “altogether inadvisable for a colored man to enter Princeton.” His textbook “A History of the American People” referred to Reconstruction-era efforts to free the South from “the incubus of that ignorant and often hostile” black vote. …

After his election to the White House in 1912, Wilson, a Democrat, appointed a cabinet that was heavy on Southern racists, including William McAdoo as treasury secretary and Albert Burleson as postmaster general, both of whom quickly pushed to segregate their departments, demoting and firing many blacks.

[141] Article: “D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation.” By Richard Wormser. PBS. Accessed August 9, 2016 at <www.pbs.org>

On the evening of March 21, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson attended a special screening at the White House of The Birth of a Nation, a film directed by D.W. Griffith and based on The Clansman, a novel written by Wilson’s good friend Thomas Dixon. The film presented a distorted portrait of the South after the Civil War, glorifying the Ku Klux Klan and denigrating blacks. It falsified the period of Reconstruction by presenting blacks as dominating Southern whites (almost all of whom are noble in the film) and sexually forcing themselves upon white women. The Klan was portrayed as the South’s savior from this alleged tyranny. Not only was this portrayal untrue, it was the opposite of what actually happened. During Reconstruction, whites dominated blacks and assaulted black women. The Klan was primarily a white terrorist organization that carried out hundreds of murders.

NOTE: The full 3-hour film can be seen here.

[142] Article: “The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow: Ku Klux Klan.” By Richard Wormser. PBS. Accessed July 21, 2016 at <www.pbs.org>

William J. Simmons, a former Methodist preacher, organized a new Klan in Stone Mountain, Georgia in 1915 as a patriotic, Protestant fraternal society. This new Klan directed its activity against not just blacks, but immigrants, Jews, and Roman Catholics. The Ku Klux Klan grew rapidly from there and had more than two million members throughout the country by the mid-1920s. D.W. Griffith’s film The Birth of a Nation, which glorified the Klan and denigrated blacks, was used as a recruiting tool.

[143] Article: “Birth of a Quotation: Woodrow Wilson and ‘Like Writing History with Lightning’.” By Mark E. Benbowa1. Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, October 2010. Pages 509-533. <journals.cambridge.org>

In February 1915, upon viewing The Birth of a Nation at a special White House screening, President Woodrow Wilson reportedly remarked, “It’s like writing history with lightning. My only regret is that it is all so terribly true.” This line has appeared in numerous books and articles over the past seventy years. This article examines the history of this alleged quotation and the sources where it has appeared. The article weighs the evidence that Wilson effusively praised in these words one of the most racist major movies in American history.

[144] Article: “The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow: Ku Klux Klan.” By Richard Wormser. PBS. Accessed July 21, 2016 at <www.pbs.org>

William J. Simmons, a former Methodist preacher, organized a new Klan in Stone Mountain, Georgia in 1915 as a patriotic, Protestant fraternal society. This new Klan directed its activity against not just blacks, but immigrants, Jews, and Roman Catholics. The Ku Klux Klan grew rapidly from there and had more than two million members throughout the country by the mid-1920s. D.W. Griffith’s film The Birth of a Nation, which glorified the Klan and denigrated blacks, was used as a recruiting tool.

[145] Essay: “Black Americans in Congress, 1870–2007.” U.S. House of Representatives, History, Art & Archives, Office of the Historian, 2008. Chapter: “Anti-Lynching Legislation Renewed.” <history.house.gov>

The passage of anti-lynching legislation became one of the NAACP’s central goals. Slow to join the cause of pursuing legislation to remedy lynching because of the leadership’s concerns about the constitutionality of such an undertaking, the NAACP eventually embraced the movement, using it to educate the often ambivalent American public so as to jar it into substantive action.

Statistics supported the NAACP’s increased urgency in the anti-lynching campaign. Between 1901 and 1929, more than 1,200 blacks were lynched in the South. Forty-one percent of these lynchings occurred in two exceptionally violent states: Georgia (250) and Mississippi (245).123

… After months of consultation with legal experts and the NAACP, [Republican] Representative [Leonidas C.] Dyer introduced H.R. 11279 on April 18, 1918, “to protect citizens of the United States against lynching in default of protection by the States.” Dyer’s bill, which provided the blueprint for all subsequent NAACP-backed anti-lynching measures, sought to charge lynch mobs with capital murder charges and to try lynching cases in federal court. It levied on each county where a lynching occurred, a fine of between $5,000 and $10,000 that would be paid to the victim’s immediate family or, if none existed, to the U.S. government to facilitate prosecution of the case. The Dyer Bill also mandated jail time and imposed a fine of up to $5,000 on state and local law enforcement officials who refused to make a reasonable effort to prevent a lynching or surrendered a prisoner in their custody to a lynch mob. Finally, the bill sought to establish guidelines for fair courtroom proceedings by excluding lynch mob participants and supporters from juries.131

… In the Democrat-controlled 65th Congress (1917–1919), however, the measure remained stuck in the Judiciary Committee. ..

But advocates’ hope was renewed when Republicans gained majorities in the House and Senate at the start of the 66th Congress in 1919. …

Southern Democrats rebuffed the measure, mustering familiar practical and constitutional defenses. Hatton W. Sumners of Texas, a Dallas attorney who later served 16 years as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, led the defense. …

… In the end, the Dyer Bill passed the Republican-controlled chamber on January 26, 1922, by a vote of 231 to 119, with four Members voting “present” and 74 others not voting.139 Among the 119 who voted “no” were four future Speakers of the House, each a southern Democrat who eventually presided over the chamber after Democrats assumed control of the House in 1931: John Nance Garner of Texas, Joseph Byrns of Tennessee, William Bankhead of Alabama, and Sam Rayburn of Texas.140

In the Senate, a combination of ambivalent Republican backing and spirited southern opposition doomed the Dyer Bill to legislative limbo. It withered in the Judiciary Committee under the unsympathetic oversight of Chairman William Borah of Idaho, who doubted its constitutionality.

Nevertheless, Borah pledged not to block consideration of the measure if a majority of his colleagues assented. The measure passed out of the committee 8 to 6 in the summer of 1922—with Borah dissenting.141 The NAACP proceeded to engage in a formidable public campaign, increasing direct pressure on Majority Leader Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts (who faced re-election that fall). Lodge, who had authored the Federal Elections Bill in 1890, had greatly moderated his previously progressive stance on federal oversight of black civil rights. He reluctantly brought the measure to the Senate Floor in September, but his choice of a manager to shepherd the bill through debate—Samuel Shortridge, California’s junior Senator and a relative novice—suggested he had little enthusiasm for the endeavor. Byron (Pat) Harrison of Mississippi swiftly upstaged Shortridge by gaining control of the debate. Further consideration was forestalled until after the November 1922 elections, relieving Senators of electoral pressure.142

When the bill came up for consideration in late November after the elections, southern Members again halted Shortridge with parliamentary maneuvers. As he had with the reduction issue two decades earlier, Alabama’s Oscar Underwood, now Senate Minority Leader, played a key role in killing the Dyer measure. Underwood threatened Lodge and the Republicans with a filibuster that would shut down end-of-session business in the Senate. Fearful they would be unable to secure a ship subsidy bill desired by the Harding administration, the members of the Senate Republican Conference voted to abandon the Dyer Bill. Though Representative Dyer reintroduced the measure in each new Congress in the 1920s, it failed to gain significant political traction. However, the public awareness campaign relentlessly pushed by the NAACP likely contributed to a general decline in lynching after the 1920s.

[146] “Republican Party Platform of 1928.” <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

“We renew our recommendation that the Congress enact at the earliest possible date a Federal Anti-Lynching Law so that the full influence of the Federal Government may be wielded to exterminate this hideous crime.”

[147] Book: AP U.S. History: All Access. By Gregory Feldmeth and others. Research and Education Association, 2012.

Page 446: “All of the black Reconstruction-era elected officials ran as members of the Republican Party. Virtually all blacks who could vote were registered as Republicans from 1865 until the 1930s.”

[148] Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics: Hispanic Americans and Native Americans (Volume 2). Edited by Jeffrey D. Schultz and others. Oryx Press, 2000.

Page 528: “By the 1920s, voting in the South among blacks, other minorities, and poor whites had been virtually eliminated.”

[149] Book: Black and Blue: African Americans, the Labor Movement, and the Decline of the Democratic Party. By Paul Frymer. Princeton University Press, 2008.

Page 27:

Because of the strong tradition of economic populism in the South, it was not surprising that southern members of Congress joined in many of the economic policies of the New Deal. At the same time, this coalition was fundamentally opposed to even the most tepid suggestions of civil rights reform, forcing party leaders to continually take race questions off the political agenda in order to pass legislation. Southern Democrats were particularly powerful in Congress, as they relied on various internal mechanisms such as seniority rules that—because they ran unopposed in southern elections at a time when most Republican Party voters in the region were disenfranchised—enabled them to control committee chairs, and because the filibuster rule enabled them to block efforts at civil rights reforms in the Senate regardless of their minority numbers.

[150] Book: The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South. By Byron E Shafer and Richard Johnston. Harvard University Press, 2006.

“Registration by Southern blacks accelerated remarkably: 5 percent in 1940, 20 percent in 1952, 29 percent in 1960, but 65 percent by 1969 (Bartley and Graham 1975).”

[151] Book: AP U.S. History: All Access. By Gregory Feldmeth and others. Research and Education Association, 2012.

Page 446:

The election of Democrat Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, however, caused a massive switch in allegiance from the Republican to the Democratic Party, as New Deal programs offering economic opportunities and labor protections benefited black voters. In addition, the migration of blacks from the deep South to the North and West which began during World War 1 accelerated during the 1930s, affecting local politics. By the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960, almost all black voters were Democrats and voting in regions outside of the former Confederacy.

[152] Book: The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development (3rd edition). By Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison. W. W. Norton & Company, 1963.

Page 924:

In certain northern cities, Negroes also became increasingly powerful politically. … The New Deal somewhat hasten this process. It was concerned with jobs and security for the working class generally, including Negroes, and the result was a substantial shift in the Negroes political allegiance. In many northern urban centers, the Democratic political machine of the 1930s now depended heavily on Negro support to help win local, state, and national elections.

[153] Article: “New Deal.” Contributor: David A. Shannon (Ph.D., Former Professor of History, University of Virginia).

“The Federal Emergency Relief Administration provided the states with money for the needy.”

[154] Article: “New Deal.” Contributor: David A. Shannon (Ph.D., Former Professor of History, University of Virginia).

“The United States Housing Act of 1937 … provided money for more federal public housing projects.”

[155] “The Social Security Act of 1935.” United States Congress, August 14, 1935. http://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html

An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.

[156] Article: “Roosevelt, Franklin D.” Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004.

“The Home Owners’ Refinancing Act provided mortgage relief for millions of unemployed Americans in danger of losing their homes.”

[157] Article: “New Deal.” Contributor: David A. Shannon (Ph.D., Former Professor of History, University of Virginia).

“The Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) provided money at low interest for persons struggling to pay mortgages.”

[158] Book: Black and Blue: African Americans, the Labor Movement, and the Decline of the Democratic Party. By Paul Frymer. Princeton University Press, 2008.

Pages 27-28:

Thus, when race is added to our history of the Wagner Act and the New Deal, we see not simply a more complicated interpretation of the New Deal and its legacies but a completely new understanding. Because civil rights was not a part of New Deal state making, many of its fundamental features, particularly the triumph of the elected branches over the courts, would turn out to be not so fundamental.

Even in the hey-day of the Democratic Party’s most progressive and activist years, when it routed Republicans at the ballot box to win the White House and outnumber Republicans in Congress by three to one, party leaders knew that they remained vitally dependant on a coalition of southern whites.22 The party’s “Conservative Coalition” consisted of white segregationists whose support of the party dated to before the Civil War. Because of the strong tradition of economic populism in the South, it was not surprising that southern members of Congress joined in many of the economic policies of the New Deal. At the same time, this coalition was fundamentally opposed to even the most tepid suggestions of civil rights reform, forcing party leaders to continually take race questions off the political agenda in order to pass legislation. Southern Democrats were particularly powerful in Congress, as they relied on various internal mechanisms such as seniority rules that—because they ran unopposed in southern elections at a time when most Republican Party voters in the region were disenfranchised—enabled them to control committee chairs, and because the filibuster rule enabled them to block efforts at civil rights reforms in the Senate regardless of their minority numbers.

The presence of southern Democrats and their willingness to stray from the party line to block civil rights legislation not only prevented such legislation but necessitated that economic bills include provisions that either explicitly or, more often simply in a de facto manner, discriminated against large numbers of minority workers. The common method of this was for legislators to exclude categories of workers where African Americans and other minorities predominated, such as domestic and agricultural workers.

[159] Article: “Wagner Act.” Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004.

“officially National Labor Relations Act (1935) the single most important piece of labour legislation enacted in the United States in the 20th century.”

NOTE: Extensive facts about his law are available in Just Facts’ research on unions.

[160] Ruling 473 U.S. 95: Pattern Makers’ League of North America v. National Labor Relations Board. U.S. Supreme Court, June 27, 1985. Decided 6-3. Majority: Powell, Burger, White, Rehnquist, O’Connor. Concurring: Blackmun. Dissenting: Brennan, Marshall, Stevens. <caselaw.lp.findlaw.com>

“Closed shop agreements, legalized by the Wagner Act in 1935,15 became quite common in the early 1940’s. Under these agreements, employers could hire and retain in their employ only union members in good standing.”

[161] The Encyclopedia of the Industrial Revolution in World History (Volume 3). Edited by Kenneth E. Hendrickson, III. Rowman & Littlefield, 2015. Article: “Closed Shop. By Andrew Journal Waskey. Pages 189-190.

Page 190:

The NLRA was signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935. Among the workers’ rights that the NLRA guaranteed was the right to enter into a closed-shop agreement. Closed-shop agreements prevent workers who are not unionized or who are members of another union from working in a workplace controlled by a closed-shop agreement. The agreements have enforcement mechanisms that keep worker solidarity during strikes. Labor leaders were convinced from long experience that negotiations for improvements in wages and working conditions were much better if the union was a closed shop. …

In 1947, Congress amended the NLRA with an act that is called the Labor-Management-Relations Act (29 USCA 151 et seq.), best known by its popular name, the Taft-Hartley Act. Prior to its adoption, about a third of all union contracts were closed-shop agreements.

[162] Report: “Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (Volume I).” National Labor Relations Board, 1948. Pages 412-413:

We have felt that on the record before us the abuses of the system have become too serious and numerous to justify permitting present law to remain unchanged. It is clear that the closed shop which requires preexisting union membership as a condition of obtaining employment creates too great a barrier to free employment to be longer tolerated. In the maritime industry and to a large extent in the construction industry union hiring halls now provide the only method of securing employment. This not only permits unions holding such monopolies over jobs to exact excessive fees but it deprives management of any real choice of the men it hires. Extension of this principle to licensed deck and engine officers has created the greatest problems in connection with the safety of American vessels et sea. (See testimony of Almon E. Roth, id., vol. 2, p. 612.) Numerous examples were presented to the committee of the way union leaders have used closed-shop devices as a method of depriving employees of their jobs, and in some cases a means of securing a livelihood in their trade or calling, for purely capricious reasons.

[163] Book: Black Labor and the American Legal System: Race, Work, and the Law. By Herbert Hill. University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.

Page 121:

In the late 1950s the NLRB attempted to institute a practice which would have benefited many thousands of black workers who were denied equal employment rights because they were discriminatorily denied union membership. As demonstrated by the extensive hearings of the Fair Employment Practice Committee during World War II (see Part 2), closed-shop agreements were effectively used in many instances to prevent Negro workers from obtaining employment. Under the closed-shop arrangement, the employer agreed not to hire anyone who was not a member of the union. Therefore, through exclusionary membership policies, many labor unions prevented the employment of Negro workers.

[164] The Encyclopedia of the Industrial Revolution in World History (Volume 3). Edited by Kenneth E. Hendrickson, III. Rowman & Littlefield, 2015. Article: “Closed Shop. By Andrew Journal Waskey. Pages 189-190.

Page 190:

The Wagner Act had allowed closed-shop unions to exclude blacks, Puerto Ricans, Chinese, women, and others. In the economics of the struggle between labor and management, it has been in the interest of labor to restrict the entry of new skilled workers to the labor force. If the supply of labor can be controlled, then wages and other terms of labor can be negotiated from a position of greater strength.

[165] Book: The Other Missouri History: Populists, Prostitutes, and Regular Folk. By Thomas Morris Spencer. University of Missouri Press, 2004. Chapter: “Race, Power, and the Building Trades Industry in Postwar St. Louis.” By Deborah Journal Henry. Pages 81-114.

Page 97:

The report further summarized the number of Negro electricians, plumbers, painters, brick masons, and plasterers that held either city licenses and/or union cards from locals in other cities. Nonetheless, as long as closed shop provisions remained in place, building trades unions continued to deny membership to blacks. At the same time, other members of the urban renewal coalition—contractors, private capital, St. Louis City Hall—refused to force change to these exclusionary practices, reinforcing white workers’ control over the city, skilled building trades jobs.

[166] Article: “Taft-Hartley Act.” Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004.

“formally Labor–Management Relations Act (1947), in U.S. history, law—enacted over the veto of Pres. Harry S. Truman—amending much of the pro-union Wagner Act of 1935. …Republican majorities in both houses of Congress—the first since 1930—sought to remedy the union abuses seen as permitted under the Wagner Act.”

[167] Ruling 473 U.S. 95: Pattern Makers’ League of North America v. National Labor Relations Board. U.S. Supreme Court, June 27, 1985. Decided 6-3. Majority: Powell, Burger, White, Rehnquist, O’Connor. Concurring: Blackmun. Dissenting: Brennan, Marshall, Stevens. <caselaw.lp.findlaw.com>

Because of mounting objections to the closed shop, in 1947—after hearings and full consideration—Congress enacted the Taft-Hartley Act. Section 8(a)(3) of that Act effectively eliminated compulsory union membership by outlawing the closed shop. The union security agreements permitted by 8(a)(3) require employees to pay dues, but an employee cannot be discharged for failing to abide by union rules or policies with which he disagrees.16

[168] Ruling 487 U.S. 735: Communications Workers v. Beck. U.S. Supreme Court, June 29, 1988. Decided 5-3. Majority: Brennan, Rehnquist, White, Marshall, Stevens. Dissenting in part: Blackmun, O’Connor, Scalia. <caselaw.lp.findlaw.com>

Majority:

Prior to the enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 140, 8(3) of the Wagner Act of 1935 (NLRA) permitted majority unions to negotiate “closed shop” agreements requiring employers to hire only persons who were already union members. … By 1947, such agreements had come under increasing attack, and after extensive hearings Congress determined that the closed shop and the abuses associated with it “create[d] too great a barrier to free employment to be longer tolerated.”

Dissent:

Congress’ solution [in the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act] was to ban the closed shop and to permit the enforcement of union-shop agreements as long as union membership is available “on the same terms and conditions” to all employees, and mandatory discharge is required only for “nonpayment of regular dues and initiation fees.” … Congress was of the view, that, as Senator Taft stated, “[t]he fact that the employee will have to pay dues to the union seems … to be much less important. The important thing is that the man will have the job.” … “[A] man can get a job with an employer and can continue in that job if, in effect, he joins the union and pays the union dues.”

[169] Public Law 80-101: “Labor Management Relations Act of 1947” (a.k.a “Taft-Hartley Act”). 74th U.S. Congress. Enacted over the veto of Harry Truman on June 23, 1947. <www.fofweb.com>

8 (a) (3) … [N]o employer shall justify any discrimination against an employee for nonmembership in a labor organization (A) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that such membership was not available to the employee on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to other members, or (B) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that membership was denied or terminated for reasons other than the failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership….

[170] The Encyclopedia of the Industrial Revolution in World History (Volume 3). Edited by Kenneth E. Hendrickson, III. Rowman & Littlefield, 2015. Article: “Closed Shop. By Andrew Journal Waskey. Pages 189-190.

Many labor union historians believe that the banning of the closed shop was a significant step in the movement to stop unions from engaging in racial discrimination. The Wagner Act had allowed closed-shop unions to exclude blacks, Puerto Ricans, Chinese, women, and others. …

Landrum-Griffin relegalized closed shops. They had continued in effect, although not in name, by means of a number of subterfuges. These included agreements that allowed the union to supply workers first, and then if they could not find them, then companies could make nonunion hires. Other devices for circumventing Taft-Hartley included hiring only workers who were in a union prior to a certain date, or the use of training programs to ensure that only those experienced or trained by the union were hired.

[171] Article: “NAACP Seeks More Anti-Bias.” Jet, March 10, 1960. Pages 44-45. <books.google.com>

Pages 44-45:

Steps to insure compliance with anti-bias clauses in government contracts were ordered by Vice-President Richard M. Nixon, chairman of the President’s Committee on Government Contracts, on the eve of a meeting with NAACP executive secretary Roy Wilkins and labor secretary Herbert Hill. Unleashing a double barreled attack on labor union bias last week, the NAACP executives appealed to Mr. Nixon to end discrimination against Negro workers on all levels from sharecroppers to skilled tradesmen.

[172] Book: The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development. By Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison. Third edition. W. W. Norton & Company, 1963.

Page 763:

A momentary furor occurred in September, when Senator Hugo Black of Alabama, whom Roosevelt named to fill the Van Devanter vacancy, was “exposed” as having once been a member of the Ku Klux Klan. The connection was certainly an incongruous one for a liberal, but Black’s record in the Senate had in fact been consistently progressive. Although this one-time Klan connection had been exposed in his last Alabama senatorial campaign, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People had continued, in recognition of his liberalism, to lend him enthusiastic support. Justice Black’s subsequent consistent liberalism on the Court soon silenced those who feared he might be a reactionary in disguise.

[173] Ruling: Korematsu v. United States. U.S. Supreme Court, December 18, 1944. Case 323 U.S. 214. Decided 6-3. Majority: Black, Douglas, Reed, Rutledge, Stone. Concurring: Frankfurter. Dissenting: Roberts, Murphy, Jackson. <caselaw.lp.findlaw.com>

Majority:

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioner, an American citizen of Japanese descent, was convicted in a federal district court for remaining in San Leandro, California, a ‘Military Area’, contrary to Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the Commanding General of the Western Command, U.S. Army, which directed that after May 9, 1942, all persons of Japanese ancestry should be excluded from that area. No question was raised as to petitioner’s loyalty to the United States.

It should be noted, to begin with, that all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can. …

One of the series of orders and proclamations, a curfew order, which like the exclusion order here was promulgated pursuant to Executive Order 9066, subjected all persons of Japanese ancestry in prescribed West Coast military areas to remain in their residences from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. As is the case with the exclusion order here, that prior curfew order was designed as a ‘protection against espionage and against sabotage.’ In Kiyoshi Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, we sustained a conviction obtained for violation of the curfew order. The Hirabayashi conviction and this one thus rest on the same 1942 Congressional Act and the same basic executive and military orders, all of which orders were aimed at the twin dangers of espionage and sabotage. …

In the light of the principles we announced in the Hirabayashi case, we are unable to conclude that it was beyond the war power of Congress and the Executive to exclude those of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast war area at the time they did. True, exclusion from the area in which one’s home is located is a far greater deprivation than constant confinement to the home from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. Nothing short of apprehension by the proper military authorities of the gravest imminent danger to the public safety can constitutionally justify either. But exclusion from a threatened area, no less than curfew, has a definite and close relationship to the prevention of espionage and sabotage. The military authorities, charged with the primary responsibility of defending our shores, concluded that curfew provided inadequate protection and ordered exclusion. They did so, as pointed out in our Hirabayashi opinion, in accordance with Congressional authority to the military to say who should, and who should not, remain in the threatened areas. …

Like curfew, exclusion of those of Japanese origin was deemed necessary because of the presence of an unascertained number of disloyal members of the group, most of whom we have no doubt were loyal to this country. It was because we could not reject the finding of the military authorities that it was impossible to bring about an immediate segregation of the disloyal from the loyal that we sustained the validity of the curfew order as applying to the whole group. In the instant case, temporary exclusion of the entire group was rested by the military on the same ground. The judgment that exclusion of the whole group was for the same reason a military imperative answers the contention that the exclusion was in the nature of group punishment based on antagonism to those of Japanese origin. That there were members of the group who retained loyalties to Japan has been confirmed by investigations made subsequent to the exclusion. Approximately five thousand American citizens of Japanese ancestry refused to swear unqualified allegiance to the United States and to renounce allegiance to the Japanese Emperor, and several thousand evacuees requested repatriation to Japan.

… Compulsory exclusion of large groups of citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of direst emergency and peril, is inconsistent with our basic governmental institutions. But when under conditions of modern warfare our shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger. …

Some of the members of the Court are of the view that evacuation and detention in an Assembly Center were inseparable. After May 3, 1942, the date of Exclusion Order No. 34, Korematsu was under compulsion to leave the area not as he would choose but via an Assembly Center. The Assembly Center was conceived as a part of the machinery for group evacuation. The power to exclude includes the power to do it by force if necessary. And any forcible measure must necessarily entail some degree of detention or restraint whatever method of removal is selected. But whichever view is taken, it results in holding that the order under which petitioner was convicted was valid. …

Dissent:

Mr. Justice ROBERTS.

I dissent, because I think the indisputable facts exhibit a clear violation of Constitutional rights.

This is not a case of keeping people off the streets at night as was Kiyoshi Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, nor a case of temporary exclusion of a citizen from an area for his own safety or that of the community, nor a case of offering him an opportunity to go temporarily out of an area where his presence might cause danger to himself or to his fellows. On the contrary, it is the case of convicting a citizen as a punishment for not submitting to imprisonment in a concentration camp, based on his ancestry, and solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States. If this be a correct statement of the facts disclosed by this record, and facts of which we take judicial notice, I need hardly labor the conclusion that Constitutional rights have been violated. …

The petitioner, a resident of San Leandro, Alameda County, California, is a native of the United States of Japanese ancestry who, according to the uncontradicted evidence, is a loyal citizen of the nation. …

February 19, 1942, the President issued Executive Order No. 9066,1 which, after stating the reason for issuing the order as ‘protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities’, provided that certain Military Commanders might, in their discretion, ‘prescribe military areas’ and define their extent, ‘from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions’ the ‘Military Commander may impose in his discretion.’

February 20, 1942, Lieutenant General DeWitt was designated Military Commander of the Western Defense Command embracing the westernmost states of the Union,—about one-fourth of the total area of the nation.

March 2, 1942, General DeWitt promulgated Public Proclamation No. 1,2 which recites that the entire Pacific Coast is ‘particularly subject to attack, to attempted invasion … and, in connection therewith, is subject to espionage and acts of sabotage’. …

May 3, 1942, General DeWitt issued Civilian Exclusion Order No. 346 providing that, after 12 o’clock May 8, 1942, all persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien and non-alien, were to be excluded from a described portion of Military Area No. 1, which included the County of Alameda, California. The order required a responsible member of each family and each individual living alone to report, at a time set, at a Civil Control Station for instructions to go to an Assembly Center, and added that any person failing to comply with the provisions of the order who was found in the described area after the date set would be liable to prosecution under the Act of March 21, 1942, supra. It is important to note that the order, by its express terms, had no application to persons within the bounds ‘of an established Assembly Center pursuant to instructions from this Headquarters ….’ The obvious purpose of the orders made, taken together, was to drive all citizens of Japanese ancestry into Assembly Centers within the zones of their residence, under pain of criminal prosecution. The predicament in which the petitioner thus found himself was this: He was forbidden, by Military Order, to leave the zone in which he lived; he was forbidden, by Military Order, after a date fixed, to be found within that zone unless he were in an Assembly Center located in that zone. General DeWitt’s report to the Secretary of War concerning the programme of evacuation and relocation of Japanese makes it entirely clear, if it were necessary to refer to that document,-and, in the light of the above recitation, I think it is not,-that an Assembly Center was a euphemism for a prison. No person within such a center was permitted to leave except by Military Order. …

… We further know that, on March 18, 1942, the President had promulgated Executive Order No. 91027 establishing the War Relocation Authority under which so-called Relocation Centers, a euphemism for concentration camps, were established pursuant to cooperation between the military authorities of the Western Defense Command and the Relocation Authority, and that the petitioner has been confined either in an Assembly Center, within the zone in which he had lived or has been removed to a Relocation Center where, as the facts disclosed in Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 65 S.Ct. 208, demonstrate, he was illegally held in custody. …

We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that had the petitioner attempted to violate Proclamation No. 4 and leave the military area in which he lived he would have been arrested and tried and convicted for violation of Proclamation No. 4. The two conflicting orders, one which commanded him to stay and the other which commanded him to go, were nothing but a cleverly devised trap to accomplish the real purpose of the military authority, which was to lock him up in a concentration camp. The only course by which the petitioner could avoid arrest and prosecution was to go to that camp according to instructions to be given him when he reported at a Civil Control Center. We know that is the fact. Why should we set up a figmentary and artificial situation instead of addressing ourselves to the actualities of the case?

[174] Webpage: “Members of the Supreme Court of the United States.” U.S. Supreme Court. Accessed October 6, 2014 at <www.supremecourt.gov>

Name

Appointed

By

Judicial Oath

Taken

Date Service

Terminated

Decision in

Korematsu

Roberts, Owen Josephus

Hoover

June 2, 1930

July 31, 1945

Dissent

Stone, Harlan Fiske

Roosevelt, F.

July 3, 1941

April 22, 1946

Majority

Black, Hugo Lafayette

Roosevelt, F.

August 19, 1937

September 17, 1971

Majority author

Reed, Stanley Forman

Roosevelt, F.

January 31, 1938

February 25, 1957

Majority

Frankfurter, Felix

Roosevelt, F.

January 30, 1939

August 28, 1962

Concurrence

Douglas, William Orville

Roosevelt, F.

April 17, 1939

November 12, 1975

Majority

Murphy, Frank

Roosevelt, F.

February 5, 1940

July 19, 1949

Dissent

Jackson, Robert Houghwout

Roosevelt, F.

July 11, 1941

October 9, 1954

Dissent

Rutledge, Wiley Blount

Roosevelt, F.

February 15, 1943

September 10, 1949

Majority

[175] Book: The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development (3rd edition). By Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison. W. W. Norton & Company, 1963.

Page 952:

By 1956, however, the political atmosphere with respect to civil-rights legislation was undergoing substantial change. Northern Democrats had become acutely aware that the Southern Democratic stand on civil rights badly damaged the party strength not only in presidential campaigns but also in local Northern congressional elections. Republican politicians, by contrast, seized upon the civil rights issue is a means whereby the all-important Northern Negro vote might be wooed away from its old New Deal political allegiance. Republican party platforms of 1952 in 1956 were strong and unequivocal in the demand for comprehensive civil rights legislation, while Vice President Richard Nixon was an avowed member of the NAACP. The civil rights issue, in short, posed an issue upon which Republicans now eagerly seized and which Northern Democrats were obliged to meet.

[176] Webpage: “Party Divisions of the House of Representatives.”

Accessed August 10, 2016 at <history.house.gov>

Congress (Years)

# of House Seats

Democrats

Republicans

79th (1945–1947)

435

244

189

80th (1947–1949)

435

188

246

CALCULATION: 244 – 189 = 55

[177] Webpage: “Party Division in the Senate, 1789-Present.” U.S. Senate Historical Office. Accessed August 8, 2015 at <www.senate.gov>

79th Congress (1945-1947)

Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (38 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Progressive

Total Seats: 96

80th Congress (1947-1949)

Majority Party: Republican (51 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 96

CALCULATION: 57 – 45 = 12

[178] Article: “United States Presidential Election of 1948.” By Michael Levy. Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed August 10, 2016 at <www.britannica.com>

“American presidential election held on Nov. 2, 1948, in which Democratic Pres. Harry S. Truman defeated Republican Thomas E. Dewey.”

[179] Article: “July 26, 1948: President Truman issues Executive Order No. 9981 Desegregating the Military.” Harry S. Truman Library and Museum, National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed August 09, 2016 at <www.trumanlibrary.org>

President Truman had been examining the issue of segregation in the armed forces since at least 1947, when he appointed the President’s Committee on Civil Rights. By January 1948, internal White House memos indicated that the President was determined to end military segregation by executive order. However, it was not until the delegates at the 1948 Democratic National Convention called for a liberal civil rights plank that included desegregation of the armed forces that Truman felt comfortable enough to issue Executive Order No. 9981 on July 26. The order stated that “It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.” The order also established the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and opportunity in the Armed Services (Fahy Committee).

Naturally, there was resistance to this order within the military. Staff officers from all branches protested anonymously and sometimes even openly to integration. The Fahy Committee worked with the different branches of the military to ensure that the armed forces instituted integration in their recruitment and unit composition practices. Full integration did not come until the Korean War however, when heavy casualties forced segregated units to merge for survival.

[180] “1948 Democratic Party Platform.” July 12, 1948. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

The Democratic Party is responsible for the great civil rights gains made in recent years in eliminating unfair and illegal discrimination based on race, creed or color,

The Democratic Party commits itself to continuing its efforts to eradicate all racial, religious and economic discrimination.

We again state our belief that racial and religious minorities must have the right to live, the right to work, the right to vote, the full and equal protection of the laws, on a basis of equality with all citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution.

We highly commend President Harry S. Truman for his courageous stand on the issue of civil rights.

We call upon the Congress to support our President in guaranteeing these basic and fundamental American Principles: (1) the right of full and equal political participation; (2) the right to equal opportunity of employment; (3) the right of security of person; (4) and the right of equal treatment in the service and defense of our nation.

[181] Article: “Dixiecrats.” By Scott E. Buchanan. New Georgia Encyclopedia, July 27, 2004. Edited by NGE Staff on 7/29/2016. <www.georgiaencyclopedia.org>

The faction consisted of malcontented southern delegates to the Democratic Party who protested the insertion of a civil rights plank in the party platform and U.S. president Harry S. Truman’s advocacy of that plank. Before the convention southern delegates were dismayed by Truman’s 1948 executive order to desegregate the armed forces. …

When the Democratic national convention convened in July 1948, some Alabama and Mississippi delegates were prepared to walk out of the convention if the civil rights platform passed. When it did, all of the Mississippi delegates and half of the Alabama delegates stormed out of the convention. On July 17, 1948, the Alabama and Mississippi delegations, and a few individual delegates from other southern states, met in Birmingham, Alabama, to select a presidential ticket to oppose the Democrats. The Dixiecrats chose South Carolina’s governor, Strom Thurmond, for president and Fielding L. Wright, governor of Mississippi, for vice president.

On election day 1948, the Dixiecrats won Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina but failed to win any state in which Thurmond appeared as a third-party candidate. …

Although the Dixiecrats immediately dissolved after the 1948 election, their impact lasted much longer.

