Ethicists Failing Ethics: Citation Practice for Sexual Misconduct

What is the nature of the “rights,” jurisprudentially, that the 1964 Civil Rights Act legally prescribed? And, more generally, what is a “civil right”? Today, lawyers tend to think of civil rights and particularly those that originated in the 1964 Act, as antidiscrimination rights: our “civil rights,” on this understanding, are our rights not to be discriminated against, by employers, schools, landlords, property vendors, hoteliers, restaurant owners, and providers of public transportation, no less than by states and state actors, on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, age, sexuality or disability. Contemporary civil rights scholarship overwhelmingly reflects the same conception: our civil rights are quasi-constitutional rights to be free of discrimination in the private as well as public world. But this conventional lawyerly understanding -– basically, that “civil rights” are “antidiscrimination rights” -– is clearly inadequate, certainly with respect to civil rights generally but also, and more tellingly, even with respect to the rights created and then protected by the ‘64 Act itself.First, on the general point: some of the “civil rights” sought or held across our history have not been antidiscrimination rights of any sort at all: labor rights, welfare rights, free speech rights, and the constitutional rights of criminal defendants have all, at various times, been championed as “civil rights,” and these rights are neither logically nor jurisprudentially tied to any conception of antidiscrimination. But furthermore, even the “civil rights” which are defined and then protected against discrimination by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as well as by various Civil Rights Acts both before and subsequent to it, are not, in circular fashion, simply our rights not to be discriminated against on the basis of impermissible characteristics. Rather, the “civil rights” of which we cannot be discriminatorily deprived, whether originating in the ‘64 Act or elsewhere, are, after all, rights to something: a right to vote, or to physical security, or to enter contracts, or to own, buy or sell property, or to legal recourse in the aftermath of a wrong committed against us, or to write a will, or to be considered for or to hold down a job and to be paid fairly for our labor, or to the use of a restaurant or a hotel or a city bus, or to a public education, or to marry whom we love. And, these are just some of the public goods that have been recognized at various times as “civil rights,” of which we cannot be deprived by discriminatory action.Even if just that much is right, then the “civil right” protected by all of our Civil Rights Acts, including the ‘64 one, is considerably more complex, jurisprudentially, than the conventionally legalistic and formulaic equation of “civil rights” with “antidiscrimination rights” suggests. Minimally, the “civil right” recognized or protected by the various Civil Rights Acts is almost invariably a multilayered right, or a “right to a right”: it is a right to not be discriminatorily deprived of some underlying right. Only the first right in that phrase “a right to a right” is the antidiscrimination right. The second “right,” though, is the underlying civil right of which we cannot be discriminatorily deprived, and it is both itself complex, and highly variable: it might be a common law right, such as a right to enter contracts or sell property, or a statutory right, such as a right to vote, or simply a right to a social or public good, such as employment or educational opportunities, or the protection of a trustworthy police force against private violence. And, while we have generated a library of writing, and jurisprudence, and judicial opinions, on the nature of the first right in that phrase -– the right not to be deprived of various rights, on the basis of race, sex, and so forth -– we have devoted much less to the second: the nature of the underlying right of which we cannot be deprived. So, what is the jurisprudential nature of that right? What is a “civil right,” jurisprudentially, both with respect to the rights protected against discrimination by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and more broadly? Again, and more generally, what is a “civil right”?