[182] “Platform of the States Rights Democratic Party.” August 14, 1948. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

- 4 -

We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one’s associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to earn one’s living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes [banning interracial marriage], the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights.

- 5 -

We oppose and condemn the action of the Democratic Convention in sponsoring a civil rights program calling for the elimination of segregation, social equality by Federal fiat, regulations of private employment practices, voting, and local law enforcement.

- 6 -

We affirm that the effective enforcement of such a program would be utterly destructive of the social, economic and political life of the Southern people, and of other localities in which there may be differences in race, creed or national origin in appreciable numbers.

[183] Book: The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development (3rd edition). By Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison. W. W. Norton & Company, 1963.

Pages 952-953:

By 1956, however, the political atmosphere with respect to civil-rights legislation was undergoing substantial change. Northern Democrats had become acutely aware that the Southern Democratic stand on civil rights badly damaged the party strength not only in presidential campaigns but also in local Northern congressional elections. Republican politicians, by contrast, seized upon the civil rights issue is a means whereby the all-important Northern Negro vote might be wooed away from its old New Deal political allegiance. Republican party platforms of 1952 in 1956 were strong and unequivocal in the demand for comprehensive civil rights legislation, while Vice President Richard Nixon was an avowed member of the NAACP. The civil rights issue, in short, posed an issue upon which Republicans now illegally seized in which Northern Democrats were obliged to meet.

… In June 1956, the House passed an administration civil-rights bill, 297 to 126, but the measure thereafter died of calculated strangulation in the Senate Judiciary committee. …

When Congress assembled in January 1957, following a second Eisenhower victory produced in some part by Negro votes, a coalition of Northern Democrats and Republicans at once began a new civil-rights drive.

Pages 954:

The Senate took up consideration of the House bill in early July. It soon became evident that a coalition of moderates under the leadership of majority party leader Lyndon Johnson of Texas was in control of affairs. Under Johnson’s leadership, the Senate struck out (92 to 0) a provision that would have activated an old Reconstruction statute authorizing the president to use troops to enforce civil rights decrees, killed (52 to 38) a more important provision allowing the Attorney General to seek injunctions against conspiracies against civil rights, and voted to modify the content provisions to require jury trial in criminal as distinct from civil contempt cases. Although Richard Russell of Georgia from one side attacked the bill as “a cunningly devised scheme to put black heels on white necks,” and Eisenhower on the other hand castigated it is so weak as to be “bitterly disappointing,” the Senate passed the bill in August, 72 to 18. After Senate-House conference changes the president signed the bill into law in September.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957, as finally adopted, was an extremely modest measure, it’s immediate value limited largely to strengthening somewhat the judicial enforcement of voting rights in the South.

[184] Report: “A Review of the Operations of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division.” U.S. Department of Justice. Office of the Inspector General, March 2013. <oig.justice.gov>

Page 9: “Created by the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Department’s Civil Rights Division (the “Division” or “CRT”) enforces a wide array of laws that protect the civil rights of all individuals, including the enforcement of federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status, and national origin.”

[185] Article: “Orval Eugene Faubus (1910–1994).” By Roy Reed. Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture. Last updated September 22, 2011. <www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net>

His record was in many ways progressive, but he is most widely remembered for his attempt to block the desegregation of Little Rock’s Central High School in 1957. …

… Pragmatism and ambition drove him toward the Democratic Party as Roosevelt’s New Deal took hold. … He remained a politician for the rest of his life. …

… The Little Rock School Board made cautious plans to place the first black pupils in all-white Central High School in September 1957, three years after the Supreme Court had ruled segregated schools unconstitutional. …

On September 2, 1957, Faubus called out the National Guard to block the admission of nine black pupils to Central High School. His justification was that violence threatened and he had to preserve the peace. A federal judge ordered the guardsmen removed. The students, known as the Little Rock Nine, returned to the school but were met by a mob of enraged segregationists. The local police, unable to control the crowd, spirited the Nine out of the building. President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the National Guard and dispatched Army troops to restore order and enforce the court’s ruling.

[186] Book: The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development (3rd edition). By Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison. W. W. Norton & Company, 1963.

Page 938:

A conference between Faubus and the President failed to produce any result, and Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr., acting on the president’s instructions, sought and obtained an injunction against Faubus, ordering him and the officers of the National Guard to cease forthwith from blocking enforcement of the federal court integration orders. The Governor thereupon withdrew the National Guard. However when Negro students again attempted to enter the high school they were prevented from doing so by a large and ugly-tempered mop.

Accordingly, the President on September 25 dispatched several companies of the United States Army to Little Rock, in effect putting the city under martial law.

[187] Book: The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development (3rd edition). By Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison. W. W. Norton & Company, 1963.

Page 955:

When Congress assembled in January, 1960, on the eve of a new presidential election, it was apparent that the civil-rights issue would dominate the session. President Eisenhower’s annual message called for a new civil-rights law providing for a system of voter referees appointed by the federal courts. Other proposals follow the Commission report.

Although the rules committee under Representative Smith again attempted to bottle up the administration bill in the House, in mid-February the threat of a discharge petition forced the committee to allow this measure to go to the floor. In addition to the voter referee scheme, the bill made it a crime to interfere with the school desegregation orders of the federal courts, punished arson and bombing where the perpetrators crossed state lines, and required two-year preservation of voting records. After five weeks of debate, the bill passed by overwhelming majorities substantially unchanged.

Meanwhile, the Southern Democrats under Russell’s leadership tied up consideration of civil rights and that body with one of the most protracted filibusters in Senate history. However, Johnson by another series of parliamentary maneuvers now took the house bill to the Senate floor, with the Northern coalition succeeded in forcing the bill to a favorable vote, 71 to 18.

[188] 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ratified January 23, 1964. <www.justfacts.com>

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[189] The Concise Princeton Encyclopedia of American Political History. Edited by Michael Kazin and others. Princeton University Press, 2011.

Page 582: “Once the Republican Party was so diminished that it had no possibility of winning elections in the South, most states simplified the practice of discrimination by adopting a ‘white primary’ within the Democratic Party. The only meaningful elections in the South, by the early twentieth century, were the Democratic primaries, and African Americans were expressly barred from participation.”

[190] Book: The Constitution of The United States of America: Analysis And Interpretation (Centennial Edition). Edited by Kenneth R. Thomas and Larry M. Eig. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 2013. <www.gpo.gov>

Page 2214:

The White Primary.—The Court displayed indecision, however, when it was called upon to deal with the exclusion of African-Americans from participation in primary elections. Prior to its becoming convinced that primary contests were in fact elections to which federal constitutional guarantees applied,12 the Court had relied upon the Equal Protection Clause to strike down the Texas White Primary Law13 as well as a later Texas statute that contributed to a similar exclusion by limiting voting in primary elections to members of state political parties as determined by the central committees of such parties.14 When exclusion of African-Americans was thereafter perpetuated by political parties not acting in obedience to any statutory command, this discrimination was for a time viewed as not constituting state action and therefore as not prohibited by either the Fourteenth or the Fifteenth Amendments.15 This holding was reversed nine years later when the Court declared that, where the selection of candidates for public office is entrusted by statute to political parties, a political party in making its selection at a primary election is a state agency, and consequently may not under the Fifteenth Amendment exclude African-Americans from such elections.16 An effort by South Carolina to escape the effects of this ruling by repealing all statutory provisions regulating primary elections and political organizations conducting them was nullified by a lower federal court with no doctrinal difficulty,17 but the Supreme Court, although nearly unanimous on the result, was unable to come to a majority agreement with regard to the exclusion of African-Americans by the Jaybird Association, a countywide organization that, independently of state laws and the use of state election machinery or funds, nearly monopolized access to Democratic nomination for local offices. The exclusionary policy was held unconstitutional but there was no opinion of the Court.18

[191] Public Law 88-352: “Civil Rights Act of 1964.” 88th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964. <www.eeoc.gov>

An Act

To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes. …

Section 601. No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. …

Section 701. For the purposes of this title …

(b) The term “employer” means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty-five or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include (1) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States, an Indian tribe, or a State or political subdivision thereof, (2) a bona fide private membership club (other than a labor organization) which is exempt from taxation under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954: Provided, That during the first year after the effective date prescribed in subsection (a) of section 716, persons having fewer than one hundred employees (and their agents) shall not be considered employers, and, during the second year after such date, persons having fewer than seventy-five employees (and their agents) shall not be considered employers, and, during the third year after such date, persons having fewer than fifty employees (and their agents) shall not be considered employers: Provided further, That it shall be the policy of the United States to insure equal employment opportunities for Federal employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and the President shall utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy. …

Section 703.

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer–

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

(b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

(c) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization–

(1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or would limit such employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee or as an applicant for employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(3) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual in violation of this section.

(d) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training. …

[192] Calculated with data from:

a) Book: “Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 88th Congress, Second Session, Volume 111, Part 11.” U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965.

Page 15534: “Of the 289 favorable [House] votes, 158 were Democratic and 136 were Republican. Ninety-one Democrats and 35 Republicans voted ‘no.’ President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on July 3, 1964.”

b) Article: “Civil Rights Bill Passed, 73-27; Johnson Urges All To Comply; Dirksen Berates Goldwater.” By E. W. Kenworthy. New York Times, June 19, 1964. <www.nytimes.com>

“The final roll-call [in the Senate] came at 7:40 P.M. on the 83d day of debate, nine days after closure was invoked. Voting for the bill were 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans. Voting against it were 21 Democrats and six Republicans.”

NOTE: Results do not include those not voting or those who voted “Present.”

House

Party

Voted YES

Voted NO

Republican

136

80%

35

20%

Democrat

158

63%

91

37%

Senate

Party

Voted YES

Voted NO

Republican

27

82%

6

18%

Democrat

46

69%

21

31%

Congress as a Whole

Party

Voted YES

Voted NO

Republican

163

80%

41

20%

Democrat

204

65%

112

35%

[193] Statement of U.S. Senator Joseph S. Clark (D-PA). Congressional Record, April 8, 1964. Pages 7206-7207. <ia600502.us.archive.org>

I have also had prepared by the Department of Justice a summary statement in rebuttal to the argument made by the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Hill] to the effect that title VII would undermine the vested rights of seniority, that it would deny to unions their representation rights under the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act; that the operation of title VII would in some way affect adversely the rights of organized labor; and that title VII would impose the requirement of racial balance.

I submit that those assertions of the able senior Senator from Alabama are untenable.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rebuttal to the argument prepared at my request by the Department of Justice be printed in full in the Record at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Reply to Arguments Made by Senator Hill.

First, it has been asserted that title VII would undermine vested rights of seniority. This is not correct. Title VII would have no effect on seniority rights existing at the time it takes effect. If, for example, a collective bargaining contract provides that in the event of layoffs, those who were hired last must be laid off first, such a provision would not be affected in the least by title VII. This would be true even in the case where owing to discrimination prior to the effective date of the title, white workers had more seniority than Negroes. Title VII Is directed at discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It is perfectly clear that when a worker is laid off or denied a chance for promotion because under established seniority rules he is “low man on the totem pole” he is not being discriminated against because of his race. Of course, if the seniority rule itself is discriminatory, it would be unlawful under title VII. If a rule were to state that all Negroes must be laid off before any white man, such a rule could not serve as the basis for a discharge subsequent to the effective date of the title. I do not know how anyone could quarrel with such a result. But, in the ordinary case, assuming that seniority rights were built up over a period of time during which Negroes were not hired, these rights would not be set aside by the taking effect of title VII. Employers and labor organizations would simply be under a duty not to discriminate against Negroes because of their race. Any differences in treatment based on established seniority rights would not be based on race and would not be forbidden by the title.

[194] Paper: “United States v. City of Chicago: Impact Standard Applicable to State and Local Governments Under Title VII.” By Lydia C. Taylor and Francis C. Bagbey. William & Mary Law Review, 1978. Pages 357-392. <scholarship.law.wm.edu>

Pages 357-358:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19641 prohibits employment practices that discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.2 As originally enacted, Title VII exempted state and local governments from the provisions of the Act.3

3. Section 2000e(b)(1) reads in pertinent part: “The term ‘employer’ means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce … but such term does not include (1) … a State or political subdivision thereof….”

[195] Paper: “United States v. City of Chicago: Impact Standard Applicable to State and Local Governments Under Title VII.” By Lydia C. Taylor and Francis C. Bagbey. William & Mary Law Review, 1978. Pages 357-392. <scholarship.law.wm.edu>

Pages 357-358:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19641 prohibits employment practices that discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.2 As originally enacted, Title VII exempted state and local governments from the provisions of the Act.3 The United States Commission on Civil Rights, finding that state and local government employment was characterized by many discriminatory procedures, criticized the denial of this federal remedy to employees of those governments.4 Congress recognized the anomaly of extending discriminatory practices while denying assistance to similarly aggrieved public employees5 and responded by adopting the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972,6 thereby amending Title VII to include state and local government employees.7

3. Section 2000e(b)(1) reads in pertinent part: “The term ‘employer’ means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce … but such term does not include (1) … a State or political subdivision thereof….”

4. United States Commission on Civil Rights, For All the People … By All the People 121 (1969) [hereinafter cited as For All the People]. The Commission found that “[m]inority group members are denied equal access to State and local government jobs.” Id. at 118. This exclusion is accomplished, the Commission explained, “by overt discrimination in personnel actions and hiring decisions, a lack of positive action by governments to redress the consequences of past discrimination, and discriminatory and biased treatment on the job.” Id. at 119. Particularly relevant to the subject of this Comment, the Commission suggested that the “[b]arriers to equal employment are greater in police and fire departments than in any other area of State and local government.” Id. Concluding that enforcement of the fourteenth amendment’s prohibition against discriminatory state action had been sporadic and burdensome, the Commission recommended eliminating the exemption of state and local governments from the coverage of Title VII. Id. at 128.

5. The report accompanying the Senate bill, S. 2515, containing a provision expanding the jurisdiction of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include state and local governments, interpreted the findings of For All the People, supra note 4, to indicate that “employment discrimination in State and local governments is more pervasive than in the private sector.” Senate Report No. 415, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 10 (1971) [hereinafter cited as S. Rep. No. 415]. The report accompanying the analogous House bill, H.R. 1746, emphasized the injustice of withholding federal remedies from the victims of constitutionally prohibited discrimination because of their peculiar employment status. House of Representatives Report No. 238, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 17-19 [hereinafter cited as H.R. Rep. No. 238], reprinted in [1972] U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 2137, 2152-54 [hereinafter cited as Ad. News].

6 .Pub. L. No. 92-261, 86 Stat. 103 (amending 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (1970) [hereinafter cited as the 1972 amendments].

For discussion and analysis of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 and its legislative history, see Sape and Hart, Title VII Reconsidered: The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 40 George Washington law Review 824 (1972).

7 .The definition of “person” found in § 2000e(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was amended to include “governments, governmental agencies, [and] political subdivisions.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a) (Supp. V 1975). Section 2000e(b), defining “employer” was amended to include persons employing fifteen or more employees, and the “State or political subdivision thereof” exemption was deleted. Id. § 2000e(b).

One commentator has described the expansion of Title VII to state and local government employees as “the most significant change in the scope of the Act.” Mitchell, An Advocate’s View of the 1972 Amendments to Title VII, 5 Columbia Human Rights Law Review 311, 322 (1973).

[196] Public Law 92-261: “Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972.” 92nd U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Richard Nixon on March 24,1972. <extension.colostate.edu>

[197] Statement: “Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972.” By Richard Nixon, March 25, 1972. <bulk.resource.org>

By strengthening and expanding the Government’s powers against discrimination in employment, this legislation is an important step toward true equality on the job front. Where promises have sometimes failed, we may now expect results. …

Additionally, the legislation extends the protections of Title VII to millions of American citizens previously excluded from its coverage. The experiences of both the Justice Department and the EEO C under Title VII have demonstrated that considerable discrimination problems have existed in State and local governments, with small employers, and in some educational institutions. Individuals employed in these areas have not heretofore been protected by Title VII. This bill corrects that defect.

[198] “Remarks to the Virginia Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson Dinner.” By Bill Bradley, February 6, 1999. Accessed in December of 1999 at <www.billbradley.com>

[199] Calculated with data from the article “Civil Rights Bill Passed, 73-27; Johnson Urges All To Comply; Dirksen Berates Goldwater.” By E. W. Kenworthy. New York Times, June 19, 1964. <www.nytimes.com>

“The final roll-call [in the Senate] came at 7:40 P.M. on the 83d day of debate, nine days after closure was invoked. Voting for the bill were 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans. Voting against it were 21 Democrats and six Republicans.”

NOTE: Results do not include those not voting or those who voted “Present.”

Senate

Party

Voted YES

Voted NO

Republican

27

82%

6

18%

Democrat

46

69%

21

31%

[200] Article: “Senate Votes Cloture on Civil Rights Bill, 71–29.” CQ Almanac, 1964, 20th edition. Page 368-380. Congressional Quarterly, 1965. <library.cqpress.com>

For the first time in its history, the Senate June 10 voted to close off debate on a civil rights filibuster. The vote for cloture was 71–29. With all 100 Senators present and voting, 67 votes were needed. The vote ended a filibuster that occupied 57 days after formal Senate consideration of the Civil Rights Act began March 26, and 74 days after the bill was put before the Senate Feb. 26. …

Forty-four Democrats and 27 Republicans joined in voting to end the Southern filibuster. The cloture motion was opposed by 23 Democrats and 6 Republicans. The 6 Republicans were: Wallace F. Bennett (Utah), Barry Goldwater (Ariz.), Edwin L. Mechem (N.M.), Milward L. Simpson (Wyo.), John G. Tower (Texas) and Milton R. Young (N.D.). The following Democrats joined 18 from the deep South in voting against ending the debate: Alan Bible (Nev.), Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), Albert Gore (Tenn.), Herbert S. Walters (Tenn.) and Carl Hayden (Ariz.), dean of the Senate, who had never voted for cloture.

[201] Commentary: “Blacks ‘Gored’ By a Lie: Al Gore Sr., the GOP and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” National Center for Public Policy Research, May 1999. <www.nationalcenter.org>

“In a recent speech to the NAACP, Vice President Gore said his father lost his Senate seat because he supported civil rights legislation. Fellow black Americans, let me set history straight. Al Gore, Sr., together with the rest of the southern Democrats, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

[202] “Civil Rights.” Accessed in February of 2000 at <www.algore2000.com>

“My commitment to civil rights is a deeply personal one. I watched my father when he was, a U.S. Senator from Tennessee, take courageous stands for civil rights. He opposed the poll tax in the 40s, and supported civil rights in the 50s, he supported voting rights in 1963, and was one of two Southern Senators to refuse to sign the hateful Southern Manifesto opposing integration in our schools. He lost his Senate seat because [SIC] his stands.”

[203] Webpage: “Roll Call Tally on Civil Rights Act 1964, June 19, 1964.” U.S. National Archives. <www.archives.gov>

“Nays … Gore.”

[204] Article: “Senate Votes Cloture on Civil Rights Bill, 71–29.” CQ Almanac, 1964, 20th edition. Page 368-380. Congressional Quarterly, 1965. <library.cqpress.com>

For the first time in its history, the Senate June 10 voted to close off debate on a civil rights filibuster. The vote for cloture was 71–29. With all 100 Senators present and voting, 67 votes were needed. The vote ended a filibuster that occupied 57 days after formal Senate consideration of the Civil Rights Act began March 26, and 74 days after the bill was put before the Senate Feb. 26. …

Forty-four Democrats and 27 Republicans joined in voting to end the Southern filibuster. The cloture motion was opposed by 23 Democrats and 6 Republicans. The 6 Republicans were: Wallace F. Bennett (Utah), Barry Goldwater (Ariz.), Edwin L. Mechem (N.M.), Milward L. Simpson (Wyo.), John G. Tower (Texas) and Milton R. Young (N.D.). The following Democrats joined 18 from the deep South in voting against ending the debate: Alan Bible (Nev.), Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), Albert Gore (Tenn.), Herbert S. Walters (Tenn.) and Carl Hayden (Ariz.), dean of the Senate, who had never voted for cloture.

[205] Article: “The Civil Rights Act is Approved After a 83-Day Filibuster in 1964.” By Jack Metcalfe. New York Daily News, June 20, 1964. <www.nydailynews.com>

The final Southern attempt to put up a roadblock to Senate action came when Sen. Albert Gore (D-Tenn.) moved to send the bill to the Judiciary Committee. The committee would have been instructed to amend the bill to permit a cut-off of federal funds only to school districts which defy court orders to desegregate.

The Gore motion was defeated 74-25, but not before Southern foes and one of the bills Northern champions, Sen. John Pastore (D-R.I.), clashed bitterly.

Assailing the Gore motion as propaganda, Pastore said it was a repeat of “what we have already voted down.”

Sen. Russell Long (D-La.) and George Smathers (D-Fla.) retorted that Pastore did not know what he was talking about in accusing the South of mistreating [African Americans].

[206] Article: “Senate Votes Cloture on Civil Rights Bill, 71–29.” CQ Almanac, 1964, 20th edition. Page 368-380. Congressional Quarterly, 1965. <library.cqpress.com>

Next, the Senate rejected an amendment by Gore to strike Title VI, covering cutoff of federal funds if discriminatorily administered. The vote was 25–69 (R [Republicans] 4-27; ND [Northern Democrats] 1–40; SD [Southern Democrats] 20–2). Gore said the title was a “sledgehammer provision” that would punish the innocent in an attempt to punish state or local officials. Abraham A. Ribicoff (D Conn.), former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1961–62), said that the intention of the provision was not to cut off funds, but to bring about policy changes through negotiation and conciliation. Gordon Allott (R Colo.) said “this bill represents nothing if we continue to use the taxes of this country for the benefit of one group.” Sens. John Sherman Cooper (R Ky.) and Monroney supported Gore, arguing that the programs to be covered should be spelled out in the bill. Despite this support, Gore’s amendment was rejected by a lopsided vote. Many Republicans, including the conservative Tower (R Texas), voted against Gore in order to be consistent with their earlier votes for anti-discrimination riders when federal programs were being approved by Congress.

[207] NOTE: Credit for bringing the facts contained in the three bullets points above belongs to R.D. Davis of Project 21. [<www.nationalcenter.org>].

[208] Book review: “The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’.” By Clay Risen. New York Times, December 10, 2006. <www.nytimes.com>

Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members—and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question.

[209] Commentary: “Whitewash.” By Frank Rich. New York Magazine, May 5, 2013. <nymag.com>

“You also have to disregard the political game plan codified by Kevin Phillips, the Nixon political strategist whose book The Emerging Republican Majority helped cement the party’s ‘southern strategy’ of mining white backlash to the civil-rights movement.”

[210] Article: “The Civil Rights Realignment: How Race Dominates Presidential Elections.” By Timothy J. Hoffman (Seton Hall University). Political Analysis, May 2015. <scholarship.shu.edu>

Page 10:

After a failed bid for the White House in 1960, Nixon won in 1968 with 301 electoral votes, beating Democrat Hubert Humphrey, and third-party candidate, George Wallace from the American Independent Party (Government Printing Office 1969). Nixon sought votes by expanding upon Barry Goldwater’s “Operation Dixie” to galvanize the support of old segregationist Southern Democrats through his “Southern Strategy” (Greenberg 2000). … Despite Wallace’s supremacy in the South, Nixon’s Southern Strategy paid long-term dividends for Nixon and the Republican Party. The Southern Strategy used states’ rights and other racially tinged appeals to court white conservative voters and exploited dissatisfaction with Johnson’s liberal racial and economic policies.

 

[211] Commentary: “The Republican Party’s Race Problem and Strom Thurmond’s Legacy.” By Jordan Michael Smith. Daily Beast, September 22, 2012. <www.thedailybeast.com>

As the Democrats abandoned their longtime hostility to African-Americans’ civil rights in the 1940s, Thurmond and his compatriots moved to the Republican Party. …

It was not until the mid-1960s that the South turned from blue to red. In 1964 and ‘65, Democratic President Lyndon Johnson introduced and signed the strongest civil-rights bills yet enacted by Congress. The 1964 Republican presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, voted against the laws and took up the mantle of “states’ rights.” Again the standard-bearer was Thurmond, who campaigned hard for the conservative icon. Republicans won South Carolina and four other Southern states, the best showing in the South for the party since reconstruction.

[212] Webpage: “Southern Manifesto on Integration (March 12, 1956).” PBS. Accessed August 13, 2016 at <www.pbs.org>

From Congressional Record, 84th Congress Second Session. Vol. 102, part 4. Washington, D.C.: Governmental Printing Office, 1956. 4459-4460. …

Transcript

In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 the Supreme Court expressly declared that under the Fourteenth Amendment no person was denied any of his rights if the states provided separate but equal public facilities. This decision has been followed in many other cases. It is notable that the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Taft, a former President of the United States, unanimously declared in 1927 in Lum v. Rice that the “separate but equal” principle is “* * * within the discretion of the state in regulating its public schools and does not conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment.” …

With the gravest concern for the explosive and dangerous condition created by this decision and inflamed by outside meddlers. …

We decry the Supreme Court’s encroachments on rights reserved to the states and to the people, contrary to established law and to the Constitution.

We commend the motives of those states which have declared the intention to resist forced integration by any lawful means. …

Signed by:

Members of the United States Senate:

Alabama – John Sparkman and Lister Hill.

Arkansas – J. W. Fulbright and John L. McClellan.

Florida – George A. Smathers and Spessard L. Holland.

Georgia – Walter F. George and Richard B. Russell.

Louisiana – Allen J. Ellender and Russell B. Lono.

Mississippi – John Stennis and James O. Eastland.

North Carolina – Sam J. Ervin Jr. and W. Kerr Scott.

South Carolina – Strom Thurmond and Olin D. Johnston.

Texas – Price Daniel.

Virginia – Harry F. Bird and A. Willis Robertson.

Members of the United States House of Representatives:

Alabama – Frank J. Boykin, George M. Grant, George M. Andrews, Kenneth R. Roberts, Albert Rains, Armistead I. Selden Jr., Carl Elliott, Robert E. Jones and George Huddleston Jr.

Arkansas – E. C. Gathings, Wilbur D. Mills, James W. Trimble, Oren Harris, Brooks Hays, F. W. Norrell.

Florida – Charles E. Bennett Robert L. Sikes, A. S. Her Jr., Paul G. Rogers, James A. Haley, D. R. Matthews.

Georgia – Prince H. Preston, John L. Pilcher, E. L. Forrester, John James Flint Jr., James C. Davis, Carl Vinson, Henderson Lanham, Iris F. Blitch, Phil M. Landrum, Paul Brown.

Louisiana – F. Edward Hebert, Hale Boggs, Edwin E. Willis, Overton Brooks, Otto E. Passman, James H. Morrison, T. Ashton Thompson, George S. Long.

Mississippi – Thomas G. Abernethy, Jamie L. Whitten, Frank E. Smith, John Bell Williams, Arthur Winsted, William M. Colmer.

North Carolina – Herbert C. Bonner, L. H. Fountain, Graham A. Barden, Carl T. Durham, F. Ertel Carlyle, Hugh Q. Alexander, Woodrow W. Jones, George A. Shuford.

South Carolina – L. Mendel Rivers, John J. Riley, W. J. Bryan Dorn, Robert T. Ashmore, James P. Richards, John L. McMillan.

Tennessee – James B. Frazier Jr., Tom Murray, Jere Cooper, Clifford Davis.

Texas – Wright Patman, John Dowdy, Walter Rogers, O. C. Fisher.

Virginia – Edward J. Robeson Jr., Porter Hardy Jr., J. Vaughan Gary, Watkins M. Abbitt, William M. Tuck, Richard H. Poff, Burr P. Harrison, Howard W. Smith, W. Pat Jennings, Joel T. Brothill.

NOTE: Just Facts made some spelling corrections to the PBS transcription of signatories.

[213] Database: “Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.” Accessed August 13, 2016 at <www.senate.gov>

1) John Sparkman [D]

2) Lister Hill [D]

3) J. W. Fulbright [D]

4) John L. McClellan [D]

5) George A. Smathers [D]

6) Spessard L. Holland [D]

7) Walter F. George [D]

8) Richard B. Russell [D]

9) Allen J. Ellender [D]

10) Russell B. Lono [D]

11) John Stennis [D]

12) James O. Eastland [D]

13) Sam J. Ervin Jr. [D]

14) W. Kerr Scott [D]

15) Strom Thurmond [D to R]

16) Olin D. Johnston [D]

17) Price Daniel [D]

18) Harry F. Bird [D]

19) A. Willis Robertson [D]

NOTE: A spreadsheet detailing offices held, years of service, and party affiliations for each of these individuals is available here.

[214] Book: The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South. By Byron E Shafer and Richard Johnston. Harvard University Press, 2006.

Of the 29 congressional districts that Governor Thurmond had pulled away from the Democrats in 1948, those districts which had been carried by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1944 and were carried by Thurman in 1948, the overwhelming majority—25 out of 29—returned to Democrat Adlai Stevenson in 1952. By contrast, of the 68 congressional districts that had ignored Thurmond and stayed with Harry Truman in 1948, all of which had voted for Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, almost 40% [26 of 68] abandoned Stevenson in 1952 and went to the Republican candidate, Dwight Eisenhower. In other words, Dixiecratic districts remained overwhelmingly Democratic. Loyalist districts were more likely to go Republican. Thus if the bridging metaphor had any validity, it was Truman, not Thurman, who was the bridge to enhanced Republican prospects!

[215] Book: The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South. By Byron E Shafer and Richard Johnston. Harvard University Press, 2006.

Of the 29 congressional districts that Governor Thurmond had pulled away from the Democrats in 1948, those districts which had been carried by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1944 and were carried by Thurman in 1948, the overwhelming majority—25 out of 29—returned to Democrat Adlai Stevenson in 1952. By contrast, of the 68 congressional districts that had ignored Thurmond and stayed with Harry Truman in 1948, all of which had voted for Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, almost 40% [26 of 68] abandoned Stevenson in 1952 and went to the Republican candidate, Dwight Eisenhower. In other words, Dixiecratic districts remained overwhelmingly Democratic. Loyalist districts were more likely to go Republican. Thus if the bridging metaphor had any validity, it was Truman, not Thurman, who was the bridge to enhanced Republican prospects!

[216] Article: “Dixiecrats.” By Scott E. Buchanan. New Georgia Encyclopedia, July 27, 2004. Edited by NGE Staff on 7/29/2016. <www.georgiaencyclopedia.org>

A closer analysis of the [1948] Dixiecrat phenomenon revealed an interesting pattern: the Dixiecrats were most successful in the states and counties where black citizens were the most numerous. The Deep South states boasted the largest black populations, and white voters in those states were the most determined to preserve racial segregation and black disenfranchisement, and thus were more likely to vote for the Dixiecrat ticket. A similar trend is evident in county-level election returns, in which Thurmond was more likely to win counties where black populations were large and white voters feared racial change.

[217] Book: The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South. By Byron E Shafer and Richard Johnston. Harvard University Press, 2006.

Given that black areas were poor areas generally….

Despite the absence of individual-level data, the effect of racial context on (white) Southern voters remains clear enough in the Dixiecratic ballot of 1948. Governor Thurmond actually carried the more-black states in the South, while losing less-black counterparts just as he carried the more-black black districts within each group of states, while losing their less-black brethren. Moreover, for 1948, it is possible to know that this effect was not an ecological fallacy, since blacks were not enfranchised generally in the South and were particularly scarce as voters in these more-black areas.

[218] Book: The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South. By Byron E Shafer and Richard Johnston. Harvard University Press, 2006.

Table 2.1. Social Class and the Coming of Southern Republicanism: The House …

Table 2.1A does contain what will prove to be the overall story of partisan change among Southern whites during all the postwar years. Yet its aggregation still very much masks the extent of the change, even in just this one institution, because it still includes many who could not vote Republican for the House of Representatives because they had no Republican candidate. Accordingly, the analysis should really be restricted to white Southerners who possessed both a Democratic and a Republican congressional alternative. When this restriction is imposed, the same patterns recur, writ larger still. …

Table 2.3. Social Class and the Coming of Southern Republicanism: The Presidency …

Yet despite clear differences in their electoral districting, the Senate and the House often behaved in highly parallel ways…. If we compare the mean Republican vote in contested districts across the postwar years, the two bodies are effectively indistinguishable (Figure 2.1A). …

In the 1950 election, for example, the one before Dwight Eisenhower energized a Republican presidential vote in the South, his party could manage no House challengers at all in Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and South Carolina. That was the situation in the old South.

NOTE: The sample sizes for the data points in these tables range from 59 to 423. This equates to a margin of error of ±13% to ±5% with a 95% level of confidence. The average sample size is 208, which equates to a margin of error of ± 7%. [“Margin of Error Calculator.” ComRes, 2017. Accessed August 13, 2016 at <www.comres.co.uk>]

[219] Commentary: “The Republican Party’s Race Problem and Strom Thurmond’s Legacy.” By Jordan Michael Smith. Daily Beast, September 22, 2012. <www.thedailybeast.com>

As the Democrats abandoned their longtime hostility to African-Americans’ civil rights in the 1940s, Thurmond and his compatriots moved to the Republican Party. …

It was not until the mid-1960s that the South turned from blue to red. In 1964 and ‘65, Democratic President Lyndon Johnson introduced and signed the strongest civil-rights bills yet enacted by Congress. The 1964 Republican presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, voted against the laws and took up the mantle of “states’ rights.” Again the standard-bearer was Thurmond, who campaigned hard for the conservative icon. Republicans won South Carolina and four other Southern states, the best showing in the South for the party since reconstruction.

[220] Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics: Hispanic Americans and Native Americans (Volume 2). Edited by Jeffrey D. Schultz and others. Oryx Press, 2000.

Page 528: “The brief enfranchisement of African Americans ended, however, after 1877, when southern Democrats regained control of state governments after federal troops were withdrawn after Reconstruction.”

[221] Calculated with data from:

a) Dataset: “Historical Election Results, Electoral Votes, by State.” National Archives and Records Administration, U.S. Electoral College. Accessed August 12, 2016 at <www.archives.gov>

b) Webpage: “Civil War Facts.” National Park Service. Accessed August 12, 2016 at <www.nps.gov>

“The Confederacy included the states of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia.”

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[222] Commentary: “NRSC Calls Dem Condemnation Of Paul Civil Rights Act Statements ‘Ironic’.” By Evan McMorris-Santoro. Talking Points Memo, May 21, 2010. <talkingpointsmemo.com>

“Everybody knows that in 1964, a proud southern Democratic President, Lyndon Johnson, pushed hard to secure the Civil Rights Bill, with the aid of a coalition of northern Democrats and Republicans,” Wilentz said. “This sent the defeated segregationist Southern Democrats (led by Strom Thurmond) fleeing into the Republican Party, where its remnants, along with a younger generation of extremist conservative white southerners, including Rand Paul, still reside.” …

“In many ways, the 1964 Act defined the modern political parties – with the Republicans becoming the heirs to the traditions of the Confederacy and Jim Crow, and the Democrats embracing the tradition of Abraham Lincoln,” he wrote.