Reviewed by: Agent of Change: Adela Sloss-Vento, Mexican American Civil Rights Activist and Texas Feminist by Cynthia E. Orozco Philip Samponaro (bio) Cynthia E. Orozco, Agent of Change: Adela Sloss-Vento, Mexican American Civil Rights Activist and Texas Feminist. University of Texas Press, 2020. Pp. 254. Adela Sloss-Vento (1901–1998) is not a widely known name. At first glance, this native of Texas's Rio Grande Valley seems a typical borderlander/fronteriza woman of her era. Like most contemporary women of Mexican descent in the region, Sloss-Vento followed the prescribed paths of heterosexuality and domesticity by marrying and raising a family. Born working class, she labored at lower-middleclass jobs available to Mexican American women after graduating high school, first as a secretary during the 1930s and later as a jail matron. But Sloss-Vento broke the mold. She transcended the homosociality that restricted much of the Latina experience of her times by donning the roles of archivist, political activist, and citizen-commentator in the male-dominated Mexican American civil rights and Chicano movements that together spanned the 1920s through 1970s. She publicly critiqued the low wages, poverty, Bracero Program, and exploitative agribusiness that characterized life in the Rio Grande Valley. Sloss-Vento was a Democratic Party activist and, in the 1970s, supported the Raza Unida Party with its challenges to white-only politics. As a fronteriza, she was vocal about Mexico's policies that affected La Raza in Texas. By engaging directly in the masculine domains of civil rights, writing, and politics, Adela Sloss-Vento added the title of feminist to her many accomplishments. Still, Sloss-Vento remains almost invisible. Cynthia E. Orozco, Professor of History at Eastern New Mexico University–Ruidoso, remedies that marginalization with Agent of Change: Adela Sloss-Vento, Mexican American Civil Rights Activist and Texas Feminist. Orozco analyzes Sloss-Vento's correspondence with male civil rights figures and her numerous opinion pieces and letters published in newspapers from the 1930s into the 1970s. She argues that Sloss-Vento was the most important Mexican American woman civil rights activist and public intellectual in Texas, the only Tejana to write publicly on social issues across seven decades. Ultimately, Orzoco concludes that Sloss-Vento "was one of the most important Mexican American civil rights activists, public intellectuals, political party activists, and feminists of the twentieth century" (171). Orozco is concerned with how Sloss-Vento surpassed gender boundaries through political associations with men. For that reason, she highlights [End Page 141] Sloss-Vento's interaction with leaders of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the seminal Tejano civil rights organization founded in 1929 and a subject on which Orozco is an expert from previous scholarship. Typical of its era, LULAC operated as a male-only homosocial space. Sloss-Vento nonetheless established relations with three of LULAC's founders: J. Luz Sáenz, José Tomás "J. T." Canales, and her personal hero, Alonso Perales. By exploring relevant correspondence, Orozco demonstrates that Adela was a civil rights insider. Simultaneously, Orozco points out that Sloss-Vento wrote her letters at home as a wife and mother, making her "a gendered outsider" (11). The author underscores this theme by stressing that Sloss-Vento steadfastly believed that women had the right to advocate for social justice, affording her the praxis of infusing the civil rights struggle with a feminist framework. In the same manner, argues Orozco, Adela sought to democratize the white male establishment in Texas politics before the social movements of the 1960s gave other women entry after 1970. Orozco is well suited to have undertaken this study. The author is an established historian of Texas, women, civil rights, and politics. Moreover, she has a unique relationship with her subject as the only scholar to have corresponded directly with Sloss-Vento, doing so while an undergraduate at the University of Texas at Austin in the late 1970s. Those letters, which Orozco draws upon here, offer invaluable insights. The author also enjoyed access to Sloss-Vento's private archive, still in family hands. Agent of Change contextualizes that resource as having, among other attributes, the most important collection on the Harlingen (TX) Convention of 1927, which led to...

Previous articleNext article FreeBook ReviewsDavid L. Chappell, Waking from the Dream: The Struggle for Civil Rights in the Shadow of Martin Luther King, Jr. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2014. Pp. 266. $23.95 (paper).Ian M. McDowellIan M. McDowellTexas Tech University Search for more articles by this author Texas Tech UniversityPDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreDavid L. Chappell’s Waking from the Dream: The Struggle for Civil Rights in the Shadow of Martin Luther King, Jr. is a work of historical recovery, reinterpretation, and continuity of the Civil Rights Movement from 1968 through the early 1990s. Chappell’s primary purpose is to expose the actions of civil rights activists following Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, which were substantial yet overlooked. He maintains that the advances made after 1968 are often eclipsed by the enormity of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the symbolism of King’s leadership. However, Chappell argues that “history changing acts like those of 1964 and 1965 are extremely rare,” and they should not confine the memory of the struggle for civil rights (26). Chappell contends that a “fresh look at the post-King era” is needed, one that exposes how activists “tested the limits of equality and black power” and how “the continuing struggle for rights and equality after 1968 is central to the meaning of freedom in America” (xii–xiii).Chappell utilizes a wide range of primary sources including news articles, presidential papers, congressional records, and speeches. He draws from fifteen different archives and libraries for research including the Library of Congress, the National Archives, and the presidential libraries of Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. Chappell’s analysis of articles and studies provides perspectives of both activists and their opposition. Also, a wide variety of secondary sources are utilized to both provide background on important civil rights actors, actions, and opponents as well as to highlight how such history has been depicted. Chappell presents his findings in six chapters covering the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the 1972 and 1974 National Black Political Conventions (NBPC), the fight to pass a full employment act, the creation of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, the 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns of Jessie Jackson, and discourse and publications concerning King’s infidelity and plagiarism.Chapter 1 and its assessment