[223] The following citation makes similar claims:

[224] Commentary: “Whitewash.” By Frank Rich. New York Magazine, May 5, 2013. <nymag.com>

“Strom Thurmond, whose primacy in the GOP’s racial realignment is the most incriminating truth the right keeps trying to cover up.”

[225] Editorial: “Conservatives, Race and Denial: ‘Unrequited Love’ Edition.” By Francis Wilkinson. Bloomberg, December 8, 2013. <www.bloomberg.com>

Perhaps the most eloquent response is found in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, which seems to have inadvertently stumbled into the argument. Like a drunk walking home with a lantern, the paper’s review of Timothy N. Thurber’s new book, “Republicans and Race,” is enlightening if you can follow the staggered trail of logic.

The headline nicely sums up the review by Lee Edwards: “A Love Unrequited.” The love in question is that of the Republican Party for black Americans, who have incomprehensibly spurned the Republicans’ warm embrace. A more apt title might be: “A Concise History of Conservative Self-Delusion.”

Here is Edwards’s remarkable take on the 1960s: “During this period, African-Americans, long denied the most basic rights, demanded that Republicans act decisively on a variety of fronts, including civil rights, voting rights and economic rights. When Republicans didn’t respond to blacks’ satisfaction, they were called racists, although the real racists were almost exclusively Southern Democrats.”

Yowza.

Casting of guilt onto racist Southern Democrats without acknowledging that approximately 100 percent of racist Southern Democrats switched parties to become Republicans between 1960 and 1980? Check.

[226] Webpage: “Roll Call Tally on Civil Rights Act 1964, June 19, 1964.” U.S. National Archives. <www.archives.gov>

Nays

1) Byrd, Va.

2) Byrd, W. Va.

3) Cotton

4) Eastland

5) Ellender

6) Ervin

7) Fulbright

8) Goldwater

9) Gore

10) Hickenlooper

11) Hill

12) Holland

13) Johnston

14) Jordan, N.C.

15) Long, La.

16) McClellan

17) Mechem

18) Robertson

19) Russel

20) Simpson

21) Smathers

22) Sparkman

23) Stennis

24) Talmadge

25) Thurmond

26) Tower

27) Walters

[227] Database: “Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.” Accessed August 13, 2016 at <www.senate.gov>

1) Harry F. Byrd [D]

2) Robert Carlyle Byrd [D]

3) Cotton, Norris H. [R]

4) James O. Eastland [D]

5) Allen J. Ellender [D]

6) Sam J. Ervin Jr. [D]

7) J. W. Fulbright [D]

8) Barry Goldwater [R]

9) Albert Arnold Gore [D]

10) Hickenlooper [R]

11) Lister Hill [D]

12) Spessard L. Holland [D]

13) Olin D. Johnston [D]

14) Benjamin Everett Jordan [D]

15) Russell B. Long [D]

16) John L. McClellan [D]

17) Edwin Leard Mechem [R]

18) A. Willis Robertson [D]

19) Richard B. Russell [D]

20) Milward Lee Simpson [R]

21) George A. Smathers [D]

22) John Sparkman [D]

23) John Stennis [D]

24) Herman Eugene Talmadge [D]

25) Strom Thurmond [D to R]

26) John Goodwin Tower [R]

27) Herbert Sanford Walters [D]

NOTE: A spreadsheet detailing offices held, years of service, and party affiliations for each of these individuals is available here.

[228] Article: “Wallace, George C.” Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004.

… U.S. Democratic Party politician and four-time governor of Alabama who led the South’s fight against federally ordered racial integration in the 1960s. …

Wallace won the governorship of Alabama in 1962 on a platform emphasizing segregation and economic issues. Within his first year in office he kept his pledge “to stand in the schoolhouse door” by blocking the enrollment of black students at the University of Alabama (June 1963). Declaring that the federal government was usurping state authority in the field of education, he yielded only in the face of the federalized National Guard. Further confrontations at Tuskegee, Birmingham, Huntsville, and Mobile made him a nationwide symbol of intransigence toward racial integration in the schools. …

[In 1968] Wallace was a vigorous but unsuccessful third-party candidate for the U.S. presidency, winning 13 percent of the vote and five Southern states as the nominee of the anti-liberal American Independent Party. …

Wallace won Alabama’s governorship again in 1970, but in 1972, while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, he was wounded and left permanently paralyzed below the waist in an assassination attempt…. He was reelected to the governorship in 1974, and he again campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1976. In the 1980s Wallace renounced his segregationist ideology and sought reconciliation with civil rights leaders. In 1982 he sought anew term as governor and won the election with substantial support from black voters.

[229] Commentary: “MSNBC: George Wallace a … Republican?” By Ian Tuttle. National Review, June 12, 2013. <www.nationalreview.com>

Noting the 50-year anniversary of Wallace’s infamous “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door,” in which the governor physically blocked two black students from entering the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes showed a photo of Wallace—identifying him as “(R) Alabama.”

NOTE: The commentary shows the actual photo displayed by MSNBC.

[230] Article: “Eugene ‘Bull’ Connor.” By James L. Baggett. Encyclopedia Of Alabama, March 9, 2007. Last updated August 15, 2012. <www.encyclopediaofalabama.org>

In 1934, Connor entered the Democratic primary race for a seat in the Alabama House of Representatives. …

Connor served as a delegate to five Democratic National Conventions (1948, 1956, 1960, 1964, and 1968). …

… While apparently not a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Connor protected Klansmen who committed racial violence, including bombings. In 1961, he ordered Birmingham police to stay away from the Trailways bus station while Klansmen attacked the Freedom Riders, a group of civil rights activists who were touring the South to protest segregation. This attack, combined with his closing of city parks to prevent desegregation, the threatened closing of city schools, and Birmingham’s worsening reputation in the national media, turned the local business community and a majority of the white electorate against Connor. …

… During this time, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., in cooperation with local civil rights leaders, led demonstrations in Birmingham against racial segregation. Connor ordered Birmingham police officers and firemen to use dogs and high-pressure water hoses against demonstrators. Images of the resulting mayhem appeared on television and in newspapers throughout the country and helped to shift public opinion in favor of national civil-rights legislation. Images of the demonstrations are still regularly broadcast and published and have helped cement Connor and Birmingham as symbols of racial intolerance.

[231] Article: “Letitia James Compares Rob Astorino to Bull Connor.” By Will Bredderman. Observer, October 10, 2014. <observer.com>

Public Advocate Letitia James today compared Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob Astorino to Bull Connor, the segregationist public safety commissioner from Birmingham who loosed attack dogs and turned firehoses on black civil rights demonstrators in the early 1960s.

Speaking at a Women’s Equality Party rally with Gov. Andrew Cuomo and host of African-American elected officials from central Brooklyn, Ms. James–who appeared in an advertisement for the rival Working Families Party earlier this week–cast the Westchester County executive, whom she repeatedly incorrectly referred to as “Rick Astorino,” as an ultra-conservative bigot.

“We have a far-right Republican, someone who reminds me of Bull Connor in the 1960s. He’s anti-choice, anti-LGBT, anti-women’s equality, anti-progress,” said Ms. James, urging the largely black crowd to boo.

[232] Article: “Georgia [State, U.S.].” By Jonathan M. Bryant and Susan K. Langley. World Book Encyclopedia, 2007 Deluxe Edition.

Integration also took place in other areas of Georgia life, including libraries and restaurants. Some white people in Georgia resisted the change. In 1964, for example, Lester G. Maddox closed his Atlanta restaurant rather than obey a federal court order to serve blacks.

In 1966, Maddox, a Democrat, became a candidate for governor. None of the candidates received 50 percent of the votes, and Georgia law provided that the state legislature choose a winner. The legislature elected Maddox governor in January 1967.

[233] Article: “Lester Maddox (?-GA), Nets Refuse to ID Party of Segregationist.” Media Research Center, June 26, 2003. <www.mrc.org>

The media had no reticence last year about making sure their readers and viewers understood that the Trent Lott who belonged to a racially-discriminatory fraternity was part of the Southern rise of the Republican Party, but in announcing the Wednesday passing away of former Georgia Governor Lester Maddox, the racist, segregationist who led the state in the late 1960s, the networks refused to inform their viewers that he was a Democrat. …

ABC and CNBC even ran full stories which consumed more than two minutes each, yet neither ABC’s Peter Jennings or CNBC’s Don Teague found Maddox’s party affiliation worth mentioning even though both noted how in 1966, as Jennings recalled, “no candidate had a majority, and the state legislature chose Maddox.” …

ABC’s Good Morning America, June 25….

– CNN’s American Morning. Daryn Kagan announced, as transcribed by the MRC’s Ken Shepherd….

– FNC’s Lauren Green at 9:30am EDT….

– NBC’s Today….

CNN at 4pm EDT, Judy Woodruff just before Inside Politics….

CBS Evening News. Dan Rather intoned: “Former Georgia Governor Lester Maddox died today at the age of 87. Maddox first made national headlines in 1964 as a hardline segregationist. He closed and sold his restaurant rather than obey federal civil rights laws and serve black customers. After becoming Governor in 1976, Maddox named some African-Americans to some state jobs.”

– CNBC’s The News with Brian Williams….

NBC Nightly News….

– ABC’s World News Tonight ended with a full story narrated by Peter Jennings, complete with vintage black and white video of Jennings reporting on Maddox, but Jennings refused to mention Maddox’s affiliation with the political party which imposed and enforced segregation for a century.

[234] Article: “Orval Eugene Faubus (1910–1994).” By Roy Reed. Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture. Last updated September 22, 2011. <www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net>

His record was in many ways progressive, but he is most widely remembered for his attempt to block the desegregation of Little Rock’s Central High School in 1957. …

… Pragmatism and ambition drove him toward the Democratic Party as Roosevelt’s New Deal took hold. … He remained a politician for the rest of his life. …

Faubus lost the battle with Eisenhower, but his actions ensured his election as governor four more times. He left office undefeated in 1967 after knocking off one opponent after another….

He tried unsuccessfully three times—in 1970, 1974, and 1986—to recapture the governor’s office. However, a new generation of voters and leaders had moved into place.

[235] Book: The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development (3rd edition). By Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison. W. W. Norton & Company, 1963.

Page 938:

A conference between Faubus and the President failed to produce any result, and Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr., acting on the president’s instructions, sought and obtained an injunction against Faubus, ordering him and the officers of the National Guard to cease forthwith from blocking enforcement of the federal court integration orders. The Governor thereupon withdrew the National Guard. However when Negro students again attempted to enter the high school they were prevented from doing so by a large and ugly-tempered mop.

Accordingly, the President on September 25 dispatched several companies of the United States Army to Little Rock, in effect putting the city under martial law.

[236] Article: “Orval Faubus, Segregation’s Champion, Dies at 84.” By Peter Applebome. New York Times, December 15, 1994. <www.nytimes.com>

Former Gov. Orval E. Faubus of Arkansas, whose defiance of a Federal desegregation order in 1957 led to a school crisis in Little Rock and set the tone for the South’s white resistance to integration, died yesterday at his home in Conway, Ark. He was 84. …

As Governor, Mr. Faubus was regarded as a moderate with little interest in race, less a defining issue in Arkansas than in other Southern states. Early in his term, Arkansas desegregated buses and public transportation. He brought blacks into the ruling circles of the Democratic Party and looked on as some measure of school integration began to take place. Early in 1957, he passed a debated tax increase to raise teachers’ pay, and faced a challenge on the right from a segregationist, Jim Johnson.

[237] Article: “The Civil Rights Realignment: How Race Dominates Presidential Elections.” By Timothy J. Hoffman (Seton Hall University). Political Analysis, May 2015. <scholarship.shu.edu>

Page 10:

After a failed bid for the White House in 1960, Nixon won in 1968 with 301 electoral votes, beating Democrat Hubert Humphrey, and third-party candidate, George Wallace from the American Independent Party (Government Printing Office 1969). Nixon sought votes by expanding upon Barry Goldwater’s “Operation Dixie” to galvanize the support of old segregationist Southern Democrats through his “Southern Strategy” (Greenberg 2000). … Despite Wallace’s supremacy in the South, Nixon’s Southern Strategy paid long-term dividends for Nixon and the Republican Party. The Southern Strategy used states’ rights and other racially tinged appeals to court white conservative voters and exploited dissatisfaction with Johnson’s liberal racial and economic policies.

[238] Book review: “The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’.” By Clay Risen. New York Times, December 10, 2006. <www.nytimes.com>

Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members—and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question.

[239] Commentary: “GOP to Be Reckoned With in South.” By Richard M. Nixon. Washington Post, May 8, 1966. Page E3.

The Republican opportunity in the South is a golden one; but Republicans must not go prospecting for the fool’s gold of racist votes. Southern Republicans must not climb aboard the sinking ship of racial injustice. They should let Southern Democrats sink with it, as they have sailed with it.

Any Republican victory that would come of courting racists, black or white, would be a defeat for our future in the South, and our party in the Nation. It would be a battle won in a lost cause.

The Democratic Party in the South has ridden to power for a century on an annual tide of racist oratory. The Democratic Party runs with the hounds in the North and the hares in the South.

The Republicans, as the South’s party of the future, should reject this hypocritical policy of the past. On this issue, it is time for both Republicans and Democrats to stop talking of what is smart politically and start talking of what is right morally.

A short time ago, in a demagogic appeal to segregationist sympathies, Alabama Democrat Lister Hill proclaimed, “If it hadn’t been for Republicans we would have still been talking. If the Republican members had voted with the South, none of that (civil rights) legislation would have been passed.”

Sen. Hill is correct. Republicans should adhere to the principles of the party of Lincoln. They should leave it to the George Wallaces and the Lister Hills to squeeze the last ounces of political juice from the rotting fruit of racial injustice.

But respect for human rights means respect for the laws which protect those rights. The racial problems which will confront the South in the years ahead must be settled in the courts—not decided in the streets.

[240] Book: The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development (3rd edition). By Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison. W. W. Norton & Company, 1963.

Page 953: “Republican party platforms of 1952 in 1956 were strong and unequivocal in the demand for comprehensive civil rights legislation, while Vice President Richard Nixon was an avowed member of the NAACP.”

[241] Article: “NAACP Seeks More Anti-Bias.” Jet, March 10, 1960. Pages 44-45. <books.google.com>

Pages 44-45:

Steps to insure compliance with anti-bias clauses in government contracts were ordered by Vice-President Richard M. Nixon, chairman of the President’s Committee on Government Contracts, on the eve of a meeting with NAACP executive secretary Roy Wilkins and labor secretary Herbert Hill. Unleashing a double barreled attack on labor union bias last week, the NAACP executives appealed to Mr. Nixon to end discrimination against Negro workers on all levels from sharecroppers to skilled tradesmen.

[242] Paper: “United States v. City of Chicago: Impact Standard Applicable to State and Local Governments Under Title VII.” By Lydia C. Taylor and Francis C. Bagbey. William & Mary Law Review, 1978. Pages 357-392. <scholarship.law.wm.edu>

Pages 357-358:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19641 prohibits employment practices that discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.2 As originally enacted, Title VII exempted state and local governments from the provisions of the Act.3 The United States Commission on Civil Rights, finding that state and local government employment was characterized by many discriminatory procedures, criticized the denial of this federal remedy to employees of those governments.4 Congress recognized the anomaly of extending discriminatory practices while denying assistance to similarly aggrieved public employees5 and responded by adopting the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972,6 thereby amending Title VII to include state and local government employees.7

3. Section 2000e(b)(1) reads in pertinent part: “The term ‘employer’ means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce … but such term does not include (1) … a State or political subdivision thereof….”

4. United States Commission on Civil Rights, For All the People … By All the People 121 (1969) [hereinafter cited as For All the People]. The Commission found that “[m]inority group members are denied equal access to State and local government jobs.” Id. at 118. This exclusion is accomplished, the Commission explained, “by overt discrimination in personnel actions and hiring decisions, a lack of positive action by governments to redress the consequences of past discrimination, and discriminatory and biased treatment on the job.” Id. at 119. Particularly relevant to the subject of this Comment, the Commission suggested that the “[b]arriers to equal employment are greater in police and fire departments than in any other area of State and local government.” Id. Concluding that enforcement of the fourteenth amendment’s prohibition against discriminatory state action had been sporadic and burdensome, the Commission recommended eliminating the exemption of state and local governments from the coverage of Title VII. Id. at 128.

5. The report accompanying the Senate bill, S. 2515, containing a provision expanding the jurisdiction of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include state and local governments, interpreted the findings of For All the People, supra note 4, to indicate that “employment discrimination in State and local governments is more pervasive than in the private sector.” Senate Report No. 415, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 10 (1971) [hereinafter cited as S. Rep. No. 415]. The report accompanying the analogous House bill, H.R. 1746, emphasized the injustice of withholding federal remedies from the victims of constitutionally prohibited discrimination because of their peculiar employment status. House of Representatives Report No. 238, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 17-19 [hereinafter cited as H.R. Rep. No. 238], reprinted in [1972] U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 2137, 2152-54 [hereinafter cited as Ad. News].

6 .Pub. L. No. 92-261, 86 Stat. 103 (amending 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (1970) [hereinafter cited as the 1972 amendments].

For discussion and analysis of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 and its legislative history, see Sape and Hart, Title VII Reconsidered: The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 40 George Washington law Review 824 (1972).

7 .The definition of “person” found in § 2000e(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was amended to include “governments, governmental agencies, [and] political subdivisions.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a) (Supp. V 1975). Section 2000e(b), defining “employer” was amended to include persons employing fifteen or more employees, and the “State or political subdivision thereof” exemption was deleted. Id. § 2000e(b).

One commentator has described the expansion of Title VII to state and local government employees as “the most significant change in the scope of the Act.” Mitchell, An Advocate’s View of the 1972 Amendments to Title VII, 5 Columbia Human Rights Law Review 311, 322 (1973).

[243] Public Law 92-261: “Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972.” 92nd U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Richard Nixon on March 24,1972. <extension.colostate.edu>

[244] Statement: “Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972.” By Richard Nixon, March 25, 1972. <bulk.resource.org>

Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972

Statement by the President Upon Signing the Bill Into Law. March 25, 1972

I am gratified to have signed into law H.R. 1746, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972.

By strengthening and expanding the Government’s powers against discrimination in employment, this legislation is an important step toward true equality on the job front. Where promises have sometimes failed, we may now expect results. …

Under this legislation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Justice Department will now be able to make substantial advances against employment discrimination.

The most significant aspect of this legislation is a new authority consistently advocated by this Administration since 1969—a provision arming the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with power to bring lawsuits in the Federal district courts to enforce the rights guaranteed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Such actions arc to be expedited by the courts whenever possible.

Everyone familiar with the operation of Title VII over the past 7 years has realized that the promise of that historic legislation would remain unfulfilled until some additional, broad-based enforcement machinery was created. This bill provides that enforcement capability.

Additionally, the legislation extends the protections of Title VII to millions of American citizens previously excluded from its coverage. The experiences of both the Justice Department and the EEO C under Title VII have demonstrated that considerable discrimination problems have existed in State and local governments, with small employers, and in some educational institutions. Individuals employed in these areas have not heretofore been protected by Title VII. This bill corrects that defect. …

One of the basic principles of our way of life in America has always been that individuals would be free to pursue the work of their own choice, and to advance in that work, subject only to considerations of their individual qualifications, talents, and energies.

This bill, addressing specific needs in concrete and practical ways, is bound to make a real difference in the lives of great numbers of minority Americans. It thus is another step toward writing our best principles into the day-to-day realities of our economic system.

[245] Article: “The Civil Rights Realignment: How Race Dominates Presidential Elections.” By Timothy J. Hoffman (Seton Hall University). Political Analysis, May 2015. <scholarship.shu.edu>

Page 10:

After a failed bid for the White House in 1960, Nixon won in 1968 with 301 electoral votes, beating Democrat Hubert Humphrey, and third-party candidate, George Wallace from the American Independent Party (Government Printing Office 1969). Nixon sought votes by expanding upon Barry Goldwater’s “Operation Dixie” to galvanize the support of old segregationist Southern Democrats through his “Southern Strategy” (Greenberg 2000). … Despite Wallace’s supremacy in the South, Nixon’s Southern Strategy paid long-term dividends for Nixon and the Republican Party. The Southern Strategy used states’ rights and other racially tinged appeals to court white conservative voters and exploited dissatisfaction with Johnson’s liberal racial and economic policies.

[246] The following citation makes similar claims:

[247] Commentary: “The Republican Party’s Race Problem and Strom Thurmond’s Legacy.” By Jordan Michael Smith. Daily Beast, September 22, 2012. <www.thedailybeast.com>

“The plan was to attract Americans to the GOP by opposing busing and desegregating schools, advocating states’ rights and prioritizing law and order.”

[248] Commentary: “GOP to Be Reckoned With in South.” By Richard M. Nixon. Washington Post, May 8, 1966. Page E3.

Another foundation of the party of the future in the South is a new concept of states rights. Republicans reject the old concept that belongs to the party of the past.

Southern Democrats have used states rights as instruments of reaction; Republicans support states rights as instruments of progress. Southern Democrats insisted on states rights so that they might avoid state obligations; Republicans support states rights because they want the states, rather than the Federal Government, to assume responsibilities—in education, transportation, health and human welfare.

The best answer to bigger government in Washington is better government in the states. As a positive step toward this goal, Republicans are introducing legislation remitting to the states a fixed percentage of Federal income tax collections. This will provide the states with the means to deal with their own problems in their own way—without Federal domination and control.

[249] Commentary: “The Republican Party’s Race Problem and Strom Thurmond’s Legacy.” By Jordan Michael Smith. Daily Beast, September 22, 2012. <www.thedailybeast.com>

It was not until the mid-1960s that the South turned from blue to red. In 1964 and ‘65, Democratic President Lyndon Johnson introduced and signed the strongest civil-rights bills yet enacted by Congress. The 1964 Republican presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, voted against the laws and took up the mantle of “states’ rights.” Again the standard-bearer was Thurmond, who campaigned hard for the conservative icon. Republicans won South Carolina and four other Southern states, the best showing in the South for the party since reconstruction.

Goldwater lost badly, but Richard Nixon pioneered the ‘Southern strategy,’ which Crespino persuasively argues is misnamed because it was designed to appeal to the prejudices of both Southerners and a newly conservative Sun Belt. The plan was to attract Americans to the GOP by opposing busing and desegregating schools, advocating states’ rights and prioritizing law and order. … The strategy worked brilliantly. Today Democrats cannot hope to compete in the South, which is now as solidly Republican as it was once Democratic.

[250] Calculated with the dataset: “Uniform Crime Reports, Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter, 1960-2012.” U.S. Department of Justice. Accessed July 26, 2012 at <www.ucrdatatool.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[251] Article: “United States, Social Services.” Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004.

“In Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County (North Carolina) Board of Education (1971), the Supreme Court mandated busing to achieve racially integrated schools, a remedy that often required long commutes for African American children living in largely segregated enclaves.”

[252] Book: Education and Learning in America. By Catherine Reef. Facts on File, 2009.

Page 238:”Busing proved to be unpopular as well with black parents, who often objected to the long rides their children had to take and the fact that it was hard for their children to see friends or participate in extracurricular activities when they lived far away from their schools.”

[253] Book: The Judiciary: The Supreme Court in the Governmental Process (10th edition). By Henry J. Abraham. New York University Press, 1996.

A series of cases came up, headed by one for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, Metropolitan School District, in which a group of parents contended that the “color-blind” ruling of the Supreme Court in the Brown case meant that assignments of students would have to be made on just such a “color-blind” basis, and that, accordingly, busing to achieve integration was patently unconstitutional. In April 1971, speaking for his unanimous Court, Chief Justice Burger—in what must have surprised not only a large segment of the country but, specifically, the land’s most highly placed opponent to busing, President Nixon58 —specifically upheld not only busing but also racial quotas, pairing or grouping of schools, and gerrymandering of attendance zones as well as other devices designed to “remove all vestiges of state imposed segregation…. Desegregation plans cannot be limited to the walk-in school,” he declared.59 The Court’s controversial decision stopped short of ordering the elimination of all-black schools or of requiring racial balance in the schools. (And, at that point, it made clear that the instant decision did not apply to Northern-style de facto segregation, based on neighborhood patterns.)60 But it said that the existence of all-black schools created a presumption of discrimination and held that federal district judges—to whom it gave enormously broad discretion—may indeed use racial quotas61 as a guide in fashioning desegregation decrees. …

… The latter decisions, however, went further by ordering cross-district busing between the core city (usually heavily black) and the surrounding suburbs (almost always predominantly white). Thus, in 1972 Judge Robert R. Merhige, Jr.—in a 325-page opinion (!)—had ordered the merger of the public schools in the City of Richmond, Virginia (then with a black school enrollment of 70 percent) with those of suburban Chesterfield and Henrico counties (almost 91 percent white).66 The uproar caused by that decision was matched only by a similar one handed down for the Detroit area.

[254] Article: “Busing of Pupils Sways Votes in Town Election.” By Fred Ferretti. New York Times, May 14, 1972. <www.nytimes.com>

“Montclair’s busing program, devised by its new Superintendent of Schools, James Adams, divides the town’s elementary schools into three general clusters. In kindergarten through the fourth grade, children will be bused one year out of those five school years; then, beginning with the fifth grade, students will attend three middle schools. Some will be bused.”

[255] Book: The Changing American Mind: How and why American Public Opinion Changed Between 1960 and 1998. By William G. Mayer. University of Michigan Press, 1993.

Page 369:

Table 3.5: Trends in Public Attitudes about Governmental Actions to Prohibit Racial Discrimination

1. NORC [National Opinion Research Center]: “Do you think white students and Negro/black students should go to the same schools or to separate schools?”

Whites Only … Feb.–Apr. 1972 … Same [=] 85% … Separate [=] 14% … Don’t Know [=] 2% …

Blacks only … Feb.–Apr. 1972 … Same [=] 92% … Separate [=] 4% … Don’t Know [=] 4% …

Page 372:

Table 3.6: Trends in Public Attitudes toward Busing and Affirmative Action

1a. AIPO: “Have you heard or read about the busing of Negro and white school children from one school district to another? [If Yes] In general, do you favor or oppose the busing of Negro and white school children from one school district to another?” …

Oct. 1971 … Favor [=] 16% … Oppose [=] 74% … Don’t Know [=] 6% … Haven’t Heard [=] 4%

[256] Webpage: “Timeline Of Polling History: Events That Shaped the United States, and the World.” Gallup. Accessed August 17, 2016 at <www.gallup.com>

1970 Busing and School Integration. Widespread court-ordered busing to achieve school integration draws numerous protests, with 86% opposing busing from one school district to another.”

[257] Report: “Busing Reappraisal.” Congressional Quarterly Researcher, December 26, 1975. <library.cqpress.com>

Busing, it is said, destroys neighborhood schools, forces youngsters to travel long distances to hostile environments, places them in uncomfortable and dangerous situations where learning is virtually impossible, removes parental control over their education and discriminates against the urban poor.

… Many of the people who once supported busing as educationally and socially beneficial to both races are questioning or even forsaking it as a remedy.

For the 1976 presidential contenders, outright advocacy of busing for desegregation is considered political suicide. Public-opinion polls indicate that the vast majority of Americans strongly oppose such busing. In a recent national survey, the Gallup organization found that only 18 per cent of those interviewed favored busing. Whites rejected it by a margin of 75 to 15 per cent and blacks by 47 to 40 per cent. Seventy-two per cent of those contacted said they would support a constitutional amendment to prohibit it.

[258] Article: “How Racism Explains Republicans’ Rise in the South.” By Max Ehrenfreund. Washington Post, November 24, 2015. <www.washingtonpost.com>

At the end of the World War II, nearly 80 percent of white Southerners were Democrats, compared to 40 percent of whites in the rest of the country. By the Reagan administration, white Southerners were no more likely to identify as Democrats than whites elsewhere. Today, the white vote in the South is almost solidly Republican.

The question of race

For decades, Gallup has been asking Americans whether they would consider voting for a black presidential candidate. White Southerners who said they would were no less likely to call themselves Democrats after the spring of 1963 than before. But many of those who said they wouldn’t vote for a black candidate left the party.

NOTE: The statements above provide an uncritical report of the draft paper shown in the footnote below.

[259] Draft paper: “Why did the Democrats Lose the South? Using New Data to Resolve an Old Debate.” By Ilyana Kuziemko and Ebonya Washington. New York University, Wilf Family Department of Politics, February 27, 2015 <politics.as.nyu.edu>

Page 1:

After nearly a century of loyalty and despite the general stability of Americans’ party identification in adulthood, Southern whites left the Democratic party en masse in the second half of the twentieth century.1 As illustrated in Figure 1, at mid-century white Southerners were 25 percentage points more likely to identify as Democrats than were other whites, a gap that disappeared by the mid 1980s and has since flipped in sign.2 Despite the massive, concurrent enfranchisement of Southern blacks, who overwhelmingly favored the Democrats from 1964 onward, the resulting shifts in aggregate Southern political outcomes were stark: to take but one example, in 1960, all U.S. senators from the South were Democrats, whereas today all are Republican.

This paper explores why this shift occurred, and in particular quantifies the role of racial attitudes among Southern whites. We suspect that many readers are presently questioning the need to read further, given the strong presumption that racially conservative Southerners’ reaction to the Democratic Party’s Civil Rights initiatives of the 1960s explains most if not all of this shift.

NOTES:

  • On August 20, 2016, Just Facts contacted the authors of this paper to request some of their primary source data, but they have not responded. Just Facts has serious concerns about this paper, including oblique methodology, misleading verbiage, omitted variable bias, and causative fallacies. For details about these last two issues, which are common flaws of social policy research, see the introductory notes of Just Facts’ research on education.
  • Figure 1 cited on page 1 of this paper (and shown on page 31) reveals that the share of Democrats among whites in the South is about 20%, as compared to about 30% in other parts of the country. Note that the authors set the primary vertical axis of the graph so that it begins around 20%:

Share of Democrats among Whites in Confederate and non-Confederate States 

Page 4:

We find that … racial attitudes explain the entire white Southern shift away from the Democrats. That Southern white political preferences are dominated by racial attitudes helps explain how the poorest part of the country now serves as the base for the anti-redistributive political party.6

6 A recent policy manifestation of this pattern is the refusal of almost all Southern states to expand Medicaid coverage to poor adults under the Affordable Care Act.

[260] The following two citations make similar claims:

[261] Commentary: “Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant.” By Bob Herbert. New York Times, October 6, 2005. <query.nytimes.com>

The truth is that there was very little that was subconscious about the G.O.P.’s relentless appeal to racist whites. Tired of losing elections, it saw an opportunity to renew itself by opening its arms wide to white voters who could never forgive the Democratic Party for its support of civil rights and voting rights for blacks.

The payoff has been huge. Just as the Democratic Party would have been crippled in the old days without the support of the segregationist South, today’s Republicans would have only a fraction of their current political power without the near-solid support of voters who are hostile to blacks.

[262] Book review: “The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’.” By Clay Risen. New York Times, December 10, 2006. <www.nytimes.com>

Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members—and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question.

[263] Dataset: “Gallup ‘Black President’ Question by Race, Political Party Preference, and Census Region, 1958, 1999, 2012, 2015.” Compiled for Just Facts by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at Cornell University, September 15, 2016. <ropercenter.cornell.edu>

1958 … White … South [=] 8% … [Sample Size =] 327 …

1999 … White … South [=] 95% … [Sample Size =] 237 …

NOTE: The polling data is posted here.

[264] Report: “June Wave 1 Final Topline.” By Jeff Jones and Lydia Saad. Gallup, June 2-7, 2015. <www.gallup.com>

Page 2 (in PDF):

(Asked of a half sample [in 2015]) Between now and the 2016 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates—their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [ITEMS A-K READ IN ORDER], would you vote for that person?

Page 4 (in PDF):

C. Black

2015 Jun 2-7

2012 Jun 7-10 …

1999 Feb 19-21 …

1958 Jul 30-Aug 4 ^ …

^ WORDING: “…if your party nominated a generally well-qualified man for president and he happened to be a Negro, would you vote for him?”

[265] Book: The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South. By Byron E Shafer and Richard Johnston. Harvard University Press, 2006.

Table 2.1. Social Class and the Coming of Southern Republicanism: The House …

Table 2.1A does contain what will prove to be the overall story of partisan change among Southern whites during all the postwar years. Yet its aggregation still very much masks the extent of the change, even in just this one institution, because it still includes many who could not vote Republican for the House of Representatives because they had no Republican candidate. Accordingly, the analysis should really be restricted to white Southerners who possessed both a Democratic and a Republican congressional alternative. When this restriction is imposed, the same patterns recur, writ larger still. …

Table 2.3. Social Class and the Coming of Southern Republicanism: The Presidency …

Yet despite clear differences in their electoral districting, the Senate and the House often behaved in highly parallel ways…. If we compare the mean Republican vote in contested districts across the postwar years, the two bodies are effectively indistinguishable (Figure 2.1A). …

In the 1950 election, for example, the one before Dwight Eisenhower energized a Republican presidential vote in the South, his party could manage no House challengers at all in Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and South Carolina. That was the situation in the old South.

NOTE: The sample sizes for the data points in these tables range from 59 to 423. This equates to a margin of error of ±13% to ±5% with a 95% level of confidence. The average sample size is 208, which equates to a margin of error of ± 7%. [“Margin of Error Calculator.” ComRes, 2017. Accessed August 13, 2016 at <www.comres.co.uk>]

[266] Book: The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South. By Byron E Shafer and Richard Johnston. Harvard University Press, 2006.

Table 2.1. Social Class and the Coming of Southern Republicanism: The House …

Table 2.1A does contain what will prove to be the overall story of partisan change among Southern whites during all the postwar years. Yet its aggregation still very much masks the extent of the change, even in just this one institution, because it still includes many who could not vote Republican for the House of Representatives because they had no Republican candidate. Accordingly, the analysis should really be restricted to white Southerners who possessed both a Democratic and a Republican congressional alternative. When this restriction is imposed, the same patterns recur, writ larger still. …

Table 2.3. Social Class and the Coming of Southern Republicanism: The Presidency …

Yet despite clear differences in their electoral districting, the Senate and the House often behaved in highly parallel ways…. If we compare the mean Republican vote in contested districts across the postwar years, the two bodies are effectively indistinguishable (Figure 2.1A). …

In the 1950 election, for example, the one before Dwight Eisenhower energized a Republican presidential vote in the South, his party could manage no House challengers at all in Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and South Carolina. That was the situation in the old South.

NOTE: The sample sizes for the data points in these tables range from 59 to 423. This equates to a margin of error of ±13% to ±5% with a 95% level of confidence. The average sample size is 208, which equates to a margin of error of ± 7%. [“Margin of Error Calculator.” ComRes, 2017. Accessed August 13, 2016 at <www.comres.co.uk>]

[267] Dataset: “Gallup ‘Black President’ Question by Race, Political Party Preference, and Census Region, 1958, 1999, 2012, 2015.” Compiled for Just Facts by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at Cornell University, September 15, 2016. <ropercenter.cornell.edu>

1958 … White … South [=] 8% … [Sample Size =] 327 …

1999 … White … South [=] 95% … [Sample Size =] 237 …

NOTE: The polling data is posted here.

[268] Report: “June Wave 1 Final Topline.” By Jeff Jones and Lydia Saad. Gallup, June 2-7, 2015. <www.gallup.com>

Page 2 (in PDF):

(Asked of a half sample [in 2015]) Between now and the 2016 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates—their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [ITEMS A-K READ IN ORDER], would you vote for that person?

Page 4 (in PDF):

C. Black

2015 Jun 2-7

2012 Jun 7-10 …

1999 Feb 19-21 …

1958 Jul 30-Aug 4 ^ …

^ WORDING: “…if your party nominated a generally well-qualified man for president and he happened to be a Negro, would you vote for him?”

[269] Webpage: “Exit Polls 2012: How the Vote has Shifted.” Washington Post. Last updated November 6, 2012. <www.washingtonpost.com>

Questions

% of Voters

Income

Obama ‘12

Romney

Obama ‘08

McCain

Income

41%

Under $50k

60%

38%

60%

38%

31

$50k –$99,999

46

52

49

49

28

$100k or more

44

54

49

49

[270] Book: The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South. By Byron E Shafer and Richard Johnston. Harvard University Press, 2006.

“Table 2.3. Social Class and the Coming of Southern Republicanism: The Presidency”

NOTES:

  • The sample sizes for the data points in this table range from 83 to 285. This equates to a margin of error of ±11% to ±6% with a 95% level of confidence. The average sample size is 186, which equates to a margin of error of ± 7%. [“Margin of Error Calculator.” ComRes, 2017. Accessed August 18, 2016 at <www.comres.co.uk>]
  • Data from this table is graphed here:
White Southern Votes for Republicans

[271] Article: “Politics and Intergroup Relations in the United States.” By Murray Friedman. American Jewish Year Book, 1973. Pages 139-193. <www.bjpa.org>

Page 166: “According to Lipset and Raab, over 90 per cent of the black vote in slum areas was for [Democrat George] McGovern [in the 1968 presidential election]; but it was 80 per cent in other city areas and only 67 per cent in suburbia.”

[272] Book: The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South. By Byron E Shafer and Richard Johnston. Harvard University Press, 2006.

Nevertheless, in the aggregate, the South had managed a per capita income only half that of the rest of the nation at the beginning of World War 11-at $3,002 in constant 1940 dollars, a mere 53 percent of the non-Southern figure. The 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s were all explosive by this measure, and the income gap was substantially closed by 1980, at $14,138 or 85 percent….

The economic South thus became a sharply different place within a historically short period of time. Once, within living memory of most of those who experienced the change, the Southern economy had been so backward as to be unable to sustain the familiar divisions of an industrial society-by class, by occupation, and by income-divisions that had come to characterize politics outside the South.

[273] See Just Facts’ research on:

[274] Paper: “Gun Ownership and Social Gun Culture.” By Bindu Kalesan and others. Injury Prevention, June 29, 2015. <injuryprevention.bmj.com>

Page 1:

We assessed gun ownership rates in 2013 across the USA and the association between exposure to a social gun culture and gun ownership. We used data from a nationally representative sample of 4000 US adults, from 50 states and District of Columbia, aged >18 years to assess gun ownership and social gun culture performed in October 2013. State-level firearm policy information was obtained from the Brady Law Center and Injury Prevention and Control Center. …

We used data from a survey by YouGov … among individuals aged >18 years in USA in 2013. YouGov is a nonpartisan research firm that recruits its panel online through a polling website and develops nationally representative surveys used widely for research.7 A description of YouGov is presented in online supplementary appendix I. YouGov invited 11,471 potential participants, out of which 5,392 (47.0%) started the survey and eventually 4,622 (40.3%) completed the survey. Using the 4622 participants, propensity score matching with 2010 American Community Survey sample with selection within strata by weighted sampling with replacements was performed to obtain a nationally representative population. Out of the 4622 respondents, 4000 were matched and identified to be nationally representative. This study was performed using the 4000 respondents who were identified as a nationally representative cohort.

Page 2: “Gun ownership was the lowest in Northeast states, while south US census-defined states had highest rates.”

[276] Article: “Politics and Intergroup Relations in the United States.” By Murray Friedman. American Jewish Year Book, 1973. Pages 139-193. <www.bjpa.org>

Page 139: “According to an extensive postelection survey conducted for CBS, Roman Catholic voters for the first time in the country’s history selected a Republican candidate [Richard Nixon], by a margin of 53 to 46 per cent.”

Page 147: “Angered by [Democrat George] McGovern’s stand on welfare, busing, and other civil-rights issues directly affecting their neighborhoods and jobs, as well as his position on abortion, drugs, proposed ‘surrender’ to Communist Vietnam, and amnesty for draft dodgers, ethnic groups shunned the Democratic national ticket.”

[277] Report: “America’s Changing Religious Landscape.” By Gregory Smith and others. Pew Research Center, May 12, 2015. <www.pewforum.org>

Page 6:

The latest survey was conducted in English and Spanish among a nationally representative sample of 35,071 adults interviewed by telephone, on both cellphones and landlines, from June 4-Sept. 30, 2014. Findings based on the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 0.6 percentage points. The survey is estimated to cover 97% of the non-institutionalized U.S. adult population; 3% of U.S. adults are not reachable by telephone or do not speak English or Spanish well enough to participate in the survey. (See Appendix A for more information on how the survey was conducted, margins of error for subgroups analyzed in this report and additional details.)

Page 86: “Christian … Evangelical … 2014 … Among those who live in the … Northeast [=] 13% … Midwest [=] 26% … South [=] 34% … West [=] 22%”

[278] Article: “5 facts About Abortion.” By Michael Lipka. Pew Research Center, June 27, 2016. <www.pewresearch.org>

Views of Having an Abortion, by Religion

% of each religious group that says having an abortion is morally wrong

White evangelical Protestant [=] 75

Hispanic Catholic [=] 64

Black Protestant [=] 58

White Catholic [=] 53

White mainline Protestant [=] 38

Unaffiliated [=] 25

[279] Commentary: “Whitewash.” By Frank Rich. New York Magazine, May 5, 2013. <nymag.com>

“You also have to disregard the political game plan codified by Kevin Phillips, the Nixon political strategist whose book The Emerging Republican Majority helped cement the party’s ‘southern strategy’ of mining white backlash to the civil-rights movement.”

[280] Book: The Emerging Republican Majority. By Kevin Phillips. Originally published in 1969. Princeton University Press, 2015. With a general editor’s introduction by Sean Wilentz and prefaces written by Kevin Phillips in 1970 and 2014.

Preface to the Princeton University Press Edition

I had left the Nixon administration in early 1970, at twenty-nine years old, never again to serve in government or in any Republican party role. …

Kevin Phillips

January, 2014

Preface to the 1970 Paperback Edition

When the results of the 1966 elections convinced me that the New Deal Democratic era was about to end in favor of an emerging Republican majority, I decided to turn a hobby into a book. A first version was complete in October, 1967, and by Christmas I had found a publisher. …

But it was decided to postpone publication until after the 1968 presidential election results were in hand. I used the first eight months of 1968 to enlarge and rewrite the book. By Election Day, all the chapters were set up, awaiting only the actual 1968 statistics to ratify and confirm the book’s structure and trend projections. Happily, virtually all the data meshed with the trends I had projected, otherwise the logic and structure of the chapters and subchapters would have come unglued. By early January, 1969, the book was complete. …

In June of 1968, I approached the Nixon campaign for a job premised on my voting behavioral research and expertise. I submitted some of the material from my book and was signed on in July, eventually becoming special assistant to Nixon campaign manager John N. Mitchell.

Statistics and analyses from the book were used in campaign memoranda, and as Roscoe Drummond noted in an October, 1968 newspaper column, the Nixon press office distributed excerpts from the book (short summaries of the cyclical theory of an emerging Republican majority).

After the 1968 election was over, I added its results to the appropriate chapters. I want to make clear that the completed manuscript (sent to the publisher in mid-January, 1969) was in no sense cleared or censored by the Nixon Administration. ….

Now for the inhibitions under which I wrote the book. As I completed the final version in November, December and January 1968–1969, I knew that I would be in the new GOP Administration; and not unreasonably, I had been advised to keep away from policy matters and to make no policy recommendations. Nor did I feel free to criticize the Republican Party. So I wrote a clinical book, projecting trends and not moralizing over their occurrence. …

Kevin P. Phillips

Washington, D.C.

January, 1970

NOTE: Phillips was born on November 30, 1940.

[281] Article/Commentary: “Nixon’s Southern Strategy ‘It’s All In the Charts’.” By James Boyd (Director of the Fund for Investigative Journalism). New York Times, May 17, 1970. <www.nytimes.com>

“Intellectuals in politics usually get a good press, but the early chroniclers of the Nixon era have come down pretty hard on Kevin Phillips, who has just concluded a month stint as special assistant to Attorney General John Mitchell, resigning last month to become a syndicated newspaper columnist.”

[282] Book: The Emerging Republican Majority. By Kevin Phillips. Originally published in 1969. Princeton University Press, 2015. With a general editor’s introduction by Sean Wilentz and prefaces written by Kevin Phillips in 1970 and 2014.

Preface to the 1970 Paperback Edition

Publication of The Emerging Republican Majority in July, 1969, triggered quite a hullabaloo. Over the next six months, critics and observers were to call it everything from “baloney”1 to “the most talked about book of the year”2 to “the most important political book of the decade.”3 Given this degree of controversy, it seems useful to set the record straight—to tell what the book is and is not, how it took shape and the part it played in 1968–70 events. For this reason, I have decided to write a new preface to replace the old one written just after the 1968 election. …

The book was not and is not a “strategy”—Northern, Southern or Western. It is a portrait of American presidential voting behavior from Civil War days to 1968. In the first (1967) draft, the 1968 upheaval was a projection of pre-1968 trends; this version tries to project 1960–68 and existing trends forward into the Seventies.

If it were a strategy, it would be phrased instructionally: the GOP should, ought to and so forth. But there is none of this. The book is a projection—and one with a high batting average to date. Read it as such. …

Next the book’s connection with the 1968 Nixon presidential campaign and with the ensuing Republican Administration: In June of 1968, I approached the Nixon campaign for a job premised on my voting behavioral research and expertise. I submitted some of the material from my book and was signed on in July, eventually becoming special assistant to Nixon campaign manager John N. Mitchell. …

The book does not represent—or purport to represent—the past or present “strategy” of the Nixon Administration. Critics who say it does ignore the fact that it makes no strategic or policy recommendations. If its statistics, analyses and projection suggest courses of action, they merely parallel the role of market research from which an advertising campaign can be blueprinted.

… I knew that I would be in the new GOP Administration; and not unreasonably, I had been advised to keep away from policy matters and to make no policy recommendations. Nor did I feel free to criticize the Republican Party. So I wrote a clinical book, projecting trends and not moralizing over their occurrence.

Inasmuch as the book does project relatively low presidential Republicanism among Negroes and in the Northeast, I have been accused of “writing off” both segments. This is not true. I simply projected existing trends perhaps with more candor than is usual. …

The emerging Republican majority of the Nineteen-Seventies is centered in the South, the West and in the “Middle American” urban-suburban districts. Whatever limousine-liberalism says, this is not reactionary country. …

The emerging Republican majority I hope for is in this tradition: another popular upheaval which over-throws the obsolescent “liberal” ideology and interests of today’s Establishment. Policies able to resurrect the vitality and commitment of Middle America—from sharecroppers and truckers to the alienated lower middle class—will do far more for the entire nation than the environmental manipulation, social boondoggling, community agitation and incendiary promises of the Nineteen-Sixties. …

Kevin P. Phillips Washington, D.C. January, 1970

[283] Commentary: “Whitewash.” By Frank Rich. New York Magazine, May 5, 2013. <nymag.com>

You also have to disregard the political game plan codified by Kevin Phillips, the Nixon political strategist whose book The Emerging Republican Majority helped cement the party’s “southern strategy” of mining white backlash to the civil-rights movement. Speaking to the Times in 1970, Phillips said, “The more Negros who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are.”

[284] Article/Commentary: “Nixon’s Southern Strategy ‘It’s All In the Charts’.” By James Boyd (Director of the Fund for Investigative Journalism). New York Times, May 17, 1970. <www.nytimes.com>

Intellectuals in politics usually get a good press, but the early chroniclers of the Nixon era have come down pretty hard on Kevin Phillips, who has just concluded a month stint as special assistant to Attorney General John Mitchell, resigning last month to become a syndicated newspaper columnist. Author Joe McGinnis, in “The Selling of the President 1968,” portrays Phillips as a quack, an absurdly misprogrammed human computer filled with sawdust. Richard Harris, in “Justice,” depicts him as a bumptious ass, an insensitive Neanderthal with almost sadistic social concepts. Senate Republican Leader Hugh Scott dismisses his book as “baloney,” and 10 other senators, including Charles Percy, George McGovern, Marlow Cook and Charles Mathias, have joined in a bipartisan assault on his theories. The [Nixon] Administration feigns to disown him, though during the 1968 campaign Nixon press chief Herb Klein covertly circulated key segments of the Phillips book. …

On Negroes and the G.O.P.:

“All the talk about Republicans making inroads into the Negro vote is persiflage. Even ‘Jake the Snake’ [Senator Jacob K. Javits] only gets 20 per cent. From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 per cent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that … but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”

NOTE: The ellipses in the above quote is in the article itself.

[285] Book: The Emerging Republican Majority. By Kevin Phillips. Originally published in 1969. Princeton University Press, 2015. With a general editor’s introduction by Sean Wilentz and prefaces written by Kevin Phillips in 1970 and 2014.

Preface to the Princeton University Press Edition: “I had left the Nixon administration in early 1970, at twenty-nine years old, never again to serve in government or in any Republican party role.”

[286] Article/Commentary: “Nixon’s Southern Strategy ‘It’s All In the Charts’.” By James Boyd (Director of the Fund for Investigative Journalism). New York Times, May 17, 1970. <www.nytimes.com>

On Negroes and the G.O.P.:

“All the talk about Republicans making inroads into the Negro vote is persiflage. Even ‘Jake the Snake’ [Senator Jacob K. Javits] only gets 20 per cent. From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 per cent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that … but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.” …

“This is not a strategy or a blueprint,” insists Phillips, “just the deciphering of an inexorable trend that will run its course and then be displaced by a new cycle whose origins are already with us, somewhere.”

NOTES:

  • The ellipses in the above quote about race is in the article itself.
  • Unlike most other content in the Times’ archive, this piece contains multiple notes that state: “Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.” This signifies that it is not the property of the Times.

[287] Webpage: “About Us.” Fund for Investigative Journalism. Accessed August 19, 2016 at <fij.org>

The Fund for Investigative Journalism was founded in 1969 by the late Philip M. Stern, a public-spirited philanthropist who devoted his life “to balancing the scales of justice,” in the words of a friend. Stern was convinced small amounts of money invested in the work of determined journalists would yield enormous results in the fight against racism, poverty, corporate greed and governmental corruption.

[288] Article: “Politics and Intergroup Relations in the United States.” By Murray Friedman. American Jewish Year Book, 1973. Pages 139-193. <www.bjpa.org>

Page 163:

A growing sense of black group identity continued as a powerful force, often turning into a quest for separatism. Black fraternities made significant gains at a time when white fraternities were slipping. Increasingly, black economists, journalists, ministers, teachers, accountants, lawyers, psychiatrists, and even nuns were leaving integrated professional organizations to form their own groups. Professor Charles L. Sanders of Atlanta University and Hunter College reported to the National Association of Black Social Workers the formation of at least 22 all-black national professional organization.

[289] Article: “Politics and Intergroup Relations in the United States.” By Murray Friedman. American Jewish Year Book, 1973. Pages 139-193. <www.bjpa.org>

Blacks strived for unity during the year, but the effort only underlined existing sharp divisions. This was dramatically demonstrated at the National Black Political convention, held in Gary, Ind., on March 10-12, and attended by over 4,000 delegates from across the country. The meeting was convened on the premise that blacks were beginning to hold the balance of power in a number of states; that it therefore was possible for them to form a political entity through which black political and economic demands could be realized or maximized A key issue was whether blacks should continue working on their agenda within the two major political parties, or develop an independent black politics. Militants like Imamu Baraka, one of the three convention co-chairmen, wanted to set up a Black Political party, but initially agreed not to press the issue since this would polarize the convention.87 Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm (D., N.Y.) indicated she was available as a candidate around whom blacks and others might rally.88

NAACP entered the convention with a public attack on the proposed preamble to the National Black Political Agenda which preached racial superiority.89 The platform finally adopted called for “a permanent political movement, the reshaping of American institutions, proportional representation in political office, full employment, local control over police, reparations, and a guaranteed annual income.”

[290] Article: “Black Caucus: Whites Not Allowed.” By Josephine Hearn. Politico, January 22, 2007. <www.politico.com>

As a white liberal running in a majority African American district, Tennessee Democrat Stephen I. Cohen made a novel pledge on the campaign trail last year: If elected, he would seek to become the first white member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Now that he’s a freshman in Congress, Cohen has changed his plans. He said he has dropped his bid after several current and former caucus members made it clear to him that whites need not apply. …

… [F]ormer Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, had circulated a memo telling members it was “critical” that the group remain “exclusively African-American.”

Other members, including the new chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., and Clay’s son, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., agreed.

“Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. … It’s time to move on,” the younger Clay said. “It’s an unwritten rule. It’s understood. It’s clear.” …

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who is white, tried in 1975 when he was a sophomore representative and the group was only six years old.

“Half my Democratic constituents were African American. I felt we had interests in common as far as helping people in poverty,” Stark said. “They had a vote, and I lost. They said the issue was that I was white, and they felt it was important that the group be limited to African Americans.”

[291] Article: “Students at Claremont Colleges Refuse to Live with White People.” By Elliot Dordick. Claremont Independent, August 9, 2016. <claremontindependent.com>

A group of students at the Claremont Colleges are in search of a roommate for next year, but insist that the roommate not be white. Karé Ureña (PZ ‘18) posted on Facebook that non-white students in need of housing arrangements should reach out to either her or two other students with whom she plans to live in an off-campus house. The post states that “POC [people of color] only” will be considered for this living opportunity. “I don’t want to live with any white folks,” Ureña added. …

“White people always mad when they don’t feel included but at the end of the day y’all are damaging asf [as f*ck] and if a POC feels they need to protect themselves from that toxic environment THEY CAN! …” noted Terriyonna Smith (PZ ‘18), an Africana Studies major and Resident Assistant (RA) for the 2016-2017 year. …

Another Resident Assistant and Black Student Union member, Jessica Saint-Fleur (PZ ‘18) added to the thread of comments, “White people have cause [sic] so much mf [motherf*cking] trauma on these campuses … why in the world would I want to live with that? Bring that into my home? A place that is supposed to be safe for me?”

[292] Article: “College Denounces Black Student’s Non-White Roommate Request.” Associated Press, August 12, 2016. <www.washingtonpost.com>

“Pitzer President Melvin Oliver calls the post ‘inconsistent with our mission and values.’ He says the college wants to engage ‘complex intercultural issues, not to isolate individuals on the basis of any protected status.’

[293] Article: “California College Denounces Black Student’s Facebook Post Seeking Non-White Roommates Only.” Associated Press, August 12, 2016. <www.dailymail.co.uk>

“While the college has denounced the post as inconsistent with its views, it does not appear any disciplinary action has been taken against Urena.”

[294] Public Law 88-352: “Civil Rights Act of 1964.” 88th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964. <www.eeoc.gov>

Title VII—Equal Employment Opportunity …

Section 703: Discrimination Because of Race, Color, Religion, Sex, or National Origin

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. …

[295] Public Law 88-352: “Civil Rights Act of 1964.” 88th U.S. Congress. Signed into law by Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964. <www.eeoc.gov>

Title VII—Equal Employment Opportunity …

Section 703: Discrimination Because of Race, Color, Religion, Sex, or National Origin …

(j) Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to this title to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area.

[296] U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter VI, Section 2000e-2: “The Public Health And Welfare, Civil Rights, Equal Employment Opportunities, Unlawful Employment Practices.” Accessed August 29, 2016 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) Employer practices

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. …

(j) Preferential treatment not to be granted on account of existing number or percentage imbalance

Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to this subchapter to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area.

[297] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed January 18, 2016 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. …

Department of Justice

The mission of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

[298] Webpage: “Chronology of Swearing-In Events.” Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Accessed August 23, 2013 at <www.inaugural.senate.gov>

November 22, 1963, Swearing-In of Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy …

January 20, 1965, Forty-Fifth Inaugural Ceremonies, Lyndon Baines Johnson …

January 20, 1969, Forty-Sixth Inaugural Ceremonies, Richard M. Nixon

[299] Statement of U.S. Senator Joseph S. Clark (D-PA). Congressional Record, April 8, 1964. Pages 7206-7207. <ia600502.us.archive.org>

I have also had prepared by the Department of Justice a summary statement in rebuttal to the argument made by the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Hill] to the effect that title VII would undermine the vested rights of seniority, that it would deny to unions their representation rights under the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act; that the operation of title VII would in some way affect adversely the rights of organized labor; and that title VII would impose the requirement of racial balance.

I submit that those assertions of the able senior Senator from Alabama are untenable.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rebuttal to the argument prepared at my request by the Department of Justice be printed in full in the Record at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Reply to Arguments Made by Senator Hill. …

Finally, it has been asserted title VII would impose a requirement for “racial balance.” This is incorrect. There is no provision, either in title VII or in any other part of this bill that requires or authorizes any Federal agency or Federal court to require preferential treatment for any individual or any group for the purpose of achieving racial balance. No employer is required to hire an individual because that individual is a Negro. No employer is required to maintain any ratio of Negroes to whites, Jews to gentiles, Italians to English, or women to men. The same is true of labor organizations. On the contrary, any deliberate attempt to maintain a given balance would almost certainly run afoul of title VII because it would involve a failure or refusal to hire some individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. What title VII seeks to accomplish, what the civil rights bill seeks to accomplish is equal treatment for all.

[300] Report: “Survey of Federal Laws and Regulations Mandating Affirmative Action Goals, Set-asides, or Other Preference Based on Race, Gender, or Ethnicity.” By Charles V. Dale. Congressional Research Service, September 7, 2004. <digital.library.unt.edu>

Pages 1-2:

The purpose of this report is to provide a broad, but by no means exhaustive, survey of federal statutes and regulations that specifically refer to race, gender, or ethnicity as factors to be considered in the administration of any federal program. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, goals, timetables, set-asides, and quotas, as those terms are generally (however imperfectly) understood. Based on several searches of LEXIS/NEXIS and WESTLAW legal databases, and a variety of search strategies, the compilation reflects our effort to be as comprehensive as possible. Given the disparate policy objectives and wording of the various provisions, however, some editorial judgment was called for, and the final product may be viewed as over- or under-inclusive, depending on the reader’s perspective. Nonetheless, included are any statute, regulation, or executive order uncovered by our research which appears, in any manner, to prefer or consider race, gender, or ethnicity as affirmative factors in federal employment, in the allocation of federal contracts, or in granting any federal benefit to individuals or institutions. Several laws and regulations directed to “socially and economically disadvantaged” individuals and institutions are included because, as explained infra, that term has been defined administratively and by statute to presumptively apply to specific racial and ethnic minorities.

Also, note that certain categories of federal law were purposely not included. First are various federal civil rights statutes, like Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and related laws, that place nondiscrimination requirements upon recipients of federal financial assistance without mandating racial, ethnic, or gender preferences per se. Nor are regulations of the various federal departments or agencies under Title VI included for the similar reason that, although they almost uniformly authorize “affirmative action” by recipients to “overcome the effects of prior discrimination” or otherwise, they do not explicitly define the obligation in terms of “goals” or “set-asides,” or other forms of preference for minorities or women. Also beyond the scope of this study are the remedy provisions in federal laws like Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act2 or the Fair Housing Act,3 which authorize “affirmative” relief by the courts in discrimination actions, and have been the basis for judicial preference orders in certain circumstances, but do not explicitly direct the imposition of “timetables, goals, set-asides, and quotas” on their face.

One final category of statutory “preference” excluded from consideration here are federal employment opportunity and other programs operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for the benefit of American Indians living on or near a reservation.

NOTE: Pages 2-30 detail more than 170 such programs.

[301] Report: “Comparing the Compensation of Federal and Private-Sector Employees.” U.S. Congressional Budget Office, January 2012. <www.cbo.gov>

Page vii: “Specifically, in its analysis, CBO sought to account for differences in individuals’ level of education, years of work experience, occupation, size of employer, geographic location (region of the country and urban or rural location), and various demographic characteristics (age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, immigration status, and citizenship).”

Page ix: “CBO’s results apply to the cost of employing full-time full-year workers. The analysis focuses on those workers—who accounted for about 93 percent of the total hours worked by federal employees from 2005 through 2010—because higher-quality data are available for them than for other workers.”

Page 1: “This analysis does not include military personnel or employees of self-financing government enterprises such as the Postal Service; federal contractors are included as private-sector workers.”

Pages 6, 10, 11:

Table 2. Federal and Private-Sector Wages, by Level of Educational Attainment … Average Wages (2010 dollars per hour) …

Table 3. Federal and Private-Sector Benefits, by Level of Educational Attainment … Average Wages (2010 dollars per hour) …

Table 4. Federal and Private-Sector Total Compensation, by Level of Educational Attainment … Average Wages (2010 dollars per hour) …

Federal Employee Compensation Premiums Relative to Private Sector

Wages

Benefits

Total

High School Diploma or Less

21%

72%

36%

Some College

15%

71%

32%

Bachelor’s Degree

2%

46%

15%

Master’s Degree

–5%

36%

8%

Professional Degree or Doctorate

–23%

2%

–18%

All Levels of Education

2%

48%

16%

[302] Calculated with the dataset: “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014: 2014 Population Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau, June 2015. <www.census.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[303] “Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2014.” U.S. Office of Personnel Management, February 2016. <www.opm.gov>

Page 3:

FEORP Composition of Federal Workforce at a Glance

Representation of the Federal Workforce

Representation in Senior Executive Service

FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2013

FY 2014

Men

56.6

56.8

66.3

66.1

Women

43.4

43.2

33.7

33.9

Hispanic or Latino

8.3

8.4

4.1

4.4

White

65.1

64.7

80.1

79.3

Black or African American

18

18.1

10.8

11.1

Asian

5.5

5.6

3

3.2

Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander

0.4

0.4

0.1

0.2

American Indian / Alaska Native

1.7

1.7

1.2

1.2

Non-Hispanic Multi-Racial

1.1

1.2

0.7

0.6

Page 5:

On-board Federal employment statistics used in this report are as of September 30, 2014. All data are produced from OPM’s Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI). The Federal Workforce referred to in this report is not the entire Federal Workforce but rather only permanent employees in those non-postal Federal Executive Branch agencies participating in the EHRI [Enterprise Human Resources Integration]. This report covers workers in all pay plans including General Schedule and Related (GSR) pay plans, non-GSR pay plans, blue-collar pay plans, and employees at Senior Pay levels.

All references made to the General Schedule pay plan in this report are to General Schedule and Related (GSR) pay plans.

Only those agencies with 500 or more permanent employees are displayed in this report. …

Senior Pay level employment includes employees in the Senior Executive Service (SES), Senior Foreign Service, and other employees earning salaries above grade 15, step 10 of the General Schedule, but excludes those employees under the Executive Schedule (pay plan EX).

The Civilian Labor Force (CLF) percentages for each minority group presented in this report are derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS data, which is a monthly survey of households that is conducted by the Bureau of the Census for BLS, cover non-institutionalized individuals 16 years of age or older, employed or unemployed, U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens. Regarding multi-racial persons, the BLS designation “Two or More Races, Both Sexes” provides the data source for the multi-racial CLF percent.

Pages 8-9:

• Blacks represented 18.1 percent (343,663) of the Federal Workforce in 2014, compared to 18 percent (345,142) in FY 2013. The representation of Blacks in the CLF [Civilian Labor Force] was 10.4 percent in 2014 compared to 10.2 in 2013.

• Hispanics represented 8.4 percent (159,540) of the Federal Workforce in 2014, compared to 8.3 percent (159,075) of the Federal Workforce in 2013. The representation of Hispanics in the CLF2 was 14.6 percent in 2014, compared to 14.3 in 2013.

• Asians represented 5.6 percent (106,111) of the Federal Workforce in 2014, compared to 5.5 percent (104,808) in FY 2013. The representation of Asians in the CLF3 was 4.8 percent in 2014, compared to 4.8 in 2013.

• Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders represented 0.4 percent (8,486) of the Federal Workforce in 2014, and 0.4 percent (7,995) in FY 2013. The representation of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders in the CLF was 0.3 percent in 2014, compared to 0.4 percent FY 2013.

• American Indian/Alaska Natives represented 1.7 percent (31,409) of the Federal Workforce in 2014 and 1.7 percent (31,926) in FY 2013. American Indian/Alaska Natives representation in the CLF was 1.0 percent in FY 2014 compared to 0.9 percent in FY 2013.

• Non-Hispanic Multi-Racial employees represented 1.2 percent (22,752) of the Federal Workforce in 2014 compared to 1.1 percent (20,885) in FY 2013. The representation of Non-Hispanic Multi-Racial employees in the CLF was 1.5 percent in 2013, the same as in FY 2013.

• White employees represented 64.7 percent (1,229,456) of the permanent Federal Workforce in 2014, compared to 65.1 (1,247,431) in 2013. The representation of White employees in the CLF was 67.5 percent in 2014, compared to 65.1 percent in 2013.

• Women represented 43.2 percent (821,899) of the Federal Workforce in 2014, compared to 46.1 percent (831,793) in FY 2013. The representation of women in the CLF was 44.4 percent in 2014, and 46.1 percent in 2013.

[304] Report: “Comparing the Compensation of Federal and Private-Sector Employees.” U.S. Congressional Budget Office, January 2012. <www.cbo.gov>

Page 7: “Highly educated workers tend to earn much higher wages than less educated workers, and federal employees have more education, on average, than employees in the private sector.”

[305] Report: “The Federal Workforce: Additional Insights Could Enhance Agency Efforts Related to Hispanic Representation.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, September 20, 2006. <www.gao.gov>

The federal workforce contains a greater percentage of occupations that require higher levels of education than the CLF. EEOC divides occupations in the federal workforce and the CLF into nine categories, including among others professionals, operatives, and laborers. For example, in 2000, the year in which EEOC data on the CLF are based, occupations in the professional category—those occupations, such as lawyers, engineers, accountants, and registered nurses, requiring either college graduation or experience of such kind and amount as to provide a comparable background—constituted 29 percent of the federal workforce versus 18 percent of the CLF. Conversely, occupations in the operatives (semiskilled workers) and laborers (unskilled workers) categories, which generally do not require high education levels, constituted 3 percent of the federal workforce compared to 16 percent of the CLF. Figure 1 shows the composition of the federal workforce and the CLF by EEOC’s occupational categories. …

Our analyses showed that the likelihood of being a federal worker increased with higher levels of education. A person with some college was 1.7 times more likely to be a federal worker than a person with only a high school diploma, a person with a bachelor’s degree was 2.2 times more likely, and a person with more than a bachelor’s degree was 2.7 times more likely. OPM reported that in 2004, 42 percent of federal workers had a bachelor’s degree or higher. In addition, approximately 60 percent of new permanent hires to the federal government in 2005 had at least some college--20 percent with some college, 23 percent with a bachelor’s degree, and 17 percent with more than a bachelor’s degree.

[306] Dataset: “Table 219.40. Public high school graduates and averaged freshman graduation rate, by race/ethnicity and state or jurisdiction: 2009-10.” U.S. Department Of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, November 2012. <nces.ed.gov>

“The AFGR [averaged freshman graduation rate] provides an estimate of the percentage of students who receive a regular diploma within 4 years of entering 9th grade. The rate uses aggregate student enrollment data to estimate the size of an incoming freshman class and aggregate counts of the number of diplomas awarded 4 years later.

[307] Dataset: “Table 302.20. Percentage of recent high school completers enrolled in 2- and 4-year colleges, by race/ethnicity: 1960 through 2013.” U.S. Department Of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, July 2014. <nces.ed.gov>

[308] Dataset: “Table 326.20. Graduation rate from first institution attended within 150 percent of normal time for first-time, full-time degree/certificate-seeking students at 2-year postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, sex, and control of institution: Selected cohort entry years, 2000 through 2010.” U.S. Department Of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, November 2014. <nces.ed.gov>

[309] Dataset: “Table 326.10. Graduation rate from first institution attended for first-time, full-time bachelor’s degree- seeking students at 4-year postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, time to completion, sex, control of institution, and acceptance rate: Selected cohort entry years, 1996 through 2007.” U.S. Department Of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, November 2014. <nces.ed.gov>

[310] Report: “The Literacy of America’s College Students.” By Justin D. Baer, Andrea L. Cook, and Stéphane Baldi. American Institutes for Research, January 2006. <www.air.org>

Page 4:

The NSACS, sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts, collected data from a sample of 1,827 graduating students at 80 randomly selected 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities (68 public and 12 private) from across the United States. The NSACS specifically targeted college and university students nearing the end of their degree program, thus providing a broader and more comprehensive picture of students’ fundamental literacy abilities than ever before.

The NSACS used the same assessment instrument as the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL), a nationally representative survey of the English-language literacy abilities of U.S. adults 16 and older residing in households or prisons. The NAAL was developed and administered by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Literacy levels were categorized as Below Basic, Basic, Intermediate, or Proficient on the basis of the abilities of participants.

Because literacy is not a single skill used in the same manner for all types of printed and written information, the NSACS measured literacy along three dimensions: prose literacy, document literacy, and quantitative literacy. These three literacy domains were designed to capture an ordered set of information-processing skills and strategies that adults use to accomplish a wide range of literacy tasks and make it possible to profile the various types and levels of literacy among different subgroups in society. …

Document Literacy: The knowledge and skills needed to perform document tasks, that is, to search, comprehend, and use information from noncontinuous texts in various formats. Document examples include job applications, payroll forms, transportation schedules, maps, tables, and drug or food labels.