of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 is one of the most intriguing in Chappell’s book. Chappell argues that the 1968 Fair Housing Act “was a substantive answer to some of King’s most radical demands and his last real victory” (3). Chappell shows that for King a housing bill was important and would have been one of the demands at a mass demonstration King proposed for late April of 1968. Chappell maintains that King’s assassination is what made the passage of a fair housing bill possible. King’s death is shown to have fostered significant sympathy, or at least “the political need to express sympathy,” allowing the act to pass into law shortly after his death (21). Chappell argues that the bill was important upon signing because it helped to make common discriminatory actions such as redlining and blockbusting illegal while also improving African American access to financing and rental properties. While the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 are most associated with the memory of the Civil Rights Movement and King, Chappell contends that the 1968 act “is more properly his legacy” and “significant as the beginning of the post-King era” (25–26).One theme Chappell illustrates persistently is the power of the black vote—including its limitations and potential. Chappell shows that the desire to win black votes played a role influencing many conservatives and moderates to display sympathy and pass the housing act. Chappell demonstrates in chapter 2 how the black vote helped elect African Americans like Richard Hatcher of Gary, Indiana, and Carl Stokes of Cleveland as mayors. However, he contends the lack of unity shown at the NBPC’s conventions of 1972 and 1974 illustrates how institutions could not muster mass voting power. Chappell maintains only when attacked did black voters “rally at the polls to rebuff the assault” (62). In chapter 3 the black vote is shown as crucial to President Jimmy Carter’s victory in the 1976 election. Also, growing black political power is illustrated as helping garner Carter’s support for a full employment bill. The bill put into law made employment a right. However, Chappell argues the final bill might have been stronger if more blacks had registered to vote. In chapter 4 Chappell shows that black political power played an important role in drawing support for a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and in helping to “keep opponents of King’s work in check on major, headline generating legislation” (123). Chappell’s emphasis on the importance of growing black political influence is perhaps best illustrated in chapter 5 with the presidential campaigns of Jessie Jackson. Chappell shows that Jackson’s charisma, voter registration drives, and the significance of an African American running for president helped boost black registration “in 1984 to an all-time high of 66.3 percent of those eligible” (145). Chappell argues that this growth helped push through legislative changes such as the Civil Rights Restoration Act in 1988 and a Fair Housing Act amendment, which made the 1968 act more enforceable.Chappell recognizes there was truly no leader with King’s combination of charisma, organization, and accomplishments following his assassination. However, Chappell argues that his successors continued the struggle for civil rights and justice. Chappell’s findings show that, while not united, the movement still had some leaders. Among them, King’s widow Coretta Scott King fought resolutely for full employment legislation and a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. Jessie Jackson became the charismatic voice of many African Americans, and his presidential campaigns brought increased black voter participation and political influence. Chappell maintains that the “major victories that King represented was history’s great exception” and that it should not diminish or mask recognition of the accomplishments of those who followed (91). Chappell’s book exposes an overlooked period of the struggle for civil rights, one in which courageous and significant achievements were made by less celebrated yet equally determined actors. Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of African American History Volume 104, Number 1Winter 2019 A journal of the Association for the Study of African American Life and History Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/701090 For permission to reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

“Down Where the South Begins”: Black Richmond Activism before the Modern Civil Rights Movement, 1899–1930

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Ricci v. DeStefano suggests trouble ahead for disparate impact analysis under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991. Commentators, too, have begun to question the policy bases for this doctrine. Part of the current tenuousness surrounding disparate impact analysis, which the Court first approved in its 1971 opinion in Griggs v. Duke Power Company, stems from assumptions that the EEOC pursued this theory as a last-minute, ill-conceived afterthought that was not in keeping with Congress’s intent when it passed Title VII in 1964. In this Article I use the methodology of social movements theory to cast a different light on the history of disparate impact analysis. Disparate impact analysis asks employers to evaluate whether their employment practices pose barriers to the employment opportunities of traditionally excluded outsiders and, if so, to replace such practices with alternative effective practices with less exclusionary effect. Disparate impact analysis thus augments federal employment anti-discrimination law by introducing a structural approach alongside an intent-based standard that focuses exclusively on detecting invidious motives buried in individual decision-makers’ hearts. In this Article I trace concerns about tackling structural race discrimination in employment to the early history of civil rights activism. I locate the origins of disparate impact analysis in civil rights activists’ long-held understandings about the structural nature of racial employment subordination. Throughout a long historical period, employment subordination based on race was pervasive and unremitting, enforced by a complex of institutions including law, tradition, and white violence insisting on a “whites only” rule for desirable jobs. These forces imposed a tight structural block on the employment advancement of persons of color, and civil rights activists therefore aimed their efforts at achieving broad-scale reform of these institutional barriers. Law also shaped the strategies of these early civil rights activists. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the relevant legal question had nothing to do with the intent versus effects tests so heatedly debated today. Instead, two lines of the Court’s jurisprudence were important: its Post Reconstruction civil rights jurisprudence, which limited the reach of anti-discrimination law to state actors; and its Lochner Era employment law jurisprudence, which recognized a natural law “freedom of contract” right barring most forms of state regulation of the employment relationship. These two lines of caselaw defined the sphere of private employment as largely unreachable through federal or state law. Activists accordingly concentrated their efforts on inducing employers to voluntarily reform their workplace hiring and promotion practices. The end of the Lochner Era paved the way for New York State’s passage of the first employment anti-discrimination statute to reach the private sector. State agency officials charged with the statute’s enforcement, some recruited from the ranks of the activists responsible for the statute’s enactment, continued to experiment with methods of inducing employers – now with the background threat of legal action to encourage compliance – to make broad-scale institutional change by examining traditional employment practices to find ways to eliminate barriers to racial inclusiveness. By the time Congress began to debate Title VII’s passage, at least several prototypical disparate impact cases had emerged from state fair employment agencies. After the legislation’s enactment, the EEOC followed in the footsteps of state fair employment agencies by focusing its efforts on promoting broad-scale institutional reform. The EEOC encouraged employers in targeted industries to engage in self study to identify employment practices, such as testing and other selection devices, that could be reformed to increase employment opportunities for racial minorities. At the same time, the NAACP and others successfully litigated a number of disparate impact cases in the lower courts. At all these stages, civil rights activists and those charged with implementing statutes enacted as a result of these activists’ efforts developed and passed on ideas now embedded in the current statutory articulation of the disparate impact doctrine. Disparate impact analysis thus was not a last-minute afterthought, unwittingly endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court, but the product of a sustained social movement effort over decades of theorizing and experimentation. In sum, my account adds important historical context to the current debate about the continued viability of Title VII disparate impact analysis and also illustrates the potential substantive payoff of a social movement focus on the development of public law.

Reviewed by: To Stand Aside or Stand Alone: Southern Reform Rabbis and the Civil Rights Movement by P. Allen Krause Josh Parshall (bio) To Stand Aside or Stand Alone: Southern Reform Rabbis and the Civil Rights Movement. By P. Allen Krause with Stephen Krause, edited by Mark K. Bauman. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2016. xviii + 402 pp. At the 1966 convention of the Central Conference of American Rabbis in Toronto, Hebrew Union College rabbinical student P. Allen Krause interviewed thirteen acting or former rabbis of Reform congregations in southern cities about the civil rights movement. Although Krause wrote a thesis based on his interviews and published some of his findings [End Page 163] (stripped of identifying information about the interviewees) in the American Jewish Archives Journal, the recordings and other research materials were partially sealed for twenty-five years. To Stand Aside or Stand Alone makes these interviews widely available as transcripts for the first time. Rabbi Krause returned to historical research around the time of his retirement in 2008 and, with encouragement from historian and editor Mark Bauman, developed the now fifty-year-old interviews into a book project. After Krause died in 2012, his son Stephen worked with Bauman to finish the manuscript, which supplements the transcripts with biographical sketches and brief local histories by Rabbi Krause as well as introductions to the interviews by Bauman. Both the author and editor provide important contextual information in their introductions, and Bauman's bibliographic essay situates the newly available primary sources in relation to the historiography of southern Jews and African American civil rights. Krause's interviews follow a standard format. Each rabbi discusses the development of local civil rights activism, the reactions of the non-Jewish white community in comparison to the views of local Jews, white Christian clergy's responses to the challenges of civil rights, their own participation or lack thereof in local struggles, and their opinions about the actions of national Jewish groups and northern Jewish activists. The rabbis' responses vary according to the hostility with which white communities reacted to the prospect of desegregation and also according to their own activities. Krause labels more progressive environments "The Land of the Almost Possible" and the most reactionary cities "The Land of the Almost Impossible." While differences in local political climate greatly affected the availability of potential allies among white Christian clergy and white civic leaders, the interviews demonstrate that rabbis' political perspectives, personal experiences with race and racism, and strengths and weaknesses as religious leaders all affected the actions that they took (or did not take) in regard to civil rights. For the most part, the interviews represent the experiences and activities of moderate progressive rabbis, and (as Krause intended) the book establishes them as part of the liberal contingent of the white South. Some, such as James Wax in Memphis and William Silverman in Nashville, publicly supported African American civil rights and were well known throughout their local communities for their progressive attitudes. A larger number promoted desegregation from their pulpits and worked behind the scenes with ministerial and civic groups to support civil rights reforms. Only a few of the rabbis expressed strong reservations about desegregation or reported no concrete civil rights action. With a few interesting exceptions, then, the rabbis featured in the book deserve credit for helping to smooth the path of desegregation in [End Page 164] their respective locales, even if courts, the federal government, and direct action by local protesters played more significant roles. At the same time, many of the interviews encapsulate the moderate liberal viewpoints of the time, which often second-guessed activists' tactics; predicated the extension of civil and economic rights on black southerners' adherence to white, middle-class norms; and exhibited a strong sense of racial and class-based paternalism. As a result, the rabbis' testimonies reflect the complicated tensions among liberal white southerners' empathy for African Americans, their internalized acceptance of segregationist logics, and the various risks—social, economic, and bodily—that constrained would-be allies in the civil rights struggle. Their stories become useful not merely as tools for praising or critiquing southern Jews and their rabbis but also for understanding how...