Quantitative Literacy: The knowledge and skills required to perform quantitative literacy tasks, that is, to identify and perform computations, either alone or sequentially, using numbers embedded in printed materials. Quantitative examples include balancing a checkbook, figuring out a tip, completing an order form, or determining the amount of interest on a loan from an advertisement.

Page 23: “Table 2.4. Percentage of U.S. adults in college and the nation in each quantitative literacy level, by selected characteristics”

Page 23: “Table 2.4. Percentage of U.S. adults in college and the nation in each quantitative literacy level, by selected characteristics”

[311] Calculated with:

Dataset: “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States, States, and Counties: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014: 2014 Population Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau, June 2015. <www.census.gov>

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[312] “Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2014.” U.S. Office of Personnel Management, February 2016. <www.opm.gov>

Page 3:

FEORP Composition of Federal Workforce at a Glance

Representation of the Federal Workforce

Representation in Senior Executive Service

FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2013

FY 2014

Men

56.6

56.8

66.3

66.1

Women

43.4

43.2

33.7

33.9

Hispanic or Latino

8.3

8.4

4.1

4.4

White

65.1

64.7

80.1

79.3

Black or African American

18

18.1

10.8

11.1

Asian

5.5

5.6

3

3.2

Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander

0.4

0.4

0.1

0.2

American Indian / Alaska Native

1.7

1.7

1.2

1.2

Non-Hispanic Multi-Racial

1.1

1.2

0.7

0.6

Page 5:

On-board Federal employment statistics used in this report are as of September 30, 2014. All data are produced from OPM’s Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI). The Federal Workforce referred to in this report is not the entire Federal Workforce but rather only permanent employees in those non-postal Federal Executive Branch agencies participating in the EHRI [Enterprise Human Resources Integration]. This report covers workers in all pay plans including General Schedule and Related (GSR) pay plans, non-GSR pay plans, blue-collar pay plans, and employees at Senior Pay levels.

All references made to the General Schedule pay plan in this report are to General Schedule and Related (GSR) pay plans.

Only those agencies with 500 or more permanent employees are displayed in this report. …

Senior Pay level employment includes employees in the Senior Executive Service (SES), Senior Foreign Service, and other employees earning salaries above grade 15, step 10 of the General Schedule, but excludes those employees under the Executive Schedule (pay plan EX).

The Civilian Labor Force (CLF) percentages for each minority group presented in this report are derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS data, which is a monthly survey of households that is conducted by the Bureau of the Census for BLS, cover non-institutionalized individuals 16 years of age or older, employed or unemployed, U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens. Regarding multi-racial persons, the BLS designation “Two or More Races, Both Sexes” provides the data source for the multi-racial CLF percent.

Pages 8-9:

• Blacks represented 18.1 percent (343,663) of the Federal Workforce in 2014, compared to 18 percent (345,142) in FY 2013. The representation of Blacks in the CLF [Civilian Labor Force] was 10.4 percent in 2014 compared to 10.2 in 2013.

• Hispanics represented 8.4 percent (159,540) of the Federal Workforce in 2014, compared to 8.3 percent (159,075) of the Federal Workforce in 2013. The representation of Hispanics in the CLF2 was 14.6 percent in 2014, compared to 14.3 in 2013.

• Asians represented 5.6 percent (106,111) of the Federal Workforce in 2014, compared to 5.5 percent (104,808) in FY 2013. The representation of Asians in the CLF3 was 4.8 percent in 2014, compared to 4.8 in 2013.

• Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders represented 0.4 percent (8,486) of the Federal Workforce in 2014, and 0.4 percent (7,995) in FY 2013. The representation of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders in the CLF was 0.3 percent in 2014, compared to 0.4 percent FY 2013.

• American Indian/Alaska Natives represented 1.7 percent (31,409) of the Federal Workforce in 2014 and 1.7 percent (31,926) in FY 2013. American Indian/Alaska Natives representation in the CLF was 1.0 percent in FY 2014 compared to 0.9 percent in FY 2013.

• Non-Hispanic Multi-Racial employees represented 1.2 percent (22,752) of the Federal Workforce in 2014 compared to 1.1 percent (20,885) in FY 2013. The representation of Non-Hispanic Multi-Racial employees in the CLF was 1.5 percent in 2013, the same as in FY 2013.

• White employees represented 64.7 percent (1,229,456) of the permanent Federal Workforce in 2014, compared to 65.1 (1,247,431) in 2013. The representation of White employees in the CLF was 67.5 percent in 2014, compared to 65.1 percent in 2013.

• Women represented 43.2 percent (821,899) of the Federal Workforce in 2014, compared to 46.1 percent (831,793) in FY 2013. The representation of women in the CLF was 44.4 percent in 2014, and 46.1 percent in 2013.

[313] Report: “The Federal Workforce: Additional Insights Could Enhance

Agency Efforts Related to Hispanic Representation.” U.S. Government Accountability Office, September 20, 2006. <www.gao.gov>

U.S. citizenship and educational attainment had the greatest effect, of the measurable factors we identified, on Hispanic representation in the federal workforce, relative to the nonfederal workforce. Our statistical model showed that after accounting for citizenship, Hispanics were nearly as likely as non-Hispanics to be employed in the federal workforce, relative to the nonfederal workforce (the portion of the CLF excluding federal employees). Citizenship is required for most federal employment and, in 2005, 99.7 percent of executive branch employees were U.S. citizens or nationals. In addition, a greater proportion of federal occupations require higher levels of education than in the CLF. Our statistical model showed that, as a result, when we compared citizens with similar levels of education, Hispanics were 16 percent or 1.16 times more likely than non-Hispanics to be employed in the federal workforce than in the nonfederal workforce. Other factors in our model, including age, gender, race, veteran’s status, English proficiency, and geography (state where employed), had a more limited or almost no effect on the likelihood of Hispanics being employed in the federal workforce. When all factors were considered, our analyses showed that Hispanic citizens were 24 percent or 1.24 times more likely than non-Hispanic citizens to be employed in the federal workforce than in the nonfederal workforce. Our analyses did not account for differences across and within individual agencies, by grade and pay level, occupational category, individual occupation, geographic location, or any other subset of the federal workforce. …

Our analysis showed that citizenship had the greatest effect of the factors we analyzed on Hispanics’ representation in the federal workforce. We analyzed the effect of citizenship before analyzing any other individual factor because of long-standing policy and practice to restrict federal government hiring to U.S. citizens and nationals—99.7 percent of federal executive branch employees were U.S. citizens or nationals in 2005. (See app. III for a discussion of the federal government’s policy and practice on the employment of citizens.) Before accounting for the effect of citizenship, Hispanics 18 and older were 30 percent less likely than non-Hispanics to be employed (i.e., represented) in the federal workforce, relative to the nonfederal workforce. However, when we analyzed the likelihood of only citizens 18 and older being employed in the federal workforce, we found that Hispanics were 5 percent less likely than non-Hispanics to be employed in the federal workforce compared to their representation in the nonfederal workforce.

Our analysis of 2000 Census data showed that Hispanics had lower citizenship rates than other racial/ethnic groups, with the exception of Asians who had similar rates. In 2000, of those 18 and older in the combined federal and nonfederal CLF, 65 percent of the Hispanics were U.S. citizens compared with 95 percent of blacks, 96 percent of whites, 65 percent of Asians, 87 percent of Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders, and 96 percent of American Indians/Native Alaskans. Additionally, Hispanic immigrants have lower naturalization rates than other immigrant groups. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 27 percent of the adult foreign- born Hispanic population in the United States were naturalized citizens in 2004 compared with 54 percent of the adult foreign-born non-Hispanic population. …

After citizenship, education had the largest effect on Hispanic representation in the federal workforce. We compared Hispanic and non- Hispanic citizens with similar levels of education. We limited our examination of the effect of education to citizens because citizenship is a basic qualification for most federal employment. As discussed above, among citizens, Hispanics were 5 percent less likely to be employed in the federal government. After accounting for education, Hispanic citizens were 1.16 times or 16 percent more likely than similarly educated non-Hispanic citizens to be in the federal workforce than the nonfederal workforce.

The federal workforce contains a greater percentage of occupations that require higher levels of education than the CLF. EEOC divides occupations in the federal workforce and the CLF into nine categories, including among others professionals, operatives, and laborers. For example, in 2000, the year in which EEOC data on the CLF are based, occupations in the professional category—those occupations, such as lawyers, engineers, accountants, and registered nurses, requiring either college graduation or experience of such kind and amount as to provide a comparable background—constituted 29 percent of the federal workforce versus 18 percent of the CLF. Conversely, occupations in the operatives (semiskilled workers) and laborers (unskilled workers) categories, which generally do not require high education levels, constituted 3 percent of the federal workforce compared to 16 percent of the CLF. Figure 1 shows the composition of the federal workforce and the CLF by EEOC’s occupational categories. …

Our analyses showed that the likelihood of being a federal worker increased with higher levels of education. A person with some college was 1.7 times more likely to be a federal worker than a person with only a high school diploma, a person with a bachelor’s degree was 2.2 times more likely, and a person with more than a bachelor’s degree was 2.7 times more likely. OPM reported that in 2004, 42 percent of federal workers had a bachelor’s degree or higher. In addition, approximately 60 percent of new permanent hires to the federal government in 2005 had at least some college--20 percent with some college, 23 percent with a bachelor’s degree, and 17 percent with more than a bachelor’s degree.

Our analysis of 2000 Census data showed that regardless of citizenship status, Hispanics overall have lower educational attainment than other groups, with non-U.S. citizens having the lowest levels of educational attainment. Among citizens in the CLF 18 and older, as table 1 shows, Hispanics had a higher percentage of those without a high school diploma—26.4 percent—and lower percentage of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher—15.4 percent—than most other racial/ethnic groups.

[314] Webpage: “What is a Small Business Set Aside?” U.S. Small Business Administration. Accessed August 27, 2016 at <www.sba.gov>

Small business set-asides are a powerful tool for helping small businesses compete for and win federal contracts. Every year, the federal government purchases approximately $400 billion in goods and services from the private sector. When market research concludes that small businesses are available and able to perform the work or provide the products being procured by the government, those opportunities are “set-aside” exclusively for small business concerns. …

Prime Contract Goals

The Federal government has specified annual prime contracting goals for designated small businesses. The current, government-wide procurement goal stipulates that at least 23% of all federal government contracting dollars should be awarded to small businesses. In addition, targeted sub-goals are established for the following small business categories:

• Women Owned Small Business – 5%

• Small Disadvantaged Business – 5%

• Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business – 3%

• HUBZone – 3%

Set Aside and Sole Source Programs

Government contracts can be set-aside for small businesses in the following certification programs and socio-economic categories:

• 8(a) Business Development

• HUBZone Program

• Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) Program (includes Economically • Disadvantaged Women Owned Small Business (EDWOSB) concerns)

• Service Disabled Veteran Owned Program (SDVO)

In addition, there are sole source development opportunities under the 8(a) program and sole source conditional opportunities under the HUBZone, SDVOSB, WOSB programs.

[315] Webpage: “About the 8(a) Business Development Program.” U.S. Small Business Administration. Accessed August 27, 2016 at <www.sba.gov>

In order to help small, disadvantaged businesses compete in the marketplace, the SBA created the 8(a) Business Development Program.

What is the 8(a) Business Development Program?

• The 8(a) Business Development Program is a business assistance program for small disadvantaged businesses. The 8(a) Program offers a broad scope of assistance to firms that are owned and controlled at least 51% by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. …

Benefits of the Program

• Participants can receive sole-source contracts, up to a ceiling of $4 million for goods and services and $6.5 million for manufacturing. While we help 8(a) firms build their competitive and institutional know-how, we also encourage you to participate in competitive acquisitions. …

[316] Code of Federal Regulations Title 13, Part 124, Subpart A, Section 8A: “Business Development.” Accessed August 27, 2016 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(a) General. Socially disadvantaged individuals are those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias within American society because of their identities as members of groups and without regard to their individual qualities. The social disadvantage must stem from circumstances beyond their control.

(b) Members of designated groups.

(1) There is a rebuttable presumption that the following individuals are socially disadvantaged: Black Americans; Hispanic Americans; Native Americans (Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, or enrolled members of a Federally or State recognized Indian Tribe); Asian Pacific Americans (persons with origins from Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, Japan, China (including Hong Kong), Taiwan, Laos, Cambodia (Kampuchea), Vietnam, Korea, The Philippines, U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Republic of Palau), Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Samoa, Macao, Fiji, Tonga, Kiribati, Tuvalu, or Nauru); Subcontinent Asian Americans (persons with origins from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives Islands or Nepal); and members of other groups designated from time to time by SBA according to procedures set forth at paragraph (d) of this section. Being born in a country does not, by itself, suffice to make the birth country an individual’s country of origin for purposes of being included within a designated group.

[317] Article: “Jury Throws Book at Library Board.” By Ellen Sorokin. Washington Times, February 12, 2002. <www.washingtontimes.com>

A federal jury in Georgia has ordered four members of an Atlanta library board to pay nearly $23.3 million in damages for discriminating against eight white librarians demoted after board members said that “there are too many white faces in management.” …

In court documents filed against four members of the system’s board of trustees, the eight librarians contended that they were demoted from their managerial positions at the county’s central library because they were white. Their positions were filled immediately by eight black librarians. …

The librarians’ claims of discrimination were bolstered by memos, handwritten letters and meeting minutes in which board members stated that “there are too many white faces in management” and ordered a study that broke down the management by race. …

According to interviews and court documents, the eight librarians were working as department managers at the central library in Atlanta when in May 2000 they were transferred to other library branches. Each of them was assigned to perform clerical duties such as cleaning computer screens and shelving books.

[318] Ruling: Ricci v. Destefano. U.S. Supreme Court, Decided June 29, 2009. Decided 5-4. Majority: Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito. Dissenting: Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, Breyer. <www.law.cornell.edu>

Majority:

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. …

In 2003, 118 New Haven firefighters took examinations to qualify for promotion to the rank of lieutenant or captain. Promotion examinations in New Haven (or City) were infrequent, so the stakes were high. The results would determine which firefighters would be considered for promotions during the next two years, and the order in which they would be considered. Many firefighters studied for months, at considerable personal and financial cost.

When the examination results showed that white candidates had outperformed minority candidates, the mayor and other local politicians opened a public debate that turned rancorous. Some firefighters argued the tests should be discarded because the results showed the tests to be discriminatory. They threatened a discrimination lawsuit if the City made promotions based on the tests. Other firefighters said the exams were neutral and fair. And they, in turn, threatened a discrimination lawsuit if the City, relying on the statistical racial disparity, ignored the test results and denied promotions to the candidates who had performed well. In the end the City took the side of those who protested the test results. It threw out the examinations.

Certain white and Hispanic firefighters who likely would have been promoted based on their good test performance sued the City and some of its officials. Theirs is the suit now before us. The suit alleges that, by discarding the test results, the City and the named officials discriminated against the plaintiffs based on their race, in violation of both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq., and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The City and the officials defended their actions, arguing that if they had certified the results, they could have faced liability under Title VII for adopting a practice that had a disparate impact on the minority firefighters. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

We conclude that race-based action like the City’s in this case is impermissible under Title VII unless the employer can demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute. The respondents, we further determine, cannot meet that threshold standard. As a result, the City’s action in discarding the tests was a violation of Title VII. In light of our ruling under the statutes, we need not reach the question whether respondents’ actions may have violated the Equal Protection Clause. …

When the City of New Haven undertook to fill vacant lieutenant and captain positions in its fire department (Department), the promotion and hiring process was governed by the city charter, in addition to federal and state law. The charter establishes a merit system. That system requires the City to fill vacancies in the classified civil-service ranks with the most qualified individuals, as determined by job-related examinations. After each examination, the New Haven Civil Service Board (CSB) certifies a ranked list of applicants who passed the test. Under the charter’s “rule of three,” the relevant hiring authority must fill each vacancy by choosing one candidate from the top three scorers on the list. Certified promotional lists remain valid for two years.

The City’s contract with the New Haven firefighters’ union specifies additional requirements for the promotion process. Under the contract, applicants for lieutenant and captain positions were to be screened using written and oral examinations, with the written exam accounting for 60 percent and the oral exam 40 percent of an applicant’s total score. To sit for the examinations, candidates for lieutenant needed 30 months’ experience in the Department, a high-school diploma, and certain vocational training courses. Candidates for captain needed one year’s service as a lieutenant in the Department, a high-school diploma, and certain vocational training courses.

After reviewing bids from various consultants, the City hired Industrial/Organizational Solutions, Inc. (IOS) to develop and administer the examinations, at a cost to the City of $100,000. IOS is an Illinois company that specializes in designing entry-level and promotional examinations for fire and police departments. In order to fit the examinations to the New Haven Department, IOS began the test-design process by performing job analyses to identify the tasks, knowledge, skills, and abilities that are essential for the lieutenant and captain positions. IOS representatives interviewed incumbent captains and lieutenants and their supervisors. They rode with and observed other on-duty officers. Using information from those interviews and ride-alongs, IOS wrote job-analysis questionnaires and administered them to most of the incumbent battalion chiefs, captains, and lieutenants in the Department. At every stage of the job analyses, IOS, by deliberate choice, oversampled minority firefighters to ensure that the results—which IOS would use to develop the examinations—would not unintentionally favor white candidates.

With the job-analysis information in hand, IOS developed the written examinations to measure the candidates’ job-related knowledge. For each test, IOS compiled a list of training manuals, Department procedures, and other materials to use as sources for the test questions. IOS presented the proposed sources to the New Haven fire chief and assistant fire chief for their approval. Then, using the approved sources, IOS drafted a multiple-choice test for each position. Each test had 100 questions, as required by CSB rules, and was written below a 10th-grade reading level. After IOS prepared the tests, the City opened a 3-month study period. It gave candidates a list that identified the source material for the questions, including the specific chapters from which the questions were taken.

IOS developed the oral examinations as well. These concentrated on job skills and abilities. Using the job-analysis information, IOS wrote hypothetical situations to test incident-command skills, firefighting tactics, interpersonal skills, leadership, and management ability, among other things. Candidates would be presented with these hypotheticals and asked to respond before a panel of three assessors.

IOS assembled a pool of 30 assessors who were superior in rank to the positions being tested. At the City’s insistence (because of controversy surrounding previous examinations), all the assessors came from outside Connecticut. IOS submitted the assessors’ resumes to City officials for approval. They were battalion chiefs, assistant chiefs, and chiefs from departments of similar sizes to New Haven’s throughout the country. Sixty-six percent of the panelists were minorities, and each of the nine three-member assessment panels contained two minority members. IOS trained the panelists for several hours on the day before it administered the examinations, teaching them how to score the candidates’ responses consistently using checklists of desired criteria.

Candidates took the examinations in November and December 2003. Seventy-seven candidates completed the lieutenant examination—43 whites, 19 blacks, and 15 Hispanics. Of those, 34 candidates passed—25 whites, 6 blacks, and 3 Hispanics. … Eight lieutenant positions were vacant at the time of the examination. As the rule of three operated, this meant that the top 10 candidates were eligible for an immediate promotion to lieutenant. All 10 were white. Ibid. Subsequent vacancies would have allowed at least 3 black candidates to be considered for promotion to lieutenant.

Forty-one candidates completed the captain examination—25 whites, 8 blacks, and 8 Hispanics. Of those, 22 candidates passed—16 whites, 3 blacks, and 3 Hispanics. Ibid. Seven captain positions were vacant at the time of the examination. Under the rule of three, 9 candidates were eligible for an immediate promotion to captain—7 whites and 2 Hispanics. Ibid. …

Although they did not know whether they had passed or failed, some firefighter-candidates spoke at the first CSB meeting in favor of certifying the test results. Michael Blatchley stated that “[e]very one” of the questions on the written examination “came from the [study] material. … [I]f you read the materials and you studied the material, you would have done well on the test.” … Frank Ricci stated that the test questions were based on the Department’s own rules and procedures and on “nationally recognized” materials that represented the “accepted standard[s]” for firefighting. … Ricci stated that he had “several learning disabilities,” including dyslexia; that he had spent more than $1,000 to purchase the materials and pay his neighbor to read them on tape so he could “give it [his] best shot”; and that he had studied “8 to 13 hours a day to prepare” for the test. … “I don’t even know if I made it,” Ricci told the CSB, “[b]ut the people who passed should be promoted. When your life’s on the line, second best may not be good enough.” …

Other firefighters spoke against certifying the test results. They described the test questions as outdated or not relevant to firefighting practices in New Haven. Gary Tinney stated that source materials “came out of New York. … Their makeup of their city and everything is totally different than ours.” … And they criticized the test materials, a full set of which cost about $500, for being too expensive and too long. …

Legel explained the exam-development process to the CSB. He began by describing the job analyses IOS performed of the captain and lieutenant positions—the interviews, ride-alongs, and questionnaires IOS designed to “generate a list of tasks, knowledge, skills and abilities that are considered essential to performance” of the jobs. … He outlined how IOS prepared the written and oral examinations, based on the job-analysis results, to test most heavily those qualities that the results indicated were “critica[l]” or “essentia[l].” … And he noted that IOS took the material for each test question directly from the approved source materials. Legel told the CSB that third-party reviewers had scrutinized the examinations to ensure that the written test was drawn from the source material and that the oral test accurately tested real-world situations that captains and lieutenants would face. Legel confirmed that IOS had selected oral-examination panelists so that each three-member assessment panel included one white, one black, and one Hispanic member.

Near the end of his remarks, Legel “implor[ed] anyone that had … concerns to review the content of the exam. In my professional opinion, it’s facially neutral. There’s nothing in those examinations … that should cause somebody to think that one group would perform differently than another group.” …

At the close of witness testimony, the CSB voted on a motion to certify the examinations. With one member recused, the CSB deadlocked 2 to 2, resulting in a decision not to certify the results. Explaining his vote to certify the results, Chairman Segaloff stated that “nobody convinced me that we can feel comfortable that, in fact, there’s some likelihood that there’s going to be an exam designed that’s going to be less discriminatory.” …

The CSB’s decision not to certify the examination results led to this lawsuit. The plaintiffs—who are the petitioners here—are 17 white firefighters and 1 Hispanic firefighter who passed the examinations but were denied a chance at promotions when the CSB refused to certify the test results. They include the named plaintiff, Frank Ricci, who addressed the CSB at multiple meetings. …

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq., as amended, prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Title VII prohibits both intentional discrimination (known as “disparate treatment”) as well as, in some cases, practices that are not intended to discriminate but in fact have a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities (known as “disparate impact”). …

Our analysis begins with this premise: The City’s actions would violate the disparate-treatment prohibition of Title VII absent some valid defense. All the evidence demonstrates that the City chose not to certify the examination results because of the statistical disparity based on race—i.e., how minority candidates had performed when compared to white candidates. As the District Court put it, the City rejected the test results because “too many whites and not enough minorities would be promoted were the lists to be certified.” … (respondents’ “own arguments … show that the City’s reasons for advocating non-certification were related to the racial distribution of the results”). Without some other justification, this express, race-based decisionmaking violates Title VII’s command that employers cannot take adverse employment actions because of an individual’s race. …

The District Court did not adhere to this principle, however. It held that respondents’ “motivation to avoid making promotions based on a test with a racially disparate impact … does not, as a matter of law, constitute discriminatory intent.” … And the Government makes a similar argument in this Court. It contends that the “structure of Title VII belies any claim that an employer’s intent to comply with Title VII’s disparate-impact provisions constitutes prohibited discrimination on the basis of race.” … But both of those statements turn upon the City’s objective—avoiding disparate-impact liability—while ignoring the City’s conduct in the name of reaching that objective. Whatever the City’s ultimate aim—however well-intentioned or benevolent it might have seemed—the City made its employment decision because of race. The City rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white. The question is not whether that conduct was discriminatory but whether the City had a lawful justification for its race-based action. …

… Allowing employers to violate the disparate-treatment prohibition based on a mere good-faith fear of disparate-impact liability would encourage race-based action at the slightest hint of disparate impact. A minimal standard could cause employers to discard the results of lawful and beneficial promotional examinations even where there is little if any evidence of disparate-impact discrimination. That would amount to a de facto quota system, in which a “focus on statistics … could put undue pressure on employers to adopt inappropriate prophylactic measures.” Watson, 487 U. S., at 992 (plurality opinion). Even worse, an employer could discard test results (or other employment practices) with the intent of obtaining the employer’s preferred racial balance. That operational principle could not be justified, for Title VII is express in disclaiming any interpretation of its requirements as calling for outright racial balancing. §2000e–2(j). The purpose of Title VII “is to promote hiring on the basis of job qualifications, rather than on the basis of race or color.” Griggs, 401 U. S., at 434. …

The City argues that, even under the strong-basis-in-evidence standard, its decision to discard the examination results was permissible under Title VII. That is incorrect. Even if respondents were motivated as a subjective matter by a desire to avoid committing disparate-impact discrimination, the record makes clear there is no support for the conclusion that respondents had an objective, strong basis in evidence to find the tests inadequate, with some consequent disparate-impact liability in violation of Title VII. …

The racial adverse impact here was significant, and petitioners do not dispute that the City was faced with a prima facie case of disparate-impact liability. On the captain exam, the pass rate for white candidates was 64 percent but was 37.5 percent for both black and Hispanic candidates. On the lieutenant exam, the pass rate for white candidates was 58.1 percent; for black candidates, 31.6 percent; and for Hispanic candidates, 20 percent. The pass rates of minorities, which were approximately one-half the pass rates for white candidates, fall well below the 80-percent standard set by the EEOC to implement the disparate-impact provision of Title VII. …

The City, moreover, turned a blind eye to evidence that supported the exams’ validity. Although the City’s contract with IOS contemplated that IOS would prepare a technical report consistent with EEOC guidelines for examination-validity studies, the City made no request for its report. After the January 2004 meeting between Legel and some of the city-official respondents, in which Legel defended the examinations, the City sought no further information from IOS, save its appearance at a CSB meeting to explain how it developed and administered the examinations. IOS stood ready to provide respondents with detailed information to establish the validity of the exams, but respondents did not accept that offer. …

On the record before us, there is no genuine dispute that the City lacked a strong basis in evidence to believe it would face disparate-impact liability if it certified the examination results. In other words, there is no evidence—let alone the required strong basis in evidence—that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the City. Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions. The City’s discarding the test results was impermissible under Title VII, and summary judgment is appropriate for petitioners on their disparate-treatment claim.

The record in this litigation documents a process that, at the outset, had the potential to produce a testing procedure that was true to the promise of Title VII: No individual should face workplace discrimination based on race. Respondents thought about promotion qualifications and relevant experience in neutral ways. They were careful to ensure broad racial participation in the design of the test itself and its administration. As we have discussed at length, the process was open and fair.

The problem, of course, is that after the tests were completed, the raw racial results became the predominant rationale for the City’s refusal to certify the results. The injury arises in part from the high, and justified, expectations of the candidates who had participated in the testing process on the terms the City had established for the promotional process. Many of the candidates had studied for months, at considerable personal and financial expense, and thus the injury caused by the City’s reliance on raw racial statistics at the end of the process was all the more severe. Confronted with arguments both for and against certifying the test results—and threats of a lawsuit either way—the City was required to make a difficult inquiry. But its hearings produced no strong evidence of a disparate-impact violation, and the City was not entitled to disregard the tests based solely on the racial disparity in the results.

Dissent:

Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting. …

The white firefighters who scored high on New Haven’s promotional exams understandably attract this Court’s sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them. New Haven maintains that it refused to certify the test results because it believed, for good cause, that it would be vulnerable to a Title VII disparate-impact suit if it relied on those results. The Court today holds that New Haven has not demonstrated “a strong basis in evidence” for its plea. … In so holding, the Court pretends that “[t]he City rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white.” … That pretension, essential to the Court’s disposition, ignores substantial evidence of multiple flaws in the tests New Haven used. The Court similarly fails to acknowledge the better tests used in other cities, which have yielded less racially skewed outcomes.1

By order of this Court, New Haven, a city in which African-Americans and Hispanics account for nearly 60 percent of the population, must today be served—as it was in the days of undisguised discrimination—by a fire department in which members of racial and ethnic minorities are rarely seen in command positions. …

… Pursuant to New Haven’s specifications, IOS developed and administered the oral and written exams. The results showed significant racial disparities. On the lieutenant exam, the pass rate for African-American candidates was about one-half the rate for Caucasian candidates; the pass rate for Hispanic candidates was even lower. On the captain exam, both African-American and Hispanic candidates passed at about half the rate of their Caucasian counterparts. … More striking still, although nearly half of the 77 lieutenant candidates were African-American or Hispanic, none would have been eligible for promotion to the eight positions then vacant. The highest scoring African-American candidate ranked 13th; the top Hispanic candidate was 26th. As for the seven then-vacant captain positions, two Hispanic candidates would have been eligible, but no African-Americans. The highest scoring African-American candidate ranked 15th. …

Other firefighters had a different view. A number of the exam questions, they pointed out, were not germane to New Haven’s practices and procedures. … At least two candidates opposed to certification noted unequal access to study materials. Some individuals, they asserted, had the necessary books even before the syllabus was issued. Others had to invest substantial sums to purchase the materials and “wait a month and a half for some of the books because they were on back-order.” … These disparities, it was suggested, fell at least in part along racial lines. While many Caucasian applicants could obtain materials and assistance from relatives in the fire service, the overwhelming majority of minority applicants were “first-generation firefighters” without such support networks. …

A representative of the Northeast Region of the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters, Donald Day, also spoke at the second meeting. Statistical disparities, he told the CSB, had been present in the Department’s previous promotional exams. On earlier tests, however, a few minority candidates had fared well enough to earn promotions. … Day contrasted New Haven’s experience with that of nearby Bridgeport, where minority firefighters held one-third of lieutenant and captain positions. Bridgeport, Day observed, had once used a testing process similar to New Haven’s, with a written exam accounting for 70 percent of an applicant’s score, an oral exam for 25 percent, and seniority for the remaining five percent. … Bridgeport recognized, however, that the oral component, more so than the written component, addressed the sort of “real-life scenarios” fire officers encounter on the job. … Accordingly, that city “changed the relative weights” to give primacy to the oral exam. Ibid. Since that time, Day reported, Bridgeport had seen minorities “fairly represented” in its exam results. …

Respondents were no doubt conscious of race during their decisionmaking process, the court acknowledged, but this did not mean they had engaged in racially disparate treatment. The conclusion they had reached and the action thereupon taken were race-neutral in this sense: “[A]ll the test results were discarded, no one was promoted, and firefighters of every race will have to participate in another selection process to be considered for promotion.” …

Relying heavily on written tests to select fire officers is a questionable practice, to say the least. Successful fire officers, the City’s description of the position makes clear, must have the “[a]bility to lead personnel effectively, maintain discipline, promote harmony, exercise sound judgment, and cooperate with other officials.” … These qualities are not well measured by written tests. Testifying before the CSB, Christopher Hornick, an exam-design expert with more than two decades of relevant experience, was emphatic on this point: Leadership skills, command presence, and the like “could have been identified and evaluated in a much more appropriate way.”

[319] Article: “New Haven Reverse-Bias Firefighters Win Recompense.” Associated Press, July 28, 2011. <www.washingtontimes.com>

A group of 20 firefighters who won a discrimination case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009 has been awarded about $2 million in damages from the city of New Haven….

The Supreme Court ruled that officials violated white firefighters’ civil rights when they threw out 2003 promotion tests results because too few minorities did well. …

Court papers indicate the firefighters—19 whites and one Hispanic—accepted offers Wednesday from the city for back pay, additional pension benefits and interest.

[320] Public Law 102-166: “Civil Rights Act of 1991.” 102nd U.S. Congress. Signed into law by George H. Bush on November 21, 1991. <www.eeoc.gov>

Title I—Federal Civil Rights Remedies

Section 104. Definitions. …

‘(n) The term `respondent’ means an employer, employment agency, labor organization, joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining program, including an on-the-job training program, or Federal entity subject to section 717.’.

Section 106. Prohibition Against Discriminatory Use of Test Scores.

Section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2) (as amended by section 105) is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘(l) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a respondent, in connection with the selection or referral of applicants or candidates for employment or promotion, to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related tests on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.’.

[321] U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter VI, Section 2000e-2: “The Public Health And Welfare, Civil Rights, Equal Employment Opportunities, Unlawful Employment Practices.” Accessed August 29, 2016 at <www.law.cornell.edu>

(l) Prohibition of discriminatory use of test scores

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a respondent, in connection with the selection or referral of applicants or candidates for employment or promotion, to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related tests on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

[322] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed January 18, 2016 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

The Cabinet and independent federal agencies are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement and administration of federal laws. These departments and agencies have missions and responsibilities as widely divergent as those of the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission. …

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. They are joined in this by other executive agencies such as the CIA and Environmental Protection Agency, the heads of which are not part of the Cabinet, but who are under the full authority of the President. The President also appoints the heads of more than 50 independent federal commissions, such as the Federal Reserve Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as federal judges, ambassadors, and other federal offices. The Executive Office of the President (EOP) consists of the immediate staff to the President, along with entities such as the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

[323] Speech: “The Job of Ending Discrimination in This Country Is Not Over.” By Bill Clinton, July 19, 1995. <www.washingtonpost.com>

Today, I am directing all our agencies to comply with the Supreme Court’s Adarand decision, and also to apply the four standards of fairness to all our affirmative action programs that I have already articulated: No quotas in theory or practice; no illegal discrimination of any kind, including reverse discrimination; no preference for people who are not qualified for any job or other opportunity; and as soon as a program has succeeded, it must be retired. Any program that doesn’t meet these four principles must be eliminated or reformed to meet them.

[324] Webpage: “Chronology of Swearing-In Events.” Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Accessed August 23, 2013 at <www.inaugural.senate.gov>

January 20, 1993, Fifty-Second Inaugural Ceremonies, William J. Clinton …

January 20, 1997, Fifty-Third Inaugural Ceremonies, William J. Clinton …

January 20, 2001, Fifty-Fourth Inaugural Ceremonies, George W. Bush

[325] Speech: “The Job of Ending Discrimination in This Country Is Not Over.” By Bill Clinton, July 19, 1995. <www.washingtonpost.com>

Today, I am directing all our agencies to comply with the Supreme Court’s Adarand decision, and also to apply the four standards of fairness to all our affirmative action programs that I have already articulated: No quotas in theory or practice; no illegal discrimination of any kind, including reverse discrimination; no preference for people who are not qualified for any job or other opportunity; and as soon as a program has succeeded, it must be retired. Any program that doesn’t meet these four principles must be eliminated or reformed to meet them.

[326] Webpage: “Chronology of Swearing-In Events.” Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Accessed August 23, 2013 at <www.inaugural.senate.gov>

January 20, 1993, Fifty-Second Inaugural Ceremonies, William J. Clinton …

January 20, 1997, Fifty-Third Inaugural Ceremonies, William J. Clinton …

January 20, 2001, Fifty-Fourth Inaugural Ceremonies, George W. Bush

[327] Ruling: Saunders v. Caldera. United States District Court, District of Columbia, March 19, 2001. <www.leagle.com>

Judge Royce C. Lamberth, District Judge:

Lieutenant Colonel Raymond Saunders is a white male who served in the Army from 1974 to 1997.1 Although originally commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Regular Army, he transferred to the Judge Advocate General’s Corps in 1981 after graduating from law school. In 1992, he was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and, in 1996 and 1997, he sought a promotion to Colonel. Both times, he was denied a promotion.

The Army promotes its lieutenant colonels to the rank of colonel through the use of a “selection board.” … Each year, this board reviews the experience and qualifications of several hundred officers seeking a promotion. They select the top candidates from the applicant pool and recommend them to the Secretary of the Army and ultimately the President for promotion to the positions available. … Although the President and the Secretary of the Army have the ultimate control over promotion decisions, it is understood by all involved that most, if not all, of the evaluative decisions are made by the selection board.

The selection board’s evaluation process is controlled by a memorandum of instruction (“MOI”). This document, which is issued by the Secretary of the Army, provides mandatory guidance to the selection board on issues such as the number of promotions and equal opportunity goals. In LTC Saunders’ case, the MOI issued to the selection boards considering his promotion contained the following instructions:

Goals. Equal Opportunity. Your goal is to achieve a selection rate in each minority or gender group (minority groups: Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian, and Other/Unknown; gender group: Female) that is not less than the selection rate for all officers in the primary zone of consideration. You are required to conduct a review of files for the effects of past discrimination in any case in which the selection rate for a minority or gender group is less than the selection rate for all first time considered officers. This review is required even if the selection of one individual in a minority or gender group would result in a selection rate equal to or greater than the equal opportunity goal for the minority gender group. … You will refer to the remainder of DA Memorandum 600-2, para A-10c (3), for a description of the procedures to use for this review, as well as instructions concerning required revoting procedures where past discrimination is discovered. My commitment is to build a diverse Judge Advocate General’s Corp that is consistent with the diverse structure of the rest of the Army.

– Memorandum from Togo D. West to James N. Hatten, July 24, 1996….

[328] Ruling: Saunders v. Caldera. United States District Court, District of Columbia, March 5, 2002. <news.findlaw.com>

Judge Royce C. Lamberth, District Judge:

i. Racial and Gender Classifications

The initial evaluation procedure amounts to a racial and gender classification due to several factors. First and most obviously, DA Memorandum 600-2 states three separate times that there is a “goal” for the number of female and minority applicants promoted. See DA Memorandum 600-2, section 10, section A-2, A-10(c)(3)(a). Most blatant are the identical instructions contained in sections A-2 and A-10(c)(3)(a):

Your goal is to achieve a selection rate in each minority and gender group (minority groups: Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian, and Others; gender: males for Army Nurse Corps . . . and females for all other . . . categories) that is not less than the selection rate for all officers in the promotion zone (first time considered).

DA Memorandum 600-2, section A-2. It is difficult to find a more direct statement of preference for minorities and females.34 Although the instructions elsewhere order the board not to interpret the “goal” as “guidance to meet a particular ‘quota,’ see DA Memorandum 600-2, section 10(b), a defendant may not cleanse a policy of an impermissible preference merely by disclaiming that preference. As this Circuit has explained in the employment context:

we do not think it matters whether a government hiring program imposes hard quotas, soft quotas, or goals. Any one of these techniques induces an employer to hire with an eye toward meeting the numerical target. As such, they can and surely will result in individuals being granted a preference because of their race [or gender].”

Lutheran Church, 141 F.3d at 354. See also Schurr v. Resorts Int’l Hotel, 196 F.3d 486, 493 (3d Cir. 1999) (stating that “[w]e are convinced, however, that in setting employment goals for women and minorities . . . the regulations were intended to influence employment decisions generally and may, as here, affect concrete decisions[.]”); Bras v. California Public Utilities, 59 F.3d 869, 874 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that the government policy is “not immunized from scrutiny because they purport to establish ‘goals’ rather than ‘quotas.’ ”).

The Court’s conclusion in this regard is further strengthened by section 10(c) of the Memorandum. That section instructs the board to “identify” and “explain” “situation[s] where a particular minority-gender subgroup did not fare well in comparison to the overall population.” DA Memorandum 600-2 section 10(c) (emphasis added). By ordering board members to “explain” themselves when they fail to promote enough females or minorities, the policy clearly implies that disproportionate promotion is in some way a disfavored result, one that constitutes a failure and should be avoided. This is also communicated by the use of the phrase “fare well”; implicit in the term “fare well” is the notion that there is somehow a deficiency in disproportionately lower minority and female promotion rates. While this might be true from a strict policy perspective, the Constitution prohibits the Army from using its policy view to encourage special treatment for minorities and females. This sense of deficiency, coupled with repeated proclamations of a promotion “goal,” strongly suggests that the 1996 and 1997 selection board members felt “oblige[d] to grant some degree of preference to minorities [and females]” in the initial evaluation procedure. Lutheran Church, 141 F.3d at 351.

But the Court’s decision does not rest on these points alone; a separate portion of DA Memorandum 600-2 explicitly instructs selection board members to grant a promotion benefit to females and minorities during the initial evaluation procedure. Section 10(a) instructs board members unequivocally:

In evaluating the files of the officers you are about to consider, be alert to the possibility of past personal or institutional discrimination–either intentional or inadvertent–in the assignment patterns, evaluations, or professional development of officers in those groups for which you have an equal opportunity selection goal. Such indicators may include disproportionately lower evaluation reports, assignment of lesser importance or responsibility, or lack of opportunity to attend career-building military schools. Taking these factors into consideration, assess the degree to which an officer’s record as a whole is an accurate reflection, free from bias, of that officer’s performance and potential.

DA Memorandum 600-2, section 10(a) (emphasis added). Elsewhere in the Memorandum, the groups for which there is an “equal opportunity selection goal” are defined as “Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian, and . . . males for Army Nurse Corps . . . and females for all other . . . categories.” DA Memorandum 600-2, section A-2. Nowhere in the Memorandum are selection board officers obliged to consider the possibility of past discrimination for non-Nurse Corps males, whites, or any other group for which there is not an equal opportunity selection goal. Thus, the Memorandum instructs selection board members to, for example, account for an Hispanic applicant’s “past personal or institutional discrimination,” but not to account for a white applicant’s past discrimination. This undeniably establishes a preference in favor of one race or gender over another, and therefore is unconstitutional.35

[329] Webpage: “Chronology of Swearing-In Events.” Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Accessed August 23, 2013 at <www.inaugural.senate.gov>

January 20, 1997, Fifty-Third Inaugural Ceremonies, William J. Clinton …

January 20, 2001, Fifty-Fourth Inaugural Ceremonies, George W. Bush

[330] Article: “Bias in RAFB job reviews alleged.” By Charlie Lanter. The Telegraph (Macon, Georgia), March 20, 2002. <www.macon.com>

Software Division supervisor Harry Jennings, the author of some of the e-mails, acknowledged to The Telegraph this week that the e-mails are legitimate, but he says the appraisal changes were his proposal rather than a final decision. He said he cannot recall the final disposition of the appraisals.

Jennings said he was “just following orders” when he proposed adjusting the employees’ appraisals.

“I was given that, statistically, we had minorities (who) were underrepresented in certain (performance) categories and nonminorities were overrepresented in certain categories, and I was told to fix it,” he said. …

Parks said all six of his clients had been downgraded, and that the alleged quota policy may not be limited to Robins.

“I cannot believe that just one base would have come up with this sophisticated a program for regulating race and gender advancement,” he said. …

Performance appraisals are conducted annually, and the results play a role in promotions and pay raises, according to Donald Thompson, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 987, which counts 2,400 civilian workers at Robins as its members. The appraisals also can impact how vulnerable a worker is in the event of cutbacks. …

Reached at home Monday, Jennings acknowledged writing and receiving the e-mails, though he didn’t expect them to be widely distributed. …

The e-mails contain several sets of initials, such as NMM, MM and NMF. Jennings said they stand for “non-minority male,” “minority male” and “non-minority female.” Also in the e-mails, “FS” stands for the appraisal rating “Fully Successful” and “E” stands for “Excellent,” he said.

In an e-mail dated April 19, 2001, software division chief Larry Israel instructs Jennings to adjust appraisals in the department.

“To more balance the ethnic groups here’s what I need you to do:” the April 19 e-mail reads. It continues:

MF OK

MM +2E

NMF -1E

NMM -5E

Jennings said Tuesday he understood that to mean no change for minority females, two minority males should be upgraded to receive Excellent ratings, while one white female and five white males should be downgraded to Excellent.

“If there is a case where the employee performance doesn’t warrant this, list the specifics and bring to me to discuss,” it says.

Jennings told The Telegraph his proposal to adjust the white males downward and one minority male upward was answered with objections by those workers’ immediate supervisors, who worked for Jennings. They said the original scores were what their people deserved. …

On April 23, Jennings sent an e-mail to Israel that contained an apparent explanation of an attached spreadsheet file showing Jennings’ proposed adjustments to appraisal scores in his department.

“We reduced five NMM down to FS,” the April 23 e-mail reads. “We will up the score on one MM … to E, 65. Of the four MM remaining in the branch with FS, none are performing well enough to have earned a higher score (See attachment for comments) and we cannot in good conscience give them a better rating when we are reducing the appraisals of five who are better performers.” …

Within the April 27 document is this statement: “The branch has 10 minority males. Of these, three (30%) are appraised as Superior, three (30%) as Excellent and four (40%) as Fully Successful. A completely balanced distribution would have one less Fully Successful and one more Excellent.”

[331] Speech: “The Job of Ending Discrimination in This Country Is Not Over.” By Bill Clinton, July 19, 1995. <www.washingtonpost.com>

Today, I am directing all our agencies to comply with the Supreme Court’s Adarand decision, and also to apply the four standards of fairness to all our affirmative action programs that I have already articulated: No quotas in theory or practice; no illegal discrimination of any kind, including reverse discrimination; no preference for people who are not qualified for any job or other opportunity; and as soon as a program has succeeded, it must be retired. Any program that doesn’t meet these four principles must be eliminated or reformed to meet them.

[332] Webpage: “Chronology of Swearing-In Events.” Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Accessed August 23, 2013 at <www.inaugural.senate.gov>

January 20, 1993, Fifty-Second Inaugural Ceremonies, William J. Clinton …

January 20, 1997, Fifty-Third Inaugural Ceremonies, William J. Clinton …

January 20, 2001, Fifty-Fourth Inaugural Ceremonies, George W. Bush

[333] Broadcast: 20/20. ABC News, November 18, 1994.

Anchor Catherine Crier:

For example, a number of white males at the Department of Defense aren’t sure how to react to a recent memo which reportedly advised them, “In the future, special permission will be required for the promotion of all white men without disabilities.”

[334] Speech: “The Job of Ending Discrimination in This Country Is Not Over.” By Bill Clinton, July 19, 1995. <www.washingtonpost.com>

Today, I am directing all our agencies to comply with the Supreme Court’s Adarand decision, and also to apply the four standards of fairness to all our affirmative action programs that I have already articulated: No quotas in theory or practice; no illegal discrimination of any kind, including reverse discrimination; no preference for people who are not qualified for any job or other opportunity; and as soon as a program has succeeded, it must be retired. Any program that doesn’t meet these four principles must be eliminated or reformed to meet them.

[335] Speech: “The Job of Ending Discrimination in This Country Is Not Over.” By Bill Clinton, July 19, 1995. <www.washingtonpost.com>

Today, I am directing all our agencies to comply with the Supreme Court’s Adarand decision, and also to apply the four standards of fairness to all our affirmative action programs that I have already articulated: No quotas in theory or practice; no illegal discrimination of any kind, including reverse discrimination; no preference for people who are not qualified for any job or other opportunity; and as soon as a program has succeeded, it must be retired. Any program that doesn’t meet these four principles must be eliminated or reformed to meet them.

[336] Webpage: “Chronology of Swearing-In Events.” Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Accessed August 23, 2013 at <www.inaugural.senate.gov>

January 20, 1993, Fifty-Second Inaugural Ceremonies, William J. Clinton …

January 20, 1997, Fifty-Third Inaugural Ceremonies, William J. Clinton …

January 20, 2001, Fifty-Fourth Inaugural Ceremonies, George W. Bush

[337] “Affirmative Action Review, Report to the President.” By George Stephanopoulos (Senior Adviser to the President for Policy and Strategy) and Christopher Edley, Jr. (Special Counsel to the President), July 19, 1995. <clinton2.nara.gov>

Introduction:

1.1 Purposes of the Review

On March 7, 1995, President Clinton directed that a review be conducted of the Federal government’s affirmative action programs. The President asked the following questions:

Descriptions. What kinds of Federal programs and initiatives are now in place, and how are they designed?

Performance. What is known about their effects—benefits and costs, direct and indirect, intended and unintended—both to the specified beneficiaries and to others? In short, how are they run? Do they work? Are they fair?

In preparing this report, we analyzed federal programs that might be categorized as affirmative action.1 These programs range from outreach efforts that encourage grantmakers to seek out members of disadvantaged groups, to procurement regulations that set aside particular contracts for competitive bidding limited largely to minority-owned, economically disadvantaged small businesses.

The report first sets forth the framework we used to analyze these programs. It then describes the evolution of affirmative action, as policymakers sought to make real the promise of the civil rights legal breakthroughs. It then summarizes the evidence of discrimination and exclusion today, followed by a brief review of the overall effectiveness of affirmative action and anti-discrimination measures. All of this provides the context for considering current affirmative action programs in more detail. Several sections describe the government’s major affirmative action programs, and applies to those programs the policy test set forth by the President.

We conclude that these programs have worked to advance equal opportunity by helping redress problems of discrimination and by fostering the inclusion needed to strengthen critical institutions, professions and the economy. In addition, we have examined concerns about fairness. The evidence shows that, on the whole, the federal programs are fair and do not unduly burden nonbeneficiaries. Finally, we conclude that some reforms would make the programs work better and guarantee their fairness.

[338] Webpage: “George Stephanopoulos’ Biography.” ABC News. Accessed August 29, 2016 At <abcnews.go.com>

“George Stephanopoulos is ABC News’ Chief Anchor. He also serves as anchor of Good Morning America, and anchor of This Week with George Stephanopoulos. As Chief Anchor, Stephanopoulos leads the network’s coverage on all major live events and breaking news around the world.”

[339] Webpage: “Christopher Edley Jr.” The Opportunity Institute. Accessed August 29, 2016 At <theopportunityinstitute.org>

Christopher Edley, Jr. is the co-founder and president of The Opportunity Institute. He founded and continues to be Chair of Partners for Each and Every Child, now a project of The Opportunity Institute. He co-chaired the congressionally chartered National Commission on Education Equity and Excellence (2011-13), appointed by Secretary Arne Duncan. Christopher is the Honorable William H. Orrick, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law at UC Berkeley School of Law, after serving as dean from 2004 through 2013. Before Berkeley, he was a law professor at Harvard for 23 years, where Professor Gary Orfield and he co-founded the Harvard Civil Rights Project. He served in White House policy and budget positions under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Christopher has also held senior positions in five presidential campaigns, including senior policy adviser for Barack Obama (2008) and policy director for Michael Dukakis (1988).

[340] Paper: “A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools.” By Richard H. Sander. Stanford Law Review, November 2004. Pages 367-483. <www2.law.ucla.edu>

Page 369:

Nearly all aspirants to law school go through a similar application process and take a uniform exam, the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). First-year law students across the country follow similar curricula and are graded predominantly on a curve. Nearly all graduates of law school who want to practice law must take bar exams to begin their professional careers.3

Pages 414-416:

From 1991 through 1997, the LSAC [Law School Admission Council] gathered systematic data on one national cohort of law students for its Bar Passage Study (LSAC-BPS).133 The study is remarkable because the LSAC secured the cooperation of about ninety-five percent of the nation’s accredited law schools and most of the state bar examiners.134 The LSAC was thus able to track some twenty-seven thousand law students from their entry into law school in the fall of 1991 through their eventual success (or failure) in passing the bar two or three years after graduation. …

For each person in the LSAC-BPS data set, I assigned an “admissions index” value using the method outlined in Part II. The index is a linear combination of LSAT (weighted 60%) and undergraduate GPA (weighted 40%) that scales all students on a range from one to one thousand. Table 3.1 presents data on all the students who enrolled at Tier 1 schools (which appear to include the most elite schools in the nation), separated by race. …

The racial gap in the mean academic index is 155 points; the gap in the median index is 170 points. The standard deviation of the index is comparatively small—strikingly small, considering that the schools in this group are spread across the top twenty in rank, ranging perhaps from Yale to Vanderbilt. This means that nearly all of the whites admitted to any of the Tier 1 schools come from a fairly narrow credentials band. Collectively, only about three percent of the whites at these schools have academic indices as low as the median black matriculant.

Table 3.2 summarizes similar data for the full range of law schools that participated in the LSAC-BPS. It is hard to conclude from this data that the racial gap, or affirmative action, disappears at lower-tier schools. Except for the seven law schools that have historically served minorities—obviously a special case—the black-white gap is nearly constant.

Table 3.2: Black-White Academic Index Gap in Six Groups of
American Law Schools, 1991 Matriculants

Law School Group

Median Academic Index

Black-White Gap

Standard Deviation in Index for Whites

Blacks

Whites

Group 1: Very Elite Schools (n = 14)

705

875

170

74

Group 2: Other “National” Schools (n = 16)

631

805

174

89

Group 3: Midrange Public Schools (n = 50)

586

788

202

75

Group 4: Midrange Private Schools (n = 50)

560

725

165

75

Group 5: Low-Range Private Law Schools (n = 18)

493

665

172

73

Group 6: Historically “Minority” Schools (n = 7)

516

641

125

103

Page 435:

Table 5.4: GPA Distribution of Black Students at the End of Their First and Third Years, For All Law Schools in the LSAC-BPS

Decile

Proportion of Black Law School Graduates with Grades in Each Decile

1st Year GPA

3d Year (Cumulative) GPA

1st

41.4%

42.5%

2nd

17.4%

18.0%

3rd

11.3%

11.2%

4th

8.2%

9.0%

5th

6.5%

5.8%

6th

4.3%

5.0%

7th

3.3%

2.5%

8th

3.3%

2.5%

9th

2.3%

1.8%

10th

2.0%

1.7%

n of Black Students in Sample: 1385

Source: LSAC-BPS Data, supra note 133.183 The universe on which the deciles are calculated is just those students who graduated from law school and had, in the LSAC-BPS data, valid first-year and cumulative third-year GPAs (a total of 22,969 students). The difference between the means of the first- and third-year grade distribution is small but highly significant (p < .001). Because dropouts are excluded from the analysis, this table somewhat overstates the performance of all blacks who complete the first year of law school.

Page 436: “In the LSAC-BPS data, 8.2% of the white students, but 19.2% of the black students, who started law school in 1991 had not graduated by the end of the study five years later.”

Page 454: “Of all the black students in the LSAC-BPS study who began law school in 1991, only 45% graduated from law school, took the bar, and passed on their first attempt. The rate for whites was over 78%.”

Page 478:

The median GPA of all black students at the end of the first year of law school lies roughly at the sixth percentile of the white grade distribution. Put differently, close to half of black students end up in the bottom tenth of their classes. …

… Blacks are nearly six times as likely as whites to not pass state bar exams after multiple attempts. …

… Blacks earn 6% to 9% more early in their careers than do whites seeking similar jobs with similar credentials, presumably because many employers (including government employers) pursue moderate racial preferences in hiring.

[341] Webpage: “About the ACLU.” American Civil Liberties Union. Accessed August 23, 2016 at <www.aclu.org>

“For nearly 100 years, the ACLU has been our nation’s guardian of liberty, working in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.”

[342] Webpage: “2011: Immigrants’ Rights Under Attack in State Legislatures.” American Civil Liberties Union. Accessed August 23, 2016 at <action.aclu.org>

“Arizona’s racial profiling law and its imitators threaten fundamental American values of fairness and equality for all people. The ACLU will continue to stand up for the civil liberties of all Americans, no matter what race, ethnicity, or national origin.”

[343] Position paper: “Affirmative Action.” American Civil Liberties Union. Accessed August 23, 2016 at <www.aclu.org>

Opponents of affirmative action deliberately distort the definition and goals of this legal remedy. They contend that the practice is unfair, that it leads to preferential treatment and reverse discrimination, and that it relies on quotas.

Affirmative action programs neither grant preferences based on race, nor create quotas. The law states that affirmative action programs must be flexible, using goals and timetables, but not quotas; protect seniority and not interfere with the legitimate seniority expectations of current employees; be temporary and last no longer than necessary to remedy discrimination.

[344] Ballot pamphlet: “California’s General Election on November 5, 1996.” California Secretary of State, 1996. <vigarchive.sos.ca.gov>

“Proposition 209: Text of Proposed Law.” <vigarchive.sos.ca.gov>

Proposed amendment to Article 1 (Declaration of Rights):

(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section’s effective date.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.

(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the State.

(f) For the purposes of this section, “State” shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.

(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party’s race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.

(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

[345] Article: “White House mulls joining ACLU suit against Prop. 209.” San Francisco Examiner, December 11, 1996. <www.sfgate.com>

Prop. 209 amended the state constitution to prohibit:

“preferential treatment . . . on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.” It also ended all non-court-ordered state affirmative action programs in public education, employment and contracting.”

The ACLU is seeking a preliminary injunction barring Gov. Wilson and state Attorney General Dan Lungren from implementing the measure pending a full court hearing on the issue.

[346] Article: “White House Joins Attack on Prop. 209.” By David G. Savage. Los Angeles Times, December 21, 1996. <articles.latimes.com>

“[Presidential press secretary Mike] McCurry said that [President] Clinton did not lightly wish to go against the ‘will of the people’ of California, who approved Proposition 209 in November’s election by 54% to 46%.”

[347] Article: “White House Joins Attack on Prop. 209.” By David G. Savage. Los Angeles Times, December 21, 1996. <articles.latimes.com>

Escalating the battle over affirmative action, the Clinton administration announced Friday that it will join the legal attack on the California voter initiative that bars preferential treatment based on race, ethnicity or gender in all state programs. …

[Presidential press secretary Mike] McCurry said that Clinton did not lightly wish to go against the “will of the people” of California, who approved Proposition 209 in November’s election by 54% to 46%. But the president decided that the measure presents a “significant overriding constitutional concern,” McCurry said. …

The administration’s civil rights lawyers could ask to join the lawsuit being heard in Henderson’s courtroom as a party to the case, or instead file a friend of the court brief on behalf of the plaintiffs. Lawyers for the ACLU said they were delighted by the administration’s decision to enter the legal dispute.

[348] Article: California’s Affirmative Action Ban Bolstered by Supreme Court Ruling.” By Katy Murphy. Mercury News, April 22, 2014. Updated 4/23/2014. <www.mercurynews.com>

California’s 16-year-old affirmative action ban is lodged more firmly than ever in state law after the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday shut off further court challenges in states that have enacted such bans.

By upholding a Michigan law nearly identical to California’s, the ruling left only a legislative—or ballot initiative—route for allowing racial and gender preferences in public college admissions, contracts and hiring. …

But the Michigan case had major implications for California, where Proposition 209 approved by voters in 1996—has forbidden consideration of race and gender in university admissions and financial aid, contracting and other public programs throughout the state. Legal challenges to Proposition 209 failed, and its critics considered the Supreme Court case out of Michigan the last, best chance to revive a challenge in the courts.

[349] Position paper: “Affirmative Action.” American Civil Liberties Union. Accessed August 23, 2016 at <www.aclu.org>

1965 The term ‘affirmative action’ is used for the first time, by President Johnson in E.O. [Executive Order] 11246, requiring federal contractors to take ‘affirmative action’ to ensure equality of employment.”

[350] Executive Order 10925: “Establishing The President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.” By John F. Kennedy, March 6, 1961. <www.eeoc.gov>

WHEREAS discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin is contrary to the Constitutional principles and policies of the United States; and 13 CFR 1960 Supp.

WHEREAS it is the plain and positive obligation of the United States Government to promote and ensure equal opportunity for all qualified persons, without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin, employed or seeking employment with the Federal Government and on government contracts….

Part III—Obligations Of Government Contractors And Subcontractors

Subpart A—Contractors’ Agreements

Section 301. Except in contracts exempted in accordance with section 303 of this order, all government contracting agencies shall include in every government contract hereafter entered into the following provisions:

“In connection with the performance of work under this contract, the contractor agrees as follows:

“(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.”

[351] Executive Order 10925: “Establishing The President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.” By John F. Kennedy, March 6, 1961. <www.eeoc.gov>

WHEREAS discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin is contrary to the Constitutional principles and policies of the United States; and 13 CFR 1960 Supp.

WHEREAS it is the plain and positive obligation of the United States Government to promote and ensure equal opportunity for all qualified persons, without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin, employed or seeking employment with the Federal Government and on government contracts….

Part III—Obligations Of Government Contractors And Subcontractors

Subpart A—Contractors’ Agreements

Section 301. Except in contracts exempted in accordance with section 303 of this order, all government contracting agencies shall include in every government contract hereafter entered into the following provisions:

“In connection with the performance of work under this contract, the contractor agrees as follows:

“(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.

“(2) The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin.”

[352] Speech: “Civil Rights Announcement.” By John F. Kennedy, June 11, 1963. <www.pbs.org>

It ought to be possible, in short, for every American to enjoy the privileges of being American without regard to his race or his color. In short, every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated. But this is not the case today. …

Next week I shall ask the Congress of the United States to act, to make a commitment it has not fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law. The federal judiciary has upheld that proposition in the conduct of its affairs, including the employment of federal personnel, the use of federal facilities, and the sale of federally financed housing.

[353] “Commencement Address Howard University Address.” By President Lyndon B. Johnson, June 4, 1965. <www.lbjlib.utexas.edu>

Thus we have seen the high court of the country declare that discrimination based on race was repugnant to the Constitution, and therefore void. We have seen in 1957, and 1960, and again in 1964, the first civil rights legislation in this Nation in almost an entire century. …

The voting rights bill will be the latest, and among the most important, in a long series of victories. But this victory—as Winston Churchill said of another triumph for freedom—”is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

That beginning is freedom; and the barriers to that freedom are tumbling down. Freedom is the right to share, share fully and equally, in American society--to vote, to hold a job, to enter a public place, to go to school. It is the right to be treated in every part of our national life as a person equal in dignity and promise to all others.

But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.

You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.

Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.

This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.

For the task is to give 20 million Negroes the same chance as every other American to learn and grow, to work and share in society, to develop their abilities—physical, mental and spiritual, and to pursue their individual happiness.

To this end equal opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough. Men and women of all races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the neighborhood you live in—by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness of your surroundings. It is the product of a hundred unseen forces playing upon the little infant, the child, and finally the man.

[354] Article: “In U.S., Most Reject Considering Race in College Admissions.” By Jeffrey M. Jones. Gallup, July 24, 2013. <www.gallup.com>

Do you generally favor affirmative action programs for racial minorities?

Group

Favor

Oppose

National Adults

58

37

Whites

51

44

Blacks

76

20

Hispanics

69

25

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted June 13-July 5, 2013, with a random sample of 4,373 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, including oversamples of black and Hispanic adults. The total sample is weighted to represent racial and ethnic groups proportionately to their share of the population.

[355] Article: “In U.S., Most Reject Considering Race in College Admissions.” By Jeffrey M. Jones. Gallup, July 24, 2013. <www.gallup.com>

Take Race Into Account in College Admissions?

Group

Solely on Merit

Consider Race

U.S. Adults

67

28

Whites

75

22

Blacks

44

48

Hispanics

59

31

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted June 13-July 5, 2013, with a random sample of 4,373 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, including oversamples of black and Hispanic adults. The total sample is weighted to represent racial and ethnic groups proportionately to their share of the population.

[356] Article: “In U.S., Most Reject Considering Race in College Admissions.” By Jeffrey M. Jones. Gallup, July 24, 2013. <www.gallup.com>

Americans may be less likely to support affirmative action in college admissions because the question raises a potential specific consequence of such programs—admitting some minority students who would otherwise not be admitted on their merits alone—which could in their minds outweigh the positive aspects of the policy mentioned in the question. The general question on affirmative action, asked prior to the question on college admissions, does not discuss any pros or cons of affirmative action, suggesting Americans mostly have a positive reaction to the concept or term. …

… One of the clearest examples of affirmative action in practice is colleges’ taking into account a person’s racial or ethnic background when deciding which applicants will be admitted. …

[357] “2016 Democratic Party Platform.” Democratic Platform Committee, July 21, 2016. <www.demconvention.com>

Page 31: “The federal government will push more colleges and universities to take quantifiable, affirmative steps in increasing the percentages of racial and ethnic minority, low-income, and first-generation students they enroll and graduate.”

[358] “2016 Republican Party Platform.” Republican National Committee, July, 2016. <prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com>

Page 9:

We reaffirm the Constitution’s fundamental principles: limited government, separation of powers, individual liberty, and the rule of law. We denounce bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, and religious intolerance. Therefore, we oppose discrimination based on race, sex, religion, creed, disability, or national origin and support statutes to end such discrimination. As the Party of Abraham Lincoln, we must continue to foster solutions to America’s difficult challenges when it comes to race relations today. We continue to encourage equality for all citizens and access to the American Dream. Merit and hard work should determine advancement in our society, so we reject unfair preferences, quotas, and set-asides as forms of discrimination. Our ranks include Americans from every faith and tradition, and we respect the right of each American to follow his or her deeply held beliefs.

[359] “2000 Democratic National Platform: Prosperity, Progress, and Peace.” Democratic National Committee, August 14, 2000. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

Page 36:

Fighting for Civil Rights and Inclusion.

Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was one of the proudest moments of our nation’s history and a sterling testament to our aspirations as a people. Yet, despite undeniable progress over the last several decades, inequality and polarization nevertheless persist in far too many American workplaces, schools, and communities. Over the last eight years, we have fought hard to end discrimination. We have increased funding for civil rights enforcement - so that the laws on our books are not just pleasant words, but pledges of justice. Al Gore has strongly opposed efforts to roll back affirmative action programs. He knows that the way to lift this nation up is not by pulling the weakest down, but by continuing to expand opportunities for everyone who wants to achieve. The Clinton-Gore Administration has appointed the most diverse administration in American history, demonstrating that pursuing excellence means including the all of the best that our nation has to offer.

[360] “2000 Republican Party Platform.” Republican National Committee, July 31, 2000. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

We believe rights inhere in individuals, not in groups. We will attain our nation’s goal of equal opportunity without quotas or other forms of preferential treatment. It is as simple as this: No one should be denied a job, promotion, contract, or chance at higher education because of their race or gender. Equal access, energetically offered, should guarantee every person a fair shot based on their potential and merit.

[361] Report: Racial Disparities in Education Finance: Going Beyond Equal Revenues.” By Kim Rueben and Sheila Murray. Urban Institute, November 2008. <www.taxpolicycenter.org>

Page 1:

In the past, because public schools were funded largely by local property taxes, property-rich and -poor school districts differed greatly in expenditures per pupil. Since the early 1970s, however, state legislatures have, on their own initiative or at the behest of state courts, implemented school finance equalization programs to reduce the disparity in within-state education spending. …

Since the 1990s, many of the challenges to state finance systems have focused on ensuring that all students have equitable access to adequate educational opportunities as required by state education clauses (Minorini and Sugarman 1999). The argument is that some districts do not provide students with an adequate education and that it is the state’s responsibility to see that districts receive the funding to enable them to do so. The remedy might require some districts to spend more (perhaps significantly more) than other districts, depending on their student population. For example, in districts with many students from low-income families and families where English is not the first language, an “adequate education” may cost more money, and the state is required to ensure that these needs are met.

[362] “How Schools Work & How to Work With Schools: A Primer For Those Who Want To Serve Children and Youth In Schools.” National Association of State Boards of Education, 2014. <www.cdc.gov>

Page 13:

At the local level, most funds for K-12 public schools are raised through local taxes on private property. Although a local property tax is a fairly stable source of funding, disparities in local wealth often directly affect the funds available to schools, reflected in the disparities in per student spending within and between school districts. Even if voters choose to tax themselves at a relatively high rate, low community property values can mean inadequate resources for schools.

Many states have taken the initiative or have been forced by legal challenges to address these inequities in education funding, which compromise the guarantee found in state constitutions that all students have equal access to an adequate public education. States have adopted ballot measures, such as California’s Proposition 98 and 111, to ensure funding equity, or have raised funds from lotteries and other mechanisms, or redistributed locally raised taxes through legislative means to help ensure equity in funding.

[363] Brief: “Do Districts Enrolling High Percentages of Minority Students Spend Less?” By Thomas Parrish. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, December 1996. <nces.ed.gov>

Figure 1 shows expenditures for four categories of school districts by the percentage of minority students enrolled. Each of these four categories of school districts represents about 25 percent of the nation’s public school children. Figure 1 shows that on average, during the 1989–90 school year, spending was fairly equal across school districts with less than 50 percent minority enrollment. However, districts in which 50 percent or more of the students enrolled were racial minorities spent more than those districts with less than 50 percent minority enrollment. For example, the average expenditure differential between districts with the highest and the lowest percentage of minority students was $431 per student ($5,474 versus $5,043).

Figure 1. Education Expenditures in the United States in Relation to Percentage of Minority Enrollment (1989-90)

School Districts by Percentage of Minority Enrollment; Expenditures per Student

Less than 5% [=] $5,043

5% - <20% [=] $5,169

20% - <50% [=] $5,071

50% or more [=] $5,474 …

In terms of “buying power” in school year 1989–90, districts with the highest percentages of minority students spent $286 less on public education per year than did districts with the lowest percentages of minority students ($4,103 vs. $4,389 per student) (figure 2). This change in direction occurs because school districts enrolling high percentages of minority students are more likely to be located in high-cost urban centers and to serve substantial numbers of students with special needs, thereby reducing the “buying power” of the dollars received.

Figure 2. Education “buying power” in the United States in Relation to Percentage of Minority Enrollment (1989-90)

Less than 5% [=] $4,389

5% - <20% [=] $4,350

20% - <50% [=] $4,190

50% or more [=] $4,103

[364] Book: Generational Change: Closing the Test Score Gap. Edited by Paul E. Peterson. Rowman & Littlefield, 2006. Chapter 2: “How Families and Schools Shape the Achievement Gap.” By Derek Neal (University of Chicago and NBER). Pages 26-46.