relation of intergroup contact to civil rights activities is examined among both whites and Negroes. major hypotheses are (1) that equalitarian contact is associated with greater activism, but more particularly for whites than for Negroes, and (2) that contact leads to an interpenetration of perspectives. data modestly support both hypotheses. Alternatives to the contact hypothesis are explored; namely, that activism is related to the individual's (1) sense of powerlessness, (2) degree of status concern, and (3) liberalism-conservatism. data indicate that a generalized liberal ideology is least relevant for explaining civil rights activism; and that the basis for activism among Negroes remains problematic. T he revolution in civil rights has been the dramatic event of the decade in the United States; yet despite the flood of literature that seeks to interpret the Negro movement, it is not possible to say that we understand very well what the motives and conditions are that encourage or sustain participation. This is true notwithstanding the fact that behavioral scientists have concentrated an enormous amnount of attention on the problem of intergroup relations, and specifically on the study of anti-Negro prejudice. An excellent case in point can be found in the literature on contact and prejudice-, where the evidence seems eminently clear in its substance but very cloudy in its applicability to the problems of civil rights action. We refer in particular to the well-documented proposition that equal-status contact is associated with more favorable toward minorities. That this is so seems hardly debatable by now; but whether this fact has any relevance to the engagement of Negroes or whites in civil rights activities is an open question. For Negroes, it is a very dubious matter, indeed, for there have been few studies of the relation of contact to Negro attitudes, and those that have been done suggest that the principle does not hold in the same degree for that group. Thus, Robin Williams concludes that . . intergroup contact is more closely related to majority-group preju(lice toward minorities than to minority toward the majority group.2 We propose here to examine this question of the applicability of an established thesis in the intergroup literature to the domain of civil rights action. If civil rights participation, or favorable toward such participation, are conceived as simply further exemplifications of prejudiced or nonprejudiced in general, then one would expect that, among * preparation of this work was greatly assisted by the members of the first author's seminar on Leadership and Social Structure. Their assistance in the construction of the questionnaire is gratefully acknowledged. Computing assistance was obtained from the Health Sciences Computing Facility at U.C.L.A., sponsored by NIH grant FR-3. A helpful reading of an earlier draft was provided by Raymond J. Murphy. 1 most recent evidence on this point is contained in Robin Williams, Stranigers Next Door (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1964). UsefuIl summaries of the evidence on contact are given in Gordon Allport, Nature of Prejudice (Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1954); and Daniel Wilner, et al., Humian Relationts in Interracial Hous$ing (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1951). 2 Williams, op. cit., p. 159. same result is reported in Donald L. Noel and Alphonso Pinkney, Correlates of Prejudice: Some Racial Differences and Similarities, Ainerican Joutrnial of Sociology, 69 (May 1964), pp. 609-622. An earlier study by Ernest Works, however, supports the contact hypothesis among Negroes, though his data afford no direct contrast for whites as against Negroes; cf. The Prejudice-Interaction Hypothesis from the Point of View of the Negro Minority Group, Amlericant Journal of Sociology, 67 (July 1961), pp. 47-52. Interestingly enough for the present study, Works finds that contact seems to be less important for disposition to action than for attitudes and feelings (p. 52). This content downloaded from 207.46.13.114 on Thu, 26 May 2016 06:13:14 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Reviewed by: The Chicago Freedom Movement: Martin Luther King Jr. and Civil Rights Activism in the Northed. by Mary Lou Finley, Bernard Lafayette Jr., James R. Ralph Jr., and Pam Smith Tom Adam Davies The Chicago Freedom Movement: Martin Luther King Jr. and Civil Rights Activism in the North. Edited by Mary Lou Finley, Bernard Lafayette Jr., James R. Ralph Jr., and Pam Smith. Civil Rights and the Struggle for Black Equality in the Twentieth Century. ( Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2016. Pp. xiv, 495. $45.00, ISBN 978-0-8131-6650-6.) In January 1966 Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) spearheaded a nonviolent direct-action campaign in Chicago alongside a local umbrella group, the Coordinating Council of Community Organizations (CCCO). Targeting slum conditions in the city's black neighborhoods and the racially discriminatory practices of [End Page 473]local housing officials and realtors, the SCLC, the CCCO, and others in the broader Chicago Freedom Movement (CFM) conducted a series of marches through lily-white neighborhoods that met with fierce, and often violent, resistance. The deeply hostile reaction of white Chicagoans to calls for open housing laid bare the extent of white racism and institutional bias in the North for all to