Pages 32, 44:

Under the assumption that spending per student does not vary by race within a school district, the combination of school district data on per-pupil expenditure and school-level data on the racial composition of students provides information on average per pupil spending by public schools on black and white students. Given several different definitions of average expenditure, average spending per black student in public schools ranged from roughly $100 to $500 more than the corresponding figure for white students in 2001.15 These data provide suggestive but not definitive evidence concerning racial differences in resources provided to public schools. …

15. The data come from two Common Core of Data files: the Local (School District) Education Financial Survey and the Public Elementary/Secondary School Data. I calculated averages based on just educational expenditures as well as total expenditures. I also examined the sensitivity of results to the inclusion of allocated data.

[365] Report: Racial Disparities in Education Finance: Going Beyond Equal Revenues.” By Kim Rueben and Sheila Murray. Urban Institute, November 2008. <www.taxpolicycenter.org>

Page 1:

In the past, because public schools were funded largely by local property taxes, property-rich and -poor school districts differed greatly in expenditures per pupil. Since the early 1970s, however, state legislatures have, on their own initiative or at the behest of state courts, implemented school finance equalization programs to reduce the disparity in within-state education spending. …

Since the 1990s, many of the challenges to state finance systems have focused on ensuring that all students have equitable access to adequate educational opportunities as required by state education clauses (Minorini and Sugarman 1999). The argument is that some districts do not provide students with an adequate education and that it is the state’s responsibility to see that districts receive the funding to enable them to do so. The remedy might require some districts to spend more (perhaps significantly more) than other districts, depending on their student population. For example, in districts with many students from low-income families and families where English is not the first language, an “adequate education” may cost more money, and the state is required to ensure that these needs are met.

Page 5:

To examine spending patterns across different populations of students, we compared average per pupil spending across districts weighted by the number of students in each racial or ethnic group. In general, differences in spending per pupil in districts serving nonwhite and white students are very small. In 1972, the ratio of nonwhite to white spending was .98; this trend had reversed by 1982, as spending per pupil for nonwhite students was slightly higher than for white students in most states and in the United States as a whole and has been for the past 20 years (figure 2). Table 2 presents spending per pupil figures for 2002 weighted by the number of students in each subgroup.

Page 7: “The results presented thus far need to be considered with a few caveats. These ratios do not reflect that the costs of educating students of different groups differ and that minority students are often found in urban districts that have higher cost structures. … In addition, although spending differences have lessened between districts, it is unclear whether inequities are lessened at the school level.”

[366] Brief: “The Myth of Racial Disparities in Public School Funding.” By Jason Richwine. Heritage Foundation, April 20, 2011. <www.heritage.org>

Page 2: “One of the more rigorous reports on funding disparities was published by the Urban Institute.11 The authors of the study combined district-level spending data with the racial and ethnic composition of schools within districts. … This paper employs a similar methodology, using 2006–2007 datasets from the U.S. Department of Education to examine school funding at both the national and regional levels.

Page 3:

Because the cost of living varies across the U.S., school expenditures are not always directly comparable. In areas with a lower cost of living, the same amount of money can buy more resources than in high-cost areas. To account for this difference, the NCES calculates a Comparable Wage Index (CWI) for each school district based on the average non-teacher wage in the district’s labor market. …

Cost adjustments should be regarded cautiously. Living expenses can still vary within markets, sometimes considerably. The District of Columbia, for example, is a high-expense city overall, but its poorest (and mostly black and Hispanic) sections have a lower cost of living than the white sections. While the raw data are likely to overstate the minority school funding advantage, the adjusted data probably understate it.

Page 4:

Public Education Spending by Race and Ethnic Group

Per-Pupil Spending; % of White Per-Pupil Spending; Adjusted

for Cost of Living

White; $10,816; 100%, 100%

Black; $11,387; 105%; 101%

Hispanic; $10,951; 101%; 96%

Asian; $11,535; 107%; 97%

[367] “How Schools Work & How to Work With Schools: A Primer For Those Who Want To Serve Children and Youth In Schools.” National Association of State Boards of Education, 2014. <www.cdc.gov>

Page 2:

Educators often say, “to know one school is to know one school.” Indeed, the education system is widely variable and causes confusion at many levels. This guide is intended to assist anyone who would like to work more closely with various facets of the education system—with policymakers, school administrators, teachers, and other school staff—to improve the health, safety, and well-being of children and youth in schools.

Page 12: “Because schools are decentralized, there are very few generalities that exist for characterizing all school districts or schools. Distinct state, territorial, and tribal school systems differ in substantive ways, but often work in parallel, with different and overlapping laws and authorities.”

Page 21:

Most states delegate their authority for school control to the local level. The school district, also known as the local education agency (LEA), is the public school system’s primary unit of administration for a designated geographic area. There are more than 13,000 school districts across the United States, which sometimes overlap the boundaries of municipal governments. Furthermore, school district boundaries do not always correspond with those of other agencies and government jurisdictions. The size of districts varies considerably, both in terms of their geographical size and the number of students they serve. As shown in the chart below, the vast majority of school districts are small—more than 60 percent of districts have fewer than 5,000 students. However, more than half of America’s students are enrolled in fewer than 1,000 districts.26

Page 24:

All schools have a personality and character that is largely determined by and reflective of leadership, faculty and staff, and the community’s values. Ideally, schools are designed and operated to bring out the best in all students, helping them to develop and learn in an optimal environment.

The number of school districts in a given state also varies considerably across the country. Several states, such as Maryland and Florida, have districts that match the states’ counties, giving Maryland a total of 24 school districts. Next door in Pennsylvania there are 514 districts and nearby New Jersey has nearly 600. The trend throughout the 20th century was to consolidate small or remote school districts into larger units—in 1952 there were 69,725 school districts, more than five times as many as today. This trend continues, but at a much slower pace. The arguments in favor of consolidation (cost savings combined with capacity to provide additional courses and other services) are countered by fears of losing a community’s identity, loss of local control, and longer bus rides for some students if nearby schools are closed.27

In most districts, primary governing authority lies with the local school board. The school board generally establishes and implements the district’s guiding vision, makes budget decisions, chooses curriculum, and determines many policies that guide the daily decisions of the LEA and its schools. A few of the issues local school boards routinely address include:

• Local academic and graduation standards (if higher than the state);

• Equitable access to education for all students in the district;

• Resources for promoting academic achievement;

• Budget planning;

• Contract negotiations;

• Personnel decisions;

• School closures;

• School area redistricting;

• Transportation policies;

• Wellness policies or practices;

• Facilities construction;

• Codes of conduct; and

• Emergency management procedures.

Local school boards can also serve as a body to mediate or arbitrate issues that cannot be resolved at the school level or that cut across several schools. Local districts are subject to state laws and policies that may direct, limit, or otherwise influence local policymaking and implementation. Local school boards have full fiscal authority, often with the ability to levy taxes.

Page 24:

No single, uniform model exists for a school’s organization by grade or age. The most commonly used model arranges schools by clusters of grades, for example elementary schools (comprised of grades K-5), middle schools (grades 6-8), and high schools (grades 9-12). However, several variations within this arrangement exist, clustering different grades together in different levels or even within a school. Schools, even within the same school district, may vary greatly in their arrangement of students, schedules, and teaching models; in one school in a district, students may get new teachers every year while in a neighboring school, teachers may “loop” with students through several or all grades. Some schools in a district may use a “year round” schedule, while the rest of the schools are on a traditional nine-month calendar. The district administrator and the school board typically make decisions regarding school structure. Schools in a district can also vary in quality and character. Characteristics of an effective school include:

• Strong administrative leadership;

• A clear school vision and mission;

• A safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning;

• A welcoming staff and faculty that connect with students and make them feel valued;

• School-wide emphasis and commitment to learning for all;

• High teacher expectations for student achievement;

• Regular, periodic assessment;

• Active parent/family involvement;

• A commitment to addressing barriers to student learning; and

• Policies that are fair and equitable and are enforced consistently.28

All schools have a personality and character that is largely determined by and reflective of leadership, faculty and staff, and the community’s values. Ideally, schools are designed and operated to bring out the best in all students, helping them to develop and learn in an optimal environment. The principal is the key decision-maker at every school.

[368] Book: Comparative Public Policy and Citizen Participation: Energy, Education, Health and Urban Issues in the U.S. and Germany. Edited by Charles R. Foster. Pergamon Press, 1980. Chapter 7: “Education As Loosely Coupled Systems in West Germany and the United States.” By Maurice A Garnier. Pages 87-98. Page 93:

The concept of local control of schools is an old one in the United States and in England. While, in the United States, the legal authority for education is vested in the state, most states (with the exception of Hawaii) have delegated that responsibility to local authorities. Over the years, states have increased their role, particularly in matters of finance and teacher certification. Nevertheless, the American assumption is that communities constitute the unit most capable of running the schools. While the state may mandate that districts’ boundaries be redrawn, the notion that a particular state might be capable of running all schools within its boundaries is unthinkable in the American context. We will later examine the shortcomings of such a system, but in theory as well as in practice, American schools are locally run and the formal connections between school districts within the same state are virtually nonexistent (Wayland, 1973).

[369] Despite the fact that K–12 schools have been primarily run by local governments, the U.S. education system has become increasingly centralized over the past decades. For facts about his trend, visit Just Facts’ research on education centralization and decentralization.

[370] Webpage: “QuickFacts.” U.S. Census. Accessed August 30, 2016 At <www.census.gov>

Race and Hispanic Origin

• White alone, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015) (a) [=] 77.1%

• White alone, percent, April 1, 2010 (a) [=] 72.4%

• Black or African American alone, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015) (a) [=]

13.3%

• Black or African American alone, percent, April 1, 2010 (a) [=] 12.6% …

• Hispanic or Latino, percent, July 1, 2015, (V2015) (b) [=] 17.6%

• Hispanic or Latino, percent, April 1, 2010 (b) [=] 16.3%

The vintage year (e.g., V2015) refers to the final year of the series (2010 thru 2015).

Different vintage years of estimates are not comparable.

(a) Includes persons reporting only one race

(b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories

[371] Calculated with data from the article: “Party Identification Trends, 1992–2014.” Pew Research, April 7, 2015. <www.people-press.org>

Pew Research Center has been tracking the party affiliation of the general public for over 20 years. Click the buttons or scroll down to explore the party ID data for two dozen demographic subgroups, categorized by gender, race, education, generation, and religious affiliation. …

White, Non-Hispanic – Party ID …

Black, Non-Hispanic – Party ID …

Hispanic – Party ID

NOTE: An Excel file containing the data and calculations is available upon request.

[372] Article: “Party Identification Trends, 1992–2014.” Pew Research, April 7, 2015. <www.people-press.org>

Pew Research Center has been tracking the party affiliation of the general public for over 20 years. Click the buttons or scroll down to explore the party ID data for two dozen demographic subgroups, categorized by gender, race, education, generation, and religious affiliation. …

White, Non-Hispanic – Party ID …

Black, Non-Hispanic – Party ID …

Hispanic – Party ID

[373] Dataset: “Table 219.40. Public high school graduates and averaged freshman graduation rate, by race/ethnicity and state or jurisdiction: 2009-10.” U.S. Department Of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, November 2012. <nces.ed.gov>

“The AFGR [averaged freshman graduation rate] provides an estimate of the percentage of students who receive a regular diploma within 4 years of entering 9th grade. The rate uses aggregate student enrollment data to estimate the size of an incoming freshman class and aggregate counts of the number of diplomas awarded 4 years later.

[374] Report: “The Condition of College & Career Readiness 2014.” ACT, 2014. <www.act.org>

Page 6: “Percent of 2010–2014 ACT-Tested High School Graduates Meeting Three or More Benchmarks by Race/Ethnicity … 2014 … Asian [=] 57 White [=] 49 … Pacific Islander [=] 24 … Hispanic [=] 23 American Indian [=] 18 … African American [=] 11”

[375] Dataset: “Table 302.20. Percentage of recent high school completers enrolled in 2- and 4-year colleges, by race/ethnicity: 1960 through 2013.” U.S. Department Of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, July 2014. <nces.ed.gov>

[376] Dataset: “Table 326.20. Graduation rate from first institution attended within 150 percent of normal time for first-time, full-time degree/certificate-seeking students at 2-year postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, sex, and control of institution: Selected cohort entry years, 2000 through 2010.” U.S. Department Of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, November 2014. <nces.ed.gov>

[377] Dataset: “Table 326.10. Graduation rate from first institution attended for first-time, full-time bachelor’s degree- seeking students at 4-year postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, time to completion, sex, control of institution, and acceptance rate: Selected cohort entry years, 1996 through 2007.” U.S. Department Of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, November 2014. <nces.ed.gov>

[378] Report: “The Literacy of America’s College Students.” By Justin D. Baer, Andrea L. Cook, and Stéphane Baldi. American Institutes for Research, January 2006. <www.air.org>

Page 4:

The NSACS, sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts, collected data from a sample of 1,827 graduating students at 80 randomly selected 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities (68 public and 12 private) from across the United States. The NSACS specifically targeted college and university students nearing the end of their degree program, thus providing a broader and more comprehensive picture of students’ fundamental literacy abilities than ever before.

The NSACS used the same assessment instrument as the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL), a nationally representative survey of the English-language literacy abilities of U.S. adults 16 and older residing in households or prisons. The NAAL was developed and administered by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Literacy levels were categorized as Below Basic, Basic, Intermediate, or Proficient on the basis of the abilities of participants.

Because literacy is not a single skill used in the same manner for all types of printed and written information, the NSACS measured literacy along three dimensions: prose literacy, document literacy, and quantitative literacy. These three literacy domains were designed to capture an ordered set of information-processing skills and strategies that adults use to accomplish a wide range of literacy tasks and make it possible to profile the various types and levels of literacy among different subgroups in society.

[379] Report: “The Literacy of America’s College Students.” By Justin D. Baer, Andrea L. Cook, and Stéphane Baldi. American Institutes for Research, January 2006. <www.air.org>

Page 4: “Prose Literacy: The knowledge and skills needed to perform prose tasks, that is, to search, comprehend, and use information from continuous texts. Prose examples include editorials, news stories, brochures, and instructional materials.”

Page 21: “Table 2.2. Percentage of U.S. adults in college and the nation in each prose literacy level, by selected characteristics”

[380] Report: “The Literacy of America’s College Students.” By Justin D. Baer, Andrea L. Cook, and Stéphane Baldi. American Institutes for Research, January 2006. <www.air.org>

Page 4: “Document Literacy: The knowledge and skills needed to perform document tasks, that is, to search, comprehend, and use information from noncontinuous texts in various formats. Document examples include job applications, payroll forms, transportation schedules, maps, tables, and drug or food labels.”

Page 22: “Table 2.3. Percentage of U.S. adults in college and the nation in each document literacy level, by selected characteristics”

[381] Report: “The Literacy of America’s College Students.” By Justin D. Baer, Andrea L. Cook, and Stéphane Baldi. American Institutes for Research, January 2006. <www.air.org>

Page 4: “Quantitative Literacy: The knowledge and skills required to perform quantitative literacy tasks, that is, to identify and perform computations, either alone or sequentially, using numbers embedded in printed materials. Quantitative examples include balancing a checkbook, figuring out a tip, completing an order form, or determining the amount of interest on a loan from an advertisement.”

Page 23: “Table 2.4. Percentage of U.S. adults in college and the nation in each quantitative literacy level, by selected characteristics”

[382] Report: “The Literacy of America’s College Students.” By Justin D. Baer, Andrea L. Cook, and Stéphane Baldi. American Institutes for Research, January 2006. <www.air.org>

Page 5: “The literacy of students in 4-year public institutions was comparable to the literacy of students in 4-year private institutions.”

Page 30: “Prose literacy was higher for students in selective 4-year colleges, though differences between selective and nonselective 4-year colleges for document and quantitative literacy could not be determined because of the sample size.”

Page 34:

College students come from a variety of economic backgrounds, with some students supporting themselves and others relying on their families to pay for tuition and other necessities.1 Despite variations in income, most differences in the literacy of students across income groups were not significant (Table 4.1).

1 Students were asked whether they were financially independent or whether they were financially dependent on their parents. Depending on their answer, they were asked to report either their parents’ household income or their personal income. The financial information was combined to create a single measure of personal or parents’ household income.

[383] Report: “The Literacy of America’s College Students.” By Justin D. Baer, Andrea L. Cook, and Stéphane Baldi. American Institutes for Research, January 2006. <www.air.org>

Page 35: “Table 4.1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores for U.S. adults in 2- and 4-year colleges, by income.”

[384] Article: “Brooklyn School Scores High Despite Poverty.” By Sharon Otterman. New York Times, April 25, 2010. <www.nytimes.com>

… 80 percent of its students are poor enough to qualify for free lunch, nearly a quarter receive special education services, and many among its predominately Hispanic population do not speak English at home.

In 2009, the 580-student primary school … topped the city with its fourth-grade math scores, with all students passing, all but one with a mark of “advanced,” or Level 4. In English, all but one of 75 fourth graders passed, earning a Level 3 or 4, placing it among the city’s top dozen schools.

On average, at schools with the same poverty rate, only 66 percent of the students pass the English test, and 29 percent score at an advanced level in math….

… [T]he school’s cost per pupil, in fact, is lower than the city’s average. … While about one-third of the students are still learning English, there are no bilingual classes.

[385] Article: “Brooklyn School Scores High Despite Poverty.” By Sharon Otterman. New York Times, April 25, 2010. <www.nytimes.com>

“The school’s approach, while impressive in its attention to detail, starts with a simple formula: ‘Teach, assess, teach, assess,’ said Jack Spatola, its principal since 1984.”

[386] Report: “Time To Move On: African-American and White Parents Set an Agenda for Public Schools.” By Steve Farkas and Jean Johnson. Public Agenda, 1998. <www.publicagenda.org>

Page 7:

Time to Move On gives voice to the aspirations and concerns of African-American and white parents who hope to secure a good education for their children in today’s schools. It reports the results of in-depth telephone surveys of 800 black parents and 800 white parents, as well as findings from focus groups and individual interviews with parents and public education professionals. (See Methodology for additional details.)

Pages 15-16:

If African-American parents believe black students sometimes pay a price when taught by whites, why are they reluctant to support an effort to improve the odds of hiring black educators? For one thing, black parents believe—and white parents concur—that when race becomes a prevailing consideration in education, the public schools’ attention is diverted from what ought to be their top priority: academics.

And both groups cite integration efforts as an example: 73% of blacks and 77% of whites agree that “too often, the schools work so hard to achieve integration that they end up neglecting their most important goal—teaching kids,” with half of both groups strongly agreeing. “We’ve spent a lot of time on the race issues, and we need to redirect some of those energies to getting our children better educated,” said an African-American parent in Pennsylvania. A Cleveland parent recalled the recent past when her district made serious commitments to integration: “The books and the materials weren’t getting to the classrooms; the money wasn’t being spent on the kids.”

Page 44:

Telephone interviews were conducted among randomly selected households with parents or guardians of children in kindergarten through 12th grade, in either public or private school, from March 26 to April 17, 1998. Interviews were approximately 30 minutes in length. The 800 white parents were selected through a standard random-digit dialing (RDD) technique whereby every household in the continental United States, including those with unlisted numbers, had an equal chance of being contacted.

The sample of 800 African-American parents was gathered in the following way: 745 calls were completed by dialing numbers in targeted exchanges. Census data were used to identify telephone exchanges in areas with a 12% or higher density of black households. These exchanges cover 77% of the black households estimated in the U.S.; households were contacted randomly within these exchanges and only black parents were accepted for the survey.

The remaining 55 interviews were completed from the RDD sample.

The margin of error for both black and white parents surveyed is plus or minus 3%.

[387] Report: “Documentation to the NCES Common Core of Data Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey: School Year 2010–11, Version Provisional 2a.” U.S. Department Of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, September 2012. <nces.ed.gov>

Page C-3: “Charter School A school providing free public elementary and/or secondary education to eligible students under a specific charter granted by the state legislature or other appropriate authority, and designated by such authority to be a charter school.”

[388] Ruling 536 U.S. 639: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. U.S. Supreme Court, June 27, 2002. Decided 5-4. Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas. Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. <caselaw.findlaw.com>

Majority: “Magnet schools are public schools operated by a local school board that emphasize a particular subject area, teaching method, or service to students.”

[389] Handbook of Research on School Choice. Edited by Mark Berends, Matthew G. Springer, Dale Ballou, and Herbert J. Walberg. Routledge, 2009.

Page xvii:

In the lower-right quadrant are charter schools. They are government-funded but governed and operated by private boards. The aim of charter-enabling state legislation is to promote educational diversity, effectiveness, and accountability. Charter boards may appoint their own staff or hire nonprofit or for-profit management organizations.

The extent to which charter schools are freed from conventional public school regulations and oversight varies substantially from state to state, but in all cases charter schools are accountable to their chartering authority for student achievement and progress. From their beginnings, charter schools were subject to closure for poor achievement performance, but now, if traditional public schools repeatedly fail to improve student achievement, they are also subject to NCLB sanctions and eventual closure or other means of restructuring.

[390] Book: The Education Gap: Vouchers and Urban Schools (Revised Edition). By William G. Howell and Paul E. Peterson with Patrick J. Wolf and David E. Campbell. Brookings Institution Press, 2006 (first published in 2002). <www.brookings.edu>

Page 11:

The first major choice initiative emerged from the conflicts surrounding desegregation in the 1960s. So unpopular was compulsory busing with many Americans that the magnet school was developed as an alternative way of increasing racial and ethnic integration. According to magnet school theory, families could be enticed into choosing integrated schools by offering them distinctive, improved education programs. Although the magnet idea was initially broached in the 1960s, it was not until after 1984 that the magnet school concept, supported by federal funding under the Magnet Schools Assistance program, began to have a national impact.

[391] Handbook of Research on School Choice. Edited by Mark Berends, Matthew G. Springer, Dale Ballou, and Herbert J. Walberg. Routledge, 2009.

Page xvi:

The questions raised here are simplified in that they group several distinctive forms of school choice into a single category of chosen schools. Consider some fundamental distinctions among the major forms of school choice represented in Table 1.1. The four-fold classification categorizes schools according to the possible combinations of school governance and operation on one hand and school funding on the other. As in the case of universities, these distinctions are hardly crisp. Public universities, for example, receive private tuition and donations. Sizable fractions of private universities’ research budgets come from the federal government. Still, these terms are common and offer useful starting points for discussion before turning to more precise operational definitions in the following sections and chapters.

In the lower-left cell of Table 1.1 are traditional public schools, which are government-funded and government-operated. Students within their boundaries are normally assigned to them, and they represent by far the largest number of American schools. In school choice research and policy deliberations, such traditional public schools, also called “neighborhood schools,” are often compared to choice schools such as charter and private schools, which may be near to or far from a student’s home. …

Page xvii:

Perhaps surprisingly, an estimated one million youngsters (see the homeschooling chapter in this book) are now schooled at home. (Again, such categorization isn’t precise since some primarily homeschooled students take supplementary classes and play sports in local public schools and colleges.)

Also in the upper-right quadrant are for-profit tutoring and schooling. When families believe they lack the knowledge, skills, time, or desire to provide homeschooling, yet want things that they think the public schools do not adequately provide, they may voluntarily choose to pay for private tutoring. At least in part, East Asia’s thriving private tutoring sector is often credited for that region’s top scores on international achievement tests. Private tutoring is also popular with East Asian immigrants to the United States, whose children tend to be highly successful students. ….

The NCLB [No Child Left Behind] legislation has also accelerated the growth of for-profit companies, called educational management organizations, which operate schools for school districts and charter boards. They contract with local school districts to take over repeatedly failing public schools.

Non-profit private schools, both independent and sectarian, are a long-standing form of privately-funded and privately-operated choice. Parents place such value on the education and circumstances private schools offer that they pay the tuition to send their children to them. “Public vouchers” provide full or partial tuition at public expense to enable families, often poor and urban, to send their children to these schools. In more than 50 cities, “private vouchers” support such families with contributions from firms and wealthy individuals.

In the lower-right quadrant are charter schools. They are government-funded but governed and operated by private boards. The aim of charter-enabling state legislation is to promote educational diversity, effectiveness, and accountability. Charter boards may appoint their own staff or hire nonprofit or for-profit management organizations. …

Magnet schools arose in response to court-ordered racial desegregation plans that required involuntary bussing of students away from their racially isolated schools to maintain school racial percentages close to their overall district’s percentages. …

The upper left quadrant refers to rare schools that are privately operated with the partial or complete financial support of government, either for the school or for individual student tuition. An example is the provision made for autistic, severely physically handicapped, and other types of students with low-incidence, very special needs. Small districts that have insufficient numbers of such students to justify special schools may pay private schools within or outside their boundaries to educate them.

[392] Paper: “Better Schools, Less Crime?” By David J. Deming. Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 2011. Pages 2063-2115. <scholar.harvard.edu>

Page 2064:

In this article, I link a long and detailed panel of administrative data from Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district (CMS) to arrest and incarceration records from Mecklenburg County and the North Carolina Department of Corrections (NCDOC). In 2002, CMS implemented a district-wide open enrollment school choice plan. Slots at oversubscribed schools were allocated by random lottery. School choice in CMS was exceptionally broad-based.

Page 2065:

Across various schools and for both middle and high school students, I find consistent evidence that winning the lottery reduces adult crime.4 The effect is concentrated among African American males and youth who are at highest risk for criminal involvement. Across several different outcome measures and scalings of crime by severity, high-risk youth who win the lottery commit about 50% less crime. They are also more likely to remain enrolled and “on track” in school, and they show modest improvements on school-based behavioral outcomes such as absences and suspensions. However, there is no detectable impact on test scores for any youth in the sample.

Page 2070: “With over 150,000 students enrolled in the 2008–2009 school year, CMS is the 20th largest school district in the nation.”

Pages 2089-2090:

In Figure II, we see that winning the lottery leads to fewer felony arrests overall (p = .078), and the effect is concentrated among the highest risk youth (0.77 felony arrests for lottery losers, 0.43 for winners, p = .013). Similarly, the trimmed social cost of crime is lower overall for lottery winners (p = .040), but the effect is concentrated among the top risk quintile youth ($11,000 for losers, $6,389 for winners, p=.036). The concentration of effects in the top risk quintile is even more pronounced for the middle school sample. The social cost of arrested crimes is $12,500 for middle school lottery losers and $4,643 for winners (p = .020), and the effect for days incarcerated is similarly large and concentrated among high-risk youth (55.5 days for losers, 17.2 for winners, p = .003).

NOTE: Credit for bringing this paper to the attention of Just Facts belongs to Alex Adrianson of the Heritage Foundation. [Commentary: “School Choice a Crime Fighter.” By Alex Adrianson. InsiderOnline, March 2012. <www.insideronline.org>]

[393] “WWC Review of the Report ‘Better Schools, Less Crime?’ ” U.S. Department Of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse, July 2013. <ies.ed.gov>

Page 2:

The research described in this report meets WWC [What Works Clearinghouse] evidence standards without reservations.

Strengths: The intervention and comparison groups were formed by a well-implemented random process.

Cautions: The study had high levels of attrition for one outcome, the 2004 reading score. The study author demonstrated that students in the intervention and comparison groups were equivalent at baseline on reading achievement. Therefore, the analysis for this outcome meets WWC standards with reservations.

[394] For facts about the importance of using experimental studies to determine the effects of public policies, see the introductory notes of Just Facts’ research on education.

[395] For facts about the importance of using experimental studies to determine the effects of public policies, see the introductory notes of Just Facts’ research on education.

[396] The following footnotes contain the primary sources of all experimental (or quasi-experimental) and school choice studies known to Just Facts. The studies are arranged from newest to oldest, and the list of these studies was obtained from the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice.† In September 2015, Just Facts wrote to the Friedman Foundation to ask how it can be sure that there are no other random-assignment school choice studies beyond the one the foundation has located. A senior fellow replied:

Obviously no literature review can ever be totally sure that it hasn’t overlooked something. That is why we lay out in the report the procedure we use to check our knowledge. We start with what we know of, then we use the procedure (which is described in the report) to search for any studies we don’t know about. However, that having been said, the amount of empirical scientific research on school choice programs is not very great, and the world of people who publish and discuss this research professionally is small, so it is unlikely that something as important as a random-assignment study could come out and not be noticed by the entire field.‡

Just Facts also conducts daily reviews of a dozen different media outlets spanning a broad ideological spectrum from far left to far right. These reviews have found no other experimental (or quasi-experimental) studies on the academic outcomes of students who experience school choice.

† Report: “A Win-Win Solution: The Empirical Evidence on School Choice.” By Greg Forster. Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, May 2016. <www.edchoice.org>

‡ Email from the Friedman Foundation to Just Facts, September 14, 2015.

[397] Paper: “Experimentally Estimated Impacts of School Vouchers on College Enrollment and Degree Attainment.” By Matthew M. Chingosa and Paul E. Peterson. Journal of Public Economics, February 2015. Pages 1-12. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Abstract:

We provide the first experimental estimates of the long-term impacts of a voucher to attend private school by linking data from a privately sponsored voucher initiative in New York City, which awarded the scholarships by lottery to low-income families, to administrative records on college enrollment and degree attainment. We find no significant effects on college enrollment or four-year degree attainment of the offer of a voucher. However, we find substantial, marginally significant impacts for minority students and large, significant impacts for the children of women born in the United States. Negative point estimates for the children of non-minority and foreign-born mothers are not statistically significant at conventional levels.

[398] Paper: “School Vouchers and Student Outcomes: Experimental Evidence from Washington, DC.” By Patrick J. Wolf and others. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Spring 2013. Pages 246-270. <onlinelibrary.wiley.com>

Abstract:

Here we examine the empirical question of whether or not a school voucher program in Washington, DC, affected achievement or the rate of high school graduation for participating students. The District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) has operated in the nation’s capital since 2004, funded by a federal government appropriation. Because the program was oversubscribed in its early years of operation, and vouchers were awarded by lottery, we were able to use the “gold standard” evaluation method of a randomized experiment to determine what impacts the OSP had on student outcomes. Our analysis revealed compelling evidence that the DC voucher program had a positive impact on high school graduation rates, suggestive evidence that the program increased reading achievement, and no evidence that it affected math achievement.

Page 258: “Results are described as statistically significant or highly statistically significant if they reach the 95 percent or 99 percent confidence level, respectively.”

Page 260:

The attainment impact analysis revealed that the offer of an OSP scholarship raised students’ probability of graduating from high school by 12 percentage points (Table 3). The graduation rate was 82 percent for the treatment group compared to 70 percent for the control group. The impact of using a scholarship was an increase of 21 percentage points in the likelihood of graduating. The positive impact of the program on this important student outcome was highly statistically significant.

Page 261:

We observed no statistically significant evidence of impacts on graduation rates at the subgroup level for students who applied to the program from non-SINI schools, with relatively lower levels of academic performance, and male students. For all subgroups, the graduation rates were higher among the treatment group compared with the control group, but the differences did not reach the level of at least marginal statistical significance for these three student subgroups. …

Our analysis indicated a marginally statistically significant positive overall impact of the program on reading achievement after at least four years. No significant impacts were observed in math. The reading test scores of the treatment group as a whole averaged 3.9 scale score points higher than the scores of students in the control group, equivalent to a gain of about 2.8 months of additional learning. The calculated impact of using a scholarship was a reading gain of 4.8 scale score points or 3.4 months of additional learning (Table 4).

Page 262:

Reading … Adjusted impact estimate [=] 4.75 … p-value of estimates [=] .06 …

The reading impacts appeared to cumulate over the first three years of the evaluation, reaching the marginal level of statistical significance after two years and the standard level after three years. By that third-year impact evaluation, only 85 of the 2,308 students in the evaluation (3.7 percent) had graded-out of the impact sample, having exceeded 12th grade. Between the third-year and final-year evaluation, an additional 211 students (12.2 percent) graded-out of the sample, reducing the final test score analytic sample to a subgroup of the original analytic sample. Due to this loss of cases for the final test score analysis, the confidence interval around the final point estimates is larger than it was after three years, and the positive impact of the program on reading achievement was only statistically significant at the marginal level.

Page 266: “Here, in the form of the DC school voucher program, Congress and the Obama administration uncovered what appears to be one of the most effective urban dropout prevention programs yet witnessed.”

Page 267: “We did find evidence to suggest that scholarship use boosted student reading scores by the equivalent of about one month of additional learning per year. Most parents, especially in the inner city, would welcome such an improvement in their child’s performance.”

[399] Paper: “A Modified General Location Model for Noncompliance With Missing Data: Revisiting the New York City School Choice Scholarship Program Using Principal Stratification.” By Hui Jin and others. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, April 2010. Pages 154-173. <jeb.sagepub.com>

Page 156:

In February 1997, the School Choice Scholarship Foundation (SCSF) launched the New York City School Choice Scholarship Program and invited applications from eligible low-income families interested in scholarships toward private school expenses; these scholarships offered up to $1,400 for the academic year 1997–1998. Eligibility requirements included that the children were attending public school in Grades K through 4 in the New York City at the time of application and that their families were poor enough to qualify for free school lunch. The SCSF received applications from over 20,000 students. In a mandatory information session before the lottery to assign the scholarships, each family provided background information, and the children in Grades 1 through 4 took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), the pretest in reading and math. In the final lottery held in May 1997, about 1,000 students were randomly selected to the treatment group and were awarded offers of scholarships; about another 1,000 were selected to the control group without the scholarship. Both groups were followed up and strongly encouraged to take a posttest, again the ITBS, at the end of the 1997-1998 academic year.

Pages 168-170:

[B]oth models find that for compliers [students who moved to private schools] originally from schools with low average scores, attendance in private school will unambiguously improve their overall math performance … as compared to attendance in public school. Such an improvement is especially evident for children in Grade 1…. However, results from the two models differ in some other groups…. Using our model, we find that reading score was likely improved for children from Grade 4 of low average … and children from Grade 1 of high average schools … [T]he estimates of Barnard et al. (2003) of the two groups … respectively, were much smaller.

[400] Paper: “School Choice as a Latent Variable: Estimating the ‘Complier Average Causal Effect’ of Vouchers in Charlotte.” By Joshua M. Cowen. Policy Studies Journal, May 2008. Pages 301–315. <onlinelibrary.wiley.com>

Page 307:

Incoming second- through eighth-grade students from low-income families in Charlotte were offered the opportunity to apply for a $1,700 scholarship to attend a private school for the 1999-2000 school year. Of the original applicants, 347 (30%) agreed to participate in a program evaluation the following spring. At the end of the school year, Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) were administered to all students, while their parents completed surveys designed to obtain background information. There was no pretest Families who had either lost the lottery or had chosen not to accept the voucher were offered $20 and a chance to win a new scholarship to attend the testing sessions.

Page 309:

I begin the analysis of a voucher impact by estimating a typical “Intention-to-Treat” (ITT) model. In this model, students are considered to receive the treatment regardless of whether they use the voucher….

The ITT results indicate a positive voucher impact of 5 points on math scores and roughly 6 points on reading scores, all else equal. …

Next, I … [estimate] the mean effect of voucher treatment using an IV analysis, where the instrument for treatment is the random voucher offer itself….The results are similar to the ITT estimates in their statistical significance: A positive voucher effect appears evident at the p ≤ 0.10 for math achievement and p ≤ 0.05 for reading. The point estimates of the voucher effect increase from 5 to nearly 7 points in math, and from 6 to 8 points in reading.

[401] Paper: “Principal Stratification Approach to Broken Randomized Experiments: A Case Study of School Choice Vouchers in New York City.” By John Barnard and others. Journal of the American Statistical Association, June 2003. Pages 299-323. <biosun01.biostat.jhsph.edu>

Abstract:

Although this study benefits immensely from a randomized design, it suffers from complications common to such research with human subjects: noncompliance with assigned “treatments” and missing data. Recent work has revealed threats to valid estimates of experimental effects that exist in the presence of noncompliance and missing data, even when the goal is to estimate simple intention-to-treat effects. Our goal was to create a better solution when faced with both noncompliance and missing data. This article presents a model that accommodates these complications that is based on the general framework of “principal stratification” and thus relies on more plausible assumptions than standard methodology. Our analyses revealed positive effects on math scores for children who applied to the program from certain types of schools—those with average test scores below the citywide median. Among these children, the effects are stronger for children who applied in the first grade and for African-American children.

[402] NOTE: The following source conducted three different random-assignment school choice studies:

Book: The Education Gap: Vouchers and Urban Schools (Revised Edition). By William G. Howell and Paul E. Peterson with Patrick J. Wolf and David E. Campbell. Brookings Institution Press, 2006 (first published in 2002). <www.brookings.edu>

Page 39: “We evaluated the privately funded voucher programs in New York City, Dayton, Ohio, and Washington, D.C., and the nationwide CSF program by means of randomized field trials (RFTs), a research design that is well known in the medical field. … In an RFT, subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment or control group.”

Page 45: “A total of 1,500 vouchers were offered to public school students in New York City, 811 in Washington, and 515 in Dayton.46 Because vouchers were allocated randomly, the characteristics of those offered vouchers did not differ significantly from members of the control group.”

Pages 145-147:

All impacts are calculated in terms of national percentile ranking (NPR) points, which vary between 0 and 100, with a national median of 50. … As mentioned, to produce more stable estimates, we provide estimates that combine reading and math scores. (However, impacts did not differ significantly by subject matter.) …

Table 6-1 … reveals no overall private school impact of switching to a private school on student test scores in the three cities. Nor does it reveal any private school impact on the test scores of students from other than African American backgrounds (mainly Hispanic students in New York and white students in Dayton). However, the table shows that the switch to a private school had significantly positive impacts on the test scores of African American students.

Table 6-1 shows that African Americans in all three cities gained, on average, roughly 3.9 NPR points after Year I, 6.3 points after Year II, and 6.6 points after Year III.21 Results for African American students varied by city. In Year I, the only significant gains were observed in New York City, where African Americans attending a private school scored, on average, 5.4 percentile points higher than members of the control group.22 In Year II, significant impacts on African American test scores were evident in all three cities, ranging from 4.3 percentile points in New York City, to 6.5 points in Dayton, to 9.2 points in Washington, D.C. The Year III impact of 9.2 points on African American students’ test scores in New York City is statistically significant. The -1.9 point impact in Year III in Washington, however, is not.

[403] Paper: “Private School Vouchers and Student Achievement: An Evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.” By Cecilia Elena Rouse. Quarterly Journal of Economics, May, 1998. Pages 553-602. <faculty.smu.edu>

Page 553:

In 1990 Wisconsin began providing vouchers to a small number of low-income students to attend nonsectarian private schools. Controlling for individual fixed-effects, I compare the test scores of students selected to attend a participating private school with those of unsuccessful applicants and other students from the Milwaukee public schools. I find that students in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program had faster math score gains than, but similar reading score gains to, the comparison groups. The results appear robust to data imputations and sample attrition, although these deficiencies of the data should be kept in mind when interpreting the results.

Page 554:

In 1990 Wisconsin became the first state in the country to implement a school choice program that provides vouchers to low-income students to attend nonsectarian private schools.2 The number of students in any year was originally limited to 1 percent of the Milwaukee public schools membership, but was expanded to 1.5 percent in 1994. Only students whose family income was at or below 1.75 times the national poverty line were eligible to apply.

Page 558:

I find that students selected for the choice program scored approximately 1.5-2.3 extra percentile points per year in math compared with unsuccessful applicants and the sample of other students in the Milwaukee public schools. The achievement gains of those actually enrolled in the choice schools were quite similar. Given a (within-sample) standard deviation of about nineteen percentile points on the math test, this suggests effect sizes on the order of 0.080-0.120- per year, or 0.320-0.480- over four years, which are quite large for education production functions. I do not estimate statistically significant differences between sectors in reading scores.

Page 561:

Table II. Numbers of Applicants, Selections, And Enrollments

Year of “first” application

1990

1991

1992

1993

Number of applicants

583

558

558

559

Number selected

376

452

321

395

[404] Book: Learning From School Choice. Edited by Paul E. Peterson and Bryan C. Hassel. Brookings Institution, 1998. <www.brookings.edu>

Chapter 13: “School Choice in Milwaukee: A Randomized Experiment.” By Jay P. Greene, Paul E. Peterson, and Jiangtao Du. Pages 342-363.

Page 354: “The results from the Milwaukee choice program reported here are, to the best of our knowledge, the first to estimate from a randomized experiment the comparative achievement effects of public and private schools.”

Pages 346-347:

The Milwaukee choice program, initiated in 1990, provided vouchers to a limited number of students from low-income families to be used to pay tuition at their choice of secular private schools in Milwaukee. …

The number of producers was restricted by the requirement that no more than half of a school’s enrollment could receive vouchers. …

Consumer choice was further limited by excluding the participation of religious schools (thereby precluding use of approximately 90 percent of the private school capacity within the city of Milwaukee). Co-production was also discouraged by prohibiting families from supplementing the vouchers with tuition payments of their own. (But schools did ask families to pay school fees and make voluntary contributions.) Other restrictions also limited program size. Only 1 percent of the Milwaukee public schools could participate, and students could not receive a voucher unless they had been attending public schools or were not of school age at the time of application.

These restrictions significantly limited the amount of school choice that was made available. Most choice students attended fiscally constrained institutions with limited facilities and poorly paid teachers.

Page 352:

The estimated effects of choice schools on mathematics achievement were slight for the first two years students were in the program. But after three years of enrollment students scored 5 percentile points higher than the control group; after four years they scored 10.7 points higher. These differences between the two groups three and four years after their application to choice schools are .24 and .51 standard deviation of the national distribution of math test scores, respectively. They are statistically significant at accepted confidence levels.51 Differences on the reading test were between 2 and 3 percentile points for the first three years and increased to 5.8 percentile points in the fourth. The results for the third and fourth years are statistically significant when the two are jointly estimated.52

Page 356:

The consistency of the results is noteworthy. Positive results were found for all years and for all comparisons except one. The results reported in the main analysis for both math and reading are statistically significant for students remaining in the program for three to four years when these are jointly estimated.

These results after three and four years are moderately large, ranging from . 1 of a standard deviation to as much as .5 of a standard deviation. Studies of educational effects interpret effects of .1 standard deviation as slight, effects of .2 and .3 standard deviation as moderate, and effects of .5 standard deviation as large.54 Even effects of .1 standard deviation are potentially large if they accumulate over time.” The average difference in test performances of whites and minorities in the United States is one standard deviation.56

[405] Paper: “The Impact of School Vouchers on College Enrollment.” By Matthew M. Chingos and Paul E. Peterson. Education Next, Summer 2013. <educationnext.org>

Our primary outcome of interest is the overall (part-time and full-time) college enrollment within three years of expected (i.e., on-time) high-school graduation. We focus on this three-year window (the exact dates of which vary according to the student’s grade when enrolling in the study) because the most recent enrollment data available are for fall 2011 and the youngest cohort was expected to graduate high school in 2009. …

We find that the offer of a voucher increased college enrollment within three years of the student’s expected graduation from high school by 0.7 percentage points, an insignificant impact. This finding, however, masks substantial variation in impacts among students from different ethnic groups. We find evidence of large, statistically significant impacts on African Americans, but fairly small and statistically insignificant impacts on Hispanic students. We discuss results for the small number of students from other groups below. …

The SCSF-NSC linked data indicate that a voucher offer increased the college-enrollment rate of African Americans by 7 percentage points, an increase of 20 percent. If an African American student used the scholarship to attend private school for any amount of time, the estimated impact on college enrollment was 9 percentage points, a 24 percent increase over the college enrollment rate among comparable African American students assigned to the control group (see Figure 1). This corresponds to 3 percentage points for every year the voucher was used.

[406] Paper: “Distributional Analysis in Educational Evaluation: A Case Study from the New York City Voucher Program.” By Marianne P. Bitler and others. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, July–September, 2015. Pages 419-450. <www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov>

Abstract:

We use quantile treatment effects estimation to examine the consequences of the random-assignment New York City School Choice Scholarship Program (NYCSCSP) across the distribution of student achievement. Our analyses suggest that the program had negligible and statistically insignificant effects across the skill distribution.

Page 19 (in PDF of authors’ manuscript):

In the first model of Panel 1 (column 1), we replicate Howell & Peterson’s estimates of the treatment effect for African-Americans (point estimates are identical, SEs nearly so, differing due to our use of bootstrapping by family within strata for SEs). This analysis indicates that the voucher offer significantly improved black student math achievement in the study’s first and third years. (This analysis yields a positive, but not statistically significant, treatment effect for black students in Year 2.) Similarly, in the first model of Panel 2 (column 1), we attempt to replicate Krueger and Zhu’s racial categorization scheme to estimate of the effects of the voucher offer for African-Americans. While this replication is not perfect (our sample sizes are 1 observation off from their reported sample sizes),12 it returns an estimate of the African-American treatment effect that is very close to Krueger and Zhu’s published findings. Using the Krueger and Zhu definition of African-American and also treating the 99s as valid percentile scores of 0, we find a positive and significant treatment effect on Math scores in Year 1, but no effects in subsequent years.

[407] Paper: “Another Look at the New York City School Voucher Experiment.” By Alan B. Krueger and Pei Zhu. American Behavioral Scientist, January 2004. Page 658-698. <abs.sagepub.com>

Abstract:

This article reexamines data from the New York City school choice program, the largest and best-implemented private school scholarship experiment yet conducted. In the experiment, low-income public school students in kindergarten to Grade 4 were eligible to participate in a series of lotteries for a private school scholarship in May 1997. Data were collected from students and their parents at baseline and in the spring of each of the next 3 years.

Page 693:

Our reanalysis of the New York City school voucher experiment suggests that the positive effect of vouchers on the achievement of African American stu¬dents emphasized by previous researchers is less robust than commonly acknowledged. Most important, if the cohort of students who were enrolled in kindergarten when the experiment began is included in the sample, the effect of vouchers is greatly attenuated. As the results in Table 5 indicate, treating mother’s and father’s race symmetrically further attenuates the effect of school vouchers for African American children. The evidence is stronger that the availability of private school vouchers raised achievement on math than on reading exams after 3 years, but both effects are relatively small if the sample includes students with missing baseline test scores and students who have at least one Black parent.

[408] Paper: “Using Experimental Economics to Measure the Effects of a Natural Educational Experiment on Altruism.” By Eric Bettinger and Robert Slonim. Journal of Public Economics, September 2006. Pages 1625–1648. <www.sciencedirect.com>

Abstract

Economic research examining how educational intervention programs affect primary and secondary schooling focuses largely on test scores although the interventions can affect many other outcomes. This paper examines how an educational intervention, a voucher program, affected students’ altruism. The voucher program used a lottery to allocate scholarships among low-income applicant families with children in K-8th grade. By exploiting the lottery to identify the voucher effects, and using experimental economic methods, we measure the effects of the intervention on children’s altruism. We also measure the voucher program’s effects on parents’ altruism and several academic outcomes including test scores. We find that the educational intervention positively affects students’ altruism towards charitable organizations but not towards their peers. We fail to find statistically significant effects of the vouchers on parents’ altruism or [students’ math] test scores.

[409] Working paper: “School Vouchers and Student Achievement: First-Year Evidence from the Louisiana Scholarship Program.” By Atila Abdulkadiroglu and others. National Bureau of Economic Research, December 2015. <www.nber.org>

Abstract:

We evaluate the Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP), a prominent school voucher plan. The LSP provides public funds for disadvantaged students at low-performing Louisiana public schools to attend private schools of their choice. LSP vouchers are allocated by random lottery at schools with more eligible applicants than available seats. We estimate causal effects of voucher receipt by comparing outcomes for lottery winners and losers in the first year after the program expanded statewide. This comparison reveals that LSP participation substantially reduces academic achievement. Attendance at an LSP-eligible private school lowers math scores by 0.4 standard deviations and increases the likelihood of a failing score by 50 percent. Voucher effects for reading, science and social studies are also negative and large. The negative impacts of vouchers are consistent across income groups, geographic areas, and private school characteristics, and are larger for younger children. These effects are not explained by the quality of fallback public schools for LSP applicants: students lotteried out of the program attend public schools with scores below the Louisiana average. Survey data show that LSP-eligible private schools experience rapid enrollment declines prior to entering the program, indicating that the LSP may attract private schools struggling to maintain enrollment. These results suggest caution in the design of voucher systems aimed at expanding school choice for disadvantaged students.

[410] Report: “The Effects of the Louisiana Scholarship Program on Student Achievement after Two Years.” By Jonathan N. Mills and Patrick J. Wolf. Education Research Alliance of Tulane University and the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas, February 22, 2016. <educationresearchalliancenola.org>

Conclusion:

This paper presents an estimation of the effects of the statewide expansion of the Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP)—one of the newest and largest school voucher programs in the U.S—on student achievement after two years. This study contributes to the existing literature on the participant effects of publicly funded voucher programs for two reasons. First, it uses a highly rigorous experimental design to estimate treatment effects while avoiding self-selection bias concerns. Second, it is among the first evaluations of a statewide school voucher program. These contributions will add to the existing knowledge on the effects of private school choice programs.

The results presented in this paper indicate significant and substantial negative achievement impacts associated with using an LSP scholarship. In general, we find that LSP scholarship usage is associated with declines of 20 percent of a standard deviation in ELA achievement and 35 percent of a standard deviation in math, however only the latter finding is statistically significant. These findings are the first of their kind among random assignment evaluations of school voucher programs and are robust to several alternative specifications.33

At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that our analyses are based on a small subsample of LSP participants with performance data on the Louisiana state assessments. Specifically, our analysis sample represents approximately 20 percent of the 2012 cohort of eligible applicants. Thus, in a real sense, this paper is not an evaluation of the entire program, but an evaluation of the experiences of students in grades three through seven at baseline, who participated in actual lotteries, with testing outcomes in Year 2. The educational impact of the LSP on the many thousands of program participants who do not satisfy those criteria remains, at this point, unknown. Readers are encouraged not to draw firm conclusions from this initial analysis due to the severe threats to external validity posed by those limitations of the sample.

[411] Transcript: “Unedited: Bill O’Reilly’s Exclusive Interview with President Obama.” Fox News, February 6, 2014. <nation.foxnews.com>

O’Reilly: The secret to getting a je—good job is education. And in these chaotic families, the children aren’t well-educated because it isn’t—it isn’t, um, encouraged at home as much as it is in other precincts. Now, school vouchers is a way to level the playing field. Why do you oppose school vouchers when it would give poor people a chance to go to better schools?

Obama: Actually—every study that’s been done on school vouchers, Bill, says that it has very limited impact if any—

O’Reilly: Try it.

OBAMA: On—it has been tried, it’s been tried in Milwaukee, it’s been tried right here in DC—

O’Reilly: And it worked here.

Obama: No, actually it didn’t. When you end up taking a look at it, it didn’t actually make that much of a difference. So what we have been supportive of is, uh, something called charters. Which, within the public school system gives the opportunity for creative experiments by teachers, by principals to-to start schools that have a different approach. And—

O’Reilly: [OVERLAP] You would revisit that? I-I just think—I used be, teach in a Catholic school, a-and I just know—

Obama: [OVERLAP] Bill—you know, I—I’ve taken, I’ve taken—I’ve taken a look at it. As a general proposition, vouchers has not significantly improved the performance of kids that are in these poorest communities—

O’Reilly: [OVERLAP] [INAUDIBLE]

Obama: Some charters—some charters are doing great. Some Catholic schools do a great job, but what we have to do is make sure every child—

[412] Report: “Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program.” By Patrick Wolf and others. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, June 2010. <ies.ed.gov>

Page xvii:

Guided by language in the statute, the evaluation of the OSP [Opportunity Scholarship Program] relied on lotteries of eligible applicants—random chance—to create two statistically equivalent groups who were followed over time and whose outcomes were compared to estimate Program impacts. A total of 2,308 eligible applicants in the first two years of Program implementation were entered into scholarship lotteries (492 in year one, called “cohort 1,” and 1,816 in year two, called “cohort 2”). Across the cohorts, 1,387 students were randomly assigned to the impact sample’s treatment group (offered a scholarship), while the remaining 921 were assigned to the control group (not offered a scholarship).

Pages xix-xxi:

Student Achievement

• Overall reading and math test scores were not significantly affected by the Program, based on our main analysis approach. On average over the 40-plus months of potential participation, the treatment group scored 3.90 points higher in reading and .70 points higher in math than the control group, but these differences were not statistically significant (figure ES-2).

• No significant impacts on achievement were detected for students who applied from SINI [Schools in Need of Improvement] 2003-05 schools, the subgroup of students for whom the statute gave top priority, or for male students, or those who were lower performing academically when they applied.

• The Program may have improved the reading but not math achievement of the other three of six student subgroups. These include students who came from not SINI 2003-¬05 schools (by 5.80 scale score points), who were initially higher performing academically (by 5.18 points), or who were female (5.27 points). However, the impact estimates for these groups may be due to chance after applying a statistical test to adjust for multiple comparisons.

High School Graduation (Educational Attainment)

• The offer of an OSP scholarship raised students’ probability of completing high school by 12 percentage points overall. The graduation rate based on parent-provided information6 was 82 percent for the treatment group compared to 70 percent for the control group (figure ES-3). There was a 21 percent difference (impact) for using a scholarship to attend a participating private school.

• The offer of a scholarship improved the graduation prospects by 13 percentage points for the high-priority group of students from schools designated SINI in 2003-05 (79 percent for the treatment group versus 66 percent for the control group) (figure ES-3). The impact of using a scholarship on this group was 20 percentage points.

• Two other subgroups had statistically higher graduation rates as a result of the Program. Those who entered the Program with relatively higher levels of academic performance had a positive impact of 14 percentage points from the offer of a scholarship and 25 percentage points from the use of a scholarship. Female students had a positive impact of 20 percentage points from the offer of a scholarship and 28 percentage points from the use of a scholarship.

• The graduation rates of students from the other subgroups were also higher if they were offered a scholarship, but these differences were not statistically significant.

[413] Webpage: “The Executive Branch.” White House. Accessed February 1, 2013 at <www.whitehouse.gov>

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. …

Department of Education


The mission of the Department of Education is to promote student achievement and preparation for competition in a global economy by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access to educational opportunity.

The Department administers federal financial aid for education, collects data on America’s schools to guide improvements in education quality, and works to complement the efforts of state and local governments, parents, and students.

The U.S. Secretary of Education oversees the Department’s 4,200 employees and $68.6 billion budget.

[414] Report: “Losing Our Future: How Minority Youth are Being Left Behind by the Graduation Rate Crisis.” By Gary Orfield and others. Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, Urban Institute, Advocates for Children of New York,

and Civil Society Institute, February 25, 2004. <escholarship.org>

Page 2:

In an increasingly competitive global economy, the consequences of dropping out of high school are devastating to individuals, communities and our national economy. At an absolute minimum, adults need a high school diploma if they are to have any reasonable opportunities to earn a living wage. A community where many parents are dropouts is unlikely to have stable families or social structures. Most businesses need workers with technical skills that require at least a high school diploma. Yet, with little notice, the United States is allowing a dangerously high percentage of students to disappear from the educational pipeline before graduating from high school.

[415] Paper: “The Importance of the Ninth Grade on High School Graduation Rates and Student Success in High School.” By Kyle M. McCallumore and Ervin F.Sparapani. Education, March 2010. Pages 447-456. <connection.ebscohost.com>

Abstract: “[T]here is really not much appealing about the reality of the problems in the American education system that permeate beyond kindergarten. Graduation rates are one of the most troubling concerns.”

[416] Book: “High School Dropout, Graduation, and Completion Rates: Better Data, Better Measures, Better Decisions.” Edited by Robert M. Hauser and Judith Anderson Koenig. By the Committee for Improved Measurement of High School Dropout and Completion Rates: Expert Guidance on Next Steps for Research and Policy Workshop, Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council, National Academy of Education. National Academies Press, 2011. <www.nap.edu>

Page 8: “High school graduation and dropout rates have long been used as indicators of educational system productivity and effectiveness and of social and economic well-being.”

[417] “2012 Democratic Party Platform.” Democratic National Committee, September 2012. <www.presidency.ucsb.edu>

Page 5:

Too many students, particularly students of color and disadvantaged students, drop out of our schools, and Democrats know we must address the dropout crisis with the urgency it deserves. The Democratic Party understands the importance of turning around struggling public schools. We will continue to strengthen all our schools and work to expand public school options for low-income youth, including magnet schools, charter schools, teacher-led schools, and career academies.

[418] Paper: “School Vouchers and Student Outcomes: Experimental Evidence from Washington, DC.” By Patrick J. Wolf and others. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Spring 2013. Pages 246-270. <onlinelibrary.wiley.com>

Abstract:

Here we examine the empirical question of whether or not a school voucher program in Washington, DC, affected achievement or the rate of high school graduation for participating students. The District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) has operated in the nation’s capital since 2004, funded by a federal government appropriation. Because the program was oversubscribed in its early years of operation, and vouchers were awarded by lottery, we were able to use the “gold standard” evaluation method of a randomized experiment to determine what impacts the OSP had on student outcomes. Our analysis revealed compelling evidence that the DC voucher program had a positive impact on high school graduation rates, suggestive evidence that the program increased reading achievement, and no evidence that it affected math achievement.

Page 258: “Results are described as statistically significant or highly statistically significant if they reach the 95 percent or 99 percent confidence level, respectively.”

Page 260:

The attainment impact analysis revealed that the offer of an OSP scholarship raised students’ probability of graduating from high school by 12 percentage points (Table 3). The graduation rate was 82 percent for the treatment group compared to 70 percent for the control group. The impact of using a scholarship was an increase of 21 percentage points in the likelihood of graduating. The positive impact of the program on this important student outcome was highly statistically significant.

Page 261:

We observed no statistically significant evidence of impacts on graduation rates at the subgroup level for students who applied to the program from non-SINI [Schools in Need of Improvement] schools, with relatively lower levels of academic performance, and male students. For all subgroups, the graduation rates were higher among the treatment group compared with the control group, but the differences did not reach the level of at least marginal statistical significance for these three student subgroups. …

Our analysis indicated a marginally statistically significant positive overall impact of the program on reading achievement after at least four years. No significant impacts were observed in math. The reading test scores of the treatment group as a whole averaged 3.9 scale score points higher than the scores of students in the control group, equivalent to a gain of about 2.8 months of additional learning. The calculated impact of using a scholarship was a reading gain of 4.8 scale score points or 3.4 months of additional learning (Table 4).

Page 262:

Reading … Adjusted impact estimate [=] 4.75 … p-value of estimates [=] .06 …

The reading impacts appeared to cumulate over the first three years of the evaluation, reaching the marginal level of statistical significance after two years and the standard level after three years. By that third-year impact evaluation, only 85 of the 2,308 students in the evaluation (3.7 percent) had graded-out of the impact sample, having exceeded 12th grade. Between the third-year and final-year evaluation, an additional 211 students (12.2 percent) graded-out of the sample, reducing the final test score analytic sample to a subgroup of the original analytic sample. Due to this loss of cases for the final test score analysis, the confidence interval around the final point estimates is larger than it was after three years, and the positive impact of the program on reading achievement was only statistically significant at the marginal level.

Page 266: “Here, in the form of the DC school voucher program, Congress and the Obama administration uncovered what appears to be one of the most effective urban dropout prevention programs yet witnessed.”

Page 267: “We did find evidence to suggest that scholarship use boosted student reading scores by the equivalent of about one month of additional learning per year. Most parents, especially in the inner city, would welcome such an improvement in their child’s performance.”

[419] Transcript: “Full Interview Between President Obama and Bill O’Reilly.” Fox News, February 3, 2014. <www.foxnews.com>

O’REILLY: The secret to getting a good job is education. And in these chaotic families, the children aren’t well-educated because it isn’t encouraged at home as much as it is in other precincts. Now, school vouchers is a way to level the playing field. Why do you oppose school vouchers when it would give poor people a chance to go to better schools?

OBAMA: Actually, every study that’s been done on school vouchers, Bill, says that it has very limited impact if any—

O’REILLY: Try it.

OBAMA: It has been tried. It’s been tried in Milwaukee, it’s been tried right here in DC—

O’REILLY [OVERLAP]: And it worked here.

OBAMA: No, actually it didn’t. When you end up taking a look at it, it didn’t actually make that much of a difference. So what we have been supportive of is, uh, something called charters. Which, within the public school system gives the opportunity for creative experiments by teachers, by principals to-to start schools that have a different approach. …

[420] Article: “Hawaii Prep School Gave Obama Window To Success.” By Martin Kaste. NPR, October 12, 2012. <www.npr.org>

“Punahou School was founded by missionaries in 1841…. Punahou occupies a privileged position, not just on the hillside, but in Hawaii society. In his memoir, Dreams From My Father, Barack Obama recalled how his grandfather pulled strings to get him in.”

[421] Commentary: “Education Secretary Duncan’s children to go to Chicago private school he attended.” By Valerie Strauss. Washington Post, July 9, 2015. <www.washingtonpost.com>

“President Obama’s two daughters attended the [private, prestigious University of Chicago Laboratory] school before moving to Washington in 2009.”

[422] Article: “Obama girls to go to Sidwell.” Seattle Times, November 22, 2008. <www.seattletimes.com>

“President-elect Obama and his wife have chosen Sidwell Friends School for their daughters, opting for a private institution that another White House child, Chelsea Clinton, attended.”

[423] Article: “Obama: D.C. schools don’t measure up to his daughters’ private school.” By Nick Anderson. Washington Post, September 27, 2010. <www.washingtonpost.com>

In an appearance Monday morning on NBC’s “Today” show, Obama was asked by a woman in a television audience whether a public school in his home city could measure up to the standards of his children’s private school.

“I’ll be blunt with you: The answer is no right now,” the president replied. The D.C. public schools, he said “are struggling.”

[424] Article: “Biden woos teachers union, slams GOP.” By Brian Slodysko. Chicago Tribune, July 3, 2011. <articles.chicagotribune.com>

“Biden tied current battles over public workers’ collective bargaining rights to teacher-specific issues such as smaller classes, private school voucher programs, and reduced benefits and wages. Throughout the speech the message was clear, intent on boosting solidarity between Democrats and their traditional allies.”

[425] Webpage: “Joe Biden.” Office of the President-Elect. Accessed September 18, 2015 at <change.gov>

“Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., age 66, was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, on November 20, 1942, to Joseph Sr. and Jean Biden, the oldest of four. In 1953, the Biden family moved from Pennsylvania to Claymont, Delaware. Biden attended parochial school at St. Helena’s School in Wilmington and the Archmere Academy in Claymont*.”

* NOTE: “Archmere Academy is a private, independent and Catholic college preparatory school, grade 9-12, located on the Pennsylvania-Delaware border.” [Webpage: “About Us.” Archmere Academy. Accessed September 18, 2015 at <www.archmereacademy.com>]

[426] Transcript: “CNN/YouTube Democratic Presidential Debate (Part I).” CNN, July 24, 2007. <www.cnn.com>

BIDEN: My kids did go to private schools, because right after I got elected, my wife and daughter were killed. I had two sons who survived. My sister was the head of the history department. She was helping me raise my children at Wilmington Friends School.

BIDEN: When it came time to go to high school when they had come through their difficulties -- I’m a practicing Catholic -- it was very important to me they go to a Catholic school, and they went to a Catholic school.

My kids would not have gone to that school were it not for the fact that my wife and daughter were killed and my two children were under the care of my sister who drove them to school every morning.

[427] Article: “Obama girls to go to Sidwell.” Seattle Times, November 22, 2008. <www.seattletimes.com>

“President-elect Obama and his wife have chosen Sidwell Friends School for their daughters…. She also said that Sasha and Malia had become good friends with Vice President-elect Joseph Biden’s grandchildren, who go to the school.”

[428] Article: “Secretary Duncan wants D.C. kids to keep vouchers.” USA Today, Mach 4, 2009. <usatoday30.usatoday.com>

Duncan opposes vouchers, he said in an interview with The Associated Press. But he said Washington is a special case, and kids already in private schools on the public dime should be allowed to continue. … “I don’t think vouchers ultimately are the answer,” Duncan said.

[429] Commentary: “Education Secretary Duncan’s children to go to Chicago private school he attended.” By Valerie Strauss. Washington Post, July 9, 2015. <www.washingtonpost.com>

“Education Secretary Arne Duncan grew up in Chicago and attended the private, prestigious University of Chicago Laboratory Schools. … And in the fall, Duncan’s children will be attending Lab, too, while his wife works there.”

[430] Article: “Clinton Urges ‘No’ Vote on School Voucher Initiative: Election: He says the plan would seriously hurt public education. Backers of Prop. 174 note that the President’s daughter attends a private school.” By David Lauter. Los Angeles Times, October 5, 1993. <articles.latimes.com>

President Clinton waded into the midst of one of the state’s most controversial political issues Monday, urging Californians to defeat Proposition 174--the school voucher initiative on the November ballot. …

“Wouldn’t it be ironic if, at the very moment we’re finally trying to raise standards” for public schools, the government would “turn around and start sending tax money to private schools that didn’t have to meet any standards at all?” Clinton said in a speech to the AFL-CIO convention here.

“The people will regret this if they pass it,” Clinton said. “If I were a citizen of the state of California, I would not vote for Proposition 174.”

[431] Article: “School House to White House: The Education of the Presidents.” Prologue Magazine, Spring 2007. <www.archives.gov>

“William J. Clinton attended both private and public schools growing up in Arkansas and graduated from Hot Springs High School in 1964.”

[432] Article: “Obama girls to go to Sidwell.” Seattle Times, November 22, 2008. <www.seattletimes.com>

“President-elect Obama and his wife have chosen Sidwell Friends School for their daughters, opting for a private institution that another White House child, Chelsea Clinton, attended.”

[433] Interview: Rahm Emanuel on Public Affairs, January 10, 2002. <www.youtube.com>

25:40:

Jeff Berkowitz: You know the State Board of Education has said that one out of every two schools in the city of Chicago is still a failing school. … Why not say to those people who’ve got kids in a failing school district: “We want to give you some choice. We’re spending about $7,000 per person in grade school. Here, we’ll make it simple for you.” And take that money … just like your parents at one point made a choice [and allow them to use it at a] private school … The main thing is that it gives people a way out of failing public schools. I want to know, because I see you have the endorsement of the National Education Association—they don’t believe in the kind of choice I just said—does Rahm Emanuel believe in that choice?

Rahm Emanuel: I don’t believe in vouchers. I don’t think they’re the right solution. I don’t believe in abandoning public education. … My parents never asked for state-sponsorship of our private education, which is religious education as well.

[434] Article: “Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s pick for Chief of Staff, is tough, direct and wedded to his Jewish roots.” Jewish Journal, November 6, 2008. <www.jewishjournal.com>

“When his family lived in Chicago, he[attended Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School, a Jewish day school. After his family moved to Wilmette, he attended public school: Romona School, Wilmette Junior High School, and New Trier High School.”

[435] Webpage: “About Us.” Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School. Accessed September 18, 2015 at <www.bzaeds.org>

“Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School is an independent Jewish day school for the 21st century. From Early Childhood through Middle School, we inspire our students to love learning through innovative teaching, hands-on exploration and discovery. Plus the individualized attention your children will receive is unrivaled; we offer a 6:1 student-teacher ratio—the very lowest in the city.”

[436] Article: “Emanuel sending kids to private school.” By Kristen Mack. Chicago Tribune, July 22, 2011. <articles.chicagotribune.com>

Mayor Rahm Emanuel will bypass Chicago Public Schools, like many high-profile politicians before him, and send his children to the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools in Hyde Park this fall. …

Emanuel’s children previously attended a private religious school in Chicago before moving to Washington while he served as President Obama’s White House chief of staff. They attended private schools in Washington and finished the school year there.

[437] Article: “The 2015 EdNext Poll on School Reform: Public thinking on testing, opt out, common core, unions, and more.” By Michael B. Henderson, Paul E. Peterson, and Martin R. West. Education Next, Winter 2016. <educationnext.org>

These are among the many findings to emerge from the ninth annual Education Next survey, administered in May and June 2015 to a nationally representative sample of some 4,000 respondents, including oversamples of roughly 700 teachers, 700 African Americans, and 700 Hispanics (see methodology sidebar). …

The results presented here are based upon a nationally representative, stratified sample of adults (age 18 years and older) and representative oversamples of the following subgroups: teachers (693), African Americans (661). and Hispanics (734). Total sample size is 4,083. Respondents could elect to complete the survey in English or Spanish. Survey weights were employed to account for nonresponse and the oversampling of specific groups. …

The survey was conducted from May 21 to June 8, 2015, by the polling firm Knowledge Networks (KN), a GfK company. KN maintains a nationally representative panel of adults, obtained via address-based sampling techniques, who agree to participate in a limited number of online surveys.

[438] Poll: “Policy and Governance Survey 2015.” Commissioned by Education Next and the Program on Education Policy and Governance at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Conducted by Knowledge Networks during May-June 2015. <educationnext.org>

Page 17:

21d. A proposal has been made that would use government funds to pay the tuition of all students who choose to attend private schools. Would you favor or oppose this proposal?

Public

Parents

Teachers

Blacks

Hispanics

Whites

Completely Support

11%

13%

8%

28%

14%

6%

Somewhat Support

16

21

11

17

20

16

Somewhat Oppose

20

18

14

20

19

21

Completely Oppose

38

36

59

16

26

45

Neither Support nor Oppose

15

12

8

19

22

12

Page 18:

23. Thinking about the school-age children who currently live with you, what kinds of schools have they attended?

Public

Parents

Teachers

Blacks

Hispanics

Whites

Traditional public school

85%

85%

84%

91%

85%

83%

Charter school

9

9

10

10

11

8

Private school

14

14

22

14

8

18

Home school