see. Dismayed with the disruption and controversy caused by their marches, Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley eventually agreed to negotiate with King and CFM leaders. The so-called Summit Agreement reached in late August 1966 brought an end to the CFM's direct-action campaign but secured only limited reforms and weak commitments from city officials and local real estate representatives to eradicate discriminatory housing practices. Contemporary critics labeled the campaign a failure and called it a defeat for King, the SCLC, and the CFM—a judgment echoed by many historians over the last half century. This book, however, succeeds in overturning that analysis. Examining the "deep impact" of the CFM's campaign, it makes a compelling case that, in the longer term, the campaign and its adherents made a real difference in the city and beyond (p. 3). Divided into five parts, the book begins with two sections that together historicize the CFM's housing campaign by revealing its roots in earlier black protest and activism in the city and illuminate the lived experience of organizing in the urban North by drawing heavily on firsthand accounts from a range of movement participants. The remaining three parts trace the impact and programmatic legacies of CFM activism in a number of different areas, including the passage of landmark fair housing and fair lending legislation at both the local and national levels, the development of tenants' rights activism in the city and beyond, and the growth of independent black political power in Chicago from the 1980s up to the present day. Overall, as the authors suggest, the book makes clear that "the ripples spreading out from the Chicago Freedom Movement changed Chicago and the nation" (p. 4). In the process this book makes a valuable contribution to civil rights historiography in several respects. First, by placing Chicago—not popularly recognized as an important site of civil rights activism—firmly within a "long civil rights movement" framework, the collection helps further undermine traditional civil rights narratives that tend to focus only on events below the Mason-Dixon Line and bring the curtain down on the nonviolent movement after the SCLC s direct-action campaign in Selma, Alabama, in May 1965 (p. 100). Second, although King is an important focus, the book really does more to underline the limits of his role. Innovatively combining the voices of both activists and scholars, the book highlights the extent to which the CFM was a broad, diverse, and, to a degree, multiracial and interfaith grassroots effort that relied on the support and industry of a range of different organizations and people from communities across the city—and that was not free of its own internal divisions, pressures, and problems (especially concerning gender). Finally, by taking the longer view of the CFM's short-lived housing campaign, this book also reminds us that progress is often slow and [End Page 474]incremental, and it forces us to reconsider how...

In lobbying for the job discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1964, liberal civil rights advocates wanted an administrative job discrimination enforcement regime modeled on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), with no private lawsuits. Pivotal conservative Republicans, empowered by a divided Democratic Party and the filibuster in the Senate, defeated an administrative framework and provided instead for private lawsuits with incentives for enforcement, including attorney's fees for winning plaintiffs. They were motivated by native suspicion toward bureaucratic regulation of business in general, as well as fear that they would not be able to control an NLRB-style civil rights agency in the hands of their ideological adversaries. In the political environment of 1963–64, some meaningful enforcement provisions were necessary, and to conservative Republicans private litigation was preferable to public bureaucracy.This choice had important self-reinforcing policy feedback effects. Civil rights advocates were initially optimistic about agency implementation and skeptical about the efficacy of private litigation to enforce Title VII, even with attorney's fees for winning plaintiffs. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, however, civil rights advocates observed an agency lacking the material resources and political will and commitment to carry out its mission. At the same time, they observed levels of private enforcement that far exceeded their expectations, as well as courts inclined toward broadly proplaintiff interpretations of Title VII. The CRA of 1964's attorney's fees provisions also had the effect of contributing funds to civil rights groups that prosecuted lawsuits and of conjuring into being a private, for-profit bar to litigate civil rights claims in general, and job discrimination claims in particular. These developments drove a transformation in the enforcement preferences of civil rights groups toward private litigation, weakening their historic support for administrative implementation. Working together with the burgeoning for-profit civil rights bar, they mobilized to expand the fee-shifting provisions of the CRA of 1964 across the entire field of civil rights, which they accomplished by successfully lobbying for enactment of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976. Thus was created the modern civil rights enforcement framework.

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Economics of Enforcement of an Antidiscrimination Law: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964Andrea H. BellerAndrea H. Beller Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Law and Economics Volume 21, Number 2Oct., 1978 Sponsored by The University of Chicago Booth School of Business and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/466925 Views: 15Total views on this site Citations: 16Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1978 The University of Chicago Law SchoolPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Nishith Prakash The impact of employment quotas on the economic lives of disadvantaged minorities in India, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 180 (Dec 2020): 494–509.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.10.017Joni Hersch, Jennifer Bennett Shinall FIFTY YEARS LATER: THE LEGACY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 34, no.22 (Feb 2015): 424–456.https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21824Joni Hersch, Jennifer Bennett Shinall Fifty Years Later: The Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2014).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2523481Justin McCrary The Effect of Court-Ordered Hiring Quotas on the Composition and Quality of Police, American Economic Review 97, no.11 (Feb 2007): 318–353.https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.97.1.318William J Collins Race, Roosevelt, and Wartime Production: Fair Employment in World War II Labor Markets, American Economic Review 91, no.11 (Mar 2001): 272–286.https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.1.272Kenneth Y. Chay The Impact of Federal Civil Rights Policy on Black Economic Progress: Evidence from the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, ILR Review 51, no.44 (Jul 1998): 608–632.https://doi.org/10.1177/001979399805100404Anthony R. Pratkanis, Marlene E. Turner The Proactive Removal of Discriminatory Barriers: Affirmative Action as Effective Help, Journal of Social Issues 52, no.44 (Jan 1996): 111–132.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1996.tb01853.xMarlene Turner, Anthony Pratkanis Affirmative Action as Help: A Review of Recipient Reactions to Preferential Selection and Affirmative Action, Basic and Applied Social Psychology 15, no.11 (Apr 1994): 43–69.https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1501&2_3Jonathan S Leonard The Impact of Affirmative Action Regulation and Equal Employment Law on Black Employment, Journal of Economic Perspectives 4, no.44 (Nov 1990): 47–63.https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.4.4.47William R. Beer Sociology and the effects of affirmative action: A case of neglect, The American Sociologist 19, no.33 (Sep 1988): 218–231.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02691981S. Dex, P. J. Sloane DETECTING AND REMOVING DISCRIMINATION UNDER EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES POLICIES, Journal of Economic Surveys 2, no.11 (Mar 1988): 1–27.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.1988.tb00034.xMwangi S. Kimenyi, William F. Shughart, Robert D. Tollison Affirmative action and unemployment, European Journal of Political Economy 4, no.44 (Jan 1988): 479–490.https://doi.org/10.1016/0176-2680(88)90012-2Clifford B Hawley, Tom S. Witt DISCRIMINATION AND THE EFFICIENCY OF AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AGENCY*, Policy Studies Journal 15, no.11 (Sep 1986): 17–27.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1986.tb00441.xCharles A. Register Racial Employment and Earnings Differentials: The Impact of the Reagan Administration, The Review of Black Political Economy 15, no.11 (Jul 2018): 59–69.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02903859Lonnie K. Stevans, Charles Register, Paul Grimes Civil Rights Legislation and Racial Employment Differentials, The Review of Black Political Economy 13, no.33 (Jul 2018): 49–59.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02899913Louis Ferleger A CRITIQUE OF CONVENTIONAL EXPLANATION OF LABOR MARKET, CONDITIONS FOR EMPLOYED BLACKS*, Policy Studies Journal 10, no.33 (Sep 2005): 539–555.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1982.tb00702.x

Physicians, Patients, Sex and Chaperones: Rethinking Medical Regulation

This paper explores the link between African American civil rights activism and city planning before the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Using historical and spatial analyses, we discern the relationship between civil rights activism and leadership, voter registration, and city planning in Montgomery, Alabama, concluding—planning and African American activism and voting coevolved—with three distinct periods of planning and civil rights activism. The article suggests that housing demolition sought to curb potential political power through voting and civil rights activism alongside maintaining racial segregation and creating economic development in the postwar era.

Reviewed by: Bridges of Reform: Interracial Civil Rights Activism in Twentieth-Century Los Angeles by Bernstein, Shana Andrew Needham (bio) Bernstein, Shana. Bridges of Reform: Interracial Civil Rights Activism in Twentieth-Century Los Angeles. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. xiii + 339. Writing in the Christian Science Monitor in 1947, Mary Hornaday explained the dilemmas facing postwar Los Angeles. The war had brought unprecedented numbers of African Americans, Mexican Americans and Mexican immigrants, and Jewish Americans to the city. Following the war, many Japanese Americans had returned to Los Angeles from years of internment. The multiethnic population of Los Angeles resided in a city governed by racially restrictive home covenants, a city where racist and anti-Semitic sentiment had been commonplace in the press and the private sectors during the wartime and prewar years, and a city home to an increasingly rabid anti-Communist movement. Los Angeles possessed, Hornaday wrote, “the racial problems of most American cities put together” (137). Bridges of Reform explains how a series of multiracial coalitions sought to challenge discrimination in Los Angeles and argues that those efforts helped birth a vision of color blind anti-discrimination that shaped the course of postwar liberalism. Bernstein’s narrative begins with the New Deal, which she characterizes as “an inherently multiracial arena” in its ability to both politicize ethnic and racial groups and bring them together in the Democratic Party, newly empowered labor unions, and the Communist Party, which formed the left wing of the Popular Front (29). That new common ground formed the basis for building bridges both between local concerns and the federal government and between organizations representing differing ethnic groups. During the 1930s and 1940s, the rise of global fascism also helped spur efforts at inter-racial activism, as groups formed coalitions to portray events like the Sleepy Lagoon murder case and the Zoot Suit riots as examples of local discrimination that endangered the nation in its war against fascism. The most provocative and original section of Bernstein’s book focuses on the postwar years. In most tellings, anti-Communism neutered the broad coalitions of the Popular Front. As groups like the NAACP and the Jewish-led Community Relations Committee (CRC) expelled suspected Communists and fellow travelers, most historians have argued such groups retreated from aggressive challenges to discrimination in [End Page 103] favor of careful measured efforts at reform. Bernstein, however, argues that anti-Communism actually strengthened the determination of those who remained to pursue meaningful civil rights work. Through a close reading of the proceedings of innumerable organizations and a detailed case study of the Mexican American-led Community Service Organization (CSO), she demonstrates that fighting Communism created meaningful bonds among liberal groups whose interracialism was central to their successes, including their ability to tap into and support other reform communities. It was the breadth of such coalitions, reaching across the spectrum of multi-racial Los Angeles, that enabled them to have political power. While the atmosphere of the Cold War and their own liberalism led members of such organizations away from tactics of direct confrontation, they maintained a deep commitment to civil rights despite their commitments to both anti-Communism and moderate change. In making this argument, Bernstein challenges portrayals of racial liberals as unable to accomplish very much and “as sellouts by radicals and by historians sympathetic to the radical perspective” (13). Indeed, Bernstein argues that Los Angeles’s interracial civil rights coalition helped give rise to figures who would become leaders, such as Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta, and to the court cases that undergirded the civil rights movement, such as Shelly v. Kramer and Mendez v. Westminster, vital precedents for Brown v. Board of Education. Of particular interest to this journal’s readers, Bernstein details the key role of Jewish organizations in forging interracial coalitions. Formed in the early 1930s and dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism, organizations of Jewish professionals like the CRC represented the longest standing and most established anti-discrimination groups in Los Angeles. They thus represented targets of outreach for other groups seeking support for civil rights interracialism. In Bernstein’s telling, there was little collaboration between Jewish and Mexican American communities until the formation of...

Bekololari Ransome-Kuti

Book Review| July 01 2019 Black Public History in Chicago: Civil Rights Activism from World War II into the Cold War Black Public History in Chicago: Civil Rights Activism from World War II into the Cold War. By Ian Rocksborough-Smith. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2018. 214 pp. List of illustrations, notes, bibliography, and index. $99 (cloth); $28 (paper). Amy M. Tyson Amy M. Tyson DePaul University Amy M. Tyson is Associate Professor of History at DePaul University, where she teaches courses on modern US history and public history. She is author of Wages of History: Emotional Labor on Public History’s Front Lines (University of Massachusetts Press, 2013). Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Journal of American Ethnic History (2019) 38 (4): 115–116. https://doi.org/10.5406/jamerethnhist.38.4.0115 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Amy M. Tyson; Black Public History in Chicago: Civil Rights Activism from World War II into the Cold War. Journal of American Ethnic History 1 January 2019; 38 (4): 115–116. doi: https://doi.org/10.5406/jamerethnhist.38.4.0115 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveUniversity of Illinois PressJournal of American Ethnic History Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright 2019 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois2019 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.